Reading around the epic: a festschrift in honour of Professor Wolfgang van Emden 0952211963, 9780952211969

Citation preview

és

fsneisiats

rer etweer meme monte enw wren

keer ge ne den

an PASSE

SG TERRE

RS

Beate

eee

.

eee

thew LS

Fee eee

ears

ares

"

geet

\

Érinsramrioseseirinaninspieneienries

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation

https ://archive.org/details/readingaroundepi0000unse

KING’S COLLEGE LONDON MEDIEVAL STUDIES

XIV

King’s College London Centre for Late Antique & Medieval Studies

Director: Janet L. Nelson

KING’S COLLEGE

LONDON

MEDIEVAL

STUDIES

GENERAL EDITOR:

Janet Bately

EXECUTIVE EDITOR: David Hook

EDITORIAL BOARD: Janet Cowen, Albinia de la Mare, Carlotta Dionisotti, Judith Herrin, Claire Isoz, Martin Jones, Karen Pratt, Jane Roberts

READING AROUND

THE EPIC:

A FESTSCHRIFT IN HONOUR OF PROFESSOR WOLFGANG VAN EMDEN

edited by MARIANNE AILES, PHILIP E. BENNETT AND KAREN PRATT

KING’S COLLEGE LONDON CENTRE FOR LATE ANTIQUE & MEDIEVAL STUDIES 1998

© Individual

Authors

1998

All rights reserved

ISSN 0953-217X ISBN 0 9522119 6 3 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Printed in England on acid-free recycled paper

by Short Run Press Ltd, Exeter

CONTENTS Introduction and Tribute

Vil

The Publications of Wolfgang van Emden Alexander Kerr De la Paix de Vienne au drame de Roncevaux Jean Subrenat

L’Episode d’Aupais dans Girart de Roussillon Joseph J. Duggan Ogier le Danois: making use of a legend Judith Belam Traitors and Rebels: the geste de Maience Marianne Ailes Maugis a Toléde: quelques aspects du personnage dans Maugis d’Aigremont Philippe Verelst Quelques aspects de l’écriture épique dans le Roman d'Alexandre d’ Alexandre de Paris François Suard

69

85

Reading Epic through Romance: the Roland and the Roman de Thèbes 101

Karen Pratt

All’s Fair in Love and War: conflicts and continuities in Anseis de Carthage James Simpson Ganelon’s False Message: a critical false perspective? Philip E. Bennett 10. Military Leadership in the Old French Epic Peter Noble

|

129

149 171

LE

The Sées Fragments of Gui de Bourgogne and Anseis de Cartage Alexander Kerr

12° Beroul’s Tristran: the discovery of the lovers in the forest Tony Hunt 13. Patterns of Narrative and Poetic Organisation in the Kernel William Cycle Edward À. Heinemann 14. Reproductive Frameworks: maternal significance in Berte as grans piés Finn Sinclair 152 On Spanish Ballads and French Epics

Colin Smith'

193

233

249

269 297

16. The Sowdone of Babylone and the Ten Thousand Women: an early case of ethnic cleansing? Gordon Knott 197% The Function of Prose in Godefroi de Buillon Jan A. Nelson

515

Tabula gratulatoria

259

321

INTRODUCTION Wolfgang van Emden is one of the leading medievalists of his generation, specialising in French epic, but with interests extending to the romans antiques and drama. Forty years ago he took up his

first appointment, a one-year post at Edinburgh. After teaching at Nottingham and Lancaster he was appointed in 1974 to a chair at Reading, where he was for many years the Head of Department. He retired in September 1996. In the spring of that year the British Branch of the Société Rencesvals held its biennial conference in Reading, in honour of Wolfgang and as part of the 30th-anniversary celebrations of the university’s Graduate Centre for Medieval Studies, of which Wolfgang was once Director. The kernel of this volume is made up of papers given at that colloquium in Reading. It is particularly appropriate that it should appear under the aegis of the Société Rencesvals, of which Wolfgang has been a luminary for many years; he was in fact the first ever International President from the British Branch. Wolfgang has inspired, encouraged and influenced many of the contributors to this Festschrift, four of whom wrote their doctoral theses under his supervision (Ailes, Belam, Kerr and Pratt). He has always been, and remains, ready to share his knowledge and to empathise with the enthusiasm of others for their work. The remaining contributors are distinguished international scholars, friends and colleagues of Wolfgang, fellow ‘Rencesvaliens’. There could be no better starting point for a Festschrift in honour of Wolfgang van Emden than an article which begins with the text which he edited for the Société des Anciens Textes Français, Girart de Vienne. Jean Subrenat’s study, ‘De la Paix de Vienne au drame de Roncevaux’, looks at the influence of Girart de Vienne on

the later redactions of the Chanson de Roland, taking the Paris manuscript as its point of reference. Girart de Vienne links two gestes, the Guillaume cycle and that of the barons révoltés, a cycle taught by Wolfgang as an option in the Graduate Centre for Medieval Studies MA programme. Several contributions deal with epics of the cycle of rebellious barons.

Vili

Marianne Ailes

Joseph Duggan’s study of an episode from the song of ‘the other Girart’, Girart de Roussillon, is more than just an analysis of one episode as he investigates the ‘other worldly’ origins of the female character, Aupais. Judith Belam, ‘Ogier le Danois: making use of a legend’, looks at the historical background to the character of Ogier and examines the development of the hero and the treatment of the This article theme of isolation in the Chevalerie Ogier. complements that of Marianne Ailes, ‘Traitors and Rebels: the geste de Maience’, where the focus is on the position of Ogier and the other rebels within the family. In tracing the evolution of the family of Ganelon’s clan and its fusion with the family of rebels account is taken of the ethical implications of these developments. The geste de Maience includes the whole of the sub-cycle of Renaut de Montauban, from which Wolfgang has edited Vivien de Monbranc. He has also written on the concept of the ‘bon larron’,’ so Philippe Verelst’s study of the bon larron Maugis in Maugis d’Aigremont, one of the chansons in this sub-cycle, is particularly appropriate. Like Duggan, Verelst focuses on a single episode. Jean Subrenat’s contribution is only one of several intertextual studies involving the Roland tradition. François Suard, ‘Quelques aspects de l’écriture épique dans le Roman d’Alexandre d’ Alexandre de Paris’, analyses the literary use of epic devices in a non-epic text with particular reference to the Roland. He shows the poet to be adept at transforming epic narrative into romance rhetoric. Karen Pratt, ‘Reading Epic through Romance: the Roland and the Roman de Thèbes’, uses evidence of parallels between the Roland tradition

and the Roman de Thèbes to gain insights into the meaning and reception of the Oxford Roland, employing a similar approach to that used by Wolfgang in two recent articles.* Jim Simpson, ‘All’s * Wolfgang van Emden ‘What constitutes a “bon larron”?’ in Guillaume d’Orange and the ‘Chanson de geste’: essays presented to Duncan McMillan in celebration of his seventieth birthday by his friends and colleagues of the Société Rencesvals, edited by Wolfgang van Emden and Philip Bennett, with the assistance of Alexander Kerr (Reading: Société Rencesvals British Branch, 1984), PP. 197-218; this article is referred to by Verelst. Wolfgang van Emden, ‘La Réception du personnage de Roland dans quelques oeuvres plus ou moins épiques des 12°, 13° et 14° siècles”, in Aspects de l’épopée romane: mentalités, idéologies, intertextualités. Actes du XIII‘ Congrès International de la Société Rencesvals (Gronigue, 22-27 août 1994), edited by Hans van Dijk and Willem Noomen (Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1995), pp. 353-

Introduction

ix

Fair in Love and War: conflicts and continuities in Anseis de Cartage’, analyses the treatment of military and sexual conquest in Anseis and the epic’s function as a sequel to the Oxford Roland. The Oxford Roland itself is the subject of Philip Bennett’s contribution examining Ganelon’s embassy to Marsile, with its implications for the interpretation of Ganelon’s character. This analysis draws on the research of historians, looking at the possible forms and function of a ‘letter’ in the medieval context. Peter Noble similarly brings an interdisciplinary aspect to his study of military leadership in the chansons de geste, comparing and contrasting the qualities of the heroes of chansons de geste with those of contemporary military leaders, and demonstrating variations within epic tradition. These contributions illustrate the need to read around the epic, as well as providing close textual readings, and are appropriately placed in a volume to honour a scholar who was actively involved with the interdisciplinary concept of the Graduate Centre for Medieval Studies. Wolfgang’s impressive contribution to the editing of epic texts is continued here with the publication by Alexander Kerr (whose doctoral thesis, supervised by Wolfgang, was an edition of Anseis de Cartage) of a hitherto inaccessible fragment of Anseis, along with a fragment of Gui de Bourgogne. Both are accompanied by introductions and extensive critical apparatus. In order to appreciate more fully the context of epic texts we have included in Reading Around the Epic a study by Tony Hunt on that most epic of romances, Beroul’s Tristran. Just as Suard has highlighted the literary adaptation of epic techniques in the Roman d’Alexandre, so Tony Hunt, ‘Beroul’s Tristran: the discovery of the

lovers in the forest’, shows the sophistication of the techniques of Beroul when analysing the careful construction and irony of this episode.

Edward Heinemann and Finn Sinclair both bring new approaches to our understanding of epic. Heinemann deals with questions of 62; Wolfgang van Emden, “The Reception of Roland in Some Old French Epics’, inRoland and Charlemagne in Europe: essays on the reception and transformation of a legend, edited by Karen Pratt, King’s College London Medieval Studies, XII (London: King’s College London Centre for Late Antique and Medieval Studies, 1996), pp. 1-30.

x

Marianne Ailes

metrics in ‘Patterns of Narrative and Poetic Organisation in the Kernel William Cycle’. Sinclair brings a feminist critical perspective to bear on Berte as grans piés, a later thirteenth-century epic centred on the figure of Charlemagne’s mother. The heritage of the chansons de geste was long lasting and widespread and this is reflected in the interests of the members of the Société Rencesvals, a society committed to the furthering of study in romance epic, not just in French chansons de geste. Two of the Ph.D. theses supervised by Wolfgang during his time at Reading involved comparisons between French texts and their adaptations in another language (Pratt and Ailes). It is, therefore, particularly appropriate that this volume should not be limited to French epic, but should include articles on Spanish epic and English translations of French texts.

The late Professor Colin Smith, in one of his last

pieces of work, has drawn together what is known about the relationship between French epic and Spanish ballads, while Gordon Knott has written on a text which Wolfgang knows well from his supervision of my own thesis on Fierabras. In ‘The Sowdone of Babylone and the Ten Thousand Women: an early case of ethnic cleansing’ Knott compares the episode of the mass martyrdom of 10,000 women

in The Sowdone

with

the treatment

of the same

episode in its source, the Destruction de Rome. The theme of reading around the epic would not be complete without a look at the work of a prosateur. Our final contributor, Jan Nelson, examines the function of prose in Godefroi de Buillon,

looking not only at the technical questions abbreviation, but also at the more

of abridgement

and

difficult issue of what could be

perceived as historical truth. We could not hope, within the confines of a single volume, to reflect all of Wolfgang’s interests, but the title of his Festschrift ‘Reading Around the Epic’ has allowed some scope. The volume

reflects the breadth of scholarship currently being undertaken on epic and epic-related texts and the diversity of approaches to them. Two related aspects of epic studies however stand out, namely the literariness of many of the works, and the importance of intertextuality in contemporary studies. The latter implies the former and underlines the fact that some members at least of contemporary audiences must have been capable of identifying

Introduction

xi

intertexts and thus perceiving parodies, parallels and connotations, in a very literary and sophisticated way. It is a testimony to the lasting power of the chanson de geste that a man of Wolfgang’s calibre can spend a career studying them while still perceiving new insights and retaining his enthusiasm for this genre. Finally, the editors wish to thank all those who have helped make this volume possible: the contributors, who have been both patient and prompt; our specialist readers, Philippa Hardman and Alexander Kerr; Arlette Tuffet and Monique Giles (secretary to the Head of the Department of French Studies at Reading and therefore Wolfgang’s secretary for some years), who have checked the articles written in French; and everyone involved in the production at King’s, in particular David Hook and the rest of the editorial board for their enthusiastic support for this project and Wendy Pank for producing camera-ready copy with her usual efficiency and good humour. To the Société Renscesvals British Branch we are very grateful for its generous subvention. Marianne Ailes

A TRIBUTE It is a great joy to welcome Wolfgang van Emden to the ranks of the retired, and to count yet one more friend among them. If I can remember — but only just — a time when Rencesvals knew him not, it is now obscured by all the years when his presence enlivened our meetings, his contributions to our discussions stimulated our brains, and his papers sent us away enriched with information and ideas which were new to us. As our founding fathers in their turn

stepped down — and some, alas, died — Wolfgang gradually, and rightly, rose to be our head. We look forward to many more years of his presence with us untrammelled by the cares of academic administration. If the Olifant itself was burst, it was Wolfgang who had the Savernake horn sounded over the wireless and made it

possible for us all to relive Charlemagne.

the battle with

the followers

Long may he live to go on guiding us.

Geoffrey Robertson-Mellor

of

Professor Wolfgang van Emden

THE PUBLICATIONS OF WOLFGANG VAN EMDEN Compiled by Alexander Kerr Books

‘Girart de Vienne’ par Bertrand de Bar-sur-Aube, edited by Wolfgang van Emden, Société des Anciens Textes Frangais (Paris: Picard, 1977). Guillaume d’Orange and the ‘Chanson de geste’: essays presented to Duncan McMillan in celebration of his seventieth birthday by his friends and colleagues of the Société Rencesvals, edited by Wolfgang van Emden and Philip E. Bennett, with the assistance of Alexander Kerr (Reading: Société Rencesvals British Branch, 1984).

Vivien de Monbranc: chanson de geste du XII° siècle, edited by Wolfgang van Emden, Textes Littéraires Français, 344 (Geneva:

Droz, 1987). La

Chanson

de Roland,

Critical

Guides

to French

Texts,

113

(London: Grant & Cutler, 1995). Le Jeu d’Adam, edited by Wolfgang van Emden, British Rencesvals Publications, 1 (Edinburgh: Société Rencesvals British Branch, 1996).

XIV

Bibliography

Articles

‘Isembart and the Old French Epic of Revolt’, Nottingham Mediaeval Studies, VIII (1964), 22-34. ‘Hypothése sur une explication historique du remaniement de Girart de Vienne par Bertrand de Bar-sur-Aube’, in Société Rencesvals: IV’ Congrès International (Heidelberg, 28 août-2 septembre

1967). Actes et mémoires, Studia Romanica, Winter, 1969), pp. 63-70.

14

(Heidelberg:

‘“La bataille est aduree endementres”: traditionalism and individualism in chanson-de-geste studies’, Nottingham Mediaeval Studies, XIII (1969), 3-26. ‘Girart de Vienne: problèmes de composition et de datation”, Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, XIII (1970), 281-90. ‘Rolandiana et Oliveriana: (1971), 507-31.

faits

et hypothèses’,

Romania,

XCII

‘Sources de l’histoire de Pyrame et Thisbé chez Baif et Théophile de Viau’, in Mélanges de langue et de littérature médiévales offerts a Pierre Le Gentil, edited by J. Dufournet and D. Poirion (Paris: Société d’Edition d’Enseignement Supérieur, 1973), pp. 869-79.

‘La Légende de Pyrame et Thisbé: textes français des XV°, XVI° et XVII‘ siècles’, in Études de langue et de littérature du Moyen Age offertes à Félix Lecoy par ses collègues, ses élèves et ses amis (Paris: Champion, 1973), pp. 569-83. ‘L'Histoire de Pyrame et Thisbé dans la mise en prose de l’Ovide moralisé: texte du manuscrit Paris, BN, f. fr. 137, avec variantes et commentaires”, Romania, XCIV (1973), 29-56.

Bibliography

XV

‘“Et cil de France le cleiment a guarant”: Roland, Vivien et le thème du guarant’, in Société Rencesvals pour l’étude des épopées romanes: VI‘ Congrès International (Aix-en-Provence, 29 aotit-4

septembre 1973). Actes (Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence, 1974), pp. 31-61; reprinted in Olifant, 1.4 (1974), 2147. “Another Look at Charlemagne’s Dreams in the Chanson de Roland’, French Studies, XXVIII (1974), 257-71. ‘Pro Karolo Magno: in response to William W. Kibler, “Roland and Tierri”, Olifant, Il (1974-75), 175-82.

‘Contribution à l’étude de l’évolution sémantique du mot geste en ancien français’, Romania, XCVI (1975), 105-22.

‘Shakespeare and the French Pyramus and Thisbe Tradition: or, whatever happened to Robin Starveling’s part?’, Forum for Modern Language Studies, X1 (1975), 193-204. ‘Encore une fois “Oliveriana” et “Rolandiana”, ou l’inverse’, Revue

Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire, LIV (1976), 837-58. ‘Le Personnage du roi dans Vivien de Monbranc et ailleurs’, in Charlemagne et l’épopée romane. Actes du VII Congrès International de la Société Rencesvals (Liège, 28 août-4

septembre 1976), Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège, Lettres, 1978), I, 241-50.

225,

2 vols

(Paris:

Belles

‘Trial by Ordeal and Combat: the deliquescence of a motif’, in Essays for Peter Mayer, edited by Christopher Thacker (Reading:

University of Reading, 1980), pp. 173-93. ‘The “Cocktail-Shaker” Technique in Two Chansons de geste’, in The Medieval Alexander Legend and Romance Epic: essays in honour

of David J.A. Ross, edited by Peter Noble, Lucie Polak and Claire Isoz (Millwood, NY: Kraus International, 1982), pp. 43-56.

XVI

Bibliography

‘Girart de Vienne devant les ordinateurs’, in La Chanson de geste et le mythe carolingien. Mélanges René Louis, publiés par ses collègues, ses amis et ses élèves à l’occasion de son 75° anniversaire, 2 vols (Saint-Père-sous-Vézelay: Comité de Publication des Mélanges René Louis, 1982), II, 663-90.

‘A Fragment of an Old French Poem in Octosyllables on the Subject of Pyramus and Thisbe’, in Medieval French Textual Studies in Memory of T.B.W. Reid, edited by Ian Short, Anglo-Norman Text Society Occasional Publications Series, 1 (London: AngloNorman Text Society, 1984), pp. 239-53. ‘The Castle in Some Works of Medieval French Literature’,

in The

Medieval Castle: romance and reality, edited by Kathryn Reyerson and Faye Powe, Medieval Studies at Minnesota, 1 (Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, 1984), pp. 1-26. “What Constitutes a “bon larron”?’, in Guillaume d'Orange and the

‘Chanson de geste’, pp. 197-218. ‘Girart de Vienne: epic or romance?’, Olifant, X (1986 for 198285), 147-60.

‘Les Girart et leur(s) femme(s), et problémes annexes. A propos de Gheraert van Viane’, in The Troubadours and the Epic: essays in memory of W. Mary Hackett, edited by L.M. Paterson and S.B. Gaunt (Coventry: Department of French, University of Warwick, 1987), pp. 238-69.

‘Lampides

boeticus

(L.) (Lepidoptera:

Lycaenidae)

in Reading,

. Berkshire’, Entomologist’s Gazette, XXXIX (1988), 275.

‘Argumentum

ex silentio: an aspect of dramatic technique in La

Chanson de Roland’, Romance Philology, XLIII (1989), 181-96. ‘Encore une fois le vers 2814 du Tristran de Béroul: le sens de lois’,

Romania, CX (1989), 247-S2.

Bibliography

XVII

‘Some Remarks on the Cambridge Manuscript of the Rhymed Roland’, in The Editor and the Text. In Honour of Professor Anthony J. Holden, edited by Philip E. Bennett and Graham A. Runnalls (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990), pp. 58— 69. ‘La Chanson d’Aspremont and the Third Crusade’, Reading Medieval Studies, XVIII (1992), 57-80. ‘Kingship in the Old French Epic of Revolt’, in Kings and Kingship in Medieval Europe, edited by Anne J. Duggan, King’s College London Medieval Studies, X (London: King’s College London

Centre for Late Antique and Medieval Studies, 1993), pp. 305— 50. ‘Renaut de Montauban: la précellence d’un manuscrit d’Oxford’, in Charlemagne in the North. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference of the Société Rencesvals (Edinburgh, 4th to 11th August 1991), edited by Philip E. Bennett, Anne Elizabeth Cobby and Graham A. Runnalls (Edinburgh: Société Rencesvals British Branch, 1993), pp. 463-74. Articles in Medieval France: an encyclopedia, edited by William W. Kibler and Grover A. Zinn, Garland Encyclopedias of the Middle Ages, 2 (New York: Garland, 1995): ‘Aye d’Avignon’ (p. 91);

‘Bertrand de Bar-sur-Aube’ (p. 117); ‘Girart de Roussillon’ (pp. 395-96); ‘Ovidian Tales’ (pp. 688-89); ‘Roland, Chanson de’ (pp.

809-11). ‘La Réception du personnage de Roland dans quelques oeuvres plus ou moins épiques des 12°, 13° et 14° siécles’, in Aspects de l’épopée romane: mentalités, idéologies, intertextualités.

Actes du

XIII’ Congrès International de la Société Rencesvals (Groningue, 22-27 août 1994), edited by Hans van Dijk and Willem Noomen

(Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1995), pp. 353-62.

XVill

Bibliography

‘The Reception of Roland in Some Old French Epics’, in Roland and Charlemagne in Europe: essays on the reception and transformation of a legend, edited by Karen Pratt, King’s College London Medieval Studies, XII (London: King’s College London Centre for Late Antique and Medieval Studies, 1996), pp. 1-30.

Review

Articles

La Geste de Monglane, edited from the Cheltenham Manuscript by David M. Dougherty and E.B. Barnes, in collaboration with Catherine

B. Cohen—in

Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale,

XI

(1968), 63-67. Paul Aebischer, Textes norrois et littérature française du Moyen Age. II: la première branche de la ‘Karlamagnis saga’—in Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, XVI (1973), 149-54 (in

collaboration with A.J. Gilbert). Theo Venckeleer, ‘Rollant li proz’: contribution à l’histoire de quelques qualifications laudatives en francais du Moyen Age—in Romance Philology, XXXII (1979-80), 429-34. ‘Aye d’Avignon: a propos d’une étude récente’ (Ellen Rose Woods, ‘Aye d’Avignon’: a study of genre and society)—in Studi

Francesi, LXXVI (1982), 68-76. ‘The New Ogier Corpus’ (Ogier le Dannoys, roman en prose du X V° siécle, edited by Knud Togeby (1967); Knud Togeby, Ogier le Danois dans les littératures européennes (1969); and, Karlamagnüs saga. Branches I, III, VII et IX, bilingual edition planned by Knud Togeby and Pierre Halleux, Norse text edited by Agnete Loth, French

translation

by Annette

Patron-Godefroit,

with a study by Povl Skarup (1980))—in Mediaeval Scandinavia, XII (1988), 122-46.

Bibliography

XIX

Moisan, André, Répertoire des noms propres de personnages et de lieux cités dans les chansons de geste francaises et les oeuvres étrangères dérivées—in Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, XXXII

(1989), 375-80. ‘Renaut de Montauban’: édition critique du manuscrit Douce, edited by J. Thomas—in Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, XXXV (1992), 275-76.

In addition Wolfgang van Emden has published some seventy book reviews in Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, French Studies, Medium Aevum, Modern Language Review, and Romanic Review.

bi ata sass4 mages HUA DE str tani

she

D Std) hate drag |

ROR tait

1.4

Awad

VAR

ME

d Bus Ht

woth Ve souee

iy pts

eee

oo

aathert

art

tte

|

: ahh

0 Aérien

ER)

tp

Le

ms Lits

Le

SENTE TT Le yd

aes et | Mot

ett x

Mewes suce PONT

“ar Naat

ant gaat

Le:

natinitoMf StsaN

by

DE LA PAIX DE VIENNE AU DRAME DE RONCEVAUX Jean Subrenat Si un grand nombre de chansons de geste frangaises tient a se situer par rapport à la Chanson de Roland, ce souci de cohésion ne va pas sans certaines acrobaties. Alors, en effet, que la chronologie historique — ou savante — de ces poèmes est assez précisément établie, il reste que la ‘chronologie poétique” est largement différente, voire opposée, parfois même incohérente. Or c’est cette dernière qui, seule, bien sûr, importait au public contemporain, c’est sur elle encore que nous devons nous appuyer pour tenter de comprendre l’état d’esprit, les réactions, les sentiments de ce public, dans l’espoir d’entrevoir ce que furent les contacts intellectuels, les communions idéologiques entre poètes et auditeurs, voire les implications réciproques entre poésie et réalité. Nous aimerions soumettre au jugement du savant collègue que nous honorons ici quelques modestes vues sur cette question; c’est pourquoi nous prendrons comme point de départ de notre réflexion la chanson de Girart de

Vienne.” Dans le cas présent, il est bien clair que l’oeuvre de Bertrand de Bar est historiquement postérieure de plusieurs décennies à /a Chanson de Roland” Or, poétiquement, elle lui est antérieure,

puisque c’est sous les murs de Vienne que naissent l’amitié de Roland et Olivier, amour d’Aude et Roland. '

Et, si le mariage des

Girart de Vienne par Bertrand de Bar-sur-Aube, publié par Wolfgang van

Emden, Société de Anciens Textes Français (Paris: Picard, 1977). Les références

à ce texte seront abrégées sous la forme [GY]. Wolfgang van Emden (Girart de Vienne, p. xxxiv) donne approximative de 1180’ pour Girart de Vienne.

‘une date

2

Jean Subrenat

deux jeunes gens ne peut être célébré, c’est que l’urgence entraîne

l’armée impériale vers les marches d’Espagne, vers ce qui sera la catastrophe de Roncevaux.

L’annonce, à la fin de Girart de Vienne,

conforme à la tradition rolandienne, est parfaitement explicite: Au chief del terme que nomé vos avon an ala Ch{arles] en Espangne el roion, ses oz mena sor ce pueple felon qui en sa terre ot mis destrucion; bien en avez oie la chançon, coment il furent trahi par Ganelon. Morz fu Roll[ans] et li autre baron, et li .xx. mile, qui Deus face pardon, q’an Rancevaus ocist Marsilion (6920-28)

Aussi bien Bertrand de Bar, ‘le gentil clerc’, n’avait-il d’autre solution pour conclure son poéme: telle est, en effet, la suite logique de son oeuvre qui se situe en quelque sorte comme un prologue a son illustre devancière. La Chanson de Roland, quant à elle, ne contient aucune allusion— et pour cause ‘historique’ — à Girart de Vienne. Il était, néanmoins, dommage que nombre d’informations fournies par Girart de Vienne, nombre d’événements qui y sont rapportés n’alimentent pas le

déroulement de l’action de Ja Chanson de Roland. Aussi, plusieurs poètes (remanieurs) légèrement postérieurs à Bertrand de Bar, à moins qu’ils ne soient ses quasi-contemporains, ont-ils saisi l’occasion d’utiliser des données de sa chanson dans leur propre vision des événements de l’expédition d’Espagne; l’on aboutit de la sorte, à une recomposition enrichie du récit qui paraissait hiératiquement fixé pour l’éternité par le manuscrit d'Oxford.” Ce sera notre propos que d’examiner les nouveaux liens qui se sont créés entre Girart de Vienne et les Romans

de Roncevaux,

puisque tel est le titre que l’on donne souvent aux remaniements de la Chanson

de Roland; nous nous fonderons, pour ce faire, sur le

manuscrit de Paris qui est particulièrement commode.’

Ce point

Ce n’est pas un jugement d’esthétique littéraire; là n’est pas le problème. Les Textes de la ‘Chanson de Roland’, édités par Raoul Mortier, 10 vols (Paris: la Geste Francor, 1940-44), VI: Le Texte de Paris. Les références à ce

De Vienne a Roncevaux

3

acquis nous conduira a nous interroger sur ce qui a pu se passer entre la fin du siège de Vienne et la ‘pacification’ de l’Espagne, car plusieurs chansons mettent en scéne Roland et Olivier, comme compagnons; elles ne peuvent donc se situer—dans la chronologie poétique toujours—qu’ entre la paix de Vienne et la guerre d’Espagne. Quel est donc l’état de l’empire à la fin de Girart de Vienne? La paix se fait au palais de Vienne entre Charles et Girart, lors d’un souper d’apparat auquel participe Guibourc, l’épouse de Girart. A ce moment-là, l’empereur demande à son vassal réconcilié la main d’Aude pour Roland (GV, vv. 6610-53). Plus tard, en mai, le jour de la saint Maurice, toujours au palais de Vienne (GV, vv. 6791, 6795, 6798), Charles tient une cour solennelle

pendant (GV, vv. mariage Dans

laquelle sont célébrées les fiançailles d’Aude et de Roland 6800 sqq.).° On est méme allé jusqu’a discuter de la date du (GV, vv. 6829-30). l’intervalle avait eu lieu, au camp impérial, la cérémonie

officielle — féodale — de réconciliation: Charles, assis sur son trône

devant sa tente (GV, vv. 6738-40), s’était adressé à Girart: ‘Sire Girart,’ dit il, ‘avant venez:

ci vos ren ge quites voz heritez’

(GV, 6766-67)

Nous sommes donc là en adéquation avec la situation que connaît la Chanson de Roland, à ceci près que cette dernière ne savait rien de la situation de Girart (et d’ailleurs n’avait pas à en savoir quoi que ce fût). Or, si l’on en croit Bertrand de Bar, l’empereur avait conféré solennellement (les allusions évangéliques le soulignent) à son vassal

une prérogative extraordinaire: texte seront abrégées sous la forme [Paris]. Il s’agit du Ms BNF, fonds français,

860. Citons, par exemple, le Pèlerinage de Charlemagne, les Quatre fils Aymon, et Fierabras. L'empereur se plait à ajouter: Jamés nul jor, puis qu’il* en ert sessi, *Roland nostre lingnaje ne seront departi (GV, 6814-15) Bertrand de Bar prête ainsi à l’empereur une prémonition de l’attachement indéfectible du lignage de Garin à la couronne; que l’on songe au dévouement de Guillaume - lequel est encore loin d’être né (Aymeri, son père, n’est encore qu’adolescent ici) - à la cause de Louis, fils de Charles!

4

Jean Subrenat

‘de douce France les ennors garderez, bien ert de cort cui vos i amerez; cui vos harroiz mar i sera trouvez,

einz s’en aut povres et toz desheritez’

(GV, 6768-71)

Ii ne faudra pas attendre longtemps pour se rendre compte de l’importance de la responsabilité que doit assumer le duc de Vienne. C’est en effet, en pleine fête des fiançailles de Roland et Aude qu’est annoncée l’invasion sarrasine. Charles fixe rendez-vous à ses vassaux devant Narbonne; mais il confie, dès cet instant, à Girart la

garde de ses ‘ennors’’: Lors en apele dant Girart de Vienne: “Vos remendroiz, et g’irai en Espangne; vos comant ge Baiviere et Alemengne’ (GV, 6895-97)

On comprend, après cela, qu’il était quelque peu frustrant de se contenter de l’austère texte d’Oxford comme suite et conséquence des événements relatés ici.

L’auteur du texte de Paris (tout comme d’autres remanieurs) a pallié cette gêne. Il est donc temps maintenant de voir sa façon de procéder dans sa re-présentation des événements d’Espagne*. L’on Ou plus exactement d’une partie de son empire, puisqu’il associe Hernaut de Beaulande à cette charge (GV, vv. 6898-902). Nous raisonnons a dessein sur les questions féodales. Mais il faudrait aussi penser à i’aspect sentimental des choses. On a beaucoup écrit sur la discrétion des allusions aux sentiments d’Aude et de Roland dans le texte d’Oxford. En revanche, Aude, dans Girart de Vienne, a été troublée et flattée, malgré sa terreur, par la tentative de rapt dont elle fut la cible de la part de Roland; elle a

ensuite tremblé, prié pour l’adversaire de son frère et à la fin de la chanson, elle a de grands moments de tendresse avec lui, lors de leurs touchants adieux: Li dus Rollant est entrez en la chanbre, besa Audein, sa bele amie gente, et en aprés son anel li comende, et elle lui la bele ensengne blenche dont il fist puis tant[e] reconnoissance qant ill ala en la terre d’Espengne (GV, 6907-12) On comprend alors que le texte de Paris ait représenté Aude en train de se parer de ses plus beaux atours, tout a la joie de son prochain mariage, pour aller, dans

ignorance où elle était de la catastrophe, à la rencontre de son amant et que, finalement elle meure, un peu à la manière d’ Yseut, à côté du corps de Roland.

De Vienne a Roncevaux

5

sera frappé par tout un jeu de reflets ou de renvois.” Devant les corps de Roland et d'Olivier, Charles songe à la douleur de Girart, resté en

France pour garder ses ennors, lorsqu’il apprendra le drame. repassé les Pyrénées, il lui envoie des messagers

Ayant

‘Baron,’ dist Karles, ‘je voz ai fait mander; .[. mien service vos voldrai commander: .C. chevaliers me faitez conraer,

Par la gastine voz convient a aler Droit a Viane a dant Girart le ber;

Ditez au duc que veingne a moi parler Et m’amaint Aude qui tant a le vis cler’

(Paris, 4761-67)

Il est assurément naturel et courtois qu’un vassal aille au devant de son seigneur qui approche; il convient donc de l’informer. Mais, surtout, Girart doit venir restituer, en quelque sorte, à Charles la part d’empire (les ennors) dont il avait la garde. L’auteur de ce texte fait, il faut le remarquer car c’est littérairement important, une allusion fort nette à cet état féodal qu’avait créé l’empereur à la fin de Girart de Vienne: il nous rapporte, en effet, qu’au moment où les envoyés de Charles arrivent à Vienne, le duc vient d’effectuer une expédition de Ce dernier, de son côté, dans sa déploration d’Olivier, faisait mention de la

soeur de son compagnon: ‘Et fustez frere Audain qui tant fait a prisier, Cui je devoie et panre et nosoier. Ce mariaige me convient a laissier, 9

Morir m’estuet, n’i a mais recouvrier’ (Paris, vv. 2505-08)

On trouve un jeu d’allusions analogue au début de la chanson de Galien li restorés qui reprend d’abord le thème du Pèlerinage de Charlemagne. On rappelle, en effet, que Galien est le fruit des amours d’Olivier avec la fille de l’empereur Hugon de Constantinople. Olivier est, dans cette expédition, l’un des douze pairs, compagnon de Roland. La chanson de Galien commence ainsi: Moult fut grande la joye contre le roy de France, Ens ou palais Girart fut belle ordonnance; La contesse y estoit et Belle Aude la blanche, Roulant lui demanda et Girart li fiance. Mais le roy ordonna et mist en ordonnance

Que au sepulcre yront sans nulle demourance (vv. 1-6) (Le ‘Galien’ de Cheltenham, édité par David M. Dougherty et Eugene B. Barnes, Purdue University Monographs in Romance Languages (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1981). L’auteur de Galien considére donc bien les données de Girart de Vienne comme acquises.

6

Jean Subrenat

police, rappelant ainsi implicitement que Girart était regent pendant l’absence de son seigneur: Lors a Viane fu Girars repairiez Devers la Sainne ou il ot ostoié;

Assez en ot ocis et detranchiez. Karles li ot icel regne laissié, Tant que il fust d’Espaingne repairiez

(Paris, 5310-14).

Signalons encore, pour en finir sur ce sujet, ces paroles de Girart à sa nièce qui sont un résumé de l’action de Girart de Vienne: ‘Tl* et Rollans me firent apaisier Quant je fui mal a Karlon au vis fier.’

A ce stade, on voit bien la mise

* Olivier (Paris, 5403-04)

en place de ce nouveau

fonctionnement d’enchainements littéraires.

Bertrand de Bar, en eût-

il eu l’intention, ne pouvait pas faire comme si la Chanson de Roland n’existait pas. Mais il ne se sent aucunement entravé par le dépouillement de celle-ci. En revanche, le flamboiement qu’il donne a son oeuvre sera une aubaine pour d’autres trouvéres, de sorte que l’on a bien l’impression qu’il était fort difficile, voire impossible, de chanter à nouveau de Roncevaux comme si Girart de Vienne n’avait pas été composée. Le public ne l’aurait sans doute pas toléré. Toutefois, l’heureuse conclusion du conflit entre l’empereur et son vassal Girart va entraîner d’autres problèmes de cohérence poétique.

En effet, il était admis comme une donnée fondamentale, sur laquelle il n’y avait pas lieu de s’interroger, que, de mémoire d’amateur de gestes, Roland et Olivier étaient compagnons jusqu’à ce que la mort les séparât à Roncevaux. Si l’on avait vu, jadis en termes de

chronologie poétique, Roland seul, c’était alors qu’il n’était encore qu’enfant dans la Chanson d’Aspremont; sinon, il reste toujours pour tous inséparable d’Olivier comme dans Jehan de Lanson ou le Pèlerinage de Charlemagne (où ils sont tous les deux, c’est l’évidence même, aux rangs des douze pairs) et, bien sûr dans Renaut de Montauban. Maintenant que, grâce à Bertrand de Bar, nous avons appris que, dès la naissance de leur amitié, la guerre d’Espagne — qui a duré sept

De Vienne a Roncevaux

ans —

allait commencer,

7

il devenait délicat de situer les aventures

qu’ils vécurent ensemble avant cette funeste campagne.

Peut-être est-

ce la raison pour laquelle Bertrand laisse un certain flou sur le délai imparti aux chevaliers, pour se préparer avant le rendez-vous de Narbonne: Congié lor done, et puis si lor comende, prin jor de mai, einsi come esté entre, desoz Nerbone resoient tuit ensenble;

si s’en iront sor la gent mescreande (GV, 6891-94)

Mais, si un certain laps de temps pouvait s’écouler, alors il n’était pas impossible que se célébrat le mariage d’ Aude et de Roland; mais c’était hors de question: l’influence de la ‘première’ chanson de Roland V’interdisait. On sent ici une première difficulté.” On pourrait, dans un même ordre d’idées, s’étonner du lieu de ralliement

— Narbonne — cité qui ne sera conquise qu’au retour d’Espagne, si, du moins, l’on en croit la chanson d’Aymeri de Narbonne." Mais, peut-être n’a-t-on pas été assez attentif à un détail de cette scène finale de Girart de Vienne. Qui sont !es messagers? Qu’annoncent-ils exactement? sus el palais monterent mesagier que rois Yon, qui molt fist a proisier, i avoit fet de Gascongne envoier (GV, 6834-36)

C’est le roi Yon de Gascogne qui les a envoyés annoncer que quatorze rois sarrasins assiègent Bordeaux et s’apprétent à marcher vers Bourges et Orléans (GV, vv. 6838-58). Maintenant, si l’on veut bien songer à la chanson des Quatre fils Aymon, on se rappellera que, fuyant Montessor et la forêt d’Ardenne, Renaut et ses frères se présentent devant le même roi Yon pour lui 10 Nous avons même employé, pour qui se situe dans une perspective de logique historique, le terme d’incohérence. Aymeri de Narbonne, chanson de geste publiée par Louis Demaison, Société des Anciens Textes Français (Paris: Firmin Didot, 1887). Il est vrai que ce nom peut être suggéré par la transition que ménage, sur le manuscrit édité par Wolfgang van Emden, le texte avec la suite.

8

Jean Subrenat

offrir leur service, parce qu’ils avaient appris, “Que grant guerre li fait cele gent paienie’ (RM, v. 3868).'’* Ce dernier était, en effet, attaqué par Bègue le Sarrasin qui avait étendu ses conquêtes jusqu’au Rhône, à hauteur d’Arles; ce n’est pas si loin de Vienne (RM, vv. 3891-95)! C’est là que Charles va, entouré de tous ses pairs et donc, en particulier de Roland et d’Olivier (a diverses reprises appelé “Olivier

de Vienne’), retrouver les jeunes gens.”

Alors que le siège de

Montauban s’éternise, Charles a cette curieuse attitude: Et Karlles fu en l’ost, qui jeta maint sospir, Dameldeu reclama, qui tot a a baillir: “Vos m’aidez, ce m’est vis, ma corone a honir !

Mais vos la me donastes por vo loi maintenir: Se je la pert, sachiez, ne vos en quier mentir,

N’irai mais en Espaine sor Sarrazin ferir !” (RM, 11751-56)

Et, un peu plus tard, il donne des ordres: ‘A Rollant mon nevo orendroit le dirai Qu’il me renge mon ost quant assenblé l’avrai, Que par itel covent que vos graanterai, Qu’en icest mois meismes qu’en France revendrai, Audain o le cler vis esposer li ferai’ (RM, 11795-99)

Il serait tout à fait aléatoire de chercher une influence précise d’un texte sur l’autre; les différences sont trop importantes: en particulier, Charles

ne

semble,

dans Renaut

de Montauban,

envisager

une

expédition contre les Sarrasins d’Espagne que comme une éventualité sans urgence pour laquelle il peut, en quelque sorte, user de chantage

vis-a-vis de Dieu. Et l’allusion au mariage de Roland et d’Aude n’y fait pas de mention explicite à une expédition préalable en Espagne, évidente cependant pour tous et, en particulier, pour l’auteur des Quatre Fils Aymon qui ne pouvait évidemment pas ignorer le "2 Renaut de Montauban, édité par Jacques Thomas, Textes Littéraires Français, 371 (Genève: Droz, 1989). Ce titre sera abrégé ici [RM]. I] faut honnêtement dire que Charles découvre Montauban en revenant d’un pèlerinage, apparemment pacifique, à Saint Jacques de Compostelle (RM, vv. 4472 sqq.).

De Vienne a Roncevaux

9

contenu de la Chanson de Roland. En revanche, et c’est ce qu’il faut remarquer, dans le monde du légendaire épique où nous nous trouvons, de nombreuses interférences se laissent voir: dans Renaut

de Montauban, Olivier est ‘de Vienne’; c’est le roi Yon qui, ayant dû subir le premier choc des envahisseurs, le fait annoncer, dans le Roncevaux de Paris, à l’empereur qui est encore à Vienne; la partie gasconne des aventures de Renaut et de ses frères comporte plusieurs allusions à la guerre d’Espagne. Les exemples pourraient être multipliés; il est bien clair que l’auteur de chaque chanson est au courant du contenu des poèmes connexes. L’on assiste en définitive à un mouvement littéraire et intellectuel très dynamique. Il n’est sans doute pas faux de dire que les épopées de la deuxième, et surtout de la troisième, génération autrefois jugées avec quelque condescendance, parce qu’elles auraient perdu le hiératisme inhérent au genre, contaminées qu’elles étaient par le monde courtois, n’ont plus la grandeur des premières; il est tout aussi vrai d’ajouter qu’elles ont des mérites différents et celui, singulièrement, d’une

grande souplesse d’adaptation. Il est heureux que quelques dysfonctionnements apparaissent, car ils sont la preuve de la liberté intacte des auteurs; il est aussi passionnant de sentir comment, derrière la ‘littérature’, un sens respectueux des vieilles légendes historiques demeure, mais librement interprété. De ce point de vue, l’apport de Girart de Vienne est incomparable: chanson qui fait le lien entre la geste de Garin et la geste du roi — lien qui eût été physiquement et socialement consacré si Aude et Roland n’étaient pas tragiquement morts,— c’est son contenu qui a fourni à l’aventure de Roncevaux l’occasion d’un nouveau développement,” témoin de la vitalité du genre littéraire toujours réactualisé en fonction des nouvelles productions et, de ce fait, sans doute moins intellectuel

qu’on n’a tendance à le penser, mais plus proche de son public.

Université de Provence, (Aix-Marseille 1)

14

Tout comme le Pèlerinage de Charlemagne a ouvert la voie à Galien

restorés.

li

‘a Stee Oe:

Snagit

Luarmee nest

tie See UT eae

Rens and ik Tee rase:

sûrs

ah i

3

=

ioe a ER

wher Plea’

Arte

que!

SE PRIE LE E MES

DER

fas: cs

4

LEE tte %

HE MS

ei

ett

~~

ste

ee

LE

ae

©

:

À

me

Le

RES

DR

Pa

FL

ke

ha

2

CDS

Ce D ono RS

En

ee

!

i

ENT

a

A A - SZ

i i

à,

RAR ee n>

: See

en

tn

+ r

.

T2

s231que ARS

ad

PR | ete eee os #

oy a

Sn

Aid

Er pe MORT, “

a

|

ot :

L’EPISODE D’AUPAIS DANS GIRART DE ROUSSILLON Joseph J. Duggan Un €pisode curieux de la chanson de geste Girart de Roussillon raconte l’amour de la fille de Thierry d’Alsace, Aupais, pour Fouque, cousin germain de Girart.! Le résultat de l’épisode est d’unir dans le mariage deux personnes appartenant aux clans qui s’affrontent avec acharnement dans la partie centrale du poème et notamment dans les grandes batailles de Civaux et de Vaubeton. Les actions d’Aupais sont motivées par la seule obsession érotique dans cette chanson de geste, cadre d’un récit des guerres qui opposent Girart et le roi Charles. Aupais est mentionnée pour la première fois après la réconciliation entre Girart et Charles effectuée par la reine Elissant a la cour que le roi tient à Orléans. Après les vingt-deux ans d’exil que Girart et sa femme Berte passent dans la forét d’Ardenne, Elissant réussit par une ruse a faire accepter Girart par le roi. Girart demande immédiatement au roi la libération de son compagnon de guerre Fouque (v. 8006), qui joue un rôle capital dans la chanson. Odin de Medon, neveu de Thierry d’Ascance et partisan du roi Charles, raconte au souverain que la nièce de celui-ci, ‘la

rousse au pied bot’ (v. 8031), est tombée amoureuse de Fouque. Odin et Aupais sont eux aussi des cousins germains. Les royaux ont remis Fouque, capturé au cours de la bataille qui a eu lieu dans la plaine 1

Le manuscrit d'Oxford est cité d’après l’édition de Winifred Mary Hackett,

Girart de Roussillon, chanson de geste, SATF, 3 vols (Paris: Picard, 1953-55).

Girart est aussi disponible dans le beau volume La Chanson de Girart de Roussillon, traduction, présentation et notes de Micheline de Combarieu du Grès et Gérard Gouiran, Lettres Gothiques, 4534 (Paris: Livre de Poche, 1993), qui reproduit le texte de l’édition Hackett.

12

Joseph J. Duggan

devant Roussillon, entre les mains d’Aupais qui, croyait-on, désirait sa mort. Il s’agit d’une faide ou vengeance familiale, les frères de Fouque, Boson et Seguin, ayant tué le père d’Aupais, mais, au lieu de punir son ennemi, Aupais s’enfuit avec lui dans la forêt d’Ardenne, où elle le garde pendant vingt-deux ans dans la tour d’Auridon, sise sur la riviére Argenson. Cependant, les chaines dans lesquelles Aupais tient Fouque sont d’argent. En effet, Aupais prend grand soin de son prisonnier et préférerait donner naissance a un fils adultère dont Fouque serait le père plutôt que d’épouser le comte de

Bretagne à qui le roi l’avait accordée. Odin conseille au roi de demander la remise en liberté de Fouque, car un mariage éventuel avec Aupais provoquerait un scandale retentissant. Le roi ne veut pas nuire à Girart tant que celui-ci est dans sa demeure, mais il permet à Odin de faciliter le retour de Fouque dès que Girart sera parti de la cour. Bertran de Val Olec prévient Girart et Elissant que, par l’intermédiaire d’Odin, Charles cherchera querelle à Aupais, dont le nom est mentionné ici pour la première fois dans la chanson (v. 8069). Elissant envoie Girart, en compagnie d’un chasseur guide, le vieillard Droon, à Roussillon où on l’accueille avec joie. Le lendemain à la cour, à la grande colère d’Odin et de Charles, Elissant déclare son intention de rendre à sa sœur Berte le douaire de celle-ci, y inclus Dijon et Roussillon. Cette restitution aura pour effet de ramener Girart au pouvoir. Pour sa part, le roi enverra à Auridon son messager, Berart Brun, pour exiger le retour de Fouque. Quittant la cour pour se rendre à Roussillon avec Berte, Elissant envoie Bertran devant elle pour annoncer qu’elle donnera

Fouque en mariage à Aupais comme elle le lui a promis (v. 8288), ce qui peut surprendre puisque cette promesse n’est pas mentionnée jusqu'ici dans le texte. S’arrêtant à Roussillon, Bertran charge Droon de porter le message à Aupais; il le suivra à Auridon avec un contingent de chevaliers. Droon prendra soin qu’un groupe de chevaliers partisans de Girart se mettent en cachette dans le bois près

de Roussillon. Des deux messagers envoyés à Auridon c’est celui de Charles qui arrive le premier; Aupais rejette immédiatement ses propositions, y compris l’offre de la marier au comte d’Alsace ou au comte de Bretagne, et Berart part les mains vides. Voyant du haut de sa tour

L’Episode d’ Aupais

13

l’arrivée de Droon suivi de Bertran, en même temps que les enseignes des chevaliers roussillonnais, Aupais soupçonne que les troupes royales sont en train d’entourer Auridon. Elle libére de ses chaînes Fouque, qui s’arme. Aupais est au désespoir: en cédant à sa passion pour Fouque pendant vingt-deux ans, elle a ‘perdu son temps et sa jeunesse’ (Perdut i ai mon tens e ma jovente, v. 8351). A ce moment critique, Droon et Bertran arrivent et la rassurent. Aupais consent a libérer Fouque définitivement, mais d’abord elle exige de lui la promesse, en forme de serment librement accordé et prononcé sur reliques, qu’il l’épousera. Fouque rejoint les troupes en cachette. A l’arrivée d’Odin et des troupes royales, Bertran essaie de faire la paix entre les deux partis, mais un combat s’ensuit au cours duquel les royaux sont mis en déroute et Fouque désarçonne Odin qui se casse le bras droit en tombant. Le lendemain, les vainqueurs vont à Roussillon où la reine donne Aupais à Fouque et Girart célèbre leur mariage. Avant la cérémonie, Odin, qui est, on se rappelle, le cousin germain d’Aupais et donc son plus proche parent dans l’assistance, refuse néanmoins de servir de répondant pour la jeune fille, sous le prétexte qu’Aupais et Fouque sont depuis longtemps amants (vv. 8683-84), mais Fouque nie cette accusation, en jurant sur reliques que lui et Aupais n’ont jamais fait l’amour. De grandes célébrations suivent la cérémonie laïque, pendant lesquelles Girart donne 20.000 marcs d’argent à Aupais en signe de gratitude envers elle pour le salut de Fouque. Par la suite, tous les prisonniers, sauf Odin, sont libérés, en jurant de se

rendre si la paix n’est pas rétablie.

La reine rentre auprès du roi

Charles, maintenant à Troyes, et réussit à conclure une trêve de sept

ans entre les deux camps qui, après quelques revers, sera renouvelée définitivement.

Pendant la période de paix, Aupais donne naissance à quatre fils. Le roi concède à l’aîné de ses grands-neveux, nommé Thierry (vv. 8962, 8985) d’après son grand-père Thierry d’Ascance, le fief d’Ascance duquel dépendent tous les comtés d’Ardenne;’ cette ? Les relations de parenté de Thierry d’Ascance sont assez compliquées. La quatrième femme de Thierry était la sœur de Charles; il a eu avec elle deux fils (vv. 1715-17, 1806-07, 3595), que Boson et Seguin tuent en ambuscade (vv. 3404-06, 3418-21, 3440). Dans les vv. 5798-800 il est dit que les frères de la femme de Thierry s’appellent Henri et Auberi et qu’ils étaient les oncles des fils de Thierry

14

Joseph J. Duggan

concession provoque la grande jalousie d’Odin qui se croit ainsi privé des vastes terres de son oncle. La progéniture d’Aupais et de Fouque assurera aussi la continuation du lignage de Girart parce que les deux fils de celui-ci meurent dans leur enfance, l’un d’eux victime

d’un meurtre commis par le vassal de Girart, Gui de Risnel (vv. 9137-60).

Ce fils représentait, selon Alain Labbé, ‘la promesse de la

guerre privée étendue à une génération nouvelle’. L’épisode d’Aupais, qui comprend plus de 900 vers (vv. 8010-

8957) en cinquante-huit laisses, met en scène deux personnages qui ne paraissent guère ailleurs dans le texte, Aupais et Odin. Les seules exceptions sont pour Odin, mentionné brièvement un peu plus loin dans la chanson à propos de sa jalousie contre le parti de Fouque et Girart (v. 8997) et de son refus de la paix définitive (vv. 9055, 9072).

Ni

Aupais,

nièce

du

roi

Charles,

ni Odin,

un

de

ses

conseillers les plus puissants, ne figurent donc que dans cet épisode et, dans le cas d’Odin, immédiatement après. Pour le rédacteur responsable de l’état final de la chanson, le développement de ces deux personnages a dû donc servir un but spécifique dans la narration,

notamment

celui

de

conclure

et

de

dramatiser

le

mouvement vers la paix, accompli par l’union des deux grands lignages, celui de Thierry d’Ascane, beau-frére du souverain, et celui de Drogon, pére de Girart et oncle de Fouque. Quelle est la provenance de ces deux personnages si importants mais d’une apparition si tardive et si fugace? Parlons d’abord

d’Aupais, ensuite d’Odin. Même

avant

la première

mention

de son

nom,

Aupais

est

caractérisée comme /a rouse au ranc talon (v. 8031). L’adjectif ranc, qui dérive vraisemblablement du gothique *wrancs,’ paraît plusieurs fois dans le corpus des troubadours avec le sens de ‘boiteux’.” Dans que Boson avait tués. Aupais est la niéce de Charles et la fille de Thierry (vv. 8031-32), donc la sceur de Charles était sa mére. * Alain Labbé, ‘L’Enfant, le lignage et la guerre dans Girart de Roussillon’, Les Relations de parenté dans le monde médiéval, Senefiance, 28 (Aix-en-Provence:

Publications du CUERMA, 1989), p. 50. * Walther von Wartburg, Franzôsisches Etymologisches Wôrterbuch, 23 vols (Bonn: Schroeder; Basel: Zbinden, 1922-), XVII, 621. Max Pfister, Lexikalische Untersuchungen zu Girart de Roussillon,

Beihefte

zur Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie, 122 (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1970), p. 642.

L’ Episode d’ Aupais

15

les croyances populaires, les étres boiteux ont une relation spéciale avec l’Autre Monde, par exemple Leborcham (‘la longue boiteuse’), messagère du roi Conchobar d’Ulster dans les sagas irlandaises.° R. Vivier et E. Millet rapportent que dans l’ancienne île de Berthenay, entre la Loire et le Cher, les gens croyaient qu’une fée au pied bot

mettait le feu aux bottes de foin.’ Une autre fée au pied ‘quintin’, c’est-a-dire au pied bot, fait disparaitre une petite fille qui se moque d’elle dans un conte de Touraine

Dans le contexte de ces contes,

Jacques Merceron parle du ‘motif du pied médiateur avec l’Audelà” Le fait d’avoir un pied bot et l’autre sain facilite le trépas du monde des humains à l’Autre Monde des fées. Parfois on dit que la fée a des pattes d’oie, comme, par exemple, dans la ‘Légende de l’étang du Mas’, dans laquelle un jeune seigneur enfreint l’interdiction de ne pas regarder les pieds de sa femme qui sont des pattes d’oie, de sorte que leur château et tous ses habitants disparaissent, ne laissant derrière eux qu’un étang sans fond. C’est la légende de la reine pédauque. Alfred Adler propose que l’infirmité du pied d’Aupais signifie qu’elle se tient hors du cercle des humains, comme une femme qui s’accouple avec un mortel pour fonder une

nouvelle dynastie.” Aupais est, en effet, à son origine, une fée, une de ces créatures mystérieuses, comme la dame de Lanval, celle de Graelent, celle de Désiré, la Laudine d’Yvain, la Mélior de Partenopeus de Blois, et

Mélusine, qui prennent l’homme sous leur protection, font de lui leur amant ou leur mari, le protègent contre toutes sortes de dangers, et $

Jacques Merceron, ‘Le Pied, le boiteux et l’Au-delà’, Bulletin de la Société de

Mythologie Française, CLVII (1990), 63-67, énumère plusieurs croyances populaires qu’il a recueillies dans le corpus folklorique international. Jacques-Marie Rougé, dans Le Folklore de la Touraine (Tours: Arrault, 1947), p. 90-91, renvoie à cette légende. Jacques-Marie Rougé, Contes de Touraine (Chambray-les-Tours: Editions

C.L.D., 1981), pp. 188-89. °

‘Le Pied’, p. 63.

Voir aussi Jacques Merceron, ‘Le Motif du pied médiateur

avec l’Au-delà”, Bulletin de la Société de Mythologie Française, CXLIII (1986), 70-73, dans lequel il s’agit surtout de la pratique de mettre le pied sur celui d’une autre personne ayant le pouvoir de communiquer avec le monde des esprits. 10 R. Vivier, J.-M. Rougé, et E. Millet, Contes et légendes des pays de la Loire (Tours: Editions Arrault, 1950), p. 92. "Alfred Adler, Epische Spekulanten: Versuch einer synchronen Geschichte des altfranzôsischen Epos (Munich: Fink, 1975), p. 84.

16

Joseph J. Duggan

deviennent son destin."? En fait, le nom même d’Aupais, qui dans le corpus des chansons

de geste ne se trouve que dans Girart de Roussillon, désigne un elfe.” Dans le manuscrit d'Oxford le nom s’écrit dix-huit fois “Alpais’, dont trois à la rime (vv. 8320, 8428, 8616), et une fois ‘Alpas’ (v. 8271). La source germanique de ce nom est Albhaidis, qui a comme étymon le germanique albiz, ‘bon ou mauvais elfe’. Albiz à son tour dérive de la racine *albh- ‘briller, être blanc’; l’elfe est donc, du moins a

l’origine, un être blanc ou brillant. Une des métaphores poétiques (kennings) dont usent les poètes scaldiques pour désigner le soleil est ‘léclat des elfes’. Parmi les représentants de cette racine sont l’anglo-saxon ælf ‘elfe’, le moyen haut-allemand alp ‘esprit malin’, l’allemand Elf ‘elfe’, l’ancien islandais dlfr ‘elfe’, et, bien sûr, le

français elfe par l’intermédiaire de l’anglais ou de l’allemand.* Plusieurs noms féminins utilisés en France au moyen âge ont comme élément premier albiz, parmi lesquels Albegundis, Albigardis, Alfhild, Alfild, Alftrud, Albelenda, Alpaidis (nom de la mère du Charlemagne historique), Alpelindis, Elphilt et Elphtrudis. Trois Alpais proviennent de sources documentaires datées de 907, de 9881031, et de 1021.°

Parmi

les noms

masculins

dérivés

d’albiz est

celui d’Auberon, nain pourvu de pouvoirs magiques dans Huon de Bordeaux et plus tard, sous l’orthographe Oberon, dans le Midsummer Night’s Dream de Shakespeare et toute une série d’ceuvres annexes. Déjà, au premier siècle après Jésus-Christ, Tacite mentionne dans le huitième chapitre de sa Germania que les Germains honoraient certaines femmes qui s’appelaient ‘Albruna’. Le nom d’Auberi le Bourguignon, héros éponyme de chanson de

geste et cousin de Lambert

l’enchanteur, dérive d’albiz aussi.

Le

7? Cette formulation est de Claude Lecouteux, Fées, sorcières et loups-garous au moyen âge (Paris: Editions Imago, 1992), p. 81. 8 “André Moisan, Répertoire des noms propres de personnes et de lieux cités dans les chansons de geste françaises et les œuvres étrangères dérivées, 5 vols, Publications Romanes et Françaises, 173 (Genève: Droz, 1986), I, 141. ‘4 Voir R.A. Peters, ‘OE aelf, -aelf, aelfen, -elfen’, Philological Quarterly, XLII (1963), 250-57. ® Marie-Thérèse Morlet, Les Noms de personne sur le territoire de l’ancienne Gaule du VF au XII siècle, 2 vols (Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1968-72), I, 29.

*° Claude Lecouteux, Les Nains et les elfes au moyen âge (Paris: Editions Imago, 1988), pp. 14-15.

L’ Episode d’ Aupais chateau

de

correspond l’Auridon

seigneur

Lambert,

Oridon,

dans

la

forét

dans

aspects

phonétiques

et

géographiques

Un

vassaux

ses

d’Aupais.

d’Aufaïs,

château

des

situé

17

ardennois

d’Auberi,

dont

d’Ardenne,

Thiébelin,

le nom

4 est

s’apparente

clairement à albiz, construit par le magicien Maugis.”” Que tant de femmes aient porté des noms dont Alp- et ses congénères étaient des composants montrent que l’elfe était considéré comme un être bénéfique, en contraste avec les nains.* Dans la mythologie scandinave qui nous donne accès à une couche très ancienne de la mythologie des peuples germaniques, les bons elfes habitent le royaume d’Alfheimr, dont le chef est Freyr, dieu, selon le Gylfaginning de Snorri Sturlusson, de la pluie, de l’ensoleillement, de la richesse, des récoltes et de la paix, ou, en termes

duméziliens,

de la troisième fonction.” Mais Aupais n’est pas le seul elfe que mentionne la chanson. Au beau milieu de la bataille de Vaubeton, Girart fiche son gonfanon en terre à côté de la grosse pierre de marbre d’un certain ‘vieil Elfin’ que ‘Louis’ avait déshérité. Elfin, nous dit le poète, avait jadis un

château qui se trouvait au milieu de la rivière Arsen:” D’ire qu’enn a Girarz a lo cors grin. Per tant est descenduz desoz un pin, E fichat s’ensegnere laz un marbrin, Un perrun d’anti tans del viel Elfin, Qu’ot ja castel en l’aige en revolin; Lodois li funde(n)t per un matin Quant le desiretet d’iquel aisin. Girarz puie el perron le grant douvin

17

(2668-75)

Alfred Adler, ‘Auberi le Bourguignon, schéma formel et destinée’, Romania,

XC (1969), 462-63.

18 Lecouteux, Les Nains, pp. 122-23. Voir E.O.G.

Turville-Petre, Myth and Religion of the North: the religion of

ancient Scandinavia (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964), pp. 165-75. 20 Paul Meyer conjecturait que |’Arsen était la Cure, mais il pourrait tout aussi bien ne correspondre à aucune rivière réelle. Voir Paul Meyer, Girart de Roussillon, chanson de geste, traduite pour la première fois (Paris: Champion, 1884), p. 67. René Louis croyait pouvoir identifier l’emplacement même de la pierre; voir son De l’histoire à la légende, II: Girart, comte de Vienne, dans les chansons de geste: ‘Girart de Vienne’, ‘Girart de Fraite’, ‘Girart de Roussillon’, 3 vols (Auxerre:

Imprimerie Moderne, 1947), deuxiéme partie, pp. 219-21.

18

Joseph J. Duggan ‘De l’ire qu’il en a, Girart a le cœur plein de rage. Il descendit de son cheval à l’ombre d’un pin et ficha son enseigne près d’un bloc de marbre: c’était une grosse pierre de l’époque antique du vieil Elfin qui eut jadis un château dans le tourbillon du courant; Louis le lui détruisit un jour et le

désherita de cet endroit. Girart s’appuie sur la pierre du grand devin.’”

Ni Paul Meyer ni Mary Hackett n’ont compris la nature

allusion.”

Pour

qui connait les caractéristiques

de cette

imputées aux

habitants de l’ Autre Monde, il s’agit bien sûr d’un chateau dont le châtelain était un elfe, situé au milieu d’un torrent.” René Louis, qui comprend bien la référence à un elfe doué de pouvoirs magiques

(douvin = ‘devin’™), hésite entre deux origines possibles, la gauloise et la germanique.” En tout cas, il s’agit d’un détail d’une certaine importance, puisque Girart s’appuie sur la pierre d’Elfin pendant que ja bataille fait rage autour de lui et ne s’en sépare qu’à la demande de son oncle Odilon, au v. 2784. Dans l’intervalle, il a ‘regardé’ l’endroit où il peut surprendre les royaux (v. 2782), probablement ravi en extase en communiquant avec l’Autre Monde par l’intermédiaire de la pierre d’Elfin. Aupais, quoique boiteuse, est caractérisée comme belle par Bertran qui lui dit qu’elle apporte à Fouque le trésor de sa grande beauté et de son beau corps (v. 8401). Ce compliment serait étrange si le pied bot d’Aupais était vu comme un défigurement. Aupais partage cette qualité de beauté physique avec Auberon, qui avoue luimême qu’à sa naissance une fée l’a enchanté en ordonnant qu’il serait *1 Matraduction. J’insére une apostrophe dans le premier vocable, écrit dire l’édition Hackett. 2 Meyer, Girart de Roussillon, p. 89, n. 3. Hackett, Girart de Roussillon, aux vv. 2671-74. Selon Ferdinand Lot, ‘Encore la légende de Girart de Roussillon: à propos livre récent’, Romania, LXX (1948), p. 205, le poéte aurait emprunté le d’ Elfin au Brut de Wace.

dans

note d’un nom

** Pfister, Untersuchungen, p. 79, donne à ce mot le sens ‘talus’ et rejette (pp. 388-89) l'interprétation de René Louis. Renvoyant à l’article doga du Franzôsisches Etymologisches Worterbuch, Ill, 114, Pfister traduit: ‘Girart monte sur une terrasse, un grand talus’; la version d’Oxford du Girart aurait transmis une

forme dialectale qui n’est attestée ailleurs que dans le mot dovi du parler dauphinois. Le scribe du manuscrit de Paris, qui écrit devi, n’aurait pas compris. L’hypothése de R. Louis me semble préférable. 2%

Louis, Girart, comte de Vienne, dans les chansons de geste, deuxiéme partie,

pp. 223-24.

L’ Episode d’ Aupais

19

nain et bossu et pourtant ‘li plus biaus hom carnés / Qui onges fust en

aprés Damedé’.”® Comme les autres elfes, dont les traversées dans l’ Autre Monde se

font par l’intermédiaire de l’Argenson en l’occurrence. Le fait qu’Aupais garde son de métal précieux pourrait Monde. Les chaînes d’argent

l’eau, Aupais

habite

près

de l’eau,

amant dans des chaînes qui sont faites aussi indiquer un lien avec l’Autre ne sont pas incompatibles avec l’éclat

naturel d’un elfe, mais elles n’ont aucun sens du point de vue réaliste,

l’argent étant une substance malléable. On retrouve les chaînes d’argent dans une version française du mythe des enfants-cygnes, raconté dans les chansons de geste La Naissance du chevalier au cygne (version Béatrix) et La Fin d’Elias, toutes les deux de la fin du douzième ou du début du treizième siecle. La version la plus primitive du récit des enfants-cygnes se trouve dans le septième conte du Dolopathos de Johannes de Alta Silva (ca 1190), dans lequel les sept enfants sortis de l’union d’un chevalier et d’une fée sont nés avec une chaîne d’or autour du cou; les enfants se changent en cygnes

lorsque la chaîne est enlevée.” Dans Béatrix et La Fin d’Elias, où les chaînes sont en argent, Oriant ou Orient, roi d’Illefort, remplace le

chevalier, et la mère des enfants est sa femme.”

Dans La Fin

d’Elias, un des frères du héros s’appelle aussi Oriant. Remarquons quelques ressemblances avec l’histoire d’Aupais et de Fouque: la

situation géographique, car Illefort aussi se trouve dans l’ Ardenne, et la concordance de métaux précieux d’un côté dans la matière des chaînes et de l’autre côté dans le premier élément du nom ou bien du roi Oriant ou bien du château d’Auridon. Il ne s’agit pas, bien sûr, d’un cas d’emprunt littéraire, mais seulement de l’association de

métaux précieux dans deux récits qui seraient à l’origine des contes 26 Huon de Bordeaux, édité par Pierre Ruelle, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Travaux de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres, 20 (Bruxelles: Presses Universitaires de Bruxelles, 1960), vv. 3529-30. Voir aussi le v. 3239.

7

Voir l’exposé des différents étapes du récit dans The Old French Crusade

Cycle, édité par Jan A. Nelson et Emanuel J. Mickel, 8 vols; I: La Naissance du

Chevalier au cygne; Elioxe, édité par Emanuel J. Mickel; Béatrix, édité par Jan A. Nelson (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1977), pp. xci-ix.

28

The Old French Crusade Cycle, Il: ‘Le Chevalier au cygne’ and ‘La Fin

d’Elias’, édité par Jan A. Nelson (Birmingham:

1985), vv. 169-233.

University of Alabama Press,

20

Joseph J. Duggan

de fées.

Dans la mythologie celtique, la chaine d’argent ou d’or

signale un habitant de |’Autre Monde transformé en animal.” L’accusation de fornication que prononce Odin avant les noces d’Aupais et de Fouque (vv. 8683-84), sous le prétexte que, par conséquent, il ne pourrait pas donner sa cousine en mariage, a elle aussi un rapport avec le folklore des elfes. On se rappellera qu’ Auberon insiste sur la chasteté de Huon de Bordeaux, lui imposant le test du hanap magique pour prouver qu’il est innocent de tout péché mortel (vv. 3666-725). Plus tard, lorsque Huon fait l’amour avec son amie Esclarmonde, en dépit de l’interdiction du nain puissant qui lui a défendu expressément d’agir ainsi avant que les deux ne soient mariés (vv. 6734-43, 6797-800), Auberon fait éclater une grande tempête qui faillit noyer les amants (vv. 6827-42). Les elfes sont partisans de la fidélité et du contrat. Aupais est donc chaste même si elle avait Fouque à sa disposition pendant vingt-deux ans de captivité et qu’elle voulait bien donner naissance à son enfant. Typiquement, la fée ‘refuse de s’imposer et propose un contrat’, ce qui répond à la conduite d’Aupais libérant

Fouque de ses chaînes, à condition qu’il promette de l’épouser.” L’accusation d’Odin n’est 1a que pour fournir une explication rationnelle à la preuve de chasteté exigée par un conte d’elfe antérieur dont le poète se sert en construisant son histoire. Auridon, la tour d’Aupais, est situé vaguement dans la forêt d’Ardenne (v. 8037). L’invention toponymique dont fait preuve Girart est, comme

l’on sait, étonnante.

En dépit des efforts érudits

de Paul Meyer et de René Louis, on ne réussit pas encore à se mettre d’accord sur l’emplacement de quelques-uns des lieux les plus importants du poème, tels que la tour d’Auridon, la cité de Roussillon, la rivière Arsen, et le champ de bataille de Vaubeton.

Auridon ou Oridon est mentionné dans Dieudonné de Hongrie, Gui de Nanteuil, et Auberi le Bourguignon. Le rédacteur de l’épisode d’Aupais doit associer Auridon avec le mot aur ‘or’, comme on vient de le dire, ce qui explique pourquoi il le situe sur la riviére Argançon qui suggère argent (voir le rapprochement analogue dans Anne Ross, Pagan Celtic Britain: studies in iconography and tradition (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967), pp. 237-42.

*

Lecouteux, Fées, p. 85.

L’Episode d’ Aupais

ya

Foucon de Candie entre la ville d’Orbrie et le fleuve Argente).” C’est après tout dans cette tour aux bords de l’Argenson qu’ Aupais tient son prisonnier dans des chaines d’argent. La forét d’Ardenne, d’une étendue beaucoup plus vaste au moyen

age qu’aujourd’hui, est selon plusieurs traditions un pays de fées, fréquenté par le cheval fantastique Bayart que la fée Oriande donne aux quatre fils Aymon dans Renaut de Montauban, par la fée Auberon dans Le Roman d’Auberon, par Morgane dans Lion de

Bourges.”

C’est là où Partonopeus de Blois s’égare et passe la nuit

avant de monter dans une nef magique qui le conduit à l’île de la fée Mélior.* C’est dans les Ardennes aussi que Rainbrun, fils de Gui de Warewic, libére des prisonniers captifs d’un chevalier-fée. Le poéte de Gui de Warewic caractérise l’atmosphère des Ardennes: ‘Le pais est estrange et faé”.* Que le château de la fée Aupais soit situé au fond de la forêt d’Ardenne ne surprend donc guère. Mais si Aupais a toutes les apparences d’une fée, que peut-on dire d’Odin? Dans tout le territoire de la Gaule ancienne dans la période qui va du sixième au douzième siècle il n’y a pas un seul exemple de personnage historique qui porte ce nom.” La raison de cette rareté est évidente: plus on serait enclin à appeler sa fille nouveau-née Alpaidis, moins on serait disposé à nommer son fils d’après Odin, un des principaux dieux maléfiques du panthéon germanique. Puisque nous n’avons que des informations indirectes sur les croyances religieuses des Francs ou des Visigoths, il faut recourir

aux sources

abondantes scandinaves pour se forger une idée des qualités du dieu 1 Folque de Candie, édité par Oskar Schultz-Gora, 4 vols, Gesellschaft für Romanische Literatur, 21, 38, 49, et Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Romanische

Philologie, 111 (Halle: Niemeyer, 1909-66), v. 13910.

32

Isabelle Weill, ‘Les Ardennes dans la chanson de geste’, dans Provinces,

régions, terroirs au Moyen Age: de la réalité a l’imaginaire. Actes du colloque international des rencontres européennes de Strasbourg (Strasbourg, 19-21 septembre 1991), recueil publié sous la direction de Bernard Guidot (Paris: PUF,

1993), pp. 91-102, aux pp. 98-99.

33 Danielle Quéruel, ‘Les Ardennes dans la littérature romanesque du moyen âge’, dans Champagne-Ardenne, la littérature du Moyen Age et de la Renaissance, Etudes Champenoises, 5 (Reims: Université de Reims, Centre d'Etudes Champenoises, 1986), pp. 37-49, à la p. 38. 34

Gui de Warewic,

roman

du XIII siècle, édité par Alfred

Ewert,

Classiques Français du Moyen Age, 74-75 (Paris: Champion, 1932-33).

35

2 vols,

Selon Morlet, Les Noms de personne. Bien que ce répertoire ne prétende pas à

l'exclusivité, l’absence totale du nom est impressionnante.

22

Joseph J. Duggan

Odin. Son épithéte chez les Scandinaves est Bélwerk, ‘celui qui effectue le mal’. Dans la strophe 24 du Hdrbardsljéd, déguisé sous le nom de Harbarth (‘Barbe grise’), Odin se vante d’avoir toujours incité les princes l’un contre l’autre et de n’avoir jamais encouragé la paix. Il se plaît surtout à promouvoir la lutte entre parents et les

conflits fratricides.* Les qualités imputées à ce dieu sinistre dans la mythologie germanique sont incarnées dans le personnage d’Odin de Girart de Roussillon. La seule fonction d’Odin dans la chanson est d’empécher que les sentiments amoureux de sa cousine Aupais n’aboutissent dans un lien permanent et fécond avec Fouque. Dans ce rôle, c’est Odin qui prévient Charles de l’engouement d’Aupais et qui, comme représentant du roi, essaie de reprendre Fouque. Odin oppose le rétablissement de Girart dans Roussillon. Fouque réussit a le vaincre dans la bataille où Odin se casse le bras droit. Prisonnier des Bourguignons, Odin n’est libéré, contre le désir d’Elissant et Aupais, que lorsqu’il promet de mettre son grand trésor à la disposition du roi. Sa jalousie pour la bonne fortune du jeune Thierry d’Ascane et son opposition à la paix sont les derniers moments où on le voit dans la chanson. C’est un personnage négatif qui agit contre tout accord entre les deux lignages. Déjà dans une étude publiée en 1888, Albert Stimming faisait remarquer que l’épisode d’Aupais avait une relation très lâche avec

le reste de l’œuvre.”

L’épisode n’est pas bien préparé.

René Louis

impute la création des personnages d’Elissant et d’Aupais à son ‘renouveleur poitevin’, responsable du troisième état du poème après

la version primitive et le remaniement du ‘continuateur’.

Max

Pfister accepte cette conception en trois mouvements tout en attribuant tout l’épisode d’Aupais au “poète de génie” responsable du

Girart original, source commune des manuscrits O(L)P.* Il paraît probable que le poéte qui raconte l’épisode d’Aupais a *

Voir le chapitre consacré à Odinn dans Turville-Petre, Myth and Religion, pp.

35-74. *” Albert Stimming, Uber den provenzalischen ‘Girart von Rossillon’: ein Beitrag zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Volksepen (Halle: Niemeyer, 1888), p. 130.

°° Louis, Girart, comte de Vienne, dans les chansons de geste, première partie, p. 254.

Pfister, Lexikalische Untersuchungen, p. 22.

L’ Episode d’ Aupais

23

pris l’idée maîtresse de ce récit à un conte pré-existant dans lequel un elfe tombe amoureux d’un mortel et l’emprisonne jusqu’à ce qu’il consente à l’épouser, en dépit des obstacles soulevés par le dieu Odin. Souvent dans ce type de conte le mortel est lié à la fée par un tabou: s’il révèle l’existence de son amante (ou s’il la voit nue, ou s’il demande son nom...), il perdra pour toujours le privilège de la revoir. La promesse qu’exige Aupais de Fouque n’est qu’une version atténuée et positive de cette interdiction traditionnelle. Le personnage d’Odin n’est, lui aussi, qu’un pale reflet du terrible dieu Odin dont les qualités et attributs ne seraient sirement plus connus dans le Midi de la France à l’époque où Girart de Roussillon a été composé. Sur le plan du conte d’elfes, Fouque bénéficie de son contact avec l’être merveilleux qui lui donne une descendance. Mais la descendance du lignage auquel appartiennent et Girart et Fouque sera assurée par les fils non pas du révolté impétueux et acharné qu’est Girart, mais par ceux de Fouque, chevalier capable de mener le combat comme n’importe quel autre vassal de Girart mais qui, en fin de compte, se met avec mesure à la recherche de la paix.

University of California, Berkeley

ip

% shawn?”

peur aA Sher MT sooty Ji sie’ dt ih fing LA

hs dla

ter

fabtrarl neers AIPnap

dey

MAX fay

AIRE

he nae Salab ac apne hein!

. oni ‘ Se a ig Belt Aus

atta

t sien

=

no

it:

dt ares

2

vb à ee

My GR EN AS AOE sr HAnr de ali einai: A

NA

A

ride

Wes astoca tp Canad,

eRe that iptioens tue:

+ RENE

re

AOR be

a

rae CS

12

hee

a figeat

Ge

iia Ur sh

| DER

a

nee PE ok 16 chers lis

das Nous +

A

sae rase

ged opt

de

ot

oe. gli

En |.)

%

ts

peg put:

“ay

eas os

ah

alive

ate

big

dde mt

nr

r2 7

uv

à

Sr

trs

chesa

6 Nacréme)

A RES

nS

wy

Pre aioe Me entr 4 di PR se DR EE

COST EN

du à

tar Àà

Ge

ré

os ae

as

ee eo

714

OGIER LE DANOIS: MAKING USE OF A LEGEND Judith Belam The character of Ogier the Dane is well represented in the Old French epic, but his origins are a matter of debate. Can he be identified with a historical figure, whose deeds have developed with telling and retelling into his adventures as related in the epic songs? Or can we regard the Chevalerie Ogier as an independent creation which happened to make use of some historical details drawn from documentary sources? It is not my intention to re-open the debate between ‘traditionalists’ and ‘individualists’, but rather to suggest that in the case of Ogier, while elements of both historical detail and traditional retelling of stories can clearly be seen, the poem as we have it is essentially an individual creation with a story and ideas all its own. There is a relationship between this story and recorded historical events, but the connection has become very tenuous. There is also evidence of the existence of Ogier as a character in legends and songs before his appearance in the recorded epics, but the relationship of the Chevalerie Ogier to stories about this character is also very slight. The main theme of the Chevalerie is that of the danger and horror of solitude and isolation from society, a theme which is not mentioned or suggested in any previous known traditions concerning Ogier. The poet, like others before him, has traded on the fame of the name of Ogier, making use of the legend to tell his own story. As well as reviewing some of the evidence for the historical and the legendary Ogier, I would like to take a closer look at the Chevalerie

itself, in order to show how its main theme is

worked out during the course of the narrative. Some echoes of real events can be seen in the poem, so that it can

26

Judith Belam

certainly be said to have a basis, however slight, in historical fact. In

her study of the relationship between historical events and the Old French epic, Rita Lejeune identifies the historical figure most closely connected with the story of the Chevalerie as Autcharius, who was involved in events surrounding the succession of Charlemagne to the Frankish throne in the eighth century.’ Autcharius is mentioned by name in the eighth-century Latin life of Pope Hadrian, and the historical background is summarised by Lejeune.’ Pippin the Short, king of the Franks, died in 768, leaving two sons, Charles and Carloman. According to custom the kingdom was divided equally between the two brothers, a situation which naturally gave rise to considerable tension. On the death of Carloman three years later Charles moved in to take possession of his brother’s lands, and Carloman’s widow went with her two sons to seek refuge at the court of Desiderius, king of the Lombards, at Pavia.

