The Double Genesis of Girart De Vienne

Alison Goddard Elliott The Double Genesis of Girart de Vienne

1 HE POSSIBLY COMPOSITE nature of Girart de Vienne has been investigated first by René Louis,2 and then by the most recent editor of the poem, Wolf- Tgang G. van Emden.3 Both scholars suggest that the extant epic incorpo- rates a substantial portion of an older work. The earlier poem, depicting the rebel- lion of Girart de Vienne, was reworked by Bertrand de Bar-sur-Aube, who added a description of the outbreak of hostilities and a brief conclusion. The present study helps confirm this hypothesis. I address, however, not the discrepancies of plot or the relationship between the present epic and other versions of the tale such as that contained in the Karlamagnús saga, but base my conclusions upon purely internal evidence, studying the formulaic repertory and lexicon of the poem.

For purposes of discussion, I accept the division of the poem into three sections proposed by Louis,4 while acknowledging (and indeed finding evidence to support) van Emden's observation that drawing absolute boundaries between sections is artificial since the second poet, to whom we owe the first and third sections (hereafter I and III), reworked the earlier poem to some extent. I have noted a few areas where distinctions between sections appear blurred or misleading. Part I comprises lines 1-3036 (a total of 3037 lines in van Emden's edition which contains both a line 1202 and 1202a); II, lines 3037-6133; III, lines 6134 to the end. Parts I and II, then, are roughly the same length, 3037 and 3097 lines respectively, while III consists of 801 lines.

1With this study should be read "Girart de Vienne devant les ordinateurs" by Wolfgang G. van Emden, forthcoming in the Mélanges René Louis. The two essays are the result of a fruitful series of conversations at the 1978 Société Rencesvals International Congress in Spain. I am very grateful to van Emden for many detailed observations concerning this paper, particularly suggestions concerning manuscript variants. In addition, I am indebted to Glyn Burgess and John Robin Allen for their helpful comments. 2René Louis, Girart, comte de Vienne, dans les chansons de geste (Auxerre, 1947), I, 21-3. 3Wolfgang G. van Emden. ed. Girart de Vienne par Bertrand de Bar-sur-Aube (Paris: S.A.T.F., 1977), p. XX; see the bibliography given there; also van Emden's study, "Girart de Vienne: problèmes de composition et de datation," Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, 13 (1970), 281-290. 4Louis (above, n. 2), I, 21-3.

130 Elliot / Double Genesis of Girart de Vienne 131

The present study is predicated upon certain hypotheses concerning the nature and use of formulaic language in the chansons de geste. Leaving aside for the moment the question of oral genesis, I assume that the formula, whatever its relation to orality, is a discrete unit which plays an integral, functional rôle in the epic.5 Formulas are too numerous to be fortuitous; Girart de Vienne has a semantic-formula density of 42% (for working definitions of semantic and syntactic formulas, see Appendix I). Nor are formulas primarily ornaments of style or affective devices,6 but structural units of composition. The formulaic poet composes by the hemistich,7 not by the individual word. Formulas thence become a series of more or less prefabricated building blocks, molds, or models,8 from which the epic singer constitutes his work. Whether or not the Girart de Vienne which has come down to us was composed orally or in writing, its formulas are significant compositional units. The vocabulary of the Old French epic is, by modern standards, restricted,9 the ways of expressing similar ideas, given the exigencies of assonance and

5Edward A. Heinemann defines a formula as a "metrical unit of syntax": ''The Motif of the Journey in the Chansons de Geste," in The Epic in Medieval Society, ed. Harald Scholler (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1977), p. 181. 6J. W. B. Zaal maintains the ornamental function of formulaic language; "A Lei Francesca" (Sainte Foy. v. 20): Étude sur les chansons de saints gallo-romaines du XIe siècle (Leiden: Brill, 1962), p. 113. I do not mean to deny, however, that formulaic repetition may have a potentially lyrical nature; that, however, is not its primary function. For a discussion of the lyric aspect of formulaic language, see Edward A. Heinemann, "Composition stylisée et technique littéraire dans la Chanson de Roland," Romania, 94 (1973). 3; Joseph J. Duggan, "Formulas in the Couronnement de Louis," Romania, 87 (1966), 344. 7The equivalent for Greek is composition by the colon (which may, like the hemistich, be cot- erminous with a single word); see Berkeley Peabody, The Winged Word: A Study of the Technique of Ancient Greek Oral Composition as Seen Principally through Hesiod's Works and Days (Albany: State University of New York, 1975), and the bibliography given there. 8But see Norman Austin for a timely warning against an uncritical utilization of the concept of the formula as "building block"; Archery at the Dark of the Moon: Poetic Problems in Homer's Odys- sey (Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California. 1974), p. 37. Austin's first chapter, "The Hom- eric Formula" (pp. 11-80), is an excellent survey of the problem of formulaic composition. Michael Nagler considers formulas "preverbal gestalts," "mental templates"; "Towards a Generative View of the Oral Formula," Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 98 (1967), 269-311; also Spontaneity and Tradition: A Study of the Oral Art of Homer (Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California, 1974). 9Timothy Hemming, ''Restrictions lexicales dans la chanson de geste," Romania, 89 (1968), 95-105. 132 Olifant / Vol. 8, No. 2 / Winter 1980 rhyme, limited. Epic poets, unlike the authors of romance trained in the Latin rhe- torical tradition, did not consider variatio a desirable stylistic embellishment.10 Inevitably, therefore, individual formulaic repertories overlap.11 Formulas were common property. Nevertheless it is unlikely that two poets will utilize identical semantic and syntactic patterns at all times.12 Personal preferences condition formula choice. Therefore, even in a medium as traditional as the chanson de geste, stylistic, formulaic, and lexical analysis should aid in detecting multiple authorship. Neither the problem raised by Girart de Vienne nor my approach to it are unique in medieval epic studies.13 The composition of the Poema de mío Cid has been studied in detail by Franklin M. Waltman, who used formulaic analysis to argue for unity of authorship.14 Waltman analyzed twenty-six frequently recurring formulas and, on finding them common to all three cantars, concluded that the poem is the work of a single poet. My investigation, based on a similar premise concerning the importance of formulaic consistency, points to multiple authorship. Although Bertrand de Bar altered somewhat the older poem, he did not entirely assimilate it to his own style nor wholly eradicate identifiable traces of the independent composition. Significant differences exist between I and II in terms of formulary and lexicon.

10For the epic poet's avoidance of variatio, see Edward A. Heinemann (above, n. 6). 11Such repetitions of formulas are not necessarily literary allusions. For a discussion of the use of the formula de ses jornees ne sai que vos contasse (Couronnement de Louis v. 269), see Ramón Menéndez Pidal, "Fórmulas épicas en el Poema del Cid," Romance Philology, 7 (1954), 261-7. Countering the arguments of E. R. Curtius, Menéndez Pidal wrote, ". . . versos de tan immensa vul- garidad no sirven para establecer una derivación genetica" (p. 264). 12 See Albert Lord, The Singer of Tales (Cambridge: Harvard, 1960), p. 100. 13I am omitting here all consideration of "the Homeric question." For a discussion of the Chan- son de Roland, see Joseph J. Duggan, The Song of Roland: Formulaic Style and Poetic Craft, (Berke- ley; Los Angeles: University of California, 1973), 63-104, especially 102; John Robin Allen, "On the Authenticity of the Baligant Episode in the Chanson de Roland," Computers in the Humanities, ed. J. L. Mitchell (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1974), 65-72; "Stylistic Variants in the Roland," Olifant. 6 (1979), 351-363. 14"Formulaic Expression and the Unity of Authorship in the Poema de mío Cid, " Hispania, 56 (1973), 569-578; also "A Literary Analysis by Computer," Hispania, 57 (1974), 893-98; "Synonym Choice in the Cantar de Mío Cid, " Hispania, 57 (1974), 452-61 and "Tagmemic Analysis and Unity of Authorship in the Cantar de Mío Cid," Revista de Estudios Hispanicos (Alabama), 9 (1975), 451-69. Elliott / Double Genesis of Girart de Vienne 133 I Formula Statistics The statistics15 given below are for semantic or "straight" formulas only, although in the essay I consider the rôle of syntactic formulas as well. My working definition of the formula16 is essentially that utilized by Joseph J. Duggan in The Song of Roland so that my results may be compared with his.17 I differ in only one minor respect. In "The Quest for the 'Formula': A Comparative Reappraisal,"18 John Miletich criticizes Duggan for counting as semantic formulas phrases identical except for the assonance word. In point of fact, Duggan limited such seeming "exceptions" to words which were synonyms or near synonyms. Furthermore, this group, as Duggan notes, did not constitute a statistically significant number; nevertheless, I have not considered such hemistichs formulas unless they involved two morphological variants of the same word (e.g., une feste joïe, v. 110; une feste joiant, v. 180).

