week 3: Chrétien and its English redaction - the concerns of romance - continued

What really stood out to me was how each version treated "that clash between friends moment," the translation makes na oblique reference to the possible moral conflict, but does not ponder on it too long perhaps to not take away from the sheer spectacle of two skilled knights fighting to the death. For Chrétien, on the other hand, the clash of two friends is not so much a matter of everyday business but a serious problem, something to adjudicate, to bring one more case to Court on top of the dispute of the two sisters.

On the whole, it is in line with Chrétien's concernes with the "workings of love" (missing hearts, the many chambers inside a heart etc.) which are symptomatically missing from the English translation. What is noteworthy, however, is that here Chrétien demonstrates a more moral understanding of love, which, in turn, with line with the proposed project of the ME version, love less as a source of refinement, cultural superiority, and more as a force reconcilation, resolving conflict in society. To show love as such also seems to be the reason for positioning the friends in contrast to the two sisters, where, in the heart of the elder, something other than love has taken lodging, be it greed or perhaps even hate; whereas in the English version it seems to serve no purpose other than providing precendence for the first partition of land in England.

 

What I believe is one of the most noteworthy moments in Ywain's path back to his love, is his lamentation after he nearly manages to accidentally kill himself. Interestingly, whilst both Chrétien's and the English version agree on the fact that the main reason for the knight's momental sorrow is the sense of lost joy and delight ("Who loses all joy and comfort too / Through his own fault ..." x "My gude dayes er now al gane / My joy es done now al bidene"), they develop this motif differently. I would argue that the English version presents a picture of sorrow that is paradoxically more linked to the sense of disconnection from a certain person ("Sla my self for swilk a wyght / That I have for my foly lorn.") and to the fact that the broken promise leads to social seclusion ("I am noght worthi to be sene."). On the other hand, it may be perceived that Chrétien puts forward what could be interpreted as fear of future - a notion of neverending despair stemming from Ywain's mistake which is focused more on himself ("Who loses all joy and comfort too / Through his own fault, he rightly / Should hate himself, and mortally / He ought to hate himself and die." or "Who ends his joy by his own hand, / Good fortune should ne'er command.").
So, the debated passage of the English version is, in my opinion, more focused on the ties between Ywain and a particular women as much as it tries to bring up social consequences of him breaking a promise. In this regard, Chrétien's narrative is probably more individually oriented (alongside elaborating on the problem of suicide which is eventually dismissed).

In the Middle-English version, the part where Ywain talks to Allundyne being disguised does not convey the irony of the original text. In the French version, he says he cannot stay until his lady “removes from [him] her displeasure and anger,” and Alundyne replies: “She ought not to close her door against so valorous a knight as you, unless you had done her some great wrong.” Therefore, she already recognises his desire to reconcile and appreciates his nobility. In the English text, this irony is omitted, and the characters do not equivocally refer to themselves. Ywain simply says: I may not stay any longer. Good day, and I pray to Christ, heaven’s king, that He grant you a good life…” I think this omission dismisses the relationship between Ywain and Alundyne and deprives the characters of the psychological depth making the interaction between them less complex.

One, perhaps very minor but nonetheless interesting, difference that caught my mind was the substantial shortening of the plight of the ladies prior to Lunet's planned execution. In the original it is much more extensive and for me, personally, gives a proper justification to the character. That is, of course we see her as a positive character even prior to this, as she helps Ywain, the hero, but still I could not help but find some of her manipulations a bit problematic to say the least. But this recollection of her charitable deeds really underpinned that all of that is just well meaning good council. In the English version, I think the sorrow of the ladies is shortened as part of perhaps streamlining and more focusing the story, but I feel it takes away a lot of this reassuring aspect. Along with the points Anna mentions I think this makes the subsequent renewal of Ywain's and Alundyne's relationship feel less like a restoration of balance or good like another manipulation with which Alundyne is much less happy as it feels more forced onto her.

When returning to these texts for the second time, I could not help but notice the differences in symbolism. Perhaps my imagination is adding more symbols than it would be necessary to interpret some of the passages, but the one that I find very interesting is Ywain`s first encounter with the lion. In both version we get the typical brave action of encountering a deep forest when all of a sudden witnessing a fight, and of course Ywain is always ready to fight and rescue the one in need. In one version, Ywain is fighting a serpent and in the second, he fights a dragon. While both of these creatures are described dangerous enough to evoke a "the good lion if fighting the bad dangerous creature", doesn't these animals carry a slightly different connotation? In The first version, the snake is repeatedly described as venomous, "poisonous bane", highlighting the insidious nature of the poison. While the second version highlights the dragon as "casting fire upon him", suggesting the power of the creature. The version with the dragon feels much more medieval to me.
Additionally, after Ywain helps the dragon to kill the dragon/serpent, the lion is committed to him. He aims to serve him. Both version then are the same in the sense that we see the typical devotion to a leader/savior/king - one of the biggest themes in middle English literature, which seems to have its roots in the total beginnings of English literature; in Beowulf, for instance, which in my eyes set a lot of "standards" for (middle) English literature in general.

Sorry for the rather late reply, but better late then never, I hope. For me, the chief difference lies in the characters themselves - as the original gives more space to their thoughts, feelings, and behaviour in general, they feel much more real and, frankly, more human rather than just figures and archetypes. Even such a small scene as Ywain leaving his wife feels both more poignant and a bit more... funny, perhaps? His knight friends employ the language common to so many overused tropes of best friends versus marriage that it almost sounds like they are persuading Ywain to go late-night drinking with them, rather than have grand adventures. And, just like sir Kay, they seem just a little bit meaner than the ME version.
But even the lion seems, for a lack of a better word, more human in the older version, as we get a lengthy description of its behaviour and motives, and a lot of similes that make the animal seem almost like simply a mute human servant.

What I've noticed was the difference between the ways things are presented. It seems as if in the ME version the narration is quite straightforward without any digressions. The descriptions are pretty short and sometimes cause confusion (as was already mentioned above). Chrétien though takes his time when describing the scenes of the story.

For example, here is the passage describing Yvain's preparation for the battle with the giant from the ME version:
Sone was he armed, Sir Ywayn;
Tharfore the ladies war ful fayn.
Thai helpid to lace him in his wede,
And sone he lepe up on his stede.

And the French version:
His horse was led to him there,
And a squire his armour brought,
And to arm him swiftly sought,
So that he was soon equipped.
In doing so they let naught slip,
Taking as little time as they might.
Once they had fully armed the knight.

There are many instances when Chrétien's descriptions are almost (if not more) half-length of the ME version.

I think the style also suggests that both versions were meant for different readers.

I am sorry for my very late reply. I have notices that in the ME version there's an additional scene before Ywain meets the lion. In Chrétien, Ywain is isolating himself in the woods and one one except the hermit is the witness to his madness. Chrétien gives Ywain space to "recover" from his madness on his own and there is no one to see him mad. He then emerges from the woods with the lion by his side. However, in the ME version there is the additional scene where two ladies-in-waiting discover Ywain sleeping naked under a tree they suggest to use an ointment to cure Ywain’s madness “for I have a valuable ointment there that Morgan the Wise gave me” [6] This is an interesting approach, because in Chrétien Ywain must overcome the madness by himself but in the ME version the two ladies-in-waiting want to help him recover.