Frankish documentary

sources do not give details of her departure but the “Life of Hadrian’ mentions that she was accompanied by Autcharius (variant forms: Autgarius, Audegarius). When Autcharius first appears in the narrative, Desiderius’s policy concerning Charlemagne and the Pope is described: The fact is that the wife and sons of the late Carloman, king of the Franks, together with Autchar, happened to have taken refuge with the king of the Lombards at this time; and it was Desiderius’ contention, which he was striving hard to make good, that those sons of Carloman should assume

the kingship of the Franks. It was so that he might anoint the late Carloman’s sons as kings that he was trying to entice the most holy praesul to hasten to him — he was hoping to stir up dissensions in the kingdom of the Franks, to separate the most blessed pontiff from the amity and affection of the most excellent Charles [...] and to subject the city of Rome and the whole of Italy to the power of his kingdom of the

Lombards.’

Desiderius resorted to military action to try to force the pope to * Rita Lejeune, Recherches sur le thème: les chansons de geste et l’histoire (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1948). P.D. King, Charlemagne: translated sources (Kendal: P.D. King, 1987), p. 185.

>

King, Charlemagne, p. 187.

Ogier le Danois

24

submit, even threatening Rome, but the pope held out against him. The text relates: The evil Desiderius, however, since he had proved unable by any cunning pretext to induce the most holy pontiff to come to him so that he might anoint Carloman’s sons as kings [...] then [...] set forth from his palace with Adelchis his son, and the army of the Lombards, and strove to hasten here to Rome. He brought with him both the wife and sons of the late

Carloman, together with Autchar.*

The pope called upon Charlemagne for help, and Charlemagne came to his aid against Desiderius with an army. Without giving battle Desiderius fled to Pavia. His son Adelchis, however, taking Autchar the Frank and Carloman’s wife and sons with him, moved into the city called Verona as seeming to

be the strongest of all the Lombards’ cities.”

Charlemagne arrived and laid siege to Pavia, but also sent a strong force against Verona when he learned of the presence of Adelchis there. Autchar and Carloman’s wife and sons surrendered themselves voluntarily to the most gracious king Charles as soon as he arrived there; and his excellence [...] retraced his steps to Pavia again. É

After this Autcharius disappears from the narrative. It was Joseph Bédier’s contention that this text was known by the twelfth-century poet, author of the Chevalerie Ogier, who used it as a basis for his composition.’ The similarity between these events and parts of the story of Ogier in the Chevalerie is obvious, but the way in which the epic narrative diverges from the historical facts is also very striking. There are very many aspects of the historical events in which Autcharius played a part which are not present in the ‘ King, Charlemagne, p. 189. © King, Charlemagne, pp. 191-92. ° King, Charlemagne, p. 192. 7 Joseph Bédier, Les Légendes épiques, 4 vols (Paris: Champion, 1917), II, 191-207.

28

Judith Belam

Chevalerie: circumstances and events which, far from being exaggerated for greater dramatic effect, have been replaced by more trivial or weaker elements. There is, for example no mention of the political background of the campaign against the Lombards: the Lombard incursions into papal territory and the French intervention against them at the request of the pope. The opportunity of some interesting character portrayals has been missed: the widow fleeing Charlemagne’s court with her children, abandoning their inheritance and position in order to save their lives, or Charlemagne as a villain in pursuit of his defenceless child nephews. Some dramatic psychological and moral conflicts are lacking: Ogier leaving his home and family in defence of the rights of the oppressed; the conflict of loyalty imposed on those of his relations who stay behind, supporting the emperor even in an unjust course of action. In place of this there is a political background, only vaguely mentioned in the first part of the poem, of Franco-Danish hostility, for which the reason is reduced to the personal one of Ogier’s stepmother’s intrigues; a purely personal motive for rebellion arising originally from the petty jealousy of Charles’s son; and a hero notable in his complete isolation, his personal relationships formed entirely by friendships, not by family ties. Although the common ground is too definite to ignore, the connection with the historical story has become extremely tenuous. We have, however, a convincing historical ‘original’, and

also

evidence of the continuing development of the figure of Ogier in a tradition of story-telling, in the form of some surviving references to the character, and to stories told about him. He reappears in fictionalised form in the ninth-century life of Charlemagne by the monk of St. Gall.* This monk, usually named as Notker Balbulus, composed his narrative ca 884-87, and includes in it an anecdote about Otkerus (variant: Oggerus) at Pavia. He makes no reference to the cause of Otkerus’s dispute with the king, merely saying ‘One of Charlemagne’s principal nobles, Otker by name, had incurred the wrath of the formidable emperor and had therefore fled to [...]

* Translated by L. Thorpe, Einhard and Notker the Stammerer: two lives of Charlemagne (London: Penguin Classics, 1969).

Ogier le Danois

29

Desiderius’.’ Nor is Otker here the cause of Charles’s attack on the Lombards: the emperor is coming to defend himself against the Lombards, who threatened him with war when he put aside his first wife, Desiderius’s daughter. Otker prepares to fight alongside Desiderius against Charles, and together they watch the arrival of Charles’s army. As each section of the imperial army comes into view, each more terrible than the last, Desiderius keeps thinking that Charles himself has appeared, but Otker, who knows Charles, repeatedly tells him ‘Not yet, not yet’. At last the emperor appears and Otker falls in a faint. Rita Lejeune sees in this text an indication of the sort of legend already existing about Ogier, a legend portraying him above all as a fighter of great prowess: Si Ogier se trouve ainsi effrayé par Charlemagne, c’est que cet effroi a une valeur symbolique, c’est qu’il est glorieux, pour l’empereur, de pouvoir effrayer Ogier. Un Ogier inconnu du public eût été sans relief et sans écho dans le récit de Notker le Bègue. Un Ogier très connu et qui passait pour un guerrier de marque servait au contraire, de toute sa puissance, le panégyriste de Charles.”

In other words, the monk is already doing as the author of the Chevalerie will do: making use of the existing character in order to tell his own story. Several other texts also reveal the existence of Ogier as a legendary hero before his first appearance in the epic. One Othgerius (variants: Otgarius, Ogerius) appears in a text dated by Knud Togeby

to about 1080, the Conversio Othgerii militis.”" This text is from the abbey of Saint Faron at Meaux, and Othgerius appears, as in the narrative of the Monk of St. Gall, as a great warrior: Homme de grande noblesse, et si preux en bataille que, en mémoire de ses nombreuses victoires, il avait reçu, seul entre les guerriers et des guerriers eux-mêmes, le surnom de praeliator fortis et pugnator [...] Sa naissance et ses exploits lui avaient valu tant de gloire et d’honneur qu'il était

°

0 1

Thorpe, Einhard and Notker, p. 162.

Lejeune, Recherches, p. 88. Knud Togeby, Ogier le Danois

(Munksgaard: DSL, 1967), p. 20.

dans les littératures européennes

30

Judith Belam devenu le premier de l’empire après Charlemagne.

There is also in the Nota Emilianense, a short fragment dated 106575, a reference to ‘Oggero spata curta’ among the twelve nephews serving Charles in Spain.” This is the first reference to Ogier’s short sword, Courtain; the text refers to it as an identifying feature, as if it

was already well known by this time; how it becomes associated with Ogier is unknown. Ogier eventually becomes established as a character in epic poetry, appearing first as a baron faithful to Charlemagne in the Chanson de Roland. There are also references to songs being sung specifically about him, notably in the Pseudo-Turpin Chronicle and in the poems of the monk Metellus of Tegernsee.” In one of these poems, written in honour of his patron, Saint Quirinus, Metellus relates an anecdote about one of the monastery’s founders, Otcarius,

here a duke of Burgundy. The son of Otcarius was involved in a quarrel with the king’s son after a game of chess; the king’s son threw one of the chess pieces at him and killed him. The king consulted Otcarius and his brother about what should be done, but

Otcarius renounced vengeance and turned for consolation to the pious work of founding the monastery. Metellus goes on to say that this Otcarius is the same hero about whom songs are sung under the name of Osigerius. This version of the story is an extreme example of the tendency for an author to re-use his material in the way most suited to

his own message: the great warrior has been transformed into a model of peaceful piety, his reputation founded not on his exploits in battle but on his willingness to forgive and devote his energies to constructive work on behalf of the Church. Evidence of the process of development of the legend of Ogier the Dane is therefore scattered and fragmented, but enough survives to show that from echoes of historical events, the character develops a fictional existence which ensures the survival of his name through a number of completely different retellings of stories about him. Rita ® Damaso Alonso, ‘La primitiva épica francesca a la luz de una nota emilianense’, Revista de Filologia Espanola, XXXVII (1953), 1-94. © Knud Togeby, Ogier le Danois, pp. 28-29, where he quotes as editor of the text Paul Peters, Die Quirinalien des Metellus von Tegernsee (Greifswald, 1913). At the time of writing this text was not available to me.

Ogier le Danois

31

Lejeune attempts to explain this survival by characterising the story of Ogier as an illustration of a timeless and universal theme, that of resistance against tyranny. Describing the tradition as ‘une des légendes les plus répandues et les plus vivaces du moyen Age’, she ends by assigning the hero almost mythical status: ‘il incarne presque

un mythe: celui de la résistance au souverain tyrannique’.*

The

explanation, however, does not fit the evidence: as we have seen, this

theme does not figure in many of the surviving stories about the character. Even in the original story of Autcharius, the hero ends by surrendering to ‘the most gracious king Charles’; in the retelling by the Monk of St Gall, the supposed resistance ends ignominiously with the hero falling in a dead faint. After this, as Togeby points out, there

is no evidence of a tradition of Ogier as a rebel.” The abbey of Saint Faron requires the hero simply to be an exceptionally brave warrior and faithful to his lord: and so he appears. The author of the Nota Emilianense, as well as the poet of the Roland, requires a recognised name in a list of noble barons; Ogier is pressed into service. Metellus of Tegernsee, on the other hand, is concerned to show piety and resignation: here Ogier is pious and resigned. Finally a poet, author of the Chevalerie, is in need of a protagonist for his own story: he chooses Ogier the Dane. The use he makes of the character is quite different from any of Ogier’s previous appearances. The theme of resistance against tyranny, although present in this text as in all the revolt poems, is actually far from being the main idea

of the Chevalerie Ogier.’® In fact one of the poem’s most notable features is the way-in which the author avoids presenting the battle between Charles and Ogier as a straightforward struggle between the overbearing, unjust king and the noble, wronged vassal. The villain of the piece is the king’s son, young Charles, who kills Ogier’s son

Bauduinet after losing to him at chess, but the description of this crucial scene in the poem makes it clear that the rights and wrongs of the situation are not clear-cut. When he hears the news of his son’s death, Ogier demands the prince’s life, but the king, apologetic and conciliatory, offers compensation, even specifying that the amount 4

Lejeune, Recherches, pp. 126, 195.

Togeby, Ogier le Danois, pp. 71-72. 16 See La Chevalerie Ogier de Danemarche, edited by Mario Eusebi (Milan: Cisalpino, 1963). All line references are to this edition.

32

Judith Belam

will be fixed by an independent third party. Ogier speaks not a word in reply, but lashes out at the king, missing him but killing the queen’s nephew, Loihier. The poet emphasises the injustice of this killing: ‘Qi qi gaainst, cist en a mal loier’(1. 3230); the king’s instant move against Ogier is seen in the light of self-defence and the prevention of further bloodshed. Ogier has therefore put himself in the wrong from the very beginning, and this moral balance is maintained very finely throughout the poem. The king proceeds to act harshly against Ogier, depriving him of all his lands and pursuing him even when he has fled into exile at the court of King Desier of Pavia, but Ogier himself, as well as wreaking general havoc, continues to inflict terrible damage on innocent people. He kills Bertran, the son of Naimon, disregarding Naimon’s earlier help and support; and most barbarously, he slaughters Amis and Amile, even though they are pilgrims and unarmed, just because they are friends of the king. To see the poem as a reworking of a timeless story of heroic resistance against oppression, its themes surviving many popular retellings, is therefore to miss the point. The Chevalerie Ogier has its Own preoccupations and themes, the most important of which is its graphic illustration of the dangers, both to the individual and to the community, of solitude and isolation from society. The theme appears right at the beginning of the poem, in the introductory section dealing with Ogier’s exploits as a youth. Ogier is at Charles’s court, a foreigner, a hostage for his father’s payment of his taxes. When his father Gaufrey sends a message of defiance to Charles, Ogier’s fate is immediately decided: he will be put to death. He has therefore been deserted and left to his fate by his father; although the barons and the queen herself plead for his life, Charles is adamant. Ogier has no-one at court who will defend him: at this point there is no mention of the cousins and relations who appear in the second section of the poem. The barons may plead for him, but without effect; knights and others at court can weep at his fate, but there is no-one who feels obliged or willing actually to intervene on his behalf (IL. 155-56; 169-71). He is saved from the immediate danger by the Saracen attack on Rome, which calls the king and his knights away on more pressing business, but although he is granted a

reprieve, his status as hostage is unchanged (1. 353). His final escape

Ogier le Danois

33

from this situation, and the recognition and social position which he gains by the end of this first part of the poem, are entirely due to his individual merits. When the coward Alori runs away from the battlefield with the royal standard, it is left to Ogier to rally the squires to stop his flight and take the standard back into battle (II. 545 ff.). Ogier’s prowess as a fighter is recognised and he eventually wins the day for the Franks against the Saracen champion Brunamon. At the beginning of the second part of the poem, which tells the story of Ogier’s rebellion against the emperor, the fragility of these heroic achievements is immediately made plain. Ogier has become an accepted member of Charles’ court, where his bastard son Bauduinet is also received; he has lands and possessions. At the first sign of trouble, however, his status and position are instantly and brutally smashed to nothing. As soon as Bauduinet attempts to rely on the security of his position, taking on the king’s son as an equal partner in a chess game, young Charles reverts without hesitation to treating him as a penniless outsider, reminding him of his status as hostage for his family’s payment of their taxes and killing him with a blow from the chess board (ll. 3165-77). Reference is made at this point to Ogier’s family ties at the court as a number of barons come to his aid: ‘Ilueques ot maint aut baron princhier / Cosin germain et en autre a Ogier’ (Il. 3246-47). Marianne Ailes points out the importance of family ties and family loyalty in the epic of revolt.’ Compared to other texts in the cycle, however, family ties play a relatively slight role in the Chevalerie Ogier. No specific relationships are mentioned at this point, and in particular no individual, and the help these men give to Ogier is limited to allowing him to escape, hanging back as the king pursues him (1. 3277). The character of Ogier is part of an established family network in the epic of revolt, and here, in marked contrast to the first part of the poem, the poet does not ignore the fact completely. He does, however, reduce its importance to a bare minimum, mentioning a vague group of relations almost as if merely to indicate Ogier’s status and popularity at court, as a device in order not to have the hero chased away as if he thoroughly deserved it. Within less than a hundred lines Ogier is once again alone in the 1 See Marianne Ailes, ‘Traitors and Rebels: the geste de Maience’, in this volume.

34

Judith Belam

world, penniless, landless and in peril of his life.

As the story unfolds his isolation grows.

His sworn companion

Berron is killed very soon after he enters the narrative (1. 5657), and Ogier never forms another such close relationship. When Naimon’s son Bertran arrives at Desier’s court to demand that Ogier be handed over to Charlemagne, there is a further mention of a family relationship between himself and Ogier (1. 4071), but the relationship is dismissed almost as soon as it is mentioned, as during the course of the acrimonious interview Bertran repudiates the connection: ‘Ainc n’apartint de France ami lignage / Ne a mon pere, n’a nul de mon

parage’ (Il. 4287-88).* Ogier is then deserted by his ally Desier who leaves him on the battlefield with only a small force (Il. 5343-49); he is finally besieged in Chastelfort, a place whose physical isolation, inaccessibility and self-sufficiency are emphasised (Il. 6618 ff., 6632 ff.). He is not alone at first, being supported especially by his squire Benoit who becomes his friend, but Benoit never acquires the place of companion and equal which Berron had occupied. In Chastelfort Ogier faces a war of attrition. His support ebbs away until treachery finally delivers the last of his loyal soldiers to death at the hands of the king’s forces. In this last battle at Chastelfort Ogier’s forces have dwindled so far that at the end they are a tiny group who can each be named, facing odds of four hundred to one (Il. 7945 ff.). One by one they are all killed. Those remaining in the castle are now down to ten men, who decide to abandon Ogier to Charles (Il. 8136 ff.). Ogier escapes the trap, and kills the men who have betrayed him, thus by his own hand completing his total isolation from human company. At this point the poet seeks to describe in the most graphic and concrete terms the dreadful situation to which Ogier has been

reduced. He is literally alone in the castle with only his horse for company, and it seems as if the author felt it necessary to emphasise this to his audience, to impress upon them the hero’s shocking predicament (Il. 8282-85). It is at this point in the narrative that Ogier finally gives way to despair (Il. 8286-96). The modern reader lives in a society where it is impossible to drop out and live a Line 4287 is unclear; it is lacking in two of the four manuscripts, and the variant in manuscript A reads ‘Ainc n’apartins de France a nul barnage’, which may be a preferable reading.

Ogier le Danois

35

completely independent existence, and therefore perhaps has a tendency to regard the option as one of liberation from society’s constraints, but there is nothing to suggest that the poet of the Chevalerie regarded it in the same light. It is easier to imagine a kind of fascinated horror overtaking his audience as he describes the dauntless and high-born knight thrown so far from his proper place that he is obliged to fulfil all the necessary everyday tasks normally undertaken by people of quite a different station: grinding corn to make bread, drawing water from the well and laying his own table for a solitary meal (II. 8299 ff.). Equally as extraordinary are his attempts to defend his castle alone: ‘Per home suel n’iert ja castiaus tenus / Che fist Ogier, c’onques ne fist hons nus’ (11. 8330-31). To help in the defence he makes men out of wood, grotesque, dumb travesties of the men he has lost (Il. 8332 ff.). At last Ogier’s situation deteriorates to the point where it is completely untenable. The poet’s vivid descriptions have demonstrated that even the strongest and most determined knight cannot hope to survive completely cut off from his fellow man. In stark contrast to his former vigour and good looks (Il. 61-67), Ogier is now reduced to a pitiful wreck, a prey to acute distress, at the end of his physical and mental resources: Ses cors meismes est mult affebloiés,

Le vis ot pale, piauchelu et oissié; A sa car nue sist ses haubers dobler,

Permi la maille en est li pels glaciés; Cavels ot lons ben contreval un piés; Mellé estoient, locu recercelé; Piecha ne furent ne lavé ne pignié. Li esperon li gisent a nus piés; Il voit son cors du tot asfebloié: Dekaiie iert tote la force Ogier (8511-20)

In the first part of the poem the hero used his strength and skill in the defence of the community and its values, and his efforts were crowned with success; in this second part his attempt to rely on the same qualities to defend his own interests have ended in ruin. It is significant that this stage of the story marks the lowest ebb of Ogier’s fortunes and spirits. His period in Turpin’s prison is almost

36

Judith Belam

comfortable by comparison, as he is well fed and looked after (Il. 9534 ff.). By the time he is imprisoned in Reims, his reinstatement as a member of society has already begun. As a prisoner he has an accepted status, even though it is a very lowly one; he has accepted the community’s rules, which in his case means accepting punishment, and he is ‘rewarded’ with a relative degree of physical well-being and moral support. As pointed out above, however, the poet is not taking sides unequivocally in his description of the fight between Ogier and the king. Ogier places his own desire for revenge above the need to preserve society’s peace and order, and brings ruin on himself, but the king is not portrayed entirely as the injured party either. He acknowledges the fact that his son was originally at fault (11. 3201-02) and when he pursues Ogier at Desier’s court, he can allege no other cause of grievance against him than the old story of the unpaid tax, for which he still holds Ogier responsible (Il. 3505-08). He too suffers a gradual isolation from his companions parallel to, although different from, that of Ogier. He finds himself alone and unsupported at an early stage of the narrative. Even after his long and passionate denunciation of Ogier (Il. 3504-57), no baron at court is ready to volunteer support by taking the challenge to Ogier at Desier’s court: “Tots s’enbroncierent, nus n’en est presentés’ (1. 3558). In the end Naimon has to shame his son Bertran into undertaking the mission. Even then Bertran will not accept it before he has publicly objected to the injustice of humiliating Ogier with an insulting message about the payment of his taxes (Il. 3658-59). Later Ogier’s brutality turns the barons against him and Charles can rely on their support throughout the long siege of Chastelfort, but he remains aware of the fact that both he and Ogier are at fault, and that the situation is a wretched and dangerous one: Quant Kalles ot son fil issi plaider, Il li a dit: ‘Ja celer ne te quier; Ogier a droit, si me puist Dex aidier: Ocesis lui son fil que il ot chier, Pus m’a ocis maint vaillant chevalier; Forment me dolt, si me puist Des aidier,

Qu’il ne te face de ton cors empirer’

(9065-71)

Ogier le Danois

37

As Ogier’s rebellion drags on, the king’s stubbornness and ruthlessness come to be acknowledged as excessive, and as he persists in his desire for vengeance, he finds his support slipping, just as Ogier did at Chastelfort. When Ogier is taken prisoner, Charles orders his immediate

execution, but he is alone in his desire for

Ogier’s death. The barons, once again claiming indeterminate family ties as earlier, protest against it. The difference is that this time they are not content merely to protest, but threaten to withdraw their support from the king altogether if their demand is not met. They go so far as to spell out clearly the king’s inability to do without them, stressing the disastrous consequences if he were to find himself isolated from them: ‘Mais faites tant, por les nos amistés, Que vos soiés au Danois acordés,

Ou autrement ne vos porrons amer: Tos vos volrons orendroit desfier. Ne quidons mie que fussiés si osés Que le Danois osissiés vergonder: Ne porriés vivre longement ne durer’

(9448-54)

The king, half convinced anyway of the justice of their objections, backs down and an agreement is reached whereby Ogier will be kept in prison and allowed to die of starvation instead. At this point the author brings to the fore the broader implications of his theme. Ogier is still in prison, unrepentant, and severed from

his rightful position in the community; the king is still unrelenting, believing him to be dying in captivity. Here the author points up the need for moral cohesion and subordination of individual feuds to the more important needs of the community as a whole. With Ogier in prison, France can defend neither herself nor the Christian kingdoms against the new Saracen threat, personified by the pagan champion Brehier. It is now the emperor who brings himself to the brink of disaster by persisting in following his own objectives, putting his desire for vengeance, and the safety of his son, above the need to ensure the best defence of the kingdom. It is clear that only Ogier stands a chance against Brehier (ll. 9767-68), but Charles refuses even to allow his name to be mentioned, on pain of death.

The

barons are angered by this refusal (1. 9828) but it is left to those of

38

Judith Belam

even lower social standing, the squires, to go in a huge crowd to shout Ogier’s name in front of the king and dare him to execute them all. It is interesting that it is not an individual who acts at this point, but a group; the unity of the group is emphasised, how they plan it together, swear to undertake it, and hold hands as they cry out all together (ll. 9827-37). Charles, facing this display of solidarity, is placed for a moment on the edge of a frightful calamity, that of losing his authority as king. The barons threatened this consequence earlier (1. 9451), and now it very nearly becomes a reality. Charles is obliged to admit his powerlessness in front of a concerted effort to defy him: ‘Comment porroie tant home detranchier?’ (1. 9841) and the parallel with Ogier’s situation earlier is complete. Ogier, attempting to hold out in Chastelfort alone, was brought to the point of physical collapse; Charles, attempting to hold out for personal vengeance against everyone else, is facing the collapse of his authority, on which the stability and safety of the whole kingdom depends. Significantly, it is left to Naimon to impose a solution. True to his familiar

role as the voice

of reason

and common

sense,

in the

Chevalerie Naimon shows the ideal of self-sacrifice and wholehearted support for the greater good of the community. His attitude of resignation at the death of his son Bertran contrasts starkly with Ogier’s bloody rebellion after the death of Bauduinet, and Charles’s refusal to allow anything to jeopardise the life of his own son, young Charles. The king finally accepts that he will have to sacrifice young Charles’s life to Ogier in order to ensure Ogier’s co-operation against Brehier, but his prayers for his son are answered as Ogier is prevented from carrying out his vengeance by the miraculous intervention of Saint Michael. The dramatic scene ending with the angel’s appearance is a crucial one for the plot as it marks the end of the feud between Charles and Ogier, and the beginning of the last section of the poem, the defeat of the Saracens. It marks also the completion of Ogier’s reinstatement as a member of society, and his reconciliation with his former enemies. From a modern perspective it is, however, an extremely unsatisfactory way of arriving at a dénouement, a crass plot device which appears to avoid the necessity of either protagonist arriving at a decision. After the long struggle, lasting many years, between

Ogier le Danois

59

Charles and Ogier, and a long scene of suspense as young Charles

prepares for his execution amidst many pleas for mercy, it seems as if the author has simply created an insoluble problem for himself by his insistence on his hero’s intransigence, and is reduced to relying, literally, on a deus ex machina to extract himself from a narrative dead end. In the context of the theme of isolation and excessive selfreliance, however, the device is not only logical but even necessary to

emphasise the extent to which Ogier abandons his selfish ideas. He has contributed to his own problems by relying too much on himself and insisting too much on his own

rights; now, at the end, he is

required to not only to give up his vengeance, but to give up his voluntary control over events altogether. He is not given a choice; matters are taken out of his hands completely, and he is directed into the right course of action without any conscious decision of his own. The self is entirely erased and he obeys the command, which goes against all he has fought for, with joy (1. 10474). In our own society, where maximum individual freedom of choice is seen as the basis for an orderly community life, and the idea even of divine aid, let alone divine control, is unacceptable, the stature of the character of Ogier is diminished by the fact that in the end he does not make up his own mind to end the feud; for the poet, however, the direct intervention of

God serves not only to enhance Ogier’s worth and status, but to save him from the crime of killing the king’s son and the ostracism which would surely follow such a crime. Ogier is especially distinguished by the very dramatic and personal assistance afforded him. Previous examples of divine help in the poem have included the sending of the white stag to guide Charles over the mountain passes (1. 270) and the lowering of a river’s torrent to allow Ogier through on his horse (1. 8041), but this instance

is far more

obvious;

here

a personal

messenger is sent, who physically intervenes, taking hold of the sword, and addresses Ogier in familiar and even affectionate terms (11. 10462 ff.). The implication is clearly that only a hero of exceptional stature could merit such assistance. With the personal vendetta out of the way, the community has

regained its moral and social cohesion, and can defend itself against the external threat: Brehier is defeated, and with him the Saracen

army. Charles’s authority is strengthened, and Ogier can regain his rightful place in society, finally gaining that most potent symbol of

40

Judith Belam

integration into, and acceptance by, the community: a well-born wife. It would be interesting to speculate about the importance of the fact that his wife is not French, but an English princess, a foreigner like himself and therefore herself somewhat of an outsider; but as the poet

does not enlarge upon the subject, treating the entire romance with a brevity which verges on the monosyllabic, this line of enquiry cannot be pursued. In conclusion,

therefore, it is apparent that the story of the Chevalerie and its themes owe relatively little to pre-existing sources.

The author has not invented the character, whose existence is attested

both in historical and traditional sources, and he has preserved some details which were apparently well-known; but with these elements, like others before him, he has told his own story. It is not necessary to seek, as Lejeune seems to want to do, for a timeless or universal theme in the Chevalerie in order to account for the popularity enjoyed in its time by this work. The theme of the danger and horror of isolation is one which must have had far more resonance in the thirteenth century than it does today. Our twentieth-century Western culture allows no-one to live quite separated from any social network, and places correspondingly high value on the individual and on individual freedom of action and expression. It is necessary to take a step back in order to appreciate the contemporary nature of the basic concerns addressed by the author of the Chevalerie. He has made use of the legend for his tale of a great-hearted hero pursuing a dangerous course of action, and his work gained its popularity on its own merits.

Exeter

TRAITORS AND REBELS: THE GESTE DE MAIENCE' Marianne

Ailes

De ce lignaje, ou tant ot de boidie fu Ganelon ...”

The connection between ethos and family in the chansons de geste is well-known. The oft-quoted classification of the chansons into gestes given by Bertrand de Bar-sur-Aube in Girart de Vienne (ca 1180) already associates different families with good and bad characteristics: n’ot que trois gestes en France la garnie; ne cuit que ja nus de ce me desdie. Des rois de France est la plus seignorie, et l’autre aprés, bien est droiz que jeu die, fu de Doon a la barbe florie,

cil de Maience qui molt ot baronnie. El sien lingnaje ot gent fiere et hardie; de tote France eüsent seignorie, et de richece et de chevalerie,

se il ne fusent plain d’orgueil et d’envie. De ce lingnaje, ou tant ot de boidie, fu Ganelon[...]

"This paper is based on a chapter of my MA dissertation, ‘Cyclical Aspects of the Old French

Epic of Revolt’,

unpublished

MA

dissertation,

University

of

Reading, 1980, carried out under the supervision of Professor van Emden. 2 Bertrand de Bar-sur-Aube, Girart de Vienne, edited by Wolfgang van Emden, Société des Anciens Textes Frangais (Paris: Picard, 1977). > On geste and ethos, see Wolfgang van Emden, ‘Contribution à l’étude de l’évolution sémantique du mot geste en ancien français’, Romania, XCVI (1975), 105-22.

42

Marianne Ailes La tierce geste, qui molt fist a prisier, fu de Garin de Monglenne au vis fier. De son lingnaje puis ge bien tesmongnier que il n’i ot .i. coart ne lannier, ne traitor ne vilein losangier; einz furent sage et hardi chevalier, et conbatant et nobile guerrier (11-22 & 46-52)

Bertrand takes great pains to attach his rebellious baron, Girart de Vienne, to the geste de Monglane, the family of Guillaume d’Orange, renowned for its loyalty (Il. 48-52).*_ In Gaufrey, written less than one hundred years later, we find that the geste de Maience includes the most famous of the rebels as well as the traitors:° Que ch’est la droite estoire des .xii. fils Doon: De Gaufrey le puissant, a la fiere fachon, Qui fu pere Ogier que tant ama Kallon; Et le secont après si ot à nom Doon, De Nantueil fu puis sire, si en ot le renon;

Chil fu pere Garnier de Nantueil le baron. Et le tiers des enfans si ot à non Grifon;

Chil fu pere fel Guenes qui fist la traison Dont moururent a glesve li .XII. compengnon. Et le quart des enfans si ot à nom Aymon, Sire fu de Dordonne et de pais felon, Et fu pere Renaut et Aalart le blont, Et Richart et Guichart dont bien oi avon. Et le .v.* fix fu duc Buef d’Aigremon: Icheli si fu pere Vivien l’Esclavon, Qui fu pere Maugis, qui tant fu bon larron Qui puis fist tant d’ennui l’emperéor Kallon. Et le .vi.° fix chen fu le roi Othon,

Qui fu pere Yvoir et si fu pere Yvon, En Rainchevax moururent o Roullant le baron. Ripeus fu le septiesme, qui moult ot de renon, Qui fu pere Anséis, fix de la suer Kallon, Et Sevin de Bordele fu l’uitisme baron; Pere fu Huelin a la clere fachon, 4

Girart de Vienne, pp. xxv-xxvi. Gaufrey, edited by F. Guessard and P. Chabaille, Anciens Poètes de la France (Paris: Vieweg, 1862; rpt, Nendeln: Kraus, 1966).

5

Traitors and Rebels

43

A qui fist tant de bien le bon roi Oberon J. roi fu le .ix.° qui ot à nom Peron, Pere fu Oriant, qui fu de grant renon, Et puis ot .vii. enfans tous d’une nation: Le Chevalier o chisne o li cinq compengnon, Et une gentil dame qui fu de gant renon; De chu lignage fu Godefroi de Billon. Morant fu le .x.° de Riviers, le preudon; Icheli si fu pere au riche duc Raimon, A cheli de Saint Gilles, qui fu pere Hugon, L’onsieme ot nom Hernaut, sire fu de Giron,

Et le.xii. fu Girart de Roussillon

(80-115)

The two groups, rebel and traitor, so carefully differentiated by Bertrand, have merged into one family. This development of the geste de Maience, its merger with the family of rebels, is indicative of an ethical change, a change in attitude. This study is concerned with the bringing together of these originally distinct, often opposing, families. The actual drawing up of a family tree, in diagrammatic form, is made more difficult by the vagueness in Old French of certain words indicating family bonds. The large dictionaries differ in their definitions of ‘cosin’, ‘oncle’ and ‘neveu’.° Godefroy virtually ignores any difference between medieval and modern usage. Tobler-Lommatzsch, however, shows more clearly the wider use of

the terms in the Middle Ages, defining ‘cosin’ not only as cousin but also nephew, niece, a distant relation and even a friendly term

of

address for someone who is not related; ‘nies/nevo’ is similarly used for someone who is not related, or for any member of the family of a younger generation. The lack of precision in these terms must be remembered when we encounter apparent inconsistency either within one text or between texts.’ $ See Frédéric Godefroy, Dictionnaire de l’ancienne langue française et de tous ses dialectes du IX° au XV° siècle, 10 vols (Paris: Vieweg, 1881-1902), II, 322, col. 1 for ‘cosin’ and V, 497, col. 3, for ‘nies/neveu’, for which he does give the

possible

meaning

of ‘petit fils’;

Adolf

Tobler

and

Erhard

Lommatzsch,

Altfranzésiches Worterbuch, for ‘cosin’, see II (Berlin: Weidmann, 1936), 92627; for ‘neveu’ and ‘oncle’, see VI (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1965), 624-27, 1106-07.

’ A particularly obvious example from interchangeability of ‘neveu’ and ‘cosin’ is:

Renaut

de

Montauban

of

the

44

Marianne Ailes

The Geste de Maience

—

the family of Ganelon

Gaston Paris, writing of the family of traitors, remarked

that ‘sans

doute c’est une idée française que celle de la geste des traitres, mais elle n’a reçue qu’en Italie le nom de la geste de Maience’. Yet as early as ca 1180 Bertrand de Bar-sur-Aube associates the ‘lignage qui ne fist se mal non’ with the geste de Maience. Certainly from the very beginning Ganelon does not stand independent of his family, for his relative Pinabel acts as his champion in the Chanson de Roland and thirty of his family die with him.” In most of the later twelfth-century epics of the cycle du roi and the epics of revolt, the traitor belongs to the family of which Ganelon is a member. Among the revolt epics the exceptions are Girart de Roussillon and Girart de Vienne, which also pre-date the development of the family of rebels; the family of traitors and the family of rebels seem to develop in parallel. Grifon d’Autefeuille, Ganelon’s father, figures in several late twelfth- and early thirteenth-century texts (e.g. Fierabras (ca 1200), Aspremont (ca 1190), Renaut de Montauban (ca 1215), Gaydon (1230-40), and in Ogiers se trait arière le trait à un bougon Et tire ses cevex et maine grant dolor; Regrete son neveu, Renaut, le fil Aymon, Et Aalart l’ainé et Richart le menor ‘Cosin somes germain ...’ (ed. Michelant, p. 194, 1. 38 - p. 195, I. 4). There are several editions of Renaud de Montauban. | refer to the following: Renaus de Montauban, edited by Heinrich Michelant (Stuttgart: Litterarischer Verein, 1862; rpt Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1966); La Chanson des Quatre Fils Aymon, d’après le manuscrit la Valliére, edited by Ferdinand Castets (Montpellier: Coulet, 1909; rpt Geneva: Slatkine, 1974); and, based on MS D, the Oxford redaction, Renaut de Montauban, edited by Jacques Thomas, Textes Littéraires Français, 371 (Geneva: Droz, 1989). In Girart de Roussillon Fouques, Girart’s cousin, is addressed on a number of occasions as his ‘niés’ (ll. 1493, 1562, 1579, 2220, 2295). He is also described variously as the ‘nies Ennestais’ (1. 8627) and ‘filz

Anestais’ (1. 2033). See Girart de Roussillon, edited by Winifred Mary Hackett, Société des Anciens Textes Frangais, 3 vols (Paris: Picard, 1953-55; republished accompanied by a translation into modern French by Micheline de Combarieu du Grés and Gérard Gouiran, Lettres Gothiques (Paris: Livre de Poche, 1993)). *

Gaston Paris, ‘Review of Rajna, J Reali de Francia’, Romania, Il (1873), 351-

66, at p. 362. °

Onthe legal implications, see Emmanuel J. Mickel, Ganelon, Treason and the

‘Chanson de Roland’ (Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1989), pp. 119-30; see also Ernst Sauerland, Ganelon und sein Geschlecht im altfranzôsischen Epos, Ausgaben und Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der romanischen Philologie, LI (Marburg: Elwert, 1886).

Traitors and Rebels

both redactions of Maugis d’Aigremont).'° clan is Ganelon Amile), Lanson)

45

Otherwise the traitor

rather loosely defined: Hardré is variously brother of (Gaufrey), cousin of Ganelon (Doon de la Roche, Ami et nephew of Ganelon (Gui de Bourgogne and Jehan de or simply one of the members of the family of traitors, ‘un

des chefs du lignage des traitres’ in the words of Moisan."’

Alori

may be the brother of Ganelon (e.g. Gaufrey) or the uncle of Hardré (Gaydon). Pinabel is one of the best examples of this: in the Oxford Roland, Aiol and a number of other epics he is simply a member of the family. In the Lyon manuscript of the Rhymed Roland he is Ganelon’s nephew (1. 213); in Doon de Nanteuil he is Ganelon’s son; in Gaydon he is nephew of Tiebaut and Ganelon.” In some Rhymed Roland manuscripts there is a list of family members.

The most developed list is in MS P:° Car Pinabiaus descendi au perron, Qui por son oncle fu mis en grant randon, Et Ammaugis et ses freres Sansons, Et Berangiers et li nies Haguenon, Et Ambuins et ses freres Milons: Fiz fu Marcaire, pere Herviu de Lyon, Et Auloris et Thiebaus d’ Aspremont,[...] JIM. furent des parens Ganelon, Q’il n’i a cel n’ait chastel ou donjon; Mais trestuit furent reté de traison (6348-54 & 6360-62)

It was not necessary to specify where any particular member of the family fitted in — but membership of the family of traitors immediately conveyed a great deal to an audience. As Ernst 10

The dating of some of these texts is problematic. I would date Fierabras rather

later than its traditional date of ca 1170; see M.J. Ailes, ‘The Date of Fierabras’,

forthcoming in Olifant.

H.E.

Keller, ‘La Technique des mises en prose des

chansons de geste’, Olifant, XVII (1992), 5-28, at p. 7, gives an even later date.

Later dating for Fierabras probably leaves Aspremont as the earliest reference to Grifon. See André Moisan, Répertoire des noms propres dans les chansons de geste françaises et les oeuvres étrangères dérivées, 5 vols (Geneva: Droz, 1986) I,

558. 11 Moisan, I, 558.

12 On Pinabel, see Sauerland, Ganelon und sein Geschlecht, pp. 11-12.

13 Les Textes de la Chanson de Roland, edited by Raoul Mortier, 10 vols (Paris: La Geste Francor, 1940-44): for P, VI; for L, VIII.

46

Marianne Ailes

Sauerland pointed out in his study of the Ganelonides, carried out over one hundred years ago, traitors may be created for one text

and attached to the family.

References to Maience itself, before

Doon de Maience, are rare, but generally link Maience with the

traitors.” The Opposition to the Traitors In the epics of revolt the family of rebels stands in opposition to the traitors. In these texts we find a general sense of antagonism between the traitors and the rebels. In the first branche of Renaut de Montauban, ‘La Mort Beuve d’Aigremont’,

an ambush is set up

by the traitors against the rebels: Oez quel aventure Diex li avoit donez: Grifonet d’ Autefuille et son compaing Hardrez Et Guenelon son filz en sont au roi alez,

Et tot li parentez qui i fui asemblez En ont parlé au roi a .i. conseil privez. Foques de Morillon a le premier parlez: ‘Sire, dist il au roi, or est mult grant viltez Quant vostre filz eissi est mort et afolez. Nos gueteron le duc se il vos vient a grez, Bien seron .ilii.c. fervestuz e armez,

Le chemin gueteron ou sunt acheminez, 14

.

Sauerland, Ganelon und sein Geschlecht, p. 15. Moisan, Répertoire des noms propres, II, 1231 and Ernest Langlois, La Table

des noms propres dans les chansons de geste (New York: Franklin, 1904; rpt 1971), p. 418. Apart from Girart de Vienne, Doon de Maience itself, and Gaufrey there are only three references to be noted: one to Doon de Maience in Foucon de Candie (1180-85), one in a late redaction of the Roland (MSS Chateauroux and V’) and one to a Doon de Moncler in Aimeri de Narbonne. Doon de Maience in the Chanson d’Antioche is an ancestor of Richard de Normendie (1. 553). There is a negative Doon de Maience in Beuve de Hantonne, who is attached to the traitor,

not the rebel, family, and bears no similarity to the hero of Doon de Maience. He appears to be a realisation of the negative character known to Bertrand de Bar. In Gaydon Ysoré (11. 4020-21, 1. 7575) and Guirrey (Il. 6434-35), both of the family of traitors which opposes Gaydon, are de Maience. Maience is mentioned elsewhere as a name with no particular associations, for example Antelme de Maience in the Chanson de Roland (1. 3008).

‘©

W.G. van Emden, ‘Kingship in the Old French Epic of Revolt’, Kings and

Kingship in Medieval Europe, edited by Anne J. Duggan, King’s College Medieval Studies, X (London: King’s College Centre for Late Antique and Medieval Studies, 1993), pp. 305-50.

Traitors and Rebels

47

Adonques l’ociron a doel et a viltez’ (1368-79, corr. to ed. Michelant, p. 39; ed. Castets, ll. 1447

ff.)

In this case the scenario is rather different in the two redactions of Renaut, but the opposition between the two groups is the same. Later Hervis treacherously plans to open Montessor to Charlemagne from inside. The opposition between the traitors’ family and the family of Renaut develops into a vendetta with a challenge between the sons of Foucon and the sons of Renaut (ed. Thomas, pp. 584 ff., ll. 13564 ff., corr. to ed. Michelant, from p. 421, I. 7; ed. Castets, ll. 17285 ff.).

traitors’

In Renaut de Montauban

family is the family of Ganelon,

the

but not of Maience.

Maience in this text is the land of Ydelon de Baviere, and Ouede de

Maience (1. 1706) is one of Charlemagne’s own men. In La Chevalerie Ogier a contrast is made between Ogier and Alori ‘le felon’ (1. 514).'* Castelfort, like Montessor in Renaut de Montauban, is betrayed, this time by Hardré and his brother Gonthier (11. 7794-810 & 8107-95). Here the traitors are initially with Ogier and then betray him. In Girart de Vienne a traitor, Renart de Pevier, opposes and slanders the family of Girart and Renier (ll. 768-83, 788-89). Bertrand does not specify the family of this ‘mau traitre’ but it is in keeping with the ethos of his text to offer a traitor in opposition to the rebel, whose relative loyalty is thus reinforced. Neither Girart de Roussillon nor Raoul de Cambrai opposes the rebel to a group of traitors, although family solidarity is, of course, at the heart of Raoul de Cambrai.” The ideal of family solidarity is "JT quote here from Thomas’s edition of MS D; where there are significant differences between manuscripts I will point these out. On the stemma, see Jacques Thomas, L’Episode ardennais de Renaud de Montauban: édition synoptique des versions rimées, 3 vols (Bruges: de Tempel, 1962); Wolfgang G. van Emden, ‘Renaut de Montauban: la précellence d’un manuscrit d’Oxford’, in Charlemagne in the North. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference of the Société Rencesvals, Edinburgh 4th-11th August 1991, edited by Philip E. Bennett, Anne Elizabeth Cobby and Graham A. Runnalls (Edinburgh: Société Rencesvals British Branch, 1993), pp. 463-74.

18 La Chevalerie d’OgierdeDanemarche, edited by Mario Eusebi (Milan: Istituto

editoriale Cisalpino, 1963). 19 P. Matarasso, Recherches historiques et littéraires sur Raoul de Cambrai (Paris:

48

Marianne Ailes

complementary to the concept that a particular moral position is associated with a particular family. The last poem to which I shall turn in regard to the opposition of traitors and rebels is the lost poem of Doon de Nanteuil, which was roughly contemporary with the early epic of revolt and shared some of the characteristics of the revolt epic. The family of traitors, ‘de lignage mal’ figures in the fragments as opponents of Doon. As this

is only a short fragment we do not know who the speaker is:”” ‘Tl [Rogues de Montorgueil] fu oncles fel Bueves et peres Pinabel, Ne doterons mon pere ne lui ne son revel, Mandonel de la Roche Brigonde . . . n’egrefuel, Ne Grifons d’ Autefueille ne li fiers Garsiel,

Hardrés ne Haguenons, Hodoins ne Pinel. Chacuns tient de mon pere, fermeté o chatel,

Et sont de lignage mal’

(55-62)

Thus in the kernel poems of the cycle of revolt the rebels are often found in opposition to the traitors. The Family of Rebels The rebels’ association with each other, their development family, is a slow one.

Girart

de Vienne, so carefully

into a

attached to

another family by Bertrand, is never fully part of the family of rebels. Only in Doon de Nanteuil is he attached to the other rebels at all: Beuve d’Aigremont is speaking: ‘Filz sui Girard le conte, ung nobile baron Qui tient quite Viane et Lion et Mascon, Guibort a nom ma mere, fille [le] duc Bueson, Niez Hernaut de Biaulande qu’a flori le grenon, Et cosins Aimeri qui occit le dragon’ (69-73)

Nizet, 1962), especially pp. 126-48. On family loyalty in the chanson de geste, see also Ronald G. Koss, Family, Kinship and Lineage in the Cycle de Guillaume d’Orange (Lampeter: Mellen, 1990), pp. 1-7. *° Paul Meyer, ‘La Chanson de Doon de Nanteuil: fragments inédits’, Romania, XIII (1884), 1-26; on Doon de Nanteuil and the epic of revolt, see M.J. Ailes,

‘Doon de Nanteuil and the Epic of Revolt’, Medium Aevum, LII (1983), 247-57.

Traitors and Rebels Meyer, who edited the fragment of Doon de Nanteuil recorded

49 by

Fauchet, proposed that Aymon de Dordonne, Girart de Roussillon, Beuve d’Aigremont and Doon de Nanteuil, who form the core of the family, may have been found together in Doon de Nanteuil.”' Certainly, with the exception of Aye d’Avignon, which does not mention Girart, every reference to Doon de Nanteuil mentions the other three men. In Renaut de Montauban and the two poems derived from it, Maugis d’Aigremont and Vivien de Monbranc, the four are brothers. The Chevalerie Ogier, which postdates Renaut de Montauban and Aye d’Avignon, associates Doon with Aymon and Girart de Roussillon in lists of relationships. |The precise relationship may have been common knowledge by this time. Whether this grouping was first formed in Doon de Nanteuil or in Renaut de Montauban, the earliest extant text to specify the relationship, the association may have been prompted by a perceived ethical link between Doon, Girart, Beuve and the family of Aymon. In Renaut de Montauban the emphasis on family is almost as great as that in Raoul de Cambrai. Like Raoul this epic also raises questions of divided loyalties. The rebels are certainly opposed by the traitors, but within the family of Aymon there is also tension. This is perhaps shown most dramatically between Aymon, owing his feudal loyalty to his king, and his rebellious sons (e.g. ed. Thomas, ll. 3202 ff., corresponding to ed. Michelant, p. 356, Il. 32 ff.), but it can also be seen with other members of the family who are on Charlemagne’s side, but show sympathy to the rebels. A notable example is Ogier, who is reluctant to fall in with Charlemagne’s plans and of whom Charlemagne is distrustful because of the family connection with the rebels. When Ogier does not want to co-operate Charlemagne orders him to: ‘Si faites, par mon chief, ce dist Kalles li rois: Ja sunt il vos cosins li traitor renois! D’itant sui je soupris quel vos dis demanois; mes vos me jurerez sor cors sainz beneois

4

See Girart de Roussillon, chanson de geste, traduite pour la première fois,

translated into modern French by P. Meyer (Paris: Champion, 1884; rpt Geneva: Slatkine, 1990), pp. xciii and xcvii. This is discussed in Ailes, ‘Doon de Nanteuil’, pp. 252-53.

50

Marianne Ailes Que se vos les barons en Valcolor trovois,

Que par nul home né ne lor ferois’ (6305-10, corr. to ed. Michelant, p. 164, ll. 2-8; ed. Castets, Il. 6194-200)

Later in a series of laisses similaires the peers refuse to Richard, the youngest of the sons of Aymon; Ogier gives relationship as his reason for refusing to do the deed. There is in Renaut de Montauban a very clear development family bonds between the rebels, though some of these may already been established in Doon de Nanteuil. Some of relationships are indicated precisely and can be presented family tree: Peer si rp em scien Beuve Doon Girart de d’Aigremont de Nanteuil Roussillon

Aalart

Renaud = Clarisse Ayonnet

hang their of the have these

on a

| Aymon de = Aie Dordonne

Guichart

Richard

Yon

Whether the poet responsible for Renaut found some of these relationships in Doon de Nanteuil or not, the concept of the family of rebels is clearly exploited in Renaut, with the ‘quatre fils Aymon’

linked to other rebels.” Ogier, the other main rebellious baron of the cycle of revolt, is also drawn in, figuring in several lists of family members. Charlemagne clearly identifies him as a family member, as do

Maugis Ydelon himself Girart, specific

(ed. Thomas, Il. 7718-25; ed. Michelant, p. 205) and (ed. Thomas, Il. 5736-41; ed. Michelant, p. 147). Ogier offers a precise link with the family when he refers to Doon and Beuve as his uncles, in a way which suggests a relationship rather than an honorific title:

*2 Jacques Thomas, ‘Les Quatre fils Aymon: structure du groupe et origine du thème”, Etudes sur Renaud de Montauban, edited by Jacques Thomas, Philippe Verelst and Maurice Piron, Romanica Gandensia (Gent: Rijksuniversiteit te Gent, 1981), pp. 47-72, looks at the important concept of brotherhood.

Traitors and Rebels

a

‘Rois, vez ici mon gage a conbatre vers li, Que je ne sui traitre ne que onques nel fui, Ainz suiz del miez de France et del miez del pais: Girart de Rosillon, mon oncle, me norri;

Et Doon de Nantuil qui tant fu seingnori, Et Bueves d’Aygremont o le gernon flori, Il furent tuit mi oncle; que vos rendirent il? Vivien d’Aygremont fu mon germain cosin, Si est de mon lingange l’archevesque Torpin, Richart de Normendie qui tant est seignori, Renaut le fil Aymon, Aalart autresi’ (8000-8010,

corr.

to ed.

Michelant,

p. 215,

11.15-28;

ed.

Castets, Il. 8161-75)

Ogier also refers to the four sons of Aymon as his cousins, using a formula indicating a close relationship — ‘cosin somes germain’ (1. 7955). Vivien is similarly his ‘germain cousin’. Also included in the family are other clan members taken from Girart de Roussillon, although here some differences occur between the manuscripts. Mention is made of Ponçon de Clarvent, possibly ‘Ponz’, ‘cusin ... germainz’ in Girart de Roussillon (ll. 1120-22); he is called ‘mon neveu’ by Girart in the La Valliére manuscript used by both Castets and Michelant (ed. Michelant, p. 32; ed. Castets 1.

1181), but the relationship is not defined in MS D (ed. Thomas).” Coine,

a supporter

mentioned

with

of Girart

Girart’s

cousins

in

Girart Pons,

de Roussillon, Amadieu,

Richart

often and

Fouques, is a nephew of Girart in the La Valliére redaction of Renaut, but again not in MS D. The only major family member from Girart de Roussillon brought into Renaut is Fouques, also described as ‘li nies’ (ed. Thomas, I. 1240). There is also in the background a ‘supporting cast? — members of the family whose precise position on the family tree is never defined.

Estout, son of Odo(n), Salemon de Bretagne, Richard de

Normendie and Ydelon de Baviere all figure in the lists of relations (e.g. ed. Thomas, Il. 5734-41, corr. to ed. Michelant, p. 147, Il. 1725; ed. Castets, ll. 5556-64; ed. Thomas, Il. 7952-53, corr. to ed. Michelant, p. 213, ll. 14-15; ed. Castets, ll. 8082 ff.; ed. Thomas,

23

Thomas Calls him ‘homme de Girart de Roussillon’ in the index.

$2

Marianne Ailes

1.8592, corr.

to ed. Michelant, p. 237, Il. 27-28; ed. Castets, Il.

9012-13). There seems to be nothing in the literary biographies of Estout or Ydelon to indicate why they would become members of the rebel family. Richard figures in a number of chansons and probably earned his place from his role in Garin le Loherenc or as a rebel-traitor in the Couronnement de Louis. Here he figures as the father of Acelin who tries to take the throne of France from Louis; the death of Acelin leads to Richard behaving treacherously towards Guillaume d’Orange. Salemon is one of the leaders of the barons heupois in La Chanson des Saisnes, so was probably not a random choice either. Of more interest is the involvement of the exemplary Naimon and Turpin in the developing family, although this is given less emphasis in the redaction represented by MS D. Ogier and Naimon together address Richard, the youngest of the four brothers, as ‘cosinz Richars’ (ed. Michelant, p. 335, 1. 21; ed. Castets, 1. 12753, not in MS D, ed. Thomas). Turpin figures in lists of clan members (ed. Thomas, Michelant, p. the reference p. 239, 1. 21;

1. 5741, corr. to ed. Michelant, p. 147, 1. 25; ed. 237, 1. 28, corr. to ed. Thomas, |. 8592, which lacks to Turpin; ed. Thomas, 1. 8651, corr. to ed. Michelant, ed. Thomas, I. 9446, corr. to ed. Michelant, p. 270,

1.1;* ed. Michelant, p. 215, 1. 25 ).* In such lists Roland and / or Oliver often feature, generally at the beginning, not quite integrated with other family members. The presence of Roland here is a problem and may be caused by some confusion between lists of Charlemagne’s men and lists of the members of the rebel family, many of whom have long associations with Charlemagne.

Renaut de Montauban also introduces Maugis and Vivien, Renaut’s cousins, not in this text described as brothers, although in

some

manuscripts

Vivien

is Vivien

d’Aigremont.”

Maugis,

*4 Although MS D has the reference to Turpin here there is a variant. Where the La Valliére manuscript has ‘C’est de lor parenté”, MS D has ‘est ovec els alé’; there is reference two lines earlier to the ‘lignage’. The list which includes 1. 8651 is not explicitly of clan members only, but associates Turpin with the family. Turpin is a relative of Girart de Fraite in Aspremont. It may be through the Girart legend that Turpin becomes attached to the rebels.

°° MS B of Renaut de Montauban gives ‘Vivien d’Aigremont’ (variants, p. 525 of Michelant ed.) where manuscript.

‘Unnaus

d’Aigremont’

appears

in Michelant’s ;

base

Traitors and Rebels

significantly, does not call Beuve

53

his father when

he challenges

Charlemagne: ““La mort Buef d’Aygremont vos voil je demander!” (I. 10147,

corr.

to ed.

Michelant,

p. 293,

1. 31;

ed.

Castets,

1. 11145); Maugis and Vivien are merely ‘cousins’ of Renaut, whatever ‘cousin’ might mean. A specific, positive, ethos is attached to the newly formed family, clearly expressed by a group of barons intervening between Roland and Ogier: Ogiers est molt prodom et chevaliers eslis. Onques en son linage traïson ne nasqui; Ains est li plus poisans de France le pais (ed. Castets 8193-95, corr. to ed. Michelant, p. 216, ll. 8-9)

However this comment is lacking in MS D, which is the oldest manuscript, dating from ca 1250 — L was copied some seventy-five years later. The family in Vivien de Monbranc and in the Peterhouse and Paris manuscripts of Maugis d’Aigremont shows only a few

additions to that in Renaut de Montauban.”’

The most important of

these is that Maugis and Vivien become the twin sons of Beuve.

In

Maugis the family can be presented thus: Hernaut de Moncler

Perineal, anil ET CU EN Ysane daughter = Beuve Doon Girart Aymon daughter =Aquillant d’Aigremont Brandoine

Maugis

Vivien

Aalart

Renaud

Guchart

Richard

When the fairy Oriande tells Maugis his identity she enumerates his family:

27 Vivien de Monbranc: chanson de geste du XII° siècle, edited by Wolfgang van Emden, Textes Littéraires Français, 344 (Geneva: Droz, 1987); Maugis d’Aigremont, edited by Philippe Vernay (Bern: Francke, 1980); this edition is based on the Paris manuscript. The Peterhouse manuscript, which originally bore the shelfmark Peterhouse 2.0.5, is now located in Cambridge University Library, where it has the reference Peterhouse 201. For an edition of the Peterhouse manuscript, see F. Castets, Maugis d’Aigremont, Revue des Langues Romanes, Series 4, vol. 6, XXXVI (1892), 5-416.

54

Marianne Ailes ‘Nenil, dist Oriande, n’en aiez soupeçon,

Mes je vos ai norri des petit enfançon. Vos peres est dus Bues, le sire d’Aigremon;

Vos estes d’un lignage où il a maint prodon: Vos oncles est Girart, li dus de Rossillon, Et Aymes de Dordonne et de Nantuil Doon,

Et Otes de Polise, qui est de grant renon, Quens Hernaut de Moncler o le flori guernon, Icil est vostre aieus et si est mout prodon’ (1743-12; corr. to ed. Castets, ll. 1837-45)

Othes d’Espolice figures here among the uncles of Maugis, but his exact position on the family tree can only be hypothesised. Although, as we have noted above, the word ‘oncle’ can be used with a wide range of meanings, here the other ‘uncles’ are all his father’s brothers. In Vivien de Monbranc Othes d’Espolice fights alongside

the family, but no specific relationship is given. In Vivien fewer relationships can be plotted exactly on the family tree: CE AE eS ee Beuve D’Aigremont Doon Girart Maugis

Vivien

Aalart

Renaud

AU

REE Aymon

Guichart

Richard

Brandoine is Vivien’s cousin (1. 600) and Beuve’s nephew, so should probably occupy a similar position as in Maugis. Hernaut de Moncler calls Brandoine his nephew, while he is his grandson in Maugis but, given the vague use of terms of relationship, this may not be significant. Generally Vivien follows the family relationships

given in the Peterhouse redaction of Maugis. In La Chevalerie Ogier we find again the tension between family

and feudal loyalty, exploited to such effect in Renaut.*

Members of

the family are found fighting against Ogier (11. 3306-07 and 5474), but they are also a potential support:

*8 See also Judith Belam, ‘Ogier le Danois: making use of a legend’, in this volume, where the relative isolation of Ogier and his lack of family support is discussed.

Traitors and Rebels Illueques ot maint aut baron princher, Cosin germain et en autre a Ogier: Sofrir ne poent lui veir blastenger

55

(3246-48)

As in Renaut Salemon de Bretagne and Turpin figure as members of the family in Ogier (e.g. Il. 9422 and 9516). The central group of Doon de Nanteuil, Girart de Roussillon and Aymon de Dordonne appear, but Beuve is not mentioned; we must probably assume that in fictional time the events of Ogier take place after the death of

Beuve. Additions to the family are Morant de Rivers (mentioned in Renaut but not one of the family), now brother of ‘Droom le viel’ (1. 529) and Tierri d’Ardanne with his son Berart de Mondidier: De pitié plore Berars de Mondidier, Tieris se peres et Morans de Rivier, Qui cosin sont et ben prochain Ogier

(6305-07)

Naimon is again connected with the family; the relationship is exploited when some dramatic impact can be obtained, as when Naimon’s son is sent as a messenger to Ogier. On seeing Bertrand approach Ogier says: ““Mes cosins est en autre plus qu’en tierc”’ (1. 4071). The relationship is clearly less close than first cousins.” Yet it is dramatically exploited in a speech made by Bertrand, apparently disowning Ogier: ‘Ainc n’apartint de France ami lignage, Ne a mon pere, n’a nul de mon parage, Quant me volsis mordrir per ton folage’*°

(4287-89)

A change can be observed in the thematic emphasis of poems written later in the thirteenth century. Gaydon, dated 1230-40, while retaining something of the anti-regalian atmosphere of the epic of revolt and using revolt motifs and structure, has already # The instances of the expressions ‘cosin en autre’ and ‘cosin en tierc’ given in Tobler-Lommatzsch are few, suggesting that they are not very common expressions; Tobler-Lommatzsch, Altfranzôsisches Wôrterbuch, II, 927, col. 1.

30 L. 4287 is obscure, presumably because of scribal corruption. We must

assume that the second person is meant and the line could be paraphrased ‘you never belonged to the lineage which is a friend of France’.

56

Marianne Ailes

made a move in emphasis from the king-rebel conflict to the traitorrebel conflict.’ In terms of the moral conception of the text, treachery and rebellion are still not seen as synonymous and Gaydon is the victim, if not of the king’s injustice, at least of his lack of perspicacity. In the words of Subrenat, ‘Ce qui le révolte ce n’est pas le mécanisme odieux monté contre lui, mais l’injustice et l’aveuglement de l’empereur à son égard [...] Charles ne sait plus

juger, il croit les traîtres et se défie des justes’.

Gaydon is

connected to the rebel family, showing his moral link. The more clearly stated connections can be shown on a family tree:

Joiffrey d’Angier

Naimon a rar

Richiers

Clarisme of Gascony

= Gaydon

Ogier |

Bertrand

?

Aumafroit

daughter

Thierri

A large number of other nephews One list of Gaydon’s relatives who Charlemagne includes several barons lists of members of the rebel clan.

Beuve sans barbe

? | Ferraut

Richart

and cousins surround Gaydon. had remained at the court of whom we have already met in Charlemagne calls the family

together:” Naynmon apelle où moult ot loiautez,

Le preu Ogier et Girart de Nivier, Le duc Richart qui de Ruem fu nés, Thierri d’ Ardenne où moult ot de bontez,

Hoedon de Lengres qui moult est redoutez. Bues d’Aygremont n’i fu pas oubliez,

*! J. Subrenat, Etude sur Gaydon (Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence, 1974), pp. 17-29; on the anti-regalian aspects of the epic of revolt, see van Emden, ‘Kingship in the Old French Epic of Revolt’.

2

Subrenat, Etude, p. 207.

°° Gaydon, edited by M.F. Guessard, Anciens Poètes de la France (Paris: Franck, 1859; rpt Liechtenstein: Kraus, 1966).

Traitors and Rebels

57

Ne de Dijon Garniers li alosez. ‘Baron, dist Karles, envers moi entendez:

Vez ci Gaydon qui à moi s’est meslez; Vos parens est, prez li apartenez’ (5360 -69)

This list is followed by a declaration from Naimon of the ethos for which the family stands: Ne nos lyngnaiges ne fist jor fausetez. Se Gaydes fu de traison retez, Et par Thiebaut en vo cort apellez, Si s’en osta, que voz bien le savez,

Tout par droiture; se por ce lehaez

(5377-81)

This compares with the statement made by the barons in the La

Vallière redaction

of Renaut de Montauban

(see above

p. 53).

Another member of the rebel family closely associated with Gaydon

is Morant de Rivers (e.g. Il. 4839, 7401). Huon de Bordeaux is also connected and described as ‘le fil Doon’ (1. 8686). As in Renaut and Ogier an important theme in Gaydon is tension between family and feudal loyalty: Beuve d’Aigremont with Charlemagne, Vivien with Gaydon; Naimon stays with king; his sons, having apparently no feudal obligations, go Gaydon:

the is the to

Bertrans li menres en apella Richier. ‘Frere, dist il, moult noz doit anoier

Que Karles va duc Gaydon escillier; Car mandons ores Berart de Mondisdier, Estoult de Laingres et Vivien le fier, Ceuls de Tremoingne, et Milon et Renier, Et de Nevers Girardel le guerrier A tant de gent com porront justicier, S’alons Gaydon 4 son besoing aidier. Noz couzins est, tenir le devons chier;

Noz ne tenons de Karlon .i. denier’

(4848-59)

Two other recurring rebel names figure here, Estout and Berart de Mondidier, members of the ‘supporting cast’.

The development of a family of rebels in the thirteenth century,

58

;

Marianne Ailes

distinct from the geste de Maience, justifies our use of the term cycle for the epic of revolt. The grouping into a cycle by thematic conception is reinforced by the grouping made through family connections. In Gaydon the thematic emphasis is beginning to change but it retains enough of the epic of revolt to show a further development of the family. The rebel family is formed by bringing together into one clan the main rebels who are supported by a number of minor characters, some of whom have rebellion in their

literary background. In all the poems we have looked at the rebel family is not only being drawn together, but is also opposed to the family of traitors, in terms of both moral conception and family vendetta. The Fusion of the Two Families As long as rebellion was seen as justifiable, up to a point, the rebels could not be attached to a family ‘qui ne fist se mal non’. A change in the political climate, and consequently in the thematic emphasis of the poems, had first to take place. The ‘ethical’ change can be seen in Jehan de Lanson, composed

sometime after Renaud de Montauban and Gaydon.”

The narrative

structure has some similarities to that of the epic of revolt. The casus belli fits the pattern: the rebel defies Charlemagne (in this case by harbouring the traitor Alori, Jehan’s nephew) and a member of the rebel’s family (here Nivard, Jehan de Lanson’s brother) is killed

by a member of Charlemagne’s family (here Roland).

However

the ethos is very different. The text is not anti-regalian and the rebel is not a vassal. Charlemagne at the end appears magnanimous:

he does not want Jehan killed (Il. 6183-84). Instead he is condemned to a prison described as ‘un si tres mau lieu [...] dont jamais n’en istra’ (ll. 6287-88) — he might have preferred death. Jehan himself earns the nickname of ‘Jehan le Maudit’. Significantly Jehan is a member not of the rebel clan, but of the family of traitors, nephew ** Jehan de Lanson, edited by J.V. Myers (Chapell Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1965). Dominique Boutet, La Chanson de geste (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1993) discusses intertextual aspects of Jehan de Lanson,

. 152-58.

BP Van Emden, ‘Kingship in the Old French Epic of Revolt’, discusses the narrative pattern of the epic of revolt; see also Ailes, ‘Doon de Nanteuil’, p. 247.

Traitors and Rebels

59

of Ganelon and grandson of Grifon d’Hautefeuille. When the fusion of the traitors and rebels into one family does happen we have already reached the end of the epic of revolt, for the moral climate has changed. One detail which facilitated the fusion was the association with both families of particular names. In the fragments of Doon de Nanteuil, Rogues, lord of Montorgueil, is described as: ‘Oncles fel Bueves et peres Pinabel’ (1. 55). If the “Bueves’ in question is Beuve d’Aigremont, a member of the family of rebels, then some fusion is already taking place. Beuve is, however, a not uncommon name. Langlois and Moisan are probably right in not associating ‘fel Bueves’ with any other character of the same

name.

The names

of Doon,

Milon,

Salemon,

Huon also occur in both rebel and traitor families.

Moran

and

Such a shared

nomenclature could lead to confusion, and would certainly facilitate fusion.

In Gaydon the potential for confusion is clear.

The father of

Huon de Bordeaux, one of Gaydon’s supporters, is called Doon, and

there is a porte ‘Doon’ evidently not to Doon de traitor family in Gaydon they could be to Doon de

at Angiers (1. 9628). The references are Maience, as Maience is associated with the — the family who oppose Gaydon — but Nanteuil: the name Doon is associated with

the rebels but that of Maience with the traitors.” Approximately ten years later Philippe Mousket wrote his Chronique Rimée. By this time the family of rebels was well developed, but Mousket does not mention any link between them. Nor, however, does he include any rebels in his list of members of

the traitor family:* Rainbaus, li Fris, tot ausement Fu moult grévés destroitement

© Langlois, La Table des noms propres, p. 121; Moisan, Répertoire des noms propres, I, 269.

7 Jn Gaydon there is a marriage link between the traitors and the rebels. Hertaud of the family of traitors is husband of the daughter of the ‘duc Berengier / couzine Gayde et Naynmon et Ogier’ (11. 4171-72); later however Savari, son of Bertaud and Berengier’s daughter refers to a Berengier of the traitor family with no indication that there is a relationship (1. 5735). 38 Philippe Mouskés, Chronique Rimée, edited by Baron von Reiffenberg, 2 vols (Brussells: Commission Royale d’Histoire, 1836-38).

60

Marianne Ailes Par félons et par traitours Ki France ont grévée souvent. Guenles, li fel, et si parent, Fromons, li vious, et Aloris, Hardrés, Sansons et Amaugris Et li autre traitour faus,

Et par leur parage et par aus, Ont maint roi de France grévé

(8452-62)

Yet in recounting the tale of Doon de Nanteuil Mousket’s tone is unequivocally condemnatory: Car losengier et traitour Li fisent grant anui maint jor,” Ki devoient iestre si home. L’estore Doon premiers nomme, Quant il fist Bertran mesagier Pour aler Nantuel asségier

This condemnatory the family with the The next step in (ca 1250), in which

(8426-31)

attitude towards the rebels allows the fusion of traitors to take place. the process of fusion comes in Doon de Maience the central character, Doon, is first presented in

a positive light. Writing of the three gestes the poet says: ‘Et la tierche si fu de Doon de Maience, / .I. chevalier vaillant et de grant sapience’ (ll. 7-8). The hero is carefully dissociated from the Doon de Maience known as a traitor: °°

‘Li’ refers to Charlemagne. Mousket continues with reference to other rebels: Puis ot il anui, ce dist-on,

Par Aiglentine et par Guion. Car Hervils ot ocis Garnier, Pére Guion, buen cevalier

Et Dame Aye reprist pour bien Ganor, I rice roi paien. Et Bazins li fist maint anui,

Ki l’enmena enbler od lui. Et par Renaut, le fil Aymon, Ot-il maint anui, ce trueve-on

Mais li rois Yus, ki tint Gascogne, Tray Renaut en sa besogne (8436-47) *° Doon de Maience, edited by A. Pey (Paris: Vieweg, 1859; rpt Liechtenstein: Kraus, 1966).

Traitors and Rebels

61

Et si rot maint Doon a Maience jadis. Chil Do dont je vous chant, qui chest fet a empris Contre le roi Kallon et qui s’est aatis, Chen ne fu pas chil Do, li traitre faillis, Qui Beuvon de Hantonne cacha de son pais (6654-58)

The problem for the poet is in trying to dissociate his hero from the negative tradition, known to us in Bueves de Hantonne and Girart de Vienne, while at the same time retaining his position as the ancestor of the third geste. In Doon de Maience Doon is associated with the rebels, not the traitors; indeed in the first part of the chanson Doon is the victim of the machinations of the traitors. Herchenbaut and Salemon, are related to each

specifically to the family of Ganelon.

These traitors, other but not

The family of Doon

is

described as: ‘des barons de haut pris, / Qui ont sus Sarrazins le bon resne conquis’ (ll. 6661-62). Related to Doon are Robert of Normandy, the Count of Poitiers and ‘Girart le Baviére’, who act as

intermediaries between Doon and Charlemagne during their quarrel. They say to Charlemagne: ‘si cousin tuit sommes et de son parenté, / De par Guion son pere et son oncle l’ainsné” (ll. 6747-48). The name Girart is frequently associated with the family of rebels, as are, as we have already seen, the dukes of Normandy, normally Richard, and members of the family ‘de Bavière’ (Naimon and

Ydelon). Doon de Maience is the earliest descendants of Doon, from his twelve include any traitors:

extant sons.

poem to list the They do not here

Là s’en ala chil Do qui tant fu conquerans, Qui Vauclere conquist, que tenoit l’Aubigans, Et sa fille espousa, puis en ot .xii. enfans, Tous les vit chevaliers hardis et combatans;

Kalles les adouba, qui moult en fu joians. De Sessoigne dela conquistrent les grans pans, Et Danemarche aprez, qui fu ja as Normans. Gaufrei fu li ainsnés et li plus avenans; De li firent segnor, qui moult estoit sachans,

Cheli fu pere Ogier, qui tant fu combatans, Qui en Rainchevax fu quant ochis fu Roullans, Et Tierri |’Ardenois, de l’aubourc jasarans,

62

Marianne Ailes Et li quens Baudouin de Flandres, li vaillans, La dame de Vimaie, dont parole fu grans. Le chevalier o chisne fu pour li combatans, Quant il sa fille prist, dont il ot .iii. enfans. Godefrei en sailli, qui puis fu roy puissans La en Jerusalem, outre les mescréans.

Cheste geste ama Dieu; sainte fu et vaillans

(7994-8012)

The point of this passage is to lift up Doon’s family as one that ‘sainte fu et vaillans’, here through the connection with the Crusade epics. Gaufrey, father of Ogier, is the only one of the sons to be named, and through him the family is linked to a positive ethos. The logical conclusion of the situation in Doon de Maience is found in Gaufrey, where the family tree of Doon and that of Renaut de Montauban are brought together. The opening lines of Gaufrey link it immediately to Doon, with the knighting of the twelve brothers being recalled. The poet of Gaufrey names the brothers left unnamed in Doon de Maience and in so doing brings together the Doon of Girart de Vienne, founder of the family of traitors, and

the Doon of Doon de Maience, progenitor of the family of rebels. Before Gaufrey Doon de Nanteuil, Aymon de Dordonne and his sons, Girart de Roussillon, Beuve d’Aigremont with Vivien and Maugis, Gaufrey and Ogier, Morant de Rivier and Hernaut are already joined together in the family of rebels; Othon may be Othes d’Espolice, encountered already among the rebels. Othes is not an uncommon name in epics, however. In a late redaction of Bueves de Hantonne Othes is already associated with Maience as ‘Pere de Doon et Aïol de Beuve de Hantonne’ (1. 7581) and there is an Ote de Baivier in Girart de Vienne. Ripeus is the name of a traitor in Renaut and a supporter of the family in Gaydon; Huon de Bordeaux is also a supporter in Gaydon, and a son of Doon. A further list in Gaufrey again includes familiar names from the rebel family. Doon de Maience, after enumerating his sons, continues: “Le bon duc de Nevers, qui tant m’avoit amés, Mon cousin est germain; si est li dus Otrés, Et le roi Salemon, qui tant est renommés,

Cheli qui de Bretaigne tient les grans herités,

Traitors and Rebels

63

L’archevesque Turpin, mon cousin le membrés, Cheli qui tient de Rains le grant palès listés Ch’est Berart mon neveu, qui tant a de fiertés, Qui est du Mont Didier Ancéis apelés’ (1765- 71)

A later list of the descendants of Doon

(ll. 2530-55)

mentions

Baudouin de Flandres, also linked to the family in Doon de Maience

(1. 8006), and Raimbaut de Frise.” A group of traitors, again with familiar names, is also listed: Guenez et Aubouin, et Miles et Hardrés,

Fouques et Aloris et lor grant parentés

A more full list of the traditional traitor names:

descendants

(2554-55)

of Grifon

similarly

uses

Que de li issi puis Guenelon et Hardrés, Milon et Auboin, et Herpin et Gondrez, Pinabel de Sorenche et Tiebaut et Fourrés,

Et Hervieu du Lion, qui sot du mal assés, Et Tiebaut d’Aspremont, qui fu moult redoutés. De li issi tel geste dont Kalles fu irés (3999-4004)

As in other poems there is also a connection with Naimon, in this case a marriage connection: the father of Doon de Nanteuil’s wife is the cousin germain of Naimon (ll. 4646-84). It is thus clearly not true to say, as does Borg, the editor of Aye d’Avignon, that ‘l’auteur de Gaufrey [...] attribue a divers héros épiques jusque-là isolés un père commun, Doon de Mayence’— for

the ‘divers héros’

were

not previously

isolated.”

They

had

gradually been drawn together. On the other hand, Gaston Paris’s statement that ‘on arrive, en donnant a Doon de Maience douze fils,

a embrasser 4 peu prés tout le cercle des traditions poétiques’, is something of an exaggeration, for it is only the family of traitors and the family of rebels that are brought together, with a distant 41

There is some indication of possible rebellion in Raimbaut’s background in

Girart de Roussillon, I. 3340-42 — he is brought into submission by Girart. “2 Aye d’Avignon, edited by J. Borg, Textes Littéraires Français, 134 (Geneva: Droz, 1967), p.7.

64

Marianne Ailes

connection to the crusade cycle.” The poet of Gaufrey is still aware of the two parts of this family. The dichotomy is actually exploited in the treachery of Grifon towards his brothers. The explicit betrays some uneasiness about the fusion of the family of traitors with the family of rebels: EXPLICIT le romans de Gaufrey le vaillant, De tous les .xii. freres, dont n’i ot nul faillant,

Fors Grifes le traitre, que Damedieu gravent! Il trai tous ses freres par son mauvais talent, Sachiés de li issi le traitre puant Dont vint la traison en Franche la vaillant,

De quoi mourut à glesve .xx."” conbatant U camp de Rainchevax, dont Kalles fut dolent

(10721-28)

Yet the union of the two families was the logical conclusion of the developments of the earlier poems and the confusion of a positive Doon in Doon de Maience With the negative Doon, ancestor of the traitors in Girart de Vienne. One other extant poem has the complete family of Doon de Maience as in Gaufrey, namely the version of Maugis d’Aigremont in the Montpellier H 247 manuscript. The passage corresponding to that already quoted from the Peterhouse manuscript reads:“ ‘Nennil’, dist Oriande, ‘n’en aïez soupechon,

Més je vous ai nourri des petit enfanchon. Vo perez est duc Buef, le sire d’Aigremont, Vos estez du lignage ou il a maint preudon Vos onclez est le duc Girart de Roussillon Et Aymez de Dordonne et de Nantueil Doon, 43

Gaston Paris, Histoire poétique de Charlemagne (Paris: Bouillon, 1865; rpt

Geneva: Slatkine, 1974), p. 77.

“4 Maugis d’Aigremont, edited by F. Castets, see above, n. 27; the lines not in the Peterhouse manuscript are given in a note, p. 332, and also in the variants of Vernay’s edition, p. 142.

For a study of the Montpellier manuscript, see F.

Castets, Recherches sur les rapports entre les chansons de geste et l’épopée chevaleresque italienne avec textes inédits empruntés au MS H 247 de Montpellier (Montpellier: Camille Coulet, 1893); also published under the same title in Revue des Langues Romanes, XXVII (1885), 5-42, XXIX (1886), 5-16 and 105-132,

which includes an edition of 11.1-986 of the Montpellier Maugis, and XXX (1886), 61-239.

Traitors and Rebels

65

Et Othes d’Espolice qui est de grant renon, Et de Danemarche Gaufroi le preudon Et Grifez d’Autefueille qui pere fu Guenelon, Et Morant de Riviers qui tant a de renon, Eft] Sev[i]n de Bordele qui fu pere Hugon, A qui fist tant de bien le bon roi Oberon, Et Ripeus qui fu pere Anseis le baron, Et .1. roi autresi qui a a nom Peron, Qui est pere Oriant qui est de grant renon; Et aussi est Hernaut qui sire est de Giron, Quens Hernaut de Moncler o le flouri grenon.

