Chrétien de Troyes
Can we count on the account of a count?
(An earlier version of this text is available in French)
Manuscript T (Roach)
62 CRESTIIENS, qui entent et paine
64 Par le comandement le conte
63 A rimoir le meillor conte
65 Qui soit contez a cort roial
66 Ce est li CONTES DEL GRAAL,
67 Dont li quens li bailla le livre,
68 Oeez coment il s’en delivre.62 CHRETIEN, who knows and strives
64 By the count's (or story's) command
63 To rhyme the better story
65 Which is (to be) told at the royal court
66 It is the STORY (COUNTS) OF THE GRAIL,
67 To which the count gave him the book,
68 Listen how he delivers it.
(Note: Roach interchanged the above lines 63 and 64!)
Le Conte du Graal, which is also known as Perceval, was created by Chrétien de Troyes roughly between 1179 and 1190. Many of the existing manuscripts open with a prologue of 68 lines, which ends with the above jeu de mots. It is the first time the mystery word GRAAL is ever uttered, which means that it is the inspiration for all grail stories. The experts agree unanimously that these lines confirm that Philip of Alsace, count of Flanders, commissioned the poem and provided the source material for Chrétien. Although the poet acknowledges the patronage of Marie de Champagne in earlier works, he praises Philip so lavishly in the prologue that it is widely held that he had by then attached himself to the Flemish count. This could mean that the poet died in Flanders, because the poem ends abruptly, before Perceval can correct his failure at the grail castle. The poet Gerbert, one of several continuators, explains la mort, qui l’adevancha, that Chrétien died before he could finish the work (1).
There is, however, the possibility that our scholars have overlooked a few "esoteric" messages of the poet and made the wrong conclusions. In Old French the word conte could mean story, count, account, amount, value, meaning, and calculation (2), which makes the above word play quite ambiguous. The word is spelled differently in modern French to distinguish between conte (story, tale), comte (the title) and compte (amount, calculation), but have retained the nasal pronunciation of "conte" (3). This clearly stated ambiguity (pun intended) led an expert like Roach to interpret the meaning according to the context of the prologue, because it contains such lavish praise of Count Philip. But this is not the only problem of the prologue. There is a famous biblical quote from St. John (I Jn 4:16), which is falsely attributed to St. Paul, although the poet insists that he read it there himself. In the context of "one hand not knowing the good the other is doing", count Philip is praised for an unknown secret side as extremely charitable and generous, and is raised high above an otherwise unidentified Alexander of whom everyone says he is doing so much good, but who is really vicious and evil.
The entertaining idea to oppose someone with a bad reputation, who is secretly good, with someone who is praised by everyone, as vicious and evil, has never been especially noted by scholarship. There is a consensus that he meant Alexander the Great because Chrétien describes him in an earlier work as the perfect model of chivalry and as very generous (4). But in view of the ambiguities and a few other problems in the text we are going to explore the option that this prologue has always been misinterpreted. This is supported by the fact that Philip's book has never been found, nor any trace of a meillor conte that was told at the royal court.
If we consider that Chrétien may have been fully aware of these ambiguities and chose them for good reasons, the alleged "errors" could have a purpose and deserve to be researched in greater detail. In the process, we intend to indentify Chrétien's "lost sources", expose the prologue as a satire on the account of the pious count, and demonstrate that the key to matière and sen of the poem is hidden in an allegorical veil of flattery. As a consequence, this would not only reverse the current interpretation of Chrétien's work, but also resolve one of the greatest enigmas of grail research.
According to the traditional views, Chrétien paraphrases the apostles Paul (II Cor.9:6) and Matthew (13:5-6,8,23) to stress the poem's importance, and quotes II Cor. 9:8-9, Mt. 6:3-4,2, I Jn 4:16, and II Cor. 9:7 to celebrate the count as the most noble man in the Roman empire. If we ignore the sarcasm, as everyone has, that many despised the Roman Empire and that Flanders was not even part of it, we would have to take the poet literally, as scholarship has, and the above jeu de mots would serve exclusively the praise of the count. Consequently, we would have to conclude that Chrétien lost his sense of balance, was getting senile, and needed to flatter a new patron for room and board. If true, this would have indeed been a sad end for the greatest and most celebrated poet of this era.
This has been the position of the leading scholars for over a hundred years, including Wendelin Foerster (1844-1915), Alfons Hilka (1877-1939), William Nitze (1876-1957), Jean Frappier (1900-1974), and William Roach (1907-1993). They have recognized the problems, but instead of looking for explanations prefer to blame medieval scribes for the alleged mistakes (5). The praise is another matter: According to Foerster (6), Chrétien grossly overdoes the praise of the count. Frappier (7) calls it a flattering dedication and regrets that the prologue is too discrete about the poem's source. Most scholars are at odds with the flattery, but like Frappier seem to avoid speculation because the poem is left unfinished. The whole dilemma is probably summed up best by Roach (8) , who admits: The textual critique of literary works from the Middle Ages is a long series of unstable hypotheses and arbitrary decisions of the editors.
