Abstract
Marie de France’s Lais (twelfth century) contain moralizing statements and love-proverbs that seem at first to be inapplicable to the stories they complement. This article argues that Marie uses the narrative contexts of her Lais to test her proverbs, rather than merely subverting the proverbs or using them as garnish for her narrative. This allows Marie’s audience to learn “mesura” when they recontextualize conventional wisdom or love-proverbs to suit their own situations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
I will be using the term “fin’ amor” for the love-discourses popularized by the troubadours and trouvéres as well as by romances. These discourses are not identical but rather share similar preoccupations and assumptions in comparison to traditional wisdom discourses.
I would argue that Marie may well be invoking the tenth commandment and showing it being violated—but that this neither negates the quality of the lovers’ relationship nor subverts the commandment itself.
“Par ceste essample veut mustrer:/ Le coveitus e le aver/ Veulent tuz jurz tant commencer/ E si se veulent eshaucer,/ Si enpernent par lur utrage,/Que lur turne a damage” (ll. 21–26). Text and translation are both from Spiegel (1987).
She is not, for instance, subverting the genre by supplying it with innumerable morals, as Chaucer does in the Nun’s Priest’s Tale.
“Li vileins dit par repruvier,/ quant tencë a sun charuier,/ qu’amurs de seignur n’est pas fiez./ Cil est sages e veziëz,/ ki leialté tient sun seignur,/ envers ses bons veisins amur” (ll. 61–66).
“ne pas del tut verais” (Kjellman 1935).
“Mes fortune, ki ne s’oblie,/ sa roe turnë en poi d’ure,/ l’un met desuz, l’altre desure./ Issi est de cels avenu;/ kar tost furent aparceü” (ll. 537–540).
“s’amie en meine./ Ore a trespassee sa peine” (ll. 881–82).
“Seignur, ne vus en merveilliez:/ huem estranges, descunseilliez/ mult est dolenz en altre terre,/ quant il ne set u sucurs querre” (ll. 35–38).
“Cil metent lur vie en nuncure,/ ki d’amer n’unt sen ne mesure;/ tels est la mesure d’amer/ que nuls n’i deit raisun guarder” (ll. 17–20).
“lor benananssa/ es Jois, Sofrirs e Mesura” (ll. 23–24).
“Boine amour n’ert ja entiere/ Q’aucune folours n’i fiere… Folie convient avoir/ A boine amour maintenir” (ll. 49–50; 54–55).
“Et quels en est li passages?/ Raison li covient despandre/ Et mettre mesure en gages” (ll. 30–32).
This does not mean that the troubadour songs which often debated or problematized love, treat these ideas as settled questions, but that their lyrical statements about love resonated with others’ experience to the point that even qualified statements became truisms.
“tels purchace le mal d’altrui,/ dunt tuz li mals revert sur lui” (ll. 315–316).
Evans (p. 164), for instance, argues that Marie is sympathetic toward unhappily married women, but that “the complacent acceptance of adultery is not sustained when confronted with the lack of mesure and with the unjustified disloyalty that goes to the lengths of plotting misery and murder in Bisclavret and Equitan”.
“mes jo criem que poi ne li vaille,/ kar n’ot en lui point de mesure” (ll. 188–189).
While Lazar (1995) notes that “mezura [is] central to the troubadours’ code of courtliness” (p. 72), he also notes that it was a virtue largely neglected by the trouvère movement, and even in troubadour poetry there are certainly songs in which loss of mezura and folly are recommended.
“Tutes les dames d’une tere/ vendreit mult mielz d’amer requerre/ que un fol de lur pan tolir,/ kar cil vuelt en eire ferir./ […]purquant, s’ele nes vuelt oïr,/ nes deit de paroles laidir,/ mes tenir chiers e enurer,/ a gre servir e merciër” (ll. 19–28).
“Tant furent tuit de grant valur,/ ne pot eslire le meillur./ Ne volt les treis perdre pur l’un” (ll. 53–55).
“ki mult valeit/ de bealté e d’enseignement/ e de tut bon afaitement” (ll. 10–12).
“N’ot en la terre chevalier/ ki alkes feïst a preisier,/ pur ceo qu’une feiz la veïst,/ que ne l’amast e requeïst” (ll. 13–16).
In this lai as well as Eliduc, Marie de France seems to question whether this is always necessarily the case—testing it, as she does the other conventions, through narrative.
“de bien faire, se il peüst,/ pur ceo qu’a la dame pleüst” (ll. 65–66).
“Ses druz i vit mult bien aidier:/ ne set le quel deit plus preisier” (ll. 109–110).
“A traverse furent feru/ e tuit quatre furent cheü./ Cil ki a mort les unt nafrez,/ lur escuz unt es chans getez” (ll. 125–128).
