Talk:Chrétien de Troyes

Untitled

Hmmm. What about Tristan and Isolde? The article on Gottfried von Strassburg mentions Chrétien as an author in the series, but I don't see that here. Ben 23:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chretien only mentions that he wrote a story about Iseult and Mark in the opening lines of his Cliges. It doesn't survive. - Cuchullain

Chrétien and Geometry

Is anyone aware of any published sources on the work of Dr Joan Helm about mathematical interpretations of the Arthurian Romances?

I recently came across this work on the ABC Science Show. Seems like it might be worth a mention in the article if some details can be found... Comtebenoit 15:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• No, I've never heard of that. If you find any more information, but it in.--Cuchullain 07:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Chretien is a pseudonym meaning Christian?

In the episode The Holy Grail of In Our Time (BBC Radio 4) the academics seem agreed that Chretian may just be a pseudonym, meaning 'Christian' for someone with an entirely different name. I seem unable to find a source for this online (though the programme is itself available to listen to for anyone interested) via the BBC's In Our Time website. The programme also specualtes that he may have been a coverted jew and that the Candleabra in his Perceval is associated with the Kabbalah. --bodnotbod 16:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've heard he was a converted Jew too, but if that were the case, "Chretien" would be less of a pseudonym and more of an assurance of his conversion. --BDD (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No one really knows anything about him. Chretien may be a pseudonym, but that's just speculation, as is the theory that he was a converted Jew (though I'd like to know the basis of that speculation).--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Romances are not Novels

I've never, in my life, heard of Chretien identified as a novelist. Nor should he be. His mode of writing is that of romance, essentially debased epic. Some later romances, maybe there's an argument. It gets fuzzy towards the end. His - not at all. These romances also, aside from the lit crit perspective, are just too short to be novels. The father of "French novels" is thus a bit of a stretch.

The same standards that establish his work as a novel could establish every epic and romance as one. The view presented at the end by Uitti is not a commonly held one. Historians are always trying to assert that X/Y/Z "really started" in their period of study. It didn't. It's facts to suit theories. The only "early novel" I'll bite on is maybe Apuleius and some late Romances. Guinness4life (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think what Uitti is saying is that in some respects Chretien's work (in particular Yvain) represent certain steps towards the novel in plotting and structure (as opposed to, for instance, the way Celtic narratives, epic poems, etc., are written). Obviously, in other ways, it's not at all like a modern novel - it's verse, not prose, and it's not very long. I think the stuff about him being the "first novelist" or "creating the novel" are not a good representation of his argument, so I've tried to amend it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)