Los Prólogos de Chrétien de Troyes. El autor en el Texto. 1974.pdf

8/13/2019 Los Prlogos de Chrtien de Troyes. El autor en el Texto. 1974.pdf

1/17

The Author in the Text: The Prologues of Chrtien de TroyesAuthor(s): Marie-Louise OllierSource: Yale French Studies, No. 51, Approaches to Medieval Romance (1974), pp. 26-41Published by: Yale University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2929677.

Accessed: 26/12/2013 20:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Yale University Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Yale French

Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Thu, 26 Dec 2013 20:55:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yalehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2929677?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2929677?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yale


2/17

Marie-Louise llierThe Author in the Text: The Prologues of Chretien de Troyes *

It is notmypurposen this rticleooffer definitionftheprologueas it appearsn mostof theearlynarrativeexts n the vernacular-nor evena definitionftheprologuesfChr6tien e Troyes.Atbest,myconclusions aysucceed nprovidingomeperspectivenwhich o situate study f theprologue. p to now, tudies f thesubject tate heproblemnnarrowlyhetoricalermsistheprologuesomethingther han a purely onventionalxordium?)-or lseboil downto a simple nventoryf the formulasnd topoifoundin the prologues. should state,moreover,hatthe traditionfmedievalArts fPoetry reof nohelphere:they llowno roomfornew genres, ndbesides, hey eemmore fteno be a collec-tion ftechnical,mpiricalreceptshan trulyheoreticaleflection.Our pointof departure, hich s quite different,erives romcertain rinciplesf modem nalysis: longwith ertain resent-daytheoreticians,postulatehenecessityfsituatingvery ext t theconfluencef its own organizationnd of the tradition,r as asingularormn a literarypace populated y other orms. Thisrequireshatwe recognize,oncerningheromancesfChretieneTroyes,hat hey epresenthefirstppearancenFrenchiterature,jointly ith he ais andthefabliaux,fa writtenarrative,trictlyspeakingfa narrativeext, s opposed o the oral narrativef thechansonde geste.Thistransitionrompeaking o writingorrespondso a muta-tionof thecollectiveonsciousnesss itmanifeststselfn theformsthat t engenders.he chansonde geste was a ritual elebrationwherebyhecommunityf the ongleur nd of his audience rought

* This paperwas presentedn a somewhat ifferentorm t theMedievalStudiesConference,WesternMichiganUniversity,n May 1, 1972.1 J.Kristeva, Le texteclos, Langages 12 (1968),p. 104.26

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/17

Marie-Louise llierto life,n an actof singing hatwas as significants thewords,pastwellknown o all,whichwas at the ame ime static rganiza-tion f theworld nd n which, ith heabolitionftime nd space,theforcesfGood andEvilconfrontedneanother. Writing,ntheother and,mplieshepresencef an author, ho assumes istextand invests t withmeaning.Without eintroducinghe romanticnotion f a creativeubject, wishto study he signsof thispresence s a purely extualphenomenon,singthe prologues(especiallyhat fYvain) as our base andtakinghemn theorderof decreasingxplicitness.

It is interestingo consider,irstf all, thewaythe textrefersto itself s a totality. t thisdegree f generality,oreover,hevocabularyf the prologuemustbe clarified y the vocabularycertifiedy the entire ext.If it s readily cknowledgedhatwithChretienhe wordroman(romance)becomes a standard ermdenoting singular iteraryform, articularlys opposed,nthenarrativephere,o the ai andthefabliau,t is not easyto distinguisht from ther ermswithwhich hewordroman eemsto have a synonymouselationship:conte, stoire,ivre. But an examinationfthese ermsn Chretien'sworks hows hathe doesnot employnyof themndiscriminately.

In theuses of conte hatwe haveobserved,heterm efersmostofteno thesource Erec 13), or to a narrativeequence ontainedwithinhe ale Erec 1080)-or toChretien'swnnarrativePerceval63 and 66, Cliges 8). In all three ases, it denotes he narrativeargument,he story, n the sense n which hatterm s definedby modernheorists: series f events rientedntime.2 E. Vance,Reading the Song of Roland (EnglewoodCliffs,N.J., 1970),pp. 11-12; P. Zumthor,ssai de Poetique me'dievale (Paris, 1972),pp. 323-327.3 See, in the appendixto thispaper,a selection f significantxamples.We cite here the number f occurrences f the terms n question accordingto the glossaries f the critical ditions onsulted): onte: Erec 4 times, liges4, Lancelot0, Yvain 2, Perceval10.estoire: Erec 6, Cliges3, Lancelot0, Yvain1,Perceval5. livre: Erec 1, Cliges 5, Lancelot 1,Yvain 1,Perceval2. roman:Erec 0, Cliges2, Lancelot 2 (1 by the continuator),vain 2, Perceval 1.4 P. Zumthor,p. cit., pp. 380-396.

