The Chanson d'Antioche

An Old French Account of the First Crusade

Carol Sweetenham, Susan B. Edgington

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317038764
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Historia
• Subtopic: Historia del mundo

The Old-French Chanson d'Antioche has long intrigued historians and literary scholars. Unusually among epic poems, it follows closely a well documented historical event - the First Crusade - and appears to include substantial and genuine historical content. At one time it was believed to be based on an account by an eye-witness, 'Richard the Pilgrim'. Carol Sweetenham and Susan Edgington have combined forces to investigate such claims, and their findings are set out in a comprehensive introduction which, firstly, examines the textual history of the poem from its possible oral beginnings through several re-workings to its present form, achieved early in the thirteenth century. A second chapter assesses the Chanson's value as a source for the crusade, and a third considers its status as a literary text. A complete prose translation follows, the first in English and based on the definitive edition. The Chanson is revealed as a lively narrative, with tales of chivalry, villainy, and even episodes of humour. There are extensive footnotes to the translation, and an appendix provides supplementary material from a different manuscript tradition. There is also a cast list of heroes and villains with biographical information for the 'real' ones and literary analogues for the fictional characters. The Chanson d'Antioche can now be read for enjoyment, and for a whole new perspective on crusading in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

PART I
Introduction

Chapter 1
The Textual History of the Chanson d’Antioche

In this chapter we examine the textual history of the Chanson d’Antioche. The chapter starts with the vexed questions of authorship and dating. It traces the development of the text during the twelfth century and examines its metamorphosis into the wider Old French Crusade Cycle (hereafter OFCC or Cycle), cross-referring as necessary to the parallel Occitan textual tradition. There is a brief description of the manuscripts containing the text and their evolution throughout the thirteenth century, a witness to the continuing interest in the text. We finish with a summary of the subsequent literature based on the legends in the Cycle.

Authorship and dating

Received wisdom on the authorship and dating of the Antioche goes something like this. The text is a quasi-diary of the First Crusade by a poor crusader known as Richard le Pèlerin, written at the time of or just after the Crusade in the form of the vernacular chanson de geste. Richard’s work was used by the Lotharingian chronicler Albert of Aachen and referred to by other authors. Richard was thus both an eyewitness to events and a pioneer: the first author by nearly a century to use vernacular poetry – and specifically the chanson de geste – to describe current events. Towards the end of the twelfth century Richard’s text was substantially reworked by another author, Graindor de Douai. Graindor kept enough of the original for it to be discernible beneath his reworking, and for the last third he relied heavily on the work of Robert the Monk. He also edited the text to turn it into a trilogy with the Chanson des Chétifs and the Chanson de Jérusalem. During the thirteenth century other texts were added to this nucleus to form the OFCC, which was substantially complete by the middle of the thirteenth century.1

The evidence - or not - for Richard

The problem with the Richard-as-pioneer theory is that there is no solid evidence for it. There is no external corroboration for his existence, although in fairness as a supposed ‘homme du peuple’ it would be surprising if there were.2 So our only piece of evidence is internal to the Antioche. In the account of the battle of Antioch is a list of 38 Saracen kings forming a counterpart to the list of Christian barons just given. The names are the usual mix of fantasy, history and abuse.3 At the end of the list comes the comment:

Cil ki le cançon fist sot bien dire les nons

Ricars li pelerins de qui nos le tenons.4

If we take this at face value it says simply that Richard knew a list of standard-issue Saracen names and produced the ‘cançon’; it is implied that the names formed part of this song. We might reasonably assume from context that it was about the First Crusade, or at least the battle of Antioch. But we have no way of knowing what kind of song it was: a full-blown chanson de geste, a much shorter composition like those of William IX of Poitiers, or something else.5 We do not know whether it was in Latin or in the vernacular. Neither do we know whether it covered the entire First Crusade, events at Antioch or just the culminating battle of Antioch. And there is no hint in the reference as to whether Richard was a contemporary eyewitness or produced a later account: there is a reference at v.8377 to ‘cil qui la fu’ though Richard is not named. The present tense ‘tenons’ might imply that Richard is in fact still alive.6

The question of Richard’s existence or non-existence has become inextricably linked with the debate about the source material of the Antioche. We discuss below the evidence for some kind of earlier version, and it seems beyond doubt that some such version of the material in the text did exist. But there is no evidence that it was written by Richard le Pèlerin, and much less that it was a chanson de geste written as a diary of the crusade.

