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