The Poem as a Whole: Semantic Formulas total number of hemistichs 13,67819 total number of formulaic hemistichs 5,749 formula density 42% Part I alone (vv. 1-3036), Laisses I-XC (3037 lines) number of hemistichs 5,986 total number of formulaic hemistichs 2,193 formula density 37%

15The basis for these statistics is a computer-generated, Key-Word-In-Context, unlemmatized concordance of van Emden's text. Unfortunately it was not possible to take variant readings into account. The concordance program was modified to my needs by Andrew Mackie of Brown University, to whom I express here my gratitude. I also wish to thank Richard A. Damon III who subsequently revised Mr. Mackie's programs to aid in the study of the Girart's lexicon. Given the vagaries of Old French orthography ('door' spelled both huis and uis, etc.), the computer did not "find" the formulas; I did, although the computerized concordance made such a task possible if still time-consuming. 16See appendix III; also my thesis, "Saints and Heroes: Latin and Old French Hagiographic Poetry," University of California, Berkeley, 1977, pp. 165-68. 17See 'The Vie de saint Alexis: Oral versus Written Style," forthcoming in the Actes du VIIIe Congrès International of the Société Rencesvals. 18 Modern Philology, 74 (1976-77), 119. 19The poem contains 6935 lines, of which 192 are vers orphelins treated here as second hemistichs; therefore there are a total of 13,678 "hemistichs" in Girart. The vers orphelins are probably to be attributed to Bertrand, and their repetition appears to be for deliberate effect. 134 Olifant / Vol. 8, No. 2 / Winter 1980 Part II alone (vv. 3037-6134), Laisses XCI-CLXXIV (3097 lines) number of hemistichs 6.,111 total number of formulaic hemistichs 2,219 formula density 36% Part III alone (vv. 6135-end), Laisses CLXXV-CXC1I (801 lines)20 number of hemistichs 1,584 total number of formulaic hemistichs 325 formula density 20% The most remarkable feature about these figures is their consistency. Formula statistics, then, do not help to demonstrate grosso modo, a distinction between I and II or an affinity between I and III. We must abandon quantitative analysis for quali- tative, a more interesting area of investigation. What is the nature of the different formulas and how are they employed?

20The brevity of section III raises questions about the value of any comparative statistical anayl- sis of this section, particularly insofar as formula density studies are concerned. The relationship of length of text to density remains moot. It is noteworthy that the densities of I and II, when analyzed for formulas recurring only within the section itself, were not markedly different than that determined for the entire poem (a sample more than twice the length of either I or II alone)—37% (I) and 36% (II) compared to 42% (the poem as a whole). Because, however, of the possibility that the length does significantly affect the density, I give figures for part III only for the sake of information; I do not consider these figures in my statistical investigation. More important than the actual length of a given sample is completeness; the computer now enables us to examine large bodies of material with comparative speed, and we must be careful, therefore, to compare figures for entire poems, not for selected "random" samples. I have found formula densities of 30% for a poem of only 1331 lines (MS S of the Vie de saint Alexis), and 47% for one of 3126 lines (Les Enfances Guillaume; for further discussion and complete statistics, see my Société Rencesvals article, above n. 16, and my forthcoming edition of the Alexis S manuscript. If length does significantly influence formula density, then the version of Alexis contained in S is very formulaic indeed. Rather than interpret formula density figures as absolute numbers, I would prefer to see them considered guidelines. A poem with a formula density figure of 42% (Girart de Vienne) or 47% (Les Enfances Guillaume) is a "very" formulaic poem, while one with a density of semantic formulas of 15% is not. Elliott / Double Genesis of Girart de Vienne 135

II Formula Usage: Techniques Not every example of a formula found in only one section necessarily indicates separate genesis. We need to consider (1) how the poet uses formulas and (2) in what context. If a group of words is treated as a discrete formula in one section of the poem but not in another, that fact may indicate the work of separate poets. For example, four lines describe characters spurring off in haste at the conclusion of a speech. In the three instances in II, the phrase "at these words" constitutes the first hemistich and "they spurred" the second. The only expression of this situation in I alters this pattern, placing "spurring" in the first hemistich (the roman numeral in brackets indicates the section of poem). 2426 a ce mot pongnent // ensenble li baron [I] 3254 a cez paroles // en pongnent .C. et dis [II] 3579 a ces paroles // i pongnent .C. et dis [II] 4333 a ice mot // pongnent toz ademis [II] Another expression, la (dont, lors) veïsiez, appears seven times in II, always as a first-hemistich formula to call attention to a particularly exciting moment of battle. The verb veïsiez occurs only once in I, there embedded in the second hemistich, meint fort escu i veïsiez croissiz (v. 2647).21 Compare with line 2647 the formulaic line from II, la veïsiez meint fort escu croissi (v. 4535). The words are the same; the order differs. The line from II, moreover, is syntactically formulaic with four other lines occurring in this section: 3337 la veïsiez .I. estor comencier 3586 la veïsiez .I. molt fier chapeleiz 4464 la veïsiez tante lance brendie 4477 lors veïsiez meinte lance brisie Similarly, the type of syntactic or semantic pattern which follows a particular first-hemistich formula may point to individual genesis.22 For instance, the first-hemistich phrase por Deu vos pri is completed in I and II by distinct syntactic expressions; all second-hemistich phrases in II are relative clauses, and three of the four include a reference to the crucifixion: 1790 por Deu vos pris, n'en mesdites noiant [I] 3881 por Deu vos pri, qui tot puet jostissier [II]

21Here MS S preserves the more usual pattern, Lai veisiez tant bon escu croissir (the infinitive, croissir, however, is somewhat awkward). 22Investigations of the poem in terms of a generative model might prove fruitful; see Genette Ashby, "A Generative Model of the Formula in the Chanson de Roland, " Olifant, 7 (1979), 40-65. 136 Olifant / Vol. 8, No. 2 / Winter 1980

5058 por Deu vos pri, qui en croiz fu penez [II] 5080 por Deu vos pri, qui en la croiz fu mis [II] 5160-61 por Deu vos pri, qui se lessa drecier [II] en seinte croiz23 por son pueple essaucier In another example, the first-hemistich expression, se Deus n'en panse, is completed in a different fashion in II and III: se Deus n'en panse, qui en la croiz fu mis (vv. 3593, 4375; cf. v. 5080 above); se Deus n'en pense, n'en porra reperier (v. 6356). In this case, the second hemistich from II is the same as that cited above, while that from III resembles more closely the second hemistich in I.

To give another example, the first-hemistich formula come as tu non appears four times; the second hemistichs completing the line in I are syntactic formulas or expressions of the same idea, but that in II differs markedly:

1777 come as tu non? Garde ne soit celé. [I] 1786 come as tu non? Nel me celer noiant. [I] 2772 come as tu non? Garde nel me noier. [I] 3998 come as tu non, jovenciaus, biaus amis? [II]

Finally, the formula par mi la porte is completed seven times in I by a phrase beginning s'en . . . , and six of those seven times by s'en ist (isirent, isent). Part II alters the second-hemistich pattern slightly on one occasion (v. 5028), and wholly disregards formula integrity on another (v. 3183). Line 3183 represents, moreover, a breakup of a potential doublet of line 194.24

194 par mi la porte s'en isirent errant [I] 275 par mi la porte s'en reperent arrier [I] 2624, 2642 par mi la porte s'en isent ademis [I] 2753 par mi la porte s'en ist toz eslessiez [I] 2953 par mi la porte s'en ist sor son destrier [I] 3007 par mi la porte s'en ist esperonnant [I] 3183 et puis en isent par mi la porte errant [II] 5028 par mi la porte s'estoit acheminez [II] There are no other examples of par mi la porte in II. It looks, therefore, as if for the poet of II the phrase was not a discrete first-hemistich formula. Patterns of consistency such as these, found in one section of the epic but broken in another, argue for separate genesis.

