Both “The Knight of the Cart” and the Lais were similar in that the authors of the stories seemed to approve of adulterers as long as they were in love. Moreover, there is a sense that people married for power, shown by Guinevere not liking Arthur as much and the girl in Guigemar marrying the old lord. Interestingly, there is a major difference Lancelot throws away his honor for love, shown by him losing the tournament and sitting in the “cart,” and the characters in the Lais don’t, the lovers either die or reveal their love and make it legal. This brings up another difference, Guinevere and Lancelot’s love stays secret, while the ones in the Lais become public. I think the change in the perspectives in miniscule because the main theme is still true love conquers all it’s just that Marie de France imposes more restrictions with the idea of “equal” lovers. However, the characters in “The Knight of the Cart” implies that betraying the king is fine for love, but the Lais, through the “Equitan” shows that betrayal is not an option. Therefore, the authors seem to disagree to the extent love she be pursued, and if it should be made public or not. To be honest, I preferred the Lais because there was a sense of closure and the stories seemed more on topic, while “the Knight of the Cart” had an ambiguous ending about the end of their love and the story had random plot points.

further reading (totally optional!)

If you guys like the King Arthur readings and the time period we're studying now, here are some fun things you might want to read or view:

Le Morte D'Arthur (The Death of Arthur) is one of the definitive King Arthur texts. Written in the 15th century (so three centuries later than the period we're studying now), this is a long, tough read.
http://www.amazon.com/Morte-DArthur-Arthur-Legends-Classics/dp/0451528166/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207177679&sr=8-10

Way more accessible is The Once and Future King. T.H. White based much of his narrative on Le Morte D'Arthur, but this 20th century version is much easier to read.
http://www.amazon.com/Once-Future-King-T-White/dp/0006483011/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207177953&sr=1-1

If you don't want to read The Once and Future King, the Disney movie "The Sword in the Stone" is actually an incredibly faithful retelling of the first section of the book.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0057546/

And, if you are into the royals behind Robin Hood, the Lais of Marie de France, etc, you should definitely see "The Lion in Winter," a truly fantastic movie with Peter O'Toole, Katharine Hepburn, and a young Anthony Hopkins.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0063227/

Finally, the book that began my obsession with Eleanor of Aquitaine is A Proud Taste for Scarlet and Miniver. This book is a young adult historical fiction novel (so, needless to say, a very fast read). The book follows Eleanor as she waits in heaven for Henry II to be released from purgatory and thinks back on her life as first the Queen of France and then the Queen of England.
http://www.amazon.com/Proud-Taste-Scarlet-Miniver/dp/068984624X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207178424&sr=1-1

Blog Assignment 8

For this week's blog compare Chretien de Troye's "The Knight of the Cart" to the Lais of Marie de France. How are they different/similar? Is there a significant change in the perspective of the authors? Which do you like better and why?

Reading Assignments

Wednesday, Marie de France, Lais, prologue and chps 1-6.
Friday: Fabliaux (pdf file)
Monday: Joinville, Life of St. Louis through part II, ch. 10

Just a joke, (hope I dont offend anyone)
assume there is something that nothing greater can exist.
.
.
.
I tried to talk to this 'something' that nothing greater can exist. after 5 minutes, I found out that I was only talking to myself. I guess, nothing greater than me can exist.

Reading from handout?

I wasn't able to make it to class Wednesday (sorry!!), and as such I don't have a handout. Could someone please hook me up with the specifics of the readings please?

muchos gracias

Counts and leaders (blog assignment)

What interested me in Galbert of Bruges account of The Murder of Saint Charles the Good were the qualities that made a “good” count. Galbert seems to praise Charles because he “took such measures to strengthen the peace, to reaffirm the laws and rights of the realm, that little by little public order was restore” (pg 83). This praise shows that counts, which may be generalized to all leaders of that time, were expected to bring stability to their world. Interestingly, this expectation seems to stem from the idea that the count, or leader, is the source of stability, and this is shown when people insisted he stay in the “fatherland” for “the peace and well-being” of it (pg 91). Galbert later highlights more of Charles’s virtues when tells of Charles’s altruism in helping to relieve the poor’s situation by ensuring that they were regularly fed and clothing those who needed clothes. Interestingly, this seems to suggest a possible parent-child relationship between ruler and ruled, which is confirmed when some robbed country people begged for Charles’s “customary parental help” (pg 105). Therefore, because Charles is praised for his altruism and his ability to provide stability, Galbert through Charles shows that good counts and leaders were judged by their ability to provide their subjects with security.