27



4/17

Yale French tudies-Unlike conte, stoire,t s true, ever efersxplicitlyo Chretien'snarrative,xceptperhaps n Erec 23, or again n Clig&s 3. Butmostof the uses ofthe term arefullyistinguishhe estoire romthe conte: a referenceo the estoire ims at guaranteeingheauthenticityf the narrative,nd thus ts credibility,ithmuchmore certaintyhan the simplemention f the conte. Where heconte efersoa source, heestoiremplies hat he ource s worthyofbelief. he two terms re thusnearly ynonymous,n the sensethat hey othdenote he story n theromance,utwith ifferentconnotations.-The livre s primarilyLatinbook, a factwhich stablishesheauctoritasf theclassics, t oncetruth nd meansof transmittingthis ruth. ll knowledgeomesby wayofa book, nd at thesametime hebookconstituteshe surest uarantee,ora literate ersonoftheMiddleAges,of historicalontinuity.his certaintys clearlyaffirmed,ntwooccasions,ntheprologuefCligesHI.25 and 28).Consequently,o alludeto the livre, ora detail or forthe totalwork, s Chretien oes for xample n Erec 6680,orinPerceval 7,is to seek to imbueone's own narrative ith he same authority.Better et,n lines24-25ofLancelot,tis his oevre work) tself(1. 22) thathe designatess a livre. hus some ight s shedon theboastful elf-confidencef the prologue f Erec: in thispassageChretientressed he superiorityf his projectover thatof thejongleurs, ho can only corronpret depecier corruptnd breakup] the narrative,nd he boasted fbeginningl'estoire qui tozjorz mes iertan mimoire the storywhich orever fter hallberemembered].his survival epended n one condition: hat thenarrativee promotedo thedignityf a livre.Thustheromans definedlearly y ts relationshipo the ivre,thats,to thewrittenork, relationshiphichufficeso distinguishthe romanfrom ny othernarrative hat s a tributaryf oralliterature.t is remarkable, oreover, hat this specific arrativeform hould e designatedy the term hat riginallyonnoted,nthesyntagmmetren roman translatentothe vernacular],neoftheearliest omance ulturalmanifestationsthe adaptationfa28



5/17

Marie-Louise llierLatintext n the vulgar ongue)-as,forexample,n Cliges 3 and2345-2346. t is as ifLatinculture,ounded n writing,n someway mposedhemodel fthebookonthisnascentiterature.ndeed,the relationshipftheronwn as a text) o Latinmust e expressedessentiallyn terms f a culturalmodel.Upon the rawmaterialfurnishedythe conteor theestoire,he operationsfwritingreimposed,whichproducethe roman;throughhe auctoritashatwritingonfers,heromans invested ith heprestigef the ivre,thedepositoryfall doctrina.Writings thereforeerceived,n thebasisof theLatin tradition,s the nstrumentf a memoryhat sfarmore adequate hanthepurely ral memoryf the ongleurs.This at least s howwe interprethe uses of the wordroman inPerceval7-8 and,better et,n Yvain 5359-5362.The romancehus fferstself s a text,losed n tsorganization,but henceforthpenedbyvirtue f a memoryhathas beenfixedfor all time.

