Frenchification
Remember Geoffrey of Monmouth? More particularly, remember how he was Welsh? Originally Arthur started off as a Welsh myth, designed to serve as a statement of national identity. Chretien seems to be modifying that narrative to fit French nationalistic impulses. While Perceval is a naturally skilled knight, he is also something of a country bumpkin fom Wales. He refuses to take the expensive and fine clothing of the defeated Red Knight and is a “Momma’s Boy”, he literally does whatever his mother tells him!Â
This frenchification may account for some of the odd narrative inconsistencies apparent between the version of the Arthurian legend which originates in Chretien and that version which exists in the English tradition. For example, Sir Kay the Jerk emerges in Chretien’s interpretation of Arthur. This may also have influenced Chretien’s decision to make Arthur impotent, neutering the greatest mythological hero of British nationalism. The obvious french distortion in these respects makes me wonder about other more subtle points in the text, such as courtly love. If courtly love is satirical, then Chretien may be subtly insulting British virtue by forcing British knights to conform to the codes of courtly love.
Dan wrote:
Yes, and we should aslo remember how Preceval’s mom tries to take his javelin’s so that he won’t appear so obviously Welsh.
Governator, your point raises some questions in my mind.
1. If Chretien is trying to undermine the Welsh nationalism in the Arthurian tales, why would he make Perceval, the worthiest knigh in the world, Welsh? Is he bound by antecedent literature? Does he not have the choice to write it otherwise?
This is similar to my question about something Professor Pollack said in class while we were studying Geoffrey. He said that Geoffrey squirms away from the adultery between Mordrid and the queen, as if he were actually uncomfortable writing about that there was an affair; GEOFFERY WAS MAKING STUFF UP! Why would he be nervous or shy about revealing something that he could have easily changed with the stroke of a pen…or quill?
Similarly, is Chretien obligated to make Perceval Welsh, even though he wants to “Frenchify” (which sounds very much like french fry) these stories?
2. Aside from putting down the Welsh, how does Chretien directly exalt the French? “Neutering” Arthur is not French enough for me. Especially when Chretien’s other English characters or so unambiguously “un-neutered.”
3. Although Perceval is a “country bumpkin from Wales,” doesn’t he come from a line of great and noble knights? Mightn’t his “bumpkin-ness” simply be a product of his mother’s sheltering and not from the inherent Welsh idiocy?
I would not be surprised if I missed key evidence of French nationalism in my reading. Can someone point it out to me?
Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 2:13 pm ¶
ajc02005 wrote:
Unlike Chrétien, I don’t think Geoffrey was making up material as he wrote. Did he elaborate? Sure. Did he know good portions of what he wrote had to be fictional? I hope so. But did he make up the basic plot points himself? No. He was writing down a collected history of the British Isles based on oral tradition, and maybe on other written works now lost.
To some extent, the same is true of Chrétien. Yeah, he definitely made stuff up on his own. But there was still a rich oral tradition from which he drew. He could add characters, and he could adapt them to some extent, but if he deviated too far from all the other Arthur tales being told at the time, his readers would have noticed, and probably wouldn’t have liked it.
Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 5:16 pm ¶
madison73 wrote:
Perceval could actually be read as pro-Welsh. The story begins by explaining that the Welsh are dumb and characters say a few times that not much can be expected the Welsh, etc. And while Perceval is dimwitted at the beginning of the story, he ends up being all amazing and that girl laughs and tells him he’s the best knight of the court and he ends up being a really great knight. So could Chretien be suggesting that the Welsh are unfairly underestimated and stereotyped? And while people call them “dumb” they are actually a very worthy race?
Posted 30 Sep 2007 at 10:29 pm ¶
sean wrote:
I have to point out, as ajc did, that GM did not make up everything out of whole cloth. . . he couldn’t have. His project of Breton/Welsh nationalism required him to place the Welsh at the center of British history, instead of the margins. . . The problem is we don’t have any written sources that corroborate a lot of his stories. So it’s unlikely that he “made up” stuff about Mordred and Guinevere, even though his History is the first written record of it. As for Chrétien, we discussed in class some of his possible reasons for pushing Arthur to the margins of the story. . . The Angevin rulers of France (Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitane, the Countess Marie de Champagne) and England didn’t need the legend of Arthur the military hero (who will return from the Isle of Avalon someday) encouraging Welsh nationalism, even if they were attracted to the mythology of the Arthurian world. The desire to prove Arthur finally dead may have been the motivation for Henry II to arrange to “find” the entombed bodies of Arthur and Guinevere in Glastonbury in 1190.
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 10:12 pm ¶
Agravaine wrote:
I don’t have any particularly insightful analysis to add, but just thought I’d toss in a few other examples of this Francophilia from the Vulgate Death of Arthur. (I have the Penguin edition with the yellowish cover, not the black and orange, so citations might be off.) Anyway Instead, in the Vulgate story Guinevere is the morally unscrupulous one, as is Arthur on at least one occasion. During the fight over Guinevere’s guilt in the apple incident, he’s actually rather corrupt. Despite the fact all of the evidence known to him validates her guilt, he is pleased at the anonymous Lancelot’s success (106-107). Otherwise, he’s simply too dumb to rule and relies on others to enforce his laws.
To that end, my namesake Agravaine appears more as a servant than as a conniver out to bring Camelot to its knees. He does not have any particularly malicious motives ascribed to him other than irritation with Lancelot (26). In the English sources, however, he has a far darker portrayal: incestuous loving his mother, filled with resentment at Gawaine’s success, and murderously vengeful in several occasions.
Lancelot meanwhile is largely sanctified.
On page 46, his relationship with Elaine (Galahad’s mother) is totally glossed over. The girl who kills herself for love of Lancelot, then puts herself in the boat (93), is clearly in the wrong in making a claim on Lancelot. I don’t know whether those two events were equated in later stories (i.e. the maligned Elaine is the girl on the boat) but the result is to whitewash Lancelot’s character.
Finally, in spite of all of the stories’ exaltation of the military might of Arthur’s kingdom, the Vulgate author makes it pretty clear where really power lies: across the Channel. As Yon observes in discouraging war, “anyone who cared about the good of your kingdom [would remember the] fact that Our Lord has raised King Ban’s race above all others” (131).
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 6:10 pm ¶