However, they may have overlooked that the poet explained the excessive flattery in another jeu de mots (3250/51). When Chrétien introduces the grail to Perceval for the first time he says mysteriously:
Qu'aussi bien se puet an trop teire
Con trop parler a la foiiee..
(One can also remain too silent
and talk too much at the same time)Keeping a proper balance or measure was one of the great virtues in the Middle Ages, yet Chrétien violates this ideal with the lavish flattery and repetitions of conte. Could it be that he wanted his listeners to accuse him of excessiveness and ambiguity in the prologue -- to which he could reply with the second jeu de mots to enhance the mystery? He uses a similar "suspense" by not revealing Perceval's name, who doesn't even know it himself until he guesses it intuitively after failing at the grail castle. In this sense, we may have found the first interactive poem in history that challenges us to interpret an ambiguous statement from the general context. So far, our scholars have indeed complied -- but did they find the right context? And, of course, from which version of the first word play, because there are several?
Lines 63-64 are reversed in manuscript U (Paris, Bibl. Nat. ffs 12577) and only support the count's command if we stipulate that the line is interjected. In the manuscripts A (Paris, Bibl Nat. ffs 794), M (Montpellier, Ecole de Médicine H.249), and T (Paris, Bibl. Nat. ffs 12576 ) the lines are not reversed, which changes their meaning and the general context. It must be said, as amazing as it seems, that the leading experts have never considered this option!
Manuscript A (used by Hilka) has lines 63 and 64 in the following order:
63 A rimoiier le meillor conte
64 Par le comandemant le conte
65 Qui soit contez an cort real:
66 Ce est li contes del GRAAL,
67 Don li cuens li bailla le livre,
68 S'orroiz comant il s'an delivre.62 CHRETIEN, who knows and strives
63 To rhyme the better story
64 As commanded by the story
65 That is told at the royal court
66 It is the STORY OF THE GRAIL,
67 To which the count gave him the book,
68 Listen how he delivers it.Although still ambiguous, the word play favors the command of another or false story, which was told at the royal court. This story obliged Chrétien was to compose a better story entitled The Story Of The Grail or even The Count From The Grail. This translation would be satisfied by the existence of a "peiour conte" (Lt. peior, OFr. peiour, pire = worse) as the false story that was told at the court, and which Philip's book would correct. The opposition of better and worse in regards to Philip and Alexander may be an additional clue, but because the flattering remarks are always taken literally, a false story was never considered. (To facilitate a detailed comparison, the two entire prologues can be reviewed at the end).
Our search for the false tale needs to begin with the other clues Chrétien has given us. There is the mysterious Alexander, of whom we only know that everyone says he is doing so much good, although he is really vicious and evil. If the poet continues to use ambiguities, as established with conte to offer his audience a choice, the general context reverses almost like a magic trick: Reassured by Chrétien's pious tone, orthodox listeners from the North would take the flattery literally and assume that Philip, in spite of his bad reputation, is secretly so noble and generous that the celebrated Alexander III of Macedon would be vicious and evil by comparison. But heretics and sympathizers of the Gnostic sects recognized pope Alexander III, whom they had reason to regard as vicious and evil. He persecuted them severely and although challenged by several anti-popes, he was restored to supreme power in 1177 (Peace of Venice).
This would mean that the prologue was written after 1182, when Count Philip was rejected by Marie de Champagne and married Teresa of Portugal to strengthen his position against France. We shall see at a later time that Chrétien's symbolism of the Magic Sword supports this interpretation, because it is concealed in a "scabbard of fancy Venetian gold brocade", which implies a cover-up after 1177. What supports this poetic "confusion" and makes it even more entertaining, is that both Alexanders are listed in the annals as "Alexander III, the great".
Surely, a master like Chrétien would have avoided such dangerous ambiguities -- had they not been intentional! The dualistic structure of the poem with the parallel quests of Perceval and Gauvain, the opposition of the "spiritual" Grail Castle with the "material" Castle of Wonders, are all evidence for a Gnostic concept. This could explain why Chretien attributed a famous quote from St. John to St. Paul, and insisted he read it there, because it expresses important aspects of the Cathar faith:
God is love, and who lives in love lives in God, and God in him.