Ichil est vos aieus et si est moult preudon’

(958-73)

This passage is very significant for the dating of the two redactions of Maugis, for the Peterhouse and Paris manuscripts lack the complete family as given in the Montpellier manuscript, which

therefore contains the later development, borrowed from Gaufrey.” There is no sense in Maugis of any difficulties being caused the union of the family, such as the internal dissensions found Gaufrey. The fact that the father of the twelve is not mentioned seen by Castets as an indication that this is the earliest unification the family:

by in is of

Je verrais volentiers dans le Maugis le point de départ de la conception du cycle de Doon de Mayence, si la liste d’Oriande donnait le nom du pére des

*°

Castets, Recherches, pp. 82-83, argues that the list in Maugis is older than that

in Gaufrey, because of the order in which the sons are listed, with the four original brothers, Beuve, Girard, Aymon and Doon listed first. Certainly the Peterhouse Maugis probably does pre-date Gaufrey, but the later redaction of Maugis seems to add to the basic structure found in the earlier version the names given in Gaufrey — so the first brothers named in the Montpellier Maugis are those listed first in the Peterhouse Maugis; in both Maugis and Gaufrey there is a thirteenth son who does

not figure in the list but is found elsewhere in the text. Renier de Vantamise is found in both redactions of Maugis. Beuve sends for his relatives: L’un envoie a son frere Girart de Rosillon,

Et li autres ira a Na[n]tuel a Doon, Et li tierz a Dordone, ce dit au viel Aimon,

Li quarz au Valtamise a Renier le baron (5369-72 of Castets’s edition of Peterhouse MS) The author of Gaufrey in giving Vantamise to Renier is simply accepting this; he is not disturbed by the problem of introducing a thirteenth brother. The remanieur of Maugis keeps Renier only because he is in the earlier version at the corresponding place.

66

Marianne Ailes douze fréres. Cette omission est singuliére. Vient-elle de ce que ce nom était assez connue pour qu’il ne fût pas nécessaire de le dire; ou plutôt l’auteur lui-même, après avoir formé sa liste d’éléments si divers, aurait-il hésité à achever son oeuvre dans la crainte que le nom qu’il proposerait ne

déplût.* If Grifon can be united with the rebel family, as he is in the Montpellier Maugis, there can be no reason to leave out Doon. However, Doon was not included in the family at the time of composition of the earlier redaction; the remanieur who added the other brothers probably saw no need to mention the father, involving further alteration of his text; he either assumed that his audience

would

know

who

the father

was,

or

considered

this

irrelevant. The Montpellier Maugis then post-dates Gaufrey, which in turn post-dates the earlier redaction of Maugis; Gaufrey represents the culmination of the family of Maience, which it develops from Doon de Maience and this is then taken by the remanieur of the Montpellier redaction of Maugis and incorporated into material from his source, the older version. It seems likely that the reworking of Maugis was not much later than Gaufrey, for the family of Maience did not remain united.

The Dissolution of the Geste de Maience The dissolution of the family was perhaps inevitable given the traditional opposition of the traitors and rebels. However it is not entirely clear what happens. The continued popularity of the late twelfth- and early thirteenth-century epics, and the existence of later redactions and prose versions, obscure the disintegration of the family of Maience. The Franco-Italian chansons de geste continue to sing of the family of Maience as the traitor family. In the Prise de Pampelune the traitor is Guenes de Maience.*’ In Macaire Macaire is of the family of Maience, which is composed of ‘li parent 46

Castets, Recherches, p. 83.

*” R. Levy, ‘Chronologie approximative de la littérature française du moyen âge’, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie, XCVIN (1957), p. 28, gives the date

1345

for the Prise

Geschlecht, p. 58.

de Pampelune;

Sauerland,

Ganelon und

sein

Traitors and Rebels

Gainelon’. The traditional rebels is evoked:

vendetta oppposing

67

the traitors

and

Segnur, or entendés a siés certan Qe la cha de Magance, e darer e devan, Ma non ceso de far risa e buban;

Senpre avoit guere cun Rainaldo de Mote Alban, Et si trai Oliver et Rolan (194-98) i

Sauerland, in his study of the Ganelonides, points out that ‘die Familie Ganelons nachdriicklichst wieder von dem Stamme des

Doon geschieden und als selbständige ‘geste’ hingestellt wird’.” The passage to which he refers comes in ‘Girard de Blaives’, some lines written to form a transitional passage between Ami et Amiles and Jourdain de Blaives in Bibliothéque Nationale de France MS Arsenal

182: C’est d’une des III gestez, saciés en verités,

On n’en nomme que trois où regna loiautés; Car la quatrieme geste ne vali pas II dés. Encore n’est point morte dont c’est duel et pités; Car les fais Guenelon sy sont resussytez, [sek] Fu li cief des III gestes dont vous parler oés; Car il vint de Pepin le noble couronnés. Le] Et les II autres gestes droi cy nommer orés. L’une fu de Garin de Mongleve fievés Et l’autre de Doon de Maience doutés. Doon ot .XII. fieux en sa fame engenrez Et s’ot otant de fillez ou moult ot de biautez (4-8, 14-15, 19-23)

Through these daughters the geste is linked to Ami and Amile:

48 Macaire, edited by F. Guessard and L. Larchy (Paris: Franck, 1860). 49 °°

Sauerland, Ganelon und sein Geschlecht, p. 60. Sauerland, Ganelon und sein Geschlecht, pp. 60-61; ‘Amis et Amiles’

und

‘Jourdains de Blaivies’, edited by C. Hoffman (Erlangen: Blaesing, 1852), p. xv, dates the redaction (i.e. the manuscript) to the fifteenth century; pp. xvi-xvii, n. 1 give part of the transition ‘Girard de Blaives’.

68

Marianne Ailes De l’une de ces filles yssy en verités Cieux de cui le rommant d’Amillez est fondés Et Amis ses conpains de l’autre fille apres (24-26)

We thus have here the family of Maience given a positive ethos and dissociated from the family of Ganelon. Jourdain

de

Blaives

connects

Erembart,

wife

of

Jourdain’s

guardian, to the rebel family; opposing the worthiness of her family to those of Froment she says: ‘. ce seroit traisons. Nostre parent la venjance en panront. Ne sui je fille au fort roi d’Arragon Et si sui niece au Baivier Huidelon Et au viel Hayme et ses fiz de Dordon, Et vos parens Hardré et Ganelon?’ (406-11)

The rebels and traitors are once again in opposite camps.

Conclusion The genealogy of the Ganelonides and of the family of Maience demonstrates well the relationship between ethos and family in the chansons de geste. The early dissociation of the rebels from the traitors, often indeed opposition between the two families, indicated that these rebels were justified in their stance. Later the disapproval of the rebels finds expression in the development of a single family, uniting the Ganelonides and the rebels. However the poets who had written the epics of revolt justifying the rebels had done their work so well that, despite changes in attitudes to rebellion, the union of the family of traitors with that of the rebels was fraught with problems and destined to be impermanent.

Wadham College, Oxford

MAUGIS A TOLEDE: QUELQUES ASPECTS DU PERSONNAGE DANS MAUGIS D’AIGREMONT Philippe Verelst Maugis a fait l’objet de maintes publications et de communications récentes. Décidément, le larron enchanteur est un personnage à la mode. Aussi est-ce après quelque hésitation que je l’ai choisi comme thème de cette contribution. Ce qui m’a finalement décidé, c’est le fait que mon ami Wolfgang van Emden semble nourrir une affection particulière pour le bon larron, et que nous sommes de ce fait, si j’ose dire, ‘complices’. À la suite du congrès Rencesvals de Groningue, où j’ai eu l’occasion de parler de Tolède et de l’enseignement de la magie, qui, d’après une tradition littéraire, y était dispensé, je propose quelques pages sur le séjour du cousin des Quatre Fils Aimon dans la célèbre cité. Rappelons brièvement que le Maugis d’Aigremont, probablement

composé dans la seconde moitié du XIIF siècle, est une chanson de 1 Cf. Philippe Verelst, ‘L’Art de Tolède ou le huitième des arts libéraux: une approche du merveilleux épique”, dans Aspects de l’épopée romane. Mentalités, idéologies, intertextualités (Actes du XIII Congrès International de la Société Rencesvals, Groningue, 22-27 août 1994), recueil publié par Hans Van Dijk & Willem Noomen (Groningue: Egbert Forsten, 1995), pp. 3-41, aux pp. 16-17 et n. 66. 2 Cf. Wolfgang G. van Emden, ‘What constitutes a bon larron?’, dans Guillaume d’Orange and ‘the Chanson de Geste’: essays presented to Duncan McMillan in celebration of his seventieth birthday by his friends and colleagues of the Société Rencesvals, édité par Wolfgang van Emden et Philip E. Bennett (avec l’aide d’Alexander Kerr) (Reading: Société Rencesvals British Branch,

1984), pp. 197-218. Rappelons aussi que M. van Emden est l’éditeur du Vivien de Monbranc (Genève: Droz, 1987), texte dans lequel Maugis joue un rôle important.

70

Philippe Verelst

geste d’un peu plus de 9.000 vers, consacrée aux enfances de l’enchanteur Ce fait seul illustre déjà l’énorme prestige dont jouissait le cousin de Renaud de Montauban dans la célèbre épopée du XII° siècle.

Le succès était assuré, car dans le Renaut on ne

trouvait aucun renseignement précis sur la jeunesse du personnage, ni, surtout, sur l’origine de son pouvoir magique.“ C’est le début de l’œuvre que l’on connaît le mieux: la naissance mouvementée de Maugis, son enlèvement par une esclave sarrasine, son éducation par la fée Oriande, la conquête de Bayard dans l’île de Boucan et la conquête de l’épée Floberge. Ces deux derniers épisodes sont à considérer comme des épreuves qualifiantes, visant à conférer à Maugis le statut de héros et de parfait chevalier. Par la même occasion, ils expliquent les origines du cheval et de l’épée de Renaud. Ensuite apparaît le thème central de la chanson: la quête du lignage.

Informé de ses origines par la fée Oriande, Maugis décide de partir à la recherche des siens, et se voit ainsi entraîné dans une série d’aventures, plus extravagantes les unes que les autres. C’est dans

cette partie de l’œuvre, peu étudiée et rarement citée, que se situe le

3 Maugis d’Aigremont, édité par Philippe Vernay, Romanica Helvetica, 93 (Berne: Francke, 1980). L'éditeur situe la chanson dans la première moitié du XIII® siècle (pp. 55-56); pour ma part, j’opte plutôt pour la seconde moitié (cf. Verelst, ‘L’Art de Tolède’, p. 18, n. 73).

4 Sur le rôle de Maugis dans le Renaut, cf. Philippe Verelst, ‘Le Personnage de Maugis dans Renaut de Montauban (versions rimées traditionnelles)’, dans Etudes sur ‘Renaut de Montauban’, Romanica Gandensia, 18 (Gand: Rijksuniversiteit te Gent, 1981), pp. 73-152 ; cf. également Philippe Verelst, ‘Le Cycle de Renaut de Montauban. Aperçu général et réflexions sur sa constitution”, dans Cyclification: the development of narrative cycles in the ‘chansons de geste’ and the Arthurian romances. Proceedings of the colloquium, Amsterdam, 17-18 December, 1992, publié par Bart Besamusca, Willem P. Gerritsen, Corry Hogetoorn et Orlanda S.H. Lie, Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Verhandelingen, Afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, 159 (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1994), pp. 165-70. 5 Voir Philippe Verelst, ‘Trois femmes pour un héros: à propos de l’édition du Mabrien en prose’, dans Charlemagne in the North. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference of the Société Rencesvals, Edinburgh 4th to 11th August 1991, édité par Philip E. Bennett, Anne Elizabeth Cobby et Graham A.

Runnalls (Edimbourg: Société Rencesvals British Branch, 1993), pp. 361-74, aux pp. 362-64 (sur les parallélismes Maugis / Mabrien), et Verelst, ‘L’Art de Tolède”, pp. 20-22, 27-28 (sur Oriande) et p. 31 (sur Bayard).

Maugis a Toléde

eA

séjour à Toléde.° L’épisode est intéressant à plus d’un titre et dévoile quelques facettes surprenantes de notre personnage. Comment Maugis est-il amené à se rendre à Tolède? Le prétexte est la découverte d’un manuscrit: un jour, à Rocheflor, le château de la fée Oriande, arrive un messager qui transmet à Baudris, le maitre de Maugis, une convocation émanant de trois sages de Tolède.

Car

ceux-Ci trové ont soz terre en .i. celier voltis I. livre de grant pris, que je le vos plevis, Que le sage Ypocras 1 ot repost et mis (1807-09)

À la demande

de Baudris, Oriande accepte, non sans tristesse, de

laisser partir avec lui Maugis, qu’elle confie aux bons soins d’Espiet, nain enchanteur en qui elle a toute confiance. Une première étape, passablement

mouvementée,

amène

le trio à Palerme;

ensuite le

passage de la Sicile à Tolède se fait de façon abrupte, sans qu’aucun

détail du voyage ne soit rapporté.® Désormais, il ne sera plus question ni de la mission de Baudris, ni du fameux manuscrit d’Hippocrate. Maugis tient à lui seul la vedette. Quelques vers suffisent à évoquer ses études: Maugis vint a Toulete, li vassal adurez. A joie le reçoivent li bon mestre henorez. Mout i out despendu avoir et richetez, Et d’aprendre Maugis se sont forment penez Tant qu’il fu des .vii. ars apris et doctrinez. Mestre Maugis estoit à Tolete apelez, Des autres mestres fu, sachiez le, plus senez

(2441-47)

6 Vv.2441-3907. Pour la seule étude de quelque ampleur consacrée à Maugis dans le Maugis d’Aigremont, voir William Henry Smart, ‘Sorcery and Sorcerers in the Old French Epic’ (thèse inédite, Urbana-Champaign: Univ. de |’Illinois, 1973), pp. 115-47 (épisode de Tolède, pp. 126-29). L’épisode de Palerme ne se trouve que dans le ms. N (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, fonds français 766 ; désigné par le sigle P dans l’édition Vernay). Il occupe les vv. 1846-2440. 8 Vv. 2439-40. 9 Je corrige la ponctuation de Vernay au v. 2447: virgule après le et non après sachiez.

72

Philippe Verelst

Quelle carriére fulgurante! Et quoiqu’il n’en soit pas fait mention explicitement, l’apprentissage de la magie devait certainement faire partie du programme." Puis, on passe immédiatement à autre chose. Sans transition aucune, l’auteur explique qu’à ce moment-là, Galafre était amirez d’Espagne et de Tolède, et qu’il avait deux fils: Marsile, i’ainé, et Baligan, le cadet. Il ajoute que Marsile était marié à une fort jolie femme, qui était amoureuse de Maugis. Annonce prometteuse

de scènes croustillantes.” Mais avant de le voir faire le joli cœur, nous découvrirons Maugis dans un rôle qui vient confirmer de façon éclatante sa réputation de grande sagesse. Galafre a eu un songe, et le raconte devant toute sa cour réunie: ‘Anuit songai .i. songe dont mout sui effreez, Qué il m’estoit avis, ainz qu’il fust ajornez, Que nos estion tuit esbanoier alez La dehors en cel isle tout contreval les prez. Toz ert mes cors d’argent et mes chiés sororez, Et mes .ii. piez de plon, issi ere formez. Puis nos venoit de bestes et d’oisiaus grant plentez Qué onques n’en vit tant nus hon de mere nez. I. lion i avoit qui ert deschaenez, Le chief m’ostout del bu par fine veritez. Aprés cele avison fui en .i. autre entrez, Qué il m’estoit avis que Maugis le senez Les oisiaus et les bestes chacoit de cest regnez; Par lui estoit Marsilles mes filz rois coronez Et Baligan en Perse ert sor .i. pin montez: Touz i furent li arbre del pais aclinez’ (2462-77)

Non seulement Maugis est présent lorsque Galafre prononce ces paroles, mais il occupe lui-méme une place dans le songe! C’est dire que notre héros est devenu un familier de la cour de Toléde. Comment cela s’est-il produit? On ne le dit pas explicitement, mais nous pouvons supposer que c’est à cause de sa grande renommée. La suite est éclairante. Galafre demande qu’on lui explique le songe, car, dit-il, ‘Ci sont li plus sage hon de la crestientez’ (v. 2479). Voila 10 Cf. Verelst, ‘L’ Art de Tolède’, p. 12. 1

Vv. 2448-53.

Maugis a Toléde

13

un propos bien curieux dans la bouche d’un Sarrasin, comme si sa cour n’était composée que de chrétiens; mais sans doute ne faut-il pas accorder un sens trop précis à crestientez, qui fonctionne ici, probablement, comme synonyme de monde ou d’univers. Quoi qu’il en soit, c’est Maugis qui parle le premier et qui explique le songe: ‘Le cors qui est d’argent et li chief d’or fondu, Ce n’est pas se bien non, de voir le saches tu;

Les piez qui de plon erent, c’est que te faut vertu, Que tu as grant aage, si as le poil chanu; Les oisiaus et les bestes dont tant i as véu,

C’est l’empire de Perse, si est apercëu; Le lion qui le chief vos dessevroit del bu, C’est l’amiral de Perse qui ja s’est esmëu Et vient sor toi à ost durement à vertu; Saches qu’i t’ocirra au brant d’acier moiu; De moi erent vo fiz aidié et secoru; De Marsilion ert cest regne maintenu; Li amiral de Perse ert mort et confondu; Baligan li tien filz ert à roi esléu: Amiral ert de Perse redoté et cremu;

C’est qu’à lui enclinerent trestoz les boisramu’

(2488-503)

Comme on pouvait s’y attendre, personne ne contredit Maugis, car ‘Au plus sage des mestres l’ont ileques tenu’ (v. 2509). Le vieux souverain reste perplexe. La suite de l’épisode est consacrée à la réalisation du songe.” Cela signifie qu’il y aura essentiellement des récits de batailles, mais qui alterneront avec quelques scènes galantes. Tolède est attaquée par l’amiral de Perse. Pourtant, il n’y aura pas de véritable guerre, puisque c’est un duel qui décidera de la victoire. Le camp ennemi peut compter sur l’aide d’un affreux géant,

Escorfaut, qui se fait fort de réduire la ville à merci en un tournemain. Personnage relevant du merveilleux diabolique, le géant est décrit avec un luxe de détails, tout comme 12 Vv. 2512-3071. 13 Vv. 2588-94 et pp. 28-29, où, pour fantastiques de la l'Autre, l’Ailleurs, 1991), pp. 569 sqq.

2608-34. Sur le géant l’essentiel, je renvoie littérature narrative l’Autrefois, 2 vols à

son équipement, d’ailleurs.”

épique, voir à l’ouvrage médiévale pagination

Verelst, ‘L’ Art de Tolède’, de Francis Dubost, Aspects (XIIème-XIIIème siècles): unique (Paris: Champion,

74

Philippe Verelst

Tout ce qu’il y a en lui d’excessif et de monstrueux se trouve en contraste avec le côté profondément humain de Maugis, qui, soucieux

de livrer un combat loyal, va jusqu’à refuser d’utiliser son art.” Mais Maugis ne se jette pas tout de suite dans la bataille! C’est d’abord Marsile qui entre en action et qui, promptement, est fait prisonnier par Escorfaut. Pendant ce temps-là, le héros contait fleurette à la femme du Sarrasin; voici dans quelles circonstances,

plutôt cocasses, elle apprend le drame survenu à son époux: Sa fame ot la novele à la fresche color Qui estoit o Maugis, le riche poignéor, Sol à sol en sa chambre, qui estoit painte a flor. Assez i ont joué et baisié par douçor. Mes ele chiet pasmee quant 6i la veror Que pris estoit Marsiles, qui estoit son seignor. Maugis la reconforte a la fiere vigor, Qui li dist: ‘Douce amie, n’en soiez en fréor !

Por vostre amor irai au jaant boiséor. Marsilion rarez ainz que faille le jor, Foi que je doi porter au cors saint Sauvéor’

(2681-91)

Soit dit en passant, on appréciera l’ironie — involontaire?— de la formule de serment, alors qu’il s’agit tout de méme de sauver un Sarrasin! Suit

l’affrontement,

sous

les murs

de Tolède.

Parmi

les

spectateurs inquiets, la dame, dont la vue encourage le champion.” Le combat est fort long et fertile en rebondissements. Il est notamment interrompu par la tombée de la nuit. Escorfaut invite Maugis à passer la nuit dans son camp, tout en lui garantissant la sécurité jusqu’au lendemain, lorsque le duel reprendra. Entre-temps Espiet est parvenu à se faufiler dans le camp ennemi pour avoir des

nouvelles du héros, et Maugis obtient du géant que Marsile puisse se rendre à Tolède pour y passer la nuit avec sa femme. À l’aube du jour suivant, le combat recommence; Maugis est admirablement secondé par Bayard. À un certain moment, le géant est en mauvaise posture, et fait à Maugis une proposition surprenante : 14 Wy. 2791-94. 5 Wv. 2772-73.

Maugis a Tolède

75

‘Par Mahomet, dist il, mout es de grant plenté.

Diva! que me croi ore! si feras que sené: Renoie celui Dieu, qui en croiz fu pené, Et la loi que tu tiens et la crestienté; S’aore Mahomet, nostre dieu honoré. Je t’emmerrai 0 moi, que mout té ai amé,

En la grant Aeiope, .i. estrange regné, Où ja ne luira lune ne soleil ne clarté." Ileques te ferai riche roi coroné Et te dorrai ma fille et tote m’erité,

Escorfroie la bele au gent cors honoré, Qui assez est plus noire qu’arrement destrempé; S’est plus grande de moi demi pié mesuré. Encor ai .xii. freres et je sui le mainsné: Se tu l’as, tu seras mout bien emparenté,

Ja conter ne porras ne roi né amiré’

(2996-301 Ds

Bien entendu, Maugis repousse cette offre, et finit par tuer son adversaire. Ensuite, il exige que soit respecté l’accord qui avait été conclu avant le duel: le roi de Perse a la téte tranchée par Marsile et ainsi se trouve vengée la mort de Galafre. Aquilant de Maiogre, un parent du roi de Perse, s’en va avec ses hommes a Valdormant, aprés avoir défié Marsile et Baligan. Porte ouverte vers de nouveaux développements guerriers. Les Perses choisissent Baligan comme nouveau roi et l’emmènent avec eux: il jouera un rôle plus tard, à Roncevaux.'® Quant au trône de Tolède, il échoit à Marsile, qui nomme Maugis sénéchal — ce qui n’empêche pas la poursuite des amours furtives du héros et de la nouvelle reine.” Sans plus attendre, Marsile décide d’attaquer Aquilant de Maiogre, et charge Maugis du commandement de l’armée. Ici s’ouvre une parenthèse: nous quittons Tolède pour Valdormant. Si, une fois de plus, le côté guerrier prédomine, il faut aussi souligner une nouvelle aventure galante de Maugis, lourde de conséquences, mais dans un contexte plutôt inattendu. Impressionnée 16 Aeiope = l’Éthiopie. Il s’agit d’un locus horribilis semblable au pays de Chernuble de Munigre, dans la Chanson de Roland, vv. 979-83. 17 Je saisis mal le sens de conter au v. 3011 (Vernay n’explique rien); le ms. de Cambridge donne doter.

18 Vv. 3064-65. 19 Vv. 3070-71.

76

Philippe Verelst

par sa renommée et par le fait qu’il soit chrétien, la reine Ysane tombe éperdument amoureuse de lui: Ne sera mes aese en trestot son vivant,

S’aura éu de lui son bon et son talent

(3119-20)

Or, Ysane est la tante de Maugis, jadis enlevée par un Sarrasin, et

épousée de force par Aquilant de Maiogre;” elle a eu de ce dernier un fils, Brandoine, qui se révéle étre un excellent guerrier. Aprés que Maugis ait tué Aquilant sur le champ de bataille,” Ysane est, d’abord,

folle de chagrin, et proclame sa haine envers Maugis et son lignage.” Mais une fois le défunt enterré, elle change complètement d’attitude: Mes vos l’avez souvent en .i. proverbe oï Que genne fame a tost oublié viel mari. Autresi tost mist ele Aquilant en oubli Por l’amor de Maugis qu’ele par amout si Que dormir ne pooit ne par nuit ne par di

(3186-90)

Tout cela n’est bien sûr pas sans rappeler l’histoire d’Yvain et de Laudine, dans le célèbre roman de Chrétien de Troyes. La dame

prend l’initiative, et grâce aux bons offices d’Espiet, fait passer des messages d’amour à Maugis, qui a établi son camp devant la ville assiégée. Un rendez-vous est fixé, et peu avant le lever du jour, le héros rejoint la belle par une porte dérobée; la rencontre a lieu dans

un verger, tandis qu’Espiet fait le guet. Dans la pénombre, les amoureux échangent baisers et caresses à profusion, mais lorsque la lumière du jour apparaît, Ysane remarque l’anneau d’or que Maugis porte à l’oreille. Elle reconnaît là l’objet merveilleux que sa sœur, la mère de Maugis, avait donné au nouveau-né peu après sa naissance, et qui s’est avéré avoir un pouvoir protecteur très efficace.” Du coup, la dame se fige et le jeu amoureux est brutalement interrompu: ‘Sa robe que levoit fist arriere bouter’ (v. 3256). Un bref dialogue permet de confirmer les soupçons, et ainsi la tante et le neveu découvrent 2 21 2

Cf. vv. 222-25, 260-80 et 313-25. Vv. 3159-68. Vv. 3176-81.

2

Cf. Verelst, ‘L’Art de Tolède’, p. 36.

Maugis a Toléde

77

leurs liens de parenté juste 4 temps pour leur éviter de commettre l'inceste : “Cé est voirs, dist la dame, ce sachiez sanz douter. Je sui suer vostre mere, fille Hernaut de Moncler. Or devon vos et moi Damedeu mercier Et la sainte pucele, où se volt aombrer, Qui de pechié nos a fait issi delivrer. Pres ne nos a déables en enfer fet aler.

Damedeu en devon moi et vos gracier”

(3275-81)

C’est de cette surprenante façon, quasi miraculeuse, que Maugis vient de faire un grand pas en avant dans la quéte de son lignage. Mais la guerre continue et il était fatal que Maugis affronte sur le champ de bataille son cousin Brandoine. Cependant, l’issue du combat est incertaine: Que Brandoine li rois fu mout de grant vertuz, Et né est de son lin et de sa tante issuz: Si déussent bien estre bon ami et bon druz (3399-401)

Il faudrait presque un miracle pour que les deux champions deviennent amis. A un moment oi il a le dessus, Maugis enjoint a Brandoine de se convertir a la foi chrétienne, mais c’est peine

perdue.” De force à peu près égale, et quoique couverts de blessures, les deux champions poursuivent une lutte acharnée. Une deuxième fois, Maugis parvient à avoir l’avantage et réitère sa proposition, au nom des liens de parenté. Brandoine, qui ignorait jusqu’ici l’identité exacte de son adversaire, se laisse facilement convaincre. Il promet de se convertir, d’autant plus que sa mère l’en avait souvent prié: Il a dit à Maugis: ‘Cousin, que vos dreciez ! Je’1 ferai orendroit por la vostre amistiez Que Mahon iert de moi gerpiz et renoiez Por l’amor del lignage, qui tant est enforciez. ~Et si crerai en Dieu, qui fu crucefiez Et en la sainte croiz pené et traveilliez. Sovent en ai esté de ma mere proiez’ (3586-92) 24 Vv. 3446-70.

78

Philippe Verelst

C’est la féte 4 Valdormant, et Maugis lui-méme baptise Brandoine et tout son peuple: Isnelement i sont li fons apareilliez. Maugis les crestienne, qui bien fu enseigniez

(3609-10)

Ceux qui refusent le baptéme sont éliminés sur-le-champ!” Aprés cette éclatante victoire au service de Marsile, Maugis retourne à Tolède avec son armée. Jamais son prestige n’a été aussi grand: Plus est par le pais que Marsiles doutez Et de la rôine est à desmesure amez. Quant il ont lieu et aise, si font lor volentez. Et le vilain le dit, et si est veritez,

Tant vet le pot à l’iaue qué il i est quassez

(3658-62)

La couleur est annoncée: les amours illicites du sénéchal et de la reine finiront mal! Un jour ou les deux amants gisent endormis dans la chambre du roi, épuisés aprés avoir joé assez, le hasard fait qu’ils sont surpris par un Sarrasin envieux. Espiet, qui s’était endormi devant la porte, ne remarque rien, et le losengéor rapporte sa découverte a Marsile. Ce dernier jure de faire périr les coupables, s’il les prend sur le fait. Lorsque le roi et sa suite s’apprétent a enfoncer la porte de la chambre, la dame est désespérée, mais Maugis garde son sang-froid : ‘Dame, ce dist Maugis, mar en aurez fréor. Escondites vos bien encontre l’aumaçor.

Je sai enchantemens qui sont de grant valor, Dont je ferai assez à la gent paienor’ (3747-50)

Et de passer aux actes: Or 6ez de Maugis à la chiere membree! En la chambre s’esta delez la cheminee;

3 V:3613. 2% L’éditeur place de façon intempestive une virgule après enchantemens.

Maugis a Toléde

79

.I. enchantement fist qui forment li agree, Celui li ot apris Oriande la fee, C’avis fu à Marsiles et à sa gent dampnee Maugis iert une biche de .xv. rains ramee: Onques si bele rien ne fu el mont trovee. D'or estoient les cornes, la teste haut levee, Desor chascune branche une pierre fermee

Qui plus reluisoit cler que chandele alumee

(3761-70)”’

Fou de rage, Marsile se jette sur sa femme et est sur le point de lui couper la tête, lorsque la dame réclame le droit de se soumettre à une ordalie: ‘Faites .1. feu d’espines aval en cele pree, Et j’enterai dedenz de mes dras desnuee Par convent que Maugis, dont vos m’avez retee,

27 Ce passage est assez déroutant, et pose deux problèmes : 1) On peut discuter de la nature véritable de l’enchantement. Y a-t-il ‘effectivement’ métamorphose, ou Maugis suscite-t-il uniquement, comme dans d’autres passages, une vision dans l’esprit de l’assistance? La tournure avis fu (3765) plaide en faveur de la seconde hypothèse, et deux de mes prédécesseurs n’ont pas manqué de le souligner: voir Smart, Sorcery and Sorcerers, p. 129; et William W. Kibler, ‘Three Old French Magicians: Maugis, Basin, and Auberon’, dans Romance Epic: essays on a medieval literary genre, édité par Hans-Erich Keller, Studies

in Medieval

Culture,

24 (Kalamazoo,

Michigan:

Medieval

Institute Publications, 1987), pp. 173-87, à la p. 179. Pourtant, le manuscrit de Cambridge (P, ou, selon le système de Vernay, C), qui est, à mon avis, le meilleur des trois, donne (après 3794) un passage que le manuscrit de base n’a pas, et où il est fait état d’un combat bien réel entre l’animal merveilleux et les Sarrasins: ‘De cornes et de piez fet une tele occise / De la gent paienor a occiz plus de .xv. / Aprés s’en va plus tost que venz ne chase bise / Canqu’ataint devant lui trestot defroisse et brise’. 2) Je suis tout aussi embarrassé que l’éditeur, Vernay, quant au sens à accorder au mot biche (3766). En effet, le sexe de l’animal ne fait pas le moindre doute: il s’agit bien d’un male! Vernay propose de comprendre ‘béte’, sur foi du Tobler-Lommatzsch, qui, sous ‘Tier, Schlange(?)’ cite un exemple où il est question du diable qui a revêtu une forme animale. Il n’a pas tort, puisque bisse, biche remonte à bestia; d’ailleurs, le manuscrit M a la variante une beste. Pour ma part, j'irais plus loin, et je traduirais volontiers par ‘cerf’, car n’est-ce pas 1a la ‘bête’ par excellence, le gibier le plus prestigieux de la forêt? Philip Bennett m’a suggéré un rapprochement avec les vv. 90-92 du Lai de Guigemar, où le héros découvre, lors d’une partie de chasse, une biche merveilleuse possédant les attributs du mâle:

‘Vit une bise od un foiin; / Tute fu blaunche cele beste, /

Perches de cerf out en la teste’ (Les Lais de Marie de France, édité par Jean Rychner, Classiques Frangais du Moyen Age, 93 (Paris: Champion, 1983)).

80

Philippe Verelst N’ot plus part en mon cors n’à lui ne fui privee Que cele beste 14, que ne soie dampnee’ (3782-86)

Si elle s’en tire indemne, elle devra étre lavée de toute accusation.

Sur ce, profitant de son apparence animale, Maugis prend la fuite, et réussit à rejoindre ses compagnons. Ils jugent sage de quitter la ville sans plus attendre. Maugis regrette que cela soit nécessaire, mais se console a l’idée de poursuivre sa quête à la recherche de ses parents. Le récit se trouve ainsi relancé et la transition vers un nouvel épisode est assurée.

Cette transition est assez brutale, car, pour le

héros, l’air de Tolède devient irrespirable! On a découvert ses gants dans la chambre du roi, preuve irréfutable de sa présence coupable auprès de la reine et, à présent, la chasse est ouverte. Après une brève escarmouche, Maugis et Espiet parviennent cependant à se sauver sur Bayard. Maugis se lamente et regrette amèrement d’avoir servi un mauvais maître: ‘Certes, qui mauvés sert, mauvés loier atent’ (v. 3893). Pourtant, Espiet a tôt fait de l’encourager et insiste notamment sur un de ses extraordinaires talents: ‘Meillor larron de vos n’a jusqu’en Orient, Je méismes en sai quanc’au mestier apent: Si enbleron assez et dorron largement. Tolon assez as riches, donnon à povre gent’

Dans l’épisode que nous venons de présenté sous de nombreux aspects, déconcertants pour qui connait un peu Certes, on retrouve des traits connus. Le

(3900-03)

parcourir, Maugis nous est dont certains sont assez le Renaut de Montauban. dernier passage cité fait état

de la qualité de Jarron; Maugis excelle dans l’art de voler, mais

comme il ne s’en prend qu’aux riches pour pouvoir donner aux pauvres, il n’y a là rien de répréhensible. Au contraire, cela le rend plutôt sympathique et l’appellation de larron, que notre héros partage d’ailleurs avec d’autres personnages du même type, apparaît comme

une sorte de titre honorifique.”

2% Cf. Verelst, ‘L’Art de Tolède’, pp. 17-19; id., ‘L’Enchanteur d’épopée. Prolégomènes à une étude sur Maugis’, Romanica Gandensia, XVI (1976), 11962, aux pp. 123-24, et Verelst, ‘Le Personnage de Maugis’, pp. 138-39.

Maugis a Toléde

81

La qualité d’enchanteur est superbement illustrée par la scéne de la métamorphose. Maugis se transforme en cerf pour se tirer d’un mauvais pas, et il est précisé que le charme lui a été appris par la fée Oriande. Cela nous renvoie a la double origine des dons magiques du héros: d’une part son éducation en milieu féerique 4 Rocheflor, d’autre part ses études a Toléde. Un charme aussi spectaculaire était impensable dans le Renaut, ot le pouvoir de Maugis restait assez

limité et discret.” En revanche, il est un point capital sur lequel on rejoint tout à fait la chanson du XII° siècle: Maugis n’utilise jamais son art lorsqu’il agit comme chevalier sur le champ de bataille, méme lorsque l’adversaire est, comme Escorfaut, un personnage quasi surnaturel, mi-monstre, mi-humain.

Un passage particulièrement intéressant est celui où Maugis explique le songe de Galafre. La science dont il fait étalage à cette occasion est à rapprocher de la maîtrise de l’urt d’ingremance, mais elle occupe néanmoins une place à part. Sauf erreur, c’est le seul endroit de toute la tradition ‘rinaldienne’ où Maugis exerce ce talent particulier. La fonction du passage est claire: Maugis, qui avait déjà une grande réputation de sagesse, se voit projeté à l’avant-scène par ses impressionnantes prédictions, dans lesquelles il précise d’ailleurs son propre rôle futur. Annonce de faits d’armes hors du commun au service des souverains de Tolède. Inutile d’insister longuement sur les qualités de parfait chevalier dont Maugis fait preuve. Les combats qu’il livre contre Escorfaut et contre Brandoine sont suffisamment éloquents. N’oublions pas non plus que le héros est un parfait chrétien: il fait serment devant Dieu d’aller sauver Marsile, il repousse avec vigueur la proposition d’Escorfaut

d’adorer Mahomet,

et surtout, il parvient à convertir

Brandoine. Et cela va même plus loin: Maugis apparaît comme une sorte de missionnaire lorsqu’il baptise lui-même son cousin et tout son peuple! À l'égard de Marsile et de ses mauvés dex, Maugis n’éprouve que

du mépris’ Mais cela n’est dit explicitement qu'après la scène du cerf. Alors, qu’en était-il auparavant? Et pourquoi un parfait chevalier chrétien s’est-il mis au service d’un roi sarrasin? C’est un 2

Cf. Verelst, ‘Le Personnage de Maugis’, pp. 135-37.

30

Vv. 3808-11.

82

Philippe Verelst

des aspects les plus troublants du Maugis d’Aigremont. Nulle part l’auteur ne fait le moindre commentaire à ce sujet. Essayons d’y voir clair. Tout se passe comme si le séjour de Maugis parmi les Sarrasins était la chose la plus normale du monde et comme si cela ne soulevait pas le moindre problème moral. Sans doute est-on en droit de voir là une évolution typique pour la chanson de geste du XIII siècle, ou il n’est pas exceptionnel de voir chrétiens et Sarrasins en excellents termes.’ N’oublions pas non plus que l’Espagne était un important lieu de rencontre entre les deux civilisations: histoire connue. Mais c’est, à mon avis, plutôt du côté des nécessités internes du récit qu’il faut chercher. Il fallait que Maugis passe par Tolède — ville sarrasine — pour y faire son apprentissage, et il fallait aussi qu’il se plonge dans le monde païen afin de récupérer des membres de son lignage qui y avaient été entraînés malgré eux. Passage obligé, en quelque sorte, sur l’itinéraire qui devra le mener à ses parents, et raison suffisante pour cohabiter avec les ennemis de la chrétienté — du moins provisoirement. Pourtant, il serait faux de croire que Maugis se comporte comme un renégat. À y regarder de plus près, il se sert des païens pour atteindre ses objectifs, et cela non sans une certaine dose de cynisme. Au

service

de Galafre

d’abord,

de Marsile

ensuite,

il combat

finalement d’autres païens, et avec quel brio! Ensuite, en ce qui concerne sa loyauté envers son seigneur, parlons-en. Jamais roi sarrasin ne fut sans doute plus superbement cocufié que Marsile! À 31 Voir tout de même déjà Renaut de Montauban (les versions traditionnelles), où les Quatre Fils Aimon sont décidés à se mettre au service du Sarrasin Bègue au cas où le roi Yon de Gascogne refuserait leurs services: édition J. Thomas (Genève: Droz, 1989), vv. 3882-98. Sur toute cette question, cf. Paul Bancourt, Les Musulmans dans les chansons de geste du cycle du Roi (Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence, 1982), pp. 558-70 (chapitre intitulé L’Atténuation de l’esprit de croisade et la coexistence religieuse ), et plus particulièrement p. 560 : ‘Dans bien des chansons de geste la différence de religion cesse d’être le critère selon lequel on se juge ami ou ennemi. C’est ainsi que des chrétiens combattent au service des Sarrasins, et acceptent d’étre leurs champions dans des combats singuliers. [...] Les princes sarrasins accueillent favorablement et recherchent activement la collaboration militaire des chrétiens. Ils la récompensent largement. Quant aux chrétiens, ils n’ont aucune mauvaise conscience à la leur accorder. On admet ainsi, dès la seconde partie du XII° siècle, le principe d’une véritable coexistence religieuse”.

Maugis a Toléde

83

tout seigneur, tout honneur: le plus célébre ennemi de Charlemagne

méritait bien cela. Et comment ne pas réprimer un éclat de rire en lisant la description du cerf aux cornes étincelantes comme un arbre de Noël? Aucun doute: l’apothéose de l’épisode de Tolède est un gigantesque pied de nez à l’adresse de Marsile et de tout ce qu’il représente. Il n’en fallait pas plus, me semble-t-il, pour pardonner à Maugis son apparente collaboration avec l’ennemi. Et puisque nous en sommes arrivés là, terminons notre propos par les personnages féminins. Les enfances de Maugis leur font en effet la part belle, alors qu’on ne trouve dans toute la tradition manuscrite du Renaut de Montauban aucune trace d’une quelconque aventure amoureuse du cousin des Fils Aimon. Encore un signe des temps, dira-t-on, car nous avons pu constater à loisir combien l’auteur du Maugis a subi l’influence du roman et de la poésie courtoise. Avant d’arriver à Tolède, le héros avait déjà fait ses premières armes en matière amoureuse avec sa mère adoptive, la fée Oriande.” Ensuite il a une liaison avec la femme de Marsile, qui n’a, dans l’économie de la chanson, aucun autre but que de ridiculiser le roi sarrasin. En effet, contrairement à ce qui se passe généralement dans le cas d’un amourpassion entre un chrétien et une Sarrasine, il n’y a ici aucune tentative de la part de Maugis de convertir la belle, ni aucune intention de l’épouser. L’adultère semble bien constituer en soi la raison d’être de la liaison. Enfin il y a le cas un peu atypique de l’aventure galante avec Ysane. Tout semble indiquer que, pour Maugis, il devait s’agir d’un nouvel amour purement charnel avec une belle Sarrasine, mais le coup de théâtre qu’on sait donne à l’idylle une tout autre dimension. Après la métamorphose en cerf et la fuite de Tolède, Maugis ne connaîtra plus l’amour. Seules compteront encore les prouesses guerrières au service du lignage. Il est d’ailleurs remarquable que les trois relations amoureuses que le larron enchanteur a connues ont commencé, chacune, par une initiative de la

femme. Mais pouvait-il en être autrement avec un homme qui devait terminer sa vie comme un saint ermite?

Universiteit Gent 32 Vv.638-42.

+

4 D'OR

£9 sci en DIRE EF

Mary SR “nt

RTS

ue

ay se

rot

SG ENS MATOS

tier ba HaiqEal

fl ins

DURE CALNene Ren: SSI ; af doter

Leigh

i een eae ere DR eS ae famine es hide

Hs ie FENTE

indy fe

TOME a, MIA

bon ch SU

ete UE

Gurau EE ALI eit Rg

yA Ons

nist eae Dt Seen

wake

ks eT

ecu

ET SOU ARLS D mer tea a aes Geet Ki pesado tees .

RS eats SCIEtir sent

ORL

SRT

:

non,

CNET VAN tases dites it ast ne

BAERS

al LICR TH

OEE

pi

DRE

B4

et CPE À

PASSA

es is

+

hormone

“

ag

v4

Ce

REX +90 . i

a

mp

>

AY it's


See W.G. van Emden, ‘The Reception of Roland in Some Old French Epics’, inRoland and Charlemagne in Europe: essays on the reception and transformation of a legend, edited by Karen Pratt, King’s College London Medieval Studies, XII (London: King’s College London Centre for late Antique and Medieval Studies, 1996), pp. 1-30; and ‘La Réception du personnage de Roland dans quelques oeuvres plus ou moins épiques des 12°, 13° et 14° siècles”, in Aspects de l’épopée romane: mentalités, idéologies, intertextualités. Actes du XIII Congrès International de la Société Rencesvals (Groningue 22-27 août 1994), edited by Hans van Dijk and Willem Noomen (Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1995), pp. 353-

62.

102

Karen Pratt

again the much-debated other moral questions.

issue of the protagonist’s desmesure and Given the obvious verbal echoes of the

‘Roland’ in the Roman de Thébes (see below) it seems fitting to consider here if this roman antique (dated by some as early as 1150, thus making it probably earlier than the epic witnesses studied by van Emden) could also shed light on some of the socio-political, judicial and ethical issues treated so laconically and _ hence ambiguously by the Oxford poet.* This project is, however, not unproblematic, given the mouvance of medieval textuality. For although the Thébes’s composition predates all surviving written copies of the ‘Roland’ apart from the Oxford text, its author may well have been familiar with other versions of the legend of Roncevaux (known to us only through the later extant witnesses) and

also with the Pseudo-Turpin (dated ca 1140-50).° Moreover, the manuscript tradition of the Thébes is complex, and some echoes of the epic may be attributable to scribes influenced by later redactions of the ‘Roland’ when copying the romance.° Despite these

4

It is thought that the Thébes was produced by a Poitevin cleric for the AngloAngevin court of Henry II. See Le Roman de Thèbes, edited by Francine MoraLebrun, Lettres Gothiques (Paris: Livre de Poche, 1995), pp. 6-9. The Roland was composed towards the end of the eleventh century and copied in MS Digby 23 between 1140 and 1170 according to Ian Short, whose edition is used in this article: La Chanson de Roland, edited and translated by Ian Short, Lettres Gothiques (Paris: Livre de Poche, 1990; 2nd edition 1994), pp. 9-10. For useful background on the composition and transmission of the early chansons de geste,

see

Simon

Gaunt,

Gender

and

Genre

in Medieval

French

Literature

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 24; and Dominique Boutet, La Chanson de geste (Paris: PUF, 1993). ° It should be noted that the earliest reference to Roland outside the Oxford text is to be found in the Occitan Canso d’Antiocha (1130-42) by the Limousin knight Grégoire Béchada. However, according to Rita Lejeune, ‘Une allusion méconnue a une chanson de Roland’, Romania, LXXV (1954), 145-64, the source cannot be

the Oxford version, thus indicating that at least one other ‘Roland’ was circulating in Southern France in the first half of the twelfth century. Similarly, A. Roncaglia, “Les quatre eschieles de Rolant”’, Cultura Neolatina, XXI (1961), 191-205, argues that the reference in Thèbes, MS S, 1. 10615, to Roland’s four batallions is

not taken from any surviving ‘Roland’ epic, the best analogue being the midfourteenth-century Franco-Venetian Entrée d’Espagne, whose source was a lost epic on the capture of Nobles. However, Pierre le Gentil, ‘Notas sobre las escenas de “consejo’ en el Roman de Thèbes’, in Mélanges Menéndez Pidal (Madrid: Cuadernos

Hispanoamericanos,

238-40,

1969), pp. 406-12,

assumes

that the

romance poet knew the Oxford Roland (or a version close to it) given the similar

Reading Epic Through Romance

103

reservations, we shall focus here on the Digby Roland, taking note of the other versions where appropriate. For the Roman de Thébes, Guy

Raynaud

manuscript,

de

Lage’s

C, written

edition between

will 1230

be used, and

1270

since

his base

in

Francien,

represents the oldest complete copy of the version courte.’ However, significant readings from S will also be noted, as this manuscript, though a late fourteenth-century Anglo-Norman copy, often preserves early lexical items and linguistic forms.® Given the Thèbes poet’s evident desire to provide new perspectives on old themes and the changes required by generic transposition, his romance does not necessarily provide an authoritative reading of the ‘Roland’ tradition. However, twentiethcentury critics find themselves at a far greater distance from the Roland and its context than the author of the Thébes, and at the very least some of the romancier’s conceptions and attitudes should produce less anachronistic judgements and more privileged insights into the politics, ethics and semantics of this most debated chanson de geste. Using the Thèbes as a control text we shall consider the following questions and controversies associated with ‘Roland’ scholarship:

1. What kind of model does Roland provide for the characters of the Thébes? How does the romance poet treat the theme of mesure and the possible desmesure of Roland-like figures? Does the Thébes set up an opposition between prouesce and sagesse, and which quality, if either, is favoured? 2. Do the council scenes help us to interpret Ganelon’s nomination scene in the Roland? Do they shed light on the possible motivations of the epic protagonists? How provocative was ‘epic’ laughter and

descriptions of horses in Thèbes, ll. 2807-10, 6253-55, and the Roland, ll. 1651-

52 (lines absent in the other extant versions). Le Roman de Thébes, edited by Guy Raynaud de Lage, 2 vols, Classiques Francais du Moyen Age, 94, 96 (Paris: Champion, 1969, 71). See M. Nezirovic, Le Vocabulaire dans deux versions du ‘Roman de Thèbes’

(Clermont-Ferrand: Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de l’Université de Clermont-Ferrand II, 1980). For the text of MS S, see the edition by Francine Mora-Lebrun (see n. 4 above).

104

Karen Pratt

thus how responsible Roncevaux?”

was

Roland’s

rire

for

the

tragedy

of

3. What were the usual mechanisms for choosing messengers in medieval texts and how significant is Ganelon’s silence when he omits to volunteer? Before turning to the Thèbes for some possible insights into these questions, it is important to consider the moral context in which the story of the fall of Thebes is placed and which obviously colours the ‘Roland’ parallels found in the romance. The author begins by recounting the parricide and incest of Oedipus. According to the narrator, the sons born from this incest are tainted morally because of the sinful circumstances of their conception: Pour le pechié dont sunt crié felons furent et enragié (27-28)

Their sin is compounded by their action of trampling on their father’s eyes, which he has just gouged out, at which point Oedipus curses his sons and asks the gods to avenge him (Il. 537-54). Now, in the early part of the romance the poet follows Statius’s moral conception of his subject-matter, the sinfulness of the whole family, including Jocaste (ll. 493-94), being given as the cause of the terrible war and ultimate destruction of Thebes.

However,

as the

narrative progresses, the inherited guilt of both brothers is largely replaced by the illegal, unjust behaviour of Eteocles in refusing to allow Polinices to rule Thebes in alternate years. Jocaste is given the highly positive role of peacemaker and moderator, and Polinices, supported by King Adraste and the Greeks, is presented as in the right according to feudal and moral law. Indeed, Thideiis claims confidently, echoing Roland and his notion of war as

judicium Dei: ‘Il avra tort, nous avrons droit’ (1. 4455). Thus the moral climate of the Thébes is not as different from that of the Roland as one might assume. Each text presents two opposing °

See Tony Hunt, ‘Character and Causality in the Oxford Roland’, Medioevo

Romanzo, V (1978), 3-33; and id., ‘The Tragedy of Roland: an Aristotelian view’, Modern Language Review, LXXIV (1979), 791-805.

Reading Epic Through Romance

forces, one in the right, the other However,

Eteocles’s

Thebans

are

105

legally and morally

presented

in a more

wrong. ethically

nuanced manner than the Roland’s pagans and, as we shall see, issues discussed by the Christians in the epic are echoed in the council scenes of both camps in the romance." Given the number of obvious allusions to the ‘Roland’ it is clear that the romance author deliberately invokes the epic as intertext." The first of these is a comparison between Charles’s nephew and valiant Thideüs, who later becomes Polinices’s faithful compagnon: ‘De proesce sembla Roullant’ (1. 772). In this episode, a rather unreasonable,

hotheaded

Polinices

refuses

to

allow

Thideiis

to

shelter with him when there is ample space for both and a combat ensues between these two youngish (Il. 765-67) knights. The narrator’s comment: Et pour si mauvese achoison se combatent li dui baron!

(773-74)

suggests disapproval of Polinices’s behaviour, while the portrayal of the slightly older, but smaller, Thideüs is enhanced by associating his bravery with that of Roland.” The parallel between the epic hero and Thideiis is continued later when Thideüs, acting as messenger, is ambushed by Eteocles’s men and defends himself heroically: 10

The more nuanced morality of the Thèbes is also noted by Francine Mora-

Lebrun in the introduction to her edition, pp. 18-19, where she takes issue with

Payen’s view that the romance represents the great struggle between East and West characteristic of crusading epic. See Jean-Charles Payen, ‘Structure et sens du Roman de Thèbes’, Le Moyen Age, LXXVI (1970), 493-513. 11 See Boutet, La Chanson de geste, Part Two, Chapter 5, ‘Stéréotypie, variation, intertextualité’, in which she distinguishes between the use of stereotypical features drawn from the collective memory of the epic genre and the deliberate imitation or rewriting of specific texts. As Gaunt has shown in Gender and Genre, and Kay in The ‘Chansons de Geste’, intertextual dialogue can cross genre boundaries. There may also be a reminiscence of Thierry and Pinabel’s combat here, reinforcing the positive portrayal of Thideiis. It is unlikely that the allusion to

Roland in close proximity with a demonstration of Polinices’s folie (ll. 708, 750) draws on a negative view of Roland, although van Emden has found examples of negative Roland-like traits transferred to another character in some texts; see “The Reception of Roland’, p. 17.

106

Karen Pratt

Coux donne merveillex et granz, onc nel donna meillor Rollans

(1711-12)

These similarities are strengthened by the information that Thideüs is the Greeks’ gonfanonier (1. 2150, cf. Roland’s eslais in Roland, Il. 1152-61). Clearly Roland is being invoked because of his positive warlike qualities and the allusion is flattering to Thideüs. Moreover, just as Roland is capable of expressing gentler emotions, looking at his fellow Frenchmen ‘humles e dulcement’ (1. 1163)

prior to joining battle, so Thideüs is depicted as compassionate in the episode of the child killed by a serpent (Il. 2444-46). Thus Thideiis, despite his somewhat bellicose nature (reminiscent of Oliver’s comment on Roland: ‘Vostre curages est mult pesmes e fiers’, I. 256), is presented favourably in the romance and his portrayal is enhanced rather than compromised by the comparisons with Roland. The other explicit ‘Roland’ allusions link the Greeks, who support Polinices, with Charles’s army in Spain: ne tant n’ot Karles en Espaingne quant il conquist cex de Sessoingne

perhaps

because

the

Greeks,

like

(4551-52)

Charlemagne’s

men

and

the

Crusaders who saw themselves reflected in the ‘Roland’, left their

land to fight for a just cause.

Ypomedon, Roland’s:

is described

Similarly the Greek rearguard, led by

(only in MS S) as being modelled

l’arier garde est ordeigné; en quatre eschieles des Rolant, dont cist jogleor vont chantant

on

(S, 10614-16)

Moreover, in Amphiaras, the Greek archbishop with a marvellous chariot, we have another version of the militant Christianity epitomised by Turpin:

Reading Epic Through Romance

107

ne tant genz cox ne fist Turpins en Espaigne seur Sarrazins (5027-28) °

The comparison is explicit and flattering to Amphiaras.* It rests, however, on Turpin’s reputation for vasselage, not for his spiritual leadership, nor his sensible words towards the end of both horn

scenes.” Another Greek, Capaneüs, uses the battle-cry ‘Monjoie’ (1. 9312), just before challenging the gods and being punished by a thunderbolt from on high. Yet, as the battle-cry is Charlemagne’s rather than Roland’s, it is probably being invoked not to draw parallels between two types of desmesure, although this is a possible reading, but to link the Greeks with the Christians, both fighting a just war. Nevertheless a parailel has already been established in an earlier episode between the bellicose Capaneüs and Roland. For on Thideüs’s return, wounded from his embassy to the Thebans (cf. the

fate of Basan and Basile), Capaneüs counsels war and revenge (ll. 2081-100),

after

Amphiaras

has argued

against it, prophesying

disaster and his own death (11. 2055-80). Capanetis’s arguments and behaviour are reminiscent of Roland’s in the first council scene: Canpaneiis sailli em piez et parole conme hom iriez:

(cf. Roland, 195)

‘Sire’, dist il, ne doiz pas croire

quanque oz dire a cest provoire [...] Mes coarz est ...’ (2081-84, 2087)

In the romance, though, the war faction, clearly in the right, wins

the argument, deaths.

even if this does lead eventually to its members’

This example illustrates the fact that parallels to the Roland are identifiable even if not explicitly marked by the Thèbes author. 3 In two of these examples the matière de Roncevaux is evoked as the second of two comparisons, one linking Charlemagne with the Romans, the other linking

Turpin with Godfrey of Bouillon. Thus the Thébes poet selects what he needs from a range of literary or historical ‘intertexts’, as well as from a range of traits supplied by characters such as Roland.

14" It is highly unlikely that Amphiaras’s fate, to be swallowed up by the earth for his intellectual hubris, represents a negative reading of his epic counterpart Turpin. 5 This is in keeping with Turpin’s self-promotion primarily as a warrior, as his disparaging words about monks indicate (Roland, ll. 1877-82).

108

Karen Pratt

Some parallels are structural,

imitating the macro-organisation

of

the epic, while others consist of verbal echoes.* Just as the Roland begins in the pagan camp, thus creating the possibility of dramatic irony as we witness Marsile’s intended treachery and can judge the Christian council accordingly, hostilities between the Theban brothers begin when Eteocles summons his ‘privez’ to an orchard, where he decides on treason, refusing to hand Thebes over to Polinices after one year. In both cases the focus of interest then turns to the response of the wronged party.

King Adraste convinces

Polinices not to challenge his brother himself, but to send a messenger (whose behaviour, incidentally, is expected to be provocative): qui par raison sache parler, le regne querre et demander, et desfier et menacier (1197-99)

The Greeks see such a mission as folie (1. 1203) and refuse to go, though no-one is actually nominated: Il ne treuve qui veulle aler pour le mesage raconter; ainz dist chascun que fox fera qui le mesage portera (1201-04)

Thideüs,

who

has already been

compared

to Roland,

volunteers,

having noted the fear (1. 1205) of the Greeks. Although fierce and a little hot-headed, he is older than Polinices, and in a spirit reminiscent of the compagnonnage of Roland and Oliver, offers to go on his companion’s behalf (1. 1213). In the Thèbes it appears that the king decides on who should be sent as a messenger (11. 1217-18),

yet his permission (‘l’otroi’) is not explicitly given to Thideiis.'’ ‘© An example of the verbal resonance is to be found in Thèbes, 1. 3727: ‘Le jour trespasse, vint la nuit’, which occurs just before Eteocles’s council to decide on war or peace with Polinices. It is evocative of several laisses in the Roland which begin with temporal references at portentous moments in the action, e.g. laisses XI, LVI, LVIII. These echoes may, however, be genre-specific rather than textspecific; see Boutet, La Chanson de geste, p. 142.

Tn the Roland Charlemagne appears to have a veto, at least over volunteers who do not yet have French approval, but when Ganelon is nominated and the French

Reading Epic Through Romance

109

When Polinices himself asks to be granted the mission, Thideiis

smiles or laughs at him: De mautalent et de put’ ire Thedeiis s’en commence a rire

(1221-22)

While Ganelon in his nomination scene is clearly angered by Roland’s similar behaviour (Il. 302-07),”” the Thèbes poet does not see this gesture as grounds for anger and enmity on Polinices’s part. The latter leaves the room without a word, Thideüs (the married man, see |. 1240) sets off (we assume with the silent consent of the

king), accomplishes the mission, and the companions resume

friendship later.”

Similarly,

when

the Greeks

their

are discussing

whether to capture the castle of Monflor, and Polinices is ready to leave without attacking it, Thideüs calls him a coart, bricon and musart (Il. 3143-44) recalling both Ganelon’s use of bricun (ieferring indirectly to his stepson) in line 220 of the Roland, and Roland’s advocacy of war. Yet Adraste approves Thideüs’s advice to attack, even employing the term courtois (1. 3156) to describe the belligerent and verbally insulting knight, and Polinices again says agree, he seems merely to ratify their decision. This point is discussed by André Burger, ‘Le Rire de Roland’, Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, III (1960), 2-11, at p. 10, who argues that this vagueness as to who actually sends Ganelon off to almost certain death allows the traitor to see his enemy as Roland, not Charles. Norbert Ohler, The Medieval Traveller, translated by Caroline Hillier (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1989), pp. 64-73, treats the subject of messengers and envoys as medieval travellers but does not shed much light on the mechanisms for choosing an envoy in the Middle Ages. 18 Given the range of meanings of rire in Old French, it is not easy to decide if a

character is laughing or smiling. In the Roland example (11. 302-03) Ganelon sees Roland’s rire, which to my mind suggests an ironic smile. See Philippe Ménard, Le Rire et le sourire dans le roman courtois en France au moyen âge (1150-1250) (Geneva: Droz, 1969), p. 31. ®

See Burger, ‘Le Rire’, p. 11, where Roland is called ‘l’offenseur’; Robert

Francis Cook, The Sense of the ‘Song of Roland’ (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1987), p. 24; Hunt, ‘Character and Causality’, p. 21; Short, edition, p. 47, note to line 302; Wolfgang van Emden, La Chanson de Roland,

Critical Guides to French Texts, 113 (London: Grant & Cutler, 1995), pp. 26-31. 20 Manuscript S has a much shorter version of this scene (compare C, 1175-235, S, 1288-313). Here Adraste has already given Polinices permission to go when Thideiis challenges this decision and laughs. Polinices simply acquiesces. It is impossible to tell if the greater emphasis in C on the mechanics of choosing a messenger is original or the product of scribal intervention.

110

Karen Pratt

nothing, and fights.” It seems that for the romance author the expression of scorn is part of a system of warrior competitiveness. It is definitely not seen as grounds for hostility, though it is possible that it was more acceptable coming from a slightly older man like

Thideiis rather than from a younger man like Roland.” The choice of Thideüs as envoy in the first episode suggests that it is not just the minor and expendable characters who are allowed to carry out such tasks. Nor are negotiating skills the only qualifications, for Thidetis is expected to issue a defiant challenge to Eteocles (11. 1197-99, quoted above, 1396-1408, 1425-32) and it is

the Greek hero’s martial skills that enable him to return alive.” Although we have seen reminiscences of Ganelon’s nomination scene here, this early episode in the romance functions as the equivalent of Basan and Basile’s fateful embassy to Marsile, the pre-

text for the action of the Roland.

A stronger parallel to the Roland’s

first nomination scene is the council called by Eteocles when the Greek army is surrounding Thebes (ll. 3741 ff.). This scene is not

in the Latin source, nor is the character Othon,” whose functional role as opposer of the war-faction led by Atys is reminiscent both of Ganelon’s role in his nomination scene and Oliver’s in the first horn

1 Glyn Sheridan Burgess, Contribution à l’étude du vocabulaire pré-courtois (Geneva: Droz, 1970), pp. 21-25, discusses the use of courtois in the Roland and the Thébes and concludes that although the romance is beginning to use the word in its modern, courtly sense, the older military connotations still persist. From the evidence

of collocations,

Burgess

concludes

that courtois

can

mean

‘brave,

courageous’ and is almost synonymous with proz (p. 24). This is the meaning of courtois in Thèbes, 1. 3156, demonstrating that this roman antique shares much of

the epic ethos. See also line 1285: ‘Thideüs fu preuz et cortois’ and Guy de Lage, ‘Courtois et courtoisie dans le Roman de Thèbes’, in Mélanges et de littérature du Moyen Age et de la Renaissance offerts a Jean professeur a la Sorbonne par ses collégues, ses éléves et ses amis, 2 vols Droz, 1970), II, 929-33.

Raynaud de langue Frappier (Geneva:

*2 The question of age is treated below. A further factor here is that Thideiis and Polinices,

though

brothers-in-law,

do not have

the same

problematic

family

relationship as Roland and Ganelon. The narrator does not emphasise Thideiis’s wisdom, but his courage, linked to his faith in God and the justice of his cause: ‘Or li aist Diex et ses droiz, / ses vasselages et sa foiz’ (Il. 1249-50). Compare Ganelon’s behaviour as messenger, analysed by Philip E. Bennett in this volume. *4 Interestingly, a character called Otes/Othon plays a major role in the later episodes of the rhymed Rolands, though the name is found in other epics too.

Reading Epic Through Romance

111

scene.” Atys, the Roland figure on the Theban side, is given a greatly enhanced role to play in comparison with his Latin equivalent, both during the council and at his death (ll. 5767-

6198). Indeed, Donovan claims (perhaps with some exaggeration) that in the vernacular romance Atys not only eclipses Partonopeu (the character presented as the main hero by Statius), but becomes

the hero martyr of the Thébes and acquires the status of a Roland: Il y a quelque chose de sympathique 4 voir ce jeune homme [...] tenter par la vigueur de ses interventions de prendre une place importante au conseil en dépit de son jeune age et de s’imposer comme épigone de Roland, énergique et démesuré (pp. 158-59).7”

During the debate Atys’s main attribute is valor (a near synonym

for proece), and Othon’s is sagesse (1. 3780). #

However, other

These parallels have been analysed by L.G. Donovan, Recherches sur ‘le

Roman de Thèbes’ (Paris: SEDES, 1975), Chapter V; and by Nicole Renken, ‘La Dispute entre Athon et Othon et la Chanson de Roland d’ Oxford’, Romanistische Zeitschrift fiir Literaturgeschichte, XII (1988), 208-11. I am very grateful to Ian Short for the latter reference.

6

The various laments over the death of Atys evoke both the praise of and

criticisms levelled at Roland: plaignent sa force et son aage, sa prouesce et son vasselage

(5951-52)

‘Onc ne vi hom de ta proece ne qui eiist si grant largece; tu ieres sages de conseil, tu avoies un gent pareil, prouesce et senz, qui est sauvage envers houme de ton aage’ (6027-32) ‘Mar fu veii ton vasselage!’

(6080; cf. Roland, 1731)

The striking association of Atys with ‘sagesse’ and ‘senz’ suggests a different conception of wisdom from that of modern critics when discussing epic ‘sagesse’. The question of démesure, which Donovan introduces here without textual support, will be discussed below. *8 The narrator calls Atys ‘Chevalier de grant valor’, 1. 3747. The term is associated in the Thébes with vasselage, proece and hardement (see Burgess, Contribution, p. 95). In this particular context Atys’s exemplary military service is probably being stressed, though the proffering of sound advice was also the obligation of a vassal. Cf. Othon’s later (probably ironic) comment: ‘Athon est mout hardiz et proz’ (1. 3187), which Donovan (p. 159, note 12) interprets as being largely uncritical.

112

Karen Pratt

occurrences in the romance suggest that the Thèbes author does not necessarily use these key terms as binary oppositions, especially when describing his warrior heroes. Eteocles is called ‘sages et prouz’ (1. 1141) as he plans to deprive his brother of his ruling rights; Ypomedon is lamented as ‘li preuz et li sages’ (1. 8583); and Capaneiis, despite his hubris, is twice given both epithets (IL. 8953, 9148). Since Ypomedon and Capaneiis are described in this way in battle, the context implies that far from being oppositional, these terms are complementary, designating two of the qualities necessary in warriors intent on action. Indeed, in some instances their semantic fields even overlap, tending towards synonymy. This may also be the case in the famous quotation from the Roland: Rollant est proz e Oliver est sage, Ambedui unt merveillus vasselage

for the poet may

be praising

(1093-94)

in his protagonists

qualities than some critics allow.”

more

similar

Indeed, the subsequent lines

stress similarity rather than difference:

‘Bon sunt li cunte e lur

paroles haltes’ (1. 1097) and this interpretation is supported by the Chateauroux and Paris versions: Rollant fu prouz et Oliver fu ber Per igal furent et compeignon et per

#

(C, 1939-40)

See for example Pierre Jonin, ‘Deux langages de héros épiques au cours d’une

bataille suicidaire’, Olifant, IX

(1982), 83-98, who identifies in Roland

and

Oliver ‘cette opposition de la réflexion généreuse au fanatisme égoïste et guerrier’ (p. 83); and Albert Gérard, ‘L’Axe Roland-Ganelon: valeurs en conflit dans la Chanson de Roland’, Le Moyen Âge, XXIV (1969), 445-65, who argues that Oliver and Roland represent conflicting warrior ideologies. On sagesse as a military attribute, see the use of the term in the Chanson de Guillaume, especially in the formula ‘sages hom est en bataille champel’ (Il. 56 and 907). See Jeanne Wathelet-Willem,

Recherches

sur

la

‘Chanson

de

Guillaume’:

études

accompagnées d’une édition, 2 vols (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1995). According to the editor’s glossary sage means ‘expert’ as well as ‘raisonnable’. Given that the formula is often followed by another formulaic line ‘si la set bien maintenir e garder’ (1. 908) which includes the verb ‘savoir’, sage seems to imply here knowledge/ability rather more than wisdom/reflectiveness and in the context of battle comes close to the meaning of proz.

Reading Epic Through Romance Rollans fu preus et Oliviers li bers, Paringal furent et compaignon et per

113

iP, 396-97)”

Far from suggesting that Roland’s prouesce is inferior to Oliver’s sagesse (the inference drawn by those modern scholars who

privilege wisdom over heroism), this passage seems to me to be reassuring us after the arguments of the first horn scene that Oliver is as battle-ready as Roland and that both have the qualities necessary

in great warriors.” Returning now to the Thébes and the debate between Atys and Othon, we find Eteocles’s question to his barons: ‘Fera pes ou se

combatra’ (1. 3744) (Cf. MS S, IL. 3812: ‘s’il fera plait o non fera’), echoing Charles’s presentation of the pagans’ offer, which ends with the hesitant words: ‘Mais jo ne sai quels en est sis curages’

(Roland, 191)

Atys, like Roland (Roland, ll. 196 ff.), assumes from the king’s introductory speech that his lord favours peace and therefore responds with strong words: ‘“Rois”, fet il, “es tu fox ou yvres?”’ (1. 3749). He accuses the king of vilanie (1. 3759), and of losing hope (1. 3763), and then invokes the dishonour of giving up his land without striking a blow (ll. 3767-70), an argument reminiscent of Roland in the first horn scene (Il. 1088-92). Othon’s response to the king is more polite, but he nevertheless refers to Atys’s advice as folie (1. 3784) and lecherie (1. 3785) (legerie in MS S, 1. 3853, which may well have the original reading here). 30 Les Textes de la Chanson de Roland, edited by Raoul Mortier, 10 vols (Paris: La Geste Francor, 1940-44). Simon Gaunt, Gender and Genre, pp. 38-40, discusses this passage as an example of the Paris remanieur’s desire to suppress difference in the companions of the Oxford version. He may, however, be overemphasising the oppositional force of the terms proz and sage in the earlier text.

31 See Gerard J. Brault, ‘The Song of Roland’: an analytical edition, 2 vols (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1978), I, 103; Cook, The Sense, p. 70; Jean Misrahi and William L. Hendrickson, ‘Roland and Oliver: Prowess and Wisdom, the Ideal of the Epic Hero’, Romance Philology, XXXII (1979-80), 357-72, whose analysis of the key terms in context is very helpful, though I find the ‘high moral value’ (p. 365) they attach to proz less convincing and not supported by examples from the Thèbes.

114

Karen Pratt

This criticism of Atys’s advice as legerie is accompanied by Othon’s emphasis on other qualities in his young opponent (associated with Roland by Oliver): prouece, estoutie and vasselage: ‘Athon est mout hardiz et proz et a parlé conme houme estoz; conseill donne de vasselage’

(3787-89)

Othon’s conclusion is that this is the advice of a bacheler ‘qui touz jors veut guerre mener’ (1. 3792), in order to increase his reputation whatever the cost. In modelling this scene on the conflict between Roland and Ganelon, the poet has picked out as a key issue the difference of age and responsibilities implied by the term bacheler: a young, unmarried warrior. Indeed, the generation gap is invoked later in the Thébes during battle, when King Adraste encourages the seasoned warriors to fight as well as the bachelers, and Atys, who is only fifteen, mocks the older mens’ bearded appearance by calling

them sheep. Othon is quick to rebuke him (ll. 4835-908).* It seems to me that in discussions about the hostility between Roland and Ganelon in the Nomination Scene this source of antagonism, to which the Thèbes author alludes, is not emphasised enough. While critics invoke the dispute over money mentioned by Ganelon in his trial (1. 3578), or Roland’s criticism of the French counsellors’ legerie, or the strained stepfather/stepson relationship as the possible reasons for this antagonism, they do not place much stress on what must have been in reality a great source of friction: the desire of young men with no dependents to fight to the death heroically for a °? See Donovan, Recherches, p. 159. It is impossible to tell how positive the term vasselage is here, though the tone is likely to be ironic. °° Tam grateful to Penny Eley for drawing my attention to a parallel in Partonopeu de Blois (edited by Joseph Gildea, 2 vols (Villanova, Penn.: Villanova University Press, 1967-70), ll. 2434-64). In this council scene the king who advocates prosecuting the war rather than accepting a pact with the enemy is accused of speaking like a bacheler, which is then equated with folie. Epic examples of the antagonism between young and experienced knights are to be found in Fierabras in the tension between Roland and Naimon, and in the Chanson de Guillaume in the

quarrelling of the eponymous hero with Gui. Indeed, Guillaume, before embarking on battle, speaks of the need for his ‘franc chevalier prové’ (1. 1610) to be supported by ‘li legier bacheler’ (1. 1613) as if the two groups were distinct fighting units.

Reading Epic Through Romance

T5

good cause, and the divided loyalties of the older married men.* The Roland poet does not portray two opposing factions, one advocating war and the other peace (as Cook rightly sees: The Sense, p. 15). He pits those who, in moments of uncertainty, prefer heroic action and revenge (Roland), against those who, for reasons of Christian mercy (Naimon) or family (Ganelon and all the French whose thoughts turn to their loved ones as they arrive in Gascony (ll. 820-22)), prefer to negotiate and return home early if an

honourable Christian settlement can be found.”

I therefore do not

read Ganelon’s desire to make peace with the pagans as a sign of cowardice, nor do I find his criticism of Roland misplaced: ‘“Ne li

chalt, sire, de quel mort nus murjuns”’ (1. 227).*° This seems to be the perception also of the Thébes poet, who portrays the sensible Othon positively, and yet his words in answer to Atys are inspired by those of Ganelon: ‘“ne li chaut puis a quoi qu’il tort”’ (1. 3795). However, while Ganelon may be right to question Roland’s motives in pursuing the war, he is wrong to take personal offence at his stepson’s nomination of him. For Roland is not, in my view, punishing Ganelon for not volunteering, since, as the French confirm in their choral approval (Il. 278-79), Ganelon is the best man for the job. The nomination may be tactless, obviously fateful, but not necessarily malicious.*” Moreover, Roland is probably using ** For a selection of critical views, see T.A. Jenkins, ‘Why did Ganelon Hate Roland?’, PMLA, XXXVI (1921), 119-33; Burger, ‘Le Rire’; Anthony M. Beichman, ‘Ganelon and Duke Naimon’, Romance Notes, XIII (1971), 358-62; Jean-Louis Picherit, ‘Le Silence de Ganelon’, Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, XXI (1978), 265-74; Hunt, ‘Character and Causality’; Cook, The Sense, pp. 13-

24; W.G. van Emden, ‘Argumentum ex Silentio: an aspect of dramatic technique in La Chanson de Roland’, Romance Philology, XLII. 1 (1989), 181-96. Since it is

possible that Ganelon, like King Marc in relation to Tristan, may not be much older than Roland, it is his marital status which is the more important factor. °° Wace in his Brut sheds some light on this issue when he shows Arthur sending the older married men home after a campaign, yet keeping the young bachelers ‘Qui de conbatre orent antante, /Qui n’orent fames ne anfanz’ with him for further battles. See Wace, La Partie arthurienne du Roman de Brut, edited by 1.D.O.

Arnold and M.M. Pelan (Paris: Klincksieck, 1962), ll. 1598-99. % T agree with Ian Short, however, that twelfth-century Crusaders, those at least who were more concerned with salvation than death, may well have interpreted this

scene differently, especially since the Roland poet has structured the narrative in such a way that we know the pagans are planning treachery. See van Emden, ‘Argumentum’, p. 189, discussing Hunt’s view in ‘Character and Causality’, p. 18. Beichman, for example, thinks that Roland’s nomination of

116

Karen Pratt

the term parastre literally and without pejorative implication.” However, Ganelon’s repetition of parastre (1. 287) does bestow on it greater significance, by emphasising the consequences for the family (in particular Roland’s mother’s potential widowhood) which have been overlooked.” Hence Ganelon’s shocked and angry reaction at the words of a young man who does not have a family of his own, whose loyalty and love are given to his feudal lord Charles rather than to his mother, and who will die without a thought for his fiancée Aude. This is of course merely implied, though such reasoning is revealed in Ganelon’s later speech (ll. 312-16), when he

mentions Charles’s sister and his son Baldwin.“

The fact that the

emperor will not go back on the decision of the French, and responds sarcastically to the pathos evoked by Ganelon (Il. 317-18), indicates that Charles shares Roland’s heroic rather than family ethos. Although the audience knows from the beginning of the epic that Roland is right about the pagans, Charles, Naimon and Ganelon are not necessarily morally flawed or. politically inept in seeming to prefer negotiation. The key to the peace pact is the delivery of his stepfather is to punish him for his hypocrisy. Yet this reading seems to me to attribute to Roland a degree of malice aforethought inconsistent with his portrayal in the song. For a similar view to my own, see Robert A. Hall Jr, “Ganelon and Roland’, Modern Language Quarterly, VI (1945), 263-69. °° Most characters in the epic are referred to by name plus another identifying tag: ‘Li empereres Carles de France dulce’ (1. 15); ‘reis Marsilies li bers’ (1. 125); ‘Rollant sis niés’ (1. 3771). The choice of tag may be significant, but may also be conventional, influenced both by actual practice (in a society without surnames) and by epic formulaic style (and the need to find suitable assonances). °° Interestingly the author of the Rolandslied (whose source seems to have been close to the Digby text, and to Châteauroux and V*) allows Roland in the nomination scene to praise Ganelon as having all the qualities needed in a messenger. His step-father’s response is to claim that Roland is sending him to his death, and he then makes more explicit the implications of the term parastre in the French: ‘din muoter ist min wib’ (1. 1393). He is further concerned that if he dies, Roland will inherit his money and Baldwin will be left destitute. Roland replies that he will look after his mother and Baldwin. Thus family issues are treated more fully in the German adaptation. See Das Rolandslied des Pfaffen Konrad, edited by Horst Richter (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981). ‘° Some critics (for example Burger, ‘Le Rire’, p. 8, following Bédier; and Short, edition, note to line 245) argue that Roland nominates Ganelon out of a concern for family honour. Yet there is nothing in Ganelon’s response (nor his own family’s, ll. 355-56) to suggest that this nomination would redound to his honour, though, of course, his refusal is shameful.

Reading Epic Through Romance

117

hostages closely related to Marsile (IL. 146-50, 241), and both Naimon in arguing for peace, and Charles in his message to the pagan king (I. 493), are clearly aware of the importance of acquiring hostages of high status. However, no-one could have anticipated the extent to which Ganelon would lie in his attempt to take revenge on Roland, and it is his fiction about the drowning of

the caliph and his forces (11. 681-91) that undermines an otherwise carefully thought-out and (from the point of view of honourable Christians not in the habit of sacrificing hostages) treason-proof peace plan.* Thus for me the tragedy of Roncevaux occurs because

the right man* is nominated for a wholly justified mission by a man whom the emperor favours and whose youthful ambition and forthright insensitivity are faults which the envious older married

man finds unforgivable.*

Both Tony Hunt and Wolfgang van

Emden are aware of this source of antagonism, as the former’s reference to Ganelon as ‘a family man with domestic ties’ (‘Character and Causality’, p. 8), and the latter’s to ‘the older [man]’ (‘Argumentum’, p. 190) make clear. Neither, however, discusses the issue of age and marital status at any length, though it would strengthen van Emden’s demonstration of the Roland poet’s gift for suggesting convincing psychological motivation without explicitly analysing character. The romance author, in imitating this scene, makes one of the major reasons for the antagonism between Roland and Ganelon more patent.

“1

Given Ganelon’s ability to lie here, one wonders whether he is also lying in

relating the story of the ‘vermeille pume’ (laisse XXIX) and in using financial conflict as an excuse for his treason (1. 3758). Unless corroborated, Ganelon’s statements regarding Roland are in my view suspect. See Sarah Kay, “Ethics and Heroics in the Song of Roland’, Neophilologus, LXII (1978), 480-91, especially P: 483; but for a different opinion, see Philip Bennett’s article in this volume. 2? The concept of the right man for the job runs throughout the text: Roland is the right person to lead a vanguard when advancing, but a rearguard in retreat; Ogier is well qualified to lead the vanguard. When Naimon claims that Roland, having been nominated, must carry out the task since: ‘N’avez baron ki jamais la remut’ (1. 779), this is not because no-one can legally challenge this, for Charles presumably still has a veto (unless he is only allowed to veto volunteers), but because, apart from the matter of honour raised by Roland, there is no-one else fit for the job. 43 On Ganelon’s motives, see van Emden, ‘Argumentum’, p. 191, quoting Bertrand de Bar-sur-Aube’s view that Ganelon and his clan were motivated by pride and envy; and Burger, ‘Le Rire’, p. 7, who calls Ganelon ‘jaloux’.