23The first hemistich formula, en seinte croiz, occurs only in II (vv. 4866, 5000, 5161). 24van Emden (above, n. 1) points out, however, that an analysis of MS variants tends to weaken the monopoly of I for s'en issir. Par mi la porte remains more common in I than in II. Elliot / Double Genesis of Girart de Vienne 137 III Formula Usage: Context and Content In light of traditional formula studies, the classic place to begin an investigation into the use of formulaic language is with the epithet.25 To demonstrate multiple authorship, one would like to find two, mutually exclusive, formula systems in operation. While the situation in Girart de Vienne is by no means this simple, there are a few signs of formulaic doublets. The formulaic epithet fiers et hardi occurs five times in I, both as a first- and second-hemistich formula. Although the poet of II uses both adjectives, he never combines them in the same hemistich (e.g., ne si hardi, si fier ne conbatant, v. 5316). There are no instances of the formula in III. Part I Part II fier et hardi 526 0 fier et esbaudiz 0 1 fier et amanevis27 0 1 preuz et hardi 0 1 Similarly, the formula corageus et hardiz occurs twice in I (vv. 1808, 2641), but carageus et gentis is substituted in II (v. 3698).28 To give another example, in I we find the second-hemistich formula le Pere tot poissant (vv. 697, 1253), but in II, le Pere onipotant (vv. 4792, 5495). An analogous case, although not involving epithets, concerns alternative ways of expressing dissatisfaction: the formula for- ment m'en poise occurs three times in I, while ce poise moi is found three times in II. But if there are few instances of epithets unique to a particular section of the poem, there are differences in frequency of use. Since, however, the frequency of epithets found at the end of the line (their customary though not obligatory position) is subject to the demands of assonance and rhyme,29 our statistics need to be corrected for the number of lines in each section in a particular rhyme. For example, part I contains 676 lines ending in -ier (-ié, -iez)30 while II has only 580, a

25E.g., the pioneering dissertation of Milman Parry, L'Épithète traditionnelle dans Homère (Paris, 1928). 26The formula is distributed randomly throughout I (vv. 30, 610, 1081, 1267, 1664), indicating that its occurrence is probably independent of plot. 27This adjective occurs only in II, randomly distributed: vv. 3213, 3598, 3636, 4310, 5730. 28MS H, however, reads corajeus et hardiz; the line is lacking in D and S, 29Girart de Vienne is primarily rhymed, but lines in assonance occur. 30These figures are taken from the tables provided by van Emden in his edition (above, n. 3), p. 138 Olifant / Vol. 8, No. 2 / Winter 1980 ratio of I : II = 1.2 : 1. The common epithet guerrier (always last in the line) appears fourteen times in I, twenty-eight times in II, an increase in II of more than 200% (in fact, 239%) since, correcting for the ratio of lines in -ier in I and II by multiplying 28 by 1.2 gives us a hypothetical ratio of 14 : 33.6. Such figures are only mathematical projections, but they help to determine significant differences. (In the following tables, while giving data for III, I consider only the ratios between parts I and II; corrected figures, where given, are enclosed in parenthe- ses.)31 Laisses in -om. -on Part I Part II Part III number of laisses 14 8 1 number of lines 365 248 17 ratio of lines 1.5 : 1 a la clere façon 6 1(1.4) 0 par son seintime non 0 5 0 X X X32li frans hom 4 1 0 X X li gentis hom 1 0 1 come frans hom 0 1 0 X X hardiz hom 2 0 0 X X X riches hom 2 0 0 — — — 15 8(9) 3 Laisses in -i, -is Part I Part II Part III number of laisses 11 11 2 number of lines 360 588 64 ratio of lines 1 : 1.6 Name au fier vis 8 (13) 6 1 le bon destrier de pris 2 (3) 11 1 X X X X de pris 10 (16) 22 0 Name le marchis 5 (8) 18 0

LXXXII. 31In citing formulas, I give only one form; minor variants are not noted: e.g., par son seintime non (below) alone is quoted, and not et son seintime non or par vo seintime non. One reason for not attempting to adjust the figures for III is the brevity of this section; any number multiplied by zero remains zero, and adjusted figures do not therefore offer a meaningful interpretation of the data for III. 32X stands for any syllable. Elliott / Double Genesis of Girart de Vienne 139

Laisses in -ant, -ent Part I Part II Part III number of laisses 10 8 1 number of lines 311 257 79 ratio of lines 1.2 : 1 place name la grant 8 3 (4) 2 Laisses in -ie Part I Part II Part III number of laisses 5 8 1 number of lines 133 216 44 ratio of lines 1 : 1.6 a la chiere hardie 2 (3) 9 2 Laisses in -ier. -ié, -iez Part I Part II Part III number of laisses 13 19 2 number of lines 676 580 107 ratio of lines 1.2 : 1 Name le fier 6 0 1 X X palais plenier 6 0 0 X X X X plenier 12 3 (4) 0 X X X X guerrier 14 28 (34) 2 While no example cited above proves the existence of more than one poet, I suggest that the unequal distribution of the epithets la grant, guerrier, plenier, le marchis and aduré points to separate origins for I and II.33 In any statistical consideration of the comparative use of formulaic language, we must be careful to exclude expressions demonstrably related to context. Part II, for example, makes no mention of the queen and her insulting behavior which motivates the quarrel between Girart and Charlemagne; therefore the absence from II of such formulas as et (se, mes) la roine (I, 8x) tells us little per se.34 Neverthe-

33The selection of guerrier, however, may owe something to context as van Emden (above, n. 1) suggests, but its increased frequency in II still appears significant. 34Perhaps even more indicative of stratification than the treatment of the queen is a seemingly minor detail—the island where Oliver and Roland fight their single combat. The word ille occurs only in II (17x), where it is embedded into four distinct formulas: vandroiz en l'ille (vv. 4089, 4805, 4810) en l'ille furent (vv. 5148, 5386, 5793) en la grant ille (vv. 4760, 5336) en l'ille soz Vïene (vv. 4076, 5312). While references to the fight (and its location) are clearly related to the plot of II, given given the frequency of the word ille in this section, the total silence about the island in I remains surprising. The country around Vienne and its river are mentioned in both I and III; indeed the river, Rosne. is named more frequently in I than in II (5x : 2x). Oliver and Roland determine to fight one another in I (vv. 140 Olifant / Vol. 8, No. 2 / Winter 1980 less the silence in one section of the poem about a character, event, or place prom- inent in another suggests independent genesis. Furthermore, the type of story a poet prefers to tell—one filled with court intrigue or one of doughty battles, for example—may also reveal the presence of two distinctive poetic temperaments. Both the plot and the formulas used to recount the story are useful indicators; it is, however, necessary to examine them separately. Formulaic oaths, affirmations and denials, curses and insults, provide a particularly fertile field for investigation since such phrases are not specific to a particular context. The plot may indicate the need for an oath, but it does not determine which one is employed. It is probable that a poet would manifest personal preference in these matters. Moreover, many such phrases are first-hemistich formulas and hence their selection is free from constraints of rhyme. To start with religious expressions, many formulas are common throughout the poem (e.g., si m'eïst Deus: 9x ; 10x : 3x), but a number are localized (I include both semantic and syntactic formulas; e.g., glorïeus Sire is syntactically formulaic with glorïeus Pere). Part I Part II Part III en non Deu sire 35 13 0 0 en non Deu oncles 2 0 0 par Deu biaus oncles 4 0 0 par Deu enfant 1 0 0 Seinte Marie 0 5 0 Deus reclama 0 4 0 se Deus ne fust 0 4 0 Deus me confonde 4 0 1 por Deu vos pri 1 4 0 glorïeus Deus 0 4 0 glorïeus Pere 0 1 l 36