This assumes that the matter of the Lais really was borrowed from earlier tales, as Marie asserts.
“el reialme nen out plus bel” (l. 38).
“Beals chevaliers e bons esteit/ e noblement se cunteneit” (ll. 17–18).
“mult par est curteise e bele” (l. 72).
“Flur de lis e rose nuvele,/ quant ele pert el tens d’esté,/ trespassot ele de bealté” (ll. 94–96).
“bele/ e mult curteise dameisele” (ll. 21–22).
“sage e curteise e forment bele” (l. 22).
“ki mult fu curteis” (l. 11).
“e mult amez en sun païs” (l. 14).
“maintint chevalerie” (l. 16).
“Amurs l’a mis en sa maisniee./ Une saiete a vers lui traite,/ ki mult grant plaie li a faite:/ el quer li a lanciee e mise./ N’i a mestier sens ne cointise:/ pur la dame l’a si suzpris,/ tuz en est murnes e pensis” (ll. 58–64).
“Del cor sospir e dels olhs plor,/ Car tan l’am eu, per que i ai dan” (ll. 19–20).
Vus seiez dame e jeo servanz”] (l. 179).
“Bona domna, re no.us deman/ Mas que.m prendatz per servidor,/ Qu’e.us servirai com bo senhor” (ll. 49–51).
“mult vaillant/ e ki mult faiseit bel semblant./ Il amot li e ele lui” (ll. 20–22).
“sui en tel esfrei” (l. 43).
“Sire, jeo sui en tel esfrei/ les jurs quant vus partez de mei./ El cuer en ai mult grant dolur/ e de vus perdre tel poür,/ se jeo nen ai hastif cunfort,/ bien tost en puis aveir la mort” (ll. 43–48).
“Tant la requist, tant la preia…” (l. 24).
“sur tute rien,/ tant pur le bien qu’ele en oï,/ tant pur ceo qu’il ert pres de li” (ll. 26–28).
Though accounts of paradigmatic lovers such as Tristan or Lancelot do not list proximity as a cause of fin’ amor, it is difficult to suppose proximity and convenience would not play an unstated role, and Marie is not above emphasizing this point—without discrediting the quality of their love.
References
Bruckner, M. (2011). Speaking through animals in Marie de France’s Lais and Fables. In L. Whalen (Ed.), A companion to Marie de France (pp. 157–186). Boston: Brill.
Brumlik, J. (1988). Thematic irony in Marie de France’s Guigemar. French Forum, 13(1), 5–16.
Burgess, G., & Busby, K. (1999). The Lais of Marie de France (2nd ed.). London: Penguin.
Damon, S. (1929). Marie de France: Psychologist of courtly love. PMLA, 44(4), 968–996.
Doss-Quinby, E., Grimbert, J., et al. (2001). Songs of the women trouveres. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Evans, D. (1984). Marie de France, Chrétien de Troyes, and the malmariée. In P. Noble & L. Paterson (Eds.), Chrétien de Troyes and the troubadours: Essays in memory of the late Leslie Topsfield (pp. 164–165). Cambridge: St. Catharine’s College.
Goldin, F. (1973). Lyrics of the troubadours and trouvères: An anthology and a history. New York: Anchor Books.
Kinoshita, S., & McCracken, P. (2012). Marie de France: A critical companion. Rochester, NY: D.S. Brewer.
Kjellman, H. (1935). La Vie seint Edmund le Rei, poème anglo-normand du XIIe siècle. Göteborg: Wettergren & Kerber; repr (p. 1974). Geneva: Slatkine.
Lazar, M. (1995). Fin’ amor. In F. Akehurst & J. Davis (Eds.), A handbook of the troubadours (pp. 61–100). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Murray, K. (2011). Marie De France, ethicist: Questioning courtly love in Laüstic. Modern Philology, 109(1), 1–16.
Newman, B. (2013). Medieval crossover: Reading the secular against the sacred. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Pfeffer, W. (1997). Proverbs in medieval Occitan literature. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.
Rothschild, J. (1994). Marie de France’s “female villains”: Caractère and characterization. Medieval Perspectives, 9, 146–157.
Spiegel, H. (1987). Fables: Marie de France. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Stahuljak, Z., et al. (2011). Thinking through Chrétien de Troyes. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer.
Topsfield, L. (1975). Troubadours and love. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Warnke, K. (1990). Lais of Marie de France. Paris: Librairie Générale Française.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The author wishes to express gratitude to Joan Grimbert and Courtney Wells for their guidance and feedback on earlier drafts of this article.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pipkin, C.L. Love Without Mesure: Proverb Problems in the Lais of Marie de France. Neophilologus 103, 307–321 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11061-019-09597-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11061-019-09597-7