We must ow pecify,hroughhe ermshathe employs,otablyin theprologues,hemannern whichChretienenotes is text sa structure.hereexists lready long istof criticalworks hathave assayed he interpretationnd therelationshipsf the termsmatiterematterr source), onjointurestructure,rrangement),ndsens (meaning),erms hat all the criticshave takento be keyterms.-We shallpass quickly ver the termmatitre; t seemsgenerallyadmittedhat,whatever aybe thesource dvanced ythe author,it couldnot be considereds anythingther han a source.Anexplicit eferenceo a sourcehas the particularoal ofmaking he

5 We cite hereonly studies hat have appearedsince 1950 and that dealexpresslywith one of these terms: D. W. Robertson,Jr., Some MedievalLiterary erminology ithSpecial Reference o Chrdtien e Troyes, Studiesin Philology 8 (1951), pp. 669-692; F. Lyons, Entencion n Chretien's an-celot, Studies n Philology51 (1954), pp. 425-430; W. A. Nitze, Conjoin-ture n Erec, v. 14, ModernLanguageNotes 69 (1954),pp. 180-181; D. Kelly,Sens and Conjointuren the Chevalierde la Charette The Hague, 1966), ndThe source and meaningof conjointure n Chretien's rec 14, Viator 1(1970), 179-200; J. Rychner, Le prologuedu Chevalierde la Charette, VoxRomanica 26 (1967), pp. 1-13.29



6/17

Yale French tudiesnarrativematter orthyfbelief. ut theproblemfthe relationbetween hesourceand thefinishedomance emains nresolved.-It is thefamous erm onjointure,n line14 ofErec,that eemsspecificallyo denote hetreatmentmposed n the rawmaterial.DouglasKelly, owhomwe owe twostudies n the question,eesin conjointurepurely ormaloncept: understoodn a primarylevelas a principlef arrangementf thewords n a sentence,tcouldalsomean, n a second evel, principlef arrangementftheelementsn a narrative;his n fact s precisely hat s derivedfromhenotion f uncturantheLatinmedievalheorists.utthisdefinition,hen pplied o this pecificewform hat s theromance,strikes s as extremelyestrictive.hereseemsto us to be somecontradictionn creditinghretienwith he elaborationf a newgenre nd,at the sametime,n confiningim, n thenameof atraditionalerm,within rhetorichat allowsno room for thisgenre.WethinknsteadhatChretien,aisedn theclassical radition-which, in fact, s moreempiricalhantheoretical,otablyneverythinghatgenerallyoncernshedispositio-enrichedhetermwith newconnotationhatwas appropriateo hisplan.Thus,webelieve,he onjointurean nnowaybe reducedomeaningmerelythe narrativergument,ut rathers thetextual rganizationn itsentirety:he opposition etween he conte d'aventurend theconjointures thereforelluminated,ndoneavoids he hornyebateover hecontributionadebythe onte:whethert is a heterogene-ous,formless atter,r a matterlready rganizedccordingo anarrativecheme,makesnodifference;hretien'sriginalityonsistsin making romance,hat s, a significanthole, nvestedwithmeaningt everyevel of tsstructure-theequentialrrangementbeingbutone of theelementshatcometogethero produce hismeaning.-The termens seems t firsto yield o a more mmediatenter-pretationhan onjointure;his ransparencys deceptive,s becomesevident rom he elucidationf lines 21-29 ofLancelot, passage

6 Cited n note 4.30



7/17

Marie-Louise llieralready nalyzed n several ccasions, in which he wordoccurstwice. ts first ccurrence,n line 23, presents,n general,nodifficulty.ere it is clearly question f the talent,wisdom,ndknowledge f the author, subject hat Chretien peaksof verypolitely,aying hat he success fthe workowes ess to himthantothe ountess'mandate. hismeaningfsens s verywidely orneout in the vulgar iterature,nd the term s associatedwiththetopos, o frequentntheprologues fromances,f themoral bliga-tion oshare ne'sknowledge. e referhereader o the istdrawnupbyR. Halphersonn UeberdieEinleitungenmaltfranzosischenKunstepos 1911) and moreparticularlyo Erec 16-18.We canthus consider an, sapiance,sciance to be synonyms.There remains he secondusage, which s of incontestabledifficulty.enshere s associatedwithmatiere; hus t is no longerpossible o interpretheword s a facultyf theauthor-itmust eseen as an interpretationf themathere.Consequentlyhe wordseems o comprise wodifferenteanings,llustratedt an intervalof three ines: talent r knowledgef the author, n one hand;meaning r interpretation,n the other. J. Rychner, owever,questionshe attermeaning.He emphasizeshat, f thetotalofseventy-sevenxamples f sens in Chretien's orks, here s onlyone (not countingur line,which s problematical)hat has thismeaning:nClig&s 311 ( An celui anqu'ele e prist in whateversense hemaytake t]).To this ne could add a fewvery areex-amplesn thevulgar ongue, ithern didacticworks r in heavilyLatinist uthors. o doubtpolysemy as very urrentt that ime.Buteven f twere obe conceded ere, espite ychner'sbjections,theproblem everthelessemains nresolved.f it is thecountesswhogivesChretien issensat the sametime s the matiere, henat theveryeastwe must eadsens heremerelys a sort fsensuslitteralis,resulting rom he succession of the unitsof the text.But mustwe then oad the termwithyeta third alue-takingit also to meanthesignificanceithwhichChretien imselfnvests