2847ff.). It seems likely that some mention of the island would have been made in I or III if a single poet were responsible for the creation of the poem from beginning to end. 35Although expressions such as "Sire, " fet il are distributed throughout the poem, Part I shows a marked preference for 'sire' phrases syntactically formulaic with en non Deu sire. There are seven times as many such expressions in I and III combined (43) as in II (6). Moreover, en non Deu Sire appears randomly distributed throughout I, appearing between lines 530-2900 (v. 530D reads Par foi biau sire). 36The appearance in III of a formula using glorïeus appears to argue against a distinction between II and III, but the one example in III (v. 6176) is close to the hypothetical dividing line between II and III. It seems possible that Bertrand, working through section II to reach III, picked up this formula (and others) and had it in his mind as he composed part III. The adjective glorïeus occurs only once in I (au glorïeus puisant, v. 354). Elliott / Double Genesis of Girart de Vienne 141 glorïeus Sire 0 1 0 le giorïeus37 0 3 0 Those first-hemistich formulas point to a significant difference in repertory. The case of en non Deu sire alone would probably suffice, but this instance is confirmed by the exclusive appearence in I of the syntactic formulas, en non Deu oncles, par Deu biaus oncles, and par Deu enfant. Oliver in II has many occasions to address his uncle Girart, but he does not use the "uncle" formulas of I. The choice of second-hemistich formulas is more difficult to assess since the problem of rhyme enters in, but there are indications that I and II rely on different ways of completing a line. Part I Part II Part III par son seintime non 0 538 0 le Pere tot poissant 2 0 0 le Pere onipotant 0 2 0 de Deu onipotant 0 1 0 Certain formula preferences become clearer if we add syntactic and semantic formulas, e.g., expressions in which one swears by one's faith: Part I Part II Part III foi que doi Deu 6 1 0 foi que doi a Jesu 0 0 1 par la foi que doi Dé 3 1 0 foi que doi seint Simon 1 0 0 foi que doi seint Denis 1 0 0 foi que doi seint Marie 0 1 0 mes foi que doi au roi de majesté 1 0 0 — — 12 3 1 In religious oaths, the second half of the line is often filled by a relative clause of the type qui pardon fist Longis (vv. 1083, 2610, 3978, 5249). While many of these formulas are common to both halves of the poem, others are not. Part I Part II Part III qui le mont estora 1 0 1 qui onques ne menti 0 4 0

37The antecedent is 'God.' 38Randomly distributed over 1300 lines: vv. 4429, 5263, 5358, 5683, 5719. Line 5263 is lacking in S. 142 Olifant / Vol. 8, No. 2 / Winter 1980 por Deu qui ne menti 0 2 0 por Deu qui me forma 0 2 139 qui fist ciel et rousee 3 1 0 In general, the mention of a particular saint is not significant; saints may be context-related since they are associated with a specific place (e.g., St. Maurice with Vienne), and the names, moreover, seem to be selected primarily for rhyme. The Virgin Mary is an exception to this rule; her name is invoked fourteen times in II, only four times in I and III combined. Oaths in which one swears by some religious object are common in medieval literature. In Girart de Vienne, however, they are more common in I than in II. Part I employs the oath par le cors seint X X nine times, while it appears three times in II, twice in III.40 For denial, part I uses the expression par mon chief, non feron (vv. 1009, 2142; also a syntactic formula, par mon chief, nos iron [v. 2160]), an expression without parallel in II, which prefers, as we shall see, a very different means of expressing refusal. The most common adjuration in Girart de Vienne is familiar from many epics—in its most common form, par cel apostre c ' on quiert en Noiron pré. But not even this popular phrase is used consistently throughout the poem:

Part I Part II Part III par cel apostre c'on quiert en Noiron pré 10 1 0 que par 1'apostre c'on quiert en Noiron pré 0 1 0 par cel apostre que quierent peneant 4 1 0 par cel apostre que a Rome est requis 2 0 0 par cel apostre por qui Deu fet vertu 1 1 0 par cel apostre que quierent chevalier 0 1 0 par cel apostre que l'en doit aorer 0 1 0 — — — 17 6 0 Parallel to the oath swearing by the apostre is one substituting the cross:41 218, 480 que (ou), par la croiz que requierent paumier 831 mes, par la croiz que requierent François This oath does not appear in II.

39Vv. 4391, 4405, me, but DS read tot for both lines; v. 6877, tot forma, but H has nos,B, vos. The hemistich should be considered a single formula. 40If in this case we correct the figure given for III to compensate for the comparative brevity of the section (801 lines, just over one-fourth the length of the other two sections), we would have a number roughly equivalent to that found for I. 41 At vv. 218 and 831 BS read par l'apostre. Elliott / Double Genesis of Girart de Vienne 143 A line which shows most clearly a difference in compositional habits is one expressing strong denial or refusal. The first hemistich contains a negative and a conditional verb, and the second the incentive which would, however, fail to pro- duce the action under consideration. Typical examples are: je ne vodroie, por l'or de .II. citez (v. 5062); je ne vodroie por l'or de Monpellier (v. 3800; cf. v. 4765); je nel feroie por les menbres coper (v. 3525, cf. v. 4871; por les menbres tren- chier, v. 3269). Part II demonstrates a great wealth of such expressions (23 instances).42 In comparison, there are only three phrases of this type in I and one in III.43 The discrepancy in the use of this formula in the two sections of the poem cannot be related to plot. On many occasions in I, characters express their unwill- ingness to follow a particular course of action, but they voice their refusal differ- ently. To give one example, when Girart refuses to marry the widowed Duchess of Burgundy, he exclaims, ja moi n'avroiz, ce vos di sanz douter (v. 1363). Further- more, all uses in II of the formulas under discussion are negative; Part I contains two rather similar but positive versions of the expression (that is, while the overall statement is negative, the first-hemistich formula itself is positive):

Qui me donroit tot l'or de Romenie, trive n'acorde n'en prendroie ge mie, tant que sera la roïne honnie. (vv. 2240-42) qui me donroit la cité de Melant, Rome et Pavie et Tolouse la grant, je n'en feroie pes ne acordement, tant que j'en aie vengence a mon talant de la roïne, ... (vv. 2248-52) The poets of both sections know the basic formula and use it, but it plays a different rôle in their repertory both in terms of frequency and of application. In II the formula is so common that its use appears to be a quasi-automatic response; when- ever the poet has a situation which calls for a strong refusal, he falls back upon one or another of the forms of the expression, depending on the rhyme of the current laisse (he has available variants in six different assonances: -é,-ez; -ier; -i, -is; -ie; -on, -om; -ant).

42 Other examples, arranged by type, are vv. 3354, 3365, 3250, 3673, 4285, 5082, 5637, 6080, 4856, 5344, 5140, 5178, 5066, 4056, 4006, 5673-4, 3269, 5998. The expression is common in many chansons de geste. 43 Vv. 1861, 2751, 2763, 6505. 144 Olifant / Vol. 8, No. 2 / Winter 1980 The sections of Girart differ from one another in lexicon44 as well as formula repertory. One such area of difference is religious terminology (recall that the prologue characterized Bertrand de Bar as a gentis clers, v. 101). There are numerous expressions of religious sentiments in II, and the only "epic prayers'" occur there; the poet of I, however, demonstrates a considerably greater interest in, or familiarity with, details of ecclesiastical terminology.45 Part I Part II Part III apostre 18 0 8 apostoiles 0 0 2 messe 10 2 3 abé 9 0 0 abaie 3 0 0 arcevesque 6 2 2 arcesveschié 0 0 1 evesque 1 0 1 moine 4 1 1 pelerin 4 0 0 peneant 4 0 1 paumier 3 0 0 ordené 2 0 0 iglise 2 0 0 clers 2 2 0 provoire 1 0 0 prevoz 1 0 0 Pasques 4 1 0 — — — 74 8 1946 An examination of formulary and lexicon turns up yet another difference of attitude between I and II. Although the heroes are vociferously hot-tempered and unquestionably courageous in both sections, in I verbal violence seems to replace physical injury.47 The poet displays a richer vocabulary of insult, having at his command, for instance: 494 n'i a ribaut ne fol garçon trotier

44 See Appendix III. 45Mostier is fairly evenly distributed throughout the poem. 46If we here correct for the relative brevity of III (801 lines) by multiplying by 4, we obtain a hypothetical total for III comparable to that for I, or 72 examples. 47On the use of insults in the chansons de geste, see Philippe Ménard, Le Rire et le sourire dans le roman courtois en France au moyen âge (1150-1250) (Geneva: Droz, 1967), pp. 128-144; also Norman Susskind, "Humor in the Chansons de geste," Symposium, 15 (1961), 186-197. Elliott / Double Genesis of Girart de Vienne 145 502 fill a putain, mauvés garçon corsier 506 fill a putain, traïtre losengier 605 fill a putain, mauvés garçons et bris48 Certain terms of opprobrium are equally distributed throughout the poem (e.g. fel, felon, felonnie), but the following words occur chiefly in the first section of the poem: Part I Part II Part III fill a putain49 9 1 0 gloton 6 2 0 gloz 4 1 2 pautonier 7 0 1 garçon 15 0 0 garçonnet 1 0 0 garz 1 0 0 losengier 5 0 0 losengerie 1 0 0 cuivert 4 0 0 coart 2 0 0 cuivertie 0 1 0 cuivertaje 0 1 0 coardisse 0 3 0 coardie 0 1 0 lecheor 3 2 0 lechierres 1 0 0 lanier 3 1 0 mescreant50 3 1 0 traitre 6 3 0 traison 6 2 0 de pute orine 1 0 0 maudite soit s'orine 1 0 0 putage 1 0 0 puterie 1 0 0 huchier 7 1 1

