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.