7 See Lyons,Kelly Sens,and Rychner,bove, note 4.8 J. Rychner, op. cit.31



8/17

Yale French tudieshis work?Eitherwe agree with he conclusionsf Rychner, hoestablishes, ith ery erious exicalproofs, hat heword n itstwouses has the samemeaning,hat s, thefirst-buthen he problemof what o call the secondmeaning emainsnresolved-or lse weadmit he ambiguityf sens, an ambiguityavored y its formalrelationshipregardlessf ts etymology)ith heLatinterm ensus.But estwe be accused f frivolousuesswork,e must upport urhypothesisythecontext.

This brings s to the third ey term f the passage: theonethat appears, n line 29, in the syntagmmetre on antancion.Writersave often tressedheopposition,nthetext tself,etweenthe ens given y thecountess1. 26) and theantancion hich,nline 29, denotes he author's wn contribution.. W. Robertsonhas eventried o distinguishhetwoterms yunderstandinghem,respectively,s sensus litteralis nd sententia; unfortunately,hismeaning scribed o antandions contradictedy lexical evidence.We refer hereader nce againto Kelly's tudy hat umsup thearticles hathave appeared n this uestion.t appears hat hetwomeanings resentedyW. Foerstern theWdrterbuch,amely 1)effort,2) goal, ntention,eaning,' can easilybe reduced o justone: the notion f effortirected,rientedoward goal -andin the ase that oncernss,Chretien ouldbe directingis antan-cionto theelaborationfhisromance;hats,the ntancionenotesthe creativefforttself.At thispoint, herelationshipsf thetermswithin hismicro-system ecomeclear: thematiere ngenders sens thanks o anantancionthe reative lan of thepoet)that s realized, t the evelof thetext,by a conjointure,he conjointurehus becoming hetextual rganizationroductivef sens. The author's elationshipothetext s herebystablished:t involves newrelationshipf thereader/listenero the text,which s due to the antante, notherfundamentalerm hatmust e integratedntoourmicro-system.

9D. W. Robertson, r., p. cit.10In German, espectively:1) Anstrengung,2) Zweck,Absicht,Meinung,Sinn.32



9/17

Marie-Louise llierAntante s of common se, mostoftenn the syntagmmetre

s'antante /en [direct ne's concentrationo],with ome variantson the orderof avoir/donerntante . Within he syntagm,antante nd antancion eem to be in freevariation,he greaterfrequencyftheformer eing inked, s F. Lyonshas suggested,torhythmicalonsiderations.he semanticield fantante,owever,extends eyond hatof antandion: f, nErec 6677, antante s appliedto an author,lsewhereClig&s 47-449,2279, 3141) it referso apersonwho receives perceptionrwho nterpretssignal.n ourmicro-system,ntancion efers, herefore,o the investingf athoughtnd a willoftheauthor; ntantean also mean his, ut nadditiontdenoteshe active eceptivityemandedfthereader rof the istener. his is a dualrelationship,nvolvinghetwo nex-tricable spects f a single ealityfdiscourse-theender-receiverrelationship,hethert involves he connectionetweenuthor ndreader, r (withinhenarrative)etweenpeaker ndlistener.Thus the simple examinationf these few termsreveals nChretien remarkably odernonceptionf the text.Whereas hematieres moreor less nert,ndtheconjointureenotes textualstructure,he three erms ntandon, ntante, nd the verbalformantandrere essentiallyynamic,ntroduce will, a directedn-deavor, s much nthepart f theauthor, ho nvests is textwithmeaning,s on thepartof thereader, f whom he decodingffortis required. his meaning,n fact, s not offered s an absolutevalue, s notunderstoodn terms f a transcendentruthxternalto thework, truthhat heworkwouldmerely emonstrate,erelydeclare,n theetymologicalense;rather,hemeanings immanentin the text, t is realized,n somemanner, nlyby theawarenessthe readerhas of it. To thepoet'santancionmust orrespondhereader'santante.