48 See also vv. 222, 492-93, 506, 1010, 1594-95, 1782, etc. For v. 493 van Emden (private communication) notes the unusual use of bedoïn as an insult. 49Eight of the nine occurrences in I are first-hemistich semantic formulas; in the ninth instance, the phrase is embedded in the second hemistich. The phrases are randomly distributed between lines 244 and 2129 (vv. 244, 492, 502, 506, 594, 605, 1588, 1611, 2129). 50Mescreü is found throughout the poem. 146 Olifant / Vol. 8, No. 2 / Winter 1980 ledengier (ledoier)51 3 1 0 _ 92 20 6 The above list contains a few surprises. Unique to I is garçon (garçonnet, garz), a word primarily used as an insult. Cuivert and coart, referring to persons, are found only in I, while cuivertie, cuivertaje, coardisse, and coardie, abstract nouns referring to the state, occur in II alone. Huchier, used seven times in I, introduces speeches containing insults. To the list of words, moreover, should be added the following formulaic insults: Part I Part II Part III fill a putain 8 0 0 come fossier larron 0 4 0 Deus le maudie 2 0 0 .li .C. daaz et qui 4 0 0 mau daaz et qui 1 1 1 Deus te doint enconbrier 1 0 2 qui Deus doint enconbrier 1 0 0 — — — 17 6 3 The verbal violence of I is offset by an increased focus upon physical violence in II. There are more scenes of combat in the second section, although the first contains sufficient battles to provide adequate grounds for comparison. While the order of details in arming and combat scenes is the same, the two sections of the epic differ to some extent in martial lexicon. In the first section two battles are described in laisses rhyming in -ois, a rhyme not found in the second section. As a result there are some epithets unique to I, norrois applied to horses, for example. More significant, however, is the selection of weapons. Coutel occurs seven times in I, once in III, and not at all in II. While daggers are appropriate weapons for the world of I, the intrigue-filled court, coutel is once used for 'blade', a meaning seemingly useful to the battle-filled plot of II (et tret l'espee au brun coutel molu, v. 3021). Similarly baston (and bastoncel),52 which can serve as a weapon (vv. 500, 590, 643, 2297), occurs twelve times in I but not elsewhere. In contrast to these two terms for weapons unique to I, we find many more words for armor and weapons in the second section; since there are more more combat scenes in II, this greater descriptive variety is not surprising, but the degree

51In three of the four instances, this word introduces the insult fill a putain. 52Diminutives are found in I but not II; cf. poncel and garçonnet. Elliott / Double Genesis of Girart de Vienne 147 suggests a different attitude towards warfare, an increased interest in martial detail. Throughout the poem the lance is an important weapon. But the hante, the wooden shaft or, by synecdoche, the lance itself, is mentioned eight times in II, not at all in I; it is brandished (brandi la hante, vv. 3227, 3535, 3626, 4488), or broken (vv. 3335, 3448, 6009).53 Helmets are more elaborately described. In I three adjectives or adjectival phrases suffice to qualify 'helmet'—bruni, luisanz, and a or mier. In II, in addition to these three expressions, helmets are described as roont (2x), a or batu (1x), vergie (3x), de Pavie (3x), and jemé (5x). When struck they lose their cercles (5x), nasels (3x), or jewels.54 A similar concern with rich detail is reflected in the descriptions of gold and silver sword hilts; of the eight instances of pont 'pommel', seven are found in II, as are both occurrences of huet 'hilt'. The following words for weapons and armor appear uniquely (or predomi- nantly) in II:

targe. 7x; cercle, 5x; cor 5x (Pt. III, lx); coife, 3x; clous, 3x (nails for the confa- non) fers, 3x (of the lance); aceré, 3x; conbatant, 7x (Pt. I, 1x. Pt. III, 1x):jaze- rant, 3x (epithet of a hauberc); broine, 3x; nasel, 3x; pont, 7x (Pt. I, 1x), huet, 2x; hantes, 8x; bendé, 4x (epithet of escu) vergié, 3x (epithet of hiaume) glacie, 5x (modifying espee). There are, moreover, a number of formulas for fighting and the like more common in II than I:

Part I Part II veincu ne recreant 0 4 brandi l'espee 0 4 brandi la hante 0 4 gran cop li done 0 5 grans cous se done 1 5 fort fu l'auberc l 7 deronpre et demaillier55 0 3 au brans d'acier 0 3 del cheval l'abati 0 3 son branc forbi d'acier 2 7 en la bataille 0 7 ceste bataille 0 8

53Compare v. 6009, les hantes fretes, with the formula occurring twice in II, m'espee est frete, (vv. 5492, 5510). 54The word pierre occurs eleven times in II but not in I; in all but three cases it means 'jewel', and the formula que flors et pierres occurs four times (vv. 3455, 5232, 5301, 5776) to describe the loss of precious stones from the helmet. 55Both, verbs occur only in II (4x each). 148 Olifant / Vol. 8, No. 2 / Winter 1980 del doré esperon 0 4 que flors et pierres 0 4 de ci a l'ost 0 3 de l'ost le roi 0 4 de l'ost Charlon 0 1 et les granz oz56 3 0 — — 7 74 The greater interest in battle evinced by the poet of II appears to be a conscious one; the narrator announces in the brief prologue to this section that his audience will find that Ne vos di pas mençonge ne folie, mes bone estoire et de grant baronnie, de forz estors et de fiere aatie. (vv. 3039-3041) Significantly, the word estor occurs sixteen times in II, only three times in I and once in III; aatie (and aatisson) is found only in II (9x). In the active world of Girart de Vienne, we have the impression of horses everywhere, as characters gallop from place to place and fight mounted combats (cf. del cheval l'abati, vv. 3634, 3662, 4512). Yet in spite of the undeniable importance of the horse to the chivalric world of the poem as a whole, the two major sections do not rely equally on the same vocabulary to describe horses and horse-related activity. To denote the actual beast (including the mule), we find the following distribution of words: Part I Part II Part III auferrant 10 3 3 destrier 41 73 7 cheval 7 15 3 somier 9 4 0 palefroi 1 2 1 roncin 4 1 0 mulet 12 0 0 In keeping with the generally more militaristic atmosphere of II, the horse as battle steed (destrier) predominates in that section. This function is important in I as well, but not to the exclusion of his more peaceful rôles as a means of transportation and a provision-bearer, as the greater frequency of words denoting such activi- ties indicates (roncin, somier, and mulet, the latter not mentioned at all in II). There is some concomitant distinction in epithets (omitting those such as norrois,

56The adjective granz is a more common epithet of oz (ost) in I than it is in II (8x : 2x). Elliott / Double Genesis of Girart de Vienne 149 discussed above, chosen for the sake of rhyme alone): enblant, reserved in Girart de Vienne for mules, occurs only in I (3x); crenu is found in I (6x) and III (3x) but not in II; corant, an epithet of destrier, appears four times in II, only once in I. As one would expect, words for horse accoutrements and anatomy are more frequent in II than in I. On the other hand, words for riding and spurring reveal some surprises. For 'ride', 'gallop', chevalchier and eslessier are more common in I, while corre predominates in II: Part I Part II Part III chevalchier 8 4 2 eslessier 3 0 0 antrélessier 0 157 0 corre 1 4 0 Verbs meaning 'to spur' are more common in II than in I.58 Part I Part II Part III esperonner 5 5 0 brocher 5 15 1 pongner 2 9 1 coitier 0 1 0 — — — 12 30 2 Two formulaic periphrases for spurring are found only in I: a grant esperonnee (vv. 2393, 2411), and a coite d'esperon (vv. 1175, 2526, 2682). While the greater reliance upon the neutral verb chevalchier in I might be explained in terms of the increased emphasis upon the horse as a means of transportation in a plot which fea- tures much journeying to and fro, the overall discontinuity of terms for spurring is less easily explained unless we postulate two poets, one who prefers verbal expressions and another who likes the prepositional phrases as well. There are some interesting distinctions in the use of travel-related words (most revealing is chemin, found in I and III (14x) but lacking in II): Part I Part II Part III voie 1 1 3 rue 2 0 2 chemin 12 0 2 acheminer 4 1 1 jornee = a day's events 1 1 0 jornee = a day's ride 6 0 0