118

Karen Pratt

Van Emden’s article on characterisation and dramatic technique

in the Roland concentrates in particular on two significant silences: Roland’s inability, as he sees it, to reply to Oliver’s criticisms in the second horn scene after line 1736 and Ganelon’s silence when volunteers are being sought for the embassy to Marsilie.“ The question modern critics have debated at length, hypothesising without citing historical or other records relating to the appointment of messengers either in the late eleventh century or during the Carolingian period, is should Ganelon have volunteered?” It is the Thèbes that gives us a twelfth-century opinion on the subject. Othon, having rebuked Atys, argues that being outnumbered (1. 3799) the Thebans ought to send messengers to Polinices offering a peace settlement: to share the land between the brothers, with

Polinices paying homage to Eteocles for his share (1. 3804). Then Jocaste (perhaps playing the role of Naimon here) convinces her treacherous and vengeful son to be reconciled with his brother (Il. 3823-38). The Thebans ratify this decision, refusing to infringe feudal law further and saying ‘ne voudrons guerre a tort sosfrir’ (Il. 3849), and the king reluctantly agrees (ll. 3871 & 3896). Ironically, the question of who should be sent as envoy is raised by Othon (the

Ganelon-equivalent here), who tells the king to decide:*° “Gardez qui ira le matin a vostre frere osfrir la fin’

“*

(3901-02)

In the first case it is true that Roland does not reply to Oliver, but in my view

Turpin’s words of conciliation are very significant: he endorses the course of action proposed by Roland (Il. 1740-51, and cf. ll. 1127-38). Moreover, in asking them to stop arguing, he is rebuking Oliver more than Roland, for while the former expresses anger and spite even, the latter expresses mere incomprehension. See critics listed in note 34 above. Short conveys, with a certain circumspection, the general view: ‘Le silence de Ganelon est éloquent: le premier à plaider en faveur des pourparlers avec l’ennemi (v. 217), il aurait pu être le premier à se porter volontaire lors de la nomination d’ambassadeurs. Sans doute Roland ressent-il cette mauvaise foi’ (edition, note to line 245; my italics).

“° As at the Greek councils already discussed (Il. 1193 ff. and 4401 ff.) we note

that in theory the king must decide, but he is usually expected to follow advice and ratify courses of action proposed by his barons. In this respect procedure is not unlike that found in the Roland.

Reading Epic Through Romance and without

anyone

volunteering,

Atys

immediately

119 nominates

Othon:*” Athes a dit: ‘Vous i irez,

qui le message bien ferez. Tel houme covient la aler Qui la fin sache pourparler. Vous l’avez primes pourparlee, par vous redoit estre acordee’

(3903-08)

According to Atys, therefore, it is logical for the man who argues for peace to be sent as messenger, and in this respect Atys agrees with those Roland critics who think that Ganelon should have volunteered and who therefore see his silence as highly significant. However, Atys may not be right, for Othon, a far more positive character than Ganelon, is allowed to refute this logic. Angered by his nomination, he invokes arguments about vassalic bonds which echo the Roland (11. 296-97), yet are placed in a slightly different context. Othon claims that Atys is not his lord, therefore does not have the right to nominate him: “Vos n’estes pas, fet il, mes sire

ne pour vostre conmandement n’irai oan a parlement” (3910-12)

This does not seem to be an issue in the Roland, though some critics have

claimed,

without

foundation,

that

a messenger

had

to be

‘7 Hunt, ‘Character and Causality’, p. 13, claims that in the Roland volunteers are not acceptable, and seems to imply that nominees are automatically ratified. The Thèbes does not, however, support this view as nominees do decline and both Thideiis and Jocaste are volunteers whose offer is accepted. What is important is that the envoy be confirmed by the assembled court and/or the king. 48 While the romance does raise in our minds doubts as to Roland’s right to nominate a man who is not his vassal, in the epic Ganelon does not challenge this

right, though he does claim that Roland cannot take his place as messenger, for he is not Ganelon’s vassal (Il. 296-97). However, in V’ Ganelon’s objection is closer to the wording of the Thèbes: ‘“Eo non sum vost hom et vos non si mon sire”’ (V*, 1. 242).

120

Karen Pratt

nominated by a more noble knight.” However, Atys replies that it is on behalf of the king that Othon has been named (11. 3919-20), and with this lame excuse, which seems to concede that Othon was right,

the argument ends.” Eteocles, who differs from Charles in that he is not in favour of suing for peace, then asks his barons whom they should send (1. 3943; cf. Roland, 1. 244). By using reported speech, the poet makes it unclear whether or not the king actually voices his preference to his counsellors, but we are nevertheless told that ‘seur touz en veut Othon proier’ (1. 3944), out of revenge for Othon’s advocacy of a pact.

The barons,

swiftly ratify this choice.

like the French

in the Roland,

Compare:

Tuit li loent que il y aille, n’i a baron qui tant i vaille ne miex sache parler a cort

(3945-47)

with Dient Franceis: ‘Car il le poet ben faire! Se lui lessez, n’i trametrez plus saive”!

(278-79)

Clearly Othon, like Ganelon, is an excellent choice for the job, as

both are known for their wit and linguistic skills (cf. Roland, I. 369). However, Othon refuses to be sent, and the narrator

seems to

admire his good sense and the arguments he uses in his defence against Atys’s taunts offolie (1. 3959): ‘Othes respondi par contrere,

/ conme cil qui bien le sot fere’ (Il. 3961-62; cf. Roland, 194-95). Othon, now Roland-like, claims not to fear Atys’s menace (1. 3964;

cf. Roland, |. 294), invokes his noble, free lineage and refuses to quarrel. He has always served his king well in the past, but on this

#

See Jenkins, ‘Why did Ganelon Hate Roland?’, p.130; Beichmann, ‘Ganelon

and Duke Naimon’, p. 359; and cf. van Emden,

‘Argumentum’,

p. 186, who

rejects this line of argument. °° Similar reasoning may lie behind Roland’s nomination of Ganelon, which is in answer to Charles’s third request for a messenger. °? Yet in V* the comment about Ganelon’s cleverness/wisdom is expressed by ee see Burger, ‘Le Rire’, p. 2: ““Se lui lassa no n’auri un tan sace”’ (V*, 1.

211).

Reading Epic Through Romance

occasion he will not carry out his wishes.”

1241

Invoking Eteocles’s

violation of feudal law, he reminds the Thebans of their treacherous

treatment of the Greek messenger Thideiis, and refuses to expose himself to the Greeks’ certain revenge. Thus Othon is not driven by the goading of a younger, warlike knight to undertake a dangerous mission and the romance author thereby distances himself from the ethos of the chansons de geste. The epic poet seems to have approved of Ganelon’s acquiescence to the will of Charlemagne and of the French, and after his initial expression of fear and reluctance Ganelon goes on to demonstrate the courage of an epic warrior, in

particular at Marsilie’s camp.”

For the clerical author of the

Thèbes, on the other hand, the acceptance of such unfavourable odds is not laudable, and Eteocles’s barons agree with him: Par la sale tuit en conseillent,

dient que pas ne s’en merveillent se Othes ne vet cele part ou cuide avoir si grant regart; car autretel dient il tuit,

nul d’eus n’ira ja sanz conduit

(4011-16)

The impasse is then resolved by Jocaste, who agrees to go with her daughters as messenger to her other son. This courtly and highly

improbable romance

solution” (which was, however, already in

Statius) was clearly not open to the Roland poet, for the tragedy of Roncevaux is portrayed in the epic as inevitable from the moment a

messenger is required.” °?

Atys never responds to Othon’s refusal,

The suggestion by Atys that Othon is breaking his vassalic bond with the king

by refusing to serve him in this respect evokes Thierry’s arguments at Ganelon’s trial. The latter has an obvious parallel in the Thébes in the trial of Daire le Roux, although, as Aimé Petit argues in Naissances du roman: les techniques littéraires dans les romans antiques du XII° siècle, 2 vols (Paris: Champion, 1985), I, 267, Daire’s trial also evokes feudal, legal issues raised in Raoul de Cambrai.

°3

In V*, however, Ganelon tries to refuse the mission.

°*

Female messengers seem to have been rare in the Middle Ages, although they

occur in the romances of Chrétien, for example, and Christine de Pizan’s didactic works promote the role of queens as peace negotiators. See Karen Pratt, ‘The Image of the Queen in Old French Literature’, in Queens and Queenship in

Medieval Europe, edited by A.J. Duggan (Cambridge: Brewer, 1997), pp. 235-59.

°° Renken, ‘La Dispute’, p. 209, refers to ‘la fatalité du droit féodal” characteristic of epic.

122

Karen Pratt

and Donovan (Recherches, p. 157) points out that Atys’s silence at this point is part of the poet’s fundamentally sympathetic portrayal of the hero. A more convincing reading, however, is that Othon has won the argument and Atys has failed to provoke him into foolhardy action. The Roman de Thèbes not only helps us to read Ganelon’s nomination scene; it can also shed light on the ethos of the Roland in general and on the meaning of key terms such as sens, mesure and their opposites. Citing many parallels between Atys and Roland, and between

Donovan

this council

scene

and the Roland’s

second

horn

scene,

frequently refers to Atys’s and his model’s desmesure,

though this is a view not supported explicitly by either text.°° In the Thèbes, a desmesure describes the size of Capaneüs the giant (1. 8949), and the verb se desmesurer is employed positively of knights’ heroic efforts in battle (1. 5737). Negative desmesure is associated with the treacherous and vengeful Theban king, Eteocles (Il. 7614, 8025), while his mother Jocaste, represents the restraining effects of senz et mesure (ll. 4360, 7983). The impetuous nature of young knights (jouvenciax) is seen as a lack of mesure (1. 3724), but is not overtly criticised. Nowhere though does the poet link the Roland figures Atys and Thideiis explicitly with desmesure, in the same way that the Roland poet never calls Roland desmesuré (though, of course, Oliver accuses him of a lack of mesure.

is not always a quality admired quotation from Thèbes illustrates: Li uns a l’autre dit et jure: “Mar y avra gardé mesure: celui tendront a jumentier qu’em portera escu entier!”

in warriors,

In fact, moderation

as the following

(5491-93)

However, the Theban Atys is associated, both in the council scene and at his death, with legerie and folie, thus sharing some of the attributes of Roland criticised by Oliver in the second horn scene:

56

See Donovan, Recherches, pp. 154, 158, 159, 162, etc. On actual references to desmesure in the Roland, see Misrahi and Hendrickson, ‘Roland and Oliver’, p. 358.

Reading Epic Through Romance

125

Cumpainz, vos le feistes;

Kar vasselage par sens nen est folie, Mielz valt mesure que ne fait estultie. Franceis sunt morz par vostre legerie

(1723-26)

Nevertheless Atys dies a hero, generously accepting responsibility for his own reckless death. Thideiis, Atys’s Greek equivalent also in the mould of Roland, kills him reluctantly and regrets his passing

with great pathos (5831-35).*

It is interesting to note that the

narrator uses similar terms to describe Ypomedon, who dies a hero and whose death is also narrated with great pathos: voiseux est de chevalerie de hardement et d’estoutie. Commencier voult cest vasselage qui tourner li dut a donmage (3451-54)

It seems that for the romance author, those qualities which critics who side with Oliver see as reprehensible in Roland are the attributes of young warrior heroes destined because of their uncompromising bravery for tragically premature deaths.” °?

The other versions of the Roland have some interesting variations here.

The

Chateauroux MS reads: Dist Oliver: Bien l’avez deservie! Meus valt mesure ge ne valt estoutie! Mort sunt Francois par vostre legerie (C, 3005-07) while Lyon, Cambridge and Paris have the single couplet: Dist Oliviers: Vous l’avez deservie; Francois morront per vostre legerie (L, 821-22) none expressing an equivalent idea to the folie and sens of the Oxford Roland. V’, on the other hand, is closer to Digby 23, and does set up an opposition between sens and folie, though the hypermetric line 1821, by paralleling the syntax of line 1822, serves as an elaboratio of the subsequent line: Meio est sens cha per proeg acir a folie Plu val mesure che no fa solticie Francois sunt morti par vostra licirie (V*, 1821-23)

°8 This scene offers an instructive example of intertextuality at the level of ’ characterisation. Roland has become for the Thèbes author a collection of traits which are invoked in the portrayal of both the older, valiant Thideiis and the younger, over-confident Atys. The heroism of both romance figures is enhanced by the audience’s memory of Roland. °? Given the fundamentally pagan setting of the Roman de Thèbes and the nature of the warfare in it, there is no scope for a reading of Roland-like characters as Christian martyrs. While I perceive a certain admiration in the romance author for the heroic values of the epic, Mora-Lebrun takes a different view: that the Thébes

124

Karen Pratt

So the Thébes poet does employ some of the key terms from Oliver’s speech — applying them to young knights: legerie and folie in the case of Atys, estoutie and vasselage for Ypomedon. Sens and mesure, on the other hand, are desirable in rulers, and in negotiators

like Jocaste, though the desirability of mesure in battle is more debatable and probably was debated in the twelfth century. Although this is a quality which Oliver clearly promotes in the Oxford Roland, his views are not necessarily shared by the author. Besides, Oliver may not be explicitly encouraging sens at all, for line 1724 of the Roland, ‘Car vasselage par sens nen est folie’, translated traditionally as ‘for courage tempered by good sense is

not folly’, is open to a different interpretation.”

Although the

standard dictionaries, and the glossary to Joseph Bédier’s La Chanson de Roland commentée all list line 1724 as an example of par used with a noun, nearly every other occurrence is of par + noun modifying a verb of action: ‘Brochet par vasselage’ (1. 1658), for instance.” In the Roland the construction par + noun is found with estre only in expressions such as ‘Serez ses hom par honur e par ben’ (1. 39). Here, the par locution still modifies the verb estre rather than the noun hom. Although the expression par sens (meaning ‘wisely’) is common in Old French (see Thèbes, 1. 4349, where Jocaste replies “par senz’), it is not to be found with the verb

estre modifying a noun.” In my view ‘sens’ in the Roland, 1. 1724, could be translated as ‘meaning’ and the phrase par sens (by analogy constitutes an anti-war parody of the Roland and demonstrates a ‘volonté discrètement contestataire destinée à marquer l’écart entre une “mise en roman” inspirée par une oeuvre antique, et une chanson de geste’ (Mora-Lebrun, Le Roman de Thèbes, p. 23). °° The following is a selection of modern renderings: ‘car la vaillance sensée n’est pas folie’, Short, La Chanson de Roland; ‘courage coupled with good sense [is very different from] the spirit of mad adventure’, La Chanson de Roland. Oxford Version, edited by T. Atkinson Jenkins (Boston: Heath, 1924), p. 131; ‘la vaillance associée au bon sens n’est pas de la folie’, La Chanson de Roland, edited

and translated by Pierre Jonin (Paris: Gallimard, 1979); ‘For a true vassal’s act, in its wisdom, avoids folly’, The Song of Roland, translated by Glyn Burgess (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1990). ' Joseph Bédier, La Chanson de Roland commentée (Paris: Piazza, 1927), p. 441. % See Daniel Koenig, Sen/sens et savoir et leurs synonymes dans quelques romans courtois du XII° et du début du XIII° siècle, Publications Universitaires

Européennes. Série 13, Langue et Littérature Françaises, 22 (Berne: Lang, 1973).

Reading Epic Through Romance with

‘par

nom’,

TL,

VII,

col.

158)

would

125 then

mean

‘by

definition’.® Thus line 1724 would read ‘for behaving like a brave vassal is not by definition (or “is not the same thing as”) foolhardiness’.“ Not only is this a more meaningful statement and more appropriate in the context than the truism that ‘the behaviour of a brave vassal as long as it is tempered by good sense is not folly’ (compare the banality of any similar expression in which the last two terms are binary opposites), but also it does less violence to the metre. For the line to scan ‘correctly’, the caesura has to fall after vasselage. Thus to see ‘par sens’ as modifying the term vasselage instead of estre would undermine the integrity of the sense unit —

the hemistich.° Moreover, romance evidence supports this reading, % See Adolf Tobler and Erhard Lommaizsch, Altfranzdsisches Wérterbuch (henceforth TL), IX (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1973), col. 459; compare Chrétien de Troyes, Le Chevalier de la charrete, edited by Mario Roques, Classiques Frangais du Moyen Age, 86 (Paris: Champion, 1981), line 26: ‘matiere et san li done et livre’; and Philippe de Thaon, Comput, edited by Ian Short, Anglo-Norman Text Society Piain Texts Series, 2 (London: Anglo-Norman Text Society, 1984), line 560: ‘sulunc le sens del num’. For further examples of sen(s) meaning ‘meaning’, see Glyn S. Burgess, ‘Sen(s), “Meaning”, in Twelfth-Century French’, Romania, XCIX (1978), 389-95. Burgess builds on Frappier’s research into the meaning of sen(s) provoked by Rychner’s challenge to Frappier’s translation of the prologue to the Charrete: Jean Frappier, ‘Le Prologue du Chevalier de la Charrette et son interprétation”, Romania, XCIII (1972), 337-77; and Jean Rychner, ‘Le Prologue du Chevalier de la Charrette’, Vox Romanica, XXVI (1967), 1-23. Douglas Kelly, The Art of Medieval French Romance (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992), Chapter 4: ‘Conte’: ‘Matiere’ and ‘San’, demonstrates how common the term san with the sense of ‘meaning’ was in Old French. °* Editors of medieval texts seem automatically to see in the phrase ‘par sens’ a reference to wisdom or cleverness. Hence F. Whitehead renders the expression ‘in a cunning way’ in line 352 of his edition of La Chastelaine de Vergi (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1944). Yet the knight, when asked how he knows when to visit his beloved replies ‘par sens / que je vous dirai’, which I would translate as ‘in the way that I shall now explain’. Indeed, the two instances of “par sen’ from the Roman de Troie (quoted by TL, IX, col. 429) imply that sen is a synonym for maniere (‘Partons noz genz e ordenons ... Par tel sen e par tel maniere, Com plus nos seit chose legiere, Troie 2279’). While it would be risky on the basis of these examples to propose as a translation for the Roland, line 1724, ‘vasselage is in no way folly’, Burgess, in his review of Cook’s The Sense,

does suggest that ‘Perhaps sens means “way”’, Romance Philology, XLVII (1993), 137-41, at p. 139. The evidence points, at the very least, to a wider range of meanings for sens and par sens than is generally accepted. 6 There are, of course, examples in the Roland of the sense carrying into the second hemistich, or of a line dividing into two halves of five syllables, as well as the more common four/six or six/four arrangement.

However, considerations of

126

Karen Pratt

for proverbial quotations of this line never include the word sens.” Compare: Erec et Enide: Folie n’est pas vasselages” ers 68 Roman de la Rose: Folie n’est pas vasselage Prose Tristan: Folie n’est pas vaselage®”

Of course in echoing the Roland these romance authors are agreeing with the general point made by Oliver, Chrétien for example implying that Erec is wise when he avoids fighting unarmed against Yder. However, they are not necessarily as critical as Oliver is of Roland’s actual behaviour or brand of folie, for Chrétien also praises Yvain’s prowess against Count Alier by comparing him unreservedly with Roland: Onques ne fist de Durandart Rolanz des Turs si grant essart An Roncevaus ne an Espaingne!

(3235-37)

metre and rhythm are invoked here not to stand alone, but to support semantic evidence. Only after arriving at these conclusions independently was my attention drawn by Tony Hunt to Bernard Cerquiglini’s discussion of this passage: ‘Roland a Roncevaux, ou la trahison des clercs’, Littérature, XLII (1981), 40-56. He also points out the banality of the traditional reading of line 1724, and the metrical objections, concluding though that ‘par sens’ is an interjection meaning ‘par raison, assurément’ (p. 54). Moreover, he demonstrates, in my view rightly, just how clerical and ‘un-epic’ many modern academic readings of the Roland are. °° Jam very grateful to Ian Short for challenging me on this point and providing ample textual support for his view. However, his argument, that the passage from decasyllable to octosyllable would naturally have resulted in the loss of par sens, does not seem to me to invalidate my discussion, for had par sens been vital to the meaning of the line (which scholars claim it is when they consider sens and mesure in Oliver’s speech to be key terms, the one reinforcing the other) it could easily have been accommodated in more than one octosyllable. If, on the other hand, the gnomic expression already existed in octosyllablic form before being incorporated into the Roland, the addition of the disyllabic par sens with the meaning ‘by definition’ intensifies rather than changes the meaning of the proverb, whereas the traditional interpretation weakens the force of the expression. °’ Kristian von Troyes Erec und Enide, edited by Wendelin Foerster, Romanische Bibliothek, 13 (Halle: Niemeyer, 1934), line 231.

% Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de Meun, Le Roman de la Rose, edited by Daniel Poirion (Paris: Garnier-Flammarion, 1974), line 6988.

°° Le Roman de Tristan en prose, edited by Philippe Ménard, vol. I, Textes Littéraires Frangais, 353 (Geneva: Droz, 1987), 233, § 158.

Reading Epic Through Romance

127

Thus even for romance heroes Roland was a model to be emulated, his possible faults eclipsed in the collective memory by his exemplary valour. What I hope to have shown in this paper is that early romances can help us to interpret the chansons de geste, if only by providing us with near-contemporary readings of the great heroic figures and with insights into the semantic fields of key terms such as proz, sage, and mesure.

By reminding

us of the ethos of the warrior

caste,

which they still shared in some measure, the romans antiques make us question our (sometimes anachronistic) moral judgements about the behaviour of epic heroes and the mechanisms of feudal society at war. However, the evidence of the Thèbes also suggests that some of the conflicting values and viewpoints represented by the protagonists of the Roland were not easily resolvable and persisted as debating points at least into the second half of the twelfth century. A further result of this study of intergeneric intertextuality is to challenge our view of the integrity of medieval literary figures as

characters.”

For in bestowing qualities associated with Roland on

both Atys and Thideiis, the Thébes author uses the epic protagonist as a source of characteristics from which to select what his context

requires.” While the hero of the Roland has been endowed by the epic poet with a psychologically vraisemblable yet enigmatic personality, for later romance writers he becomes a figure-type, providing a storehouse of attributes and functions to be plundered, yet still representing a touchstone for heroic endeavour.”

King’s College London 70 Chrétien de Troyes, Yvain, edited by T.B.W. Reid (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1942; rpt 1967). ” A challenge already issued by Ian Short in his introduction to his edition of the Roland, pp. 16-17. ” Similarly there are features of both Ganelon and Oliver in Othon.

7

Tam grateful to Sarah Kay for pointing out that the ‘Roland’ narrative likewise

became a source of motifs to be exploited, thus suggesting a fragmentary rather than a unified reading/reception of medieval texts by near contemporaries. My thanks are also due to Marianne Ailes, Philip Bennett, Penny Eley and Ian Short for their careful and insightful reading of this paper, and to Tony Hunt, Carole Maddern and Glyn Burgess for references. They are, however, in no way responsible for the controversial opinions and any faults remaining in this article.

ait si si ir dif AU LASER 5

à.

t

sed: Ex og] tent7 285 pion ot ey quil fGé “tps (PU aus Es

aids silanesis mac Bs ioeea

JERR

SPIRO Ae : HOTTA PD 5 AR Eide. eal), sade

#

ps i haus

he M

net

Bye

Pulse oes

ci

ee ve

RL

.

*

Bel)

i

44

a

Seis

aie

pe.

À

$ -

7

4 PT

ap >

ap _

d

ALL’S FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR: CONFLICTS AND CONTINUITIES IN ANSEIS DE CARTHAGE James Simpson Fighting is the favourite topos of heroic poetry.’

As numerous studies have argued, battle scenes are the mainstay of the chanson de geste: ‘en eux se concentre l’intérêt, dont le public de guerriers redemandait le récit au jongleur sans se lasser jamais’, to quote Maurice Wilmotte.* This appetite, so different from our own tastes and those of the audiences of more ‘literary’ epic material, such as the Aeneid, is regarded as the cornerstone of the chanson de geste aesthetic, a fascination that shapes its style and which is expressed in a variety of aspects, such as what Eugene Vance has termed its ‘quantitative characterisation’... As Sarah Kay observes, any departure from that pattern tends to be categorised as ‘a sign of the genre’s decadence, its falling away from the rugged splendours and uncompromising bellicosity of the canonical texts’ However, affirmations of the importance of battle scenes repose on something of a double standard from an aesthetic point of view. Although, as Joseph Duggan remarks of the battle scenes in the Oxford Roland, ' _C.M. Bowra, Heroic Poetry (London: Macmillan, 1952), p. 56. ? Maurice Wilmotte, L’Epopée francaise, origine et élaboration (Paris: Boivin, 1939), p. 84. . ie Hitze, Studien zur Sprache und Stil der Kampfschilderungen in den Chansons de Geste, Kôlner Romanistische Arbeiten, New Series, 33 (Geneva: Droz, 1965), p. 36. On ‘quantitative characterisation’, see Eugene Vance, Reading the Song of Roiand (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1970), p. 25. “ Sarah Kay, The ‘Chansons de Geste’ in the Age of Romance: political fictions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), p. 29.

130

James Simpson

‘an art which depends totally on public acceptance cannot survive if it is judged boring by contemporary standards’, the battles that constitute three quarters of Anseis de Carthage, a sequel to the events of Roncevaux, are felt to be the poem’s major defect.” However, I would argue that Anseis’s lengthy and involved battle scenes are a direct reflection of the poem’s concern with the farreaching consequences of reckless actions, chief among which is Anseis’s.brief but fateful encounter with the daughter of his loyal supporter, Ysoré, who goes over to the Saracens as a result of what he sees as an unpardonable outrage done against him. Another function of their length and intensity is to support the narrator’s determined protestations that the present version of the poem attends more to prowess in arms than those earlier tellings given over to ‘la lecerie, / Au fabloier et a la legerie’ (IL. 13-14). In the same way, Anseis is determined to make it as clear as possible that it is not his moment of ‘legerie’-— something against which the emperor warned him (ll. 111-13) — that should weigh heaviest in the balance. In short, an appreciation of the structuring of Anseis’s battles is crucial to an understanding of both the stresses and the strains evinced in the poem at other levels, such as narrative

time, as well as of the

work’s political and thematic preoccupations. As critics have pointed out, combat in the chanson 5

de geste

Joseph J. Duggan, The Song of Roland: formulaic style and poetic craft (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), p. 147. Anseis de Carthage, edited by J. Alton, Bibliothek des litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 194 (Tübingen: Litterarischer Verein, 1892). Two supplements were published to the edition by Karl Voretzch: ‘Sur Anseis de Carthage: supplément de l’édition de M. Alton’, Romania, XXV (1896), 562-84, containing transcriptions from the Durham manuscript; and ‘Sur Anseis de Carthage: supplément de l’édition de M. Alton’, Romania, XXVII (1898), 240-69, containing extracts from the prose romance. For Gaston Paris’s comments on the edition, see ‘Anseis de Carthage et la Seconda Spagna’, in Mélanges de littérature francaise du Moyen Age, edited by Mario Roques, 2 vols (Paris: Champion, 1910-12), I, 169-82. On dating, see Jean Subrenat ‘De la date d’Anseis de Carthage’, in Mélanges de langue et de littérature offerts à Pierre le Gentil (Paris: SEDES, 1973), pp. 821-25. According to the University of Reading library catalogue, Alexander Kerr’s Reading doctoral thesis, ‘A Critical Edition of Anseis de Cartage’, 2 vols (University of Reading, 1995) will be available for consultation, inter-library loan and photocopying in September 1999. On the battle scenes, see Helmut Brettschneider, Der Anseis de Carthage und die Seconda Spagna, Romanistische Arbeiten, 27 (Halle: Niemeyer, 1937), p. 88.

All’s Fair in Love and War

131

revolves largely around individual deeds. With not much more than minor variations across a large corpus of poetry, the attacker drives his lance, pennant and all, into or through the opponent’s body and hurls him from his horse, or slices him in two with his sword.° In the Oxford

Roland, battles consist of ‘a series of single combats,

punctuated by cries of encouragement and defiance, with an occasional pause in the sequence of duels during which the conflict is seen from a more distant point of view in what may be called the “general battle” motif’.’ The many individual encounters stand for and are intended to evoke a wider picture. Renate Hitze’s study shows that accounts of mass actions are much less common,

tend to

be rather perfunctory and have a much less evolved formulaic repertory than that of the one-to-one encounters.* Anseis functions rather differently from the Oxford Roland, but its battles are no less a part of the poem’s greater vision, despite the fact that they have been almost entirely overlooked in discussions of the work. Many attacks result not in the death of the opponent, but simply in him being thrown from his horse (or having the horse killed underneath him) and then being rescued after a suspenseful delay:

$ For a discussion of single combats in a number of chansons de geste, see Hitze, Studien, pp. 44-59. For a discussion of the Oxford Roland combat formulae, see Duggan, The Song of Roland, pp. 138-49. See also Jean Rychner, La Chanson de geste: essai sur l’art épique des jongleurs, Société de Publications Romanes et Frangaises, 53 (Geneva: Droz, 1955), p. 141; and The Song of Roland: an analytical edition, edited by Gerard J. Brault, 2 vols (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1978), I, 190-97. Quotations from and references to the Oxford Roland are taken from Ian Short’s edition, La Chanson de Roland, Lettres Gothiques, 2nd edition (Paris: Livre de Poche, 1994). 7 Duggan, The Song of Roland, pp. 137-38. For the Oxford Roland, Hitze lists eight occurences of descriptions of mass combat (Studien, p. 66). On mass combats, see Hitze, Studien, pp. 64-70. As Hitze points out, in her sample of chansons de geste (Oxford Roland, Raoul de Cambrai, La Chanson de Guillaume, Le Charroi de Nimes, Gormont et Isembart, La Chevalerie d’Ogier de

Danemarche, La Chanson d’Aspremont, and Huon de Bordeaux) it is quite common to present general mélées in a single line. La Chanson d’Aspremont and La Chevalerie d’Ogier show the greatest number of descriptions of mass battle scenes. The overwhelming majority of descriptions she cites cover between two and four lines.

132

James Simpson Guis de Borgoigne a Jaquelin veü, Ki fu a pie, embrachie tint l’escu, Les lui Morant et Hugon, le sien dru; Bien se desfendent li vasal coneü. Guis vint a aus, cevaus lor a rendu;

Et chil i montent, ki paor ont eü. Paiien lor lanchent maint fausart esmolu;

Et Franchois vienent poignant, col estendu; A chele pointe sont paiien desrompu, Ferant les mainent parmi le pre herbu. Mien enscient ja fussent tout vaincu, Quant au secors est Marsiles venu,

Rois Sinagons et li rois Danebu Et Alestans, ki rois de Libe fu, Et Matifers, ki fu preus et membru,

Li rois Felix et Faburs, li cenu, Et Ysores, li vieus cenus barbu,

Par cui li mal sont monte et creü. Plus de chent mile sont as armes couru;

Se dex n’en pense, par la soie vertu, Felon tornoi ont Franchois esmeii [...] [The French are put under considerable pressure by the Saracens, during which Madien’s horse is killed under him, and he falls to the ground. Anseis sees this and intervenes. }

Dist Anseis: ‘Or ai trop atendu; Se ne li fach sentir mon achier nu,

Ja n’aie jou del roi del chiel salu!’ Rois Anseis ot grant duel et grant rage, Quant Madien voit gesir en l’erbage [...]

[There is a further combat during which Ysoré is unhorsed and injured, losing an ear. Marsile swears to avenge him.]

A tant asemble Marsiles son barnage. Franchois retornent, car il font come sage; Madien font monter sans arestage (5285-353)

All’s Fair in Love and War

Although the formulae

used to describe

133

mass conflict in Anseis

correspond by and large to those described by Hitze, the frequent rescue of unhorsed and surrounded characters by comrades or reinforcements means that the pressure of numbers and the larger encounters are more closely interwoven into the sequence of individual combats.’ Through this seamless integration of individual and mass actions, Anseis is able to develop a more dynamic ebb and flow in its battle scenes than is found in the Roland and other texts. At regular intervals throughout the battle scenes, Anseis, Raimon,

Gui or another Frank are surrounded and rescued (presumably to the audience’s relief) or some prominent figure from the Saracen camp is unhorsed but not captured (to the audience’s annoyance), a delaying tactic reminiscent of Ganelon’s various escapes in the rhymed versions of the Roland." Absalon lives to fight another day on a number of occasions, only being dispatched by Anseis at Il. 5214-24 after a number of close shaves with both him (11. 3741-49) and Gui (e.g. Il. 3122-65, 4511-25 and 5073-95). Ysoré likewise is beheaded at the end of the poem (ll. 10966-68) after a number of narrow escapes. This pattern is established fairly early on as a military and narrative necessity after Anseis loses a number of named warriors in the initial part of the first battle and is then forced to sound the retreat (1. 2590). Innumerable similar sequences can be found throughout the poem (e.g. at Il. 2621-3790, 43354859, 5185-7920; 10246-630). Some pitched battles even begin as rescue missions, a key example being Anseis’s release of three ° Common formulae noted by Hitze (Studien, pp. 66-69) are enumerations of wounds and injuries introduced by either ‘La veissiez...’ or “La i ot...’, both of which figure regularly in Anseis’s descriptions (e.g. Il. 2442-45, 2538-41, 274245, 3862-66), as does the repetition of tant or maint in the general listing of injuries, deaths and maimings (e.g. ll. 2501-03). 10"

For examples of rescues of various characters, Anseis ll. 2640-49, 2679-89,

3555-64, 3659-68; Gui I]. 3151-60; Raimon, Il. 3004-05, 3193-232 (Raimon’s horse is killed, so Anseis takes Marsile’s and gives Raimon his own); Ysoré Il. 2701-09, 4332-40, 4620-24. There are far too many instances of help, rescue and reinforcement to list in full. For Ganelon’s escapes, see, for example, the Paris

Roland, 11. 4834-5271 (Les Textes de la ‘Chanson de Roland’, edited by Raoul Mortier, 10 vols (Paris: La Geste Francor, 1940-44), VI: Le Texte de Paris) and also, for comment, Jules Horrent, La ‘Chanson de Roland’

dans les littératures

francaise et espagnole au Moyen Age, Bibliothéque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège, 120 (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1951), pp. 19498).

134

James Simpson

knights taken prisoner

and faced with being burnt

alive by the

Saracens during the siege of Morligane (Il. 2846-3049). I would argue that Anseis’s concern with the conservation of his effectifs can be read as an echo of Roland’s determination to ensure that nothing

from the baggage train falls into enemy hands (Roland, ll. 751-60

and 2864-67).''

Like Charlemagne’s better known nephew, Anseis

frequently finds himself in the rearguard as the French move from

one city to another (e.g. Il. 3426-28 and I. 4375).’* As with Roland, Anseis’s determination to die nearest Spain could be read as a guarantee of his care for his men, echoing the contrast drawn between how he looks on the two different armies (cf. ‘Vers Sarrazins reguardet fierement / E vers Franceis humles e dulcement’, Roland, 11. 1162-63), a loyalty bolstered by and, to a large extent, secondary to a fierce sense of personal honour in both cases. This ideal is invoked again by Charles when he calls on his barons to choose a king who ‘Vers les prodomes soit paisibles et cois / Vers les felons orguelleus et irois’ (Anseïs, Il. 50-51), and reinforced by images such as this description of Anseis as shepherd to his men: De l’estor partent no Franchois mout envis, Vers Morligane s’en vont tout le lairis; Mais par deriere fu li rois Anseis. Ses compaignons a par devant lui mis Come li paistres, ki maine ses brebis; Souventes fois est ses resnes guencis (2656-61)

This image of ‘pastoral’ care is part of the poem’s insistence on the importance of good order on the battlefield: it is frequently repeated that both pagans and Christians move serreement — in close formation with no stragglers (e.g. Il. 183-84, Charlemagne’s forces; Il. 2621-22,

8645-47,

8731-32,

Anseis’s forces; 1. 10163,

Marsile’s forces). In a sense, Anseis determines to go one better than 11

For commentary, see Brault, Song of Roland, I, 282-83. 2 This is not achieved without some small contradiction: characters from the Christian camp constantly insist that they are not fleeing (e.g. 11. 4385-90, 444244) even as the narrator is quite happy to offer observations along the lines of ‘li nostre fuient’ (1. 4830).

All’s Fair in Love and War

135

the Roland in a more difficult situation: the role of the hero is to govern the country, to avoid crisis rather than simply perform well in one, to protect and conserve rather than to immolate himself. The emphasis thus falls on the sustainability of Anseis’s reign, with the preservation and protection of his forces—a role he shares with Roland and Vivien—being only one facet of his duties.’? Since the narrative progression of Anseis is not marked by the steady depletion of a stock of followers, the tale’s emphasis can pass fairly seamlessly to the effect of continued warfare on the countryside: the real casualties of this war are the towns ruined and destroyed by lengthy sieges (Morligane, Luiserne, Estorges, and Castrojeriz). This of course prepares the ground for Charlemagne’s comments on Ysoré’s actions at the end of the poem: ‘Espaigne a degastee, / En pieche mais ne sera repeuplee’ (Il. 10905-06). The disaster of Roncevaux looms over the later poem: Anseis’s concern with the problems posed by an ever-present threat of capture is perhaps most fully articulated in the return of the thousand prisoners from Roncevaux, first mentioned by Gaudisse

(ll. 5576-81) and subsequently handed over to Anseis after her arrival in Spain (ll. 6281-96). * The recovery of these lost veterans emphasises the differences between the two poems. In the Roland, the pairing of the hero’s boast that he would not allow the loss of material or men from the rearguard without a struggle with his determination to outdo all the other Franks effectively entails the annihilation of the twenty thousand.”

13

Anseis, by contrast, seeks to

On this theme in other chansons de geste, see Wolfgang van Emden, ““E cil de

France le cleiment a guarant”: Roland, Vivien et le thème du guarant’, Olifant, I,

no. 4 (1973), 21-47. * The release of the captives is Gaudisse’s response to Marsile’s request for support (1. 5493). Curiously, the thousand knights receive no comment when Anseis returns to the city of Estorges after the ensuing battle (1. 6845), rather, comment is reserved for Gaudisse: Jaquelin remarks that the sun has risen in the palace (Il. 6855-56). ° In the Roland, there are two paths by which Roland could excel: protect the rearguard completely or die in the attempt, the latter being the final guarantee of his best efforts. From this, it is a short distance to the view of Roland’s character

presented by A. Pauphilet (‘Sur la Chanson de Roland’, Romania, LIX (1933), 161-68, at p. 178), according to whom the death of Roland’s followers is a crucial

part of the hero’s purification and sanctification. In short, Roland’s death becomes the irrefutable fulfilment of the pledge he offers before his uncle and his stepfather, as Ganelon (‘dont le calcul était un hommage’,

Pierre le Gentil, La Chanson de

136

James Simpson

keep the main characters alive while still generating suspense, a constellation which allows for a resurrection of both people and issues from the Roland in a manner that casts the loss of the rearguard as something less than a total disaster, and thus frees the sequel from being a mere history of retreat and loss. The difficulty of breaking off the sort of mélées described in Anseis, where men are constantly unhorsed, captured and then rescued again, reflects the messiness of military and political involvement, becoming the battlefield equivalent of the lengthy sieges common to chansons de geste (including Anseis de Carthage), to romans d’antiquité, romances,

and satirical texts from

the later twelfth

to thirteenth

centuries.” Oddly, although it carries with it the constant danger of loss of order on the field, for Anseis, the red haze of battle seems to offer a

seductive opportunity to plunge over the precipice in magnificent self-destruction, even as the poem’s emphasis on help and support serves as a nagging reminder of the importance of keeping a cool head and not just dashing blindly into the fray. Anseis’s battlemadness, on a par with Roland’s last efforts or Aeneas’ fury at the fall of Troy, also involves frequent boasts over his victims, stating that the conflict was all Ysoré’s doing and that it was not for want of

effort (‘lasquete’, 1. 10572) that anything would be lost.” Obviously, it becomes apparent as events unfold and gather momentum that for any individual to juggle such conflicting demands and temptations requires an exhausting intensity of movement reflected in Anseis’s

eventual collapse towards the end of the climactic engagement with the Saracens: Rois Anseis, ki tant est aloses,

En l’estendart estoit forment greves; Et Madiens ert avuec lui remes,

Roland, Connaissance des Lettres, 2nd edition (Paris: Hatier, 1967), p. 107) foresees. ‘© R. Howard Bloch, Medieval French Literature and Law (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), pp. 84-86. “As an example: ‘Anseis crie: “Chis a son tens finé; / Hui sara Karles, a cui avoit doné / Espaigne en fief et le grant roiauté; / Ains n’en perdi plain pie par lasqueté, / Mais traïs fui par le viel Ysoré, / Ki pour sa fille ot le sens si dervé””

(11. 10569-74).

All’s Fair in Love and War

157

Li cuens Raimons, de cui il fu ames; L’iaume li ostent, tant k’il fu esofles.

Li sans li saut d’ahan parmi le nes, Entre lor bras est .IIIL. fois pasmes; Li baron cuident, ke il soit devies,

Lor paumes batent, lor ceviaus ont tires. Dist Raimons: ‘Sire, or mais iere esgares; Par vous estoit nos deus entroblies,

Or nous sera, che m’est avis, dobles.’

De pasmer vint li bons rois honores, Puis s’escria: ‘Mon ceval m’amenes!’

(10753-66)

The young king runs himself to a standstill, blood pouring from his nose, just as Roland’s blood flowed from his temples after the blowing of the Olifant. However, as is typical of the rapid recoveries in this poem, Anseis comes to his senses and dashes out to

mop up any Saracens left in the camp (1. 10808). In addition to being symptomatic of Anseis’s sense of guilt about his failure to maintain peace in Spain, his manic activity is part of an attempt to redress a key imbalance in the political and interpersonal situations depicted in the poem. Anseis’s actions can be read as a terrified and frustrated response to the amount of power that Charles has over him in a poem which begins with negotiations that seem to promise substantial concessions for both sides and which leads to a war instigated by a former counsellor and friend now become unfathomable and unreadable in his hostility and intractability."* The extent of Charles’s power is made apparent from his pledge to his

barons that this expedition will be his last: Seignor baron, un don vous vuel rover, Ke vous m’aidies Espaigne a aquiter Et ke jou puisse Anseis retrover,

18 Jacques Horrent (‘Anseis de Carthage et Rodrigo, dernier roi goth de l’Espagne’, in Etudes de philologie romane et @histoire littéraire offertes à Jules Horrent, edited by Jean-Marie D’Heur and Nicoletta Cherubini (Tournai: GEDIT, 1980), pp. 183-91) sees the story of the seduction of Letise as a prologue to the main subject of the story, which is Anseis’s defence of Spain and his gradual retreat towards the East (p. 188).

138

James Simpson Par teus covens, con ja m’orres conter: Mais en ma vie ne vous ruis remueér

(9409-13)

Even though Charlemagne owes his nephew-vassal military aid, for Anseis to require him to sally forth one last time is to incur a considerable debt of gratitude corresponding to the debt of influence that Anseis owes to the poems that situate themselves before it in the cycle du roi. Anseis’s efforts appear as an attempt to limit the otherwise crippling debt he would owe to Charlemagne, a situation counterpointed by the unequal bargain implied in the marriage settlement concluded between Anseis and Marsile. The first messenger, Raimon, only speaks of ending the war through the match (Il. 911-34), as does Ysoré (11. 945-60). On the other side, however, the Saracens see the potential to acquire France and Spain (11. 991-1008) through the eventual birth of a’ male heir, who, Marsile specifies, would have to be raised in North Africa (ll. 103637). Although Galien could be heir to thrones at opposite ends of Europe, the glee of the Saracens at the terms offered hints that a poor deal has been struck and that Anseis has offered too much. Such a disastrous mismatch can only be resolved through an effort that places Anseis at considerable risk, a fact often lamented by Anseis’s followers (e.g. ll. 2650-53 and 2687-89). The effort and sacrifice that are required to pay this price are earned at length on the battlefield, and indeed are part of the poem’s reflection on consequences. Just as the battle scenes appear to expand beyond all measure, so the narrative space given over to other aspects of the action comes under considerable pressure. A key instance of this is the rapid narration of events off the battlefield, which is as much one of the

quirks of Anseis as are its interminable battle scenes. Raimon is injured in one of the early short skirmishes which lasts two hundred lines (Il. 2846-3052), is treated and cured in a remarkably short space and then dashes once more into the fray (ll. 3043-45). The siege is the ideal vehicle for this sort of temporal elasticity: characters can simply hide away in their castles until fit and able to take the field again. However, in order to maintain narrative pace, accounts of time spent indoors tend to be rather brief. Even at the time of Anseis’s wedding, a moment when it is said ‘Or puet

All’s Fair in Love and War

139

Marsiles defors les murs gaitier, /Car Anseis prise poi son dangier, / Ne son asaut valisant un denier’ (Il. 6921-23), the Christians are back on the walls the next day to parley with Ysoré (Il. 6981-7023). At no point is any sense of normal civil life allowed to develop, which means that Anseis’s children grow up fast in rather tense circumstances: Et li paiien sont bien arami, N’en partiront, s’aront le mur saisi;

Mais puis i sisent . VII. ans et un demi. Dedens Estorges fu Anseis lonc tans Et sa molliers, ki tant par est vaillans; Entre tans dis ot li ber .II. enfans De la roine cortois et avenans; L’uns ot non Guis et li autres Jehans; Et dient tout, se il vivent .XX. ans,

Restores iert Oliviers et Rolans. Puis fisent il les Sarasins dolans Et mainte terre fu a aus aclinans. Quant furent ne, la joie en fu mout grans; A aus norir fu la mere entendans. Quant .XII. ans orent, cascuns fu plus parans Ke teus en ot et .XX. et plus pasans. Dans Englebers, ki mout par fu sachans, Lor fist aprendre et latin et romans. Et quant le sot Marsiles, l’amirans,

Sachies por voir, ke mout en fu dolans,

Car par aus cuide ne soit encor perdans

(7545-65)

According to this passage, the children go from being a twinkle in their parents’ eyes, to being born, to being twelve and looking more like twenty, to knowing French and Latin, to being a serious

military threat—all in the space of twenty lines. In comparison, Raoul de Cambrai’s compression of the fifteen years of Raoul’s youth into a few lines suddenly looks comparatively leisurely (Il.

257-59).° The doubling up of the narrative of their development 1%

Raoul de Cambrai, edited by Sarah Kay (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992).

140

James Simpson

(even though they were born one after the other) can be read as mirroring the tensions demonstrated in other aspects of the work, such as the split implied by their father’s toponymic, a question to which I shall return shortly. Their handsomeness, wisdom and rapid maturation reflect the pressure placed on the younger

generations to live up to the desire of their elders.” Indeed, the handsome Gui can be read as the ‘mes de grant bonté” (1. 173) that Charles asked him to send bearing any request for help: descriptions of Gui’s beauty (Il. 11439-49) match the radiance of the young Anseis: “Tout le resgardent, Alemant et Frison, / Dist l’uns a l’autre (de coi parleroit on?) / “Chis ne fu fais se pour esgarder non”’ (Il. 86-88). The impact of Anseis’s beguiling beauty on the court functions as a promise, while that of his legitimate son (a quality he shares with his illegitimate half-brother, Tieri, 1. 11020) is the token of its fulfilment. Such stretching and squashing of narrative time can be read as the counterpart of tendencies toward hyperbole also manifested in Gui de Bourgogne’s extension of the Spanish campaign from seven to twenty-seven years (Gui de Bourgogne, 1.

4).

In the midst of this, Anseis is pulled in several directions at

once: he has to engage in lengthier sieges than Charlemagne, while being younger than Roland. The sense of restlessness produced reinforces the breathless quality of the war in Spain.

Such a climate understandably places a good deal of strain on the different implications of youth and age, even as Guerri’s reference

to Raoul as a bastard (‘“Fil a putain”, le clama — si menti’, 1. 486) begins a process of destabilising the divide between legitimate and illegitimate in Raoul de Cambrai. Anseis himself is presented as ‘jovene rois’ (e.g. Il. 154-55, 245-47, 2769 and 4013), both the ‘father’ of his kingdom in Spain, but also a member of the younger generation of post-Roncevaux juvenes. However, when a tired and demoralised Anseis laments his sufferings endured over the long war, Raimon speaks tauntingly of him as an old man in order to 2° A clear instance of what Jacques Lacan terms ‘the desire of the other’: ‘man’s desire finds its meaning in the desire of the other, not so much because the other holds the key to the object desired, as because the first object of desire is to be recognised by the other’ (Jacques Lacan, “The Function and Field of Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis’, in Ecrits: a selection, translated by Alan Sheridan (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 30-113, at p. 58).

All’s Fair in Love and War

141

rouse him from his self-pity (IL 8285-318). Correspondingly, Charles is both ageing, sickly monarch and vital, decisive leader

feared by the wiser Saracens

(Il. 8851-57).”. This shifting is

definitive in the case of Ysoré, and coincides with his desertion of

the Christian camp. Initially, Ysoré has to be seen as a potential military threat, given his warning about his daughter and the fact that his support (as pars pro toto of Anseis’s circle of counsellors) is initially presented as a mainstay of Anseis’s reign. At the beginning of the negotations with Marsile, he is described as the most handsome prince ‘entre chi a Cartage’ (1. 1174), a description that clashes with his almost overnight transformation by the end of them into a ‘fel vieus de pute aire’ (1. 1793), ‘viellart pulent’ (1. 2134), ‘vieillart asotis’ (Il. 7879, 7891), or even just ‘le viellart Ysore’ (1. 6982) and his eventual assimilation to the type of the jealous and repellent older rival. While it could be argued that this transformation is just one of the poem’s many lurches, this emphasis on his age is effectively the consequence of the desire to take Anseis’s place with Gaudisse in revenge for Anseis’s lying with his daughter. It also functions as a form of poetic retribution for his gruff obstinacy in refusing reconciliation terms. Instability of identity in time, an effect created by an aggressive reconquest mentality always in advance of itself, is also figured through Anseis’s toponymic. As Horrent notes, justifying Anseis’s surnom: ‘en donnant à Anseis la souveraineté sur l’Espaigne et Cartage [at 1. 105], il aurait voulu signifier que le jeune souverain régnait sur la totalité de la peninsule, non seulement sur le Nord et le Centre qui étaient déjà chrétiens à l’époque où fut composée la chanson, mais aussi sur les lointaines contrées du Sud, où se dresse

la Cartago espagnole, Cartagena, que les Sarrasins ont tenue sous

leur domination jusqu’en 1242’ 4

The

problem

with

seeing

As Michael Heintze points out, Anseïs is one of the key examples of Charles’s

increasing war-weariness in poems from the early thirteenth century (Kônig, Held und Sippe: Untersuchungen zur Chanson de geste des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts und und ihrer Zyklenbildung, Studia Romanica, 76 (Heidelberg: Winter, 1991), p. 147):

oe eed Horrent, ‘La Péninsule ibérique et le chemin de Saint-Jacques dans Anseis de Carthage’, in La Chanson de geste et le mythe carolingien: mélanges René Louis, 2 vols (Saint-Pére-sous-Vézelay: Musée Archéologique Régional, 1982), II, 1133-50, at p. 1142. Horrent’s commentary echoes that of Joseph

142

James Simpson

‘Cartage’ as an occupied Cartagena or any place remaining to be conquered in Spain is that the emperor is said to have conquered the

entire peninsula at the beginning of the poem (Il. 21-24). However, following Horrent, it could be argued that Charles confers identity on Anseis through something that is not his to give and so makes instability and lack part of political life, which contrasts with Charles’s rule of France, a kingdom described by Anseis as ‘regne absolu” (1. 3805), a status that Spain cannot have in any event given the threat from overseas.

To make a name for himself, or rather to

live up to the one assigned by the emperor, Anseis must exceed the bounds that exist. In response, Anseis gambles, as indeed he has to: if he wins, he does not owe Charles too much, but if he loses, then

the costs of military aid will be crippling, a consideration bound up with the sword Charles gives him to send back as a token in time of trouble: ‘Anseis nies, or oies mon pensé! Par tel couvent vous doins mon brant letré,

S’aves besoing en ichestui regné, Ke vous asaillent li cuivert desfaé,

Envoies moi .I. mes de grant bonté, Ki viegne en Franche a Paris, la chité! A ches enseignes de chest brant acheré Vous secorrai o mon rice barné’ (169-76)

As Jean-Claude Vallecalle points out, Charles’s sword has an important symbolic function in this passage: ‘elle accréditait, elle ancrait dans les esprits, l’idée de ce retour de l’empereur qui allait Bédier, Les Légendes épiques: recherches sur la formation des chansons de geste, 4 vols, 3rd edition (Paris: Champion, 1926-29), III, 142. As Horrent points out, the vague positioning of Cartage reflects a vaguer knowledge of the geography of Spain once off the pilgrimage route to St James of Compostella. The poem’s account of distances covered during Anseis’s retreat eastwards from ‘Estorges’ (i.e. Astorga, ll. 7697-750) is quite realistic and believeable, compared with the superhuman efforts that the Guide du pèlerin would demand of a pilgrim on foot (Horrent, ‘La Péninsule’, pp. 1135-37). Gaston Paris argues that the toponymic cannot readily be justified, since it is based on only one line of the Old French poem (1. 105) ‘cette ville n’est plus jamais mentionnée autrement que comme surnom d’Anseis dans des tirades en -age.’ (Paris, ‘Anseis de Carthage et la Seconda Spagna’, p. 173).

All’s Fair in Love and War

143

bientôt représenter, pour Anseïs, à la fois l’espoir et une menace, la garantie du salut et la certitude du châtiment’. We might compare Anseis’s trepidations with what Roger Pensom describes as Roland’s ‘regrets, futile wishes and panicky questions’ expressed in the second horn scene, although whereas Roland’s behaviour may reflect a turn ‘toward Charlemagne as to a father who will undo the horror of

what he has seen’, for Anseis, it is precisely in that direction that the greater terror lies.“ If the father can undo the horror, then it follows that he is the equal of that horror. This is why both Anseis and the narrator are loath to lift their gaze beyond the horizon of the battlefield. Indeed, each time it is suggested that the young king should send for Charlemagne, he refuses, fearing that Charles will take away his crown as a punishment for his incompetence (e.g. Il.

3774-79, 3801-09, 8392-95). What Anseis’s anxiety shows is that just as the acquisition of a fief was one of the key markers of the transition between jovente and manhood, so holding a fief that was unstable had the potential to be ‘unmanning’. Anseis’s expansion on the term legerie forms the basis for what can be read as a response to the horn-scene debate (‘Franceis sunt morz par vostre legerie’, Oxford Roland, |. 1726) and for the risky enterprises undertaken by both Roland and Ganelon.

In Anseis, legerie is assimilated to sexual transgression, as

can be seen from Charles’s warning: ‘Garde toi de folage! Par legerie esmuevent maint outrage, Dont on a honte et anui et damage’

(111-13)

3° Jean-Claude Vallecalle, ‘Un emprunt d’Anseïs de Carthage (ms. A) à la chanson des Narbonnais’, in Au Carrefour des routes d’Europe: la chanson de geste. Actes du X° Congrès international de la Société Rencesvals pour l’étude des épopées romanes (Strasbourg, 1985), 2 vols, Senefiance 20-21 (Aix-en-Provence: CUERMA, 1987), 1057-73, at p. 1064. Vallecalle argues that the detail of the sword may well be taken from Les Narbonnais, where Joyeuse is presented to Louis by Guibert and Romant after the emperor’s death as a token to call him to come to the aid of the Narbonnais. Although the sword appears somewhat out of place in Anseïs given that Charles is not dead, its function is to underscore the mixed feelings that Anseis might have about sending for him. 4 Roger Pensom, Literary Technique in the ‘Chanson de Roland’, Histoire des Idées et Critique Littéraire, 263 (Geneva: Droz, 1982), p. 136.

144

James Simpson

Lecherie frequently figures as a term either paired with legerie or as a variant for it, such as at 1. 112, where Alton’s manuscript D reads ‘lecherie’ for ‘legerie’.” Sexual conquests become as important a part of the process as military ones, a constellation that is well-known in the chanson de geste, where the acquisition of woman and city are part of the key markers of the transition into

manhood.”

Military and sexual conquest are often blurred in the

battlefield boasts of the Christians, utterances that often yoke together ‘armes et amours’ (e.g. ‘Ki vos en faut, ja d’amors ne port gant, / Guimple ne mance nul jor de son vivant!’ (Il. 3633-34)). This intertwining of the two domains eroticises the Francs’ devilmay-care embracing of strategic risk and presents the sense of danger associated with sexual transgression as an image of the

seductive but necessary perils of high-risk strategy.” The contrary of this is not merely unworthiness in love, but also loss of manliness, as is apparent from Anseis’s self-reproach: ‘[Anseïs] dist en bas: “Sui je donques mescine / Pour doloser et plorer sous courtine?”’ (Il. 3380-81). This also adds a useful spice of anxiety to the self-congratulation inherent in the ‘Saracen Princess’ schema, in which the Christians are victorious because more valiant and more seductive.” In that regard, it is crucial that Ysoré becomes old and ugly when he leaves the Christian camp, a change that allows for his desire for revenge encompassing the military defeat of Anseis and the sexual conquest of Gaudisse, to be presented in all its striking

and uproarious violence.

Ysoré’s new-won ugliness is then a mark

of the treacherous impropriety of his desire, while at the same time a key part of its quasi-carnivalesque provocativeness. The narrative *° Needless to say, the narrator is aware of the potential for some sort of corruption through reference to this other matière as is apparent from his criticisms of ‘prior’ versions of the tale more given over to ‘la lecerie, / Au fabloier et a la legerie / Ke as estoires’ (Il. 13-15). * The classic exposition of this theme being that of William Calin, The Epic Quest: studies in four Old French chansons de geste (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1966), pp. 3-56. Marianne Ailes identifies a similar blurring of the military and the erotic in Fierabras (see ‘A Tale of the Unexpected: towards a comic reading of Fierabras’, unpublished paper). *7 See also Gui’s comments on a blow struck by Anseis: “Sire”, dist Guis, “ichis cous est mout biaus/ Ki si bien fiert, ichis n’est mi faus, / Bien doit porter

mances et pignonchiaus / Et gans d’amor, car il est bien saus”’ (11. 4717-20).

*8

See Kay, The ‘Chansons de Geste’ in the Age of Romance, pp. 29-48.

All’s Fair in Love and War

145

supplies a sinister sexual subtext to Ysoré’s taunts of Anseis and his

offering of a duel the morning after Anseis’s wedding night. Gui’s jocular characterisation of Anseis as miles amoris, in which the taking of Gaudisse’s castle and breaching its walls is a metaphor for defloration (11. 6969-70), immediately precedes Ysoré’s challenge, a challenge which also has a sexual motive, namely taking Gaudisse for himself: ‘Sel proveroie au brant d’achier letré / Vers vostre cors

sans nul autre avoé, / Ke tu n’es dignes de tenir roiauté’ (ll. 699496). In this context, Ysoré’s sword becomes the echo and sexualised

burlesque of Charlemagne’s, which, to recall Vallecalle’s comment, figures a rather more sublime threat. In the same way, Ysoré’s taunts and threats form the comic double of Charles’s joking-butserious rebuke that Anseis caused the war by his uxoriousness, his remarks playing on the ambivalence of male characters towards

their wives and children attested in other poems:” Quant l’emperere a Anseis veii Sain et haitie, grant joie en a eü; Vit la roine vestue d’un bofu. Karles s’escrie: ‘Anseis, ke fais tu? N’as droit en dame, trop t’en est mesceü;

Laisies l’ester, trop t’est mesavenu,

Car vous aves par feme tout perdu; Ni ares part, d’autrui fera son dru, Ke malement m’aves covent tenu;

Tost trespasastes tout chou k’oi desfendu; Vous aves tout le païs confondu, Mais dieu merchi or l’avons secoru; Paiien s’en vont desconfit et vaincu;

29 As Sarah Kay points out, this vision of threat to the family can be regarded as symptomatic of a hostile reaction on the part of young male characters to the threat posed to their independence by their wives and children. At an extreme, this reaction takes the form of infanticide in the case of Daurel et Beton and Jourdain de Blaye (Kay, The ‘Chansons de Geste’ in the Age of Romance, p. 91). A comically exaggerated version of this topos can be found in the lengthy branch of the Roman de Renart, Renart empereur, in which the hero’s wife and child die of starvation through neglect (see J.R. Simpson, Animal Body, Literary Corpus: the Old French ‘Roman de Renart’, Faux Titre, 110 (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1996), pp. 66-83).

146

James Simpson Le regne aves malement sostenu, Autres l’ara, rois seres abatu’

(10826-40)

By its mismatch of word and feeling, Charles’s greeting provides a summary of the transgressions and slippages of meaning that have been required to get to this point, while also introducing a lighter element to ease a difficult moment. Although Charles is not serious, Anseïs is unlikely to see the irony in the emperor’s words, precisely because of the problems and anxieties created by such legerie up until now. Anseis’s problems are, after all, largely the result of having been tricked by Letise’s declaration of love presented in the guise of a plea for military support (Il. 593-657). Given that irony and subtexts have been such a problem, it comes as no surprise if Anseis is thrown into perplexity by an address that fuses Charles’s care and concern for his nephew with a serious rebuke that also echoes Ysoré’s sexual taunt. What Anseis hears, after all, are the words that he had dreaded for the last 8000 lines (see, for example,

Il. 8392-95) and which Charles would often repeat thereafter (‘Sovent castoie le bon roi Anseis’, 1. 11320). In such a moment, Charles encompasses all the possible threats to Anseis’s manhood, whether underpinned by the divine promise and menace of Charles’s sacerdotal aura or the lubricity of a grotesque sexual competitor. In such a neatly ambiguous vision of amorous and territorial conquest, of doublings and differentiations, it is entirely logical that the names of the two central female characters should be synonyms: what is significant is that both pursue Anseïs against the wishes of their fathers. While the transgression of divisions within the social hierarchy of one’s own side are presented as leading to punishment and chaos, this is eventually resolved by an even greater transgression in which again both Anseis and Gaudisse are willing participants. In a sense, if Anseis’s troubles begin with Letise and are eventually resolved through his marriage to Gaudisse, then his misfortunes can be said to result either from having not transgressed enough or not having transgressed in the right way. To appreciate the importance of the role of transgression, it is useful to recall the impossible bargains, the almost riddle-like propositions advanced early on in the poem. At that stage, Anseis was quite happy to agree to terms that would eventually lead to Spain returning to Saracen

All’s Fair in Love and War

147

hands, as Sinagon observes early on in the negotiations over Gaudisse (Il. 991-1008). So extravagant are some of the offers made that it is sometimes rather hard to tell when the characters are speaking seriously, as when Raimon offers Agolant half of Spain if he will convert to Christianity, but then does not wait for a reply (Il.

1509-11).° On the other hand, Agolant’s offer of alliance with Raimon so that they can drive Anseis from Spain (ll. 1569-75) is clearly intended to be unacceptable. As Jean-Claude Vallecalle says of ‘le trouvére qui [...] promettait de restaurer une estoire corrompue par ses devanciers’: ‘Se doutaitil que son propre texte allait subir bientôt cette “corruption” qu’il dénongait?’*’ I would argue that if the insistence on Anseis’s worthy achievements in battle is part of a strategy to minimize the role of legerie and lecerie, partly to satisfy the narrator’s idea of how the story should proceed and also partly as an impulse of Anseis’s to avoid deposition by Charles, then it is not entirely successful. What the poem is rather more successful in doing is presenting the riskiness of Anseis’s enterprise and the key role that lies, improprieties and uncertainties play in it. It is only through the doubling of Anseis’s much vaunted prowess in battle (‘Rois Anseis cui proueche enlumine’, Il. 2412 and 7406) with the ironic ‘proueche’ of seducing Ysoré’s daughter (something the hero

promises to avoid (1. 126)), or with the ‘grant desverie’ (1. 6339) of abducting Gaudisse, that the young king’s quest for a wife to bear him heirs can be resolved without leaving France and Spain to the Saracens. Of course, such a constellation makes for a considerable degree of tension and anxiety, reflected in the frenzied activity of battle. Another sign of the manner in which the poem embraces illegitimate means is the role given to Tieri, Anseis’s son by Letise, one of the rare examples of a good-natured bastard in the royal cycle and hopefully, along with his half-brothers whom he resembles in beauty and temperament, a token of hope for the

3°

31

Interestingly, Alton’s manuscript D omits these lines.

Vallecalle, ‘Un emprunt d’Anseis de Carthage (ms. A)’, p. 1057.

148

James Simpson

future, despite Charles’s age and childlessness in this poem.” What Anseis achieves in this binding of duplicity and uncertainty to military action, ‘armes’ to ‘amours’ and ‘legerie’ to ‘lecerie’, is to

demonstrate that ‘straight’ necessarily get things done.

deeds

and

‘straight’

talk will

not

University of Glasgow

32

Heintze, Konig, Held und Sippe, p. 348. As in Gui de Bourgogne and the thymed Rolands, Charles has no immediate heir in Anseis. However, although the poem ends on the news of Charles’s death, there is no mention of Anseis’s coronation (Heintze, Kénig, Held und Sippe, pp. 370-73).

GANELON’S FALSE MESSAGE: A CRITICAL FALSE PERSPECTIVE? Philip E. Bennett There is probably no part of the Chanson de Roland that has not caused oceans of ink to flow, and one always hesitates to add to that flood. Reluctance must become extreme in the case of that episode of the poem dealing with Ganelon’s embassy to Marsile, which has probably produced as much controversy on its own as most of the rest of the poem put together.’ Nothing daunted, however, I hope that what follows will shed at least a little new light on a thorny problem, and I am particularly pleased to be able to offer these reflexions to Wolfgang van Emden, who has contributed so much to our understanding of the Roland and other epics. Most critics attacking the question of what Ganelon said when he reached the Saracen camp, and of how that relates both to what was said in Charlemagne’s council and to what is revealed by the bref which is also delivered during the mission, start from very fixed standpoints. This is true whatever conclusions they reach. These positions are essentially psychological, based on modern notions of cohesive realism, and rely on a post twelfth-century view of reading

and literacy. Such a position is so simply taken for granted that Robert Lafont can assert with no further investigation both that ‘Ganelon transmet le discours méme de Charles’ and ‘le texte nous ‘Robert Francis Cook, The Sense of the Song of Roland (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987), pp. 26-33, lists twenty-two passages of books or articles that deal with the episode, and his list is far from exhaustive. The episode occurs in laisses XXXII-XXX VIII of the poem; see La Chanson de Roland, edited and translated by Gérard Moignet, 3rd edition (Paris: Bordas, 1989), pp. 52-58. All quotations from the Oxford version will be from this edition.

150

Philip E. Bennett

dit clairement que Ganelon remplit sa mission par ruse, “par grand (sic) saver” (1. 426). Il a provoqué sciemment la colère de Pémir’. They also almost without exception rely solely on the Oxford version of the text to provide material for analysis. It would be tedious in the extreme to rehearse all the views put forward, so I shail allow those of Robert Cook, Roger Pensom and André Burger to stand as exemplars. Other studies shall, of course, be cited as and when appropriate. To begin with Burger, his premise is that Ganelon is a noble baron, constantly determined to distinguish his role as faithful vassal of Charles from his desire for vengeance on Roland.’ Thus only the two lines in laisse XXXVI (ll. 473-74) in which Ganelon names Roland as the holder of the fief constituted by the half of Spain not granted to Marsile are of the traitor’s invention constituting ‘un commentaire malveillant’ intended to ‘irriter les Sarrasins contre le seul Roland, mais non contre Charlemagne’ (p. 122). Indeed the whole purpose of the two laisses similaires (XXXII and XXXVI) in which the essence of the message is delivered is to enable Turold (constantly named by Burger, of course, as the author of the poem) to distinguish these two facets of Ganelon’s psychological motivation. In this reading of the poem the tragedy of the Chanson de Roland, to borrow a notion from Tony Hunt,’ is constituted not by Roland’s death through desmesure but by the story of a ‘sage et vaillant baron, du plus haut rang [...] victime d’un affront, mais que

z

Robert Lafont, La Geste de Roland, 2 vols (Paris: L’Harmattan,

1991), I:

L’Epopée de la frontiére, p. 237. Leaving aside the self-contradiction evident in these two sentences, one can see that Lafont is also influenced by the edition he is quoting, that of G. Moignet (Paris: Bordas, 1969). Although Moignet’s translation of saver (‘habileté’) does not imply deceit, his note on p. 55 does impute calculated ill-will on Ganelon’s part in the comment that the messenger ‘ne fait rien, bien au contraire, pour atténuer cette rigueur’ (scilicet of the draconian conditions contained in the emperor’s message). * André Burger, Turold, poète de la fidélité: essai d’explication de la ‘Chanson de Roland’, Publications Romanes et Frangaises, 145 (Geneva: Droz, 1977), pp.

119-24. * Tony Hunt, ‘The Tragedy of Roland, an Aristotelian View’, Modern Language Review, LXXIV (1979), 791-805.

Ganelon’s False Message

151

la haine et le désir de vengeance fait glisser dans la trahison’ (p. 123) It is essentially against this positive reading of Ganelon’s character that Roger Pensom reacts in his analysis of the passage.° Pensom insists on the ontological status of Ganelon as evil, the corollary of which is that everything that he does must be interpreted as wicked, a view most clearly expressed in his rhetorical inversion of Waltz’s assertion ‘Ganelon ist bése, nur weil

er verrat’ as ‘Ganelon betrays because he is wicked’.’ The other basis of Pensom’s reading is fundamentally Freudian and psychological, despite his insistence that Ganelon’s character is an ideological construct, and that his own interpretation of the role is founded on stylistic indicators. On the one hand it is Ganelon’s inability to control the neurosis induced by the clash of personal sentiment and duty to the state which causes him to commit treason,®

° This view is shared by G. Moignet (Roland, 3rd ed., p. 59), who sees Ganelon’s nobility as compromised only by his ‘coeur trop tendre’, which, in this context, implies a cowardice not at all suggested by Charles’s comment of 1. 316, which in its original context is to be interpreted that Ganelon puts family concerns ahead of his vassal’s duty. That such concerns were not alien to the aristocracy of the early twelfth century is shown by the poem of Guillaume IX ‘Pos de chantar m’es pres talenz’, in which he commends his son to the care of Folcon d’Angeus and the King of France, since Gascons and Angevins, seeing the boy ‘jove mesqui’ (1. 20) will do him great harm. See Guglielmo IX d’Aquitania, Poesie, edited by Nicolé Pasero (Modena: Mucchi, 1973), pp. 267-95 (esp. 277-78). This ‘realistic’ attitude is, needless to say, incompatible with the heroic ethic of the Roland. $ Roger Pensom, Literary Technique in the Chanson de Roland, Histoire des Idées et Critique Littéraire, 203 (Geneva: Droz, 1982), pp. 94, 97-105.

7

Pensom, Literary Technique, p. 101.

$ In fact the concept ‘state’ which Pensom propounds as axiomatic throughout his discussion of this episode, and particularly on p. 100, nowhere exists in the Roland. Even at the end where Tierry d’Anjou, acting as a surrogate for the poetnarrator in the text, formulates his reasons for accusing Ganelon of treason, he offers not an abstract concept of duty to empire or kingdom but rather an extension of the vassal-lord bond on a personal level: ‘Que que Rollant a Guenelun forfesist, / Vostre servise l’en doiist bien guarir. / Guenes est fels d’iço qu’il le trait; / Vers vus s’en est parjurez e malmis’ (11. 3827-30). What the poet does here is to assert that Ganelon’s method of striking at Roland (il le trait) was criminous (fel), and that in doing so Ganelon broke his own vassal’s oath to the emperor by interferring with a man engaged on the emperor’s business. The same embryonic notion of interlocking relationships, out of which that of the state will evolve, is also present in Oliver’s reproach to Roland: ‘Sem creisez, venuz i fust mi sire’ (1. 1728), but

152

Philip E. Bennett

on the other his ontological position in the camp of the Other predisposes him to commit what Pensom variously terms his ‘heresy’ (p. 100) and his ‘sin’ (p. 102). A particularly sharp example of this view, combined with the underlying concept of a personal neurosis, is provided by Ganelon’s swearing his treason on the relics contained in his sword-hilt, which is presented as ‘a

striking symbol of the deep division in Ganelon’s being’ (p. 104). However, in the context of a society which required rather than merely expected people to swear oaths on the symbols of their own religion, there is no reason to suppose that a twelfth-century audience would have interpreted the poem in this way. The same hesitations are in order with regard to the stylistic means adduced, by which the poet is held to condition us to read the text. Pensom notes that Ganelon’s greeting to Marsile (‘salvez seiez de Deu’) occurs in a laisse with the same assonance as that in which Blancandrin had already greeted Charles and as that in which Ganelon will later greet the Emperor using exactly the same formula, which becomes ‘overlaid’ by association with a ‘sinister patina of mendacity’ (p. 105). Now, leaving aside the inherent circularity of the observation, the prevalence of the [e] assonance in the Roland must be taken into account. It appears in twenty-four laisses on its own, and in six others where it is mixed with [je]. If we take this as an indication that an (Anglo-) Norman audience may have had some difficulty distinguishing these sounds and add in the laisses in [je] we come to a grand total of forty-seven out of 291 laisses or 16.15% of laisses using this assonance. Such statistics applied to the Oxford Roland are even more hazardous than usual, and it is perhaps significant that no editor of O includes a table of assonances in his introduction. Not only is there the problem of laisses which

mix

similar

sounds,

so: that in some

becomes difficult to be sure when distinct assonances

instances

it

are to be

identified, but different editors offer different tallies of laisses in the

poem:

Bédier, Moignet and Short all have 291

laisses in their

editions; Whitehead has 298, while Bertoni has only 290.

However,

the complications and hesitancy of the formulations show how far we yet are from the emergence of that notion. ° MT. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record: England 1066-1307, 2nd edition (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), p. 139.

Ganelon’s False Message

153

as a rough guide and allowing oral and nasal as well as masculine and feminine variations, the poem in Moignet’s edition offers twenty-five assonances which one can be reasonably sure were perceived as distinct from each other. On this basis an ‘average’ number of laisses per assonance would be 11.6, or 3.99% of the total. The [e] assonance can thus be taken to be remarkably prevalent in O. It is unlikely that this mix of a commonplace assonance and a commonplace formula would be used to carry the weight Pensom wishes to assign to them. The argument, then, is less about the message than about constructing the character who delivers it, and the only reference we get to the fulfilling of the embassy is as bald as Lafont’s, but still focusing on the poem as psychodrama: His [sc. Ganelon’s] show of vasselage will incline the Saracens to trust him more readily, and his mention of Roland as Marsile’s future bed-fellow (sic) in Spain is calculated to arouse the hatred of the irrational Marsile, who, even when he learns that Ganelon has been improvising, will remember that name with fear and hate.!°

Robert Cook’s reading of the episode is also based on the premise that Ganelon is inherently evil, and can therefore do no right: his use of a Christian formula to greet Marsile is seen as a calculated

insult to the Muslim (pp. 30-31). However, Cook does concentrate heavily on the message which Ganelon has to deliver, and on the modalities of the delivery, which are seen as an integral part of the treason. While he makes no comment on the handing over of the bref at the point at which Charles gives Ganelon his blessing and leave to depart, he does assert, presumably on the basis of the text’s silence, that ‘he was, it seems, given no oral message to deliver’ (p. 34). Thus we are to infer that the totality of the message to Marsile is contained in the bref, an inference which allows Cook to conclude that Ganelon ‘begins with an insult and finishes with a lie’ (p. 34). That this is a lie is corroborated for Cook by the report made to Charlemagne by the returning ambassador in laisse LIV, where the only reference to the fief to be held by Marsile is to ‘Espaigne le

10

Pensom, Literary Technique, p. 102.

154

Philip E. Bennett

regnét’ (1. 697) and the report is further given of the departure and drowning of the algalife and his men (Il. 680-91). It is certainly a generally held view that in this last particular Ganelon is simply lying, although it has to be noted that the algalife never appears in the poem outside the embassy episode, and so the text itself lends no

support to what remains a subjective interpretation of the traitor’s words: the reference to the death of a major Saracen commander and 400,000 warriors must be part of a cunningly laid plot to have Roland put in an indefensible position with inadequate forces at his

disposal." M

This is the situation in O, at least.

The problem is complicated by the

persistence of the ‘algalife’ (‘augalie’ in C, ‘algalifr(ije’ in V*) in lines corresponding to O, 1914, 1943, 1954. Editors of O either ignore the problem completely (Bédier, Whitehead — followed by Hemming) or correct on the basis of the 8 redaction (Segre, Short). See Bédier (La Chanson de Roland, edited and translated by J. Bédier (Paris: Piazza, n.d.; rpt. 1966), pp. 160-61, but cf. idem,

Commentaires sur la Chanson de Roland (Paris: Piazza, n.d.; rpt. 1968), p. 516); Whitehead (La Chanson de Roland, edited F. Whitehead (Oxford: Blackwell,

1942), p. 56); Hemming notes and introduction Duckworth, 1993), pp. Cesare Segre, translated

(La Chanson de Roland, Frederick Whitehead’s text with by T.D. Hemming, Bristol Classical Press (London: 56 and 128); Segre (La Chanson de Roland, edited by by Madeleine Tyssens, Textes Littéraires Frangais, 368, 2

vols (Geneva: Droz, 1989), I, 188; II, 252); Short (La Chanson de Roland, edited

and translated by Ian Short, Lettres Gothiques 4524 (Paris: Livre de Poche, 1990), pp. 150-51). Moignet keeps O’s reading, but takes the name ‘Marganice’ as that of the algalife (p. 149). The most seriously problematic line is O, 1943, which gives the name in the form ‘Li Marganices’, which invites a correction most editors decline. Segre’s note justifying the correction of 1. 1914 — that the substitution of Marganice for ‘l’algalife’ in O was ‘due sans doute au fait que le copiste a cru ce qu’affirme Ganelon en 680-91’ (trans. Tyssens, p. 188) — unfortunately does not ring true, as it takes too modern a view of the role of the scribe. An alternative

solution is that a confusion with Margariz (de Sebille) who entered the text at Il. 1310-11 to attack Oliver, led to conflicting readings, particularly at 11. 1943 and 1954, which the person responsible for the archetype of the 6 redaction removed by universally re-instating ‘l’algalife’. Even if the B text does give the correct original version, one must not forget that the unexpected return of characters believed dead is not unknown in literature, from Beroul’s resuscitation of the baron felon killed by Governal to that of Ralph and Indiana in George Sand’s novel, Indiana, and the resurrection of Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty in the The Return of Sherlock Holmes by Arthur Conan Doyle. One would therefore hesitate before asserting as, for example, Sarah Kay does in ‘Ethics and Heroics in the Song of Roland’, Neophilologus, LXII (1974), 480-91, that Ganelon ‘uses lies and misrepresentations [...] probably in lines 472-4 [...] and certainly in lines 680-97 where he deceives Charles on the subject of Marsile’s intentions [...] but also

provides a circumstantial and entirely fictitious account of the death of the caliph’ (p. 483). However, a presumption that the narrator may not intend his audience to

Ganelon’s False Message

155

It is just this sort of logical, modern, deduction about the underpinnings of the data of the Roland which causes so much difficulty when we try to re-enter the world the poem creates. We are all prone to this sort of intellectual short-circuiting in our reaction to texts, but Cook suffers from it in a particularly acute form at two crucial moments of his analysis of the embassy episode.

The first, mentioned above, is his supposition that an ambassador would get no briefing on the substance of his embassy.