The interpretatione are proposing ouldseem to justifyurgranting privilegedlace to theprologue f Yvain,precisely e-cause thevery xistencefa prologuen Yvain has beendebated:11 F. Lyons, op. cit.

33



10/17

Yale French StudiesW. Foersterdoes not hesitate o deny its existence, n the groundsthat the first ines of the romance introduceus at once into thestory.We postulate,for our part, that Yvain does contain a pro-logue. Where should its boundarybe placed? From the viewpointof narrative rammar, ne could justifiablyncorporate he whole ofCalogrenant'snarrative n the prologue; thus the prologue wouldconsistof the first 80 lines. For the sake of theprecise pointthatconcernsus here, it will be sufficiento limitthe prologueto lines1-172-that is, up to the pointwhereCalogrenant esumeshis story.The prologue of Yvain does not explicitly ontain any of thetermsnoted elsewhere,withtheexception f antandre.But antandreis here the subject of a remarkabledevelopment,whichconstitutesin and of itself sortof prologue 11.150 ff.),a prologueto Calo-grenant's ale, afterthe unpleasant nterruption y the malevolentseneschal Keu. Calogrenant olemnly xhortshis audience: his talemustbe antendude cuer (understoodby the heart) and not onlyoi par oroilles heard by the ears). Now the cuer is the seat of allmental and affective ctivity.Understanding,hat is, the compre-hensionofthemessage, s carefully istinguishedrom urely ensoryperception,which s ineffectivenlessrelayedby theunderstanding.The ears are merely he channel,the voie et doiz [path and duct](1. 165), thevoiz (voice) itselfs prise dedansle ventre ar le cuer[seizedwithin he chestby the heart] 11. 166-67). Thus it appearsthat a very special emphasis s placed on the antanterequiredofthe listener.He must in some way prime and condition himselftoward the text: si li cuersn'est si esveilliez/ qu'au prendre oitappareilliez [unless the heart is alertedso that it is preparedtoreceiveit] (11. 161-162), the transmission ill not be effected. utsuch an urgent ppeal to the listenernecessarily ssumes that thereis something o be understood, ssumes therefore he existence ofa truth o be transmitted; alogrenantexpresses this not directly,but by antiphrasis,n lines 179 andfollowing: car nevuelpas parlerde songe / ne de fable ne de manqonge [for do not intend tospeak of a dream,nor a fable,nor a lie]. Fable, songe, wanfongeare an inverseparaphraseforthe sens with whichthe teller ntends34



11/17

Marie-Louise ilierto investhis tale. Let us note,moreover,hatthis admonitionsprepared or,well n advance, y thewholenarrativelement hatprecedes t. Calogrenantas begun tale. The queencomes o hearit-the firstign f the nterestt holds.Next here s Keu's sarcasmregardinghe courteousnessf the narrator,he onlyone who sawthequeenapproach nd who gottohis feet. hen t is Keu himselfwho nterveneswice, irstn lines 102-103, hen n lines 125-126,to have the tale continued, otwithstandingalogrenant's eluc-tance ogo on.Better et,Keu appeals uccessivelyo theauthorityof the queen,then,goingbeyondher,to thatof the king.WhenCalogrenantecides o continue, is admonitionhustakes on anextraordinaryorce.This narrative,rokenoff precisely ecauseithad notreceivedll thenecessaryttention,ecomes he ubject furgent uspense-having lready eenmarked, or this reason, ya surprisingomposity.he developmentn cuer andoreillesmarkstheculminationf thisescalation, t it were: the audience s thusperfectlyrimed o understandhemessage.It is true, f course, hatall thisconcerns nly Calogrenant'stale, n otherwords narrativeequence nd a characterontainedwithinheromance. nd ndeed,he ther eculiarityfthis rologueis that t entersmmediatelynto the narrative. ut how does itneverthelesslay its role as prologue-inotherwords,how doesit reveal this dual relationship,he relationshipf the author othetext nd of the text o the istener/reader?t does so precisely-and, we feel,withmuchgreater orce-by strippingwaythedidactic ppearance f the other rologues. detailed nalysis flines 1-41 up to Calogrenant'sntrance) ould howus how,fromthevery eginning,heauthor'sresencen thetext s madeproges-sivelymore tronglyelt, irst ymeansof a nous thatestablishestheauthor/audienceommunityround he Arthurian odel;thenby reflectionsn thepartof theauthor11.18-28)which dentifythemselvess suchonlyby the breakbetween ast and present;bya returno thenous (11. 9-32),already loser o the je dilate(thedilated ) spokenof by Benveniste;2 to lead finallyo the

