week 10: the story of Havelok

week 10: the story of Havelok

Number of replies: 12

forum: I'd like to ask you to compare the versions and see how the narrative is reorganized in the historical and the romance context respectively; where the emphasis is placed, how the sujet changes.

session: we will talk further about the uses of romance narrative / motivic patterns in historical writing.

In reply to First post

Re: week 10: the story of Havelok

by Veronika Šteflová -
Comparing the two version, the first theme where the emphasis in placed is, I believe, the father figure importance. Compared to the Gaimar's version, which keeps it short and sweet with the context of relations, the other version goes above and beyond to stress that king Athelword was a fair, respectful, religious, moral, protective and thoughtful man (and father.) His death thus evokes much more emotions than the Hamar's version ever could. He also is much more pious and stresses faith much more that Gaimar's king. It goes the same for his daughter, who is claimed to be thriving for she had been raised kingly enough (65), however the other version portrays her as the typical white fairy-like lady; a beautiful woman, the fairiest alive, wise in all good and valuable manners.
Additionally, in both versions I noticed a notion of (not) having enough to consume, and thus being able to survive. In Gaimar there are the barons having tons of food that they are even able to share, while in the other version Havelok cries of hunger. This draws a particular picture of fighting for survival and the food being the basis for it. All the suffering and hunger might be there to display the chaos and terrible conditions during the conflict. Havelok was the only child left to live, which creates that image of him being chosen from the start. I did not really get that version of Havelok in Gaimar, as he sort of jut comes from the woods, no mention about his upbringing or any of that sort.
In reply to Veronika Šteflová

Re: week 10: the story of Havelok

by Anastasiya Nováková -
I just wanted to add a bit to Veronika's second point. I've noticed that in the Middle English version, from the very beginning, there is lots of exaggeration. For example, Havelok 'was so poor in his youth that he went about naked' (1). When he grew up, he was 'the bravest at need that might ride a steed' (1) (it is also funny how a very similar description is used to describe Athelwold and Birkabeyn). But I agree with Veronika that there might be something about survival in the depiction of Havelok (and I would add Goldeboru here as well after she was sent to prison: 'she was poorly fed and clothed' (2)).
In reply to Veronika Šteflová

Re: week 10: the story of Havelok

by Helena Znojemská -
A more familial focus in the English romance? If you recall Felicity Riddy's observations on how nuclear family figures largely in later medieval romance, would the English Havelok represent an instance? At the same time, the absence of love mentioned by Štěpán, would seem to argue against that...
Concerning the last point, it's more an issue of focus. Telling a history of England it seems logical to start with Argentlille and later move to Havelok. In self-contained romance it's more customary to follow the male character.
In reply to First post

Re: week 10: the story of Havelok

by Anna Pavlova -
Gaimar's version is quite different from the ME one. First, it has some additional details about the characters: Havelok's mother was Alvive, the daughter of King Gaifer, Edelsie's sister Orwain was married to Adelbriht, and they lived during the time of Constantin (Arthur's nephew). I agree with Veronika that the ME version is more focused on morality. The two kings are described very vividly as the most generous and noble men, and Havelok is also kind and modest.
In reply to Anna Pavlova

Re: week 10: the story of Havelok

by Helena Znojemská -
I agree that the English romance seems to be more of an exemplary story - but I suppose on a larger level than just the familial one? or no? Gaimar's needs more anchoring in actual (however fabricated) past and a real space. You can see this in the English chronicle versions as well.
In reply to First post

Re: week 10: the story of Havelok

by Štěpán Rybák -
There are many differences between the "historical" account of Havelok's story and its Romance form. I would like to focus on how the character of Havelok changes in the two versions. In Gaimar's narration, we find Cuaran at the beginning as a person who does not really fit into the world he is elevated to by his coincidental marriage to Argentille (he does not know how to approach women). His confusion and strangeness is also expressed when he barely knows where his relatives are ("If I do not find my relatives there, I know not where I was born." - p. 323). Only after he becomes the one "they called Havelok", his behaviour changes and he no longer presents an odd element. So Cuaran's fate is to discover his royal origins that he was not aware of. On the contrary, the Romance Havelok's story is from the first moments structured as a way of retaliation that Havelok has to undertake to reclaim the unjustly usurped throne of Denmark. However, what I believe that both Haveloks have in common is that they both present a certain literary type connected (in case of Gaimar may be ex post) to the Romance genre. Whereas Cuaran shows some resemblances to what I would define as Perceval-type (somebody outside the courtly society who gains his cachet through extraordinary physical abilities and then "stumbles upon" his origins from a royal or knightly lineage),, the younger Havelok is certainly similiar to Apollonius as he is somebody who has to enter lower ranks to win back his place in the sun.