This, of

course, is hardly credible in twentieth-century terms; in an essentially oral society like that of the eleventh or twelfth centuries,

it is all but impossible. The second derives from the first as Cook makes the unwarranted assumption that because the ‘letter’, containing the totality of Charles’s message to Marsile, was ‘sealed’ when handed over its contents were unknown to the bearer (p. 31). This position actually contains a whole series of concatenated inferences based on twentieth-century conceptions of the events recounted. To get a truer picture of the scene, we must ask what the poet and his audience would have understood by the bref which Charles gives Ganelon in |. 341 and which the ambassador communicates to Marsile in ll. 483-84, and how they would have interpreted Marsile’s breaking of the seal and throwing away of the wax in |. 486. It is symptomatic of a twentieth-century misconception rather than a cause of subsequent error that the Old French word bref is uniformly translated ‘letter/lettre’ by almost all editors and translators.” By merely using this word we immediately throw ourselves into a mentality of individual and private communication totally inappropriate to the original context, which is one of formal take Ganelon’s words at face value here is the formula ‘par grant veisdie’ used to introduce the speech (1. 675). 1? Even the exceptions — Moncrieff (The Song of Roland, translated by Charles

Scott Moncrieff (London: Chapman & Hall, 1919)), Bédier (La Chanson de

Roland, publiée d’après le manuscrit d’Oxford et traduite par Joseph Bédier (Paris: H. Piazza, 1927)) and Riquer (Chanson de Roland, Cantar de Roldan y el Roncesvalles navarro, edited by Martin de Riquer, Biblioteca Filologica, 1 (Barcelona: El Festin de Esopo, 1983)) — are more apparent than real. Moncrieff’s ‘brief’, like Bédier’s ‘bref’, is merely archaising; Riquer’s ‘mensaje’ shifts our attention from the ‘signifier’ to the ‘signified’. His version alone, however, does have the virtue of identifying what Charlemagne initiates with what Ganelon transmits.

156

Philip E. Bennett

communication by one ruler to another. At the period of the Roland’s composition (accepting the conventional ca 1100 for the version subtending the Oxford manuscript) bref in such a context can only be seen as a breve, that is a concise statement in writing of

the king’s intentions, known in English as a ‘writ’. Even if we do use the more modern term ‘letter’ (implying a missive) at the period

under consideration we are still dealing with a public ‘writ’.* The contents of such a document would inevitably be open to the bearer, which is not to say that he could decipher them, a point I shall soon return to as it has further implications for the interpretation of the episode. What is clear at this juncture is that whatever Marsile is

doing with the seal he is not breaking it to open the letter, in a way we imagine from period drama. The only form of official ‘letter’ in use at this early period was the ‘letter patent’; the ‘letter close’ was introduced into his domains by Henry II in the 1150s, and not

adopted in France until the very end of the twelfth century.”

The

very purpose of the ‘letter close’, to give orders to a subordinate, shows that it would be inapplicable in this case; hence the necessity of seeing what Ganelon hands over as an open document, the contents of which he must know, as he has to speak to them. This brings us back to the two central questions: what is the relationship between Ganelon’s words and those of Charles inscribed on the parchment, and what was Marsile doing with the seal? I shall tackle the second question first.

A similar observation relating to Il. 1684-85 and 2094-95 is made by David C. Douglas, “The Song of Roland and the Norman Conquest of England’, French

Studies, XIV (1960), 99-116. se Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record, pp. 89-92. ® Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record, p. 91; Jean-François Lemarignier, La France médiévale: institutions et sociétés (Paris: Armand Colin, 1970), pp. 32425; John W. Baldwin, The Government of Philip Augustus: foundations of French royal power in the Middle Ages (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1986), pp. 404-05. Clanchy actually suggests that ‘private’ letters close must have existed from very early times (he cites one from ca 100 AD found on Hadrian’s Wall (p. 91) and suggests — while admitting that no documentary proof survives

— that Alfred the Great may have sent out letters close to his officials (p. 310). The important point, however, is that in the twelfth century the letter close was regarded as a means of transmitting confidential instructions to be acted on by the recipient.

Ganelon’s False Message

157

The Oxford manuscript says quite clearly ‘Freint le seel, getet en ad la cire’ (1. 486), which we equate with opening a letter, an interpretation which already seemed obvious to the Italian redactors

of Châteauroux and V*:"° Marsilles sot des ars bien la maistrie: Escoler fu en la loi paenie. De duel q’il ot a la quiere rogie, Les bries desploie, s’a la letre scosie

(C, 739-42)

Marsilio sa asa d’arte et de livre — Escoler fu de la loi paganie. Avre.l saiel, si.n a çete la cire, Garda le letere, tuta la raxon vid scrite

(V*, 381-84)

Both texts feel the need to explain Marsile’s capacity to read the letter, a need not felt by O for reasons I shall return

to, and both

describe him as opening the letter, but in different ways. V* replaces O’s notion of breaking the seal with the more explicit one of opening it (suggesting that he saw the object as a private missive in the way Cook has interpreted O), and then, perhaps oddly, throwing away the wax. Châteauroux, by contrast, suppresses, or disguises the reference to the wax by subsuming what must have been an original reference to ‘breaking wax’ into the description of Marsile’s face flushed with rage given at O, I. 485, but excised in

V*. Châteauroux then has Marsile unfold ‘desploier’ the bries in order to read it. We can deduce from this that the redactor of Chateauroux envisaged the document as a letter patent, whose seal did not need to be touched in order to open it. He also interprets it as a Christian document,

folded like the leaf of a codex, and not

made into a roll, which would mark it inappropriately as ‘pagan’.””

167es Textes de la Chanson de Roland, edited by Raoul Mortier, 10 vols (Paris: La Geste Francor, 1940-44), IV: Le Manuscrit de Châteauroux;

The Franco-Italian

Roland (V°), edited by Geoffrey Robertson-Mellor (Salford: University of Salford, 1980). In quoting the latter text I have regularised the typography, so as to avoid unnecessary distraction for the reader. 17 Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record, p. 139, points out that there was

an ingrained prejudice against using the roll as a form in Christian communities in medieval Europe, since that was the traditional format of the Jewish Law.

158

Philip E. Bennett

Neither of these texts, though, talks of the seal being broken in the way O does.

The key to Marsile’s enraged action at this point lies in the use of Its the seal on late-eleventh or early-twelfth-century documents. essential function was symbolic, authenticating the document, not as an alternative to signing (Christians did not sign their names), but as a physical representation of the originator of the document, for whom the transmitter of the document (or the document itself) acted as mouth-piece.* Effectively then in shattering Charles’s seal and throwing the wax aside Marsile is declaring his hostility to the emperor, slighting his person and rejecting any suggestion of authority or claim to respect on his part. Nothing could say more clearly to a twelfth-century audience that the negotiations were a sham covering continuing war than this symbolic assault on Charles, the exact counterpart to the murder of Basan and Basile, and to the physical attack on Ganelon with a spear, which was thwarted only by the prompt intervention of members of Marsile’s council. As was seen at the beginning of this paper, there is a common consent among scholars that in the particular reference he makes to Roland as feudatory in half of Spain, if at no other point, Ganelon is

simply lying.” This lie constitutes for Cook the very essence of the ‘8 Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record, pp. 8, 52-53, 308-17. Only Jews were allowed to sign their names as a means of authenticating documents; Christians were required to make the sign of the Cross and/or append a seal. The reason for the use of the Cross (to place the transaction under the sanction of Christ through the use of the ‘most solemn symbol of Christian truth’, p. 8) is clearly indicated in this quotation by Clanchy from a document of Hugh of Chester: I, Earl Hugh, and my barons have confirmed all these things before Archbishop Anselm not only by my seal but also by the seal of Almighty God, that is the sign of the Holy Cross (p. 313). Clanchy also suggests (p. 307) that Jews, being generally more literate than their Christian counterparts, put more trust in writing than in seals, which they regarded as mere lumps of wax of no intrinsic significance. In the first edition of From Memory to Written Record (London: Arnold, 1979), p. 245, Clanchy also makes the suggestive remark that Christians regarded seals much as they did relics. '° This lie is frequently seen as a personal ploy of Ganelon’s to provoke the wrath of the Saracens and so justify his subsequent actions. Nothing in the text actually

supports this view. Moreover the ‘arrogance’ of the epic messenger is proverbial; see, for instance, the comment by Gaston Paris, ‘Les Romans en vers du cycle de la Table Ronde,’ in Histoire Littéraire de la France, 30 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale,

1888), p. 31, on Gauvain’s behaviour during his embassy

to the

Ganelon’s False Message

159

treason, as he makes clear in his assessment of intervention,” from which Cook deduces that Ganelon .

.

2

Jurfaleu’s

.

has betrayed his own lord’s trust with his falsehoods [...] Ganelon has perverted his embassy; he was, it seems, given no oral message to deliver, and moreover, what he has said was nearly a contradiction of the real

message.” Now, if we are to understand with Cook, that the real message to

Marsile was contained in the bref, and that conditions not previously stipulated in the earlier council scene were not part of the ‘authentic’ message, we are faced with the conundrum

bref of the requirement

placed

on

of the presence in the

Marsile

to hand

over

the

algalife.” The sudden eruption into the poem of this condition, if it were imposed by Charlemagne without Ganelon’s being made aware of it, would constitute such a betrayal of his duty of protection by the Emperor that it would justify absolutely any subsequent action by the messenger, since it could only be interpreted as being designed to encompass his death.” That we are not, in fact, to Romans in Wace’s Roman de Brut (ll. 11673-761) that ‘il traite les Romains avec l’arrogance d’un vrai messager de chanson de geste’. 0 No name is actually given to this character at this point in O, where he is simply referred to as Marsile’s son. The name ‘Jurfaret’ appears in 1. 504; he is called ‘Jurfaleu’ in 11. 1904 and 2702. In the 6 family manuscripts the intervention is attributed to Marsile’s nephew. 71 Cook, The Sense, p. 34. 22 We cannot be sure why Marsile is specifically required to hand over his uncle, although in the symbolic system of the Roland the relationship itself may offer sufficient explanation. Whether the algalife is considered as implicitly included among the ‘hostages’ referred to in Il. 146-50 and 241 is unclear, but perhaps improbable, since on his return to Charles’s camp Ganelon mentions them (1. 679) separately from the algalife (1. 681). The most significant point is that the algalife is mentioned in a sentence stipulating that only by handing over his uncle can Marsile ‘buy’ his own life, which comes immediately after a reference to Marsile’s killing Basan and Basile (Il. 489-93). Presumably then Charles intends to execute nephew or uncle, as a belated act of vengeance for the killing of his previous ambassadors.

23 The instruction to bring back the Calif is the exact equivalent of the order given

to Huon de Bordeaux to bring back the Calif’s teeth (Huon de Bordeaux, edited by P. Ruelle, Université Libre de Bruxelles; Travaux de la Faculté de Philosophie et Letires, 20 (Brussels: Presses de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1960), Il. 2332-70), with only this difference, that Huon was told before he undertook the mission what he would have to accomplish, and went willingly on the quest. The outcome of

160

Philip E. Bennett

interpret the text in this way is clear from both the placing and the

content of Jurfaleu’s tirade: in all three redactions (O, V’, CV’) containing the episode it comes immediately after the citing of words apparently contained in the bref; in all three redactions it is Ganelon’s spoken words, not Charles’s written ones that provoke the wrath of the Saracen: E dist al rei: ‘Guenes a dit folie. Tant a erret nen est dreit que plus vivet’

(O, 496-97)

‘Bel sire roi, Gaino a dit follie.

Tant v’a’1 dit che no dovrave vivre’

(V’, 398-99)

‘Bau sire rois, .G. a fet folie;

Tant vos a dit la mort a deservie”

— (C, 756-57)

While V’, which seems to be a hybrid text at this point, emphasises most strongly Ganelon’s speaking, the other texts make it clear that it is such speech which constitutes the excessive act for which Ganelon deserves death.

The accusation comes, moreover,

not at a

point at which we have been shown Ganelon speaking, but at a point

where our modern psychology leads us to imagine Marsile reading from the bref: Guardet al bref, vit la raisun escrite:

“Carle me mandet, ki France ad en baillie’

(O, 487-88)

It is the juxtaposition of the statement that Marsile looks at the bref and sees a text, and his report of words transmitted from Charles that leads us to assume that he must be reading from the page. Even

V* and CV’, which have added an assertion about Marsile’s literacy, allow no more than that Marsile sees the text:

V* repeats verbatim

O’s formula (‘tuta la raxon vid scrite’, 1. 384), while CV’ substitutes

this story is, of course, the condemnation of Charles’s tyranny by Auberon, when the emperor’s moral failings are made manifest in his inability to drink from the magic cup. There is, however, no indication in the Roland that we are meant to interpret Charles’s character as already being set in the mould which will be the norm in late-twelfth and thirteenth-century chansons.

Ganelon’s False Message

161

‘la letre scosie/coissie’ (1. 742). The bref itself, then, like the seal appended to it, is a symbolic object figuring the presence of the imperial will, which is expressed through Ganelon’s oral communication of Charles’s words. It is the character’s confusion of the symbolic with the real which provokes Jurfaleu’s wrath here,

as it had provoked Marsile’s when Ganelon first spoke, and as it had, perhaps, caused the deaths of the earlier ambassadors, whose good faith we have no reason to doubt. The Roland, then, gives us a fragmented message which we have to reconstitute from two speeches of Ganelon and from Marsile’s report to his council. The strategies of oral delivery require us to find a totalising discourse by re-assembling its paratactically juxtaposed elements, not to confront those elements in order to descry inconsistencies between them. In this respect the presentation of the message transmitted from the council of the Franks to Marsile can be compared to the presentation of the oath administered to Iseut by Arthur in Beroul’s Tristran, a passage I would like to consider briefly now for the light it throws on the

structuring of the Roland material.

As I have argued elsewhere,” Arthur gives not one but two versions of the oath which Iseut is to swear to disculpate herself from the charge of adultery. One of them is addressed to King Mark, as official administrator

of the oath, and in Ewert’s edition

reads as follows: ‘Or oiez, roi: qui ara tort, La reine vendra avant,

Si gel verront petit et grant, Et si jurra o sa main destre, Sor les corsainz, au roi celestre

Qu’el onques n’ot amor conmune A ton nevo, ne deus ne d’une,

24 Only the foreign translations undertaken by clerks clearly reading their text with spectacles akin to our own state explicitly that Marsile read the missive sent to him à by Charles. See Segre, La Chanson de Roland, Il, 70. # Philip E. Bennett, ‘Jugement de Dieu, parole d’auteur: Béroul et le débat sur l’intentionnalité au XII° siècle”, in Tristan et Iseut: un thème éternel de la culture mondiale, edited by D. Buschinger and W. Spiewok, Wodan, Greifswalder Beiträge zum Mittelalter, 57 (Greifswald: Reineke-Verlag, 1996), pp. 13-25.

162

Philip E. Bennett Que l’on tornast a vilanie,

N’amor ne prist par puterie. Dan Marc, trop a ice duré; Qant ele avra eisi juré,

Di tes barons qu’il aient pes’

(4158-69)°

Apart from instructions to Mark as to his future conduct (which may be taken as a separate consideration and not likely to form part of a second speech to Iseut) we note that Arthur defines the modalities of the oath-taking (Iseut’s bodily gestures, and a reminder of the ultimate judge of the affair) and that he gives in his own voice as an indirect command the formula to be pronounced: that Iseut did not have ‘amor conmune’ ‘par puterie’ with the King’s nephew, in a manner to give rise to scandal. Although I shall not analyse here the semantic content of the two key concepts left in Old French in my summary, a clear oath bearing on her own conduct seems to be sketched out in these lines, which the queen is to be required to swear. When Arthur turns to Iseut, however, usurping Mark’s role of administrator of the oath, a new text emerges: ‘Entendez moi, Yseut la bele,

Oiez de qoi on vous apele: Que Tristran n’ot vers vous amour De puteé ne de folor Fors cele que devoit porter Envers son oncle et vers sa per’

(4191-96)

Again I will not make it my business to analyse the various ambiguities of the text, but note simply that instead of administering an oath Arthur merely repeats to Iseut the cause of the trial. Moreover attention is shifted from Iseut to Tristran, and although the notion of ‘puteé’ survives from the previous version, a new one of ‘folor’ is introduced, as well as the concept of the type of love it is becoming for a man to show to ‘son oncle et [...] sa per’. In the context of the message taken from Charlemagne to Marsile

by Ganelon, which is our primary concern, the most shattering change between Arthur’s two pronouncements is that which removes 26

The Romance of Tristran by Beroul, edited by A. Ewert, 2 vols (Oxford:

Blackwell, 1939; repr. 1967), Vol. I: Introduction, Text, Glossary, Index.

Ganelon’s False Message

163

Iseut as the focus of the oath and substitutes Tristran for her.” Such a change in the object of the judicial process would be regarded as criminally deceitful, were it not that Arthur is so clearly marked in the text as a positive figure. Furthermore, there seems to be no possibility that we could consider the two statements as being made in such a way as to preclude either of the addressees from hearing what was said to the other. Both are made in front of the whole court, in the presence of the relics, and both begin with, or include,

the ‘oiez’ of formal legal pronouncement.” This reduces our scope for reading these two interventions of Arthur’s in a ‘realistic’ way (‘Arthur really made both of these statements’), which in turn removes the desire to find psychological or other explanations either for the discrepancies contained in the speeches, or for the

characters’ failure to react to them.” We must consider them rather as providing an analytic, multiple realisation of a discourse that we are to interpret by re-synthesising it. This compositional strategy, which gives us a model for reading Ganelon’s message, is also found in a passage of Jordan Fantosme’s Chronicle, which provides us with a close parallel for the Roland

episode.” The episode, which comes at the start of the hostilities 27 That Iseut later reinserts herself into the heart of the oath as focus of a very visual attention is irrelevant to my present argument, as is the reaction of the court, which, in responding to the queen’s oath, all but ignores all that Arthur has said. 2 Pierre Jonin, Les Personnages féminins dans les romans francais de Tristan au XII’ siècle, Annales de la Faculté des Lettres Université d’ Aix-Marseille, Nouvelle Série, 22 (Gap: Ophrys, 1958), p. 94, analyses Arthur’s first speech as forensic discourse. He takes no account of the second speech. What is noteworthy in the second speech is that there are two ‘calls to attention’ a non-formulaic one ‘Entendez’, which may be considered therefore as not belonging to the judicial

process, and a formulaic one ‘Oiez’, which does. The use of ‘Entendez’ (perhaps less ambiguous in Old French than in modern French, but still covering two concepts) may be a signal to Iseut to put a clear gloss on Arthur’s words, enabling her to swear a suitable oath without perjuring herself. Such a reading, if we take the text literally, would present us with two conflicting statements from Arthur, each of which might have been challenged by the interested parties. 29 In fact most critics simply excise one or other of the statements from their own consciousness, and explicate the oath scene on the basis of just one of Arthur’s speeches. See Bennett, ‘Jugement de Dieu, parole d’auteur’, p. 16, n. 16. 3° Jordan Fantosme’s ‘Chronicle’, edited by R.C. Johnston (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), laisses 22-44 (pp. 18-34). All quotations are taken from this edition. In what follows I shall not attempt to distinguish ‘laisses’ from ‘stanzas’ according to the system established by Professor Johnston, for reasons set out in

164

Philip E. Bennett

between the Young King and Henry II, concerns a three-way exchange of messengers or ambassadors, carrying brefs and delivering oral messages, between father and son, and their mutual vassal, William the Lion, King of Scots.

The first message is carried from Young Henry to William the Lion: 23 Vunt s’en li message, ki les briés en porterent. Passent la mer salee, les regnes traverserent, Les forez, les plaignes, les ruistes guez passerent. Vienent en Escoce e le rei i troverent. De part le jofne rei Henri les escriz presenterent: Jas orrez les paroles ki escrites i erent.

24 ‘Al rei d’Escoce, Willame le meillur, A qui nostre lignage fud jadis anceisur! Le rei Henri le juefne vus mande par amur:

Suvenir vus deit de mei,

ki sui vostre seignur’

(248-57)

The message goes on to state that in return for support (which William owed young Henry as his overlord) the Young King would grant the King of Scots ‘la terre que orent ti anceisur’: ‘Karduil’

and ‘Tute Westmarilande’ (ll. 263, 267, 268).

The content of this

message seems clear, although there will be some dispute over the definition of lands held by William’s ancestors, and indeed over the

sense to be given to the idea of ‘held’. modern

What is unclear for a

audience, and what must have been even less clear for a

twelfth-century one receiving the text aurally, is the relationship between the written bref and the orally delivered message. The significant point here, though, is that what is considered as ‘escrites’ in the bref are the ‘paroles’ of the Young King: all that is delivered is held to be the actual spoken words of Henry. This is underlined by the description of the composing of the missive: ‘En romanz

devise un brief,

d’un anel l’enseele’ (1. 245). That the language is

specified suggests that it was uncommon for something as official as my paper ‘La Chronique de Jordan Fantosme: épique et public lettré au XII° siècle”, Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, XL (1997), 37-56. *! Johnston, Jordan Fantosme’s ‘Chronicle’, note to ll. 263-68, p. 160.

Ganelon’s False Message

165

a bref to be in any language other than Latin, but also allows the inference that what we hear recited are the very words the Young King had authenticated with his signet. The second embassy, from William to Henry II, clarifies some things while obscuring others: 29 Vunt s’en li message; _lur chevals espurunent Par les granz chemins ferrez, lur rednes abandunent. Li cheval sunt mult bon qui desuz eus randunent. Vienent en Normandie, pas lunges ne sujornent; Trovent le viel rei Henri; sagement l’araisunent De part le reid’Escoce. Lur lettres puis li dunent. 30 Frere Willame d’Olepené parole tut premier E dit au reid’Engleterré: ‘Jo sui un messagier De part le rei d’Escocé, vus vieng ci nuntier Il est vostre parent sil devez mult amer. Servira vus en cest busuin’ (316-26)

This time there has been no mention of the preparation of a missive by the council of the King of Scots,” although the existence of a symbolic document is mentioned in ]. 321.

This, however, is handed

over only after the ambassador has delivered his message orally. This is done in laisse XXX, using a form of paratactic juxtaposition

which invites the audience to identify William of Olepen’s oration with the contents of the letter. Equally instructive is the clerical status of the ambassador, who none the less takes personal responsibility for the words uttered on behalf of William the Lion,

implying that even if he were reading from the missive (which is not stated in the text) his immediate audience, the court of Henry II, would have taken his mouth not the parchment in his hand as the actual channel of communication from the King of Scots. On the content level it is notable that no mention is made of any of the offers received from the Young King; the message merely states that William will support Henry II on condition he return 32 The reference to ‘icest mandement’ (1. 314) in context appears to be to the content of a message, not to a form of inscription.

166

Philip E. Bennett

Northumberland to the King of Scots, which the latter sees as his rightful possession.” Henry’s angry and scornful response to this is carried back to Scotland by the same messenger, who on delivering the English king’s message uses the striking formula ‘Del rei d’Engleterre

resui venu message. / Ore,

oiez sun mandement;

nel tenez a folage! / Mult s’esmerveille de vus’ (Il. 364-66), by which both the King of Scots and the poem’s audience are expected to understand that William of Olepen is for the nonce in the service of Henry and acting as his mouthpiece. This explains the hemistich ‘nel tenez a folage’ which refers not to Henry’s message but to Frere Willame’s delivery of it to his own master. Not surprisingly, but only after another heated debate in council, the King of Scots decides to back the Young King, and messengers carry the news to him. In all these comings and goings no further reference has been made to written texts (unless the ‘mandement’ of 1. 365 covers both the message and its vehicle). One other document is referred to, however, and that is the formal charter confirming the return of

Carlisle and Westmoreland to Scotland by the Young King:* La chartre ke vus porterez Dites al reid’Escoce,

La terre est tute sue

ie

‘Ja ne querrat del vostré

‘Jas iert enseelee enz en vostre cuntree. senz nule demuree,

qu’iladdemandee’

(455-58)

vaillant un denier,

Mes que sa dreituré li voilliez otrier: Co est Northumberland, qu’il requiert tut premier,

Kar nul n’iad si grant raisun kil volsist chalengier’ (330-33). One might assume that the reason for the lack of reference to the restoration of Carlisle and Westmoreland to the Scottish crown was that these areas had been ceded to England as part of a formal treaty in 1154; Northumberland, on the other hand, had been assimilated without formal agreement. ** ‘Tn fact it is not the Young King but Louis VII, acting as suzerain, who has the charter drawn up and who guarantees its implementation. Two ‘mistranslations’

by the editor must be noted here: the first is his ‘gloss’ of Jordan’s expression ‘noz messages’ (1. 455) as ‘the Scottish envoys’, thus distancing Jordan’s narrator from the text and undoing the sympathy generated for hapless emissaries in the sorts of affairs recounted; the second is the assumption of the technical term “chartre’ under the blanket modern expression ‘letter’, which has also been used to render ‘brief/briés’ (11. 245, 248) and ‘escriz’ (1. 252). The main effect of this is to blunt the distinction between a ‘breve’ (a summary of Young Henry’s offer) and a ‘charta’ (a formal instrument of contract involving Henry, William and Louis). Between these two terms ‘escriz’ would be better rendered ‘document’.

Ganelon’s False Message

167

This last message, like all the others we have seen, is open, although sealed, and its contents are, as a matter of course, made

known to the bearers. This brings us back to our scene between Ganelon and Marsile: we have no textual reason to believe that any other interpretation should be put on the message carried from Charles to the Saracens by the emperor’s brother-in-law. Equally we have no more reason to believe that the bref with its seal which Ganelon hands to Marsile is any less of a symbolic document than those carried by Willame d’Olepen and his colleagues, and from which neither this clerk nor the literate kings Henry, William and Louis read. In both texts the communication is through the mediated spoken word, not through the written word. There

is, moreover,

another

instructive

parallel

between

the

messages transmitted in the Chronicle and that carried in the Roland: in both cases the wisdom of the messengers is stressed. Ganelon is called ‘saives’ at ll. 279 and 294, while in 1. 426 (in a line which has caused critics much trouble) the narrator avers ‘Par grant saver

cummence a parler’. Similarly the various messengers sent between Paris, Normandy and Scotland are called ‘sage’ at 11. 357 and 428; in

addition Jordan comments that they give their final message in Louis’s court ‘süef e senz irrur’ (1. 435). None of this prevents the choleric outbursts of Henry II or Philip of Flanders, and it is perhaps significant that Jordan starts emphasising the wisdom of the messengers at just that point where the recipients of the messages begin to react irrationally to the words they hear, provoking a further comment from the author: ‘Ja dirrunt tel parole de guerre par atie / Dunt cil plurrunt encore qui rien n’en unt oie’ (Il. 36061). Although there is not the apparent contradiction in versions of 35

Part of the problem is that 1. 425 begins ‘Mais’, which is automatically

interpreted as contrastive by modern readers (e.g. Jacques Thomas, ‘La Traitrise de Ganelon’, Romanica Gandensia, XVI (1976), 91-117, at p. 105). Although no other interpretation of mais is given in the standard dictionaries, this is not the only case in which an intensive seems more appropriate than a contrastive to a modern mind. Joan Tasker Grimbert, ‘Yvain’ dans le miroir, une poétique de la réflexion dans le ‘Chevalier au Lion’ de Chrétien de Troyes (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1988), pp. 39-68, offers a subtle analysis of the varied uses of ‘mais’ in Chrétien’s romance, although the contrastive-disjunctive use (the main structure analysed is that provided by the pairing cuidier-mais) remains predominant throughout her discussion.

168

Philip E. Bennett

the messages in the Chronique which we found in the case of Arthur’s speeches in the Tristran, the content of the messages does change, and the very presence of a speaking voice transmitting hostile words aloud does seem to inflame the situation. Beroul may be using the oath episode to challenge received legal processes, including a reliance on oral formule; Jordan certainly seems to be criticising elements of the diplomatic process by his contrasting the professionalism of the ambassadors with the effects of their embassies on less well-educated recipients. There is no reason to believe that the Roland poet is indulging in any such criticisms. Nor is there any reason in the text to suppose that Ganelon is doing anything other than deliver the message he was given. Events unroll for him as they had done for Basan and Basile, and as they risked doing on more than one occasion for Willame d’Olepen. Only when tempers have been cooled in Marsile’s court, as they are in William the Lion’s and Louis VII’s courts, and a change of scene has been noted, does the poet signal a new phase in the embassy episode with the line ‘La purparolent la traisun seinz dreit’ (1. 511). That is the

point at which the treason starts, and we need to curb

our

twentieth-century urges to apply consistent psychology and verisimilitude to characters in the epic and to the presentation of words

uttered, which induce us to read this treason

back into the

previous narrative sequence. The ‘deconstruction’ of Charles’s message and its sequential revelation is part of the dramatic ritual inherent in the epic and related texts, which proceed by a series of confrontations of word and gesture imbuing the poems with their incantatory rhythms. These confrontations lead to a climactic point in each episode I have considered: Iseut’s graphic version of the oath in Beroul; the production of the charter restoring Carlisle to the Scots in Jordan; °° This treason, of course, is never acknowledged by Ganelon, who consistently distinguishes his encompassing the death of Roland from his service to Charles. Similarly Thierry’s vindication in judicial combat of the assertion that having Roland killed while on imperial service is effectively treason points to the discussion between Ganelon and Marsile of laisses XL-XLVI as constituting the treason. The narrator’s comment, that as they ride Blancandrin and Ganelon discuss how to get rid of Roland, seems to anticipate the lines in which Ganelon promises to have Roland found in the rearguard (as a warrior to be destroyed) rather than to anything in the message he is carrying from Charlemagne.

Ganelon’s False Message

169

Ganelon’s move to a stout posture of defence against a pine tree,

followed immediately by the announcement of his treason. That that treason should be sworn on the relics in his sword’s pommel while Marsile swears on the books of his own law, signalling a political understanding between two religions to remove a common enemy, merely puts the icing on the cake for a French audience which, by

the early twelfth century, has come to think Muslim-Christian relationships according to the simplistic rhetoric of Crusade and

Holy War.” University of Edinburgh

7

Lafont, La Geste de Roland, I, ch. 3, ‘L'Empereur d’Espagne’ and ch. 5, ‘Au

rendez-vous de Roncevaux’, stresses that the easy political relationships between Muslims and Christians in Spain, characterised by the career of Rodrigo Diaz de Bivar, el Cid, were as incomprehensible (and as reprehensible) to the fundamentalist Almoravids as they were to the French, particularly once the influence of Bernard de Clairvaux began to make itself felt in the aftermath of the First Crusade. The tolerant attitude of the Christian monarchs of Spain during the early part of the Reconquista is emphasised by the title adopted by Alphonso VI of Castile after the capture of Toledo (1085): ‘Emperor of Spain and of the Two

Faiths’. See R.B. Tate, ‘The Medieval Kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula (to 1474)’ in Spain: a companion to Spanish studies, edited by P.E. Russell (London: Methuen, 1973), p. 74. Tate also comments that this tolerance must have been incomprehensible to the French monks invited to establish churches along the pilgrim route to Compostela.

( À LT

,

a

fk

™~

à

QU FOR TEL 1

rte

MIN

=

4

P “

i

a

A

:

ni

LE

or CRE

À

Per ‘

Ca

i

bide tat 4

M: AT WR: eeree tot ae

"

es :

; St:

}

eur;

te rend

5 à

ns

é

+ +

Chine

’ *

re

|

AUTANT

ink

Te

; oy

>

C

t

* j

~

(TR

the

D

Tey

r

à

Se

ok

ak

titres

-

; wien a

egaimentatia ’

rts

ue

iEUR UT: Cr

su wiste st ‘ pare’NE Le

Au

Ÿ iv a

te

chard. ae

‘

a ae ah dene UE + AR

à

mar a a

E nn

a K pine dif £

au ei

mon

api

D |

J

L

|

ey en ee FAN REY 7 Ii

=

MILITARY

LEADERSHIP IN THE OLD FRENCH EPIC! Peter Noble

John Gillingham opens his chapter Richard I and the Science of War in the Middle Ages with the remark ‘So far as most historians are concerned there was no such thing as a science of war in the middle ages’* and concludes it by pointing out ‘but it would be difficult to think of generalisations more misleading than such statements as — in the middle ages “the principal arm in any military force was the heavy cavalry”’.’ In between he has taken the example of Richard I to demonstrate just how skilful a commander and tactician he was. His campaigns in the Holy Land show a combination of personal bravery and prudent generalship which put him twice in a position where he could have attempted the recapture of Jerusalem in 1192, having outmanoeuvred and outlasted Saladin, who had had to allow his tired forces to go home. Each time Richard withdrew because he could not guarantee the supplies. The route from the coast to Jerusalem was too vulnerable to the highly mobile Moslem troops of Saladin, and Richard, who by now was very experienced and successful as a general, having campaigned every year since 1173, "All quotations from the three epics used in this article are taken from the following editions: La Chanson de Roland, edited by Frederick Whitehead, revised with a new introduction, bibliography and notes by T.D. Hemming (Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1993); La Chanson de Guillaume, edited by François Suard, Classiques Garnier (Paris: Bordas, 1991); Raoul de Cambrai, edited by Sarah Kay (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992). * John Gillingham, Richard Coeur de Lion: kingship, chivalry and war in the twelfth century (London: Hambledon Press, 1994), p. 211.

>

Gillingham, Richard Coeur de Lion, p. 226. The quotation is from G. Parker,

‘Warfare’, New Cambridge Modern History, XIII, Companion Volume, edited by P. Burke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), pp. 201-03.

172

Peter Noble

took the correct military decision to withdraw and husband his scarce manpower. He must have taken into account the terrain, logistics and communications in making this decision, which was extremely unpopular. His tactics at the battle of Arsouf (September, 1191) show the same caution and also demonstrate his control of his men. Despite the constant attacks of the Saracen skirmishers and the discontent of the Hospitallers, Richard held his men in check until the foot soldiers at the head of the column reached the outskirts of Arsouf. Before he could give the command, the Master of the Hospitallers led the charge, followed by the rearguard in formation and the other units of heavy cavalry, and took the enemy entirely by surprise.’ A succession of short charges, after each of which the knights regrouped, completed the rout of the enemy, and Richard allowed no pursuit for fear of an ambush and the risk of leaving the foot soldiers.” Timothy Newark coments that ‘his skill as a field commander and his ability to control his men in adverse conditions

were brilliantly displayed”. Richard is only one commander who displayed outstanding military ability in the period. Stephen Morillo argues that in fact all three of the first Anglo-Norman Kings displayed considerable military ability, although Rufus and Henry I were not quite the equals of their father, William the Conqueror.’ The Conqueror’s tactics at Hastings are very different from those of Richard I, in that he had to risk everything on one decisive battle. He could not afford to allow Harold the time to gather overwhelming forces which would crush the relatively small invading army. His raiding and foraging along the south coast not only served to keep his own troops supplied and gave them something to do while they waited for Harold’s army to arrive, but possibly stung Harold into attacking sooner than he might have done, because it was his own lands which * The poet of Raoul de Cambrai was aware of the difficulty of maintaining order in battle. When Ybert’s army attacks the army of Raoul, battle order is quickly lost: “Dont ce desrengent de deus pars a esfors’ (1. 2201). ° ‘J.F. Verbruggen, The Art of Warfare in Western Europe during the Middle Ages: from the eighth century to 1340, translated by Sumner Willard and S.C.M. Southern (Amsterdam: Holland, 1977), pp. 210-20. ° Timothy Newark, Medieval Warfare (London: Jupiter Books, 1979), p. 84. ‘Stephen Morillo, Warfare under the Anglo-Norman Kings 1066-1135 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1994), p. 188.

Military Leadership

179

were being harried. Decisive battles like Hastings are in fact relatively rare in medieval history, especially outside England, because they were too risky. Most commanders preferred to follow the advice of Vegetius and carry out an offensive campaign by ravaging. This tactic is seen repeatedly in Raoul de Cambrai, where Ybert’s men plunder the countryside round Soissons to draw the King’s forces into their ambush (Il. 5710-20). Later in the poem Corsuble’s first warning of the attack of the almaçour of Cérdoba is when he is alerted to the presence of the foragers outside his city: Corsubles l’oit s’a les degrés montés, par la fenestre de la tor a gardet, voit le pais des paiens anconbré — li forier courent por les villes rober, des maisons arces voit les grans fex lever

(7526-30)

Similarly when Juliien and Henri attack their grandfather,

they begin by harrying the countryside which forcing Guerri out of Arras to defend his land:

Guerri,

has the effect of

mestent le feu, les villes font brisier, prennent les proies et font en l’ost chacier — en fuie tornent cis villains charruier (8382-84)

The defending commander would try to cut supply lines or catch the enemy when his forces were dispersed foraging and then launch a surprise attack.* It is noticeable that Robert the Bruce never risked another pitched battle after his great victory at Bannockburn. Instead the English were worn down and exhausted by the need to drive back a constant campaign of surprise attacks, raids and ravaging. When the Scots did risk pitched battles again at Dupplin Moor (1332) and Hallidon Hili (1333), the English under Edward III had already begun to devise tactics using infantry and cavalry together, which countered the Scottish schiltrons, and the result was crushing defeats for the Scottish infantry.

Although Verbruggen §

comments that “Despite the tendency to

Gillingham, Richard Coeur de Lion, pp. 218-19.

174

Peter Noble

glorify the personal feats of the great heroes of the epics, these tales [the oldest chansons de geste] offer much interesting information about tactics and other branches of the art of war’, he rarely cites them, concentrating instead on campaigns from the Carolingian period or thirteenth- and fourteenth-century wars, particularly in the Low Countries.’ Instead he sees their influence appearing in the belief of some historians in the warlike spirit and contempt for death of the knights: ‘Despite their great and sometimes wholly admirable gallantry, the knights were still human beings who feared for their lives in the presence of danger, and who behaved as men have always done in battle — in fear of death, mutilation, wounds and captivity.’”° He quotes Anna Comnena, Fulcher of Chartres, Usama,

Clari and Villehardouin to show how far the reality could differ from the legend, where Roland and Vivien represent the ideal

knights.''

To what extent do Roland, Vivien and Guillaume, and

Raoul de Cambrai Roland,

the

display military leadership in the Chanson

Chanson

de

Guillaume,

and

Raoul

de

de

Cambrai

respectively, poems which represent the three epic cycles? First of all what is meant by leadership? The poems under discussion were written by anonymous poets (with the debatable exception of Turold) so that we know nothing about the authors or how educated they were. Nevertheless it seems unlikely that they were written by very highly educated men and therefore it seems improbable, to put it no more strongly, that they had read Vegetius, let alone Frontinus or other military theorists. These works were consulted by later, clerical writers as they prepared treatises for the education of a prince. Such an education included military leadership, since most princes were expected to lead their armies and continued to do so into the eighteenth century, although not always with happy results. In the twelfth century the military leader

was expected to be noble, as the nobility was a warrior class, and its ° Verbruggen, The Art of Warfare, p. 15. See also his articles, ‘L’Art militaire dans |’empire carolingien (714-1000)’, Revue Belge d’Histoire Militaire, XXII (1979), 299-310 and (1980), 393-411. ‘L’Art militaire en Europe occidentale du ix° au xiv’ siècle”, Revue Internationale d’Histoire Militaire, XVI (1953-55), 486-

96.

‘© Verbruggen, The Art of Warfare, p. 41. ‘Verbruggen, The Art of Warfare, p. 56.

Military Leadership

young men Were trained for warfare from an early age.

195

In epic it

was occasionally possible for a man from the lower ranks of society

to rise into the fighting class of noble warriors, as can be seen in the Couronnement de Louis, where a porter who distinguishes himself is welcomed into the ranks of the knightly caste, but he is very much the exception.” Birth and lineage are essential to the leader, and with them went courage, especially physical courage and exceptional physical strength. In hand-to-hand fighting the men had to be ready to be hurt and to bear pain and horrible wounds manfully. They had also to be extremely strong to carry the heavy weapons and keep fighting with them. Skill in the use of weapons was another essential, as was outstanding horsemanship. A knight had to be able to control a horse in battle with only his left hand while his left arm was carrying his shield, as his right arm and hand were occupied with his weapon. Thus, when Raoul in Raoul de Cambrai cuts the left hand off one of his enemies and the foot off another, he jeers at them that now they are good only to be a watchman and a lookout: ‘Or vos donrai un mervillous mestier! Efrnaus] ert mans et vos voi eschacier: li uns iert gaite, de l’autre fas portier. Ja ne porrés vostre honte vengier!” (2749-52)

In addition to their physical qualities, their courage and their ability to bear pain, medieval leaders were expected by the theorists to have some idea of the more obvious tactics such as not to get trapped with their backs to a river, or to try to disadvantage the enemy by

making him fight with the sun in his eyes.

It seems obvious that

military leadership should include the following qualities at least: the ability to inspire men, a good strategic sense, which would include

some idea of logistics, and some understanding of how to care for the men and indeed to make the best use of resources. Twelfthcentury poets, however, were not necessarily experienced in military matters and were not primarily concerned with presenting a 12 Le Couronnement de Louis: chanson de geste du XII° siècle, edited by E. Langlois (Paris: Champion, 1938), Il. 1648-50. See Tony Hunt, ‘The Emergence of the Knight in France and England 1000-1200’, in Knighthood in Medieval Literature, edited by W. H. Jackson (Woodbridge: Brewer, 1981), pp. 5-6.

176

Peter Noble

picture of skilful generals.

The three poems under discussion all

have some basis of history behind them, however distorted by legend. The poets are describing events, the outcome of which was already known to the audience and which they could not alter. Raoul and Roland are presented as tragic heroes, while Guillaume, although victorious in the end, has also to face defeat and the loss of his armies. As regards personal courage there can be no argument. Roland rejoices in the opportunity to undertake a difficult and dangerous task for his emperor. When told that the Saracen army has arrived in force to attack the rearguard, which he is commanding, he hopes that the news is true: Dist Oliver: ‘Sire cumpainz, ce crei, De Sarrazins purum bataille aveir.’ Respont Rollant: ‘E Deus la nus otreit!’

(1006-08)

Raoul too shows immense personal courage in the savage and bloodthirsty fighting that takes place outside the town of Origny: Li quens R[aous] ot le coraige fier[....] Qi(1) li veist son escu manoier, destre et senestre au branc les rens serchier,

bien li menbrast de hardi chevalier

(2523, 2528-30)

He constantly seeks out his enemies and never flinches from the final fatal combat against Bernier, his one-time friend, whom he has insulted so grievously that Bernier can never forgive him and eventually wounds him mortally, although the actual death blows are dealt by Ernaut de Douai, desperate for revenge on Raoul: Au tor senestre trestorne le destrier Et el poing destre tenoit son branc d’acier et fiert R[aoul], ne le vost esparnier, parmi son elme ge il vost empirier; la maistre piere en fist jus trebuchier, trenche la coife de son hauberc doublier, en la cervele li fist le branc baignier.

Military Leadership

I

‘Ne li fu sez, ains prist le branc d’acier,

dedens le cors li a fait tout plungier. L’arme s’en part del gentil chevalier

(2968-77)

Guillaume, when his men have been killed to the last man

around

him, is still able to fight savagely against the Saracens, cutting his way through them to make his escape back to Orange where he can hope to raise a new army and try again. The poet stresses that Guillaume does not flee. He withdraws: Al poig destre li traist del cors le dart, E fiert le paien desur le tuenard, Enpeint le ben, par grant vertu l’abat. N’en fuit mie Willame, ainz s’en vait

(1222-25)

All three are also distinguished by their strength and skill. Roland with the first blow of the battle transfixes Adelroth, the nephew of the Saracen King Marsile, with his lance and flings him from his horse: Enpeint le ben, fait li brandir le cors, Pleine sa hanste del cheval l’abat mort,

En dous meitiez li ad brisét le col

(1203-05)

Adelroth is a Saracen champion, the exact equivalent of Roland, so that this is a mighty blow (IL. 1188-1204). Raoul, when his sword is deflected by Ernaut’s helmet, is able to control the blow so that it slices clean through Ernaut’s arm, and Ernaut’s left hand and shield are seen lying on the ground. Devers senestre est li cols descendu;

par grant engien li a cerchié le bu, del bras senestre li a le poing tolu — atout l’escu l’a el champ abatu (2682-85)

When Guillaume is left alone to face the Saracens, while his young nephew Gui goes in search of something to eat, Guillaume is able to kill sixty with only his sword:

178

Peter Noble

Li quons Willame, quant il les veit venir, Crié ‘Monjoie!’, sis vait tuz envair; A sul s’espeé en ad seisante ocis (1800-02)

This courage is shared by the other nobles. Roland’s comrade Oliver is his equal in courage and merit, as the poet tells us: Rollant est proz e Oliver est sage,

Ambedui unt meveillus vasselage

(1093-94)

Raoul’s uncle, Guerri, and his enemy Bernier never flinch from battle. Guillaume’s nephew Vivien, who was the first to resist the invading Saracens, fights until his bowels are spilling down to his feet: Vivién eire a pé par mi le champ, Chet lui sun healme sur le nasel devant, E entre ses pez ses boals trainant; Al braz senestre les vait cuntretenant

(884-87)

He is able when wounded in the side by a Saracen to pull out the dart

and then cut down right through the strength and skill abundance, as well pain.” They all commanders

the pagan as he passes, putting his own weapon man’s spine (IL 773-88). Courage, physical with weapons, all these men have them in as immense resistance to hardship and physical lead from the front, which not all medieval

did (at the battle of Northallerton,

1138,

David

of

Scotland led the reserves as did the English general), and by their example they inspire their men to match or try to match their courage. In Raoul de Cambrai Guerri is in the front rank: ‘In the Chanson de Guillaume Guillaume warns the teenager, Gui, of the harshness of military life and expresses the fear that Gui will not yet have the strength to endure it: “Trop par es joefne e de petit eed, Si ne purras travailler ne pener, les nuiz veiller e les jurz juner, La grant bataille suffrir ne endurer’ (1640-43).

Military Leadership

179

A plain s’en issent, et furent .xx. millier — G[uerris] les guie devant el chief premier

Only

cowards,

like

the

drunken

Tedbald

(8439-40)

in

the

Chanson

de

Guillaume, who should have gone with Vivien to fight the Saracens, take to flight, when they realise the odds against them, whereas Vivien fights at the front: Vivién fert al chef devant dé lur,

Mil Sarazins en jette mort en l’estur

(566-67)

Ernaut in Raoul also takes to flight but only when he has lost his hand and feels that death at the hands of Raoul is inevitable. As he can no longer defend himself, he flees, but until that moment he had been fighting as fiercely and as keenly as any. In real life flight was not uncommon: ‘Men knew from experience that a lost battle did not necessarily mean a lost war, which would have been the case if they had all let themselves be killed; the absolute concept of honour had to be reconciled with the interests of society and of human safety’. This is not a sentiment which appeals to the poets of the chansons de geste. All these men are noble and most of them of the highest nobility. Roland is the nephew of Charlemagne, the son of his sister. Raoul is the son of Raoul Taillefer, the lord of Cambrai, and Aalais, the sister of the King of France.’ Guillaume, in G2, is the lord of

Orange, which he had conquered from the Saracens, and his sister is married

to Louis, the King of France.

Their

enemies,

whether

Saracen or Christian, are equally high born. Roland is fighting Marsile, the Saracen King of Spain, and his followers are great Saracen lords and some of them, such as Margariz (laisse CIII) or

Grandonie (laisse CXXV), are praised by the poet:”° 14 Verbruggen, The Art of Warfare, p. 57. 15 Kay, Raoul de Cambrai, p. 13, note 6 to line 108, discusses the confusing genealogy of Aalais, but points out that throughout the poem Raoul is presented as the maternal nephew of Louis. 18 La Chanson de Roland, edited and translated by Gérard Moignet (Paris: Bordas, 1969), p. 88, note to line 955: ‘Ce nom viendrait du grec byzantin

180

Peter Noble

Margariz est mult vaillant chevalers E bels e forz e isnelselegers (1311-12)

Grandonie fut e prozdom e vaillant E vertuus e vassal cumbatant (1636-37)

Margariz almost wounds Oliver and continues on his way unscathed, while Grandonie kills several of the Christian leaders. Si vait ferir Gerin par sa grant force. L’escut vermeill li freint, de[1] col li portet, Aprof li ad sa bronie desclose, El cors li met tute l’enseingne bloie, Que mort l’abat en une halte roche. Sun cumpaignun Gerers ocit uncore E Berenger e Guiun de seint Antonie. Puis vait ferir un riche duc Austorie Ki tint Valence e l’enurs sur le Rosne. Il l’abat mort; paien en unt grant joie (1618-27)

Both are outstanding warriors to achieve such successes. Deramé, in the Chanson de Guillaume, is the King of the Saracens and, as it

happens, the father of Guibourc to whom

Guillaume is married.

Raoul’s enemies are the four sons of Herbert, Count of Vermandois,

one of the great fiefs of north-eastern France. The only questionmark is over Raoul’s main enemy Bernier. Bernier is the son of Ybert de Ribemont, the eldest of the Vermandois Marsent, who, though noble, was only his mistress.

brothers, and Raoul taunts

Bernier with his bastardy as in laisse CX where he calls him: ‘Fix a putain, or te voi mal bailli! En soignantaige li viex t’engenui’

“magaritès” et signifierait “l’infidèle”, c’est-à-dire implication is that Margariz is a renegade Christian, to show that the poet was aware of this or that, derivation, he wished to draw the connection to the

(2073-74)

“le pirate” ou “l’apostat”.’ The but there is nothing in the text even if he was aware of the attention of the audience.

Military Leadership

181

Bernier is constantly on the defensive about his birth, and his status as a bastard is regularly flung in his teeth by his enemies such as Gautier (Il. 3798 & 3836), although in the end he is recognised as his heir by Ybert, and eventually he marries

the cousin of Raoul,

Beatrice, who is the daughter of Guerri. Birth, courage and physical strength are common to all the main characters and they are all able to inspire their men, a quality vital to the successful commander and best illustrated by the example of

William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings.’ Roland not only wins the first blow for the Franks, but, just before the battle begins,

the poet gives the famous portrait of Roland at the head of his men (Il. 1152-59) brandishing his lance and laughing in the face of the enemy. He already knows that the Franks have been betrayed to the Saracens by his stepfather and that the odds against them are overwhelming, but he gives his men not a hint of this. Instead he urges them into a slow advance ready to meet the Saracen horde and promises them booty at the end of the day: Seignurs barons, suef, le pas tenant! [...] Encoi avrum un eschec bel e gent (1165-67)

Raoul, in laisses LXXVII

& LXXVII,

encourages his men with his

ferocious threats against the sons of Herbert, whose lands he will take and whom he will drive to flight and exile across the sea. Vivien has taken an oath never to flee from the Saracens and when he sees that Tedbald has fled leaving his men to face an overwhelming army, he offers them the chance to leave with honour as they are not his men, and he is not their seigneur: Alez vus ent, francs chevalers gentilz, Car jo ne puis endurer ne suffrir

17 Morillo, Warfare, pp. 166-68, suggests that the deaths of Harold’s brothers, Gyrth and Leofwine, possibly leading an Anglo-Saxon counter-attack, could have resulted in a lack of leadership at the crucial moment and given William time to rally his army. Verbruggen, The Art of Warfare, p. 50, gives the example of the flight of William’s left wing after the failure of the first attack on the English position: ‘William had to urge on his men, pointing out that general flight could not save them from death’.

182

Peter Noble Tant gentil home seient a tort bailli. Jo me rendrai al dolerus peril, N’en turnerai, car a Deu l’ai pramis Que ja ne fuierai pur poür de morir

(288-93)

Inspired by him they refuse to leave and prefer to stay and die with him. This attitude is not divorced from reality. At the Battle of Bannockburn Gilles d’Argentan escorted Edward II to safety and then, saying that ‘he was not accustomed to running away, returned

to the battlefield and was killed’. Strategic sense is another matter. Roland, who has a brilliant record as a conqueror behind him, does not go to see the Saracen army when his friend Oliver tells him that the Christians are facing a huge army. He refuses to contemplate any action, such as sounding the horn to recall Charlemagne, which he sees as affecting his honour: Respunt Rollant; ‘Jo fereie que fols, En dulce France en perdreie mun los’

(1053-54)

He will not send for reinforcements from Charlemagne but trusts instead to his own strength and reputation to defeat the Saracens. The famous line 1093 ‘Roland est proz et Oliver est sage’ (although the poet instantly makes it clear that no real criticism of Oliver is

intended, as the next line tells us that both have great courage) brings out the contrast. Oliver, who did have some idea of tactics and strategy, is not quite on a par with Roland as a knightly ideal. Roland’s reckless courage is seen as admirable and inspirational. Oliver’s immense courage tempered by common-sense is seen as

slightly inferior, less heroic.”

Guillaume is not very interested in

tactics either, although he is aware of the importance of morale, encouraging his men in G2 and promising them booty to raise their '8 Verbruggen, The Art of Warfare, p. 58. ‘9 See Micheline Combarieu du Gres, L’Idéal humain et l’expérience morale chez les héros des chansons de geste des origines a 1250, Etudes littéraires, 3 (Aix-enProvence: Publications Université de Provence, 1979): ‘D’emblée, si Roland se caractérise par la fougue, c’est la lucidité qui est l’apanage d’Olivier’ (p. 297); ‘Roland est le héros du poème, Olivier en est le personnage exemplaire’ (p. 315).

Military Leadership

183

fighting spirit. Vivien does advise Tedbald to survey the Saracen army before they join battle and see whether they have enough men

to combat the Saracens.” The result is the panic-stricken flight of Tedbald and Estourmi. Vivien’s vow never to retreat from the Saracens obviously makes it difficult for him to take part in a strategic withdrawal, let alone the flight recommended by Tedbald. Guillaume and his men do manage a very effective surprise attack when they catch many of the Saracen chiefs picnicing near their ships (laisse CXIV) and rout them, but this is opportunism, an essential part of any battle, not evidence of strategic sense, although it does show their ability to react quickly. Rainouart prevents the Saracens from escaping in their ships by destroying the fleet near the beginning of the battle, so that the defeated pagans can be massacred (laisse CLXXX), a tactic which can be used by both sides. It can, as here, make the defeat more complete, but it can be used by

the sea-borne army to inspire its men to fight to the death as no retreat is possible. In Raoul de Cambrai it is Raoul’s mother, Aalis, who shows the greatest sense of strategy to begin with by warning her son not to fight the sons of Herbert but instead to make an alliance with them against the man who has usurped his father’s lands.’ Her advice is ignored with fatal results. Raoul does not understand the need for allies and lacks any sort of self-control as his enemies realise, which is why in the end he is defeated. Raoul apart, however, the other warriors do show some sense of tactics. His uncle Guerri and his cousin Gautier, when they resume the fight, stage a very effective ambush of the men of Vermandois: Isnelement issent de Cambrisis;

0 [am grateful to my friend Philip Bennett for the suggestion that Vivien is here filling the same role as Oliver. Neither is the supreme commander but both show tactical awareness and some thought for their men. Vivien is aware of the need to decide whether to attack at once or await reinforcements (Il. 177-78), but he refuses to act as scout, relying instead on the element of surprise to put the enemy at a disadvantage. He lays a moral trap for Tedbald by persuading him to do the job himself.

21

Combarieu du Gres, L’Idéal humain,

p. 113: ‘C’était pourtant elle qui, au

départ, tentait de dissuader son fils d’une entreprise qu’elle considérait a la fois comme dangereuse pour lui et comme illégitime’.

184

Peter Noble de l’autre part en Vermendois sont mis, en un bruellet ont lor agait tremis (3670-72)

The trap is set by sending out a foraging party to harry the land and gather the plunder, particularly the livestock. Once the alarm is raised, Bernier

and his relatives ride straight into the ambush,

as

they pursue the retreating foragers whose role as decoy is now over: Qant B[erniers] est fors de la porte issus, et ci dui oncle et Y[bers] li chenus, bien sont .d. des blans haubers vestus. Li cenbiaus fu richement porseüs; l’agait paserent sor les chevals crenus— .xiiii. arpent nes ont mie veüs. Le sors G[ueris] et Gautiers li menbrus par grant vertu lor est seure corus (3697-704)

Bernier Quentin,

feels his courage return crossbowmen

and

only when

archers,

come

the townsmen to

the

aid

of St of

the

Vermandois. This is one of the rare examples of infantry rescuing the knights in epic.” Bernier quickly reassesses the situation, encourages his men and counterattacks (laisses CLXXXIX & CXC). 2 This poem also mentions archers on horseback: ‘tost sont armés serjans et chevallier, /sor les chevax furent ja li archier’ (11. 8427-28). The author could be using the word archier for the rhyme, but Kay, in her note 214, p. 501, points out that mounted archers were not unknown. Meyer and Longnon in their edition emended 1. 8428, replacing chevax with creniax, which would remove the problem, but Kay rejects this emendation. Verbruggen, The Art of Warfare, pp. 99-100, argues that the defeat of the Anglo-Saxon foot-soldiers at the Battle of Hastings led to the disappearance of the best foot-soldiers in Europe. Footsoldiers persisted in peasant communities around the edges of the North Sea and in Celtic lands where the terrain assisted them. Then at the beginning of the fourteenth century there was a sudden series of victories as the foot-soldiers ‘fought for freedom and independence’. Morillo, Warfare, p. 191, suggests that the dominance of medieval cavalry was due to the poor quality of medieval infantry. On pp. 155-57 he points out that knights frequently dismounted to fight amongst

the infantry and stiffen their resistance. In fact well-led infantry, like the AngloSaxons at Stamford Bridge, were capable of decisive attacks. Morillo suggests that Harold planned to use the same tactic at Hastings but that ‘William’s generalship forced him to fight a defensive battle’ (p. 160). The Battle of Tinchebrai (September, 1106) is an example of the skilful use of cavairy and foot to win a decisive victory (p. 170).

Military Leadership

185

He himself subsequently recognises the danger of the position of his forces as they pursue Guerri and Gautier nearly to the walls of Cambrai.

He sounds the retreat on a horn and withdraws, allowing

the enemy to retire into the safety of the city (Il. 3918-21). These warriors do know how to react quickly to a changing situation. Roland recognises the threat that Grandonie poses as he kills five of the leading Franks in quick succession (laisse CX XIII) and moves at once to challenge Grandonie himself: Dist al paien: ‘Deus tut mal te consente! Tel as ocis que mult cher te quid vendre’

(1632-33)

Of course he kills him, and the Franks yell their applause for their champion. At the very end of Raoul de Cambrai Guerri is under attack from the sons of Bernier outside the walls of his stronghold Arras: Vo[it] le G[uerris], molt ot le cuer dolent. Il prist un cor, sel sona durement: son retrait sonne, si s’an torne fuiant;

en la cité s’en est tornés a tant

(8498-501)

He has to withdraw into Arras where he is besieged, but his defence is successful and the besiegers commanded by Julien (Guerri’s grandson) withdraw, temporarily accepting that they will not storm the town straight away. Guerri also accepts the inevitable, however, and that night escapes from Arras and disappears, finally ending the blood feud: Quant il fu nuis, par verté le vos di,

li sor G[uerris] de la cité issi sor son cheval si ala en escil,

mais on ne set, certes, que il devint

(8531-34)

As regards care of their men and logistics none of the leaders shows much concern at all. | Charlemagne’s army has been campaigning in Spain for years, presumably living off the country, and now that it has conquered all of Spain except Saragossa supplies

186

Peter Noble

do not seem to be a problem. The poet is naturally not interested in such details. Guillaume and Vivien both have problems with food and drink. Vivien has been forced to fight in such a desolate place that in the end when he is desperate for water, there is only foul and bloody sea water to drink. This was a real problem for armies, as is shown by the Battle of Hattin where the army of Guy de Lusignan

had to surrender, in part at least because it was without food and water, having failed to reach the next watering point. Guillaume’s nephew Gui, not yet a hardened warrior, tells his uncle that he cannot continue fighting without food and drink, so Guillaume sends him back to where they surprised the Saracen chiefs at their al fresco meal, and Gui finds enough there to give him new strength, so that he can return to the battle in time to rescue Guillaume (laisses CXIX-CXX). Raoul’s men quite clearly live off the enemy country but, as the war is fought on a relatively small scale geographically, they are never very far from home and supplies. Certainly the tone in this poem is quite different from the other two where the fighting is taking place in the torrid south, but even in them there is an obvious difference between the victorious army of Charlemagne and the defeated armies of Guillaume. Only when Guillaume comes back to Orange with the royal troops is there a suggestion of the same style of living as in the Chanson de Roland. Care of their men is also a foreign concept to these leaders. Roland puts the position quite clearly. It is the duty of a man to

fight for his lord, to die for his lord, to suffer for his lord (laisse LXXIX). Honour must be preserved at whatever cost. He is distressed to see his men die for him (ll. 1854-65) when he can do nothing more to protect them, but to die is what he is prepared to do

for Charlemagne, and this is what his men must do for him:” “Pur sun seignor deit hom susfrir destreiz E endurer e granz chalz e granz freiz,

#

See W.G. van Emden, ‘“E cil de France le cleiment a guarant”: Roland, Vivien

et le thème du guarant’, Olifant, I. 4 (April, 1974), 21-47. There is an extensive secondary literature on the controversy over the phrase pur mei and the whole role

of the guarant in the Chanson de Roland. See the bibliography in Wolfgang van Emden, La Chanson de Roland, Critical Guides to French Texts, 113 (London:

Grant & Cutler, 1995).

Military Leadership Si.n deit hom perdre e del quire del peil’

187 (1010-12)

Oliver does not fear to die honourably and accepts that this is his duty. Guillaume, Raoul and Bernier may all regret the deaths of their men, especially if they have fought well for them, but it never occurs to them, any more than it did to Roland, to manoeuvre

the

battle in order to minimise their losses. When Guerri or Bernier withdraw from a battle, it is because they are on the point of capture or total defeat, not to reduce casualties and get ready to fight again. The person who, to modern eyes, shows the greatest sense of responsibility is not one of the barons at all, but Guibourc, the wife of Guillaume, in the Chanson de Guillaume.

Endlessly resourceful,

she gathers a second army while Guillaume is away fighting with the one which

he himself

Guillaume returns telling them that them further with Guillaume sleeps,

has raised.

She feeds

it well

and, when

utterly defeated, Guiburc lies to .the new troops Guillaume has killed Deramé. She encourages promises of land and wealthy brides and while she gets her army ready for him.

‘Ja est venue Willame al curb niés, Tut sains e salfs, solunc la merci Deu,

Si ad vencu la bataille champel, E ocis le paien Deramé[....] Durrai lui femme e mun seignur li durrat terre, Si ben i fert que loëz poisse estre’ (1366-69, 96-97)

When he returns having lost this army as well and suggesting that he become a monk and she a nun (laisse CXLVIII), she will have none of it and sends him off to Laon to seek help from his brother-in-law, the King. She will guard the town, which is now stripped of men, by arming her ladies: —‘Sire, dist ele, Jhesu e ses vertuz,

E set cenz dames que ai ça enz e plus. As dos avront les blancs halbercs vestuz,

E en lur chefz les verz healmes aguz, Si esterrunt as batailles la sus,

Lancerunt lances, peres e pelsaguz’

(2444-49)

188

Peter Noble

As Morillo writes: ‘Wives were not uncommon as leaders of defence of castles. While this would have been essentially a political role involving representing the bonds of lordship that held the garrison together and negotiating with besiegers, the ability of women of the warrior class to defend themselves in time of need should not be underestimated.’ Guiburc’s concern, of course, is not so much for the men as for her husband. Her love for him drives her, but she

shows a better instinct for man-management than he or any of the other leaders under discussion.” Guiburc, of course, is not distracted by the question of honour in quite the same way as the men. For them honour was of paramount importance. Roland is determined that no-one shall tell evil tales of him in France: Or guart chascuns que granz colps i empleit, Que malvaise cancun de nus chantét ne seit!

(1013-14)

The point is repeated a few lines later: ‘Male chançun n’en deit estre cantee’ (1. 1466). Bernier in Raoul de Cambrai shares the same concern with his reputation and how it will fare at the hands of jongleurs: Chascun remenbre de son bon ancesor: ja nel volroie por une grant valour povre chançon en fust par gogleour!

(3961-63)

Raoul sees his honour as bound up with the acquisition of the fief of Vermandois because it is the first fief to fall vacant, after the King has promised him the next vacant fief to replace his father’s which the King had given to a usurper. Just as Roland rejected the wise advice of Oliver, so Raoul rejects the wise advice of Aalis on the best tactics to follow because both men see them as incompatible with their honour: 4 Morillo, Warfare, p. 96, note 11. *° See Suard, La Chanson de Guillaume, p. xxxix: ‘Grace à Guibourc, cette destruction intérieure du personnage [...] se transforme en espoir de reconquérir ce qui a été perdu, grâce aux forces nouvelles dont Guibourc sait entourer son époux’.

Military Leadership

189

Et dist R[aous], ‘nel lairai pas ensi, _ qe toz li mons m’en tenroit a failli et li mien oir en seroient honni’ (823-25)

Their Christian faith is also of some importance in explaining their behaviour. Roland and his men are fighting the Saracens. They consciously believe that they are in the right and the pagans are in the wrong: ‘Paien unt tort e chrestiens unt dreit’! (1. 1015). Thus God, who is ultimately their lord, will protect them and Roland dies a victor with the Saracen army in flight, although it is a Pyrrhic victory. In the continuing struggle between Charlemagne and Baligant, Marsile’s overlord, the poem becomes more overtly a struggle between the two religions and in the climactic duel between these two awe-inspiring old men, God’s presence and purpose are made overt by the active intervention of the angel Gabriel (11. 3610

and 3993 for example). Vivien too trusts totally in God, and in the end Deramé and his forces are utterly routed by Guillaume. Deramé is killed by Gui in case he should get home to generate sons who might try to avenge his defeat (laisse CXXX). Raoul de Cambrai is about a struggle between Christians but there too God is thought to have a role to play. Raoul blasphemes (laisse CLI) denying the power of God as he tries to kill Ernaut: ‘Voir,’ dist R[aous], “il te covient fenir,

a cest’ espee le chief del bu partir. Terre ne erbe ne te puet atenir, ne Diex ne hom ne t’en puet garantir, ne tout li saint qe Dieu doivent servir!”

(2836-40)

At once the others know that he is doomed, and he is in fact killed

just three laisses later. This reliance on God, this trust in his will in these poems, must have led to a certain fatalism on the part of the poet.

6

Tam grateful to my friend Tony Hunt for the reminder that in the Chanson de

Roland both Charlemagne and Roland see the fact that the Christians outnumbered as evidence that God’s will is clearly on their side.

are

190

Peter Noble \

Finally there is a point of poetic technique to consider. Pitched battles are obviously very difficult to describe in words, particularly In when regiments or squadrons are not moving in formation. Raoul de Cambrai the armies are shown in formation: 19 Li baron furent et serré et rengié, d’ambe deux pars mout bien aparillié

(2204-05)

The ranks are broken almost immediately as the knights join battle, and all the poets describe the opening charge, the extent of the slaughter, the state of the battle from time to time, but mostly single combats between knights, particularly in the Chanson de Roland and in Raoul de Cambrai where bitter exchanges take place between people who are often closely connected by blood or marriage but happen to be on opposing sides. What these single combats do not do is tell us much about the leadership qualities of the two men involved, although in Raoul de Cambrai and the Chanson de Roland there are many examples of the leaders encouraging their men after triumphing in such single combats. In the latter poem the poet uses a different technique to describe the two battles. In the combat between Roland’s forces and those of Marsile, the single combats are given great prominence as the poet focuses on the hero and his companions. Later in the poem at the battle between the forces of Charlemagne and Baligant the emphasis is on the use of squadrons of men locked in combat which has the result of highlighting the decisive duel to the death between the two commanders who are also representing their religions. This is less a question of tactics, however, than of the skill of the poet in using his material to achieve his literary aims. There are different conclusions to be drawn from these three

poems. In the Roland, where the poet is concerned with the glory of his hero and ultimately of the Christian cause, the poet makes Roland a martyr to his honour. He is a tragic hero in his way and if he showed an awareness of strategy and tactics, that would detract from his heroism. Vivien too is a Christian martyr in the Guillaume, while Guillaume himself is another legendary warrior against the Saracens, but unlike Roland he did not die fighting them and so in the end he is able to return with his third army and defeat

Military Leadership

191

the Saracens, but by superior force and fighting ability, not by tactics. In Raoul the combatants do show some sense of tactics when they are not blinded by hate or over-confidence. Although the knights perform superhuman feats of strength, they are not superhuman in the way that Roland and Guillaume are. They are

men who are full of flaws, fighting for power, land and family honour with a vindictiveness and a savagery that have none of the grandeur of the other two poems. Whereas Roland and Guillaume leave common-sense to Oliver and Guiburc, both secondary characters, all the main characters in Raoul show flashes of it, being more aware of the need for tactics, harbouring their strength and being ready to fight again another day. To the poets of the twelfth century military leadership meant personal courage and skill as a warrior above all else. For the rest the warrior trusted to God and the righteousness of his cause and the more heroic his status, the greater his trust in God. His real-life counterpart was much more aware of the tactical and strategic requirements of leadership and, as battles like Hastings, Tinchebrai, or Bannockburn show, tactical skill

and leadership were very important. In epic poetry the fighting skill

of the hero and a righteous cause were paramount.” University of Reading

7

The first draft of this paper was given to the Historical Society of the Royal

Military Academy, Sandhurst. I am grateful to the members of the Society for their helpful, practical comments. The second version was given at the University of Reading to the 1996 meeting of the British Branch of the Rencesvals Society, which was held to honour Professor Wolfgang van Emden. Again I must thank the members of the Society for their helpful comments. The paper is dedicated to Professor van Emden on his retirement. I am grateful to him for his friendship, advice and help over more than twenty years.

VOS MrRaeai eh Rapa Shae?apni.

haba ae

veut.

tipot ke se

ie

Hf .

THE SEES FRAGMENTS OF GUI DE BOURGOGNE AND ANSEIS DE CARTAGE Alexander Kerr While making a cursory inspection of medieval manuscripts in the library of the Bishop’s residence at Sées (Orne) in the early 1960s, Lucien Musset discovered unrecorded fragments of Gui de Bourgogne and Anseis de Cartage. The folios in question were still in place as the pastedowns in the binding of a thirteenth-century Compendium decretorum.' When Musset examined the collection the manuscripts were uncatalogued and he could give no shelfmark. A few years ago the Diocesan Archivist, Chanoine Pierre Flament, numbered the manuscripts and prepared an inventory, in which the Compendium was listed as MS 19.” Since Musset examined them, the sheets have been lifted so that

the underside can be read, but one edge of each remains bound into the spine. Each pastedown consists of a folio bearing 192 lines of text. The sides which were pasted to the boards (the recto of Gui de

Bourgogne and the verso of Anseis de Cartage) have become yellowed from being in contact with the wood in the covers of the volume. The top and bottom edges and what is now the fore edge have been darkened to a depth ranging from about 15 to 30 mm by a ' Musset’s report of his discovery is recorded in ““Quelques épaves d’une riche bibliothéque médiévale extraites de reliures au Grand Séminaire de Sées (Orne)” et “Un manuscrit de chansons de geste à l’évêché de Sées”’, Bulletin de la Société des Antiquaires de Normandie, LVII (1963-64), 570-74, at pp. 573-74. ? [am very grateful to the Bishop of Sées for his permission to examine this volume and transcribe the fragments for publication and to his Librarian, Chanoine Pierre Marpaud, for his kindness when I visited the library.

194

Alexander Kerr

coating of paste and by staining from the unevenly cut leather turnins, but most of the writing underneath can be read without too

much difficulty. It has been obliterated at the bottom of the Anseis de Cartage folio where the parchment was pressed against a crease in the leather and at points higher up where the rusting metal of the rivets holding the clasps has caused the membrane to be worn through. The sides which are face up bear a number of abrasions but are generally legible.

However, parchment has been cut away

from both folios to trim them for their present function and this has resulted in the loss of several letters from the beginning of each line in the left-hand column on the rectos. The dimensions of the folios in their present state are about 225 x 145 mm. The preparation of the parchment and mise-en-page are identical on each sheet. Pricking has been cropped, but some traces of ruling for the two columns of forty-eight lines are visible here and there. The text-block measures about 205 x 120 mm. There is triple vertical ruling on the left of each column and a single vertical rule on the right of the right-hand column. The texts are written in different but contemporary hands: each is a very small text hand of the late thirteenth century, but the writing in the Gui de Bourgogne fragment has an even smaller, squatter aspect and a more rapid ductus than that in the Anseis de Cartage, several letters being different in form. The scribes begin each column below the top tule, and place separated initials between the first and second vertical rules with the rest of the line to the right of the third rule. Each laisse begins with a two-line indented initial, alternately red and blue, decorated with flourishes infilling and surrounding the

letter in the opposing colour.

All the large laisse initials appear to

be the work of a single illuminator. It is almost certain that the two folios were

taken from one codex, and it seems reasonable to suppose that Gui de Bourgogne came before Anseis de Cartage in the manuscript, since both form part of the cycle du roi, the former telling of events before and the latter of events after those recounted in the Chanson de Roland. Gui de Bourgogne is found in two manuscripts containing the complete text (London, British Library, MS Harley 527, and Tours, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 937) and two fragments (Darmstadt, Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek, MS 3306, and the Sées

The Sées Fragments

195

fragment). I have adopted the sigla employed by Tony Hunt in his very useful article on this text: L for the London manuscript and T for the Tours manuscript... The Darmstadt fragment need not concern us here since its text and that of the Sées fragment do not overlap. The 192 lines preserved on the back pastedown of MS 19 at Sées correspond to lines 1385-652 in the edition of Frédéric Guessard and Henri Michelant* While our fragment shares some readings with L and some with T, overall it is closer to L.

However, unlike

L, which exhibits considerable metrical irregularity, it generally maintains a fairly regular dodecasyllabic metre; the dozen cases of incorrect syllable count in the text could all be due merely to inattentive copying. Antoine Thomas proposed a terminus post quem of 1211 for Gui de Bourgogne, based on the mention in the text (Guessard and Michelant edition, 1. 2124) of a marchois, a coin first minted in that

year.” Hunt (‘Materials’, p. 113) has cast doubt on this criterion: the reading marchois (at the rhyme) in T may not be authentic and L reads un pois; in any case the word marcheis appears in the latetwelfth-century epic parody Audigier, where it is taken by Omer

3

‘Materials for an Edition of Gui de Bourgogne’, Olifant, X (1986 for 1982-

85), 99-117. “Gui

de Bourgogne, Les Anciens Poètes de la France, 1 (Paris: Jannet, 1858;

rpt Paris: Vieweg, 1859). Guessard and Michelant use a for the Tours manuscript, on which their edition is based, and b for the London manuscript. Since the appearance of their edition this chanson de geste has been edited in unpublished theses on three occasions: Irene Hall, ‘Gui de Burgoine, chanson de geste: first critical edition of the manuscript Harley 527 (fols 1r-32r) of the British Museum’ (Ph.D., University of Hull, 1962); Edward Guillén Brown Jr, ‘The Tours Manuscript of Gui de Bourgogne: an annotated edition’ (Ph.D., University of Arizona, 1968); and Hélène Latour, ‘Gui de Bourgogne, chanson de geste: édition critique’ (Diplôme d’Archiviste Paléographe, Ecole des Chartes, Paris, 1976). This last editor’s text is also based on the Tours manuscript. Jean-Claude Vallecalle is intending to publish a new edition. > Antoine Thomas, ‘Sur la date de Gui de Bourgogne’, Romania, XVII (1888), 280-82, at p. 282.

196

Alexander Kerr

Jodogne to refer to the Venetian marquets.° However, the beginning of the thirteenth century seems likely as the date of composition for Gui de Bourgogne.

Charlemagne and his men have been in Spain for twenty-seven years waging war, and in Paris their sons, who have grown from infancy to manhood during their fathers’ absence, elect the reluctant Gui de Bourgogne to be their new king. At once Gui, fearful of the emperor’s wrath at his apparent usurpation, orders them to equip themselves and the army of young men ride off to Spain with the intention of joining their fathers, taking their mothers and sisters with them. They capture the town of Carsaude, where they seize booty and provisions, which Gui sends in a convoy to Charles, who has been besieging Luiserne for seven years. The opening of the fragment recounts the end of an episode in which the emperor, disguised as a pilgrim, has gained admittance to the city to discover any weaknesses in its defences. He is telling the Saracen king Aquilant that he has seen his father, King Macabré, who will soon send reinforcements. Baidan, who has recognised Charles, insults him and is about to reveal his identity, but the emperor strikes him dead. Charles makes his escape as a prearranged attack by his troops is launched against the city, but seeing that it is impregnable, he orders his men to withdraw. Earlier Gui had sent messengers to the emperor and now Charles sends them back, asking the young king to come to his aid. However, having listened to a genuine pilgrim’s account of Charles’s unsuccessful sieges of other strongholds, Gui decides to prove the prowess of his youthful army

by taking these first.

Our fragment ends with Gui’s arrival outside

Montorgueil, where he asks his companions’ advice on a strategy for taking the city. The rest of the chanson tells of his successful campaign, which culminates in the great army of young French warriors and converted Saracens coming to join forces with the emperor’s men in storming Luiserne. When the champions of the

two rival French armies, Roland and Gui, dispute the honour of this

° Omer Jodogne, ‘Audigier et la chanson de geste, avec une édition nouvelle du poème”, Le Moyen Age, LXVI (1960), 495-526. See Il. 188-89 (p. 516) and glossary (p. 525).

The Sées Fragments

197

victory, Charlemagne prays for the city’s destruction, and the spectacular miracle which follows brings reconciliation. Anseis de Cartage survives in four manuscripts containing the complete text, one containing an acephalous text, and four containing fragments. Scholars have published transcriptions of two further fragments which have been lost subsequently. I have adopted the sigla used by Johann Alton in his edition for the manuscripts containing the complete text: A (Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale de France, MS fonds français 793), B (Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS fonds français 12548), C (Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS fonds français 1598) and D (Lyon, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS P.A. 59). A manuscript in the library of the University of Durham (MS Cosin V.1I.17) lacks one quire from the beginning of Anseis de Cartage which would include the passage found in our fragment. The other five fragments of this chanson do not overlap the Sées manuscript (or one another) textually and therefore do not figure in the corpus of variant

readings here.® Anseis von Karthago, edited by Johann Alton, Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 194 (Tiibingen: Der Litterarische Verein in Stuttgart, 1892). I am now preparing a new edition for publication, the text of which is given in my thesis, ‘A Critical Edition of Anseis de Cartage’ (Ph.D., University of Reading,

1994). 8 Alton did not consult the Durham manuscript, to which I give the siglum U, and he knew only the first two of the fragments. I use his sigla and continue the series for fragments which have been discovered since 1892: e (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS fonds français 368); f (fragment now lost, published by Franz Joseph Mone, ‘Bruchstiick aus dem Ansegis von Carthago’, Anzeiger für Kunde der Teutschen Vorzeit, IV (1835), cols 77-80); g (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, nouvelles acquisitions frangaises MS 5094); h (fragments found in Bologna, now lost, published by Vincenzo De Bartholomaeis, ‘Nuovi frammenti dell’Anseis de Carthage’, Atti dell’Accademia degli Arcadi, VI-VII

(1932), 85-117); i (Imola, Biblioteca Comunale, MS 134.A. A’, No. 9 (6), published by Monica Longobardi, ‘Frammenti di codici in antico francese dalla Biblioteca Comunale di Imola’, Cultura Neolatina, XLVII (1987), 223-55, at pp. 223-39); and j (the Sées fragment). I have not adopted the sigla proposed by Helmut Brettschneider: Dh for the Durham manuscript and B/ for the Bologna fragments (Der ‘Anseis de Cartage’ und die ‘Seconda Spagna’, Romanistische Arbeiten, 27 (Halle: Niemeyer, 1937), p. 6).

198

Alexander Kerr

The 192 lines of Anseis de Cartage preserved on the front pastedown of the Sées Compendium correspond to lines 885-1080 in Alton’s edition, which is based on MS A, and lines 792-988.1 in my edition, which is based on MS B.