12 E. Benveniste, Structure es relations de personnedans le verbe,Problemes de Linguistique generale (Paris, 1966), p. 235.35



12/17

Yale French tudiesje of the uthorn lines33-41-thisshort rologues so interwovenintothe overallmovementhat t seemsto emanate rom he nar-rativehatnrealitytestablishes.We point ut n passing hat hispassage, prelude o Calogrenant'speech, tands n a numericalratio f 1 to 2 with hat peech.)The play of the tenses, he alter-nationbetween he narrative ast and the authorial resent,s aparallelmanifestationf this nterweavingf narrativend prologue.But in the e discourse,fter hretien'siscreet ffirmationhatheis narratingchose ui face escoter a story hat s worthisteningto]-expressinghewhole etworkfrelationshipsssumedlsewhereby the key terms-a remarkableentencentervenes,n which hepresent rganizeshepast and thefutureround tself, emonstratingthespecialforce f the text: hetextalone gives ifeto the talethatprecedes nd whichwillfollow, he textalone guaranteestsimmortalitynthememoryfmen.The remarksn love exchangedbytheknights,heprivilegedtoryfthenarratoralogrenant-theseare mere peeches hatderive heir orceonlyfrom he author'swriting.he lesson taught y Arthur'srowess,n theopeninglinesof the romance, s nothing ut the doctrina,he sens withwhich hepoet's ntancion as investedmatiere.

Whatbetter ay to affirmheabsolute alue of the text,whichmakesno other eferencehan o itself,his iteof a truth nclosedin a conjointure, he resultof the author'santancion,an antancionoffered encefortho the-nterpretationf every eader, hanks othepermanencefwriting?hretien'swarenessfcreating workthatwould ast,unlike hework f the ongleurs, asnever ffirmedwith s muchmastery, e think,s in Yvain.His debt o theLatintraditions, above all, the awareness f thenecessityf a book,that s, ofwriting;is debt o thechanson e geste s thenecessityto createa narrativehatwouldmakeits referencesnlywithinitself, y establishingts own spatialitynd temporalityn whichthe individual iscovers is complexitynd setsout in searchofhissingularity.

Translated y David Baker36



13/17

Marie-LouiseOilierREFERENCES

Critical ditionsused:Erec, editedby M. Roques ClassiquesFrangaisdu MoyenAge (CFMA)Cliges,editedby A. MichaLancelot,editedby M. RoquesYvain,editedby M. RoquesPerceval, ditedby W. Roach TextesLitteraires rangais(Referencesre given n the order n whichthey appear in the article.)Erec

13 et tretd'un conted'aventureune molt bele conjointureand from tale of adventure erives mostbeautiful tructure1080 por coi vos feroie onc conte?Whyshould I make you hear a long tale?

Perceval63 Crestiens ui entent t painea rimoier e meillor onteChretienwho intends nd strives o set in rhyme he best tale66 Ce est li contesdel GraalIt is the tale of theGraal

Cliges8 Un novel conterancomance'Beginsa new tale

Erec23 Des or comancerai 'estoirequi toz jorz mes iert an mimoireNow I shall begin the storywhichforever fter hall beremembered

Cliges22-24 De la fu li contesestrezQui tesmoingne'estoire voire:Por ce fet ele mialz a croireFromthere he talewas taken, nd this ttests o thestory's ruth:This makesit particularly orthy f belief.