57See van Emden's note to line 3446. 58Esperon is twice as common in II (7x : 14x). 150 Olifant / Vol. 8, No. 2 / Winter 1980 This lexical distribution is consonant with the emphasis on the horse or mule as a mode of transportation in I. There is considerable traveling in II, but this activity is not significant enough to the action to mark it by words descriptive of the event; what matters in II is the goal, the end of the journey, not the process itself.59 Not only does the first section of the epic utilize more words for 'road', but it also displays greater concern to mark exactly the passage of time and to date events. Words for day and time of day (jor, matinet, soir, nuit) are somewhat more common in I and III than in II,60 as are formulaic expressions on the model of qant il fu ajorné.61 Some of the variety and number of words for time of day may be related to the tendency of the poet of the first section to dwell upon details of traveling such as his more exact focus upon how a person rides fast (a grant esperonnee, a coite d'esperon). The generally greater precision regarding the use of words for time of day in I is confirmed when we turn to more specific contexts. The individual days of the week are mentioned four times in I (diemenche, v. 431; mardi, v. 2555; mecredi, v. 284; jeudi, v. 102). A month, mai, is named once in I, four times in III. Actual dates are mentioned more frequently in I and III than in II. The poem concludes on prin jor de mai, einst come esté entre (v. 6892; cf. prin jor de mai, v. 6854). The poet of I refers more often to the liturgical calendar (Pasques is named four times in I, only once in II), and he uses feast days to make dates more precise (recall this poet's greater concern with ecclesiastical terminology). Charlemagne holds court at Pentecost (v. 884); the Ascension is cited to give an exact date (après l'Acen- sion, / a une feste seint Jehen le baron, vv. 1538-9),62 while in II it is mentioned as an event is Christ's life. There are three additional references to the feast of St. John (vv. 166, 1223, 1246-7) as well as one to the feast del baron seint Moris (v. 6795).63 The mecredi mentioned above was further qualified as the one after Easter (au mecredi que Pasques fu passee, v. 284). There are only two references to dates in II. One, opening the first purely narrative laisse of this section (XCII), sets the stage for the ensuing action; Ce fu a Pasques, que l'en dit en esté (v. 3062). The other is to Pentecost; Oliver chastises the treacherous squire who had tried to attack the unsuspecting Roland:

59See Heinemann (above, n. 5), 187, on the lack of interest in the durative aspect of journeying and the converse interest in what one might call its aoristic aspect. 60 107 : 73 : 25. 61 23 : 15 : 11. 62Feste occurs six times in I, twice in III, but not in II. 63See van Emden's note (above, n. 3), p. 336. Elliott / Double Genesis of Girart de Vienne 151 et en aprés le prise a ledengier: "Fill a putain, com vos avoie chier! A Pantacoute fussiez vos chevalier: ore en avez perdu vostre loier." (vv. 5600-3)

TWO anomalies mark these lines. The date refers to something which would have happened; in I the dates refer to the events of the poem. Second, this is the only instance of the word ledengier and of the formula fill a putain in the second section of the epic. The kind of devious, misdirected action of the squire is reminiscent of the first and third parts of the poem (see below). This episode may well then be the work of the poet to whom we owe the first and last portions of the epic. The sections of Girart de Vienne differ significantly in the narrative voice adopted by the teller of the tale. The parts are distinguished not only by the number of times the narrator addresses his audience directly, but also by the kind of inter- vention he makes. Part I contains more narrator comments.64 Most of the remarks in I are couched in the first or second person. There are, in addition, a number of narrative formulas which call for the listeners' attention and which are used to sig- nal a dramatic event. Part I Part II Part III es vos X X 4 6 1 es lor X X 2 0 0 atant es vos 065 6 0 alant es Rollant 1 0 0 la veïsiez 0 7 0 — — — 8 19 2 Part II relies less than do other sections of the poem upon direct narrator comments to the audience, but, by way of compensation, it utilizes far more frequently the first-hemistich narrator formulas listed above, notably atant es vos and la veïsiez, which do not occur in I or III. Such first-hemistich formulas, particularly la veïsiez, are common in the chansons de geste (e.g., ten examples of la veïsiez in Les Enfances Guillaume, three in the Chanson de Roland); la veïsiez calls attention to an especially exciting moment of battle, and the frequency of this

64 Part I: vv. 1, 9-10, 12, 14, 27, 33, 35, 60, 61, 62, 64, 81, 84-90, 96 (end of the prologue to the poem as whole); 322-3, 358, 426-7, 553-5, 882, 1176, 1182, 1187, 1202a, 1246, 1440, 1542, 2015, 2164, 2293, 2303, 2499, 2978-80; Part II: vv. 3037-9, 3298, 3386, 3716, 4070, 4074, 4139, 4217, 4503, 4540, 4978, 5054, 5295-6, 5310, 5322-3, 5341, 5451; Part III: vv. 6134, 6222, 6233, 6456, 6562-66, 6599, 6617-20, 6796, 6833, 6918-9, 6920, 6924, 6929-32. 65Atant es lor, v. 2145, for which DS read ez vos. 152 Olifant / Vol. 8, No. 2 / Winter 1980 formula is yet another indication of the greater interest in martial exploits evinced by II. Displaying a similar concern for vividness, the narrator of II calls upon his audience to imagine themselves at the scene of combat: Se la fuissiez soz Vïenne la grant, ou se conbat Oliviers et Rollant! (vv. 5313-14) By contrast the narrator of I (and III) seems more self-conscious of his function qua narrator; twenty-four of his comments are first-person statements. Part I, to be sure, includes the lengthy prologue to the entire epic in which the poet dis- cusses the three gestes and displays a degree of literary awareness and self-com- mentary rare in Old French epic. But apart from the prologue, in the narrative proper the poet seems more concerned with controlling his audience's responses; he shows a particular fondness for transitional phrases of the pattern que vos m'oez conter (vv. 882, 1187, 1202a, but cf. v. 4070), que je vos dis avant (v. 1246), que nos ici dison (vv. 1182, 1542), einsi com vos di (v. 2164) which emphasize his rôle in the process of telling.66 These phrases remind the listeners of continuity in the narrative. This first narrator employs the figure of praeteritio three times (vv. 358, 1176, 1440; the most elaborate form of this device occurs in III, vv. 6617-20); he uses the narrative impossibility topos (vv. 61, 1440). He cites proverbs (vv. 426-27, 553-54).67 He refers to other forms of the story (vv. 27, 64, 81, 84-90). He is, in short, aware of the complexity of the poetic tradition to which he belongs. On the other hand, the narrator of II uses first-person statements in only eight of the seventeen times he addresses his audience. He uses the same traditional rhe- torical devices as does I—praeteritio and narrative impossibility (v. 3716)—and reveals a concern for the continuity of his tale, but he relies less heavily on such techniques and selects instead appeals to vividness—la veïsiez, atant es vos, se la fuissiez. All three sections once employ the traditional epic method of marking a major transition, the phrase constructed on the pattern, mes ore lerons . . . si vos dirons (vv. 2978-80; 5295-6; 6929-32). For minor transitions, however, the narrator in II prefers to stress the continuity of his account by means of phrases using second-person verbs (oï avez que prise est l'aatie, v. 4139, cf. v. 5054; com vos orroiz, v. 4978), rather than the first-person formulas of I. When he refers to the

66Cf. v. 6833 and the syntactic formula, spoken by a character, dont vos m'oez plaidier (v. 788). The formula does not occur in II. 67It is my impression that there are more proverbs in the first section of the poem, but I have not counted them. Elliot / Double Genesis of Girart de Vienne 153 poetic tradition, it is in the simplest way, to assure the audience that they have heard of Roland's sword, Durandal, before (v. 5054; cf. v. 5568), He makes no reference to other versions of his tale. The one area in which all three sections show a similar reliance upon the same narrative formulas is the assertion of truth-telling.68 The traditional function of poetry in a non-literate culture is to preserve and propagate the truth.69 Songs are better not because they are more beautiful or exciting, but because they con- tain, so the poets claim, more veracious accounts. Oiez, seignor, Deus vos soit en aiüe! Ceste chançon n'est pas par tot seüe. Tel vos en chante que n'a pas retenue la droite estoire c'avez ci entandue. (vv. 6562-5; cf. vv. 84-90) Hence three of the eight first-person remarks made by the Part-II narrator are prot- estations that he is telling the truth (por verté le vos di), that his tale is not mençonge ne folie. In the first section the narrator emphasizes the truth of his account no fewer than six times in the first one hundred lines.70 Part III more closely resembles I in its use of narrative formulas. We hear the narrator's voice thirteen times in 801 lines. He seems keenly aware of his métier as epic poet and reminds his listeners that his is the right song: la droite estoire c'avez ci entandue (v. 6565). As in the use of oaths and curses, the relationship between a poet, his narrative persona, and his audience is a matter of personal preference. The formulas of exposition, the bids for attention (e.g., la veïsiez), are common property, part of a pool of formulas known to all. Yet the uses which each performer makes of such devices, the complexity or simplicity of his interventions, reflect his individuality, as one shows a greater concern for the continuity of his tale, another for vivid exposition. The personality of the narrator of Girart de Vienne appears split. To propose the existence of two poets seems more sensible than to diagnose a case of poetic schizophrenia. The final area of observable difference between the two main sections of Girart de Vienne concerns concealment. One of the phrases which the first narrator uses in propria persona is ja nel vos celeron (v. 2499). Such statements, in which