I have not been able to find firm

evidence to relate our fragment more closely to one of the complete manuscripts of Anseis than to another. It does share a common error with D where the names Espaine and France have been interchanged (see ll. 137 and 139 in the transcription of the Anseis fragment below), but this is an error which would have been easy for any editor/scribe to make, or to correct. Anseis de Cartage, in the decasyllabic rhymed version which has come down to us, was probably composed between 1230 and about 12502 The narrative forms a sequel to the Chanson de Roland. Before he returns to France, after the Battle of Roncevaux, Charlemagne crowns his nephew, Anseis, king of Spain at Saint Fagon (Sahagün) and leaves Ysoré, lord of Connimbres, Raimon de Navarre,

Gui de

Bourgogne and Yves de Bascles among those who are to serve as his counsellors. At the first meeting of the council, Raimon advises the king to take a suitable wife, by whom he may get an heir. Ysoré recommends seeking the hand of Gaudisse, the daughter of the Saracen king Marsile, because such an alliance would bring the state of war to an end. (In this chanson Marsile has survived the aftermath of Roncevaux and rules a kingdom in North Africa.) Ysoré and Raimon are despatched to Morinde to negotiate the match. The text of our fragment relates the arrival of the

messengers and their audience with Marsile, the Saracen king’s council giving approval to the marriage on certain conditions, Ysoré receiving permission to return in order to obtain Anseis’s agreement : to these conditions, and his seeing the beautiful princess before he sets sail again for Spain. The mention of Rubion’s vowing to carry news of the marriage agreement to Augoulant d’Orion prepares for an episode in which Augoulant, a rival suitor for Gaudisse’s hand, is °

Brettschneider, Der ‘Anseis de Cartage’, pp. 7-11; Jean Subrenat, ‘De la date

d’Anséis de Carthage’, in Mélanges de langue et de littérature médiévales offerts à Pierre Le Gentil, edited by J. Dufournet and D. Poirion (Paris: Société d’Édition d'Enseignement Supérieur, 1973), pp. 821-25.

The Sées Fragments

199

killed in single combat by Raimon. Meanwhile, Ysoré’s daughter has conceived a passion for Anseis, and in her father’s absence she lures the young king to Connimbres and by a ruse seduces him. When Ysoré learns what has occurred

he turns

traitor,

renounces

the Christian faith and provokes Marsile into waging war against Anseis. The rest of the epic recounts a series of battles, sieges and intrigues in which Anseis loses his Spanish strongholds one by one to the Saracens, but manages to abduct and marry Gaudisse. Eventually he has to appeal to the aged and now infirm Charlemagne, who comes from France and with miraculously renewed vigour helps him to win back his kingdom. The transcription of the fragments given below is diplomatic, except that conventional word division and capitalisation of proper names have been introduced and abbreviations and contractions have been resolved, letters supplied being printed in italics. Where letters have been obliterated or cut away I have drawn on the other manuscripts to supply text, printed in brackets, if a similar reading seems likely. Missing text which cannot be established in this way is shown by brackets enclosing full points: three spaced full points represent the lost portion, with the length unspecified; unspaced ful! points represent the probable number of letters or spaces lost, where this can be estimated. Metrically incorrect lines in the text and the variant readings are marked (-1), (+1), etc., to show by how many syllables they are hypometric or hypermetric. However, no such indication is given for MS L of Gui de Bourgogne, which has strong Anglo-Norman

colouring, or MS C of Anseis de Cartage, which is

Franco-Italian, since both of them have extremely irregular metre throughout.

Oxford

200

Alexander Kerr

Gui de Bourgogne Guessard &

r°a

10

Michelant edn

edn

MST

MSL

[Lautrier] fu a uos peres li fort roi Macabre

1385

1727

[Il voJus mande par moi saluz et amiste

1386

1728

[Et si vou]s mande apres ia mar le celerez

1387

1729

[Garde]z bien vostre uile et vostre honor tenez

1388

1730

[Aincoi]s que la quinsaine ne li mois soit passez

1389

1734

[Enuer]roit a secours .iiii. mil ferarmez

1390

1732

[Dont serJois envers Karle garantiz et tensez

1591

1733

[Le viel]lart voudra il de cest ciege ieter

1392

1734

[Maho]met vous confonde ou vous creance auez

1393

1735

[Se vus l]e pouez prend[re] as fourches le pendez

1394

1736

[Paumie]r dist Anqilant ces nouuelez portez

1395

1737

[Dont] vous serez enqui manant et asaices

1396

1738

[Li Sarrasin] qui virent li roi de France alez

1397

1739

Macabe L Si veL Et v. prie et commande ia mar li c. T; man. ia mar en doterez L Ke b. v. u. et v. h. g. L; ceste u. et v. h. prenez T Einz ke la quin. v li m. L; et lim. T Vus fra uenir quatre Turcs armez L, Vos enuoiera il .c.m. Turs armez T D. serrez uer K. L, D. s. vers le duc T BR Un A= 0I © D O

Hall

Par force ert li rois de son ci. getez T; vo. fors de ci. ie. L Mahun (M. 7) v. destruie LT pr. sa f. nel L, pr. se vos ne le T teles n. aportez L, teus n. po. T aisez L Et le paen q. ot Karleimein auisez L; r. de F. antrer T

The Sées Fragments

15

20

25

201

[Le siuirJent apres sanz plus de demourer

1398

1740

[Ainz que] Baidan lait de rien aresonnez

1399

1741

[Le sa]issi par la barbe ou li pel fu mellez

1400

1742

[Envers ]lui la sachie et durement tire

1401

1743

[Puis Ja dit dant vielart devers moi vous tornez

1402

1744

[Que ie ]vous ai molt bien connu et auissez

1403

1745

[De tou]t autre martin vous conuendra chanter

1404

1746

[Quant 1Jentent lemperere nout en li quairer

1405

1747

[ ... Je ci riche enor ce prist a porpenser

1406

1748

[Que si la]ist de sa bouche .i. soul mot plus parler

1407

1749

[Tout ]li puet a damagiez et a meschief torner

1408

1750

[Il hau]ce lo bourdon quil fu gros et quarre

1409

1751

[ ... ]lin de la teste li a grant coup donne

1410

1752

[Quil li froJisse et esmie li oi li fet voler

1411

1753

[ . . . ]vous ici de mes mains esclaper

Si le siwi a. ki ni uot dem. L Mes ai. kil ust de r. L; araisoner T

dunt li pe. sunt m. L, dont li peust est m. T lui le sacha d. (roidement 7) la tire LT P. li dit da. vi. enuer m. t. L, P. lia di. da. uiels anvers m. entendez T M. v. ai b. c. L

lacking LT Sachez de a. matire v. estuet parler L; co. parler T Et quan. ce uit li reis sen fu airez L; si refu esfraes T De molt tres r. engin 7; Et deu cum de grant ualur sestuet purpensez L Q. sil loit de la b. L; Sil li laisse pl. m. de la b. pa. T Il lien p. molt bien a grant m. t. T Il haucha le poing destre quil ot g. et q. T; lo b. kest g. et q. L Par mi la t. len a tel c. L, Par mi le chaaignon li a tel c. T ] les eulz L; le maistre os moele T; 28.1 Et la teste al paen Ke tut li es[ fist a terre uoler L, Les .ii. eus de la teste li a fait jus voler T

202

30

35)

Alexander Kerr

[Dreit ]Jdevant Aquilant la fet mort grauenter

1413

1755

[Et Aquil]ant escrie cest paumier me prenez

1414

1756

[Oren]droit soit pendu ef au vent encroez

1415

4757

[Par Mah]ommet mon dieu dist li roy Salatrez

1416

1758

[Vous dite]z grant merueille et si en mesprenez

1418

1759

[Plus] vous a cil mesfet que li paumier assez

1417

1760

[Quant] le prinst a la barbe sanz point daresonner

1419

1761

(-1) 1420

1762

[Vous len] feissiez dret volentiers et de grez

1421

1763

[La ven]Jiance en a prinse et sanz lui defier

1422

1764

[Si luJi est mescheu nen doit estre blame

1423

1765

[Se li p]aumier a droit si len leissiez ester

1424

1766

[Et respo]nt Aquilant vous auez bien parle

1425

1767

[I] nau]ra huimes guarde dont le puisse sauuer

1426

1768

[Atan]t es .i. garson courant ef abriuez

1427

1769

[Sil li] eust mest a vous cen fust clamez

40

Tres d. A. la jus m. crauente 7; laveit m. grauente L Et A. sescrie LT; c. paen L O. ert p. LT; sanz plus demurer L, sanz point de demorer T P. Mahun m. die. dit le Turc S. L; fait lir. T et sientrepernez LT; 33-34 inverted in T PI. v.ailm.T Quil le pr. par T Si lui e. mesfet si sen f. c. L, Sil lie. mesfait bien li f. amande T

v. en prist ke ne se uolt clamer L Sil len est. m. nen fait mie a blasmer 7; m. ne fist a blamer L Et le p. ad. si lei. e. L; aler T Et A. r. a uostre uolente L, A. lir. v. dites verite T Il n. mes hui g. de mort ne dafoler T; h. mal d. le p. guarderL g. ki uint tut ab. L

The Sées Fragments

203

[Ou quil] voit Aquilant si li a escrie

1428

1770

[Riche] roi debonnaire tu est trop oubliez

1429

1771

[Ja per]dres vostre ville se vous ne vos hatez

1430

1772

[Karles assa]Jut as portes li fort roi couronne

1431

1773

[... ]t nos ponz brisiez et nos murs gr[auente]z

1432

1774

r°b

Quant Aquilant lentent si cest haut escrie

1433

1 Te)

50

Cfheualie|r or as armez gardez ni demorez

1434

1776

Et il si firent tost com il out commandez

1435

T7

Il meissmes ces cors cest erramment armez

1436

1778

Puis ci dist au paumier frere ci matendez

1437

1780

Je revendre a vous quant li champ ert finez

1439

1781

Tant vous donrai dou mien com me sarez bon gre

1440

1782

Sire dist li paumier si com vous commandez

1441

1783

Puis dist entre ces dens atendu ni serez

1442

1784

Aquilant de Luiserne est en lasaut alez

1443

1785

45

55

44 45 46 47 48 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 58

Ou ki v. A. si laueit e. L Aquilant gentils ro. tr. poez demorer 7; ro. preisez L Ja p. ceste vi. se vo. ne vo. gardez T; p. la cite si tost ne vo. h. L Kar K. ass. al mur L

Les p. a b. le fosse unt rase L, Il a le pont b. et empli le fosse T C. or armes g. L, Or as ar. baron g. T Et il si unt fet ni sunt arestez L, Et il si f. sempres quant il lot c. T sest meitenant a. L, est maintenant montez T

Pa. d. Aquilant ici ma. L, Ou quil uoit le pa. si est haut escriez T; 53.1 Paumier dist Aquilant frere ci matandez T q. lasalt e. f. (remes T) LT mi. ke b. g. me (men 7)s. LT d. Karles L, d. lemperere T es. al salt al. LZ, es. a la. al. T

204

60

65

Alexander Kerr

Karles li emperere estoit sus piez leuez

1444

1786

Par mi les orbez ties commensa a aler

1445

1787

Li Sarrasin des murs li prennent a crier

1450

1789

Paumier si tu ten vas tu seras ia tuez

1451

1790

Mes Challes ne dit mot ainz a tout escoute

1452

1791

V[e]nuz est au guichet onc ne li fu vee

1453

1792

Et quant il vint as chans en fui est tornez

1454

1794

Ne se tenist a lui .i. destrier seiournez

1455

1795

Venuz est a lansaut si la fet denoiez

1456

1796

(-2) 1457

1797

Ainz en son tref demaine est reuenus arcier

1459

1799

Malement reposserent deci qua lesclairier

1463

1800

Au mat[in se] leva Karles o le vis fier

1464

1801

Sa fet lasaut remanoir et lessiez

70

59

EtK. li reis sest en p. le. L; est an estant le. T

60

o. rues T; 0. rues sestuet acheminez L; 60.1—.3 Et regarda la uile et de lonc et

62 63

de le Et uoit les murs si fors et si bien seele Quil ne doutent assaut dome de mere ne 7; 60.4 Et tut dreit a la porte sen estuet alez L, Lors sen uait a la porte qui fu dantiquite T Et li paens d. m. li sunt escriez L; m. commencent a c. T tu tenis tu Z; il tauront ia tue T EtC.T; Et li reis ne d. mo. ai. aueit e. L

64 65

ains ne 7; ke ne li est vee L; 64.1 Et mist le pie auant si est ultre passe L il fu el champ sest en f. t. LZ, il en fu hors sest an f. t. T

66 67

Nesit. 7; .i. runci deferre L f. arester LT

68

Charles fist (a fait 7) la. r. et lesser LT; 68.1 Kar bien set et ueit ne lur ualt un dener L, Que bien sent que sa force ne li vaut .i. denier T Dedens s. t. d. en apela Ogier T, Arere sen repeirent li barun cheualer L; 69.1—.3 Et Sanson de Borgoigne et Naimon le Baiuier Baron laissiez lassaut que ne uous a mestier Autre chose i couient cassaillir ne lancier T Et cele nuit reposent L; Icele nuit se couchent d. a le. T

61

69 70

71 ~~Lorsse lev. li rois il et si cheualier 7; lev. Karleimein le f. L

The Sées Fragments

75

80

205

Devant [lui fet] venir Bertran li mesagier

1465

1802

Bertran dist lemperere voulez vous repairier

1467

1803

Sire ce dist Bertran nous nauon que targier

1468

1804

Saluez moi dist Karles vostre roi li prisie

1469

1805

Si li direz pour Dieu que il me vienge aidier

1470

1806

Si maist Dieux de gloire ien e grant mestier

(-1) 1471

1807

Sire co dist Bertran quant vous plera si ert

1473

1808

Li [iJors montent ensamble trestout li mesagier

1474

1809

Karles les conuoia il et ces cheualier

1475

1811

(-2) 1476

1812

1478

1813

Quant nous vous voion ici les filz de nos moillier (+1) 1479

1814

Si ne nous daignent mie acoler ne babaissier

(+1) 1480

1815

1481

1816

Au departir les a Challes baissiez

Si maist Dieu dist Namles bien pouon esragier

85

Ariere sen retornent cil barons cheualier

li timonier T; 72.1 Bele et cortoisement le prent a araisnier T Amis ce d. li rois 7, B. d. li reisL Et il a respundu nus auum kat. L d. K. r. Guion le guerreier L; le guerrier T

Et (Si T) li dites LT a ki iai me. L, que gen ai gr. m. 7; 77.1 Et sil na preu de terre je li croistrai son fie T Si. d. B. ben sauerai nuncier L; com v. p. T Adunc sunt muntez t. li me. L, Li enfant sen repairent le i. apres mangier 7; 79.1 El chemin se sunt mis ne uodrunt delaier L Et K. I. conuoie T; Et K. cunveie les francs baruns preisez L Et au d. |. a tuz b. L; a lempereres b. T; 81.1 Et dambes .ii. les eus a plore de

son chief T aragier L, anragier T Q. nus voi. ci L, Que nos voi. i. T Et si nus d. a. ne beiser L; ne baisier T Et Karles sen torna il et si ch. T; li b. ch. L; 85.1 Li messages sen uunt ki

Deu pust aider L, Et li enfant cheuauchent baut joiant et lie (-1) T

206

Alexander Kerr

De ci qua Carsaude ne se voudrent targier

90

95

(-1)

1483

1818

Or diron de Guion qui le courage a fier

1484

1819

Tres deuant lui esgarde sa veu .i. paumier

1485

1820

Qui li out dit nouueles de Challon a uis fier

1486

1821

Amis ce dist roi Gui fetez pes si moiez

1487

1823

Quel vile est Montorguil quar le me di paumier

1488

1824

Volentiers en non Dieu a celer ne te quier

1490

1825

Montorguil est molt riche si fet molt a preisier

1826

Amis dist li rois Guis envers moi entendez

1827

Quel vile est Montorguil sez le tu deuiser

1828

Sire dist li paumier ia mar le mescrerez

1495

1829

Moniorguil est molt riche enuiron ef en le

1497

1830

ill. eues lauironnent qui viennent par chanes

1503

1831

De ci a lost Guion T; ne v. atarger LT Et lenfes Gui se lieue quant il dut esclairier T; c. ot f. L D. I. a garde sa choisi le p. L, D. 1. regarda sa v. le p. T alu. f. LT A. d. G. L; Paumier d. lenfes G. a merueilles tai chier T Q. e. M. gardet ke vus ne celez L; 91.1 Di moi uraies noueles garde nel me noier T Et li palmer respunt LT; a c. ne uus q. L, jel dirai v. T Mon. e. forte et mol. f. a p. L; lacking T A. d. r. G. am. ent. L; in place of 94-95 T reads Paumiers dist lenfes Guis or me di verite Par la foi que tu dois sainte crestiente Se uous sauez chastel recet ne fermete Ou li rois Karles fust ou ne peust antrer sauez la d. L

Oil d. li p. ia ma. en duterez L; de noient en parlez T; 96.1 Encor en sai tieus iii. qui molt font a douter T mol. forte enu. de tuz lez L; Lune est M. qui siet desur la mer T Quatre e. lenuironent q. iunent p. chantel L; lacking here in T but a similar line stands as 101.3

The Sées Fragments

Si la tient Huidelon .i. cheualier menbre

1498

1832

(-1?) 1499

1833

Je cuit na si fort uile en la crestientez

1500

1835

Dedens le clos des vines ont il vinez assez

1508

1836

Paumier ce dist roi Gui mi sauras tu mener

1514

1837

Ouil dist li paumier se aler y voulez

1518

1838

(+1) 1519

1839

1521

1840

100 Et ci a .ii. beau filz de famme engendrez

105 Mes por neent seront iel vus di par veritez

Karles i sist .11. anz onques ni pout entrer 99 100 101

102

207

qui molt est desfaez T Et cil T; de sa f. LT; 100.1 La uile est si treforte ia mar le duterez L Kili na nule plus forte L; Je cu. en toute Espaigne na plus biaus bachelers T; 101.1-.7: Et Huidelon est molt fel et molt desmesurez (+1) La cite est si noble com ia oir porrez ii. eues i acourent deuant par les chanez (cf. 98) Lune a nom Rupane lautre Marne des guez 55 Si i cort Asiron qui cort a Balesguez Escarflaires i cort dont li floz est leuez Et dautre part la uile si cort li flos de mer T Kar ded. o. enclos les vignes et les blez L, Ded. les c. des uignes les uignes et les blez T; 102.1—.5:

103

104 105 106

Les eues sont si fieres con ja oir porrez De pierres daymant i est grans la plentes Onques Diex ne fist home sil i estoit antrez Por coi eust hauberc ne ceint le branc letre aS) Qui ja j mes an issist an trestot son ae T P. d. lenfes mi (-2) T; P. d. li r. G. sauerez nus i me. L; 103.1—.2 Ce dist li enfes Guis parole a moi paumier (first line of new laisse) Sauras me tu mener a Montorgueil le fier T O. par ma foi sire oil molt volentiers T M. ce ert po. nent sachez de ve. L, M. ce seroit folie se vous i aliez T; 105.1 Que ja ior de cest siecle dedens nanterriez T un an le fort rei coronez L, .iii. a. li fors rois droituriers T; 106.1 Vnkes ni forfist un dener moneez L, Cains ne mesfist dedens vaillant .iiii. deniers T;

106.2-.18: Nen i fist mangonel ne periere drecier Huidelons nen monta an cheual nan destrier Onques il ne si fil nen uout armes baillier “5 Nonques ne san deigna lever de son mangier Quant ce uit Karlemaines ne la porroit baillier

208

Alexander Kerr

Li roi Gui resgarda contreval la citez

1540

1842

(+1) 1542

1843

Il monte isnelement a lencontre est alez

1543

1845

Vn a vn les salue sa Bertran regarde

1544

1846

Amis dist li rois Gui comment auez ouure

1545

1848

Veistez vous Charlon le fort roi couronne

1546

1849

Ouil ce dist Bertran saluz vous a mande

1547

1850

Et Sanson de Borgoigne et vos granz parentez

1550

1851

1548

1852

Voit venir ces mesagez grant ioie ci a mene

110

its

Challon li emperere qui tant fet a loer Il vous mande par moi que vous a lui alez

107 108 109 110

Sala a Montesclair dolens et corecies .Vii. mois i sist li rois qui France a a baillier Au nueue san parti dolans et coreciez .10 Sala a Augorie que rois Escorfaus tient Onques ni laissa prince ne per ne cheualier Ains ala a Luiserne ou il encore siet -vii. ans i a ia sis molt li doit anoier Or me manras dist Guis a Montorgueil le fier 15 Tant te donrai auoir com en uodras baillier Que par cele corone que me mistrent el chief Ja nirai a Karlon le fort roi droiturier Saurai pris Montorgueil qui tant fist a proisier T Et Guion se garde L; [L]enfes G. de Borgoigne se prist a regarder (first line of a new laisse but the illuminator has failed to insert the letter L) T; 107.1 Contremont vers .i. tertre a son chief retorne T Sa veu les enfans qui uienent tot arme 7; les mes. kil tant puet amer L; 108.1 Kil ot tramis a Karleimein le barbez L Tost et uistement es. contre al. L, Quant Guis les a veus si es. en. al. T

]. beisa LT; par molt grant amistez L; 110.1 Et puis a Bertran ducement demande L Itt Am. ke fetes uus L; Damoisiaus debonaires c. au. erre T 113 O. d. B. s. v. mande assez L, O. par ma foi sire s. et amistez T 114 et le g. p. L, dont fustes engendrez T; in T the sequence of lines is 116116.1-114 115 lacking LT 116 Pur Deu v. ma. Karles ka I. uenez L, Il v. ma. li rois q. v. le secorez T; 116.1 Por amor Dieu biaus sire que vos ne lobliez T

The Sées Fragments

Et s navez preu terre il uous dorra assez

209

(-1) 1551

1853

Amis dist li rois Gui de nous convient parler

1552

1854

A Montorguil iron sanz plus de demorer

1553

11855

120 Ja nirai a Challon si lare conqueste

1856

Par foi ce dist Bertran le sens auez desue

1857

Amis ce dist rois Gui or men lessiez ester

1858

Li ro Gui de Bourgoigne en apela Bertran

1556

1860

Sauari de Toulouse et Ricart li Normant

1558

1861

(-1) 1557

1862

Barons dist li roi Gui entendez mon senblant

1560

1864

A Montorguil iron sa Dieu vient a talant

1563

1865

Si prendrai Huidelon anbedui ci enfant

1564

1866

125 Berart de Monditier et li autre grant

117 Etse na. 7; Et si na. point de t. L 118 Si mait Diex d. G. ancois parlerons del T; d. G. del n. L 119 s. p. dem. L, se Diex la destine T 120-122 In place of these lines T reads Et les dames des chars commencent a crier Ains noserent au roi son commant deueer 121 P. f. di. B. uus estes du s. de. L 122 A. d.lir. G. or me L; 122.1 Kar par la fei ke ie uus dei ie i uoil aler (with the first ie written above the line) L 123 [Ll]enfes G. (the illuminator has failed to insert the letter L) T; Bo. sapela Be.

L 124

et Huon le sachant L, Auberi le sachant T; in T the sequence of lines is 125—

125

de Muntider Alberi le uaillantL,de Mondisdier et Estout le vaillant T; 125.1 Larceueske Reiner et Estuz le puissant Z, Et Torpin larcheuesque et les autres

124-125.1 enfans T 126 B. ce d. lir. T; atendez m. s. L; 126.1—.2 Faites les trez destandre gel uoil et sel commant Et si faites les chars ateler maintenant T 127 Siront (sic) a M. se D. T; si D. plest le manantL 128 Si prendrum H. et a. ci e. L, Et panrons H. le cuiuert mescreant T

210

Alexander Kerr.

Si ne veult en Jhesu crerre li roi amant

130 Je ferai son corps mestre dedenz .i. feu ardant

1566

1867

1567

1868

Et ces enfanz ferai escorchier maitenant

1869

Ne seroit garanti par nul homme viuant Cele nuit resposerent iusqua laube aparant

1871

Nous feron vos vouloir ce dient li efant

1870

135 Li roi Gui de Bourgoigne va sa gent semonnant

1872

Daler a Montorguil ne se voillet tariant Et les dames des cars vont grant duel demenant

1572

1874

Pour ce quele ne vont a Luiserne la grant

1573

1875

A lour liges saignurs quil vont molt desirant 140 Mes roi Gui en iura Ihesu de Belleent

129

1873

1876 1877

Sil ne uolent c. en Deu le tut puissant L, Sil ne v. J. c. le pere r. a. T; 129.1 Et bautisier sa fame et andeus ses enfans T 130 Jen frei iustise unc ne ueistes si grant L, Je li fer. trenchier la teste maintenant T 131 Et ses deus en. frai L; in place of 131-136 T reads Et li enfant respondent sire uostre talant Car nos nosons desdire le uostre fier commant Lors sonerent .i. graille et lost uait detriant Les chars font ateler si saroutent atant 132 lackingL 133 reposent ieke albe ap. L; 133-134 inverted in L 134 Et lie. responent tut a uostre commant L 135, «Et Gide Bol 136 ke tant est puissant L 137 da. dedens T; si unt (orent 7) les quers dolent LT 138 P. ce kele ne aleient L; P. ce queles naloient a L. g. (-1) T 139 Pur veer lur s. dunt il sunt d. L; in place of 139-149 T reads: Et lost sest arotee et deriere et devant La oissies soner plus de .m. olifans Grelles et chalemiaus et buisines bruians Plorer et lermoier maint damoisel vaillant Mais nosent a Guion desdire son commant 140 M.lir.G. iu. L

The Sées Fragments

211

Que iames nes uerront en trestout lor vivant

1878

Saura prins Montorguil a lacier e de brant

1879

Puis ni out si hardi qui en alast parlant

1880

144 Li roi Gui de Bo[rgoigne] a ordrene sa gent

1882

v°b En Carsaude lessa li roi de ces seriant

1883

Qui garderont la uille e bien et leaument

1885

Lendemain par matin sen vont acheminant De Carsaude sen issent et les cars vont deuant

1886

Li paumier les conduit or lor soit Dieu garant

1888

141 142 143 144 145 146 147

nelu.entutl.v.L a la. de b.L hardie q. plus a. pa. L; 143.1 Or sunt ben ascemez tuit muntent errant L Etr.L le. .cccc. bons. L; 145.1 Et seisante cheualers ki sunt de cors pussant L u. b. et le. L lackingL

148

sen ist Gui le conbatantL; 148.1 Et si en mene meint cheualer uaillant L

149

Sesc. le p. tut le chemin ferant L; 149.1 Ore les conduie Deu par sun digne commant L; in T there follows an additional laisse (149.2—.26) Or cheuauce li rois il et sa compaignie Tot droit a Montorgueil ou li paumiers les guie Lenfes Guis de Borgoigne pansa molt grant folie de) Huidelon quide panre a la barbe florie Et ses fils ambes .ii. et sa grant baronie Mais il tienent lor terre du riche roi Marsile Onques a Karlemaine nen voldrent rendre mie Et les dames des chars chascune brait et crie .10 Por ce quele naloient a Luiserne la riche Por lor seignors ueoir que merueilles desirent Et li rois Guis tantost fait mander dame Gile Cele ert suer Karlemaine le roi de Saint Denise Et fame Ganelon qui li cors Dieu maudie pa Et ert mere Rollant a la chiere hardie Lenfes ua contre lui ne se uout targier mie Quant le uoit la duchoise durement li escrie Sire Guis de Borgoigne por Dieu le fil Marie Irons nos a Luiserne cele cite garnie

.20

Dame ce dit li enfes nos nirons encor mie A Montorgueil irons se Diex me beneie

212

Alexander Kerr

150 Or cheuauche roi Gui li paumier les guia T[..]t iii. jours entiers onques lost naresta

1604

1890

1605

1891

Roi Gui en cheuauchant sus destre regarda

1897

Sa veu Montorguil qui forment desira

1609

1898

Sire dist li paumier a moi entendez sa

1615

1902

155 Vez la Montorguil en cele roche la

(-1)

1903

Or fetez touz vos hommes armez par dedesa

1616

1904

.XXX. anz i pouez estre par Dieu qui tout forma

1617

1905

Quant les dames lentendent chascune brait et crie Lasses maleureuse com nos sommes chaitiues Nos ne verromes mes Karle de Saint Denise

25

Et quant Guis lentandi li cuers li atanrie Venus est au paumier a Montorgueil les guie.

150

c.lirois T

151

Ne par nuit ne par iur lo. na. L, Et par nuit et par jor o. lo. ne fina T; 151.1-.5: Et quant uint al quint iur ke soleil esconsa Quant ce uint au quinzieme et li os sarota

En un champ cele nuit lost se herberga Et la iurent la nuit tant kil escleira

En .i. pre bel et gent li os se reposa Tote nuit seiornerent tant que soleus leua T

Adunc sa turne lost si sachemina .5 Tute iur cheuacherent tant ke nune sona L

152 153

Et Guion de Burgone L; lacking T Si choisi M. kil f. d. L, Si choisi M. q. grant clarte geta T; 153.1—.4: Les bois et les riuieres dont merueilles i a

Vit la tur Huidelon ke li geant funda

Vit la tor Huidelon qui luist et

Et la charbucle desus ke grant clarte geta

Sor le pomel dor fin .i. aigle

Et quant le palmer la uit rei Guion apelaZ

Quant

flanbia doria

154 d.ilalreie. a m. ca Z, d. ile. am. ca (-2) T 155 Veez la M. ke sur la mer esta L; lacking T 156 F. ester v. genz si gardez p. dela L; estrauer p. deca T 157

Set a..L..xv. à. Ta met LE

li paumiers le uoit Guion en apela T

The Sées Fragments

245

Que ia .i. soul de vous ia le pie ne mestra

1618

1906

Cest en Dieu dist roi Gui que le mont estora

1619

1908

160 Or cheuauche roi Gui et il et son barnez

1621

1910

Tout droit a Montorguil e les acheminez

1622

1911

A .iii. lieuez saproche de la bonne cite

165

Sire dist li paumier envers moi entende[z]

1912

Or faitez si vos genz en huimais ostelez

1914

Amis ce dist roi Gui si com vos commandez

1915

Quenz en .i. val parfont deles .i. rui molt cler Et voient Montorguil la tour et la ferte

1918

La pierres daimant les fet molt efreer

1920

Et Dieu dient Francois par la vostre bonte

1921

170 Comment prendron a force ceste bonne cite

158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165

166 167 168

1625

1922

Q. ia .i. de v. sun p. lenz ne m. L; v. le p. ni metera T; 158.1 Gui lui respunt ke pas ne demura L Tut est en Dampnedeu L; Ce dis. G. ce. an D. qui tot le m. forma 7; 159.1 Quant lui ert (uient 7) a pleisir prendre la (le 7) nus lerra LT Lenfes G. de Burgoine LT; est cheualer menbrez L, fu molt gentil et ber T Quant il uit M. LT; si la mult loez L, Dieu en prist a loer T lacking LT Et le p. fu sages si laueit apele L; 163-65 lacking T; 163.1 Si iui aueit dit par mult grant amiste L Kar f. arester trestut uostre barne L Et G. li respunt tut a uostre uolente L; 165.1 En une grant champaine ke fu large et le L, En une praierie fist sa gent arester T; 165.2 Se herbergent Franceis suz un broil rame L, Et cil se sont logie dedens .i. bois rame T Ens en .i. v. p. ou .i. riuiere ert T; lackingL Et virent de M. les turs et L; in place of 167-173 T reads Les chars ont fait estruire et molt bien ateler Icelui ior les conuint seiorner (-2); 167.1 Et uirent les .iiii. ewes ke mult sunt redutez L Et les p. da. dunt i ot plente L

214

Alexander Kerr

Barons dist li roi Gui or ne vous dementez

1923

Qar Dieu nous aidera li roi de maiestez

1924

Cele nuit resposerent deci qua laiorner

1925

Larceuesque Torpin fet la messe chanter

1628

1926

1629

1927

Quant la messe fu dite ala roi Gui monter

1630

1928

Bertran en apela et Berart saveuez

1633

1930

Barons dist li roi Guis envers moi entendez

1635

1932

Seste vile est molt fort sel vous di par vertez

1636

1933

1637

1934

175 Et li enfant alerent le seruise escouter

180 Nos asauz sanz engin ni vaut .i. eof pelez Qui or cest bon conseil si le nous doit donner

171

1935

Sire ce dist Bertran ious dire veritez

1638

1936

Quar ie sui filz Namlon qui tant fet a loer

1639

1937

Qui mainte foiz Karlon molt bon conseil donnez

1640

1938

B. di. G. or ni ait demente L

172 ECD EL 173

n. se reposent tant ke fu aiurne L

174

Et le bon a. la m. uet c. L; ot fait m. c. T

175 176

en. uunt de bon quer es. L sise uunt aturner L, mis sont au retorner T; 176.1 Et Gui de Burgogne est el cheual munte L, Lenfes Gui de Borgoigne ua ou cheual monter 7; 176.2 .i. mantel sebelin fist a son col poser T Les enfans en apele ses prist a regarder T; et Bera. le menbre L; 177.1 Sauari de Tuluse et Huon le senez L; 177.2 Les .i. bruellet les meine por conseil demander T B.d.r.G.am. ent. L, Seignor ce d. li r. vos conuient porpanser T Comment ceste cite peussons conquester T; ia iur ne la prendrez L Kar force nassalt ne v. L; Force ni a mestier ne a. por ruer T Q. saura b. co. doner si n. seit ore done L; lacking T S. dis. B. dirrai uos v. L; ne vos quier a celer T Je su f. N. q. mult est alosez L, Jas. ie f. N. q. gentils est et ber T Kar meint b. c. ad ma. f. d. L, Q. set les bons consaus lempereor doner T

177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184

The Sées Fragments

245

185 Et ie a mon pouoir vous viel fere autretez

1641

1939

Prenez .ix. damoiseaux ces fetez atorner

1642

1940

Vous siez le .x. pour les enfanz guier

1644

1941

Tout droit a Montorguil com messagier irez

1645

1942

A Huidelon irez vos messagez conter

1649

1943

190 Si li fetez acrerre et ditez par vertez

1650

1944

1651

1945

1652

1946

Que vous y envoia Karles li ber

Et les fieux et les terres de par lui demander

185 186

(-2)

vo. dei asseurer L, vo. i vi. assener T F. .x. d. feruestir et armer T; f. acesmer L; 186.1 A loi de mesagiers les

faites atorner T 187 V.s. li disiemes T; V. serez le dime p. els deuant g. L 188

Et dedenz M. en message i. L; les en faites aler T; 188.1—.3 Se Damediex de

gloire le uoloit creanter Que peuissons passage ne chemin encontrer Tant que peuissons estre en la bone cite T 189 AH. vostre message conterez L, H. irions le mesage c. T 190

Si li ferons a. et dire 7; Et si li f. entendant et d. ueritez L

191 Ka lui v. enueie Karleimein L, Q. nos y e. Karlemaine T 1924p and SE

216

Alexander Kerr

Notes on the Gui de Bourgogne

fragment

36 The scribe seems to have written mest for mesfait and thereby rendered the line hypometric. — 47 Only the upper parts of the / and i in li are visible. — 48 The b in brisiez has been altered from p, and in the last word of the line only gr and z are legible. — 50 Between C and r one letter, presumably h’, has been rubbed away. — 60 ties is written fairly clearly, but its meaning is uncertain. — 64 The e in Venuz has been rubbed away. 68 The laisse initial S, where the other manuscripts read Charles, suggests that C’ or K’ in an exemplar has been misread or an illuminator has supplied the wrong letter. — 71-72 Several letters in the first half of each line have been lost in a large hole. — 79 The i in iors has been rubbed away. — 81 This line is a decasyllable and seems to have the caesura after the fourth syllable; but is it the first hemistich which lacks two syllables or should the scribe have written Challemaine for Chall’? — 84 babaissier clearly contains dittography. — 98 A horizontal tear through gq' vien has obliterated the foot of each letter. 100 Unless the e in famme is taken to be in hiatus with the vowel

at the beginning of engendrez the line is hypometric;

the scribe

probably omitted sa before famme, to judge by the readings in the other two manuscripts. — 103 There is an apparent discrepancy between the line numbering shown in the first of the columns on the right-hand side of our text and the number of additional lines in the variant readings for T at ll. 103 and 153 of the fragment. This arises because of a miscalculation in the number of lines printed on pp. 46 and 49 in Guessard and Michelant’s edition: their text contains no I. 1515 or 1. 1614. 153 See note on I. 103, above.

172 The foot of each letter in /i has been lost in a wormhole. — 181 cest must equate to sait. — 191 The second hemistich is hypometric by two syllables, unless one reads K’ as Karlemaine here.

The Sées Fragments

217

Anseis de Cartage Alton edn MSA

Kerr edn MSB

r’a [En la] uile entrent par la porte barre

885

792

[Li un] as autres les ont andui mostre

887

794

(-1) 888

795

[Ce sont] mesage ne sai que ont aporte

889

796

[Atan]t descendent as marbelins degre

890

797

[Deu]ant la sale descendent li baron

891

798

[Pui]s sont monte sus el mestre danion

892

799

[Ain]s de plus riche noit parler nul hon

893

800

[Fors] soulement le pales Salemon

894

801

[Qui fu] gastez a la destrucion

895

802

(+1?) 896

803

[Chasc]un a dit Mahommet mon de

5

10

[Dont] Trois fut gaste ef liuree a charbon

En Morinde ABCD; barne A; 1.1 Cil (Et li C) Sarrasin les ont molt esgarde (regarde D) ABCD

En

Li vns a lautre BC; tantost m. A, molt tost m. B, adis m. C; lackingD

C. a di. (C. dist C) par M. ABC, Dist lun a lautre par M. D Cils so. m. ne sauon q. o. a. C; de la crestiente D; cont en pense B; 4.1—.2

bd

Mes ie ne sai que il ont aporte Et li mesage ont tant esperonne D Quil descendirent au marberin deg. D; a .i. marbrin deg.À, al palays liste C; line displaced in B where it appears six lines earlier Lor cheuaus prenent escuier et garcon D ens el me. AB, en le me. C

—

Mais del tel richeçe C; de sir. ABD; pa. noi nu. h. B F. du p. ki fu a Lucion A; so. del p. D D. (Quant CD) Troie fu prinse par traison ABCD

218

15

20

25

12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27

Alexander Kerr

[ ... ] treuuent li roi Marsilion

897

804

[Ento]r lui furent Persant et Esclauon

898

805

[Roi et] aufage de mainte region

899

806

[Li mJesagier commencent lor raison

900

807

[Premi]er parla de Nauare Raimon

901

808

[Cil D]amediu qui soufri passion

902

809

[Il saJuue ef gart lempereor Charlon

903

810

[Et] Anseis filz Rispeus le Breton

904

811

[Et de] Borg[oin]e le bon uassal Guion

905

812

[Et mJon ch[ie]r frere con apele Yuon

906

813

[Et cil] vous gart con apele Mahon

907

814

[Ma]rsiles lot si drecha le menton

908

815

[Amlis dist il ne semblez pas garson

909

816

[Di] [ton mJesage et nous lescouteron

910

817

[Dis}t Raimon sire a Dieu beneisson

911

818

[Karles li rJois qui tient Rains et Saisson

913

820

Illuec (Leanz D) trouerent ABCD; paym et Exclabon (12a+13b) C paien et Es. D; lacking C (but see 12) conterent 1. r. D lacking C Cil Diex de gloireA Sis.C libaron CD le preuz conte G. D que on (lon D) a. Y. ABD Et celui v. g. c. clame C; v. saut BD; Raimmon (expuncted) Mahon B lackhingD Dites uostre m. et n. lentendron C, Dites auant n. vous escouteron D ia nel uous celeron D Liempereres Kallon de Monloon D; et Laon À

The Sées Fragments

30

35

40

249

[Roi ]nous a mis Karles a Monfagon

914

821

[Esp]aine tient toute cuite en son non

915

822

[Na] plus bel homme iusquen Carfanaon

916

823

[PrJeuz est as armez nul meillor ne set on

917

824

[Et e]n donner a mis sentension

918: | 825

[Qui b]zen le sert nel fet mie en pardon

919

826

[On]ques nama losengier ne felon

920

827

[Nie]s est le roi o le flouri grenon

921

828

[Oi]rs est de France plus prodom ni set on

922

829

[De] [uostre fille] a oi le renon

923

830

[Qui] [tant est gente] et de clere fason

924

831

[Ca] [nous e]nuoie pour requere le don

925

832

[Plus] [hau]tement marier nel puet on

926

833

[Es]paine ara et le resne environ

927

834

[Que] Kallemaine conquist em Pre Noiron

928

835

[Sil] uous agree la guerre feniron

929

836

29

RK. n. a fait li ber (a fait K. B, a fait C, a fait ici D) a Saint Fagon ABCD

30

Et Spangne ti. tuit enuiron C, Qui ti. E. et la terre enuiron D; c. a bandonAB

31 32

Na(Noit C) si b. ABCD; jusques C. CD Etp.asa. B; plus hardi ne s. on ABC, et de molt grant renon D

33

En Dieu amer D; En d. a mise se. AB, Et en d. oit m. soe e. C

36

~N. estoit le r. C, N. lemperere D; con apele Karlon B; 36-37 inverted in D

37

i. ert de F. nul nauoit droit se lui non C, Nez e. de F. par uerte le dison D; nul pl. pries (droit B) ni s. on (sauon B) AB f. oi lanontion AB, f. oit ois le grant r. C

38 39

Q.t. es. bele et de g. f. BD; et de biele f. A; lacking C

41

A pl. haut homme doner ne la pu. on D

42 43

et la terre en. D; a bandon B Q. Carle c. C; a esperon ACD, a lesperon B

220

45

Alexander Kerr

[Do]r en auant bon ami en seron

930

837

[Ni] aura mes ne noisse ne tenson

931

838

[Par] cest marchie maint mal abaiseron

932

839

[L]ies deuez estre se nous vous acordon

933

840

935

842

(-1) 936

843

Ices paroles escuta Rubion

937

844

1. fel traitre qui ne fist se mal non

938

845

Mahommet iure Apolin et Noiron

939

846

Que le dira Agoulant dOrion

940

847

Qui les mesages metra en sa prison

941

848

Apres Raimon commensa a parler

942

849

Cil de Connimbrez qui fu gentil et ber

943

850

Ysore fu qui molt fist a douter

944

851

rh Et dist Marsiles or vous en parleron 50

55

Conseil uiel prendre canquel la feron

45

Des ore au. b. am. esteron B; molt b. am. s. D; lacking C

46 47 48

Neseroit m. no. C P. mariage ABCD; le mal a. C; abaisse on (lon D) ABD L. poes ABD; L. em poie. se n. a v. a. C; 48.1 Au (A C) iouene roi ki est de grant renon (qui tant a de renon D) ABCD Respont M. D; et nos ABCD; 49.1 A nos barons qui sont de cest roion D

49 50

Co. prendrai

51

que nos faire en porron B, et si vos respondron C e. Nubion C

52 53

.i. Sarrasin D; q. nait se honte n. AD, q. ait maleicon BC A.i. Teruagan et Mahom D; et Platon À, et Mahon B, et Feraon C

54 55 57

Quil le di. ABD; di. ad A. C metera en p. AC q.g.est et b. C, q. tant fet a loer (57a+58b) D

58

ABC; Sen le nos loe uolentiers le f. D; comment nous le f. A,

Cest Y. AB, Dist Y. C; q. tant (m. BC) fait a loer ABC; lacking D (but see

57)

The Sées Fragments

60

65

70

59 60 61 62 63

221

Sire Marrsire fetez moi escuter

945

852

Rois Anceis qui molt fet a loer

946

853

Nous a transmis a vous dela la mer

947

854

Pour uostre fille dont a oi parler

948

855

Plus hautement nel pouez marier

949

856

Nul plus bel homme ne pouroit on trouer

950

857

Hardiz as armez plus hardi dun sengler

951

858

Ces anemis soit de guerre mater

952

859

Que nul nen puet enuers lui contrester

953

860

Trestoute Espaine li feron acuiter

954

861

Et toute France en douaire clamer

955

862

Apres Challon qui or la a gaiter

956

863

Distez dan rois quen auez en penser

957

864

Voudrez le uous tout ainsi creanter

958

865

Dist a M. A, He! rois M. B, Rois Anseys qui tant fait a doter (each word crossed through the middle) / Dist a M. C; M. s. dist Ysores le ber D; 59.1 Faites .i. pou ma parole escouter D q. tant BCD; a douter AC t. decha a v. parler A, t. a vois parler C, t. ici a v. parler D; deca la m. B; 61.1 Par nos requiert ne uos deuons celer D La u. f. D; d. ill oit oi p. C; conter B; 62.1 Auoir la ueut a moillier et a per D ne la puez m. D Car tant b. A, Car si b. B, Car pl. b. C; Que molt par fet nostre rois a loer D Preus est as ar. p. h. de s. A, Et est as ar. h. comme s. B, Preus est ad ar. et

p. h. dun s. C; lackingD fait de g. m. A, s. de g. asmater C, s. bien prendre et m. D Nu. ne p. riens e. 1. conquester D; ne p. ABC; conquester BC Tote E. a de par Karlon le ber D d. douner ABC; 69-70 lacking D A. le roi ABC; q. or la a garder AB, q. tuit qui laurera a garder C Di. nous r. A; qui a. C; lackingD (but a version of this line appears in place of 74) one ABC; le u. a.ac. B, le u. t. a.ac. C; lacking D

222

75

80

85

73

Alexander Kerr

Nest uos amis qui le veult desloer

959

866

Cil mariage ne fet mie a bailler

960

867

Et dist Marsiles ia ne le quier noier

961

868

Se ie le puis en mon conseil trouuer

962

869

Cil plus haut prinses en pristrent a parler

963

870

Et cil i uont qui ne losent veoir

964

871

En vne chambre alerent deuiser

965

872

En la court out .i. Sarrasin escler

966

873

Prouz fu et sage filz le roi Otouer

967

874

Cest Sinagloire qui molt fist a loer

968

875

Cil sen tourna ni vout plus demorer

970

Gaudise ala la nouuele conter

971

879

Cun rois lara a moillier et a per

972

880

Non ert uostre a. q. uel uolt deueder C, Nauez ami q. doie d. D; quil vos v.

d. B 74

Cest ma. ABC; Or nos en dites uo cuer et uo penser D (cf. 71); car bien f. a graer A, qui molt f. a amer B, qui biem f. a lloer C 75 Dist M. C; Respont M. uassal molt estes ber D; ia nel q. celer (-1) A, ia nel uos q. celer B, a celer ne uos ker celler C 76 Tou en (men BC) irai ABCD; m. (le BC) c. demander ABC, tot maintenant parler D; 77.1 A mes barons et conseil demander D 77 Ses pl. h. prin. en prinst a acener (apeler BD) ABD, Li ses h. homes fist a soi demander C 78 Etc. uenent q. ne lo. deveer C; lo. veer AB; lacking D 79 a. a conseller C; 79.1 Dunes et dautres priuement parler (-1) D 80 Enlac.ertC 81-83 lackingD 82 CoertS.C; ensi loi noumer ABC; 82.1 En la cort not nul si (.i. plus C) bel baceler AC,

83 84 85

Biaux fu et gens le uis apert et cler B; 82.2—.3

dAufrique si lot a gouuerner Cil Sinagloires dont uos moes conter B p. arester A; lacking B AG. a. lan. aporter C; les nouuieles A Quil la requiert D; Com r. Anseis dEspangne le guerer C

Rois

fu

The Sées Fragments

223

Crestiens eret ainsi loi nommer

90

881

Karles li rois si la fet couronner

974

884

La bele lot coulour prinst a muer

975

885

Trestout li cuer lemprist a souleuer

976

886

Li roi commence tant fort a enamer

977

887

Que tout i mist son cuer et son penser

978

888

Et pense bien que qui doie couster

979

889

Que se feroit baptisier et leuer

980

890

Adonc commence Mahon a adosser

981

891

Or redeuons de Marsire conter

982

893

De son conseil comment il dut finer

983

894

Et en son cuer forment a goulouser

Que [..] cil rois le uouloit enamer 95

86

87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 OF 98

Rois Anseis BD; qui tant fet a loer D; lacking AC; 86.1 Biaus est et gens BC;

nus hom ne uit son per B, elli uisage apert et cler C; 86.2 Rois est (ert C) dEspaigne ABC; Qui tient Espaingne de par Karlon le ber D; si la a gouuerner AB, si lloit a garder C lir. li a f. AB; f. encoroner C; lacking D La dame lentende C; c. prentA c. li prent A, c. li prist BC; c. li commence a trembler D tantost a e. B, t. f. e. C, forment a e. D lacking ABCD Trestot D; imet ABCD b. qui quen (que BC) d. peser (d. ennoier C) ABC; 93-95 lacking D (but a version of 95 appears as 96.2) lacking ABC

Q. (Quelle C) se fera ABC M. c. du tout (tantost B) a a. AB, Maomet c. del tout oblier C, Mahommet prent du tot a a. D; 96.1 Et Damedieu du tout a enamer B, Et Dieu de gloire commence a reclamer D; 96.2 Quencor la face bautisier et lever D Or deuons de C; Or rediron de M. le ber D; de M. canterA Com. fera s. con. definer D; il doit f. C

224

Alexander Kerr

Entreulz commencent entreulz a oposer

984

895

985

896

Qui lour peust ne nuire ne greuer

986

897

Rois Sinagons ni uout puis demorer

987

898

Em pies sailli pour sa resson mostrer

988

899

Rois Sinagons se dresa en estant

989

900

990

901

Marsiles sire entendez mon senblant

991

902

Cil nouueau roi qui uous ua requerant

992

903

[Par] ses mesages uos files demandant

993

904

[Ce mest] auis qui uous ua semonnant

994

905

995

906

996

907

[Tresto]ute Espaine vous uont ses hommes ofrant (+1) 997

908

[Et] en douaire France c[.....]frant

909

100 Se nus i soit nule rien auiser

105 Puis a parle hautement en oiant

110 [De uostre] preu foi que doi Teruagant

Si uous dirai et pour quer et comment

99

998

Adonc c. D; c. laiens a o. A, c. du tout a o. B, c. a penser C

100 so. nul bon consel mostrer C; quemender D 101 Quel non p. de nule rem agreuer C 102 R.S. ne C; u. plus d. ABC, pot plus endurer D 103 po. le r. m. BC; conterD 104 se leva B, sest drices C; 104.1 Et ot uestu .i. uermeil boquerant D 105 107

Et D; en riant C Lin. B, Cest n. CD; q. nos ua C

108 109 110 111 112

uostre fille au cors gent D quil AB; q. uo. uont sermoant C; 109-10 lackingD p. a f. q. do. a TT. C; si mait T. B Vos li donrez par itel couenant D; d. et p. coi AB, d. p. quoi C T.E. uon. si message o. AC, Que tote E. li doingne quitement D; si home o.

B 113 d. F. le conquerant ABC, d. tote F. la grant D

The Sées Fragments

225

[Se dJe tout seu uous fessoit serement 1S

999

910

Et puis apres ce il a[uoit] enfant

1000

911

De uostre fille la bele lauenant

1001

912

Que dou garder seroit a uos commant

1002572913

Et se lour rois te fait de ce [creant]

1003

914

Nert uos ami qui lira desloant

1004

915

1005

916

Que soirs en ist de ce me suis pensant

1006

917

Quencor tendrez dEspaigne la uaillant

1007

918

[Et] toute France desi as pors Wissant

1008

919

Dont sescrierent Sarrasin et Persant

1009

920

(-1) 1010

921

FOTIA

922

120 Cest mariage des ici en a[uJant

125 Rois gentis ne te ua [detri]ant

Mais des mesages prendez le sairemant

Se il de chou te f. s. A, Et se de ce te f. s. B, Et de co si te font s. C; lacking

D Et tant ap. kil eust .i. en.A, Et en ap. sil en au. en. B, Et em ap. sil ausent .j. en. C, Et ap. ce sil i au. en. D b. le vallantA, b. le sachant B, b. et la. C

Q. d. norrir fust a uostre talant D Sil uoloit fere ce que ie vois contant D; le r. uos f. C; r. se f. AB Nest u. a. q. ira A; Nameroit uos ne nostre ordenement D; q. landera deveant Qui c. conseil vos iroit delaiant D; m. de cesto jor en a. C Car ABC; me voit p. A, men uois uantant C; 121-23 lacking D Encor tenrra E. B; dE. le beubantA, dE. le cassemant C

iuscas (duscas D. tuit escrient He! g. r. AB; atendant D; ne

B) p. de W. AB, trosques al p. Sam Uiçant C C; li prince hautement D G. r. sire ne uos ales deloiant C, Marsiles sire que uas tu va plus delaiantA Pren d. me. bon asseurement D

Alexander Kerr

226

[

130

;

|

]

A cest paroles uont lour [conseil fin]ant

1013

924

De la chambre issent [coi et] mu ef taisant

1014

925

De la chambre issent [sont fine lor] consire

1015

926

Par le paleis sasenblent tout a tire

1016

927

[Li] roi Marsire lor commence a dire

1017

928

Dist as mesages franc cheualier nobire

1018

929

(-1) 1019

930

[De sa rJequeste ne uuel pas escondire

1020

931

[Se il flet cau que uous morrez ia dire

1021220932

Que toute France si quele dure a tire

10220933

Ert du douaire sanz nes[.... contre]dire

1023

934

Et en apres dEspaine tout lempire

1024

935

[Molt est] uaillant Anseis uos sire 18s

427 129 130 131

Kensi (Ensi B) iert (soit C) fait ke chi (com il BC) vont deuisant ABC, Que il tendront ce quil uont demandant D; 127.1 Respont Marsiles ie lotroi et creant D i. mu et co. et t. B, i. tuit mu et t. C, i. maint et communalment D

i. si laissent lo. (le D) c. AD, i. si fine lo. c. C Por (large laisse initial here instead of at 130) C; sarengent to. a ti. ABD; a tere C

132 comencha AB; c. a mes a d. D 133 E d. as m. C; lackingD 134 ua. rois A. AC; ua. rois A. lo (crossed through and expuncted) uo. s. B, ua. A. uostre s. D; 134.1 Qui de par uos a mandee ma fille D 135 De lar. ne uos u. e. D; nel u. BC; 135.1 Ancois laura sanz rencon et sanz ire

D

136 157 138 189

Sil f. tot c. D; Sel f. tant con u. Q. to. Espaigne ABC; tant com E. en d. a Gaudisse ma fille D; a. de France AB; a. Françe cum

moi oires d. C; q. ia mo. descrireA elle longhe etire C, si com el uait a ti. D s. point de c. AB; lacking C lempire C

The Sées Fragments

140 Apres Carlon qui molt ma fet defrire

229

1025

936

Quant moi remembre de douleros marrtire

1027

937

De Ranseuaut la ou ie fis osire

1028

938

L[es douze] pers onques ni ourent [mire]

1029

939

1031

941

1032

942

1033

943

150 Ce uos rois fet ceu que dit ci mauez

1034

944

Et tant ouec que ia dire morrez

1035

945

Ce de ma fille est enfes marlez nez

1036

946

144 S[

.

:

]

v°b Et laugalie qui de lui nert pas pire

Mi oncle furent au cuer [en ai] grant ire Et de ma gent tant quen [...]a dire Fors que ma gent dont ma force est mesprese

E dist Marsile baron or entendez

140

q. mo. me fait d. A, q. tuit me fait desfire C, q. si ma f. destruire D; 140.1 De maltalent et tout le cors afrire A, A grant dolor a mort ceus de mempire D

141

Q. me souuient B; Q. men r. de dolor men aire D; del do. ABC

142 DeR. ouie li f. o. D 143 p. ainc ni ou. remire B, p. qui on. non ou. m. C, p. a duel et a martirre D 144 La fu ocis rois Baligans de Sire (mes sire CD) ABCD 145 Et lamalie q. iosticoit Montire D; q. de cuer B, q. del cors C; 145.1 Et moi mesme de mes mans desassie C 146 Mes oucles iert sen ai pesance et i. D; f. sen ai auc. (cors C) g. i. AC, f. sen ai dolor et i. B 147-48 lacking ABCD 149 Ced. B; seignor or mentendez ABC, messagier en. D 150 Ce Anseis f. ce. q. dire morrez (+1) D; ce. q. ci (uos C) deuises ABC 151 Ett. apres ABC; Ma fille aurez ia desdit nen serez D; q. chi d. mo. A, con moi oires C 152

Que se de li D; f. en. estoit mais n. C

228

Alexander Kerr

Que pour garder ert sa outre aportez

1037

947

Se de tout ceu ai bonnez seurtez

1038

948

1039

949

Ensi ferai toutez uos uolentez

1040

950

Par Mahommet a qui sui auouez

1041

951

Ia autrement ma fille nen menrez

1042

952

Ysore lot si est auant passez

1043

953

160 Sire dist 1l si uous plaist escutez

1044

954

Quant li mesage me fu dit et contez

1045

955

Ne me fu pas en tel forme donez

1046

956

Sifaitement comme uous deuisez

1047

957

Mes si uous plest .i. respit me donez

1048

958

165 Tant que ie soie en mon pais ralez

1049

959

Nos roi dirai seu que uous deuisez

1050

960

155 Li mariage sera ia creantez

153

Q. a g. ABC; Q. deca mer me sera a. D; 153.1—.2

Sel norrirai tot a mes

uolentez Tant quil sera cheualier adoubez D 154 155 156 152 158

Et de tot e tot aie b. s. C, Se vos de ce me fetez feeutez D

159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166

Y. loi a. estoit p. C; ales B; 159.1 Et a parle com ia oir porrez D

s. acreantes À, s. tost acreentes C Et si f. AB; Se len menrez et uos et uo barnez D; t. ses u. B; lacking C

V par Mahon a q. ie s. voues (donnes B) AB; lacking CD Et a. ma f. non aueres C, Ou a. sachiez de ueritez D; 158.1—.2 menrez se nen ai seurtez Car durement me dot de fausetez D

Ne len

Marsiles sir. or oiez mon pensez D; fait il AB; sil u. p. ABC Q. lambasee C; nous fu d.A

Ne nous (me BCD) fu mie a dire commandes ABCD com vous nous (me B) d. AB, con uos ditto aues C, com ci le d. D sil u. p. ABCD; r. nous d. A en no p. AB; alles C A n. 1. a dire quant q. u. de. C, Aur. d. se. q. u. commandez D; 166.1 Se il lotroie aparmain me raurez D

The Sées Fragments

[Et] uous compains Raimon demourerez

1051

961

Lors respondi si com uous commandez

1052

962

Et dist Marsile de reperier [pensez]

1053

963

1054

964

Mes sil uous plest la dame me moustrez

1055

965

Ie le uerroie uolentiers et de grez

1056

966

Et dit Marsile aparmain le uerrez

1057

967

Or tost baron dist il si lammenez

1058

968

1059

969

Et Aquilant qui fu deseritez

1060

970

Ala ouec quar molt fu ces priuez

1061

971

En la chambre entre ou molt out de biautez

1062

972

Gaudisse treuuent de la fine [....]ez

1063

973

170 Dist Ysorez molt tost me rauerez

175 Rois Sinagon i est tantost alez

167 168 169 170 171 173

229

Et u. R. c. chi demorres AB, Et mes c. qui tant est alosez D, Et u. R. c. enci remares C Et il (cil B) respont AB, Et dist Remon C; Remaindra ci se u. le comm. D M. di. AC; Respont M. or donc si uos hastez D; del r. p. ABC D. Y. (Y. d. B) tempre AB; Et d. Y. t. parman me veres C; ainz .i. mois me raurezD Mes la puciele sil u. p. me mo. ACD; la bele B; 171.1 Por coi nos sommes ca outre passez (-1) D M. dist a. A, Respont M. a. B, Et dist M. ça parman C; Respont li rois bien estes emparlez D; 173.1—.3 Par Mahommet maintenant la uerrez Il en apele o

soi .ii. amirez Qui molt estoient ses druz et ses priuez D 174 Ales b. ABC; Alez d. il franc cheualiers membrez D; dist il lacking C; si me la. C; 174.1-.2 En ce pales qui dor est painturez Ma bele fille maintenant mamenezD Bg A. o. qui m. fu À, A. o. m. estoit B; Par mi la sale sen courent lez a lez D; lacking C 178 Jusqua la c. ne se sont arestez D; entrent ou m. auoit (qui m. oit de C) clartes (b. B) ABC 179 G. uoient D; qui tant (molt BC) auoit biautes (bontes B) ABCD; 179.1-.2 Qui se seoit sor .ii. tapiz ouurez O .xx. puceles filles a amirez D

230

Alexander Kerr

180 Il la saluent com uous oir pourrez

1064

974

Sil Mahommet qui est sire clamez

1065

975

1066

976

[Et uous doinst ceu ]que uous plus desirez

1067

977

[C]ele respont molt estoit ensenez

1068

978

1069

979

Bele font il a uos per[e] uenez

1070

980

[Qui] uous atent en son pales listez

1071

981

Baron dist ele or tost si mi menez

1072

982a

Il uous gart bele a quant quen sus u[ ..

185 [Et] cil uous gart qui ramentut auez

[

Jentiers de grez

. |

982b

180 181 182

Si (Il BD) les. c. ia o. p. ABD; sic. o. p. C a qui sommes donnez D; 181.1 Et qui fet croistre les uingnes et les blez D Il (Ci CD) u. saut b. (saut sire (expuncted) b. B, saut C) ABCD; et doinst

183

Et il (si B) u. do. AB; E pois u. done belle quel q. u. demandes C; c. q. u. de: A; c. quip. de. B

184 185

Ele ACD; com emfes bien senes ABD, com polcelle e. C que r. a. BD, com enfes (both words crossed through) que dito a. C; r.

ioie et sante ABC, et uos croisse bontez D

186 187 188 189

maves A; 185.1—.2 Dont uenez uos dites que uos querrez Por quel besoing estes ceanz tornez D a uo. p. a parler ue. C, aparmain le saurez D; 186.1-.2 Li uostre peres Marsiles li membrez Mande par nos que uos a li uenez D Q. lassus (laiens B) est AB, Q. est lasus C; ens el p. 1. A; lacking D Seignor fait (d. BC) e. ABC; Cele respont si com uos commandez D; uolentiers et de gres B lacking ABCD (but see B 188); 189.1—.12 the other manuscripts include a number of lines lacking in the Sées fragment: De la cambre issent quant les voit (ist quant la voit B, ensi quant ella vit C) li barnes ABC, Lors la sesirent par an .ii. les costez D El pales uienent qui dor est painturez D

=)

La ou estoit Marsiles lamirez D Quant la choisirent li cheualier membrez D Ni a celui ne soit contre leues (encontre alez B, tantost leuez D) ABD, Ni oit nul qui ne soit encontre leues C Encontre lui sont maintenant alez D Et li pucele qui tant ot de biautez D Les a trestoz gentement saluez D

The Sées Fragments

190 [

|

ILzHeNEZ

[

[

:

:

.

Ja la bele a cors molez

251

1080?

990?

1078?

988?

| par mi [...] grant amissez

De sa fachon vn poi (par tans B) oir porres AB, De sa beltes ça oir pores C, De sa facon uos dirai ueritez D .10 Comfaitement ses cors fu figures AB, Comment ses cors fu fez et figurez D Et com nature mist e li grant biautez D Gent ot le cors (Gros oit le coil C) et grailles les costes ABCD 190 Menton bien fait si ot traitis le n. (si ot trait le n. C) ABC (after 191.1); lackingD 191 Les hances basses (hautes D) et les bras bien m. (et li c. bien formes C) ABCD; 191.1 Le col (Menton D) plus blanc que uoires replanes (que yuoires planes BD) ABD, La gole plus blanc qui nef sorgeles C 192 lacking ABCD(?)

232

Alexander Kerr

Notes on the Anseis de Cartage

fragment

2 Only the uppermost stroke of the a in andui is visible. — 3 The scribe has probably omitted par before Mohammet. — 4 Unless the

e of que is taken to be elided before the initial vowel of ont this line is hypermetric. 6-7 The ends of blue flourishes belonging to a laisse initial (no doubt red), which has been cut away, appear above |. 6 and below 1. 7. — 11 If the e which is lacking in Trois is restored, this line is dodecasyllabic. — 20, 21 and 25 In addition to text lost by trimming, letters have been obliterated by abrasion from the rivets at the top of the catch plate of the clasp. — 31 Only the bow of p in plus is visible. — 38-41 A patch has been rubbed smooth by the bottom of the catch plate protruding through the board, obliterating text at the beginning of each of these lines. — 50 Perhaps the scribe misread canquonques as canquel. 94 A small portion of the line, following Que, has been lost where the parchment has rubbed against a crease in the leather turnin of the binding. 108-10 and 112-14 The first few letters at the beginning of each line are rubbed away. — 112 By writing ses hommes for si homme the scribe has rendered the line hypermetric. — 120 uw in auant is lost in a wormhole. 162 en tel forme: the letters t and / are not very clearly formed. — 184 The letters oit en are not very clear. — 189-92 The first

part of each line has been obliterated where the parchment rubbed against the edge of the leather of the binding.

has

BEROUL’S TRISTRAN: THE DISCOVERY OF THE LOVERS IN THE FOREST" Tony Hunt Beroul’s narrator is often characterized as spontaneous, passionate, and subjective, employing a rhetoric which is essentially emotive and partial. Above all he is characterized as ‘non-analytical’. Varvaro, in the first full-scale study of the Tristran, comments on the author: La sua psicologia tutta esteriorizzata, figurativa, non corrisponde certo ad un programma di osservazione analitica della realta e di ‘non intervento’ del narratore.

Similarly, Noble describes Beroul’s treatment of the love theme thus: He does not seek to analyse or to question it, for he is above all a poet of action, and analysis or introspection would slow down his narrative.

There is still a tendency to see Beroul as little more than a storyteller and to resist suggestions of moral complexity or intellectual debate in his work. B.N. Sargent-Baur, in an article ‘All quotations are taken from The Romance of Tristran by Beroul, edited by A. Ewert (Oxford: Blackwell, 1939). The reason for my choice of subject is Wolfgang van Emden’s textual examination of Beroul in ‘Encore une fois le vers 2814 du Tristran de Béroul: le sens de lois’, Romania, CX (1989), 247-52. 2 Alberto Varvaro, 1/ ‘Roman de Tristran’ di Beroul (Torino: Bottega d’Erasmo,

1963), p. 213. See also Beroul’s ‘Romance of Tristran’, translated by John C. Barnes (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1972). > Peter S. Noble, Beroul’s ‘Tristan’ and the ‘Folie de Berne’ (London: Grant & Cutler, 1982), p. 14.

234

Tony Hunt

which seems to oversimplify all the issues and prefers categorisation to textual evidence, rejects any idea of ‘une dimension morale consciemment voulue’ and describes the lovers as ‘un couple a qui manque tout sens moral’.* Other recent commentators have amply revealed the moral complexities of Beroul’s narrative.” Whatever may now be felt about the relevance of Abelardian ethics, certain problematical aspects of Beroul’s text seem to me to be beyond dispute.° The whole work, for example, is structured according to a moral paradox: those who appear to be loyal to Mark and his interests,

namely the barons,

are,

at a deeper

level, consistently

indifferent to his welfare and anxiously concerned with their own agenda, which is to get rid of Tristran—hence they reject Mark’s reconciliation with his nephew; conversely, those who seem so obviously disloyal to Mark, the lovers, at no point express the slightest criticism of, or opposition to, him. In respect of Mark the lovers are entirely exempt from malice, the barons wholly infected by it.’ This contrast between an apparent reality and a deeper, moral reality is associated with another problematic feature which is there for all to see: the unreliability of signs.* Whilst the apparent truth about the lovers is retailed to Mark through anecdote, that is hearsay evidence which would scarcely be legally admissible, he himself sets *

B.N.

Sargent-Baur,

‘La Dimension morale dans le Roman

de Tristran de

Béroul’, Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, XXXI (1988), 49-56, at pp. 49 & 54.

° W. Hülk, ‘Bel mentir und tute la verur. Sprachsubversion und Sprachreflexion im Tristan des Béroul’, Romanistische Zeitschrift fiir Literaturgeschichte, XVIII (1994), 25-36; E. Dussol, ‘A propos du Tristan de Béroul: du mensonge des hommes au silence de Dieu’, Et c’est la fin pour quoy sommes ensemble: hommage à Jean Dufournet, 5 vols (Paris: Champion, 1993), II, 525-33. °

See T. Hunt, ‘Beroul’s Tristran and Abelardian Ethics’, Romania,

XCVIII

8

On the nominalism - realism debate, see Hülk, ‘Bel mentir’, p. 35: ‘Es scheint

(1977), 501-40. Tristran permits himself two remonstrations. In the letter to Mark sent by Ogrin Tristran, chafing under the burden of being denied an escondit, informs his monarch that he must have reconciliation or else he will return Yseut to Ireland (the spectre of revival of the Irish war is too close for comfort), see ll. 2613-18 and 2621-27. The second case is when Tristran jokes at the king’s expense at the Malpas, calling Iseut’s lord a leper (1. 3771). The disproportion between Mark’s morally repellent action in handing his wife over to the leader of the lepers, Ivain, and Tristran’s tolerant wit is obvious and to the disadvantage of the king. so, als habe Beroul indem er die Visualisierung der Wahrheit ad absurdum fiihrt, den Blick des Thomas nach innen gelenkt — und das, obgleich wohl der eine vom anderen nichts wusste’.

Beroul’s Tristran

235

great store by visual evidence, which would stand up in court, the evidence, that is, of his own eyes: “Las !’, fait li rois, ‘or ai veü

Que li nains m’a trop deceü”

(265-66)

‘Ge l’en crui et si fis que fous’

This is in ironic contrast concession to the barons:

(273; cf. 4172-3)

to Tristran’s

‘Deceü l’ont, gote ne voit?

claim concerning

Mark’s

(134)

Iseut understands perfectly her husband’s reliance on visual signs: ‘Se il m’amast de fole amor,

Asez en veisiez senblant. Ainz, par ma foi, ne tant ne quant Ne veistes qu’il m’aprismast Ne mespreist ne me baisast. Bien semble ce chose certaine,

Ne m’amot pas d’amor vilaine. Sire, s’or ne nos veisiez, Certes ne nos en creissiez’ (496-504)

Not unnaturally, the barons too are influenced by what they see: Qar, en un gardin, soz une ente,

Virent l’autrier Yseut la gente Ovoc Tristran en tel endroit Que nus hon consentir ne doit;

Et plusors foiz les ont veüz El lit roi Marc gesir toz nus

(590-93)

The dwarf assures Mark that if he agrees to the entrapment scheme he will see Tristran with his own eyes entering the royal bedchamber:

236

Tony Hunt ‘Et s’il i vient, et ge nul sai,

Se tu nu voiz, si me desfai [...] Prové seront sanz soirement’ (663-66)

In due course ‘Tristran vit le nain besuchier’ (707) and quickly realises the purpose of his activity, ‘Espandroit flor por nostre trace /veer’ (712-13), ‘Bien verra mais se or i vois’ (715). And so indeed it happens, for the dwarf ‘Bien vit josté erent ensemble’ (737). However Tristran feigns the appearance (senblant) of innocence, ‘Li rois choisi el lit le sanc’ (767). Contrived appearances in the human sphere (Tristran sleeping) give way before appearances in the

material sphere (bloodstains on the sheets): ‘Trop par a ci veraie enseigne; Provez estes” (778-79)

The appearances of objects, on the one hand, and of human postures on the other, will again be important in the forest when Mark visits the lovers. The narrator twice draws attention to the arbitrary role of appearances: Ha! Dex, qel duel que la roïne N’avot les dras du lit ostez! Ne fust la nuit nus d’eus provez!

(750-52)

Se ele [sc. Iseut] fust icel jor nue, Mervelles lor fust meschoiet (1808-09)

The adage ‘seeing is believing’ has an ironic value. For the barons it constitutes obvious proof, for Mark seeing is the way in which he deludes himself into believing what he wants to believe. Not a little of Beroul’s text is taken up by what we might term the semiotics of authenticity — the signals by which people seek to inspire confidence and credibility. By the end of the romance, in the scene of Iseut’s oath-taking, appearances no longer seem to have the same importance and the verb oir (ll. 4217, 4224) takes precedence, though Arthur himself declares,

Beroul’s Tristran

237

“Rois, la deraisne avon veiie

Et bien oie et entendue’

(4234-35)

Nothing, though, is what it seems, everything has to be interpreted. The theme of reality and illusion culminates in the scene of Mark’s discovery of the lovers in the forest, potentially the most dramatic and emotional moment in the entire story. I believe it is instructive to examine Beroul’s treatment of this scene and that an analysis of lines 1995-2026 leads to unexpected conclusions and

points to underappreciated aspects of Beroul’s interests and artistry as they are reflected in the Tristran. On hearing from the forester, whose motive is greed (11. 1859 ff, 1912 ff, 1970 ff), that the lovers have been located in the forest,

Mark is beside himself with wrath: Molt est li rois acoragiez De destruire; c’es[t] granz pechiez

(1951-52)

Iriez s’en torne, sovent dit

Q’or veut morir s’il nes ocit

(1985-86)

Already, ironic use is made of the motif of the sword: Devant le roi se met l’espie; Li rois le sieut, qui bien s’i fie En l’espee que il a çainte Dont a doné colee mainte (1961-64)

And the ambiguity of appearances is underscored by a detail which recalls the description of Ganelon on hearing himself nominated to

the embassy:” Li rois deslace son mantel, Dont a fin or sont li tasel;

°

La Chanson de Roland, edited and translated by Ian Short, Lettres Gothiques

(Paris: Livre de Poche, 1990; 2nd edition 1994), 11. 280-85: ‘E li quens Guenes en

fut mult anguisables: / De sun col getet ses grandes pels de martre / E est remés en sun blialt de palie. / Vairs out les oilz e mult fier lu visage, / Gent out le cors e les costez out larges; / Tant par fu bels, tuit si per l’en esguardent’.

238

Tony Hunt Desfublez fu, molt out gent cors. Du fuerre trait l’espee fors

(1981-84)

The king cuts a handsome figure, but he is intent on murder. What stops him? 1995

Qant vit qu’ele avoit sa chemise Et q’entre eus deus avoit devise, La bouche o l’autre n’ert jostee, Et gant il vit la nue espee

litotes

Qui entre eus deus les degevrot,

2000

Vit les braies que Tristran out: ‘Dex !” dist li rois, ‘ce que puet estre? Or ai veii tant de lor estre,

Dex! je ne sai que doie faire, Ou de l’ocire ou du retraire. 2005

antithesis

Ci so[n]t el bois, bien a lonc tens;

Bien puis croire, se je ai sens,

irony

Se il s’ amasent folement, Ja n’i eüsent vestement,

2010

Entre eus deus n’eüst espee, Autrement fust cest’ asenblee. Corage avoie d’eus ocire; Nes tocherai, retrairai m’ire,

De fole amor corage n’ont. 2014

2019

2026

cf. 2037, 2049 CHHOSSETE chiasmus parataxis

N’en ferrai nul; endormi sont:

Se par moi eirent atouchié, Trop par feroie grant pechié; Et se g’esvel cest endormi Et il m’ocit ou j’oci lui, Ce sera laide reparlance. Je lor ferai tel demostrance Ançois que il s’esvelleront, Certainement savoir porront Qu’il furent endormi trové Et q’en a eii d’eus pité, Que je nes vuel noient ocire, Ne moine gent de mon enpire

cf. 1994

chiasmus

irony cf. 2087 ff.

(1995-2026)

The passage begins with six lines of narrative in which a series of repetitions foregrounds three crucial elements:

1. The importance of visible signs/eye-witness evidence (as opposed

Beroul’s Tristran

239

to the hearsay evidence provided by the barons). This point is made by the threefold repetition (Il. 1995, 1998, 2000) of the verb vit in principal clauses (twice quant (il) vit). 2. The psychologically crucial element of separation. This is achieved in two ways: the symmetrical distribution of the locative phrase entre eus deus (two lines from the beginning of this passage of narration and two lines from the end, Il. 1996, 1999 —

see also

ll. 2037, 2049); and then two words at the rhyme signifying division: devise (< divisum) and desevrot (< disseparavit). To these

we might add the litotes n’ert jostee (1. 1997), and of course the sword, to which we shall return. The appropriateness of litotes resides in the fact that as a rhetorical figure it incorporates the notion of separation through its use of the negative particle. The ambiguity of appearances and the motif of separation have already been exploited in the account of the forester’s discovery of the lovers. They are embracing and the narrator assures us “Lor amistié ne fu pas fainte’ (1. 1822), yet although their mouths ‘furent pres asises’ (1. 1823) ‘neporquant si ot devises’ (1. 1824). 3. The encouraging fact that the lovers are clothed. Yseut is wearing her chemise and Tristran his braies. In fact these two references to clothing frame the passage, Yseut naturally being mentioned first as closest to Mark.

There

is, of course,

a striking

irony in that the word ‘naked’, which is associated in our expectations with the lovers (i.e. we half expect them to be naked), is transferred to the sword, which is unsheathed. Ironically, too, the

real significance of the ‘nakedness’ of the sword eludes Mark, despite the fact that in his initial conviction that the lovers are guilty he ‘du fuerre trait l’espee fors’ (1. 1984) and enters the lodge ‘l’espee nue’ (1. 1987). Nevertheless, however surprisingly, the sight of Tristan’s unsheathed sword is enough to neutralise his own upheld sword (1. 1991). We, on the other hand, might legitimately infer from the evidence that if the sword is unsheathed, it is meant to be

ready for instant action, and this in turn might suggest that the lovers are guilty: Tristran, du cri qu’il ot, s’esvelle, Tote la face avoit vermelle;

240

Tony Hunt Esfreez s’est, saut sus ses piez, L’espee prent com home iriez

Three

significant

elements,

then,

(2077-80)

are

foregrounded

with

the

utmost economy. They have all been mentioned in the narrator’s earlier description of the lovers in the forest: Tristran se couche et trait s’espee, Entre les deus chars l’a posee. Sa chemise out [Yseut] vestue — Se ele fust icel jor nue, Mervelles lor fust meschoiet — Et Tristran ses braies ravoit (1805-10)

Totally absent from the scene of Mark’s discovery of the lovers is any sort of pictorial description (including the posture of the lovers) or notation of emotion; adjectives are almost entirely absent. The passage textualises Mark’s eye movements: first to Yseut, then to the space next to her where the sword is placed, then to Tristran. The writing is logical and analytical, representing purely cognitive processes, neglectful of colour, intensity or emotion. A new section is clearly marked by Mark’s exclamation, intended for adoption by the audience: ‘What’s all this about?’, “What’s the meaning of this ?’? The answer is provided though the progression of

three verbs: veoir, faire and croire. ‘I’ve seen their situation’ (1. 2002) neatly recapitulates the opening narrative section. But observation must lead to action (faire). Continuing the analytical style, Mark specifies the choice of action in a clear antithesis comprising two substantivized infinitives—‘ou de l’ocire ou du retraire’ (1. 2004). The symmetry is typical of the passage and its remarkable clarity. Not quite so clear, perhaps, is the significance of the seemingly floating line (1. 2005) ‘Ci sont el bois, bien a lonc tens’. The punctuation requires attention, some editors employing the semicolon, others a full stop, at the end. The anaphoric repetition (‘bien ... bien ...’) perhaps provides a clue: ‘They have been a long time in the forest, therefore I have every reason to believe. . ”. The word croire marks the third stage in the stated progression to see, to act, to interpret (Il. 2002, 2003, 2006). Logically, of course, it is the

Beroul’s Tristran

241

second stage: only after what has been seen has been interpreted can action take place (Mark has said, after all, ‘je ne sai que doie faire’).

Beroul’s text is rooted in semiological problems, concerning not the observation of signs but the interpretation of them. It is therefore significant that Mark draws attention to the necessity for interpretation by qualifying his remarks with ‘se je ai sens’ (1. 2006: ‘if I use my head’, ‘if I reason correctly’), which leads to a signal irony as we shall see shortly. The lines that follow are a strikingly accurate, and formally accurate, recapitulation of the opening narrative lines, so much so that there seems to be a real complicity between narrator and character: if the lovers really loved illicitly (folement), then, concludes Mark,

‘Ja n’i eüsent vestement, | entré eus deus n’eüst

espee, / Autrement fust cest” asenblee’ (11. 2008-10).

Each of these

points has its clear correspondent in the opening section — we can even compare asenblee with jostee, and autrement with n'’ert. However, there is one significant omission: the sword

is there, but

there is no reference to its ‘nakedness’— precisely because the significance of this has escaped Mark. The omission is particularly ironic when juxtaposed to his careful qualification ‘se je ai sens’. Mark’s conclusion, therefore, is seen to be faulty. He has effectively ‘disarmed’ the lovers, confident not in the military power of the sword (cf. ll. 1962-63 ‘bien s’i fie / en l’espee que il a gainte’) but in its symbolic power as a sign of innocence.” His reflections ironically echo his earlier reasoning in the orchard, where he was no less mistaken: ‘Or puis je bien enfin savoir; Se feiist voir, ceste asenblee

Ne feiist pas issi finee; S’il s’amasent de fol’ amor, Ci avoient asez leisor, Bien les veise entrebaisier.