37



14/17

Yale French tudies25-28 Par les livresque nos avons

Les fez des anciens savonsEt del siegle qui fu jadis.Ce nos ont nostre ivreapris..Fromthe bookswe possess,we knowthedeedsof the ancients ndof theworld thatonce was. This our books have taught s.Erec

6680 Macrobe m'anseigne descrivresi con je l'ai trove el livreMacrobiusteachesme to write xactlywhat found n the book

Perceval67 dont li quens li bailla le livre(a tale) of which the countgave himthe book

Lancelot24-25 Del Chevalierde la CharretecomanceCrestiens on livreChretien eginshis book of the Knightof the Cart

22 Mes tantdirai ge que mialz cevreses comandemanz n ceste oevreBut indeedI will say that her command s much more effectivein thisworkCliges

3 et l'art d'amors an romans mistand translatedhe art of love intoRomance2345-46 Ce est Cliges an cui mimoirefu mise an romansceste estoireThis is Cliges, in whose memory his story was translatedntoRomancePerceval

7-8 Crestiens emme et fait semenced'un romanqu'il ancomanceChretien ows the seed of a romancethat he is beginningYvain5359-62 (Et lisoit)une pucele devant uian un romansne sai de cui38



15/17

Marie-Louise Oilieret por le roman escoters'i estoit venue acoterune dameAnd in front f him a maid (was reading) loud from romance,I dont'tknowby whom, nd to listen o the romance lady haddrawnnear

Lancelot21-29 Mes tant dirai ge que mialz cevreses comandemanz n ceste cevreque sans ne painne que g'i mete.Del Chevalierde la Charretecomance Crestiens on livre;Matiereet san li done et livrela contesse, t il s'antremetde panser,que gueresn'i metfors sa painneet s'antanc-on.But indeed I will say that her command s much more effectivein this work than any sense or effort hat I may devote to it.Chretien eginshis book of the Knightof theCart. The countessgives and bestows the story nd the meaning, nd the presumesto think hat he is hardly ontributingnything ut his effortndintention.

Erec16-18 que cil ne fet mie savoirqui s'escfencen'abandonetant con Dex la grasce 'an done.that he is in no way wise who abandons his knowledge o longas God giveshim graceto use it.6677 si an traia garantMacrobequi an l'estoiremists'antanteindeed I cite as witnessMacrobius, who put his intention ntothe story

Clige's447-49 que bien deuist 'amorsaprandrese li pletist ce antandre;mes onques n'i volt metre ntantethat he reallyought o have learned bout love if she had wantedto be attentiveo it; but she neverwantedto devoteher attentionto it

39



16/17

Yale French tudies2279 Ja d'Amorne quierestrequites

que toz jorz n'aie m'antanteIndeed I do not want to be free of Love until I obtain forevermy goal3141 Mestre, ar i metez antanteQue cil sa fiance ne mante

Master, pray pay close attention that he is not pledgingdis-honestly)Yvain150 ff. Cuers et oroilles m'aportez,car parole est tote perdues'ele n'est de cuer antandue.De dez i a qui la chose oentqu'il n'antandent,t si la loent;et cil n'en ont ne mes l'oie,des que li cuers n'i antantmie;as oroillesvient a parole,ausi come li vanz qui vole,mes n'i areste ne demore,einz s'an parten moltpetitd'ore,se li cuers n'est si esveilliezqu'au prendre oit apareilliez....

Et qui or me voldra entandrecuer et oroilles me doit randre,car ne vuel pas parler de songene de fable ne de manconge.Lend me your heartsand ears, for speech is completelywastedif it isn't understood y the heart. There are people who hearsomethinghattheydo notunderstand,nd indeedthey pprove t;and thosepeople have nothing ut the meresound,since the heartunderstands othing; speech comes to the ears, ust like thewindthatpasses,but it doesn'tstop or staythererather it departs na very hort ime,unlessthe heart s alerted o that t is preparedto receive t.... And whoeverwantsto understandme now,mustlend me his heart and his ears, for I do not intendto speak ofa dream,nor a fable,nor a lie.

33-41 Por ce me plest a reconterChose qui face a escoterdel roi qui fu de tel tesmoingQu'an an parole et pres et loing;et par lui sont amenteiu40



17/17

Marie-LouiseOilierli boen chevalier sleftqui a enor se travaillierent.For thisreasonI wantto tell a story hat s worth isteningo,about theking who was of suchrenown hathe is spokenof farand near; and thegood,noble knightswho workedto winhonorare rememberedecause of him.

41

Documents

Los Prólogos de Chrétien de Troyes. El autor en el Texto. 1974.pdf