Our love is brought to perfection in this...This seems to be a most sophisticated attack of the orthodox who identified Alexander the Great, because they would complain (like our scholars) that the poet confused their most venerated apostles. In anticipation of this criticism, and to confirm our interpretation, Chrétien adds that he read it there himself. This is a clear message to his more enlightened listeners, those who recognized pope Alexander, because they knew that there were numerous saints named Paul. Hence, we are forced to ask: Could it be that Chrétien said less about Philip by talking too much, and more about Alexander and St. Paul by saying too little? To repeat the master's words:
Qu'aussi bien se puet an trop teire
Con trop parler a la foiiee"
Appendix 1:
We will show eventually that Wolfram's contributions facilitate our access of Chrétien's "Conte du Graal". The German poet presents major portions of his adaptation before 1204, less than twenty years after Chrétien's death, and may have met the French master in person. His initiation indicates that both were either members of an esoteric order, or that Wolfram had additional information, which is now lost. A continuation of the poem could have existed that was destroyed after Chrétien's death. In view of the continuators, who altered and diffused much of Chrétien's intentions, it is conceivable that they were "hired hands" to obscure the grail secrets. If this hypothesis is proven some day, and once the mystery is decoded, it is but a short step to the possible conclusion that the poet was murdered. All we can say today, in 2008, with some certainty is that Wolfram had either a manuscript of the poem, or that it was quoted to him verbatim by witnesses of Chrétien's presentation. Only this could enable him to follow the French original so closely, often scene by scene -- including a smooth and invisible transition from where Chrétien ends. Thus, Wolfram saved the grail secrets from the distortions of Chrétien's "continuators" of which at least one appears to have worked for the Flemish court or his daughter -- truly by the "count's command".
Otto Springer's Wolfram studies (8) suggest that Wolfram adopted Chrétien's use of etymological plays with words as well. This play with "hilfe" (help) may very well be an intentional "help" to understand Chrétien, and on how to solve his riddles. Anyone who has performed for audiences, like your gatekeeper, would say that Wolfram's "help" literally jumps into your face! Let us not forget that these poets were entertainers in front of live audiences, and that hints could be articulated with greater emphasis. Here is one of several examples, quoted by Springer, where helfe/hilfe is used like "conte", but without the ambiguities:
des gihe ich dem ze schanden
der aller helfe hat gewalt,
ist sin helfe helfe balt,
daz er mir denne hilfet niht,
so vil man im der hilfe giht'.. (P.461,18-26)
Appendix 2
.
One ambiguous statement by Chrétien is an example where he achieved a perfect balance by neither saying nor talking too much: His praise of Philip as the most noble man in the Roman Empire, because it is unlikely that the Roman Empire was held in high esteem at the court of Marie de Champagne. The etymological key is the ambiguity of preudome (prodome) , because it means noble man as well as proud man. The right interpretation here seems to support the choice of the right Alexander. We will show later that the entire prologue is a prelude of things to come as it introduces etymology as the one and only key to localize the grail!
The time has certainly come for a young French scholar to re-translate the prologue and restore Chrétien's ambiguities. (Please send your translation to info@grailgate.com so that we can post it.) Because as long as the current "general context" is maintained, all translations and prose adaptations into modern French (and other languages) will continue to distort the intentions of the poet. Your gatekeeper feels that we owe this to him, so that his great efforts were not in vain !
Meanwhile, please compare and analyze the two versions below:
Baist/Hilka
Qui petit seem petit quialt
E qui auques recoillir vialt
An tel leu sa semance espande
Que fruit a cent dobles li rande
Car an terre qui rien ne vaut
Bone semance i seche e faut.
Crestiens seme e fet semance
D'un romans que il ancomance
E si le seme an si bon leu
Qu'il ne puet estre sanz grant preu
Qu'il le fet por le plus prodome
Qui soit an l'empire de Rome
C'est li cuens Phelipes de Flandres
Qui mialz valt ne fist Alexandres
Cil que lan dit qui tant fu buens.
Mes je proverai que li cuens
Valt mialz que cist ne fist asez
Car il ot an lui amassez
Toz les vices et toz les max
Dont li cuens est mondes e sax.
Li cuens est tex que il n'escote
Vilain gap ne parole estote
E s'il ot mal dire d'autrui
Qui que il soit ce poise lui.
Li cuens aimme droite justise
E leauté e sainte iglise
E tote vilenie het
S'est plus larges que lan ne set
Qui'il done selonc l'evangile
Sanz ypocrisye et sanz guile
E dit ne saiche ta senestre
Le bien quant le fera la destre
Cil le saiche qui le recoit
E dex qui toz les segrez voit
E set totes les repostailles
Qui sont es cuers e es antrailles.
L'evangile por coi dit ele
Tes biens a ta senestre cele ?
La senestre selonc l'estoire
Senefie la vainne gloire
Qui vint de fause ypocrisie.
E la destre que senefie ?
Charité qui de sa bone oevre
Pas ne se vante encois la coevre
Que nus ne le set se cil non
Qui dex e charité a non.
Dex est charitez e qui vit
An charité selonc l'escrit
Sainz Pos lo dit e je le lui
Qui maint an deu e dex an lui.