68I: por voir le vos dison, v. 33; de verté le savon, v. 35; es si est verité, v. 426 (also vv. 9-10, 62, 64, 84-90); II: Ne vos die pas mençonge ne folie, v. 3039; por verté le vos di, vv. 4503, 4540. 69Marcel Détienne, Les Maîtres de vérité dans la Grèce archaïque (Paris: Maspero, 1967). 70If Bertrand was indeed reworking an older version of Girart's adventures, his desire to adver- tise the veracity of his account is to be expected; the motif remains, however, traditional. 154 Olifant / Vol. 8, No. 2 / Winter 1980 someone purportedly refuses to conceal information, are far more frequent in I than in II (37 : 11). The list includes both semantic and syntactic formulas. Part I Part II Part III ja nel vos iert celé 0 0 1 ne vos en pas celé 0 2 0 coiement a celé 2 1 0 estre ma volunté celee 1 0 0 X X nel me celez 0 1 0 gardez n'i ait celé 1 0 0 gardez nel me celer 3 0 l n'i a mestier celee 4 0 0 ne vos doi pas celer 1 0 0 ja nel vos quier celer 12 4 0 nel me celer noiant 2 0 0 nel me celez noiant 2 0 0 ne li ceile noiant 0 1 0 nel me celer tu mie 4 2 0 mie ne li celer 1 0 0 nel vos celerai ja 1 0 0 ja nel vos celeron 3 0 0 — — — 37 11 2 While those phrases are, at one level, merely verbal tics, seemingly inconse- quential methods of filling out a line of verse, the phenomenon is, on on another level, symptomatic of the plot of the first section as a whole. There are reasons for verbal habits, just as there are for physical ones. It is a case of protesting too much, for the insistence upon openness and apparent sincerity suggests instead its oppo- site. This tendency is, however, of a piece with other attitudes reflected in the opening section of the epic. It reflects a universe more ambiguous than that depicted in II, one in which interior and exterior do not fully coincide, in which logos and ergon may conflict. The poet of I, who prefers verbal injuries to physical, sets much of his narrative in Charlemagne's court71 instead of on the field of battle.72 This narrator, aware of the power of words, chooses to interrupt his tale often, speaking directly to his audience. In the first part of Girart de Vienne, true worth may go unrecognized, merit unrewarded. Part I is a narrative of subterfuge and symbolic actions. Charle- magne's court harbors an insolent doorkeeper and a traitor such as Renart de Pev-

71The noun cort occurs thirty times in I, three times in II. 72 Chanp occurs only in II (vv. 3320, 5393). Elliott / Double Genesis of Girart de Vienne 155 ier, who, slandering Girart's ancestors, uses words to deceive. Renart is one of those who pads his lies with the phrase, a celer nel vos quier (v. 793). Charle- magne's queen, who as a woman cannot directly avenge Girart's rejection of her, has recourse to symbolic and deceptive gesture. Then she brags to Aimeri of her action; her deeds are not validated until they are stated. In an atmosphere such as this, where verbal acts are calculating and indirect, people feel the need to protest the unambiguity of their discourse. Part II depicts the world of action in which physical prowess and valor are effective and respected. Values are black and white. Characters are unambiguous about their feelings and inflexible as they cry, je nelferoie por les menbres coper (v. 3525). The society is not uncourtly but rather one which, without ambiguity, pays allegiance to both the martial and courtly aspects of chivalry. Oliver, the real hero of II, behaves as the very soul of chivalry; the warriors at Charlemagne's court violate the laws of warfare and attack the unarmed messenger. One of the three instances of the word cort in II occurs in this context as Lanbert exclaims of this treasonous attack:

"Mal ait la cort ou l'en n'ose parler, et ou l'en n'osse son mesage conter!" (vv. 4232-3) The queen spoke and acted deviously, concealing her true purpose. Aude, the dominant woman in II, serves as her counterpart; Aude, however, is a virtuous, docile girl who, unlike the queen, wants only the husband picked out for her by her male relatives (v. 4650). But she can take direct and appropriate action. She is the one who recognizes the true worth of a seeming enemy, Lanbert, and treats him with utmost courtesy. When Oliver goes unarmed on his embassy with Lanbert, it is Aude who reads the situation correctly and takes the precaution of sending Oli- ver's squire after him with his armor, thereby saving her brother's life. Finally, when once she assumes the typical position of epic women and watches from the walls as her menfolk do battle, she again can act. She stones the enemy—-fiert .I. Gascon sor l'iaume de Pavie (v. 4632)—to Roland's delight (Rollant s'en rit, v. 4635). The characters who inhabit the unambiguous world of deeds of II do not need to assure their listeners that they are speaking without guile. Their actions speak for them. Part III, while attempting a synthesis, is closer to the ethos of I. The heroes leave Vienne through a tunnel to capture Charlemagne by stealth, a deed reminiscent of the more indirect action of I, but they treat their captive with respect and honor, recalling Aude's courteous treatment of Lanbert in II. Aimeri, as sullen and 156 Olifant / Vol. 8, No. 2 / Winter 1980 rude as in part I,73 has to be persuaded to bend his knee to Charlemagne. The poem ends on a somber note, as the narrator intervenes to remind his audience that the joy promised by the betrothal of Roland and Aude will never come to pass: Mes Sarrazins, que li cors Deus cravente, les departirent, que il ne la pot prendre, ne de nul d'aus ne remest oir en France: ce fu duel et domage. (vv. 6914-7) In the end, treachery and deceit will triumph. An examination of the formulary, lexicon, and through these tools, of the ethos of the first and second sections of Girart de Vienne, leads to the conclusion that the poem as we have it is best explained as work of double genesis. The poet responsible for the extant poem was a skillful remanieur; the sutures between sections are not crude or awkwardly obtrusive. The result, in spite of its divergent origins, is a coherent whole. The two sections of the poem counterpoint one another well. Bertrand de Bar-sur-Aube, sitting in his orchard one Thursday after mass, did well to listen to the pilgrim from Santiago who told him the "true" story of the great suffering Girart had to endure before he possessed Vienne. Alison G. Elliott Brown University

Appendix I Definition of Syntactic and Semantic Formulas The following remarks are not intended as theoretical definitions but practical descriptions of those hemistichs counted as formulas for the purpose of statistical analysis.74 In point of fact, a definition which attempts to delimit what might have

73His rôle in part II is insignificant. 74In my analyses I followed the "working" definition evolved by Joseph J. Duggan (above, n. 13), p. 10, so that my statistical results might be compared with his. Of his own "definition," Duggan writes in a forthcoming issue of Olifant: "De plus, je n'ai jamais défini la formule comme 'un hémistiche qu'on retrouve au moins deux fois dans le poème et quasiment sous la meme forme': cette expression, loin d'être une tentative pour reprendre la définition de Milman Parry 'avec plus de précision,' est tout simplement une description des énoncés que j'ai inventoriés dans une étude sur la densité relative des répétitions dans onze chansons de geste et deux romans" (emphasis added). See his "La théorie de la composition orale des chansons de geste: Les faits et les interprétations," Olifant, 8 (1979-80), forthcoming. Elliott / Double Genesis of Girart de Vienne 157 constituted a formula for a working jongleur should allow for more flexibility75 than the description which follows. Two repetitions are sufficient for a phrase to be considered formulaic. Mil- man Parry's definition of a semantic formula is famous: "A group of words which is regularly employed under the same metrical condiditions to express a given essential idea."76 For Old French, "the same metrical conditions" are interpreted as meaning "the same hemistich," although some two-hemistich formulas do occur; for example, the first-hemistich congié lor donne (v. 6891) is counted as formulaic with the second hemistichs le congié m'en donez (v. 3078) and l'en a doné congié (v. 3105); grant poor ai (v. 3574) and grant poor ai eü (v. 3477) are formulaic. While semantic formulas allow little variation, a few minor alterations are permissible. The purpose of a semantic formula is to permit a jongleur to express a similar idea without having to pause to consider whether the phrase will fit into his metrical scheme—he knows it will. Therefore, the greater the number of situations to which a particular formula may be applied, the more useful it will be to the singer as he composes his work orally. Within semantic formulas the following substitutions are permitted. 1) Positive and negative, singular and plural, are considered equivalent, even if a slight adjustment is required to compensate for, e.g., the substitution of a longer verb form. What is essential is that the added or subtracted word be one of little semantic weight—a pronoun or an intensifier, for instance. Examples are de tot l'avoir (v. 3862) and de toz avoirs (v. 2488); et armes et destrier (v. 2901) ne armes ne destrier (v. 4009) et si nel fait (v. 6425), et se n'en faz (v. 815), il nel feïst (v. 5998), mes g'en ferai (v. 6265), n'enfeïsiez (v. 2830) m'i sui bien acor- dee (v. 1405), soion bien acordé (v. 5958). 2) One preposition may be substituted for another, as may articles, personal pronouns, and possessive adjectives: de son barnaje (v. 2950), por son barnaje (v. 2960) por seue amor (vv. 1240, 4737), por vostre amor (v. 3523). The poet may change conjunctions: si com c'est voirs (v. 5268), et com c'est voirs (v. 5716).