10 For references to recent work and the alleged Celtic ancestry of the motif of the sword of chastity, see M. Brockington, “The Separating Sword in the Tristran Romances: possible Celtic analogues reexamined’, Modern Language Review, XCI (1996), 281-300.

242

Tony Hunt Ges ai oï si gramoier, Or sai je bien n’en ont corage’ (298-305)

After the process of seeing (veoir), we have had that of interpreting (croire), and now we come to action (faire). The decision-making process is logical and analytical. The disposition of corage in the next three lines and the contrast involved establish a

sense of guilt which impels Mark towards a decision.” He reflects ‘a moment ago I was bent on killing them’ (an option marked

in |.

2004, and already indicated at 1. 1986), but they, for their part, are

not bent on illicit love. The conclusion is conducted paratactically: ‘[But] I shall not assault them, [rather] I shall withdraw my anger, [for] they are not intent on illicit love; [therefore] I shall not lay a finger on either of them, [for] they are asleep’. This mistaken recognition of the lovers’ innocence is summarised in the conclusion ‘Se par moi eirent atouchié, / Trop par feroie grant pechié’ (Il. 2015-16). Pechié is a notoriously slippery word, not least in Beroul where it occurs fifteen times.” Its customary meanings are sin, error, and misfortune. In the immediate context we have already had ‘Molt est li rois acoragiez / De destruire; c’est granz pechiez’ (Il. 1951-52, cf. 1. 1994 ‘Ses oceist, ce fust grant deus’).'* Circumstantial evidence will usually permit some degree of precision. Is Mark, then, here responding to conscience and consciousness of sin? The appearance of the expression laide reparlance (‘ugly talk, rumour’) in 1. 2019 suggests that Mark recoils from the political danger of rumour-mongering which would be the inevitable result of any À11

I have altered Ewert’s punctuation of lines 303 and 304. Cf. his reaction in the orchard scene: ‘Or sai je bien n’en ont corage. / Porqoi cro je si fort outrage? / Ce poise moi, si m’en repent’ (Il. 305-07). 13

See M.-L. Ollier, ‘Le Péché selon Yseut dansle Tristan de Béroul’, Courtly

Literature: culture and context. Selected papers from the 5th Triennial Congress of the International Courtly Literature Society (Dalfsen, The Netherlands 9-16 August, 1986), edited by K. Busby & E. Kooper (Amsterdam: J. Benjamins,

1990), pp. 465-82.

‘* Unhappy with the unfavourable comment by the narrator, Batany proposes to read, with the manuscript, ‘de destruire ces granz pechiez’. It should be noted, however, that line 1965 is also an unfavourable comment by the narrator. See J. Batany, “Le Manuscrit de Beroul: un texte difficile et un univers mental qui nous dérange”, in La Légende de Tristan au moyen âge: actes du colloque des 16-17 janvier 1982, edited by Danielle Buschinger, Gôppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik, 355 (Güppingen: Kiimmerle, 1982), pp. 35-48, at p. 47.

Beroul’s Tristran

243

violent confrontation between him and his nephew, and ‘local hero’, Tristran. Line 2016 might best be rendered ‘I would be making a great mistake’. The recognition of the lovers’ innocence is reinforced by political expedience, or perhaps we might say that we are here closer to the workings of a shame culture than of a guilt culture. Again there is a high degree of complicity between narrator and character, for the former has anticipated the danger now recognized by Mark and has criticized his reliance on his sword: Si fait il trop que sorquidez, Quar, se Tristran fust esvelliez, Li niés o l’oncle se meslast,

Li uns morust, ainz ne finast

(1965-68)

Now follows the greatest irony of all. In reciprocating the corage of the lovers, which is innocent and free of all blame, Mark decides to afford them, in turn, a visible sign of his sympathy—a demostrance (1. 2020) which will be unequivocal (‘certainement savoir porront’). Of course, Beroul’s poem argues that there are no such things as unequivocal signs, however much visible signs may be regarded as more revealing than anecdotal, hearsay evidence. The lovers thus read Mark’s demostrance quite differently from the manner intended: ‘Bele, or n’i a fors du fuir.

Il nos laissa por nos trair; Seus ert, si est alé por gent,

Prendre nos quide, voirement’

(2095-98)

Just as Mark misunderstands the lovers’ estre and the significance of the espee nue, so they misinterpret his demostrance, with a

similar logical flaw concerning the sword: ‘M’espee a, la soue me lait;

Bien nos peiist avoir ocis’

(2092-93)

What, then, does examination of the discovery of the lovers by Mark tell us about the nature of Beroul’s interests in the Tristran?

244

Tony Hunt

The passage we have analyzed covers what is potentially the most emotive, climactic moment in the whole poem (Mark weeping for his wife, blaming himself, etc), yet Mark’s conduct is presented in an entirely dispassionate, logical, analytical manner. Indeed, so completely evacuated is emotion that we have to be told what Mark feels — we are not shown —, and told, moreover,

in an impersonal

way: the lovers, reflects Mark, will recognize ‘qu’en a eii d’eus pité’ (1. 2024). There is certainly in this passage no expression of pity. It ends with Mark characteristically overpitching his promises, offering

more

than he can

deliver;

the lovers,

he believes,

will

recognize ‘que je nes vuel noient ocire’ and further ‘ne moi ne gent de mon empire’. This shows a pretty short memory regarding the

barons.

They

have

reconciliation between

not Mark

the

slightest

intention

and the lovers,

of

accepting

since their exclusive

concern is to drive Tristran into exile. Thematically the passage we have examined demonstrates Beroul’s central interest in the problem of appearances and reality mediated through visible signs which, lacking univocity, can release their meaning only through an act of interpretation. In that act neither logical nor intuitive processes can guarantee revelation of the truth. Both Mark and the lovers commit logical errors in judging the significance of the sword, but it is likely that these errors arise from intuitive positions which are also mistaken. The lovers are not innocent in the way that Mark hopes they are and he is not the oppressor the lovers fear him to be. The whole of the Tristran raises and investigates the question of how we gain access to moral truth. No less remarkable, however, are the economy and precision displayed in the verbal composition of the passage with its careful semantic patterns of seeing, interpreting, and acting, each with its own structure of verbal repetition (vit, entre retraire, corage, amer folement/fole amor,

eus deus, ocire, tocher/atouchier,

endormi) and arrangement: litotes (1. 1997), contentio or antithesis (1. 2004), chiasmus (ll. 2012, 2018), parataxis (Il. 2011-12). Whilst Beroul can make highly effective use of enjambement and breaking of the couplet (see 11. 2020-21), he here adopts a strictly formal, balanced style as a vehicle of argument rather than emotion in what is a passage of almost forensic reasoning. When Mark reflects ‘Bien

Beroul’s Tristran

245

puis croire, se je ai sens’ (1. 2006) he seems consciously to be resisting the temptation to react emotionally, as the audience would expect him to. Mark gets through the traumatic experience by purely cerebral means. Would he have done better to trust his emotions? At any rate, Beroul’s narrator echoes the king’s procedure and seems at this point a far cry from the dramatizing, exclamatory figure we so often think of, who is associated with oral techniques of story-telling rather than the analytical tendencies of the moraliste. In conclusion, in order to bring out the individuality of Beroul’s treatment of the scene of the discovery of the lovers in the forest, it is perhaps worth summarising the salient differences between his handling of the episode and those of Brother Robert and Gottfried von StraBburg.” The principal factors at work are emotional and aesthetic. In the heavily abbreviating Tristrams saga ok isondar the significance of the sword between the lovers is uncertain. It undoubtedly alarms the forester: ‘When he saw them, Kanuest was so frightened that he trembled all over — for there was a large sword lying between them — and he fled to the king’ (ch. 65). But when Markis arrives, he draws no explicit conclusion from the presence of the sword: ‘Now the king went there and he saw Tristram and recognized Isünd and the sword that he himself had once owned. No sword in the world had a sharper edge than the one which lay between the two lovers’ (ch. 66). It is the distance between the lovers which alone allays the king’s fears: “Seeing that the two were lying far apart, he reflected that, if there were any sinful love between them, they would certainly not have lain down so far from each other, but would be sharing one bed’ (ch. 66). The king is moved by Is6nd’s beauty, lays one of his gloves on her cheek and sadly departs, a solitary figure ‘grieved and concerned’. When the lovers awake and find the glove they formulate no ideas as to how it

got there, exhibit no panic, since ‘for both of them it was a great comfort and joy that he [sc. Markis] had found them in such a 15° I refer to the following English translations: The Saga of Tristram and Isünd, translated by Paul Schach (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1973); Gottfried von Strassburg, ‘Tristan’ with the ‘Tristran’ of Thomas, translated by A.T. Hatto (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1960).

246

Tony Hunt

manner that he saw them do nothing for which he could reproach them’ (ch. 66). There is none of Beroul’s irony. We are not confronted with a king, who distrusting his emotions, proceeds by logical deduction to a complete misinterpretation of events and whose principal gesture (‘demostrance’) is in turn completely misinterpreted by the lovers. Gottfried von StraBburg’s treatment is much more extended and plays heavily on the emotions. The scene of the discovery is introduced by emphasis of the King’s ‘low’ state: Meanwhile, sorrowful King Mark had endured much grief as he mourned for his wife and his honour. With each succeeding day he became more of a burden to himself in body and in soul, and grew indifferent to eminence and wealth. It happened at this same time that he rode out hunting into this very forest, more because of his melancholy than in hopes of anything unusual (p. 269)

His ill humour is then compounded by lack of success in the hunt. The lovers, too, are alarmed and fearful on hearing the sound of the

hunt. They escape briefly to a locus amoenus, and then return to the cave where they have been residing and adopt a protective plan: They returned to their couch and lay down again a good way apart from each other, just as two men might lie, not like a man and woman. Body lay beside body in great estrangement. Moreover, Tristan had placed his naked sword between them: he lay on one side, she on the other. They lay apart, one and one: and thus they fell asleep (p. 270)

Already with the arrival of the huntsman there is a clear emphasis on the dual emotions of fear (at the sword) and sympathy (for the beautiful Isolde): He wondered greatly to see them, for as to the woman he thought no creature So exquisite in all the world had ever been born of a mother. But he did not gaze for long; for, catching sight of the sword lying there so naked, he started back and leapt aside. It impressed him as very sinister — he thought it some strange enchantment — and it made him feel afraid (p. AB)

In reporting the incident to the king, the huntsman describes both

Beroul’s Tristran

the beauty of the queen essentially a mystery:

and the strangeness

247

of the sword

as

She is lovelier than a fairy! It is not possible that anything more beautiful of flesh and blood should come to be on earth! And — I cannot guess for what reason — lying between them there is a fine, bright, naked sword! (p. 271)

The reaction of the king when he observes the lovers is made the subject of a characteristic Gottfriedian dialectic according to which he experiences both joy and sorrow: As Mark recognized his wife and nephew, a cold shudder ran through his heart and all over his body at the pain of it, and yet for joy as well. Their lying so apart both pleased and pained him. Pleased him, I mean, because of the fond idea that they were innocent: pained him, I mean, because he

harboured suspicion (p. 272)

Mark’s diagnosis is equally marked by dialectic: ‘Why do these lovers lie thus?’ And then he went on to himself: ‘What is behind it all? Is it guilt, or is it not?’ But with this Doubt was with him again. ‘Guilt?’ he asked. ‘Most certainly, yes!’ ‘Guilt?’ he asked, ‘Most certainly, no!’ (p. 272)

The resolution for this ‘pathless man’ who was ‘in two minds about their passion’ (p. 272) is effected by Love working through the power of aesthetic beauty. In a rhetorically embellished passage Gottfried confronts us with the picture of Mark enchanted by his wife’s beauty as never before: Mark was captivated and filled with the desire to kiss her. Love threw on her flames, she set the man on fire with the charm of the woman’s

form.

Her beauty lured his senses to her body, and to the passion she excited (p. 273)

Mark withdraws ‘in tears [...] a very sad man at heart’. The lovers awake and observe the footprints of a man and are afraid:

248

Tony Hunt They thought that somehow Mark must have been there and observed them — such was the suspicion that presented itself; yet they had no proof that it was so. But their greatest trust and hope was that, whoever it was that had discovered them, he had found them lying as they were, so well apart from one another (p. 273)

These

excerpts

from

Brother

Robert

and

Gottfried

von

StraBburg, representing the Tristan tradition of Thomas,* suffice to show how uniquely Beroul concentrates on the intellectual irony of the episode. On the one occasion that Mark attempts to resist

emotion and use his head he gets it all wrong. This is a crucial ‘demonstration’ in Beroul’s fascinating inquest into the insoluble ambiguity of appearances and of visual signs.

St Peter’s College, Oxford

‘© The discovery of a new fragment of Thomas confirms how closely the Saga and Gottfried follow Thomas; see Michael Benskin, Tony Hunt and Ian Short, ‘Un

pes fragment du Tristan de Thomas’, Romania, CXIII (1992[1995]), 289-

PATTERNS OF NARRATIVE AND POETIC ORGANISATION IN THE KERNEL WILLIAM CYCLE Edward

A. Heinemann

The present paper stands in a direct line from a book and two articles: Jean Rychner’s insights into laisse and echo in his study, La Chanson de geste: essai sur l’art épique des jongleurs; his classification of grammatical types in ‘Observations sur la versification du Couronnement

de Louis’; and Paul Zumthor’s

‘Le

Vers comme unité d’expression’, in which the key to the aesthetic underlying that classification is expressed in a provocative sentence: ‘entre discours et rythme se produit un échange vital, engendrant une forme nouvelle, à la fois rythme et discours: le vers’ (p. 770).’ Meaning is rhythmic, and rhythm carries meaning in the chanson de geste. I believe I have elsewhere drawn out the aesthetic implications of these insights, and now detailed studies, applying the analysis to a range of chansons, seem in order.” To what extent does echo serve an aesthetic function in different chansons, what kinds of echo, and what relations does echo bear to the laisse? How do these '

Jean Rychner, La Chanson de geste: essai sur l’art épique des jongleurs,

Publications Romanes et Frangaises, 53 (Geneva: Droz, 1955); ‘Observations sur la versification du Couronnement de Louis’, in La Technique littéraire des chansons de geste, Bibliothéque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de

l’Université de Liège, 150 (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1959), pp. 161-82, at pp. 16870; Paul Zumthor, ‘Le Vers comme unité d’expression dans la poésie romane archaique’, in Actes du X° Congrés de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes (1962), 2 vols (Paris: Klincksieck, 1965), II, 763-74. 2 Edward Heinemann, L’Art métrique de la chanson de geste: essai sur la musicalité du récit, Publications Romanes et Françaises, 205 (Geneva: Droz, 1993). For a shorter view, see Edward Heinemann, ‘On the Metric Artistry of the Chanson de geste’, Olifant, XVI (1991), 5-59.

250

Edward A. Heinemann

poems use the laisse: as a simple narrative unit (whether it contains a single, short, clearly identifiable incident or brings together a long sequence of incidents to impose on them some kind of thematic unity), or as a component in an intricate weave? In a word, how do As a brief and laisse and echo carry the flow of the narrative? necessarily inadequate indication of the kind of revision I envisage, let me repeat an assertion which I believe Wolfgang van Emden will particularly appreciate:’ as far as technique of concerned, the Charroi de Nimes shows a dazzling comparison to which the sobriety of the Oxford austere indeed. The three poems constituting the kernel cycle Orange make remarkable and divergent uses of offered by epic versification.* A sample analysis is

composition is exuberance in Roland seems of William of the resources forthcoming in

> The tendency is to perceive an influence of romance on the epic leading from an ‘epic’ technique, characterized by repetitions and short, homogeneous, clearly marked laisses, toward a ‘romance’ one from which repetition tends to disappear and which uses longer and more linear narrative laisses. At the beginning of the century Mildred Pope drew an analogy between the English ballad and the lyrical nature of the laisse in the Oxford Roland, as opposed to the narrative laisse of the Lorrains: ‘Four Chansons de geste: a study in Old French epic versification’, Modern Language Review, VIII (1913), 352-67; IX (1914), 41-52; X (1915) 31019. We are still thinking in these overly simple terms; see Claude Lachet’s use of these two points of reference in La ‘Prise d'Orange’ ou la parodie courtoise d’une épopée, Nouvelle Bibliothéque du Moyen Age, 10 (Paris: Champion, 1986) or Dominique Boutet’s opposition between narrative and epic devices in Jehan de Lanson’: technique et esthétique de la chanson de geste au XIII‘ siècle (Paris: Presses de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure, 1988), passim (see, for example, pp. 2627, 63, and in the index, p. 267 s.v. ‘narratif’). * ~ It is pertinent to specify that the poems in question are the published texts, that is, the AB versions edited by Lepage, McMillan, and Régnier. Yvan G. Lepage, Les Rédactions en vers du ‘Couronnement de Louis’, Textes Littéraires Français, 261 (Geneva: Droz, 1978); Duncan McMillan,Le Charroi de Nimes,

Chanson de

geste du XII° siècle éditée d’après la rédaction AB avec Introduction, Notes et Glossaire, Bibliothèque Française et Romane, 12, 2nd edition (Paris: Klincksieck, 1978); Claude Régnier, Les Rédactions en vers de la ‘Prise d’Orange’ (Paris: Klincksieck, 1966). Each of the versions of the poems has its own characteristics, and a history of the genre cannot hope for accuracy if it does not take account of the divergences between versions of the poems. Although the printed texts diverge from the manuscripts on which they are based, they present the advantage of accessibility, and, further, they were established on principles largely independent of the aesthetic analysis undertaken here. That analysis, developed from study of the printed texts, must be carried back to the manuscript texts, but it seems reasonable to test it by applying it to accessible texts before using it to establish

Patterns of Narrative

Olifant

the present

piece constitutes

251

another

step toward

an

eventual comprehensive study of all three poems. We shall look at the degree of homogeneity in, and the length of, the laisse, the amplitude of Jaisse introductions, the structural and thematic use of

echo, and, bringing the pieces together, transitions. The Prise d’Orange is known to especially in comparison to the other each laisse relates a single incident, and

the composition of narrative use a homogeneous laisse, two poems.° By and large in consequence variations in

the length of the Jaisse diminish in impact. In contrast, in both the Couronnement de Louis and the Charroi de Nimes wide variation in the internal cohesion underscores dramatically varying lengths of the laisse.

The

six laisses

XV-XX

in the

Couronnement,

for

example, running from the point at which the pope asks William to defend Rome against the invaders to Corsolt’s arming, build a climax around two long and composite laisses in between shorter ones: XV XVI

OMR BSP A Eat

XVII XVIII XIX XX

117 120 DIO AT

RSS

Pre rer ee eS be

Ae

In XV, the pope interrupts William at his prayers, and the laisse ends on a strongly anticipatory note: ‘Li quens se drece, monstre li

le visage’ (1. 345).

The following laisse, almost twice the length,

texts. On the effect of the poetics implicit in the editor’s judgment, see Edward Heinemann, ‘Silence in the Interstices: epic cliché and the editorial poetics of the chanson de geste (Couronnement de Louis 736-739)’, L’Esprit Créateur, XX VII

(1987), 24-33.

yy,

Edward Heinemann, ‘The Art of Repetition in the Short Cycle of William of Orange (the printed AB version)’, forthcoming in Olifant. Rychner qualifies the Prise as having a ‘structure strophique forte’ (Chanson de geste, p. 107). Cf. his comments on the other two epics on p. 110: the Charroi shows ‘une correspondance trés imparfaite des éléments narratifs et des éléments lyriques’, and the Couronnement offers ‘de longues laisses effrontément composites et amorphes’. We shall see the importance of amplification in the latter

poem.

252

Edward A. Heinemann

contains the pope’s request and Bertrand’s efforts to convince William to fight; William does not agree, however, until the pope returns to the charge and makes his generous promise (Il. 390-400) in XVII. And that laisse carries on: William arms himself (IL. 40816) and has the pope’s men arm (Il. 417-26); then, after receiving the pope’s blessing (ll. 427-33) and as they prepare to sally forth (ll. 434-37), the pope proposes to negotiate (Il. 438-48), he goes to meet Galafre (ll. 449-54), and, after some difficulty (Il. 455-76), they agree on a combat of champions (ll. 477-97). The laisse is both long and composite, as is the next one, in which the pope meets the

pagan champion Corsolt (11. 498-516), tries to buy him off (IL. 51724) but succeeds only in angering him (Il. 525-46), returns to the city (Il. 547-59), where he expresses his fear of Corsolt to William (ll. 560-77), who in turn vents his contempt for cowardly clergy (Il. 578-91), then kisses relics (Il. 592-606), arms and sallies out from the city walls (Il. 607-17). Laisses XIX, in which Corsolt cails for his arms, and XX, in which he arms and goes to meet William, are

distinctly short and unified in comparison and thus similar to XV and XVI. Here, short and cohesive lJaisses frame and highlight a long delay which puts off the moment of resolution, namely the combat of champions. The modulation in length and cohesion seems even more developed in the Charroi, as in, for example, the build-up to and winding down from laisse XXVI. The composition of this passage is too complex for analysis here,’ but we can summarize rapidly the impact of the long laisse in its surroundings:

7 For a look at some of the components of laisse XXVI, see Edward Heinemann, ‘L’Art métrique de la chanson de geste: un exemple particulièrement réussi, le Charroi de Nimes, et l’apport de l’informatique’, in La Chanson de geste: écriture, intertextualités, translation (Littérales, Cahiers du Départment de

Français Paris X Nanterre, XIV (1994)), pp. 9-39, at pp. 14-15 and 22-24.

Patterns of Narrative XIX XX XXI XXII

4 ig LP PXSay

253

todas: PE haces ents

XXIII

RD

XXIV

EON

SS ene ae emteeta

XXV

DDR

XXVI

be imme Mtcccsteosestscocirsvactesses aeiatucnicte saesaet

eRe

an eter nesses eee

tes

Ragen ne

XXVILS 5 … XX VII , 70 XXIX (Cor

In the short and intensely lyric laisses XIX-XXI, William repeats his request for fiefs in Spain. Then (XXII-XXV) Louis objects that Spain 1s not his to give, William explains his particular desire to liberate the land, Louis grants his wish, and William

calls on the

have-nots at court to follow him and earn land and wealth. The laisses grow longer, and the verbal and narrative links between them play against the metrical breakdown into laisses, and finally the peculiar recurrence forming the greater part of XXV,° along with the evident shortening of this laisse in comparison to the preceding ones, marks a kind of lyric pause in the narrative advance. It is at this point that the very long laisse XXVI relates how William collects his ragtag followers and sets out, how Aymon denounces him, how Gautier runs after William and talks him into returning to the court

to defend

his new

fief, how

William

administers

his

famous punch to Aymon and throws the traitor’s cadaver out the window, and, finally, how his convoy sets out. Laisses XXVII and XXVIII reprise this departure, and the equally short laisse XXIX carries him on his way. Laisse XXVI stands out in the passage as a climax: it relates William’s departure from the court at considerable length, with much disparate detail, and with intricate echoes (see n.

7 above). Compare, in the Prise, laisses XII-XVI, in which the length of the laisse grows progressively longer. In the first laisse, William comes up with the idea of disguising himself as a Saracen and having 8 See Edward Heinemann, ‘The Peculiar Echo in Laisse XXV of the Charroi de Nimes’, Olifant, XVIII (1993-1994), 205-19.

254

Edward A. Heinemann

Guillebert

accompany

him

in order

to enter

Orange.

In the

following laisse Guielin tells him in detail just what a stupid idea it is. Then (XIV) William digs in his heels and disguises himself, and Guielin decides to go along for the joke. In XV they arrive at Orange, and in XVI they enter the city and are greeted by Aragon. XI XIII XIV XV XVI

TON DO Re 36 53 60

Although an extensive play of echoes weaves through these laisses and to some extent works against their internal cohesion by marking off segments within the laisse linked to other points in the narrative, the overwhelming effect of each laisse is that of a simple incremental advance of the storyline.’ It is not in the length and cohesion of the Jaisse that the text is displaying its virtuosity, but rather in the play of echo against laisse. With the exception of two long and composite laisses, XLII and LX, the effect of what Rychner calls the ‘structure strophique forte’ in the poem is a steady advance of the story line." In contrast, the * With slight variations in wording: Lors vosist estre (XII, 330; XVI, 497; XVII, 539; XXV, 801); Mielz voil morir (XII, 353; XLVII, 1419; XLVIII, 1428;

the first occurrence launches the culmination of William’s vow to see the city and the lady: see VII and IX, he will not carry lance or shield, and X and XIII, he will not eat); La seue amor (X, 290; XIII, 359; XIV, 371); Home qui aime (XIII, 360; XIV, 366); Se Dex n’en pense (XIV, 396; XVII, 514; XXI, 643; XXIV, 744; XXIX, 907); and the sounds, scents, and sights of Orange (VII, 192-94; IX, 246-

51; X, 269-70; 273-74; XV, 407-14; XVI, 460-63; XVIII, 559-61; XXI, 646Do): 10

For analysis of LX, see Edward Heinemann, ‘Some Reflections on the Laisse

and on Echo in the Three Versions of the Prise d’Orange’, Olifant, III (1975), 3656, at p. 43; for XLII, see id., “Le Jeu des variantes dans les trois versions en vers de la Prise d’Orange: vers une histoire de l’art métrique de la chanson de geste’, in Jeux de la variante dans l’art et la littérature de Moyen Age: mélanges offerts à Anna Drzewicka par ses collègues, ses amis and ses élèves, edited by Antoni Bartosz, Katarzyna Dybel and Piotre Tylus (Krakow: Viridis, 1997), pp. 17-29. At sixty-nine and ninety-five lines, XLII and LX are the two longest in the poem,

but LVII (sixty-five lines) and XVI (sixty) come close in length. They, however, are considerably more unified in content, in contrast to the piling of incident upon incident in laisses XLII and LX. Simple length and regular progression of the storyline, as opposed to complex length and the attendant dramatic changes in

Patterns of Narrative

255

passage in the Charroi mentioned above shows a more intricate weave of simple laisses with heterogeneous ones, a complexity which runs from one end of the poem to the other. It is not so much a ‘correspondance très imparfaite’ as a very elaborate coordination of structures. And in the amorphous length of laisses in the Couronnement we can appreciate a pacing of the story to

produce suspense." The Prise amplifies laisse introductions extensively, in striking contrast to the austere introductions of the Charroi. In the Paris episode, most laisses open with discourse presentation and plunge directly into the dialogue which is carrying the narrative. The Prise favours a fairly banal Jaisse intonation evoking the situation, followed by an agglutination, or piling on, of lines amplifying the introductory material. Compare the openings of CN, XVIII and PO, XXII: Oncle Guillelmes Quar alons ore Et moi et vos

Por querre un don Quiex seroit il

dit Bertran li senez a Looys parler en cel palés plenier dont me sui porpensé dit Guillelmes le ber

(CN, XVIII, 444-

48)

Or fu Guillelmes Et Gillebert Lez les puceles La sist Orable Ele est vestue Et par desoz

en Gloriete assis et li preuz Guielins desoz l’ombre del pin la dame o le cler vis d’un peliçon hermin d’un bliaut de samit (PO, XXII, 680-85)

These are fairly typical openings in the two poems.

The Charroi

moves directly into the action of the incident where the Prise opens the incident with a static line (verb ‘estre’) and then agglutinates two more lines before finally coming up with another verb, this one, pacing, are the rule in the Prise. The famous prière du plus grand péril in laisse XXI, for example, creates suspense by delaying the beginning of the combat of champions.

256

Edward A. Heinemann

too, describing a condition rather than presenting an action. And the description continues. The Couronnement is probably somewhat closer to the norm of the genre than either of these two types. Bridging between laisses is the occasion for most extended introductions,

as in the transition

from XXVIII to XXIX:

Ja li tranchast Quant Dex i fist Quar maint chaitif

le chief desus le bu miracles et vertu dolent et irascu

En fu le jor

fors de prison issu

Li quens Guillelmes Devant lui vit Se il vosist Quant cil li crie

fu mout buen chevalier le roi tot embronchié ja li tranchast le chief et menaide et pitié (XXIX, 1243-46)

(CL, XXVIII, 1239-42)

Characteristically, the first line of laisse XXIX fills the first hemistich with a noun phrase naming a character, and the second hemistich is semantically light; the second line evokes the situation

in somewhat general terms, and the third specifies the point at which the previous Jaisse left off, with William’s sword raised over the fallen Galafre’s neck; the fourth

action.

line resumes

the advance

(Note the limited extent of verbal recurrence:

of the

only the

words ja li tranchast le chief recur in lines 1239 and 1245, and their

impact is attenuated by the different distribution of the words in the two hemistichs.) The laisse introduction is more developed than the one we have quoted from the Charroi, but considerably less so than that of the Prise, and the amplification occurs in conjunction with a carry-over from one laisse to the next.

12

Line 1243 is a Type IIn1S; the grammatical typology based on the one elaborated by Rychner in ‘Observations’ (see n. 1 above) is in many ways the starting point for this analysis. See Edward Heinemann ,‘Rythmes sémantiques de la chanson de geste: types grammaticaux du vers et pulsions a la césure’, Romania, CIX (1988), 145-82; and id., Art métrique, pp. 66-91. For semantic weight of the hemistich, see Heinemann, Art métrique, pp. 91-95.

Patterns of Narrative

257

In all three poems, laisse structure plays against echo. The Charroi and the Prise both make extensive and intricate use of echo. Strongly marked recurrences affecting several lines in close succession sensitize us to the fact of repeated phrasing so that isolated hemistichs and very possibly even single words take on resonance back and forth between occurrences; echoes weave in and

out of combinations with each other and vary in their metric status from one occurrence to another; they occur both as markers of narrative organisation into laisses and independently of any particular relation to the laisse. We find a good deal of echo in the Couronnement, but it remains to be seen to what extent intricacy of weave characterizes this poem. Some echoes, structural

in nature, mark

narrative

articulations

such as the contours of the laisse or turning points within or between episodes. Others, showing no apparent relation to the organisation of the narrative, might be called thematic. At their least developed and aesthetically least successful, the latter are, in effect, the familiar epic clichés. The effects can vary widely. The second hemistich fu mout gentix et ber, at one extreme, should probably be taken as nothing more than a momentary narrative slowdown and not as an echo at all: Et Li Li Li

l’apostoiles quens Guillelmes quens Guillelmes cuens Guillelmes

fu fu fu fu

mout molt molt mout

gentix et ber gentis et ber gentis et ber gentiz et ber

CLB22 CN, 29 GNs.51> PO, 1862

The pope’s attempt to purchase peace in the Couronnement manifests both structural and thematic effects. The first two occurrences of echo appear in the same laisse and within a short

distance of each other."*

13

Given the remarkable artistry of the Charroi, however, one could well consider

that these two single-line slowdowns frame the brief scene in which Bertrand informs his uncle of the king’s ingratitude.

14 In lines 440-48 the Pope is speaking to the soldiers at the walls of Rome

before he goes to negotiate with Galafre, whom he addresses in lines 455-65. lines 517-25 he makes his offer to Galafre’s champion, Corsolt.

In

258

Edward A. Heinemann

G’irai parler Se por avoir Velt retorner Et ses granz olz Ge li dorrai N’i demorra Or ne argent Ainz qu'il i muire Et cil responent

CL, XVII, 440 a l’amiraut aufage que prometre li sache et ses nes et ses barges qui sont sor cel rivage le grant tresor de l’arche 445 ne calice ne chape ne qui un denier vaille tant gentil home sage bien est droiz qu’en le saiche

Sire fet il

je sui ci un mesage qui des ames est garde vos vueil dire un mesage et voz nez et voz barges qui ci sont aornable tot le tresor de l’arche ne calice ne chape qui un seul denier vaille tant gentil home a armes gentix rois deboneres tu n’es mie bien sages

455

Sire fet il

servir doi au mostier

XVIII, 517

Deu et saint Pere De seue part Que vos voz olz Ge vos dorrai

qui devant nos est chiés vos vorroie proier retorner feïssiez le tresor del mostier

Dieu et saint Pere De seue part Que retornez Et voz granz olz Ge vos dorrai Ne demorra Or ne argent Ainz que i muire Prenez conseil Respont li rois

As in so incantatory unspecified meaning.

N’i remaindra

calice n’encensier

Or ne argent Que ne vos face Respont li rois

qui vaille un seul denier ça hors apareillier n’es pas bien ensaigniez

460

465

520

525

many messages, this set of occurrences has a kind of quality to it; the recurrence of phrasing confers an significance. to the very words beyond their mere That we do not know the precise nature of that

Patterns of Narrative

259

significance gives rein to our imagination, suggesting for example that it is important that the audience retain these details or some legal importance to the precise rendition of a message.” However we may happen to interpret the recurrence, we are yielding to the supernatural power of words attached to a theme. At first blush, this echo would

seem

thematic

and little more.

None of the occurrences is a structural marker, and all three occupy a fairly insignificant place within their lengthy laisses; in fact, one of the functions they carry is simply that of amplifying the laisse (see, above p. 251, the graph of laisse lengths in this passage). They show, however, another aspect in that two appear in the same laisse and the third in the following laisse. This position in the narrative, as marked by the breakdown into laisses, carries meaning. The immediacy of the first recurrence, within the same laisse and fewer than ten lines away, is matched by a close resemblance in wording. The third occurrence, separated by a laisse boundary and, therefore, a change of assonance, in addition to more than fifty lines, conveys a sense of difference by its very position, an effect strengthened by changes in wording. Coming as it does, after laisse XVII has

ended on a hopeful note (‘Bien set que mieldres ne puet porter ses armes”, 1. 497), and after the opening of laisse XVIII has dashed that hope by presenting the terrifying Corsolt, the diminished verbal recurrence in the third recitation of the message evokes diminished hopes. The repeated offer functions as an integral part of rising and falling hopes, a narrative tactic delaying the critical and inevitable moment of combat. The echo is not structural in the sense of corresponding to a narrative articulation like a laisse boundary, but it acquires a structural meaning in that the position of its 15 See Philip E. Bennett, ‘Ganelon’s False Message: a critical false perspective?’ in this volume. 18 Traditionally, one would see a change of assonance as leading naturally to a change of wording, and certainly the substitutions of mostier (1. 521) for arche (Il. 444, 460) and encensier (1. 522) for chape (ll. 445, 461) are of this nature, as are the alterations made from I]. 455-57 to 517-19, lines which have no place in the first occurrence.

If, on the other hand, we invert this view, we see a change of

assonance as expressing a change of meaning. The wording is different, not because it is in a different laisse, but because its different import is expressed by a change of laisse. Thus demorer (Il. 445, 461) becomes remaindre (1. 522) in the first hemistich, without relation to assonance; the compression of ll. 442-43 and 458-59 to the single line 520 suggests a reduced expectation of success.

260

Edward A. Heinemann

occurrences in the same Jaisse or in successive ones carries narrative meaning. This mix of structural and thematic functioning in echoes runs through the three poems, reaching truly brilliant heights in the Charroi, as in, for example, ll. 253-55 = 256-59, where

of unrewarded

service is turned into a boundary

marker

the theme

between

laisses VIII and IX (and recalled again in X) at the same time as it recalls and anticipates occurrences

of this basic theme in a wide

range of associations throughout the Paris episode.” 17

An adequate

The occurrences of the verb servir and the noun service which refer to feudal

service (as opposed to waiting on the table of the overlord or religious service) are the following (the first number within the parentheses is the position of the line as counted from the beginning of the /aisse, and the second number is its position as counted from the end of the laisse): I, 65 (65 23) Ne tai servi par nuit de tastonner; I, 67 (67 21) Mes par mes armes t’ai servi conme ber; IV, 114 (9 1) Se vos serf mes dont soie je honiz; V, 130 (16 23) Vers Looys quar servi l’ot assez; V, 131 (17 22) Mi grant servise seront ja reprové; VI, 180 (28 2) De cest servise ne vos remenbre gueres; VII, 201 (20 19) De cel servise ne vos remenbre il prou; VIII, 253 (34 3) Tant con servi vos ai tenu le chief, IX, 257 (2 15) Tant t’ai servi que le poil ai chanu; IX, 264 (9 8) Et vos servoie par chans et par paluz; X, 276 (5 2) Tant ai servi cest mauvés roi de France; XII, 297 (4 3) Einsi vet d’ome qui sert a male gent; XIII, 303 (4 12) Einsi vet d’ome qui sert mauvés segnor,; XIII, 306 (7 9) Gardé m'avez et servi par amor; XIII, 310 (11 5) Serviront toi .III.M. conpaignon; XIV, 321 (7 7) Serviront toi III.M. fervesti; XV, 332 (5 72) Serviront toi .II.M. chevalier, XV, 339 (12 65) Conme est gariz qui le sert volentiers; XV, 347 (20 57) Cil le servi longuement sanz dangier; XVI, 420 (17 8) Molt Vai servi si ne m'a riens doné; XVI, 423 (20 5) Ainz le devez servir et hennorer; XVI, 426 (23 2) Qu’a lui servir ai tot mon tens usé; XVII, 429 (2 15) Au roi servir ai mon tens enploié, XVII, 433 (6 11) Por mon servise me velt rendre loier; XXV, 643 (9 14) Quant ont servi por neant conquester, XXVI, 693 (37 77) Bien m'a servi au fer et a l’acier; XXVI, 716 (60 54) Lonc le servise li rendez son

loier. The theme goes through a few variations. In laisses XIII-XV (ll. 310, 321, 332), Serviront toi refers to men who will serve William (as opposed to William’s, or another’s, service to the king). In laisse XXV, William refers to the unrewarded service which others have rendered as a part of his promise to reward his followers richly. In XXVI, the king’s acknowledgement of William’s service goes along with his leaving to Jesus the responsibility of rewarding the service and thereby shirking his own feudal obligation. The final occurrence is Gautier’s ironically expressed advice to William that he punish Aymon for having challenged his right to the fief in Spain. Seen in this light, the sequence in laisses XXVI-XXVIII (Quant il venront enz el regne essillié /Serviront tuit Damedieu tot premier, \l. 768-69; Quant il venront enz el regne sauvage | S’en serviront Jhesu l’esperitable, 1. 773-74; Quant il

venront enz el regne essillié | Que bien en puissent atorner a mengier | S’en serviront Guillelme le guerrier, 11. 778-80) takes on, in addition to the amusing

Patterns of Narrative

261

analysis of the intricate interweaving of echoes in either the Charroi

or the Prise would exceed the limits of this paper,’* as would a proper appreciation of the relation of laisse to echo in these two poems; it may be, however,

that the Couronnement makes simpler

use than either poem of both the connections between laisse and echo and the linking of echoes to one another. One could almost say that echo is the predominant mode of discourse in the Charroi and in the Prise,” where passages without resonance elsewhere in the poem seem even to take on a comic note for their lack of reference. The Couronnement does not appear to have this extra dimension. Echoes like William’s pleasure at the sentiments expressed by the pilgrim in laisse XXXIV and by the porter in XXXV, XXXVI, and XXXVIII stand by themselves without apparent links to other echoes:

Ot le Guillelmes Bertran apele Oistes mes

s’en a gité un ris si l’a a reson mis si cortois pelerin

(CL, XXXIV, 1462-64)

contrast between serving God (XXVI, XXVII) and feeding William (XXVIII), a reinforcement of the assimilation of feudal service to religious service. 18 See, for example, in the Charroi, the two sets of echoes tied together by the hemistich Non ferai sire, or, in the Prise, the mixing of numerous themes to define two opening moments — morning mass and climb to the windows (III, 43-48;

LVII, 1660-63), countryside (III, 49-51; V, 107-09; LVII, 1664-66), memory (Ill, 52-53; LVII, 1667-69),

an elaborately developed lament (III, IV, LVII-

LVIII), the arrival of Guillebert in Nimes (V, 110-11, 126; VI, 132-35; LVII, 1657-59; LIX, 1729-30). See Edward Heinemann,

‘Le Jeu d’échos associés a

l’hémistiche Non ferai sire dans le Charroi de Nimes’, Romania, CXII (1991), 117 and id., ‘Laisse and Echo in the Opening Scene of the Prise d’Orange as Found in the Three Verse Versions: toward a history of the metric art of the chanson de geste’, in Echoes of the Epic (a Festschrift to be presented to Gerard J. Brault, forthcoming). 19 See, for the latter, Claude Lachet’s table of echoes in the Prise, pp. 64-66, in ‘Nouvelles recherches sur la Prise d’Orange’, Revue des Langues Romanes, XCI (1987), 55-80.

262

Edward A. Heinemann

Guillelmes l’ot Bertran apele Oistes mes

s’en fu joianz et liez entendez sire niés si bien parler portier

(CL, XXXV, 1536-38)

Guillelmes l’ot

s’est vers terre clinez

Bertran apele Oistes mes

sire niés entendez si bien portier parler

Bertran apele Oistes mes

entendez sire niés si bien parler portier (CL, XXXVIII, 1628-29)

(CL, XXXVI, 1581-83)

These passages refer back and forth to each other; they are tied to the expression of popular support for the king against disloyal barons; they suggest the hero’s boisterous enthusiasm; the occurrence in laisse XXXVI even changes metric status, serving as it does as conclusion to the laisse; but there do not appear to be any further ties to other echoes or implications of further variation in metric status. The smooth narrative flow we find in the cohesion of the laisse in the Prise is matched by the simplicity of transitions from one narrative segment to another. In the first capture of the Frenchmen, from XXIV to XLI, just to choose one example, the Saracens penetrate the disguise and the three Frenchmen drive them off in laisses XXIV-XXVI; they withstand a siege of the palace in XXVII to XXIX; Orable gives them armour, they drive off the Saracens

again, and withstand another siege in XXX-XXXV; and the Saracens enter the palace by means of a secret passage, capture the French, and throw them into prison in XXXVI-XLI. We can analyze the text into smaller or larger segments, and echoes complicate the plot by weaving intricate ties to other points in the story, but the forward movement of the story simply does not undergo the changes in pacing which we find in both the Couronnement and the Charroi.

Patterns of Narrative

263

These two poems mark off episodes and scenes strongly, and the

boundaries between these segments become quite intricate. In what might seem a relatively simple case in the Couronnement, the single laisse LV serves as a transition between the third and fourth

branches.”

The laisse opens with an exchange between Bertrand

and his uncle (Il. 2185-89), which serves as a general commentary on William’s labours in the service of the king. It then carries the characters to Orleans, where Richard is thrown into the king’s prison and dies (Il. 2190-97), thereby putting a conclusion to the episode. Three lines relate William’s doomed hope of rest (11. 2198200), and then two messengers arrive to launch the next episode (ll. 2201 ff.). There is a council, Louis assembles his vassals, the army

crosses the Alps and camps outside the walls of Rome, and William leads a party out foraging to conclude the laisse. It is a peculiar laisse: it could be called centrifugal in the sense that the beginning belongs to the preceding episode and the end to the following one, but the balance clearly favours the coming episode. Fifteen or so lines point back to the Norman episode while sixty or so get the Rome episode under way. A number of echoes further tie the transition to other moments in the story. The intonation may recall the opening of the conversation which closes the preceding laisse: Oncle Guillelmes De vostre brant

dist Bertran le guerrier voi sanglant tot l’acier (CL, LIV, 2167-68)

Oncle Guillelmes Le semblant fetes

ce dit Bertran le ber plus ne volez durer

(CL, LV, 2185-86)

Discourse presentation by itself makes a fairly weak echo, especially in a single hemistich using the high-frequency verb dire, and the 20 The following analysis elaborates on pp. 383-384 of my ‘Sur l’art de la laisse dans le Couronnement de Louis’, in Charlemagne et l’épopée romane. Actes du VII Congrès International de la Société Rencesvals (Liège, 28 août — 4 septembre

1976), Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège, 225, 2 vols (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1978), II, 383-91.

264

Edward A. Heinemann

recurrence of the hemistich Oncle Guillelmes is likewise fairly trivial, but, given the proximity of the two occurrences along with Bertrand’s trying in the following line to understand his uncle’s behaviour on the basis of appearances, we may perhaps be justified in considering it an echo nonetheless. The echo may be a weak one,

but we should probably not exclude it.” The intonation is followed almost immediately by a somewhat complicated play of echoes. The hemistich vueil, ma jovent user

anchors a two-line passage which recurs further on within the laisse,

and then it reappears in laisse LXII:” Quar en grant paine Ainz que cist rois

vueill ma jovente user n’ait ses granz heritez (LV, 2188-89)

En ton servise Ainz que tu n’aies

vueil ma jovente user totes tes volantez (LV, 2228-29)

En son servise

vueill ma jovente user (LXII, 2649)

In the first occurrence, near the beginning of laisse LV, Bertrand has just observed that William looks worn out from his efforts on the king’s behalf; later on in the laisse, after Louis breaks into tears

at the prospect of having to go to the aid of Rome, William repeats his intention of wearing himself out in the service of the king. Then in laisse LXII, as a part of the transition to the final branche, after the return to France from Rome, a messenger arrives to disrupt *1

Of the twenty-nine occurrences of the first hemistich Oncle Guillelmes in the

kernel cycle, only three others are followed by dit or dist in the second hemistich (CN, XVIII, 444; PO, XLVII, 1416; PO, LV, 1579; Guielin is the speaker in the last two). Thus, although the wording seems fairly banal and therefore susceptible of occurring simply as an example of elementary Old French, the distribution suggests a little more significance. *2 Note the further carry-over to the Charroi, ll. 426 (‘Qu’a lui servir ai tot mon tens usé”) and 429 (‘Au roi servir ai mon tens enploié’).

Patterns of Narrative

265

William’s hope of a little quiet fishing and Bertrand expresses his disgust at having to succour the king yet again. The third occurrence of the hemistich is thus tied to two motifs which have become markers of transition, the messenger and the hope of a quiet life retired in the country. The latter occurs, appropriately, in the later parts of the poem, after the hero has earned a rest; it is a fairly straightforward echo:

Or se cuida Vivre de bois Mes ce n’iert ja

Guillelmes reposer et en riviere aler tant com puisse durer

(LV, 2198-200)

Or se cuida Deduire en bois Mes ce n’iert ja

Guillelmes reposer et en riviere aler tant com puisse durer

(LXII, 2632-34)

The messenger motif, on the other hand, appears from the very

first transition between branches, in laisses XIV-XV, then again in XXXII-XXXIII between the second and third branches, and finally in LV, and it comprises several elements. The two messengers become one in the final, compressed occurrence:

Ez .ïi. messages Ja conteront Dont mainz frans hom

poignant toz abrivez unes noveles tiex fu le jor aïrez (XIV, 325-27)

Ez .il. mesages Par devers France Et recreanz

poingnant toz effraez les chevaus ont lassez confonduz et penez

(XXXII, 1368-70)

266

Edward A. Heinemann

Ez .ii. mesages

poignant toz abrivez

Par devers Rome Et recreüz

chevaus ont toz lassez et fonduz et matez

(LV, 2201-03)

Uns mes le vet

a Guillelme conter

(LXII, 2639)

In the second occurrence, the anticipation of news gives way to an evocation of the horses’ exhaustion. The ominous anticipation concluding laisse XIV recurs only a few lines further on in the introduction of XV and then again later in XX XIII:

Messe ot chantee Quant il l’ot dite

Qui li aportent

li apostoiles sages si vienent dui mesage unes noveles apres

(XV, 329-31)

Trestote avoit Quant de vers France

Qui li aportent

entroublié Orable li sont venu mesage unes noveles apres

(XXXII, 1417-19)

In the final occurrence the phrase le vet [...] conter (1. 2639) would seem to be a compression of this component. Yet another element, crying for pity, appears in the second and third occurrences:

Quant li mesage Merci Guillelmes De Looys

li sont au pié alé por sainte charité vos est petit membré

(XXXII, 1377-79)

Patterns of Narrative

Au pié li vont Merci frans quens De la pucele

por la merci crier por Deu de majesté vos a petit membré

267

(LV, 2206-08)

Complex transitions are the rule in the Charroi. The poem divides clearly into a Paris and a Nimes episode, for example, with a complex transition bridging the gap between laisses XXVIII and XXIX, and yet the five occurrences of the echo Oyez segnor (I, 1-4;

XLIV, 1085-90; XLIX, 1205-06; L, 1315-16; LI, 1352-53) mark an equally important division between the finale, within the city of Nimes (XLIV-LIX, 1085-1486), and the build-up to the conquest of the city, comprising both the Paris episode and the first half of the

Nimes episode.” The interplay of laisse and echo in the but alluded in the present paper, is monograph-length study can adequately echo in the Prise, similarly intricate and by allusion, works,

Charroi, to which we have so intricate that only a set it forth. The play of likewise treated here only

as we have been able to see here, against the

backdrop of a simple laisse. I cannot claim to have proved the brilliance of either poem here, but I hope to have tantalized the reader with some glimpses of it. As for the Couronnement, the reader may still agree with Rychner that its laisses run too long, but I trust that I have shown them to be organised in fascinatingly complex patterns. The art of the chanson de geste, at the time when the kernel William cycle was being put together, was highly

sophisticated.

New College, University of Toronto

*3 For details, see pp. 14-17 of my particuliérement réussi’ (see n. 7 above).

‘L’Art

métrique

[...]:

un

exemple

HUE:

>

SE

GTA

ie. Er

oe

ce iyaaSal4)

ei

ft

6 1h

Signes

hes MVC

Hier

ode Gi;

tes aloes ante Re FA HOWE

seh? 49 asbivilr -

78 à niDane as, att peer, ‘hoittehetl, lg.

nel als ears iste, esti

Sie ane (2 ne

A fodPasi bare at sae

TN

/ —

REPRODUCTIVE FRAMEWORKS: MATERNAL SIGNIFICANCE IN BERTE AS GRANS PIES Finn E. Sinclair Traditionally, medieval studies have emphasised the role and significance of men in the structuring of social and kinship relations, to the exclusion, or at least to the marginalisation, of women. In his essay Mâle moyen age, whose very title suggests a male hegemony, Georges Duby identifies what he sees as an important shift in the kinship structure of noble families taking place by the twelfth-century in France: Antérieurement, au tournant des IX° et X°siécles, les hommes de la très

haute aristocratie se trouvaient pris dans un groupe de parenté flou, qui apparait comme une agglomération de ‘proches’, ou les alliances avaient au moins autant de poids et de résonance psychologique que les filiations; aprés cette date, au contraire, les hommes sont strictement intégrés dans un lignage, dans une lignée de caractère résolument agnatique.!

Although indicating the perceived alteration from a broad, horizontal form to a new vertical and diachronic model of familial relations, the

terms ‘lignage’ and ‘lignée’ do not carry the full significance of this restructuring of medieval kinship. It is Duby’s emphasis on the male members of the lineage, and his use of the term ‘agnatique’ which signal a further, important element in the form and function of this new twelfth-century model. Redefining kinship structure and the

‘Georges Duby, Mâle moyen âge. De l’amour et autres essais (Paris: Flammarion, 1988), p. 140.

270

F.E. Sinclair

relations between family members to create a linear genealogy does not necessarily signal an equal melding of the patrilinear and the matrilinear, producing a familial descent predicated on synthesis and duality. The ‘lignage’ to which Duby refers relates instead to the establishment of a patrilineage whose genealogical emphasis lies upon the father, and through him, on the son” The adoption of the agnatic principle and of primogeniture by the twelfth century concentrated the focus of familial descent and inheritance inevitably upon the male line. The first-born son inherited the patrimony, the theoretical inviolability of this being reflected in Philippe de Beaumanoir’s treatise of customary law, the Coutumes de Beauvaisis.’ Although Beaumanoir states: ‘Chascuns gentius hons ou hons de posté qui n’est pas sers, puet par nostre coustume lessier en son testament ses meubles, ses conqués et le quint de son eritage la ou il li plest’, Georges Hubrecht adds in his commentary: ‘La réserve coutumière interdit au testateur de disposer librement de ses propres, dont les “quatre quints”, c’est-à-dire les quatres cinquièmes, sont réservés aux hériteurs du sang’.* Only one-fifth of all heritable property was therefore available for bequest, a legal ruling which proscribed the transmission of familial wealth beyond the bounds of the family, and protected the rights of children to inherit from their parents. The heritage of this inviolable and fixed concentration of the ‘propres’ is, however, further contracted in the section of the Coutumes which treats ‘Des oirs loiaus et des bastars’: ‘car combien il i ait de mariages et filles de chascun mariage, et du derrain mariage fust uns oirs masles, si en porteroit il l’ainsneece contre toutes ses sereurs nees des premiers mariages par nostre coustume’.° Hubrecht’s reference to the transmittal of the major part of a family’s wealth to the “hériteurs du sang’ is revealed as more than misleading,

* For the importance of this father-son progression in medieval literature, see R. Howard Bloch, Etymologies and Genealogies: a literary anthropology of the French Middle Ages (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983). Philippe de Beaumanoir, Coutumes de Beauvaisis, 3 vols (Paris: Picard, 1970-74). * Beaumanoir, Coutumes, I, 174; III, 60. °

Beaumanoir,

Coutumes, I, 296.

Although the Coutumes

dates from the

second half of the thirteenth century, the customary law which it inscribes is one which would have been current practice over a considerable period prior to this.

Reproductive Frameworks

271

for the primary right of inheritance goes to the firstborn child, or, if this child happens to be female, to her brother, however many marriages and children may intervene between the two siblings. The masculine discourse of customary law would thus appear to frame and reflect a social concentration on the male line and on male

succession, its authoritative voice reinforcing the impression of a male hegemony which structured both medieval kin-relations and inheritance to the exclusion of women. Medieval

documentation

such as the Coutumes de Beauvaisis,

together with many works by modern historians, would tend to support the concept of a strictly patrilinear form of succession and inheritance from the twelfth-century onwards.° The accuracy of this, is, however, open to debate, as the relation between the inviolable

strictures of the legal text and the use and interpretation of social practice appears open to shift and play. As pointed out in recent studies by feminist historians, the formal exclusion of women from inheriting, wielding power, and otherwise taking an active role in society did not always reflect social reality.’ The linear model of medieval kin-relations described by Duby may emphasise male descent and agnatic inheritance, yet women were not inevitably mute and inactive within the confines of this social framework. The divergence between model and social reality, between theory and practice, indicates an ideological ‘writing-out’ of the feminine in the context of the medieval articulation of its own social ideal. The split

° See in particular the authoritative studies by Georges Duby. In Mâle Moyen Age he links the alteration of inheritance practices with the dawning of the new genealogical consciousness: ‘l’homme, parce qu’il n’est plus un bénéficiaire, mais l’héritier d’un bien et d’un pouvoir qui se transmettent de père en fils,se sent intégré à un corps de parenté d’orientation verticale, à une lignée de mâles, et la mémoire ancestrale occupe désormais une place beaucoup plus large dans ses représentations mentales’ (pp. 131-32). It is striking that there appears no place for the inscription of women into the vertical frame of accession or in this new awareness of heredity. 7 See in particular Margaret Wade Labarge, A Small Sound of the Trumpet: women in medieval life (Boston: Beacon Press, 1986); JoAnn McNamara and Suzanne Wemple, ‘Sanctity and Power: the dual pursuit of medieval women’, in Becoming Visible: women in European history, edited by Renate Bridenthal and Claudia Koonz (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1977), pp. 90-118; and Mary Beth Rose, Women in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance: literary and historical perspectives (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1986).

272

F.E. Sinclair

between ideology and substance, and the part played in this by a written discourse produced primarily by men, is significant in the literary context, where the reflection of a social ‘reality’ is filtered through

the intervening

layers of narrative

convention,

social

ideology, and (presumably) male authorship. It is the chanson de geste which is of particular interest here, as this is the genre which is generally perceived as masculine in orientation, and whose internarrative construction focuses attention on genealogy,

patrilinearity, and continuation.® An analogy between the diachronic linearity of twelfth-century kin-relations and medieval narrative has been drawn primarily by R. Howard Bloch in his study, Etymologies and Genealogies: a literary anthropology of the French Middle Ages.’ Bloch’s assertion that the chanson de geste presents the literary form most consistent with the contemporary social preoccupation with male lineage and continuity would initially appear to have a certain validity, given the genre’s frequent organisation of songs into cycles recounting the deeds of successive generations, and its internarrative linkage of texts, for instance the Cycle de Nanteuil or the Crusade Cycle. This genealogical emphasis is, however, read by Bloch as one of exclusive * For the importance of lineage in medieval literature, see the studies by Bloch, Etymologies; Michael Heintze, Konig, Held und Sippe: Untersuchungen zur Chanson de geste des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts und ihrer Zyklenbildung (Heidelberg: Winter, 1991); Ronald E. Koss, Family, Kinship and Lineage in the ‘Cycle de Guillaume d’Orange’ (Lampeter: Edwin Mellen, 1990); and Dorothea Kullmann, Verwandschaft in epischer Dichtung. Untersuchungen zu den franzôüsischen ‘chansons de geste’ und Romanen des 12. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1992). In the present context it is significant that Kullmann devotes considerably greater space to the study of the mother in the romance than in the chanson de geste. See in particular Chapter 2, ‘Kinship’, pp. 64-91. Bloch seeks to draw a parallel between the ‘etymological’ grammar and kinship structures of the Middle Ages. He extends this study into the genealogical structuring of literary genres, the aspect of his work which is of most relevance to this present study. Sarah Kay is particularly sceptical of this notion of a ‘literary anthropology’, owing primarily to the temporal distance between the modern critic of medieval

literature and the text. ‘To Bloch’s claims for medieval literature as anthropology’s great opportunity, I should therefore prefer the formulation that texts furnish a privileged space in which to explore some of the issues that are at stake in the representation of political or social relations’ (The ‘Chansons de Say in the Age of Romance: political fictions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), p. 18).

Reproductive Frameworks

243

father-son succession, a structuring which he refers back to that of social kinship. Of the latter, Bloch states: The lineal family model is predicated upon the principles of partial resemblance, contiguity, and, above all, continuity. Thus the son reproduces the father, accedes to the paternal name, title, heraldic sign,

and land. He represents an essential link in a genealogical chain, each part of which shares common traits with all others, and which, at least in theory if not in practice, remains unbroken from the first ancestor to the current heir. °

The model of patrilinear reproduction which Bloch maps onto the narrative and internarrative structuring of epic texts is not, however,

one which relates easily to the chanson de geste.” Bloch’s theory of the correspondence between the social and narrative stucture of kinship relations during the period leading up to the twelfth century invites comparison with Michael Heintze’s study of the changing kinship structure in the chanson de geste.” Heintze sees the alteration from a horizontal to a vertical form as occurring later and developing more gradually in the textual context: Vergleicht man die Feudalsippen der Chansons de geste der älteren Periode mit denen der späteren Zeit, so fallt ein genereller Wandel in ihrer Struktur auf: während bei den Sippen in früherer Zeit die horizontale Linie vorherrscht, d.h. in allen Generationen eine Vielzahl lateraler Verwandter nebeneinandersteht, dominiert spater die vertikale Linie, d.h.

% Bloch, Etymologies, p. 86. It should be noted that the transmission of the paternal name and the establishment of the heraldic emblem were not current before the fourteenth century. 1 This mapping of a social model of reproduction on to that of a literary form can be viewed as ideological in origin. Alternatively, Fredric Jameson sees literary production as itself an ideological act: “ideology is not something which informs

or invests

symbolic

production;

rather

the aesthetic

act is itself

ideological, and the production of aesthetic or narrative form is to be seen as an ideological act in its own right, with the function of inventing imaginary or formal “solutions” to unresolvable social contradictions’ (The Political Unconscious: narrative as a socially symbolic act (London: Routledge, 1993), p. 79} 5 “spss Kônig, Held und Sippe, Part 3, Chapter 7: ‘Veränderungen in der Sippenstruktur’, pp. 495-524.

274

F.E. Sinclair es existiert eine Hauptlinie in ihrer Generationenfolge, jedoch fehlen die lateralen Verwandten weitgehend.”

In particular, Heintze’s signalling of the importance of the unclenephew relationship in the earlier chansons de geste appears to contradict Bloch’s theory of the genre’s insistance on a significant

and exclusive patrilinearity.* The notion of continuity and an unbroken accession to the paternal and patrimonial is in any case a topos which does not function smoothly in the epic.” Instead, the patrilinearity of the chanson de geste reveals dislocation and fracture, a feature which Sarah Kay sees as reflected in the form of the songs: Their formal shape [...] is strongly marked by two features: repetition and discontinuity. The former includes the recurrence of rhyme or assonance within the laisse, use of ‘formulae’, set motifs such as scenes of combat,

and repeated narrative schemes such as revenge. The latter is manifest in such phenomena as the caesuraed line, division into laisses, and parataxis both on the local level of sentence structure and on the macro-level of

emplotment.'

The chanson de geste as a narrative form would not in fact appear to lend itself to Bloch’s analogy on either the semantic or the syntactic level of representation. His tendency to view textuality as a social barometer whose linguistic, grammatical structure parallels social structure is underlined by Kay: ‘Bloch is careful not to assimilate the

°

Kônig, Held und Sippe, p. 495. Kônig, Held und Sippe, pp. 516-24.

The historical and anthropological

importance of the uncle (specifically the mother’s brother) in Indo-European kinrelations is signalled by Emile Benveniste. He relates this to the prevalence of the exogamic practice of marriage between cross-cousins: ‘In this system, relationship is established between maternal] uncle and nephew, while in agnatic filiation, it is established between father and son’, Indo-European Language and Society, translated by Elizabeth Palmer (London: Faber and Faber, 1973), p. 183. The replacement of a cognatic kinship system in favour of an agnatic one during the eleventh century would then explain the lingering significance of the maternal uncle-nephew relationship in twelfth-century chansons de geste, as well as the ultimate displacement of this by the father-son relationship. 5 See Kay, The ‘Chansons de geste’, Chapter 3 on ‘Patriarchy’, in which she points to the predominance of internal family conflict and the lack of smooth father-son succession in the epic.

1

Kay, The ‘Chansons de geste’, pp. 11-12.

Reproductive Frameworks

275

social to the textual altogether. But his interest in the homology between the two prevents him from seeing them as also being in conflict with each other’. The relationship between society and text, upon which the edifice of Bloch’s argument is constructed, may certainly be read as conflictual, but in addition Bloch’s view of both lineage and of epic is reductive. Both are represented as models which operate in a strict chronological and linear form, a set of genealogical building-blocks which present a unified structure of representation in both social and textual terms. This linear demarcation and bounding within the vertical is closed against the horizontal, the multiple and the peripheral, a formation which excludes any kind of matrilinear supplement to the patrilinear orientation of the model. The models of kinship and continuation considered so far have concentrated on the relationships between male kin, and on the fatherson inheritance. Yet if this paradigm appears unstable in the context ot a medieval social structure where women were able to find a space and a voice, limited though their scope may generally have been in comparison to the possibilities open to men, how may this be seen to be reflected in the context of the chanson de geste?'® The narrative structure and content of the epic is revealed as diverging from the straight patrilinearity of the model projected by Bloch, yet, as mentioned above, the chanson de geste has traditionally been

7 Kay, The ‘Chansons de geste’, p. 17. Bloch does, however, recognise the text as presenting an inverted reflection of social structures and mores, acting as a critical tool and opening up the potential for social change: ‘The “performed text” represented a periodic ritual enactment of the most basic values and innermost code of the lay culture of the High Middle Ages — the affirmation with only limited variation of that which is ideologically manifest elsewhere. But with this crucial distinction: where the ritual of the anthropologists is an essentially conservative force of social cohesion, literature stands at the crossroads of medieval social

practice and ideology. It is at once the representation of that which occurs outside the realm of textual production and, as A. Adler and E. Kôhler have shown, an inverted mirror of the possible’ (Etymologies, p. 15} 8 = details of women’s public roles, see in particular Women and Power in the Middle Ages, edited by Mary Erler and Maryanne Kowalski (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1988); and Joan Kelly-Gadol, ‘Did Women Have a Renaissance?’, in Becoming Visible, edited by Bridenthal and Koonz, pp. 137-64.

276

F.E. Sinclair

regarded as a masculine genre, owing to its inherent preoccupation with themes relating to feudal and social conflict. The continuation of the patrilineage may not function as a sustained and coherent topos in the chanson de geste, but does the genre’s perceived masculine orientation repress all notion of the feminine or the matrilinear? Should the ‘writing-out’of a female presence in the epic be taken as an inevitable given? Bloch certainly ignores any notion of a female space in his model of epic genealogy, patrilinearity here overules any acknowledgement of the matrilinear, but the genre does nonetheless allocate an important role and a space to women.” In the context of the epic’s frame of reproduction the space which this opens up to the mother is significant, both as an important element in the depiction of female character in general in the chanson de geste, and as a counter to Bloch’s theory of a linear genealogy predicated on father-son

succession.” '° See in particular Charlemagne in the North, Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference of the Société Rencesvals, Edinburgh 4th to 11th August 1991, edited by Philip E. Bennett, Anne Elizabeth Cobby and Graham A. Runnalls (Edinburgh: Société Rencesvals British Branch, 1993), Section III, ‘La Représentation de la féminité dans les chansons de geste’, pp. 223-398. * Julia Kristeva, in her essay ‘Women’s Time’, links linear temporality with the masculine and the symbolic, equating “women’s time’ with cyclical or monumental temporality: ‘female subjectivity would seem to provide a specific measure that essentially retains repetition and eternity from among the multiple modalities of time known through the history of civilizations. On the one hand, there are cycles, gestation, the eternal recurrence of a biological rhythm which conforms to that of nature and imposes a temporality whose stereotyping may shock, but whose regularity and unison with what is experienced

as extra-subjective time, cosmic

time, occasion

vertiginous visions and unnameable jouissance’ (p. 191). She adds further: ‘these two types of temporality (cyclical and monumental) are traditionally linked to female subjectivity in so far as the latter is thought of as necessarily maternal’ (p. 192). This differentiation between linear, historical temporality (‘time as project, teleology, linear and prospective unfolding: time as departure, progression and arrival — in other words, the time of history’ (p. 192)), and a monumental (eternal) or cyclical (maternal) time would seem to preclude the functioning of the feminine within the symbolic linear structure. Yet Kristeva points to the socio-historical and cultural alignment of these concepts of temporality and gender. If the mechanisms of Western philosophy and culture would define the linear and historical as predominantly masculine, this is not to say that there cannot be any inscription of the feminine within its structure at any point, despite the apparently ‘natural’ linkage of the female and

Reproductive Frameworks

277

The difference between the construction of lineage in its social and literary contexts should be noted. In the social sphere, ‘the stress

placed not only upon the unidimensionality but upon the unidirectionality of lineage is significant [...] Paternal property is transferred only in one direction — downward’.”' The unavoidable nature of this progression along the temporal axis is indisputable. In the context of the chanson de geste this chronological scheme operates in terms of narrative content, epic texts often being arranged in cycles which progress in genealogical order. The epic patriarch engenders a succession of similes, and the themes of the texts are linked in narrative progression. In regard to the production of the tales

themselves

the

course

is, however,

often

reversed,

the

construction of textual genealogy becoming one which is post-, rather than pre-, heroic. Genealogical narrative is open to an achronological formation as the lineage is written backwards, the epic hero engendering his own ancestors.” In the context of this counter-chronology the character of the founding members of an epic family line may be formulated and constructed as a foreshadowing and prefiguration of the central hero of the epic cycle. The late thirteenth-century epic Berte as grans piés is one which serves to establish the ancestry of the prestigious family

of Charlemagne and Roland.” The character of Berte, as mother of Charlemagne and grandmother of Roland, is seen to be constructed in retrospective reflection of her prime genealogical position in the royal lineage. Drawing on folktale and myth, here in particular on the the cyclical through an essentialised maternity. The ‘writing-out’ of the feminine from the perceived genealogical, linear structure of the chansons de geste is not, therefore, a necessary corollary of its masculine emphasis. See The Kristeva Reader, edited by Toril Moi (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), pp. 187-213.

7

Bloch, Etymologies, p. 73.

2 “Most extant chansons de geste have survived in groups known as cycles, or “gestes”. The success of a song about one particular hero resulted in a number of others being written about him. A song dealing with his death could be followed by a later one describing his early life, so that his literary existence could begin with the end of his life and end with the beginning. In the same way, his ancestors could come into being after him, and those chansons celebrating the earliest heroes of a particular clan are often relatively late compositions, dating from the thirteenth or fourteenth century’ (John Fox, A Literary History of France: the Middle Ages (London: Ernest Benn, 1974), p. 59). 2 The edition used here is that by Albert Henry (Geneva: Droz, 1982).

278

F.E. Sinclair

motif of the substituted fiancée, the tale first appeared as a chanson de geste attached to the legend of Charlemagne

in the twelfth

century.” It was then remodelled in the thirteenth century by Adenet le Roi, whose text commences with an authorially-voiced prologue announcing the telling of the true version of ‘L’estoire de Bertain et de Pepin aussi’ (1. 11). Despite this secondary and almost supplementary positioning of Pepin and the eponymous titling of the text in favour of Berte, it is with his antecedents that the récit itself

then begins. It is evident that the opening two and a half laisses of Berte are formulated to provide a swift genealogical account of the male lineage preceding the birth of Charlemagne, the first-named

member of the lineage being Charles Martel, father of Pepin.” Pepin’s mother is not named, simply being referred to as Charles’s

wife (1. 59), or Pepin’s mother (1. 74).° The first section of the chanson also serves to ground the narrative firmly in Pepin’s heroism and nobility are forcefully established bachelor he kills a rampaging lion — a deed described as a ‘merveille’ (Il. 50-79). Events are recounted at author states:

epic mode as — as a young by the author speed, as the

En cesti ci matere ne vueil plus demorer, Parmi la vraie estoire m’en vorrai tost aler Et briement la matere et dire et deviser (80-82)

* See Motif-Index of Folk-Literature: a classification of narrative elements in folktales, ballads, myths, fables, medieval romances, exempla, fabliaux, jestbooks and local legends, edited by Stith Thompson, 6 vols (Copenhagen: Rosenkilde & Bagger, 1955-58), IV, 450-51. The introduction to Berte au Grand Pied, edited by Louis Brandin (Paris: Boivin, 1924), comments: ‘Ainsi donc ce conte nous apparaît au XII° siècle transformé en une chanson de geste, rattachée au cycle de Charlemagne, où la reine Berte est prise comme héroïne et où on lui attribue les pitoyables aventures de la “vraie fiancée” en butte aux criminelles intrigues de son indigne rivale’ (p. 7). * The narrative here is historically accurate, Charles Martel being father of Pepin and grandfather of Charlemagne. Anna Maria Mussens comments: ‘on doit aussi tenir compte de l’habitude de ne pas citer les noms féminins dans les généalogies quand ces personnes n’ont pas d’importance pour l’héritage’. See Anna Maria Mussens, ‘Berte ou le labyrinthe généalogique’, Revue des Langues Romanes, XCIV (1990), 39-59 (at p. 41). It is evident that in the present context it is specifically the male lineage which is held to be significant, the ‘heritage’ here being that of the patrilineage itself.

Reproductive Frameworks

29

The evident implication here is that the ‘vraie estoire’ which Adenet seeks to establish is that of Berte, eponymous heroine of the chanson as a whole. It is significant, however, that the credentials of Pepin (in regard to noble lineage and personal heroic quality) are so swiftly established, while the major part of the following récit is devoted to doing the same for Berte. The emphasis of Pepin’s lineage is one of evident male reduplication and continuation, as Pepin succeeds his father: ‘Conme droit hoir de France font Pepin coronner’ (1. 88). Berte thus commences with the foregrounding of a genealogy predicated on male succession, one to which it ultimately returns with the final verses signalling the advent of Charlemagne and Roland. The chanson de geste is thus intrinsically bound to the reduplication of a masculinity which extends in linear temporality both before and after the nexus which is the text of Berte. Despite this emphasis on the male lineage, the importance of Berte herself as mother of Charlemagne is clearly indicated by the existence of the chanson de geste which recounts her story. Anna Maria Mussens states: Berte occupe ainsi une place d’honneur dans les récits épiques, par le privilège de la généalogie, même si son histoire n’est pas à proprement parler épique; elle recueille simplement des sujets et des motifs de l’amas

légendaire universel.”

This perceived lack of epic content in favour of elements drawn from the stock of legendary motifs does tend to underplay the underlying epic orientation and significance of the chanson. Although Berte as grans piés does draw on a variety of legendary and ‘mythistorical” motifs, its subject and development tie it emphatically to the Cycle du Roi. Berte may well occupy ‘une place d’honneur’ purely because of her positioning as mother of Charlemagne and grandmother of Roland, yet in the thirteenth-century récit this genealogical importance exerts pressure on the narrative delineation of Berte’s character, this being projected as an idealised image of womanhood.

From the first Berte is established as a dutiful daughter and worthy consort. Of royal birth, her nobility is not open to question, and she 77

Mussens, ‘Berte ou la labyrinthe généalogique’, p. 39.

280

F.E. Sinclair

is immediately accepted as future bride by Pepin when her name is

suggested by Engerrans de Montcler:* ‘Sire, je en sai une, par le cors saint Omer, Fille au roi de Hongrie, molt l’ai oÿ loer;” Il n’a si bele fenme deça ne dela mer,

Berte la debonaire, ainsi l’oÿ nonmer’. ‘Seignor’, ce dist Pepins, ‘n’i a fors dou haster, Car cele vueil avoir a mollier et a per’ (107-12)

Beauty and lineage appear as the qualities which are of prime importance in signalling Berte’s suitability as wife of Pepin and

future mother of his heirs.” The relation of Berte to the masculine order of the text is as potential wife and mother. She may be exchanged between families, but rather than creating an appreciable bond between men, this places Berte firmly in a reproductive context, setting her in the same genealogical frame as Charlemagne and Roland. An important element in this positioning as future mother is Berte’s virginity, but this is initially accepted as given, the narrative remaining silent on this point. It is, however, underscored by the casting of her character in a religious mould, and Berte’s chastity is emphasised by both characters and narrator when it is later jeopardised by her expulsion from the enclosed world of the court. Louis Brandin views the chastity motif as a thirteenth-century addition, stating, of Adenet le Roi: ‘Aux traits de douceur et de

résignation, puisés a la tradition du folklore, il ajoute celui de la

chasteté la plus pure’. The addition of chastity works to enhance Berte’s worth and importance as a reproductive cipher, her physical * According to the tale of Floire et Blanchefloire, Berte’s father, Floire, is a converted Saracen, a fact which renders his daughter’s positioning as mother of Charlemagne somewhat problematic. Floire’s origin is not, however, mentioned in the text of Berte.

© It should be noted that the ‘Hongrois’ are often associated with Saracens and are therefore viewed as outsiders to the epic community (cf. Ermengart, mother of Guillaume d’Orange, who is Lombard, and Orable / Guiborc, his wife, who is Saracen). Although this would link with the Saracen origin of Berte’s father,

there is no suggestion in the text of Berte that her family are viewed as outsiders. The implicit reason for Pepin’s marriage is the necessity of producing an heir, as his previous wife died childless (11. 96-105). 1

Brandin, Berte au Grand Pied, p. 8.

Reproductive Frameworks

wholeness reflecting and reinforcing her spiritual thus heightening her perceived suitablity as mother Following her journey to France, marriage replacement in his bed by her servant Aliste, who her, Berte is abandoned in the forest.

281

and moral purity, of Charlemagne. with Pepin, and greatly resembles

The ‘substituted fiancée’ motif.

of the folktale here comes into play, yet from this point on a more evidently religious aura permeates the whole text, as both Berte and the narratorial voice frequently signal her reliance on the mercy of God. The double discourse of familial and religious devotion are brought together in the idealisation of her character: Lasse! mais ne verrai ma douce chiere mere Ne roi Floire mon pere, ma seror ne mon frere. Or soit Dieus de mon cors et de m’ame gardere!

(561-63)

Berte’s increasing emphasis on her relationship with God is paralleled by a continued reiteration of her emotional attachment to her family: ‘Ahi! ma douce mere, tant me souliez amer, Et vous, biau tres douz pere, baisier et acoler;

Ja mais ne me verrez, ce puis je bien jurer’. A genous et a coutes va la terre encliner. ‘Ha! sire Dieus’, fait ele, ‘tu te laissas cloer

Enz en la sainte crois pour ton pueple sauver, Dont vous doit bien chascuns servir et honnorer.

Qui plus a a soufrir, plus vous doit aorer, Car vous le pouez, sire, si bien guerredonner

Ceaus qui ainsi le font, ce sai je sans douter K’en vo saint paradis les faites coronner’

(1035-45)

The traits of passivity, duty and piety embodied by Berte link her

with the essentialised and impotent ideal of the feminine portrayed by contemporary didactic texts.”

32

%

Berte’s character, however, gains a

See Thompson, Motif-Index of Folk-Literature, IV, 450-51

See Etienne de Fougères, Livre des Manières, edited by R. Anthony Lodge

(Geneva: Droz, 1979); Philippe de Navarre, Les Quatre Ages de l’homme: traité moral de Philippe de Navarre, edited by Marcel de Fréville, S.A.T.F. (Paris:

Champion, 1888); and Robert de Blois, Chastoiement des Dames, in Robert de

282

F.E. Sinclair

further, more human dimension through the depiction of her love for her parents. This is an element which prevents her character from being read purely as a reproductive or a religious sign, as well as functioning as a narrative device which prepares the way for the subsequent recognition and reuniting of the family. The connection between didacticism and literary character construction is significant in that it serves to point up the perceived importance of establishing Berte as an ideal. The qualities which are ascribed to her reinforce her positioning in the genealogical matrix of the text, even though in

the context of the narrative Berte has been displaced from this position by the servant, Aliste, who takes her place as ‘wife’ of Pepin. The motif of virginity is significant in that it establishes Berte’s validity as future mother of the prestigious lineage, but it also functions as an intrinsic element in the religious ethos of the text. Berte’s character can be read as a type of ancilla Dei, her status as future mother of Charlemagne drawing distinct analogies with an implicit Virgin Mary topos. Although Berte is married in royal ceremony to Pepin (Il. 271-84), the marriage is never consummated and she remains virgin throughout her nine-and-a-half-year exile in

the forest.“ Her chastity, her sealed body, signals the potential for a reproduction which is as yet unfulfilled, its validity conferred and confirmed by the retrospective framing of the text, produced in full knowledge of the renown of Berte’s son, Charlemagne. The genealogical and religious importance of virginity are allied in the potential maternity of the closed female body. The text’s two spheres of discourse, the secular and the religious, do not, however, work in

complete harmony.

Although Berte is marked definitively as wife

and queen to Pepin, this is a marriage which is displaced by Berte herself, from the secular to the religious context:

Blois: son oeuvre didactique et narrative, edited by John Howard Fox (Paris: Université de Paris, 1948). * Eventually, after lengthy wanderings in the forest, Berte is sheltered by a

peasant family with whom she stays for nine and a half years (11. 1187-235; Il. 1426-27). The element of non-consummation immediately raises the question of the actual legitimacy of the marriage in terms of thirteenth-century law, yet this is never brought into doubt by author or characters.

Reproductive Frameworks

283

“Ahi! mere’, fait ele, ‘com ariez cuer mari,

Se vous saviez conment la serve m’a tray! Vous m’avez mariee a un riche mari, Car je suis mariee a Dieu qui ne menti: C’est li ros souverains a cui dou tout m’afi’

(1438-42)

The religious nature of Berte’s portrayal is once again underscored, but this emphasis on her relationship with God in terms which effectively replace the marriage with Pepin with a spiritual marriage verges on the subversive. Berte’s identity is constructed throughout the narrative in terms of her relation to Pepin and to her future offspring (her evident bond with her parents serves rather to stress Berte’s prior identity — that which validates her present inscription

as wife of Pepin).”

