Similarities Between Marie de France’s Lais

When reading Marie de France’s Milun, I realized that it shared many characteristics with other lais that we have read, but most notably Le Fresne. Not only are the plots similar, but also the concept of unwanted children who are sent off to be raised by others, as well as leaving them with objects that ultimately become a major part of their identity.

In Le Fresne, Fresne is born with a twin sister, and the mother, believing that having twins will ruin her reputation and she will be thought of as an adulterer, sends Fresne to a monastery to be raised by a nun, and keeps one of the children. This is very similar to Milun, as he gets his lover pregnant, but because they are not married, she decides to send the baby to her sister to be raised because having a child out of wedlock would ultimately ruin her reputation. So, in both stories, children are not only sent off, but their mother’s reputations become more important than keeping their children, probably reflecting just how important one’s reputation was in a given medieval society. Also, in Le Fresne, Fresne is given a number of fine garments by her mother when she is given away. The garments become a major asset of her identity, and ultimately they define her when her mother sees them towards the end of the story and realizes that this is her daughter. In Milun, the child is given a ring, and once this is seen by his father, he goes from wanting to “put him to shame,” for having a reputation that is as strong as his, to being so happy that he kisses him. In both cases, these objects are not only crucial to the plot, but define their owner’s identities. There are also key differences between Milun and Degare. Degare is too born illegitimately, and is given a broken sword that he keeps throughout his lifetime. In the end, like in Milun, he is fighting his father, who notices the sword, and the two are happily united.

Misapplying agency to objects

I feel like our discussion of the symbol of the nightingale in Laustic was very interesting and can apply to some of the texts we have read so far, especially the garments that define Fresne’s nobility in Le Fresne. In Laustic, the humans seem to misapply meaning to the object, or force their own intentions upon its agency.

As noted in class, the love between the adulterous night and maiden does not seem to be as grand as they believe it to be, especially noted when Marie says, “she loved him more than anything/ as much for the good that she heard of him/ as because he was close by” (26-28). In other stories that we have read by Marie, peoples great reputations spread across lands and are known by a number of people, but here his good is known because he lives next door, possibly hinting that their love is superficial. In the end, the dead nightingale that is dressed up nicely is seen by the two “lovers” as a symbol of their love, but in reality, it is a symbol of a love that really didn’t amount to anything, or of jealously, vengeance, and loneliness felt by the maiden’s husband, or possibly it is just a dead bird. It seems that these characters are misapplying agency to the dead nightingale because they are forcing human beliefs or possibly delusions upon it. In Le Fresne, the garments are what make her of noble class to the individuals who surround her, but throughout the entire story, before her noble heritage is revealed through the garments, she is of noble character, and everyone who comes to know her realizes this. Therefore what made her truly noble was the way that she interacted with and treated other people, and not the garments, but the characters in the story misapply a meaning of nobility to the garments, or force their human perspectives upon them, and turn them into something that they really aren’t.