75For flexibility in the Homeric formula, see J. Brian Hainsworth, The Flexibility of the Hom- eric Formula, (Oxford, 1968) for Old French, Marjorie L. Windelberg, "Theoretical Questions About Metrical Irregularities in the Chanson de Roland," Olifant, 6 (1978), 6-20 also her thesis, "Formulaic Flexibility and Metrical Irregularity in the Chanson de Roland," University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1978. For a generative model, see Genette Ashby (above, n. 24). 76Milman Parry, "Studies in the Epic Technique of Oral Verse-Making. I. Homer and the Homeric Style," Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 41 (1930), 80. 158 Olifant / Vol. 8, No. 2 / Winter 1980 3) Word order may alter; e.g., amis et bien voillant (v. 4819, assonance in -ant), and bien voillant ne ami (v. 5183, assonance in -i). Syntactic formulas are not to be confused with semantic.77 Syntactic formulas are called "formulaic expressions" by Parry and Lord,78 who define them as lines or hemistichs which "follow the same basic pattern of rhythm and syntax and have at least one word in the same position in the line common with other lines or half lines." Such formulas differ from semantic formulas in that they involve the substitution of words of greater semantic value, of one adjective for another, of one proper name for another, etc. E.g., et la fort coife (v. 4430) and et la grant coife (v. 3459) corageus et hardiz (vv. 1808, 2641) and corjeus et gentis (v. 3698) dant Girart le baron (v. 1558), dant Hernaut le baron (v. 1639). Appendix II This essay has implications extending beyond Girart de Vienne. The 42% density of strictly semantic formulas recorded here for this epic raises questions about the relationship between repeated hemistichs and orality. If such repetitions do indeed indicate genuine oral composition, then Girart was composed in such a fashion, according to the findings of Joseph J. Duggan,79 and, following him, myself.80 On the other hand, the prologue to the poem clearly ascribes authorship to Bertrand de Bar-sur-Aube, uns gentis clers qui ceste chançon fist (v. 101). If Bertrand was a clers, he was literate (at least in Latin). Furthermore, the arguments adduced in the above essay for "stratification" of the text (to use van Emden's term) appear to indicate a writing poet. A truly oral singer, it is argued, recreates his poem afresh each time he performs; therefore, although he might take over someone else's story, he would retell it in his own formula repertory. The writing poet, in contrast, might copy both formulas and plot. If we follow this line of reasoning, we must conclude, as van Emden has done (above n. 1), that the epic is a written one, although intended for sung performance by a jongleur. This hypothesis entails two corollaries: (1) 42% may not indicate orality, and (2) Ber- trand was working from a written exemplar.

77A number of studies do not distinguish rigorously between semantic and syntactic formulas; e.g., N. H. J. van den Boogard, "Note sur l'utilisation de motifs et formules dans la Chanson de sainte Foy," Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, 5 (1962), 195-202; Zaal (above, n. 6); Maurice Delbouille, "Les chansons de geste et le livre," La Technique littéraire des chansons de geste, Actes du Colloque de Liège (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1959). 78Albert B. Lord (above, n. 13), p. 47. 79Duggan, above, n. 13.

80 Elliott, above, nn. 16-17. Elliott / Double Genesis of Girart de Vienne 159 Although much of my own work has been predicated on acceptance of the elegant work of Joseph J. Duggan, I see the need for more research in this area, and in particular, for more, and more refined, statistical studies. Meanwhile, let me point out several objections to a too hasty abandonment of Duggan's and my position. I have argued elsewhere81 that formula density is an indicator of orality, but only one of several, and that other factors (distinctions of syntax, for example) should be taken into account.82 Some poems with high formula density may be oral and others not.83 Second, the reference to Bertrand, in the third person not the first, appears similar to other references to authority figures in the chansons de geste such as Ber- tolai de Laon in Raoul de Cambrai. Similarly, not all references to written sources should be taken as gospel (e.g., the many references to the "book" at St. Denis or such lines as Il est escrit en la Geste Francor, Roland, v. 1443). Many such appeals to clerical authority are no more than that—appeals to authority designed to increase the seriousness of the poem and to enhance its attractiveness.84 Finally, the rôle of memory seems here to be the crucial theoretical question. The kind of stratification discussed in this essay presupposes a dependence on either memory or a written text, but to what extent is not clear. Memory is perhaps more important an issue than literacy; Albert B. Lord writes, "It seems clear, then, that it is not literacy per se but the idea of fixity that will eventually destroy the oral poet's power to compose oral poetry."85 I am, I think, willing to concede that the clers Bertrand may have composed in writing, but he was not far from a genuinely oral tradition. If we accept the word of the prologue, that Bertrand was a cleric, we must also consider seriously the implications of the statement in that same prologue concerning Bertrand's source: he heard the story of Girart, we are told, from

81"The Vie de saint Alexis" (above, n. 16), and in a paper presented at the 1979 Kalamazoo conference. 82For Homeric studies, Austin (above, n. 8), p. 64, claims that statistics are valid only when accompanied by an array of other kinds of data. 83Cf. Edward R. Haymes, "Formulaic Density and Bishop Njegoš," Comparative Literature, 32 (1980), 390-401. Haymes calls for controled experiments, which I have tried to provide for the two later versions of the Vie de saint Alexis, MSS S (Paris) and M (Paris and Carlisle). 84Lord, "Homer as an Oral Poet," Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 72 (1967), 5. 85Duggan (above, n. 13) speaks of the "high esteem" and "semireligious awe" with which an oral society moving towards literacy regards writing (p. 135). 160 Olifant / Vol. 8, No. 2 / Winter 1980 a pilgrim from Santiago—Cil li conta ce que il sot de fi (v. 106). Conter implies aural not written communication. The evidence, I suggest, points to Bertrand being that vexed poetic type, a transitional figure. He himself may have composed in writing, but he was so close to the oral tradition that he imitates its style freely, and, cleric or no, assimilated a tale which he had been told, not read. If he had a manuscript copy of some sort, he makes no reference to it.86 Appendix III Lexicon In addition to the lexical items discussed in the essay, there are a large number of words (too many to list here) unique to one of the major sections of the poem. Many of these are plot-determined—Part I: roine, 30x (II, 1x); duchoise, 14x (III, 1x): Part II: pucele, 25x (III, 1x); songe, 7x; quintaine, 7x; marinier, 6x: Part III: porc, 7x; etc.). Limiting discussion to those words appearing six or more times (in both noun and verb forms), we find the following distribution: Part I Part II Part III amender 5 0 3 avoine 11 0 0 degrez 7 0 2 enfant 18 1 0 esmuer 5 0 1 esperdu 3 0 4 esprover 0 6 0 faillir 6 0 0 geste 7 0 0 herbeger 7 0 0 joster 0 12 0 leu 5 0 2 noncier 6 0 1 reposer 0 7 0 resenbler 9 0 0

indicate that the poet has read the book, but such a reference to a written source constitutes an appeal to authority. Had Bertrand read the account of Girart, we might have expected him to mention the fact. 86The chansons de geste abound with references to books and to the lore contained in them (e.g., the frequency of formulas such as com nos trovons escrit). Such statements do not necessarily