A negation or denial of marriage with Pepin

would ultimately serve to negate Berte’s narrative and intertextual significance. This effacing of an identity predicated on reproductive codification does, however, take place to a certain extent within the

narrative. Again, it is Berte herself who is instigator of this selfdenial and muting of identity. Although her position within the narrative framework of kinship relations is acknowledged, this is only to signal its imminent suppression. In the words of her vow to God: ‘Je vueil pour vostre amour ici endroit vouer Un veu que je tenrai a tous jours sans fausser, Que ja mais ne dirai, tant com porrai durer, Que soie fille a roi ne k’a Pepin le ber Soie fenme espousee, ja mais n’en quier parler, — G’iroie ains d’uis en huis mes ausmosnes rouver — Se ce n’est par un point, celui en vueil oster: Je le diroie avant, pour me faire douter, Que dou cors me laissasse honnir ne vergonder; . Ma virginité vueil, se Dieu plaist, bien garder, Car qui pert pucelage, ce est sans recouvrer’ (1049-59)

* The author frequently refers to Berte as ‘la roÿne Berte’ during her exile, e.g. lines 882, 885, 915, 980. This has the literary effect of heightening the disparity

between Berte’s royal status and her impoverished circumstances, yet it also signals her continual and essential linkage with Pepin.

284

F.E. Sinclair

Berte’s desire to preserve her virginity is framed in religious terms, its possible loss entailing personal shame and dishonour instead of relating to the wider social context of lineage. Her relationship at this point is with God, rather than with Pepin, and the preservation of the sealed body appears important in a religious, rather than a secular, context. Berte’s vow is sworn ‘for the love of God’ and in the context of God’s protection. Paradoxically, however, the holy vow may be broken only at the threat of the loss of virginity. Rather than projecting a cohesive and monologic statement (as in the case of nuns vowing chastity), the relation between vow and virginity is thus split, becoming dialectical and ambiguous, for Berte will equally lose and preserve a measure of sanctity whether she keeps or breaks her word. The nature of Berte’s relationship with God is thus destabilised, opened up to a potential secular influence which threatens either to breach the intact body, or to break Berte’s vow of silence. The marking of Berte’s identity in terms of her nobility disappears from the chanson de geste with the suppression of her name, her character then appears contained by the pure spirituality of a virgin bride of Christ. Her devotion is rewarded by God’s protection, firstly as two thieves attempt to rape her in the forest — this is preceded by her calling upon God and followed by prayers to the Virgin Mary (Il. 931-78). Her subsequent rescue from a savage bear is also attributed to divine intervention: “Aide Dieus’, fait ele, ‘qui fist la mer salee;

Pere de paradis, or est ma vie outree!’ De la paour qu’ele ot est cheüe pasmee, Et l’ourse s’en depart, autre voie est tornee;

Molt tost eüst Bertain mengie et estranglee, Mais Dieus la garanti et sa mere honnoree, Ne lor plot k’ainsi fust Berte a sa fin alee

(1152-58)

The marking of the bear as female (Il. 1151, 1155, 1162) lends symbolic weight to the episode — God will not allow Berte, as future mother of the imperial line, to be overcome by female inferiors, analogy being drawn between the carnivorous nature of the bear and the destructive, animal nature of Aliste and her mother, Margiste. The attack on Berte by thieves/rapists may equally be read as

Reproductive Frameworks

285

paralleling the depiction of Berte’s male servant, who complies with Margiste’s treachery. Noble lineage and the sanctioning hand of God raise Berte above all such threats posed by her social and moral inferiors. The use of hagiographic topoi is sustained by the interactive nature of Berte’s relation with Heaven, validating her piety and self-abnegation. Through her spiritual marriage, Berte is placed outside the temporal matrix into which her epic destiny would initially appear to inscribe her. The potential subversion inherent in the denial of her crucial positioning in the genealogical frame is not, however, allowed to come to fruition. Berte’s positioning as copula in the internarrative matrix of epic lineage may be silent, as her identity is silenced, but it is yet undeniable. Her maternal function in the royal lineage is still imperative in narrative and intertextual terms. Berte’s pre-destined role as mother of Charlemagne and grandmother of Roland is signalled early in the text: Sachiez que n’i ot gaires ne joie ne deduit La royne qui puis porta le noble fruit De quoi maint Sarrazin furent mort et destruit

(914-16)

Yet it is only at the meeting of Berte and Pepin in the forest, following the unmasking of Aliste, Berte’s substitute at Pepin’s court, that Berte’s predicted epic significance would appear to take precedence over her sanctification. The king is hunting alone when he encounters Berte (11. 2656-59), whose beauty recalls, yet surpasses, that of his ‘wife’, Aliste. His immediate desire is to take her with him and make her his mistress. It is at this point that Berte’s vow of silence in regard to her identity is broken: ‘Sire’, fait ele au roy, ‘je vous vueil conmander, El non a cel seignor qui se laissa pener Enz en la sainte crois pour son pueple sauver, K’a la fenme Pepin ne puissiez adeser: Fille sui le roy Floiree, de ce n’estuet douter, Et fille Blancheflour, que Dieus puist honnorer’

(2729-34)

Significantly, although Berte initially appeals to Pepin’s piety, she then immediately reveals her royal connections. God’s intervention is not, in this instance, expected, nor does it occur. Religious

286

F.E. Sinclair

discourse is here surpassed and displaced by a return to that of the epic, as Berte’s identity is regrounded in terms of her epic function as wife of Pepin. The appreciable shift from religious to epic discourse does not necessarily imply a replacement of the one by the other. The two operate in dialogic relation throughout the chanson, the religious predominating until the above meeting between Berte and Pepin. At this point the relation alters. The epic discourse, operating until now as underlying counter-narrative, becomes dominant, yet the religious structuring and implication behind the hitherto hagiographic construction of Berte’s character is still in force. Berte’s vow to conceal her identity may be broken, but the ‘get-out clause’ provided by the threat posed to her virginity means that her spiritual worth is not, in fact, negated. The characterisation of Berte in terms which emphasised her spirituality has served to affirm her intrinsic quality and worth. Owing to her faith and piety, she has been protected until now by divine guidance and intervention. The fact that God does not intervene at the meeting of Berte and Pepin in the forest then appears an explicit acknowledgement of the inherent rightness of the encounter and of Berte’s revelation of her identity. The revelation itself does in fact work to protect Berte in this instance, as was its intention.° Her desire to retain a state of corporeal intactness may signal Berte’s innate spiritual nature and her self-perception as Bride of God (1. 1441), yet God’s protection of her has been maintained in order to preserve her for this particular moment, for her re-inscription into the prime discourse of the text, that of epic genealogy. The

desire and motivation of epic textuality and religious discourse may now be read as concurring and as mutually reinforcing. Berte’s destiny as mother of Charlemagne is signalled by the author and the

epic text, but is lifted beyond the epic context to be ultimately sanctioned by the word of God. Charlemagne’s elevation as a ‘mythistorical’ figure in twelfth- and thirteenth-century literature exists in symbiotic relation with his religious significance, as supreme

* It is doubtful, however, whether this revelation of identity would realistically have worked as a deterrent in other circumstances. It is significant that on the

first threat to Berte’s virginity, the attack by the two thieves (ll. 941-51), the narrative does not require the breaking of the vow.

Reproductive Frameworks

287

Christian king and warrior against the infidel. God’s sanctioning of his birth through the medium of Berte thus privileges the mother-son dyad and underscores the implicit Mary-Jesus analogy. Berte is thus endowed with an air of sanctification. The narrative transposition from a dominant religious to a dominant epic discourse and the context in which the vow of concealment

is broken do, however,

signal the imminent loss of a primary constituent of this hagiographic portrayal — Berte’s virginity. The image of the sealed and saintly body is now replaced by that of the reproductive body as hero and textuality are engendered together. Berte’s role as matriarch of a heroic family is speedily commenced once she is reunited with Pepin. Gille, the mother of Roland, is conceived within the first three days, to be later followed by Charlemagne (11. 3170-73). Berte’s spiritual and physical value, earlier essentialised in her virginity, is now spent in the formation of the lineage. This provides an example of a case where the linear family model and the father-son succession perceived by Bloch cannot be mapped onto the epic text. Firstly, the primary focus of the text lies on Berte herself as mother of Charlemagne, rather than on Pepin as his father. Secondly, the heroic line which is begun by the birth of Charlemagne does not display a patrilinear continuity, for Roland, arguably Charlemagne’s heroic successor, does not follow him as legitimate son.” The characters who act as a foreshadowing and prefiguration of Charlemagne and Roland in the narrative of Berte, Berte, Pepin, Floire and Blancheflour (Berte’s parents), equally do not constitute a patrilineage. They are not presented as the heroic members of a lineage, but as its forebears, formulated as precursive elements to the text which their descendants will write. This projection into a future as yet unwritten (in the context of the particular narrative temporality of Berte) is forcefully indicated in the final lines of the chanson: Li premiers des enfans, de ce ne doutez mie, Que Pepins ot de Berte, la blonde, l’eschevie,

Orent il une fille, sage et bien ensaignie,

77 Roland is, however, viewed by Heintze as being Charlemagne’s illegitimate son. See Kônig, Held und Sippe, p. 448.

288

F.E. Sinclair Fenme Milon d’Aigient, molt ot grant seignorie, Et fu mere Rollant qui fu sans couardie, Ains fu preus et hardis, plains de chevalerie. Aprés ot Charlemaine a la chiere hardie, Qui puis fist seur paiens mainte grant envaie. Par lui fu mainte terre de paiens essillie, Maint hiaume decoupé, mainte targe percie, Maint hauberc derrompu, mainte teste trenchie; Molt guerroia de cuer sor la gent paiennie,

Si k’encore s’en duelent cil de cele lignie

(3473-86)

The narrative thus presents no closure. The religious discourse of Berte is pressed into counternarrative by the epic significance of the final scenes of the chanson, but this retrospective prediction of a future narrativity again signals the importance of religious theme and topos in the chanson de geste. The significance of Berte and of her positioning in the genealogical matrix of Charlemagne’s lineage is firstly signalled by the existence of the text of Berte itself. Secondly, the religious and social validation of Berte (as opposed to all others) as the means by which the heroic line will be produced is strongly voiced within the text. She is not the only woman who is placed by the narrative in a position to act as genitrix of an epic lineage by bearing Pepin’s children. He is married to an unnamed first wife soon after becoming king, yet: ‘Onques de cele fenme ne pot hoir engendrer, / Car il ne plot a Dieu qui tout a a garder” (Il. 96-97). Evidently suitable in social terms, this woman (of whom we are told virtually nothing, and who subsequently dies) is not sufficiently worthy in the eyes of God to serve as forbear of Charlemagne and Roland. The contrast with the later religious exaltation of Berte is crucial, emphasising her validity yet further. Even with the marriage of Pepin to Berte, however, the lineage cannot immediately be extended in valid form. Berte’s displacement by her servant, Aliste, effectively inscribes Aliste into Berte’s destined role in the reproductive matrix of text and society. Wife to Pepin in all but the marriage ceremony, Aliste bears him two sons.

The character of these two children is, however, striking in its

initial and continuous marking as deviant: Cele nuit fist li rois toute sa volonté

Reproductive Frameworks

289

De la tres fausse serve, plaine de mauvaisté; Un hoir i engendra, par fine verité, Qui Rainfrois ot a non, n’ot gaires de bonté; Puis en ot il un autre, Heudri l’ont apelé;

Plain furent de malice et de grant fausseté

(404-09)

Rainfrois is designated the heir, marked as such in the bounded context of the court by the laws of primogeniture and by the narrative’s veiling of his true identity in terms of his matrilinear descent. His innate qualities do not, however, befit him to fulfil this role, either within the confines of the narrative or in the external

frame of epic lineage. This is immediately and intuitively recognised by the boys’ grandmother as Pepin introduces his sons to Blancheflour with the words: ‘Cil doi sont mi enfant de vo fille ma drue’ (1. 1931). Palpably not of her blood and lineage, Blancheflour has no emotional response to the sight of the children: Blancheflour la royne, ou molt ot de bonté,

Regarda les enfans qui sont de joene aé; Ele n’en a nesun baisié ne acolé,

Car li cuers ne l’i trait, ce sachiez par verté

(1936-39)*

The birth of these two children has not been prevented by God (as with Pepin’s first wife), yet their lack of correspondence to any kind of ideal is supremely evident. As prospective inheritors of the name of the father and of the patrilineage the two boys are unsuitable, for they are illegitimate. In regard to the personal qualities which they

display they are again marked as inherently lacking, for these reveal them as heirs to the treachery and wickedness of Aliste’s lineage. Their existence may therefore be read as tolerated by the text

precisely because they are, in themselves, invalid, in both legal and

# Blancheflour’s intuitive recognition of the untruth behind Pepin’s words finds echo in her later reaction to Aliste, when the latter is presented to her as her ailing daughter: ‘Aÿde Dieus’, fait ele, ‘qui onques ne menti! / Ce n’est mie ma fille que j’ai trouvee ci; / Se fust demie morte, par le cors saint Remi, / M’eiist ele baisie assez et conjoy’ (Il. 2127-30). The evident alterity of Aliste and her children is indicated by Blancheflour’s innate goodness (1. 1936) and love for her daughter in contrast to the significant lack of these qualities ascribed to Aliste and her offspring.

290

F.E. Sinclair

moral terms. The text manifests no fear that Aliste’s children could ultimately usurp the place of Berte’s in the future dynasty. Its concern to construct an idealised ancestry for Charlemagne and to signal his advent precludes the inscription into the lineage of genealogical elements which are anything less than perfect. The children of Aliste do, nonetheless, have the narrative function of

providing a voiced counterpoint to those of Berte.” Their social and moral

illegitimacy

contrasts

with

the supremacy

of Berte’s

descendants, thus heightening the value of Berte herself when compared to Aliste. Even as future projection, the value of Berte’s offspring is markedly greater in both epic and religious terms than that of Pepin’s firstborn sons, whose lack of genealogical validity is signalled not only by their illegitimacy in law, but by their illegitimacy as heirs to the epic lineage. The fact that Pepin and Aliste are not legally joined in marriage is not sufficient explanation for their sons’ innate lack of worth.” Just as the boys are marked from the beginning as corrupt and malicious, so too is their mother. The first mention of Aliste carries the following narratorial prediction: ‘C’ert la fille la serve, ses cors soit li honnis, / Car puis furent par li maint grant malice empris’ (Il. 15960). From this point on Aliste is referred to as ‘la tres fausse serve’ (1. 405), Aliste ‘cui li cors Dieu maudie’ (1. 1458), and ‘la mal serve’

(1. 1561). Such epithets signal her innate lack of personal worth and integrity, her lack of religious justification and her lowly social position. The contrast with Berte could not be clearer. This narrative counterpositioning of the two women serves to heighten the disparity between them, yet, given the hagiographic tone of the central section of the chanson, it has further implications. The quasi-Marian status ® Aliste’s two sons also have an internarrative function, appearing as traitors in the fragmentary chanson de geste, Mainet, dating from the twelfth century. Ironically, in this text Charlemagne is usurped by his half-brothers, who poison Pepin and Berte and confine the legitimate heir to the kitchens, ruling in his place. See Jacques Horrent, Les Versions françaises des enfances de Charlemagne, Académie Royale de Belgique, Mémoires de la Classe des Lettres LXIV, fasc. 1 (Bruxelles: ARB, 1979), p. 48. For literary examples of illegitimate offspring who nonetheless embody noble qualities, see Doris Desclais Berkvam, Enfance et maternité dans la littérature

francaise des XII’ et XIII’ siècles (Paris: Champion, 1981), pp. 110-13. The most notable of these is perhaps Bernier of Raoul de Cambrai.

Reproductive Frameworks

291

of Berte has already been posited, owing to her spirituality and her being situated at the nexus of sanctified and heroic reproduction. If Berte is allied to the spirit, then Aliste is to the flesh, representing the perceived carnality of women. She goes willingly to Pepin’s bed, while plotting to destroy Berte (11. 350-60; 379-88) and once established as queen, her influence over Pepin is one of unmitigated lust: Grant avoir assamblerent — Dieus les puist maleir! Car li rois les laissoit de trestout couvenir,

K’en la serve avoit mis cuer et cors et desir. Qui bien la regardast a droit et a loisir, Bien desist que plus bele ne peiist on choisir; Mais tant estoit mauvaise que Dieu nes obeir Ne vouloit n’au moustier ne aler ne venir (544-50)

Aliste’s lust for wealth and power is sustained by Pepin’s enrapture. His heart and body should belong to his wife, yet this religiously sanctioned investment in marriage is here displaced, just as Berte herself has been displaced. The deviance of the pseudo-marriage with Aliste is explicitly signalled by the addition of ‘desir’ to the rightful investment of ‘cuer et cors’ (1. 1546), as the valid and ‘natural’ bonds of marriage are tainted and compounded by a desire which signifies the added element of sin and adultery.” Pepin’s desire for Aliste mirrors her desire for his kingdom, both forms of covetousness thus being bound within the sphere of the physical. This grounding of both Aliste and Pepin within a definite physicality would not appear to redound to the latter’s credit, or to fit easily with his epic status, yet if Aliste is viewed as analogous to Eve (here “| Aliste’s explicit rejection of God also places her as significant counterpoint to Berte. # As far as Pepin is aware, Aliste is indeed his legitimate wife, so his desire for her is not perceived by him as wrongful. It is made abundantly clear in the narrative context that Aliste’s wickedness far surpasses any measure of culpability which may be ascribed to Pepin. She is the cause of his infatuation, his fault being one of understandable compliance in the face of her feminine traits of wiliness, deception and seduction. The epic valuation of Pepin in terms of his genealogical significance is, in any case, sufficient to guard him against any personal taint caused by his failing to recognise the evil of Aliste and his complicity with her actions.

292

F.E. Sinclair

opposed to the Virgin Mary / Berte linkage), her seduction of Pepin carries overtones which place his character implicitly in analogous relation to Adam, implying inevitable and unavoidable seduction. The misogynistic topos of feminine beauty concealing innate wickedness functions throughout the text in relation to the depiction of Aliste. Her beauty is as that of Berte: Mieus ressamble Bertain que ne paindroit paigniere, N’ert fenme qui a eles de grant biauté s’afiere Nient plus c’uns pres floris samble gaste bruiere (345-47)

Yet the epithetic marking of her character and her own later behaviour work to belie this apparent similarity: ‘Forment se fist la

serve et douter et cremir, / Tant fist que molt forment se fist partout hair’ (Il. 1534-35). The final revelation of the deception practised by Aliste and her kin brings about her entry into a nunnery, yet this does little to mitigate the impression of the inherent wickedness of her character.

There is no indication, either from author or text, that this

move entails any sense of repentance on the part of Aliste. She praises God that her life has been spared (1. 2326), yet the justification which she offers for her entry into the nunnery is

decidedly secular: “bien sai lire et chanter’ (1. 2331). The only redeeming element in the depiction of Aliste’s character is that the driving force behind her actions is clearly shown to be her mother, Margiste. The evil characteristics of the mother would appear to have been inherited by the daughter, who in turn passes them on to her

own children.” In their Eve/Mary, carnalpiritual opposition Aliste is the inverse reflection of Berte, a duality marked by the differing nature of their marriages — the one illegitimate, yet bound by physical union, the other legitimate, yet originally unconsummated. Both the form and character of marriage act as implicit comment on the nature of the two women. The ‘marital’ relationship brings body and spirit into a dialectic, with Pepin as husband remaining as mediating constant, but

© This inheritance of character traits corresponds both to contemporary natural scientific belief, and to the characterisation of a whole lineage as either heroic or as treacherous in the context of the chanson de geste.

Reproductive Frameworks

293

although the nature of the children borne by Aliste and Berte could read as analogous to the form of the marriage itself, illegitimate legitimate, it is not this aspect of the children’s birth which ultimately emphasised by the text. Neither the religious validity

be or is of

Pepin’s two relationships, nor the legality of the children’s right to inherit serves to define their character or to establish their intrinsic worth. Instead, this appears entirely dependent on the personal characteristics of the mother. It is significant that the members of Aliste’s lineage seem to share her traits of treachery and malice, traits which appear most strongly in the character of her mother, Margiste, and which are in turn passed on to Aliste’s own offspring.” Aliste’s father, on the other hand, does not appear in the tale, implying a matrilinear inheritance of moral characteristics.

In contrast, both the

parents of Berte are as noble in character as she,.although again it is Berte’s

mother,

Blancheflour,

whose

character

features

most

evidently in the narrative and whose innate goodness is emphasised. As considered at the beginning of this paper, if the kinship structure of the chanson de geste is viewed as the narrative form which most closely parallels the social model of kin-relations and Berkvam’s study of Enfance et maternité agrees to an extent on this point: ‘Le déterminisme que provoque la notion de lignage peut nous paraitre particuliérement restrictif. Qu’une serve se fasse passer pour noble, qu’un descendant de Ganelon ne soit pas traitre, voila qui est impossible’ (p. 19). On this point, however, Berkvam would appear to conflate the categories of social position and genealogical inheritance. Social caste and lineage are evidently inter-related, Aliste comes from a lineage of servants and is thus bound within a servile context, yet a lineage (whether noble or otherwise) may carry a particular form of textual marking — positive or negative, as in the case of the family of Ganelon.

Berkvam would, however, hold that Aliste’s evil nature is an aspect of

her usurping of a higher social position: ‘Au début du récit, Aliste et sa mére sont des serves, mais des servantes en qui l’on a confiance. Du jour où Aliste usurpe la place de Berte aux côtés du roi Pépin, sa bassesse resurgit [...] Aliste n’aurait pu être bonne qu’à l’intérieur de sa caste, en restant fidèle et obéissante à sa maîtresse. En tant que reine, il lui est impossible de réussir sa vie’ (pp. 18-19). The analogy drawn between the lineage of Ganelon and the lack of social mobility of Aliste is evidently based on a redundant premise, and as such does not accurately illustrate the point which Berkvam is trying to make. In the case of Berte it is not a question of character altering as social position alters, rather individual character and inherited lineage are intrinsically interdependent, the one constituent of the other. Qualities of a lineage (whether noble or peasant) are essential to that lineage, rather than to the context in which its representative may be found.

294

F.E. Sinclair

inheritance which had developed by the twelfth century, then its emphasis on linearity and continuity would serve to privilege a framework of male relationships dependent upon patrilinear descent. Women would merely be adjunct, assimilated to the male line in order to provide a continuation of patronym and patrimony. As already considered, the correspondence of such a model to social and textual ‘reality’ is debatable. It is however, a theory which is seen to operate in the context of the medieval text and in its modern

interpretation.” The privileging of the masculine forces the presence and importance of women into the political unconscious of society and text, the feminine appearing as lack and silence in the ideological

representation of social and kinship relations. To take such a reproductive model a stage further in the context of medieval narrative, if lineage is articulated in a straight father-son progression, predicated on consanguinity, reduplication and continuity, it is the father himself who should be reproduced. The son should be cast in the mould of the father, as physical extension and reduplication of the patrilinear inheritance. Leaving aside the question of the perceptible discontinuity in the chanson de geste’s narrative and internarrative progression from father to son, the functioning of this theory of epic genealogy hinges on the apparent elimination of the maternal as formative input. Correspondence to the reproductive pattern of the chanson de geste here breaks down. Rather than projecting a reproductive model of an essential and excluding patrilinearity, in which all positive formation is tied implacably to the father, the genealogy of the chanson de geste reveals itself as open to a significant maternal influence. Given the example of Berte as grans

piés, the constant factor in the two reproductive ‘marriages’ of Pepin is the king himself, yet, as considered above, the offspring of these two relationships is markedly different and relates specifically to the

innate worth and validity of the mother’s character. Although a means to a specific end, that of duplicating the masculine and extending the male lineage, the mother herself is marked as either

“ The notion of the modern critic’s ‘horizon of expectation’ is important in regard to the perception and reading of the medieval text. See Hans Robert Jauss, Toward an Aesthetic of Reception, translated by Timothy Bahti (Brighton: Harvester Press, 1982), and Kay, The ‘Chansons de geste’.

Reproductive Frameworks

295

positive or negative in the reproductive context. It is this symbolic marking of the maternal which is then transmitted through the mother to her children.“ Despite its assimilation to the masculine framework of the text, the signifying value of the woman as mother is not negated,

but

appears

an

integral

and

essential

aspect

of the

genealogical structure of the chanson de geste. The importance which the genre places upon lineage through the chronological and intertextual linking of tales in epic cycles, and the diachronic elaboration of a hero’s genealogy does not work to exclude the mother and the significance of the matrilinear inheritance. On the contrary, the genealogical structure of the chanson de geste is one which allocates a significant space to the mother and which acknowledges her influence on the definition of the epic lineage.

University of Edinburgh and University of Strathclyde

“This corresponds to the twelfth and thirteenth-century belief that the mother did have influence over the development of the child in the womb. Her temperament, disposition and personal characteristics were of particular relevance in this respect. See the introduction to Helen Rodnite Lemay, Women’s Secrets: a translation of Pseudo-Albertus Magnus’s ‘De Secretis Mulierum’ with commentaries (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1992).

roger

A Aan TEA

~

RATEmr sq Mont. 14eme ardentaesee nca BAIN ER ER bete yhte isle in

bata oefar esa pin eats MAR Rate ebeegOh:

a

a: qomhrodl henri romsbaug = Rs

aaoelry re atom

ÉD

peat WEL.ising sea

re

RS

nié Lénine

en Horde no ‘imbsichde”

CORPO iagitwadtobud sedi à

gi Miso, Raceee ee

ae

|

gun,

de ae ror ob Sis Jar NW LATE

al

ON SPANISH BALLADS FRENCH EPICS

AND

Colin Smith‘ This is not a research paper or an exposition of novel opinions, but a restatement about an important piece of literary history which is well-known to Hispanists but somewhat neglected by those who specialize in French epic. In that vast field scholars have always taken full account of its international ramifications in terms both of origins and sources, and of extensions in all languages when texts retained epic dimensions, especially when following up the Roland story right across the continent and its islands and across the centuries too; but the cultural implications of other kinds of late extension abroad have perhaps not been fully appreciated. I take the opportunity to draw attention to recent publications which may be of interest. Spain has something special to offer studies of Rolandian origins by providing the whole background to the chanson, including the site of the battle, and by preserving the summary of an early form of the legend — traditionalists insist, the summary of an early form of the vernacular epic — in the enigmatic Nota emilianense of mideleventh century date.’ But Spain and the Iberian Romance languages in their ballads also preserve an astonishing wealth of +

It is with great sadness that the editors note the death of Colin Smith, who had

been an active member of the Société Rencesvals for many years and a good friend of Wolfgang van Emden. ' The Nota, entered on a page of a manuscript of the monastery of San Millan de la Cogolla, gives a short prose summary of an early version of the Roland story. See Damaso Alonso, La primitiva épica francesa a la luz de una nota emilianense (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1954).

298

Colin Smith

French epic material, not only in manuscripts of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and in printings of the sixteenth, but even today in a live (though rapidly declining) oral tradition, in which discoveries are still being made. Within the huge corpus of the Romancero, these Carolingian romances form a distinctive and very attractive group. If Spain from the point of view of the French poets in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was a perfect setting for their tales, an epic ‘space’, full of infidels and giants and marvels, Carolingian Franconia has been a perfect setting for sub-epic fantasies in Spanish ballads down the centuries, for an imagined world of intermingled heroics, magic, luxury, and eroticism. In form, the Carolingian ballads share that of all the romances: strongly rhythmical octosyllabic lines with assonance on the even-

numbered

lines in a continuous (non-strophic)

structure.

Many

ballads are songs, and for some the tunes, recorded in sixteenthcentury music-books or from the recent oral tradition, are known. Modern anthologies and collections of older texts more or less agree on categories by type and theme: ballads on themes of Spanish medieval history, many of these having links with thirteenth-century epics; fronterizo or border ballads of the fifteenth century about campaigns against Moorish Granada; Carolingian poems; a few on Arthurian and related themes; poems of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries on biblical and classical themes, on Amadis, etc.;

and a large amorphous group deemed ‘novelesque’, these often having links with the lyric, with songs and poems from France and beyond, and rich in folkloric motifs. An excellent recent editor, Giuseppe di Stefano, has preferred to group the Carolingian texts together with many others as ‘novelesque’, and it can readily be

argued that they have much in common and that in the public mind in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries these did indeed form a somewhat amorphous whole.” Such at least is the corpus of late medieval texts, the romances viejos. These, after being composed and disseminated, had in many cases flourished in the oral tradition of performers and had evolved therein before being printed in Romancero, edited by Giuseppe di Stefano, Clasicos Taurus, 21 (Madrid: Taurus, 1993). Ballads numbered 1 to 52 (nearly one-third of the total of 161) are grouped under the heading ‘Romances novelescos’.

On Spanish Ballads and French Epics

299

pliegos sueltos (the single sheet folded) from the early sixteenth century. They were then gathered into substantial collections from about 1548, the orally-known texts doubtless being often polished or

rewritten by court musicians and by editors and printers to suit the

taste of the times. From the mid-sixteenth century the ballad flourished anew in hundreds of original compositions, now often by named authors, on historical and mock-Moorish themes, in satire, as lyrics, and so on. These romances artificiosos or artisticos retain their original form when found as printed texts and although in some cases widely known have not evolved in any oral tradition. The true oral tradition is memoristic and respectful of received materials, though permanently open to change and abounding in variants, and allowing frequent contaminations between sometimes disparate texts. Although rich in formule and having their own rhetoric, the ballads are not examples of orally-generated texts on the Parry-Lord model as has sometimes been wishfully thought. This memory has sometimes preserved texts and themes and variants which were not picked up by the sixteenth-century collectors and printers, so that in our own times it has provided precious independent testimony.’ Examples of that kind include ballads about Celinos based on Beuve de Hantone and about Floresvento based on Floovant, known in the modern Sephardic tradition. So native and traditional is the form and so readily do Spaniards compose it that it is no great surprise to find it used in present-day satire and in advertising jingles. It has been used more seriously and extensively by Romantic and twentieth-century poets such as Machado and (most notably) Lorca. During the civil war of 1936> Some thoughts on this process and on the ways in which the true oral tradition may be misrepresented are offered by Ian Michael, ‘Factitious Flowers or Fictitious Fossils? The romances viejos re-viewed’, in ‘Al que en buen hora nacio’: Essays on the Spanish Epic and Ballad in Honour of Colin Smith, edited by Brian Powell and Geoffrey West (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press; London: Modern Humanities Research Association, 1996), pp. 91-105. “ See for example the convincing evidence adduced by Samuel G. Armistead, ‘Modern Ballads and Medieval Epics: Gaiferos y Melisenda’, La Corénica, XVIII

(1989-90), 39-49. Armistead’s forceful consequential reasoning about wider implications is more debatable.

300

Colin Smith

39 it appeared as strident propaganda verse blared from radios and loudspeakers by both sides.

The predominant language of the ballads is Castilian, as are most of the epic and historical themes, and it is assumed that composition originally occurred in Castile as did most of the sixteenth-century printings. It must, however, be added that many poems were composed in Valencia, in the Kingdom of Aragon, by writers who adopted Castilian conventionally, and in Northern Italy in the early sixteenth century, while important collections were printed in Antwerp. Today some of the richest areas explored by the collectors are in the north-west

of the Peninsula in Leonese lands,

but other regions such as the remote Canaries have proved productive too, and from the nineteenth century into our own times strong traditions have been recorded in Catalan and Portuguese. The Sephardim, the Jews who were expelled from Spain in 1492 to North Africa, Italy, the Balkans, and the Ottoman empire, took with

them a rich stock of Castilian ballads as well as song and folklore; although they are now in grave decline socially as well as linguistically, their descendants have recorded much of this for collectors in recent times. The ballad tradition in Castilian and Portuguese extends to the New World too. The Carolingian ballads may be considered in three groups: the oldest stratum associated with the tradition of the Chanson de Roland,

those

derived

from

other

French

epics,

and

those

the

Spaniards call ‘juglarescos’, trovadoresque, newly composed in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries without dependence on any

particular French text or tradition, though still vaguely set in Carolingian times. This third group might be best called ‘pseudoCarolingian’. Some of this last group, being lengthy complete narratives, have evolved much less or hardly at all in recitation (they can hardly have been sung), but others, such as Gerineldos, have developed in fully traditional ways down to our own times. As we can tell from the Nota emilianense, the Roland story in an early form was known in the north-east of the Peninsula in the mideleventh century, and in Castile there are several references to the heroes in the twelfth, by which time we can safely assume that the Chanson de Roland in some form approximating to the ‘Oxford’ text was widely known among the numerous French pilgrims to

On Spanish Ballads and French Epics

301

Compostela and more significantly among those who settled in the barrios de francos of towns along the route. The Spanish clergy too by this time knew of claims made in other texts, in authoritative Latin, about Charlemagne’s activities and conquests in Spain, and began scornfully to rebut these. At some date we do not know there was composed in Navarre the Roncesvalles, of which a 100-line portion survives (in a script probably of the early fourteenth century), concerning the emperor’s lament over the corpses of the peers on the battlefield. It has long been assumed, on Menéndez Pidal’s authority, that this is a fragment of what had been a full epic, a free translation of some late version of the Roland with certain distinctive Hispanic features added, and this to my mind still seems the best definition for a variety of reasons. However, it has recently been proposed that this planctus was no more than a substantial ballad text, and that only a few lines from the start and the end are missing.° The point is of some importance, since the tendency of Menéndez Pidal and of his followers in the neotraditionalist school has been to regard the surviving Rolandian ballads as authentic

fragments of original epic, which in this case would be a Roncesvalles of the thirteenth century, or possibly a lost Castilian *Cantar de Rodlane, whereas it could on the contrary be best to regard them all as independent creations which were loosely based on the epic themes, and thus of later origin in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The three best-known ballads about the fight in the Pyrenees (Ya comienzan los franceses, Domingo era de Ramos, En los campos de Alventosa) are, while faithful to the spirit of the French Roland, $ For a recent discussion, including the possibility that Roncesvalles (considered a full epic) might antedate the Poema de mio Cid, see Ian Michael, ‘Origenes de la epopeya en España: reflexiones sobre las ültimas teorias’, in Actas del II Congreso Internacional de laAsociaciôn Hispänica de Literatura Medieval (Segovia, October 1987] (Alcala de Henares: Universidad de Alcala de Henares, 1991), pp. 71-88. Jane Whetnall, ‘A Question of Genre: Roncesvalles and the Siete infantes Connection’, in Powell and West, ‘Al que en buen ora nacio’, pp. 171-87. Whetnall takes account of a 1934 study by Francis J. Carmody in which a similar proposal was made. If Whetnall is right about the dependence of the planctus in Roncesvalles upon an important episode of the Siete infantes epic, it should be recalled that, in the view of some, the latter may itself be a composition of the midthirteenth century, making Roncesvalles later still.

%

302

Colin Smith

rather remote from it in form and style and in many details. The ballad about Dona Alda’s fatefully prophetic dream (En Paris esta dona Alda), one of the finest of all our texts, permits (as the others do not) a direct comparison with the many Jaisses over which the story of la belle Aude extends in rhymed versions of the Roland (and it may owe something also to the Occitan Ronsasvals). But the Spanish ballad is much more than what might have been a fragment of the Roncesvalies epic, being rather a masterly concentration and new expression of the theme, less diffuse and less melodramatic than the original but much romanticized at the same time. This probably takes us into a late period of refined poetic sensibilities, one in which there was a full consciousness of the ballad as an established genre with its distinctive requirements and appeal. With these Rolandian ballads one may associate several famous poems deemed on account of their style juglarescos, most notably jOh Belerma, oh Belerma! and Durandarte, Durandarte (the name of Roland’s sword being applied to a knight), which express ideals of extravagantly courtly devotion in love and are vaguely related to the peers at Roncevaux. These two have a special importance because they were to have an extraordinary resonance in Cervantes. At an early stage other French chansons de geste were known in Castile. Mainet was of interest for its tale of the young Charlemagne in Toledo, and this part of its story was recounted at length in Alfonso X’s Estoria de Espana in the early 1270s (known

to us as chapters 597-99 of the Primera Cronica General). Menéndez Pidal was sure that there existed a full Castilian Mainete epic, but it is not necessary to suppose this, and the presence of one relevant name, that of Galiana, in a modern Sephardic ballad, by no

means supports the idea.’ Other epics popular in France about 1200 had been known to, and were exploited in different ways by, the author of the Poema de mio Cid (1207?): Ogier le Danois, ’ The question of Mainete is reviewed by Alan Deyermond, La literatura perdida de la Edad Media castellana: catélogo y estudio, I: Epica y romances (Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 1995), pp. 113-17. The Sephardic ballad putatively related to Mainet, of which Deyermond (p. 116) quotes ten lines, appears to have only the name ‘Galeana’ in favour of such a connection, and this can surely be dismissed as casual.

4

On Spanish Ballads and French Epics Fierabras, Girart de Roussillon, etc.®

Others

303

such as Berte were

absorbed at length into the prose Gran conquista de Ultramar of the late thirteenth century. The Roncesvalles fragment (as I will continue to call it) has allusions to other French poems (Girart de Vienne, Mainet, Le Voyage de Charlemagne, and perhaps Renaut de Montauban) as well as to the Historia Turpini, which could all have been available before 1200. In all these cases there is no need to postulate pre-existing Spanish verse translations of the texts: the French sources were simply adapted directly into the Spanish prose texts we know, or are alluded to in them.

From

this substantial

group of chansons de geste no ballads derive, but it is worth mentioning them in order to show that Spanish knowledge, and frequent exploitation, of the French epic corpus was early and constant, in line with the use of French

and Occitan texts in other

genres and of Latin texts brought from France. In the second category, many ballads derive from a group of seven French epics which have left no trace in other Spanish literary genres of the time. These are Aiol, Aye d’Avignon, Aymeri de Narbonne, Beuve

de Hantone, Floovant,

the Chanson

des Saisnes,

and Ogier le Danois which had been known to the author of the Poema de mio Cid. Again one must not assume that there existed

Spanish verse translations as intermediaries, have been a partial one of the Saisnes poem,

though there might since four ballads

derive from a section of the French text (laisses 101a-156a) and from that alone, so it is logical to suppose that a Spanish version of this achieved a certain popularity and that ballads were made from it. However, in these cases great transformations occurred: for example, in ballads based on the Saisnes poem, the scene has moved to a Spanish ‘Sansuefia’ (Saragossa), Sébilie has become in one ballad

the infidel princess Sevilla and in another the city of Sevilla, while the Rhine has as a result become that city’s aqueduct. What the means of transmission of this group might have been, if full verse translations of these texts cannot reasonably be postulated, is a matter of sheer conjecture. Perhaps — though there is no 8

For a survey of these influences, see Colin Smith, The Making of the ‘Poema

de mio Cid’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 155-66.

304

Colin Smith

surviving trace of it — in the fourteenth century a collection of French manuscripts was presented to a noble family of Castile or to a bishop’s household, as Arthurian prose romances were at the time (and were subsequently translated), the collection then serving to inspire one or more ballad poets. Such a process indicates composition by relatively sophisticated poets, not by unlettered minstrels, but even so the new ballads passed into the popular domain. By this late stage French chansons de geste were fading in popularity in their homeland and the heroic traditions were weakening, but the texts retained sufficient appeal to produce extensions and imitations abroad. They did so in Northern Italy, on quite a large scale as full epics, and the same evidently happened in Spain and among Spaniards abroad but as transformations of very limited selected materials reworked in the ballad form. Indeed it has been suggested that the presence in Northern Italy of Spanish literary people such as Juan Rodriguez del Padrén (on whom more later) may explain the development and the nature of the Spanish Carolingian ballads, which share features and some materials with

the late Franco-Italian epics.’ It is to the fourteenth and especially the fifteenth century that one must look for these creations, to a

period when the ballad was recognized as a genre in its own right and when new tastes were informing it.” This being so, the early history of the genre is relevant.

The first ballads of which we have definite evidence (but not contemporaneous texts, since records begin only with manuscripts

of the fifteenth century and printings of the sixteenth) are, curiously enough, political in nature. One relates to an incident of 1328,"' and ° Charles V. Aubrun, ‘Les Preux (les premiers romances dits carolingiens)’, Chapter 9 of his book Les Vieux Romances espagnols (1440-1550) (Paris: Editions Hispaniques, 1986), pp. 99-108. This reproduces an article first published in 1985. This point was well made by W.J. Entwistle in 1932, in a passage quoted by Deyermond: ‘Besides the ballads which may have originated as fragments of epics, like the two ancient members of the Roncesvalles cycle, there are those which have never been anything but ballads, and such are the most distinguished derivatives of the ia chansons de geste in Spain’ (Deyermond, La literatura perdida, p. 135, note).

"The ballad about Fernando IV ‘el emplazado’ relates to an incident of 1312, but the ballad is not necessarily contemporary, since the incident would have been long

On Spanish Ballads and French Epics

305

then several concern the civil wars of the reign of Peter the Cruel (1350-69) and were evidently used as propaganda songs. One of these, about an event of 1368, is both a propaganda poem and the first of the frontier ballads, the latter following events in sequence from 1407. The status and dating of the novelesque ballads is unknown; some poeticize very ancient and widespread folk motifs, but need not have assumed their ballad form until this was more or less fixed in the fourteenth century. The earliest recorded ballad text is of 1421 and is of this kind, being in theme a sort of inverted pastourelle.” The earliest record of Carolingian ballads is in the Cancionero de Londres compiled about 1500, where three texts on

themes of love (one of them in later versions to be famous as Conde Arnaldos) are included among other poems attributed to Juan Rodriguez del Padrén who had flourished about 1430-40. He was a minor

Galician

nobleman

who

served

as a courtier

in Castile,

travelled in the south of France, Burgundy, and the north of Italy, and wrote two sentimental prose romances among other works. Although the Spanish traditionalists believe he merely set down what were already traditional ballads picked up in his native Galicia, others think he was indeed the author, and since all his work and life

seems to have been courtly, Aubrun may well be right when he said: ‘Les trois romances s’adressent 4 un méme public: les jouvenceaux de la Cour de Castille au temps de Jean II’ (p. 38), where he would have recited them or had them sung. He may well have been influential in creating a substantial and long-lasting genre. It is generally thought that the ballad metre of assonanced octosyllables evolved in the fourteenth century from the epic metre with its somewhat freer system of stresses and variable syllablecount.” It can be asserted with confidence, even though the full remembered. The ballad starts with lines which have been thought to refer to Fernando III, who died in 1252. 12 This is the famous Gentil dona, gentil dona, set down by Jaume de Olesa. The dating to 1421 has been generally accepted, but is challenged by C.V. Aubrun in

an article of 1983, reproduced as Chapter 4 of Les Vieux Romances espagnols. Aubrun dates the manuscript text to 1470-75.

13° This is the standard doctrine, following Menéndez Pidal. There is however something to be said for the view that the ballad may be much older: see Roger Wright, ‘How Old is the Ballad Genre?’, La Corénica, XIV (1985-86), 251-57,

and (following a rebuttal by Armistead) “Several Ballads, One Epic, and Two

306

Colin Smith

epic texts do not survive and are known only in prose redactions, that several solid cycles of ballad texts represent the high points, the most memorable scenes, of such epics as Los Infantes de Lara and Sancho II y el cerco de Zamora, while others much more distantly echo the Poema de mio Cid and of course the Chanson de Roland,

long established in some Hispanic form and regarded as native, while a few poems may have been based on vernacular chronicle texts which had absorbed the epics. Rhyme-schemes are assumed to preserve those of the epics, and when a ballad uses two or more assonances, such ‘paragraphs’ represent two or more Jaisses of the epic. Collectively, the vaguely ‘historical’ ballads of epic origin seem to have been the work of a group of professional poets and musicians, who fixed and polished the new texts and provided them with tunes. Listeners took the materials to their hearts and absorbed them into a memoristic oral tradition. Such a hypothesis at least accounts for the facts and explains the continued union of materials and poetic form that we observe. The ballad with its form and special rhetoric was then a ready recipient for heroic themes from another source, the seven chansons de geste grouped above (Aiol, etc.), just as it was ready to be the vehicle for the border ballads from 1407 and for those about King Roderick composed after about 1430 on the basis of Pedro del Corral’s Corénica Sarracina. Perhaps from the time of Juan Rodriguez del Padrén, then tenuously from a reference of 1462, and powerfully by the end of the fifteenth century, there is evidence to show that the ballad, earlier considered an unliterary and even rustic product, began to enjoy wide esteem in courtly and intellectual circles and among cultured poets and musicians. Furthermore, during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries

notions of chivalric

endeavour

and of courtly love must have

worked their way from their aristocratic origins down through the

social strata to nourish the new sensibility which we can recognize in the ballads. These notions had been imported from France from early in the fourteenth century for the aristocracy in versions of the Chronicles’, La Corénica, XVIII (1989-90), 21-37.

On Spanish Ballads and French Epics

307

great French prose romances on the themes of the Grail, Lancelot, Merlin, Tristram

and Iseult, etc., and earlier,

by Occitan

poets

whose presence is well documented in the courts of Aragon and Galicia, and to a lesser extent in Castile. The native progenitor of the new Arthurian sensibility, who was to spawn offspring for a long time, was born probably in the 1340s in the person of Amadis de Gaula. This was also the period of the final flowering of reallife chivalric endeavour of the demonstrative kind, in which knights from the Peninsula were as prominent as any. There were later (in the days of printing of Amadis, from 1508) to be ballads on the theme of Amadis and his relatives, and there are one or two early examples about Tristram and Lancelot. All this surely helped to create the taste for the fantastic, the lushly heroic and pseudohistorical, in which Carolingian themes, suitably transformed, might flourish. In the new sensibility, the feminine voice and feminine points of view are especially prominent. It is assumed, surely rightly, that ballad makers and early professional performers were all men, as were the collectors and printers in the sixteenth century. Eventually the guardians of the oral tradition and those in different countries who have sung ballads, mostly in domestic settings or in small social gatherings, have in a strong majority been women, and these will over the generations often have adjusted received texts to suit their inclinations, for example by intruding notes of what is to us a rather

sickly religiosity unknown in the earlier tradition. In the famous long ballad Retraida esta la infanta (Conde Alarcos), the evil desires of the unmarried

and childless Infanta for her lost lover Alarcos,

now married to the Condesa and father of three children by her, dominate the early part of the text, but it eventually concentrates on the Condesa with much emphasis on her state of married bliss and on the children (lines 110-12) soon to be left motherless. Others such as Doña Alda are the innocent victims of tragedies and slaughter perpetrated far away by their menfolk in their crazy quest for honour and victory. 14 Martin de Riquer, Vida caballeresca en la España del siglo Academia Española, 1965).

XV (Madrid: Real

308

Colin Smith

In another category there belong the numerous lustful princesses who are outspoken, sure of themselves, overt

advertisers

of their

charms, and disposed to follow their inclinations whatever the risks and consequences. These portrayals and episodes which originated as depictions of ‘la belle Sarrasine’ are in the clearest possible way the fantasies of male poets, evidently found agreeable to male audiences but by no means unwelcome to women who have preserved and sung them. When the women are princesses they were

in real life remote,

and if Muslims they were,

as Spaniards

very well knew even if the French did not, rigorously protected and enclosed, so that in such cases to the element of ordinary sexual fantasy there is added a dimension of power being secured over what is unattainable and forbidden. In the Spanish epic and in ballads derived from it, there are a few strong women, such as Doha Lambra (Siete Infantes de Lara) and even the young Jimena as she pleads for justice (Mocedades del Cid), but any truly erotic note is occasional and usually muted.” In the Carolingian ballads we have scenes in which the women take the initiative in a sexual relation (Rosaflorida), even acting as huntresses who operate by night with the aid of magic (Melisenda), and others in which they are at least enthusiastically compliant (Claraniña in Conde Claros). In the Carolingian ballads, the feisty princesses mostly get what they want and any notion of sexual sin is palliated by eventual marriage (Conde Claros) or is at most attenuated when the punishment is merely a warning conveyed by a symbol (the royal sword laid between the sleeping lovers in bed in Gerineldos). Other symbols are even more overtly Freudian, for example the ring and embroidered pennant for a lance exchanged as presents by Valdovinos and Sevilla (Nuño Vero, Nuño Vero). In keeping with all this, the women may have exotic names as part of their charm:

*

Belerma,

Melisenda,

Rosaflorida,

Claraniña.

See Alan Deyermond, ‘La sexualidad en la épica medieval española’, Nueva

Revista de Filologia Espanola, XXXVI (1988), 767-86. Deyermond’s work gives due importance to an understudied aspect, but the fact remains that in Spanish epic (including chronicle accounts of otherwise lost poems) there are no scenes of sexual intimacy, no titillating descriptions of female charms, and hardly any sexually aggressive women (dofia Lambra is exceptional).

On Spanish Ballads and French Epics

Their

male

Reinaldos,

counterparts Arnaldos,

have

Guarinos,

un-Spanish Alarcos,

names Dirlos.

309

often The

in -os: women’s

magical powers or associations, their dreams and prophecies, take us into a realm adjoining fairyland. (The few ballads derived from the matiére de Bretagne do the same.) Significant numbers, threes and sevens, are everywhere in these ballads. There are oaths and curses, auguries, extravagant heroic endeavours, appeals to the notions of chivalry and solidarity embodied in the Twelve Peers and ‘the laws of France’, the remote authority of ‘the emperor’ in un-Spanish guise as el emperante, journeys to and scenes in Paris as the ultimate city of myth.

Descriptions of sumptuous dress, brilliant gems, the

charms of music, and elaborate social rituals, correspond to a period

of luxury and display in royal and aristocratic circles of the closing years of the fifteenth century and first half of the sixteenth. Two studies by Aubrun link groups of these pseudo-Carolingian ballads firmly with the court life and aristocratic aspirations of Valencia, the port through which Spain maintained its relations with the Aragonese Kingdom of Naples, and Mantua, where covert allusions to persons present at performances (masquerades?) may perhaps be

discerned.”° Much of this was, in ways that Spanish literary historians have seemed unwilling to recognize, sheer literary entertainment, selfaware and even a little tongue-in-cheek. Aubrun remarks that

‘Enfin, les romances sont a la fois édifiants et ludiques’ (p. 103). The

impression

youthful

vigour

consecrated

is one

and

formule,

of

elegance,

aspirations. notable

sophistication,

These

archaisms,

ballads and

are

freshness,

rich

picturesque

in non-

Castilian forms, which (in addition to the exotic personal names and settings) enhance the air of unreality. A large world of fantasy, sharing the spirit of contemporary libros de caballerias and sentimental romances, has been created as a renewal of the long-

established ballad form.

One should perhaps not give too much

16 On these aspects, see Chapters 8 to 10 of Aubrun’s 1986 Les Vieux Romances espagnols. Aubrun’s extreme ‘positivist’ view, expressed throughout his book, that most ballads (including even the viejos closely linked to Spanish epics) were composed often with archaizing intent not very long before we have first records of them in manuscripts or in print, is rejected by traditionalists.

310

Colin Smith

emphasis to what would, if the moral messages of some of the ballads were to be taken with full literal weight, be subversive of ‘establishment’ beliefs of the time, for example about the divine nature of kingship, the godliness of the clergy, and the sinfulness of sex, but the Carolingian ballads do at least show that many people were disposed to take a light-hearted view of all this at least in verse

and song.'’ There was doubtless need of a safety-valve under such a puritanical and repressive régime as that of Philip II. In the famous Medianoche era por filo (Conde Claros), the Count and Princess Claraniña indulge in a shamelessly provocative dialogue and are then caught in flagrante in broad daylight in the palace garden. When the Count is condemned to death on a charge of rape, the Princess, the Twelve Peers, the nuns from a convent, a cardinal and

an archbishop all plead for clemency, the archbishop even commenting, in lines that were to be much quoted, ‘que los yerros por amores / dignos son de perdonar’. This imagined world of the Carolingian and pseudo-Carolingian was to have a long life. With the other older groups these ballads remained popular throughout the Golden Age. Géngora parodied two well-known ballads in the 1580s but could not kill the genre by ridicule, since Cervantes responded in Part II of Don Quixote (1615) by showing that Belerma, Montesinos, and Durandarte, in the aftermath of Roncevaux, were capable not merely of resurrection but had an ongoing heroic life, at least in the Don’s

febrile imagination.

The two chapters (II: 22, 23) of the Cave of

Montesinos are no mere passing comic sketch or farcical adventure like others, but form the most profound episode in the whole book. They are followed (II: 25, 26) by the tale of Maese Pedro’s puppetshow in which the Don is moved to intervene violently in the

representation of the Gaiferos and Melisenda ballad (Asentado esta Gaiferos), about their flight from Saragossa to Paris pursued by the

Moors.» A number of plays were written on the basis of the longer "This wishful ‘alternative culture’ is explored in Colin Smith, ‘On the Ethos of the Romancero viejo’, in Studies of the Spanish and Portuguese Ballad, edited by N.D. Shergold (London: Tamesis, 1972), pp. 5-24. 5 John Gornall and Colin Smith, ‘Géngora, Cervantes, and the Romancero: Some Interactions’, Modern Language Review, LXXX (1985), 351-61.

On Spanish Ballads and French Epics

Sit

poems, for example three by Guillén de Castro, about 1600, entitled El nacimiento de Montesinos, El conde de Irlo, and El conde

Alarcos. Many lines from the ballads achieved a sort of proverbial status and could be quoted as allusions in all strata of society with the certainty that meaning would be conveyed. In

the

modern

oral

tradition,

these

ballads

are

still

well

represented. Fieldwork continues in many parts of the Hispanic world, discoveries are made, and collections are published.’ Many texts seem fragmentary, much contaminated, sometimes spoiled by intrusive unwanted details, and often inferior in poetic appeal to the printed versions determined and adjusted by the sophisticated taste of the sixteenth century. The contrary is sometimes true. Gerineldos, in which the page-boy is enticed into bed by the princess (a reworking of ihe tale of Emma, Charlemagne’s daughter, and Eginhard, his secretary), is one of the most widely-known ballads, and a version recorded in Andalusia late last century is markedly more attractive than two early-printed versions. In any case the sheer length and vigour of the multi-layered tradition and the nature of the transformations wrought are extraordinary enough. There is life yet in the bones of the early Middle Ages, and the Cave of Montesinos remains a treasure-house of literary artefacts. St Catharine’s College, Cambridge

1% Mention of two recent collections will suffice as examples:

Samuel

G.

Armistead and Joseph H. Silverman, Judeo-Spanish Ballads from Oral Tradition. II. Carolingian Ballads (1): Roncesvalles. With musical transcriptions and studies by Israel J. Katz , Folk Literature of the Sephardic Jews, 3 (Berkeley: University of California

Press,

1994).

Also

Joao

David

Pinto

Correia,

Os

romances

carolingios da tradiçäo oral portuguesa, 2 vols (Lisbon: Instituto Nacional de Investigaçäo Cientifica, 1993-94).

planed

af

i «le gaysO

Lib mt) sy

Ja.

M

doper blue nee

Pb EN mth!AORN tha æ VE La CETTE #5 thw: > |

dr au wy

aly À ke

Fat ilyaba

Pees

ath;

à

|

LA Be

amie Melle:

nee

Éd

ie

le

50

+

7 SR,

LR

+

Es

yt

P

à

j

‘

2

;

we

7

Len

=_

7

THE SOWDONE OF BABYLONE AND THE TEN THOUSAND WOMEN: AN EARLY CASE OF ETHNIC CLEANSING? Gordon

Knott

Lukafere, kinge of Baldas,

The countrey hade serchid and sought, Ten thousande maidyns faire of face Vnto the Sowdan hath he broghte. The Sowdoñ commanded hem anone,

That thai shulde al be slayñ. Martires thai were euerychon, And therof were thai al ful fayne. He saide ‘my peple nowe ne shalle With hem noughte defouled be, But I wole distroie ouer all The sede over alle Cristiante’.

So run lines 224 to 235 of the Middle English Sowdone of Babylone in both Hausknecht’s 1881 Early English Text Society edition and

Lupack’s 1990 edition.

Hausknecht believed that ‘the following

lines are imitated from the Destruction de Rome,

ll. 613-19’.

On

page xxiii of his introduction to the Middle English text he paralleled the passage with the corresponding lines from the Old French Destruction as it appears in the Hanover Niedersächsische

‘The Sowdone of Babylone, edited by Emil Hausknecht, EETS ES, 38 (London: Early English Text Society, 1881; rpt 1969); The Sowdone of Babylone edited by A. Lupack (Kalamazoo: University of Michigan, 1990). ? Hausknecht, The Sowdone of Babylone, p. 102.

314

The Sowdone of Babylon

Landesbibliothek, MS IV 578. I shall refer to this manuscript from now on as H and to the Sowdone as S. H reads as follows: Et as femmes et pucels les os furent bendee: Totes vifs les presentent devant l’admirree. Dist Labam d’Espaigne: ‘Ore avés bien erree: Par Mahon, Lucafer, servy m’avés a gree;

Ne purra remanere ge ne soit guerdonee. Gardés qe une sule ne soit enprisonee; Maintenant soient tote occis et descoupee! Ne voile ge my serjant soient encombree. Ore alez vus ent sanz nule demoree. Mahon te benoÿe et Appolyn ly senee!’ ‘Sir’, dist Lucafer, ‘a vostre voluntee!’

Les chaitifs enmenerent hors de l’ost en une pree; La furent tote ensamble occis et descoupee; Les almes en receut Jhesu de magestee (618-31)

The passage occurs also in the abbreviated French version contained in British Library MS Egerton 3028, the only French version that is clearly very closely related to the Sowdone, as all authorities have agreed. It is extremely likely that all these three versions, as M.J. Ailes has very strongly suggested in her unpublished Reading doctoral thesis of 1989, represent a specifically insular form of the Fierabras and Destruction story—indeed the Destruction appears in verse form only in these manuscripts.’ However this is not quite my main concern here. Egerton 3028 (henceforth Eg) reads:° Dis mil pucels en out enchaenéz. N’i out un soul qi n’out les oilz bendéz. A Laban d’Espaigne les ad touz presentéz. Kant Laban les vist, mult fu joiouse et liéz: ‘Par Mahon!’, dist il, “Lucafer, servi m’avez a gréz.

*

La Destruction de Rome, edited by J.H.

Speich, Publications Universitaires

Européennes, Série XIII, 135 (Berne: Presse Universitaire, 1988). * M.J. Ailes, ‘A Comparative Study of the Old French and Middle English Verse Texts of the Fierabras Legend’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Reading, 1989). I would like to thank Dr Ailes and the librarian of the University of Reading for allowing me access to this thesis. °

L. Brandin, ‘La Destruction de Rome et Fierabras, MS Egerton 3028 du Musée

Britannique’, Romania, LXIV (1938), 18-100.

Gordon Knott

315

Ne voile qe mi homes seient par els encombréz. Ore les amenez, si seient descoupéz’.

Lucafer les ameine en un beal prez. A touz les puceles furent les chefs copeez. Jhesu receut lur almes, li roi de majestéz

(304-13)

Thus we have three manuscripts, two Anglo-Norman English, with their

versions

of this incident.

Balan,

and one or

Laban,

Sultan of Babylon (for which we understand Cairo), having been defeated by Count Savari in battle and lost ten thousand men (S, Il. 214-15), rounds up, on the advice of Lucafer of Baldas (Bagdad) ten thousand women; they are then slaughtered ‘en un beal prez’ and become willing martyrs. Hausknecht saw these passages as virtually identical, and supposed simple imitation. But in fact they are not, and interesting questions of meaning and thought are posed. The crucial lines are 232-35 in S, 625 in H and 309 in Eg. Both H and Eg express a wish by Balan/Laban that his ‘homes’ or his ‘serjant” shall not be ‘encombre(z)’ by these women. ‘Encombrer’ in Old French has almost invariably a meaning similar to that of the modern English ‘encumber’, which appears quite early; it can mean ‘to harass’, ‘to obstruct’, ‘to encumber’, ‘to beset’, ‘to be in the way’,

‘to be a stumbling block’, and so forth. The only example of the use of the verb ‘encombrer’ with a radically different meaning that I have been able to find is in Tobler-Lommatzsch, which gives the meaning ‘eine Frau mit einem Kinde beschweren’ and quotes an example from Fouque de Candie of which the meaning is unmistakable.° This meaning is plainly inappropriate and impossible here, so that we must conclude that the word means what we might have expected it to mean, namely ‘encumber’. I think that H gives us the clue that we need in line 623: ‘Gardés ge une sule ne soit enprisonee’. i

It is possible, of course, that Balan/Laban and Lucafer simply intend to avenge the death of ten thousand warriors by killing an equal number of women, but this seems very unlikely. A more probable interpretation is that they are agreed that they are not intending to take any female prisoners at this time of difficulty; they $ Adolf Tobler and Erhard Lommatzsch, (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1954), 225.

Altfranzdsisches

Wôrterbuch,

II

316

The Sowdone of Babylon

would simply be a hindrance to their battle plans and, worse still, require feeding. Apart from this, one cannot really read into these passages in H and Eg any kind of ideological content. S, however, presents us with something very different. Here it is made clear that the slaughter of these innocents is a matter, not of tactics or logistics, but of ideology. The Sultan’s people are not to be ‘defouled’ by these women, and the Christian ‘sede’ is everywhere to be exterminated. It has been suggested to me, and I accept, that it is of course quite possible to take “defoul’ rather in the sense of the Modern French ‘fouler’, i.e. ‘to crush or trample underfoot’. The women would then be seen symbolically as representing the Christians, and the Sultan would simply be stating that his folk were not to be trampled on or oppressed by them. However, the style and imagery of the Middle English Sowdone, indeed its whole character, are exceedingly concrete and down-toearth, and I think that I am happy to reject this symbolic interpretation and to continue to see ‘defoul’ as signifying ‘defile’. Metlitzki, in her study of The Matter of Araby in Medieval England, quotes lines 232-35 of the Sowdone, but sees them just as an example of the ‘habitual rashness and temperamental excesses which characterise the stereotyped sultans of the romances composed in the West’.’ This seems to me to miss the point. A number of questions need to be asked: a) Is this a matter of simple misunderstanding or mistranslation on the part of the English writer, who did not seize the meaning of the word ‘encombrer’ in some French text? If not, is it an original and deliberate insertion? b) In either of these cases, why is it carefully elaborated in S so that its meaning is unmistakable? c) Whence could the idea of an ‘ethnic cleansing’ massacre derive? Is the idea one which the writer would only ascribe to a savage enemy, an ‘atrocity story— or possibly some dimly remembered popular tale dating from the brutalities of the First Crusade nearly three hundred years before? Or, given the parallelism so common in medieval writing, whereby the infidel is seen as having ideas and ’

Dorothee Metlitzki, The Matter of Araby in Medieval England (Yale: Yale

University Press, 1977), p. 191.

Gordon Knott

37

institutions which are but mirror-images of Christian practice (thus the mention of Muslim ‘popes’ or ‘imams’ of Christian communities, or indeed by extension, the whole picture of Islam as simply a heresy) is it something which he would have seen the Christians as justified in doing? The very elaborate nature of S’s version inclines me to rule out the first possibility. A straight mistranslation would, in all probability, have led only to the substitution of an inappropriate English verb for the original ‘encombrer’, and a consequent minor alteration, possibly nonsensical, of the line. But the writer is obviously anxious to make his meaning plain. I think that the version of S must be a very deliberate insertion, not an accident. It proceeds clearly in the writer’s mind from the previous lines, but the mass execution has a different rationale, which it is not possible to infer from the French texts. So far, it is possible to proceed with some confidence, though not with certainty. But we are then confronted with the immensely more difficult problem of trying to discover the origins of the idea of such a massacre, and of the ideological bent of the author of S. Where the origins of the episode are concerned, they can clearly be threefold — literary, historical, or in some kind of remembered tradition of Muslim atrocities. This last is not to be ruled out — Lord Ponsonby’s seventy-year-old book on the invention of lies and atrocity stories in wartime still holds good.* There are probably still people around who saw Russians on British railway trains in 1916 ‘with snow still on their boots’. Is there a parallel in the same context (clearly context is allimportant) elsewhere in the Old French epic? I know of none and Norman Daniel refers to none in his study of the portrayal of

Saracens in epics.”

$ Lord Arthur Ponsonby, Falsehood in Wartime (London: Allen & Unwin, 1928). one Daniel, Heroes and Saracens: an interpretation of the ‘chansons de geste’ (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1984). On p. 104 he examines the plight of prisoners but mentions no instance of large-scale slaughter; neither his discussion of violence (pp. 94-118) nor his chapter on women (pp. 69-93) mentions any example of violence against women.

318

The Sowdone of Babylon

The story as presented in S certainly does not fit the general picture of Muslim-Christian attitudes and behaviour in the preceding centuries.

Convivencia, the co-existence of Christian, Muslim and

Jew, largely prevailed on both sides of the frontier in Spain right up to the end of the fourteenth century, and more ideologically rigid visitors from Northern countries tended to be profoundly shocked by the lengths to which it had been taken. Colin Smith, Norman Housley and Hans-Erich Keller have all underlined this widespread tendency (which applied equally to the Norman domain of Sicily).”° Intermarriage was not uncommon, and even King Alfonso VI of Castile/Leôn took a Muslim concubine (not a wife as some reports state) — Za’ida, daughter of Mamun and the daughter-in-law of Mu’tamid, in 1091, after the death of his Christian wife. She bore him a son, and is said to have converted and been known

subsequently as Maria or Isabel.” Robert Crespin is reported to have taken for himself 1,500 young women after the siege of Barbastro

in 1064,

along with

cartloads

of booty,

while

50,000

Muslims were taken away as prisoners or killed.’* Queen Berenguela of Castile/Leén and her sister Queen Leonor of Aragén, who died in 1246 and 1244 respectively, were buried at Las Huelgas in Burgos with their heads resting on cushions covered with Koranic

invocations.** Dozy’s Histoire des musulmans d’Espagne does produce an example of the massacre of women and children during the savage

repression by Hakam I of the revolt of Cérdoba in 814, but this was ©

Colin Smith, Christians and Moors in Spain, 2 vols (Warminster: Aris &

Philips, 1988), I, 166; Norman Housley, The Later Crusades, 1274-1580: from Lyons to Alcazar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 273-75; Hans-Erich

Keller, ‘La Belle Sarrasine dans Fierabras et ses dérivés’, in Charlemagne in the North. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference of the Société Rencesvals, Edinburgh, 4th to 11th August 1991, edited by Philip E. Bennett,

Anne Elizabeth Cobby and Graham A. Runnals (Edinburgh: Société Rencesvals British Branch, 1993), pp. 299-307.

"'

Smith, Christians and Moors, I, 104-05. His source is Alfonso X, Estoria de

Espana, ch. 883; on the composition of the Estoria, see Smith, Christians and Moors, I, 2.

‘7

Smith, Christians and Moors, I, 84-85.

See also Reinhart Dozy, Recherches

sur l’histoire politique et littéraire de l'Espagne pendant le Moyen Age, 2nd edition, 2 vols (Leiden: Brill, 1860), IL, 335.

Smith, Christians and Moors, 1, vi.

Gordon Knott

319

an internal Muslim dispute of a kind not uncommon at the time, and is unlikely to have passed into Christian tradition."* Large-scale slaughters usually seem to have been of men, normally fighting men, and of this there are, of course, numerous

examples throughout the Old French epic. However, at the siege of Almeria by the Genoese in 1147, we are told that ‘illo die de saracenis uiginti milia interfecti fuerunt, et ab una parte ciuitas

scilicet deripata x milia fuerunt,

et in sudam xx milia; et inter

mulieres et pueros decem milia Ianuam adduxerunt’.”

So the men

were killed, but the women and children were taken off, no doubt to

servitude, but this seems to have been the customary practice in the

Spain of the time and elsewhere.

Muslim-Christian

enmity was

theological in character, as well as having a good deal to do with power, domination and possessions, but it does not seem to have been ‘racial’ in the modern sense. Even the redoubtable Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny from

1122 to 1156, taken aback as he

was by what he saw as the disgraceful laxity of Christian Spain when he paid a visit of inspection in 1142, sought translators of the Koran from Arabic into Latin so that the ‘heresy’ of Islam might be counteracted, but he preached no bloody Jihad. Much the same seems to be true of the lands swallowed by the Turkish expansion into ‘Romania’ in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. As Housley tells us: Bayezid reacted to Lazar’s coalition by imposing direct rule, but this meant neither the expropriation of the local aristocracy nor compulsory Islamization.

In the course of time, massive Turkish immigration, initially

into Thrace and the Maritza valley, made the Eastern Balkans a predominantly Muslim region; the town of Skopje, which was captured in 1391, had by 1455 twenty-two Muslim quarters compared with only eight Christian ones. But in most of Serbia and Bulgaria, the Ottoman conquest brought much less far-reaching change [...] as late as the mid-fifteenth century a large proportion of land was held by Christian nobles of military origin and proven loyalty to the Sultan. Christians paid a special tax but there were no constraints on worship or persecution of the clergy. This

Reinhart Dozy, Histoire des musulmans d’Espagne, translated into English by F.G. Stokes as Spanish Islam (London: Chatto & Windus, 1913), pp. 250-53. 15 Caffaro, De captione Almerie et Tortuose, quoted by Smith, Christians and Moors, I, 179.

320

The Sowdone of Babylon policy was based not solely on religious tolerance, but on convenience and the desire to prevent local discontent which might foster rebellion in connivance with a crusade. It was outstandingly successful.

Slavery seems to have been the usual practice where captured women and children were concerned and what Housley calls the ‘standard Ottoman atrocity’ was not the slaughter of women and children, but the devsirme, the levy of Christian children from

the

occupied Balkan countries on a regular basis as slaves."” In both the main areas, then, in which Christians

and Muslims

came into close contact, we find no apparent basis for the ideas of the writer of S. Those notable chroniclers of the later Crusades, Robert de Clari and Jehan de Joinville, are, in contrast, notable

precisely for their curiosity about the ways of the people they met in their journeyings. Robert de Clari is dazzled by the wonders of Constantinople, and Joinville takes a cool and intelligent interest in the Assassins, the Old Man

of the Mountain

and Prester

John.”

Great massacres might be just part of a crusader’s life, but massacres of women were not part of this tradition. Certainly, women were not generally welcome or approved of as crusaders or even camp-followers, as Elizabeth Siberry has pointed out: ‘it was feared that the presence of women would compromise the moral

standing of the host.”

There

are, of course,

literary

exceptions to this. Laisse CV of the Chanson de Jérusalem describes the ninth squadron of Godefroy de Bouillon, entirely made up of

women.”

But there are important differences about this passage.

Firstly, the women are all ‘dames’ (1. 3292), and ‘cascun a son mari’ (1. 3296). They are to be ‘proudefemes’, serving, loving, helping and encouraging their husbands in a very traditional fashion.

6

Housley, The Later Crusades, p. 71.

"Housley, The Later Crusades, p. 385. 8 Joinville, La Vie de Saint Louis, edited by F. Michel (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1880); Robert de Clari, La Conquéte de Constantinople, edited by Philippe Lauer, Classiques Français du Moyen Age (Paris: Champion, 1924). '° Elizabeth Siberry, Criticism of Crusading, 1095-1274 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), pp. 45-46.

*° La Chanson de Jérusalem, edited by Nigel R. Thorp (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1992), ll. 3290-335.

Gordon Knott

e214

Secondly, we must note the very different response of the King of Jerusalem when the Emir Lucabel tells him who they are: ‘Jes en ferai mener A l’amiral Soldan u me woel racorder. Sa grant terre deserte en pora restorer,

Cascune face prince u amiral doner, Tot a lor volenté les fera marier’

Marriage,

(3331-35)

not death, is the fate envisaged for these ‘dames’.

But

more generally, it was feared that adultery and fornication, to which their presence was seen as leading, would result in divine retribution; there are numerous examples of the ascription of

military reverses to the immorality of the Christian men.”

Thus

after taking Barbastro in 1064, the Normans lost it in 1065 and Aimé de Montcassin’s translation of the lost Historia Normannorum tells us: Et lo dyable, armé de subtilissme malice pour invidie de lo bon commencement de la foi, pensa de contrester, et metre en lo penser de li chevalier de li Christi feu d’amour, et que se hauchassent chairent en bas, pour laquel choze Christ fu corrocié, car lo chevalier se donna a lo amor de la fame. Adont, por lor péchié perdirent ce qu’il avoient acquesté, et furent sécute de li Sarrazin, et perdue la cité; une part furent occis, et une part : NES) furent en prison, et une part foyrent et furent delivre.

Possibly

nearer

to the

point

is Ralph

disapproval of women crusaders.”

Niger’s

expression

of

‘He argued,’ says Siberry, ‘that

their presence on the expedition might prove to be the snare of the Devil and cited the example of the Midianite woman who caused

God’s people to sin’.” In this case, of course, the woman concerned was indeed put to death along with her sinful partner, but the deed is clearly presented as being exemplary in intention, and Moses does 2°

Siberry, Criticism of Crusading, pp. 45-46.

22 Amatus Monachus Casinensis, L’Ystoire de li Normant et la chronique de Robert Viscart, edited by J. Champollion-Figeac (Paris: Société de l’Histoire de France, 1835), p. 11.

%

Ralph Niger, De re militari et triplici peregrinationis Ierosolimitane in Siberry,

Criticism of Crusading, pp. 45-46.

24 Siberry, Criticism of Crusading, pp. 45-46; cf. Numbers XXV. 6-11.

522

The Sowdone of Babylon

not proceed to a massacre of Midianite women — the wrath of God is stayed by this one exemplary action.

One of the oddest things in the Sowdone is the juxtaposition of our key passage with so florid a presentation of the belle sarrasine theme, on which Hans-Erich Keller has commented at length.” Floripas is in many ways the key figure in all the versions of

Fierabras — never more so than in the Sowdone — and Keller sees as the reason for the enormous success of Fierabras and its derivations the fact that: Cette chanson — comme tant d’autres de la ‘troisième génération” (Gaston Paris) — contient comme une sorte d’adstrat l’idée de la tolérance envers des gens professant une autre religion, parce qu’ils sont aussi des êtres humains et donc susceptibles de se convertir au christianisme [...] la littérature française du XIII fut parmi les littératures médiévales particulièrement ouvertes à cette idée, peut-être favorisée par la fondation de l’Empire Latin de Constantinople et, plus tard, par les rapports que saint Louis était obligé d’établir avec les païens pendant sa première croisade [cf. my reference to Joinville], rapports qui lui apprirent promptement à reconnaître le fait qu’ils étaient des hommes comme lui.

Keller does underline that the somewhat underplayed in the this to the relative remoteness the twelfth century and to an

descriptions of the belle sarrasine are Middle English versions, and ascribes of England from the Crusades after English impatience with anything that

is not brisk and bloody action.” Nevertheless, she is still very much there, and there is no reconciling our brief passage from the Sowdone with the picture of the enamoured princess and the marriage theme in many romances of the period, which Metlizki has

treated very fully.” From this point onwards we enter the realm of conjecture. The Sowdone does not give any more salient episodes which could serve as pointers, and the ramification of historical and literary research could be never-ending. I incline to think that we are in the presence of two traditions, not merely the one which Keller sees. Alongside #

Keller, ‘La Belle Sarrasine’, passim.

*7 8

Keller, ‘La Belle Sarrasine’, p. 304. Metlizki, The Matter of Araby, pp. 136-77.

*° Keller, ‘La Belle Sarrasine’, p. 299.

Gordon Knott

323

the tolerant ideas of Spain, Sicily or the Balkans, held by many people enlightened by contact or through theological argument, it is possible that there is beginning to run a distinct strain of Northern, popular, thinking. There is much in the Sowdone, as has been pointed out, to tell us that tastes have changed or are in the process of changing. But changes involve more than just literary fashion, and literary fashion is highly responsive to, and quick to mirror change. The Mediterranean South had seen successive movements of population taking place in waves over the centuries, and necessity had brought about a weakening of barriers and much racial intermingling. England had seen nothing of the sort since its last major invasion three hundred years before; settler influence had been assimilated, and an insular sense of identity, with a suspicion of foreigners, was beginning to appear. It does not seem entirely accidental to me that among the unfortunate victims at the time of Wat Tyler’s advance on London in 1381 were the ‘Frows’ of the Southwark brothel, as the Anonimalle Chronicle of St Mary’s, York

tells us.” Whereas Ailes has suggested that the Sowdone is ‘the most pious of all the texts we have analysed’, Barron thought that ‘the real interest of the Sowdone is neither religion, love nor even war, but

adventure [...] to be enjoyed for its own sake’.

Indeed the two

viewpoints may well be compatible, but whatever the case one suspects that the Sowdone is pious in a slightly different way — the concept of sin is combined with the concept of defilement by women of another race and religion. This is not just Odo of Cluny’s notorious ‘saccus stercoris— applicable in his mind to all women — but something peculiarly applicable to foreign women. The attitudes of the English public towards foreigners are well documented from the fifteenth century to the tabloid newspapers of today; are they,

#

The Anonimalle Chronicle of St Mary’s of York, edited by V.H. Galbraith

(Manchester: Manchester University Press,

1927; rpt 1970), p. 140: ‘Mesme le

iour de Corpore Christi en le matyne, les ditz comunes de Kent abaterount une measone de stewes pres le pount de Loundres ge fuist en mayns del frows de Flaundres et avoient a ferme la dite measone del meare de Loundres’.

30 Ailes, ‘A Comparative Study’, p. 802; W.R.J.

Romance (London: Longman, 1987), pp. 101-02.

Barron, English Medieval

324

The Sowdone of Babylon

for some thus far inexplicable reason, here put into the mouth of Laban? There is a dearth of immediate evidence, but the differing emphases of the French and Middle English versions must to some extent be conditioned by the public for whom they were intended. As Kibbee has made clear, by the time that the Sowdone appeared, French and manuscripts in French were largely the preserve of the aristocracy; the language of the texts, and their French preoccupations, were beginning to become anachronistic.’ The mine was not yet worked out, as the popularity of the fifteenth-century prose versions in many languages shows, but it is possible that more than literary fashions were changing. The bourgeoisie spoke and read English, as the record of manuscripts bequeathed in the

fourteenth century, cited by Kibbee, shows.”

MS Egerton 3028 is

clearly of aristocratic provenance, and de Mandach has made fairly

convincingly the connection between H and English noble families.” A new public is arising, which knows nothing at first- or secondhand of tolerance, and whose ideas of ‘Sarsyns’ show, interestingly: Some bloo, some yolowe, some blake as more,

Some horible and stronge as devel of helle (Sowdone, 1005-06)

Are these still the stock giants and grotesques of so much late Old French epic, or are they people who had come to seem fearsome in a different way, that had as much to do with race and colour as it had with religious belief? Hausknecht dismissed as an obscure insertion the second of the romance-formula passages that introduce the main

parts of the action in the Sowdone

(ll. 963-78),

which

has no

31

Douglas A. Kibbee, For to Speke French trewely: the French language in England, 1000-1600; its status, description and instruction, Amsterdam Studies in

the Theory and History of the Language Sciences, 60 (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1991), p. 58.

°2 Kibbee, For to Speke French, p. 73. ” A. de Mandach, ‘Chanson de geste et héraldique. Le problème du patronage de Jehan

III d’Abernon,

sire de Stoke.

L’essor

d’Olivier

et Fierabras

en

Angleterre’, in Actes du XI° Congrès International de la Société Rencesvals, Barcelone, 22-27 août 1988, 2 vols, Memorias de la Real Academia de Buenas

Letras de Barcelona, XXI-XXII (Barcelona: Real Academia de Buenas Letras de Barcelona, 1990), II, 23.

Gordon Knott

325

equivalent in H, Eg or the vulgate Fierabras;* it is in fact a powerful indicator of audience expectations. Could the same be true of our passage?

The ideas are certainly not those which Langland

expresses about Islam in those parts of the B- and C- texts which Metlitzki groups under the heading of ‘Makomet and Mede’.” But they are very much those which the drunken company, into which Glutton falls on a Friday when he should be at church, would no doubt bandy about cheerfully in the alehouse. Any connoisseur of public-bar conversation will know that not a great deal has changed since then.

Lancaster

34 Hausknecht, The Sowdone of Babylone, note to 11. 963-78. 35

Metlitzki, The Matter of Araby, pp. 197-210.

fleet

icd 3