I would also like to make a short remark on the very specific role of love that does not seem to be a theme for niether of works. In my opinion, the English Havelok presents a very pragmatic view of love (Goldeboru all of a sudden values her marriage because she is revealed that Havelok is an heir of Denmark: "When she had heard the voice of the angel out of heaven, she was so happy that she couldn’t hide her joy and kissed Havelok, but he was asleep and didn’t know what the angel had said." - p. 7) which I find quite unusual for the genre.
In reply to Štěpán Rybák

Re: week 10: the story of Havelok

by Helena Znojemská -
Yes concerning the "types" for the two Haveloks, with perhaps something of a reservation concerning Perceval - In contrast, Gaimar's Havelok, though he's clumsy in bed, shows a naturally knightly behaviour in his generosity, fair treatment of beaten enemies (however weirdly it reads - he's not vindictive, at least) etc. - all that Chrétien's Perceval has to learn (the English one being an even more desperate case).
The latter observation is correct, and the situation stands in sharp contrast to Apollonius, at least in Gower's version. She is an heiress, he can rule, he can be king, lineage proof not required. I wonder what you make of that difference on the part of Haverok.
In reply to First post

Re: week 10: the story of Havelok

by Adéla Chvátalová -
After reading both texts I found the main message quite different. In the Gaimar version, Haveloc is searching for his identity for he does not know where he comes from and who his parents were. Throughout the story Haveloc is learning about his past and he discovers he's the son of a king and the ruler of Denmark. In the English version however, Hevelok knows he's the son of a king from the beginning and together with Goldeboru they seek revenge because Godrich and Godard took everything from them because they were yearning for power.
In reply to First post

Re: week 10: the story of Havelok

by Timotej Lauko -

L'Estoire presents us a story, which (we might say) is told from Argentille's perspective. We only know the truth about Havelok later in the story; until that point he is merely a scullion who is (although quite suspiciously, strong, gifted, beautiful, and perfect in general) just a nobody. He enters the narrative from the outside and we wonder and learn about him alongside Argentille. Even though Havelok then "takes over" the story and become the protagonist completely, the character of Argentille is far more prominent due to the introduction.


On the other hand, ME version lets us know about Havelok from the beginning, so we can already view him as a protagonist meant to get together with his female counterpart. Moreover, the dual introduction emphasises the parallels between the pair and how they were betrayed by people who were meant to protect them. Treachery seems to be a major theme here; much more prominent than in the French version.

In reply to Timotej Lauko

Re: week 10: the story of Havelok

by Timotej Lauko -

Havelok entering the French narrative as a nobody and without the reader having any knowledge of his past, I think, underlines the strength of blood. Thanks to his noble parentage he is better than the others and does great things no matter how low he falls. This also reminds me of the hero earning back his rightful position in society, as we know it from other romances.

In reply to Timotej Lauko

Re: week 10: the story of Havelok

by Helena Znojemská -
Treachery - I agree, though this would seem to clash with the more familial focus mentioned by Veronika - or not?
In reply to First post

Re: week 10: the story of Havelok

by Vojtěch Ripl -
What I would add is that in comparison to Gaimar's version, the romance has undergone what I would call a sort of further narrativization. Personally, I find the romance reads better and the themes it selects are sort of doubled down on, further stressed and more discernable. One theme that I find stressed in comparison to the historical version is the inate superiority of the noble or kingly "blood". Of course, the "fire in the mouth" is present in both stories, but I believe the romance takes it a bit further. For example, the addition of Grimm's relatively unscrupulous determination to drown Haveloc present right up until the point when he learns that he is of royal blood is interesting. What is even more interesting is that this is not problematized in the slightest way.
What is also remarkable is that Hveloc's dethronement in the romance takes the same course as that of Goldeboru. This provides an opportunity for the story to end in a double retribution on the advisors who usurped their power and therefore to stress the theme of "return of the rightful heir" even furhter and give the ending more of a moral or typical "good ending".