with a messenger to explain the events, he has a golden box made, adorned with precious
stones. The nightingale’s body is placed in it, and the reliquary accompanies him
wherever he goes—hence the name of the lai: laüstic is the Breton word for russignol in
French, nihtegale in English (ll. 3–6).
The emblem that thus closes the lai figures the end of the lovers’ meetings, though it
may also suggest the triumph of continued love, however impossible to realize: optimistic
and pessimistic readings of the ending are both possible. The emblem of Chievrefoil also
testifies to the enduring nature of Tristan and Iseut’s love: just as the hazelwood dies (so
it was thought) if the honeysuckle growing around it was cut away, so the two lovers
would die if separated: “Bele amie, si est de nus: ne vus sanz mei, ne jeo sanz vus” (ll.
77–78). But while that phrasing is negative, what we see realized in this episode is the
reunion of the lovers thanks to the piece of hazelwood that Tristan prepares as a signal to
Iseut, so that the queen will know he must be hiding in the woods near the route of her
cortege. Whereas the emblem of Laüstic ends the lovers’ meetings, Chievrefoil’s emblem
initiates Tristan and Iseut’s reunion, as it symbolizes their love. And just as the repetition
of characters, scenes, and situations in Laüstic and Chievrefoil creates doubles, echoes,
and contrasts in positive and negative variations at all levels of the text, so the tendency
to present and explore different combinations of the same materials characterizes the
links between the lais and invites readers to analyze their interactions. The arrangement
of twelve lais in a collection considerably increases the potential for meaning, however
elusive that meaning remains in the beautiful obscurities of Marie’s text, and begins to
give her lais the weight and proportion we normally associate with romance.
The brevity of most lais limits their plot development to a single anecdote or episode,
although in the mid-length and longer lais, especially Guigemar and Eliduc, there may be
a fuller elaboration as the characters’ love develops through a series of episodes. The type
of adventure that appears in the lais differs somewhat from that of romance: it does not
involve a quest, even in the longer récits; the hero is more passive and his experience
leads to private fulfillment and happiness; no special relationship exists between the
hero’s destiny and that of his society.
While some lais have marvelous and folktale elements that recall their Celtic sources
(e.g., Guigemar, Yonec, Lanval), others remain realistically placed in the courtly world
of the 12th century (Equitan, Fresne, Milun, Chaitivel). All explore the intersection of
two planes of existence, where otherness may be magically encountered or simply
introduced by the new experience of love. Although efforts to thus categorize the lais
often remain problematic, leading to overlap, omissions, and the like, they do respond to
the sense of intertextual play that links the lais across echoes and contrasts.
Marie’s art is as carefully crafted as the precious reliquary she describes in Laüstic.
The economy and brevity of her style are enriched by the subtlety of her narrating voice.
Her use of free indirect discourse, in particular, allows her to merge her voice with that of
her characters, while maintaining the distinctness of both. Marie’s literary art, sustained
throughout the collection of twelve lais, joins her work to that of the philosopher-poets,
described in the general prologue as worthy of glossing and interpretation.
The twenty-three extant manuscripts of Marie’s Fables, two of which are complete
with prologue, epilogue, and 102 fables, attest their popularity. Marie claims to translate
from the English of King Alfred’s adaptation from Latin. No such translation is known,
and Marie may have invented a fictitious source. Her fables derive from the Latin
Medieval france: an encyclopedia 1116