So why the reference to Richard? It was standard practice in the chanson de geste to assert authenticity by claiming that the text came from an eyewitness or other impeccable source. The Chanson de Roland, famously, ascribes itself to Turold; Girart de Roussillon claims to be by a monk named Sestu.7 What better, then, than to claim a source who had been a crusader – ‘pèlerin’ – himself? Kleber argued that the name of Richard became a badge of authenticity attached to successive versions of the text.8 That said, it is strange to drop the reference casually into the middle of an account of battle. Such references could be expected to come at the start or end of the text.9 Graindor gives a long and elaborate prologue but does not mention Richard once in it. We might have expected more detail and prominence if Richard was indeed cited as a guarantee of eyewitness authenticity.

The most we can take from the reference is that Richard was a pilgrim or crusader at some point – by no means necessarily the First Crusade – and that he produced some kind of preceding poetic text that contained this list of Saracen names. We do not know what form this work had, when it was written, or what it contained.10

The ‘reworking’ of ‘Graindor de Douai’

Graindor de Douai, the supposed remanieur of Richard’s supposed ur-text, has had a bad press. He has been accused of acting as some kind of literary vandal, spoiling the primitive beauty of Richard’s Antioche with later material in his attempt to knit together the Antioche, the Chétifs and the Jérusalem into a coherent trilogy.11

As with Richard we have only one reference to Graindor de Douai in the text of the Antioche. In the prologue come the following lines:

Cist novel jougleor qui en suelent canter

Le vrai commencement en ont laisié ester,

Mais Grainsdor de Douai nel velt mie oblier

Ki nos en a les vers tous fais renoveler.12

What this actually says is that new (fashionable?) jongleurs have ceased to give the text its proper beginning. Graindor does not think it should be forgotten and has rewritten the text or had it rewritten accordingly. It is not clear from this reference whether the rewriting is of the whole poem or only the start, or indeed the prologue. Nor is it clear whether the anonymous narrator – ‘nos’ – is the author of the new version or the recipient of Graindor’s new version.

There are two other references to an earlier version. The prologue adds further details:

Oï l’avés chanter en une autre chancon,

Mais n’estoit pas rimee ensi com nos l’avon,

Rimee est de novel et mise en quarregnon.

Mais cil qui le rima n’i vaut metre son non,

Por cou que tels l’oist quin froncast le grenon.13

Peter the Hermit’s vision of the Holy Sepulchre and subsequent departure on crusade was the true start of the poem. It was described in another poem written in a different rhyme (perhaps assonanced?) and/or metre; it is not clear whether this poem covered only the true start of the crusade or more material. An anonymous author restyled it and wrote it down; he preferred to remain anonymous because the listeners disliked either him or his poetry. So if we take the text at face value there were two anonymous versions of this earlier poem, one apparently oral and in an undetermined metre, the later one written down and in rhyme.

The final reference is at the closing lines of the poem.

Segnor, or voel que soit ceste raisons finee

Cil qui ces vers a fais et la rime trovee

Dusqu’à une autre fois qu’ele ert renovelee.14

This tells us merely that the author of this version wrote and rhymed the text. It is unclear whether this author is to be identified with the anonymous but unpopular author above. It is not clear whether the last line envisages an overhaul of the text at some point in future. There are a further two references to a previous source: judging by the context this is Robert the Monk.15

All this is very confusing. Graindor may be the author or may be the commissioner of this version. Either way he is responsible for giving the work a new beginning describing the crusade of Peter the Hermit. This at least, and perhaps more, comes from a previous work by an anonymous author who wrote down and put into rhyme a previous anonymous version that was not written down and not in rhyme. The relationship between the earlier written text and this one is not clear. We can say with certainty only that there was at least one previous version of the first part of the text and Graindor either commissioned someone to restore the proper beginning to the text or rewrote it himself.

Furthermore, not all versions of the text refer to Graindor. He is mentioned by name in the oldest version of the Antioche, mss. A, B and C: in manuscript E he is Hervix de Douai, and he is not mentioned at all in mss. F, G and L.16

So the internal evidence for Graindor’s work is not clear-cut. There is some – slender – external evidence for an author with a similar name working at a similar time. There are parallels of names, language and incident between the Crusade tr...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Dedication
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Abbreviations
• Preface
• PART I: INTRODUCTION
• Principles of Translation
• Summary
• PART II: TRANSLATION
• PART III: APPENDICES
• Bibliography
• Index