10.19.06
Marriage and Adultery in Courtly Literature: Review 3
Noble, Peter S. Love and Marriage in Chretien de Troyes. University of Wales, 1982.
103 pages.
In his critical book-length study, Peter S. Noble thematically examines the five Arthurian romances of Chretien de Troyes, focusing (as is self-evident from the title) on the broad topics of love and marriage. Marriage, he claims, is the highest state of love in the works of Chretien de Troyes.
Noble begins his introduction by tracing the historical development of courtly love, stating that the late eleventh and twelfth centuries saw the first flourish of literary interest in romantic relationships. He cautions against use of the term “courtly love,” suggesting that it projects modern notions of love onto a twelfth-century ideology. Further, he argues that there existed two different types of courtly love that require separate classifications; northern and southern. However, he decides to use the term “courtly love” within his book for the sake of convenience.
Noble then continues to outline some of the political and social events that helped to shape the precepts of courtly love, as well as the impact of these ideas on Chretien de Troyes. One example of a social and political transformation he cites is the increasingly active role of women in society; another is the secular nature of love. Further, he claims that Chretien must be partially credited with the proliferation of these ideas, as he was one of the first and most successful authors to deal with courtly love.
Noble concludes his introduction with a narrower, themed consideration of Chretien de Troyes. He asserts that love is a constant presence in Chrétien, with each individual romance revealing additional information about Chrétien’s views on love. Finally, Noble states the purpose of his book; to prove through a study of Chrétien’s Arthurian romance’s that Chretien considered love and morality as inexorably linked, with marriage as the highest form of love and adultery as a less desirable form.
The first romance Noble examines is Erec and Enide. He begins by drawing the reader’s attention to the fact that Erec and Enide is set apart from Chrétien’s other romances by the fact that Erec and Enide are married early in the lay, before they fall in love. This means, therefore, that the tale revolves around problems within a relationship.
Noble asserts that Chretien views Enide rather than Erec as the transgressor in the relationship. She commits the sin of doubting her husband, and therefore must undergo a trial of faith to prove her loyalty. By the end of their journey, Noble argues, Enide has accepted her place as the submissive partner in her marriage, and Erec has learned not to abuse his power as the dominant partner. In the process, the couple develops from an immature, sexually hedonistic couple into a mature couple with an ideal marriage.
Noble’s book, published in 1982, is slightly dated, which might reflect the fact that his views of marriage and adultery do not mesh with the other scholar’s I have researched. He views Chretien as a conservative rather that a revolutionary author and many of his readings are at odds with feminist ideologies. For example, he engages in a fairly simple, straightforward reading of Erec and Enide, claiming that Chretien primarily blames Enide’s doubt of her husband for the couple’s misfortune. The problem with this reading, however, is that it only scratches the surface of the romance. A more modern, feminist reading would probably take the opposite approach and place the blame more squarely on Erec’s shoulders.
I would argue that the dynamic character in the romance is Erec; it is he, and not Enide, who must learn a lesson in order to make his marriage successful. He must be willing to accept Enide as an equal, active partner in their relationship.
Though I disagree with the nature of most of his critical readings, Noble is very skilled at linking Chrétien’s Arthurian romances with a common theme. On a first reading, Chrétien’s separate romances seem to offer disjointed, contradictory views of love. But Noble is very thorough in his examination of their commonalities. His introduction provides an interesting look at Chrétien’s role in courtly love. The argument that most drew my attention was Noble’s statement that there are two types of courtly love, one northern and one southern. I wish he had further elaborated on this one point, but the bulk of his introduction is very useful for placing Chretien in context.
Peter S. Noble’s Love and Marriage in Chretien de Troyes is a thoroughly researched, well argued text. However, his argument is incongruous with modern, feminist approaches to medieval literature.
Rebecca Harpine
University of Mary Washington
Marriage and Adultery in Courtly Literature: Review 4
Hurtig, Dolliann Margaret Hurtig. “I do, I do”: medieval models of marriage and
choice of partners in Marie de France’s ‘Le Fraisne’.” The Romantic
Review, 92, Columbia University, 2001. 14 pages.
