Midterm Review Question!
I’m having trouble figuring out what exactly “une mout bele conjunture” is. I know Sean said it means “a most perfectly ordered composition” and that it relates to Chretien somehow, but I don’t really understand. Does it pertain more to “Arthurian Romances” as a whole or is it talking about the order within the individual stories? Help? Maybe?
sean wrote:
Mary – read the opening paragraph of Erec and Enide, where he talks about jongleurs (storytellers) “mangling” the stories of Arthur.
Others can weigh in on their understanding as well. . .
Posted 29 Oct 2007 at 5:25 pm ¶
Agravaine wrote:
Perhaps the friendly bot at Shapedal.com could chime in.
Posted 29 Oct 2007 at 9:41 pm ¶
Tessa wrote:
The term “une mout bele conjuncture” seems to be refering to the beginning of “Erec and Enide” (as Sean wrote) where it says: “from a tale of adventure he [Chretien] fashions a very elegant composition, giving manifest proof that there is no wisdom in not freely making one’s knowledge available as far as God’s grace allows. The tale, which the professional story-tellers habitually fragment and corrupt in the presence of kings and counts, is about Erec, son of Lac.”
I’m not sure what else there is on this subject. I don’t see it mentioned in any of Sean’s notes. Oh, but an interesting thing I found out from wikipedia about Philip of Flanders:
“Philip and Elisabeth [his wife] were childless. In 1175, Philip discovered Elisabeth was committing adultery, and had her lover, Walter de Fontaines, beaten to death. Philip then obtained complete control of her lands in Vermandois from King Louis VII of France.”
I can’t image Chretien dedicating “The Knight of the Cart” to Philip of Flanders, I don’t think he was very fond of adultery.
Good night!
Posted 29 Oct 2007 at 11:34 pm ¶
Tessa wrote:
Oh, actually not done.
Did you know that the Knight Templars’ actual name was the Poor Knights of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon? There was also a fairly recent article in the New York Times about them. It said that although they were disbanded and persecuted in the 14th ce. (their grand master Jacques de Molay was burned at the stake in 1314) the charges brought against them, namely of “blaspheming the cross and committing immoral sexual acts,” were dismissed when Pope Clement V found them not guilty. The Church just released the document proving that Clement found them not guilty. The only problem was that they were very wealthy and powerful, and King Philip IV of France owed them a lot of money and pushed for them to be disbanded and found guilty of heresy. He succeeded (and didn’t have to pay his debts) and their leaders were arrested and tortured. Just thought this was interesting!
Posted 29 Oct 2007 at 11:44 pm ¶
Agravaine wrote:
Technically, the charges weren’t dismissed, but a document recently pulled out of the Vatican archives (perhaps alluded to in the Times article you reference) says Clement found the allegations to be true but exaggerated. As such, he was willing to absolve them provided they performed the usual repentance etc for the smaller acts (basically related to initiation rites whereby initiates would be exposed to blasphemy to train them, similar to how prospective American interrogators are waterboarded first). But, as you note, Phillip had Clement in his pocket, and the eradication of the Templars was soon followed by the relocation of the papacy to Avignon and the beginning of the “Babylonian Captivity.”
Posted 30 Oct 2007 at 12:28 am ¶
sean wrote:
On this Templar stuff, see the link in my post from Parzifal discussion
Posted 01 Nov 2007 at 5:30 pm ¶