Donc sachoiz bien de verité
Que li don sont de charité
Que li bons cuens Felipes done
C'onques nelui n'an areisone
Fors son franc cuer le debonere
Qui li loe le bien a fere.
Ne valt mialz cil que ne valut
Alixandres cui ne chalut
De charité ne de nul bien ?
Oil n'an dotez ja de rien
Donc avra bien sauvé sa peinne
Crestiens qui antant e peinne
A rimoier le meillor conte
Par le comandement le conte
Qui soit contez an cort real
Ce est li c o n t e s d e l g r a a l
Don li cuens li baille le livre.
S'orroiz comant il s'an delivre.Roach
Ki petit semme petit quelt,
Et qui auques requeillir velt,
En tel liu sa semence espande
Que Diex a cent doubles li rande
Car en terre qui riens ne valt,
Bone semence seche et faut.
CRESTÏENS semme et fait semence
D'un romans que ii encomence,
Et si le seme en si bon leu
Qu'il ne puet [estre] sanz grant preu,
Qu'il le fait por le plus preudome
Qui soit en 1'empire de Rome.
C'est li quens Phelipes de Flandres,
Qui valt mix ne fist Alixandres,
Cil que l'en dist qui fu si buens.
Mais je proverai que ii quens
Valt mix que il ne fist assez,
Car cil ot en lui amasse
Toz les visces et toz les maus
Dont li quens est mondes et saus.
Li quens est teus que il n'escoute
Vilain g[ap] ne parole estoute,
Et s'il ot mesdire d'autrui,
Quels que il soit, ce poise lui.
Li quens aime droite justise
Et loiauté et sainte eglise
Et toute vilonnie het
S'est larges que 1'en si ne set,
Qu'il done selonc 1'evangille,
Sanz ypocrisie et sanz gille,
Qu'el dist: "Ne sache ta senestre
Les biens quant les [fera] ta destre.
Cil le sache qui les reçoit,
Et Diex, qui toz les secrez voit
Et set totes les repostailles
Qui sont es cuers et es entrailles.
L'evangille por coi dist ele
"Les biens a ta senestre cele" ?
Le senestre, selonc 1'estoire,
Senefie la vaine gloire
Qui vient de fausse ypocrisie.
Et la destre que senefie ?
Carité, qui de sa bone oevre
Pas ne se vante, ançois se coevre,
Si que ne le set se cil non
Qui Diex et caritez a non.
Diex est caritez, et qui vit
En carité selonc 1'escrit,
Sainz Pols le dist et je le lui,
Il maint en Dieu, et Diex en lui.
Dont sachiez bien de verité
Que li don sont de carité
Que li bons quens Phelipes done
Onques nului n'i araisonne
Fors son bon cuer le debonaire
Qui li loe le bien a faire.
Ne valt cil mix que ne valut
Alixandres, cui ne chalut
De carité ne de nul bien ?
Oil, n'en doutez ja de rien
Dont avra bien salve sa paine
CRESTÏENS, qui entent et paine
Par le comandement le conte
A rimoier le meillor conte
Qui soit contez a cort roial :
Ce est li CONTES DEL GRAAL,
Dont li quens li bailla le livre.
Oëz coment il s'en delivre.
NOTES:
1. WENDELIN FOERSTER, Kristian von Troyes, Wörterbuch zu seinen sämtlichen Werken, Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1914, p.152
2. ERNST GAMILLSCHEG, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der französischen Sprache, Universitätsbuchhandlung, Heidelberg 1928, pp.243-5
3. TOBLER-LOMMATSCH, Altfranzösisches Wörterbuch, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, Berlin, 1936, Zweiter Band, pp.751-757
4. ALFONS HILKA (Gottfried Baist), Der Percevalroman (Li contes del graal), Max Niemeyer Verlag, Halle (Saale), 1932, p.4
5. Ibid. p.616
6. WENDELIN FOERSTER, op.cit. p. 152. The quote: "…sich sehr überschwendlich ergeht in Lobe des Grafen von Flandern”
7. JEAN FRAPPIER, Chrétien de Troyes et le Mythe du Graal, Societé d'édition d'enseignement superieur, Paris V, 1972, pp.50,52
8. WILLIAM ROACH, Le Roman de Perceval ou LE CONTE DU GRAAL, Textes Litteraires Francais, Geneve: Droz & Lille: Giard, 1956, p.XI. The quote: "la critique textuelle des oevres litteraires du moyen age a ete une longue suite d'hypotheses instabiles et de decisions arbitraires des editeurs"
9. OTTO SPRINGER, Arbeiten zur germanischen Philologie und zur Literatur des Mittelalters, Etymologisches Spiel in Wolfram's Parzival, Wilhelm Fink Verlag, München, 1975, p.219
Copyright (C) 1980-2010 by GrailGate