In her essay, “I do, I do”: medieval models of marriage and choice of partners in Marie de France’s ‘Le Fraisne,’” Dolliann Margaret Hurtig places Marie de France in the historical context of medieval modes of marriage. In “Le Fresne,” she argues, Marie documents the medieval fusion of secular and religious marriage practices, showing the ways in which they intertwine to provide women with greater agency in their choice of marriage partners. Hurtig’s argument is well researched and solidly grounded in the political changes that occurred within marriage modes in the twelfth-century. However, she carries a solid argument to an insupportable level by claiming that new marriage modes gave women greater agency. As a twelfth-century woman writer, Marie de France would have been well aware that new, ecclesiastical views of marriage were just as restrictive to women as traditional secular ones.
In order to ground her argument, Hurtig provides a description of the political changes occurring within marriage during the twelfth century. She describes the secular model of marriage as a “marriage of convenience” that reinforces feudal society. In this form of marriage, noble women are used as capital to be traded for the increase of wealth and power. Until the twelfth-century, this mode of marriage was prevalent; the church and its priests had little to do with marriage. However, Hurtig explains, a new, ecclesiastical form of marriage was becoming more widespread throughout the twelfth century. She argues that Church models of marriage placed a higher value on personal choice of partners and consent. Further, she states that the medieval church recognized clandestine marriages. Therefore, if a couple engaged in a mutually consenting love affair outside of secular matrimony, they could be considered as a married couple.
Hurtig continues by applying these differing definitions of marriage to the text of “Le Fresne.” In the context of secular marriage, she argues, Le Fresne is Gurun’s concubine. But in the context of the consenting, freely choosing love of ecclesiastical marriage, Le Fresne and Gurun are man and wife.
She goes on to explore the ways in which both forms of marriage combine at the end of the lay. Le Fresne and Gurun, she points out, can not remain in their “clandestine” marriage, because as a feudal lord Gurun has the responsibility of entering into a secular marriage and producing an heir. Therefore secular notions are prevalent over ecclesiastical marriage modes, and Gurun enters into a marriage of convenience with La Codre. However, after the discovery of Le Fresne’s identity, she is able to engage in a marriage to Gurun that is a hybrid of ecclesiastical and secular forms. More importantly, according to Hurtig, Marie uses this combination of marriage forms as a subversive way to call for noblewomen’s free choice of marriage partners.
Hurtig’s exploration of “Le Fresne” through the lens of medieval marriage modes serves to ground the text within the politics of twelfth century society. The pull between Christian and secular forms of marriage parallels the tension between Christian and pagan ideals found in the chivalric hero.
However, Hurtig carries her argument beyond the realm of historical reality when she asserts that Marie uses the combination of religious and secular marriage traditions as a subtle celebration of women’s free choice. I would argue that her analysis of “Le Fresne” does not show the equal fusion of secular and ecclesiastical forms of marriage, but rather the continued dominance of one form over the other. Her analysis demonstrates that, within the lay, the ecclesiastical mode of marriage is only allowed to succeed in the limited function of reinforcing feudal norms. Le Fresne is only able to marry Gurun because the discovery of her noble birth allows her to become capital in the feudal marriage system. Her free choice is not only secondary to the dictates of the feudal system, but also serves to reinforce it.
It is indeed possible that Marie de France is advocating the freedom for women to choose their marriage partners. However, I would argue that in Le Fresne she establishes that, while the ecclesiastical form of marriage may give women greater agency, it remains secondary to feudal institutions. In addition, both forms of marriage were a part of a patriarchal tradition that robbed women of power.
Hurtig’s placement of Marie de France in the context of medieval political and social views of marriage is helpful to an understanding of the historical context of Marie and other medieval authors. Her exploration of the fusion of secular and ecclesiastical modes of marriage is useful, but at points impractical.
Rebecca Harpine
University of Mary Washington
