December 9, 2006
Research Portfolio (Take Two): Review # 1
Ramey, Lynn Tarte. “Representations of Women in Chrétien’s Erec et Enide: Courtly
Literature or Misogyny?” Romanic Review, 84:4 (1993 Nov), pp. 377-86.
Lynn Tarte Ramey argues that Chretien de Troyes’ Erec and Enide validates misogyny and the suppression of women within marriage. By placing Chretien in historical context, Ramey concludes that his Arthurian romance serves as a cautionary tale to Chrétien’s largely female medieval audience.
Ramey begins her essay with a survey of major critical reactions to Erec and Enide. She claims that scholars tend to read into the tale a positive message about marital unity and communication. Ramey rejects this optimistic interpretation, arguing that we should discontinue categorizing Erec and Enide as a tale of courtly love. Instead, she argues, we should view the tale for what it is… an intentionally misogynistic, moralizing tract. Ramey points out that as a court writer, Chrétien’s audience was primarily composed of women. Therefore, it is possible that he exploited his role as court writer in order to spread misogynistic lessons about female passivity to the court ladies who were reading his texts. Within the tale, Ramey uncovers two distinct types of misogyny. One encompasses negative stereotypes of women perpetuated in the Middle Ages, and the other warns against the tyranny of female rulers.
According to Ramey, Chretien invests Enide with characteristics that medieval anti-feminism viewed as negative. She is sensual, beautiful, and is above all “defined by the speech act” (378). She characterizes the traits that an ideal medieval wife should not possess. Enide’s most unforgivable sin, her self-expression, initiates the central quest of the tale. Throughout their journey, Erec continually silences his wife, despite the fact that she speaks only to warn her husband of danger. Ramey argues that through Erec’s gagging of Enide’s verbal expression, Chretien warns women that their verbal agency is unacceptable under any circumstance.
Further, Ramey believes that Enide fulfills the medieval stereotype of a conniving woman, in that she manipulates the tale’s villain, the count. Even though her cunning saves her husband’s life, the fact remains that she is a deceiving female.
The misogyny apparent in Erec and Enide, Ramey claims, is a reaction to the increasing power of women in the Middle Ages. At this time, the Crusades carried away male landowners and left their property under the management of women. In addition, female rulers, such as Eleanor of Aquitaine, gained political power. All of these developments threatened men with the loss of power and the increased agency of women. Therefore, by viewing Erec and Enide in the context of the turbulent political and social changes of the Middle Ages, Ramey determines that it is a misogynistic attempt to maintain masculine power.
Ramey’s interpretation of Chretien de Troyes’ Erec and Enide bears striking similarity to that of Peter S. Noble, found in his 1982 book, Love and Marriage in Chretien de Troyes. My objection to Noble’s argument applies with equal force to Ramey’s argument. In my own reading of Erec and Enide, I believe that Chretien is generally sympathetic in his portrayal of Enide. His harsher judgment falls on Eric, who must learn to accept Enide as an active participant in their marriage.
It is interesting that Ramey’s interpretation of Chretien aligns so thoroughly with Noble’s interpretation, particularly as an eleven-year gap separates their respective publications. In addition, in her essay Ramey indicates that current scholarship views Erec and Enide as a positive tale of gender-relations. Does Ramey’s interpretation represent a backwards glance to earlier literary scholarship?
In defining Erec and Enide as a misogynistic text, Ramey presents a problematic contradiction. She asserts that we cannot categorize Erec and Enide as a text of courtly love because it is misogynistic. This statement implies that Ramey does not believe that courtly love is misogynistic. However, courtly love is inherently misogynistic. The game of courtship espoused by courtly love turned women into objects, valued only for their sexuality. I believe that if Chrétien’s tale frowns on the objectification of women. Early in the progression of the narration, Erec values Enide only for the sexual gratification he receives from his body. By the end of the tale, however, he learns that he must respect her verbal agency as well.
Rebecca Harpine
University of Mary Washington
October 19, 2006
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
Rebecca's Courtly Blog 