"Myriad with Difference": Alterity and Identity in Old French and Russian Epic [PhD thesis]

230 Pages·1997·8.52 MB·English

by  Sara Isabella James

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
"Myriad with Difference":
Alterity and Identity in Old French and Russian Epic
Sara Isabella James
Baltimore, MD
B.A., Goucher College, 1991
M.A., New York University, 1992
A Dissertation presented to the Graduate Faculty
of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Department of French
University of Virginia
May 1997
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DM! Number: 9738794
UMI Microform 9738794
Copyright 1997, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized
copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Abstract
The existence of epic poetry in so many and such varied
cultures indicates its importance not only as entertainment,
but also as a channel of communal standards and ideals.
Traditionally, studies of epic have sought to illuminate a
nation's heroic models through analysis of the genre's most
praiseworthy characters, usually male, Christian warriors.
Yet such an approach ignores the vast number of
characters in epic who do not fall into that category. These
characters can be called Others, since they differentiate
themselves in many ways from the hero, who is understood to
be the ideal. My study seeks not only to show how many and
varied the characters in epic are, but also to suggest new
terms that acknowledge such diversity.
Epic representation of the Other must be varied, since
if the heroes generally conform to a model, then all those
who do not conform must greatly outnumber the paragons.
Studies of non-heroes in epic have focused on, for example,
Saracens or women. It is not any one group of Others that
interests me, but rather the mental phenomenon of alterity,
and the range of characters who illustrate it. Yet it is this
broad range that also poses considerable problems of
categorization.
In literary and historical studies, the term "marginal"
has too often been applied to persons or groups, fictitious
or real, who were excluded. Yet such a blanket term does not
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
take into account the various reasons for exclusion, and
ensuing degrees of Otherness. Meanwhile, in anthropology and
folklore, the terms "marginal" and "liminal" have been used
interchangeably, to denote persons in a transitional stage.
I have sought to redefine terms such as "marginal" and
"liminal" in order to make clearer the distinctions between
types of Others, whose criteria of exclusion or difference
vary greatly. Each chapter thus discusses one type of Other,
and proposes several representative examples for each type;
however, I do not suggest that my typology is definitive. The
categories I propose should be taken as proof that the epic
Other cannot be stereotyped and simplified, and as an
invitation to further reflection and research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Chapter 1: Alterity and Identity 8
Chapter 2: Liminal by Nature 3 3
Chapter 3: Liminal by Gender 65
Chapter 4: Marginals 99
Chapter 5: Transgression and Transition 131
Conclusion 192
Bibliography 196
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Introduction
The epic as a genre is associated with men and their
wars. From Antiquity to the songs now sung in the former
Yugoslavia, epic usually deals with conflicts between
different peoples, often of different religions. Sometimes
the epic presents a nation's armies as victorious, sometimes
as glorious in martyred defeat. Whatever the outcome of a
battle commemorated in verse, one thing is certain: there are
more meanings to an epic poem than the literal one. The
poem's significance extends beyond the historical or mimetic.
Indeed, the more obvious it is than many epic traditions are
mythical or highly inventive, the likelier it is that the
genre's appeal and function lie elsewhere.
The potential for problems of cultural identity, in
relation to another, potentially hostile culture, abound in
any work dealing with conflicts between two peoples. To begin
with, "Border culture includes a deep fear, the fear of being
seen/caught/asked for identification" (Hicks 40) . The
presence of borders, and of neighboring cultures, makes the
need to identify and label even more immediate; the closer
the potential enemy, the greater the need to differentiate
between oneself and others. Border culture produces epic: it
is common in regions that are prone to border disputes and
skirmishes, as in Africa and the former Yugoslavia, which
still has a rich oral epic culture. The sense of identity is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
heightened through repetition of these oral narratives which
reinforce cultural values and sense of self.
It is my argument that a major function of epic is to
define a culture's identity. This argument is certainly not
new: critics of both Old French and Russian epic (the
traditions I will study here) have dealt with the issue of
exactly how these poems represent or reflect "national
character" since the early nineteenth century, when epic
studies first began. According to Tillyard, "What most makes
the epic kind is a communal or choric quality. The epic
writer must express the feelings of a large group of people
living in or near his own time" (144) .
What I propose to do differently is to study the same
topic— how epic shows us a people constructing its collective
identity— by turning the material inside out. Instead of
looking to the epic heroes, and the cultural ideals they
embody, I will examine epic characters who are not heroes. If
the heroes of epic are valorous, loyal, noble Christian men,
then all those who are cowardly, treacherous, non-noble,
Saracen, or female, as well as any combination of these, are
non-heroes.
The hero embodies a collective cultural mentality and
set of ideals, which I shall refer to as the Self. Opposed to
the Self is the Other. And the Other, in supplying a
constant, varied source of types such as the traitor, the
pagan, the sorcerer, or the woman, also supplies a source of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
information about what falls within or outside of cultural
boundaries. The representation of alterity in epic is one of
tremendous variety, since it must include so many characters.
The culture producing the epic produces its own criteria of
belonging, through describing its ideals and those of
cultures or beings outside its borders— cultures and beings
who clearly do not belong.
I will group these beings, who are Other, according to
different types of Otherness. This does not mean that a
certain type is more "Other" than a previously mentioned
type, or that the former possesses a greater degree of
generic Otherness, which is stable' in definition and only
changes in quantity. The very definition of Otherness changes
and grows as we encounter and analyze all the different types
of Other that exist in epic. These characters are too "myriad
in difference" to be assigned scores on an invariable
alterity scale.
Each chapter will discuss the characters that I group
within a certain kind of alterity: supernatural liminality;
gender-based liminality; marginality; and Others who shift
their status. Since each kind of alterity has its own
criteria and properties, the last chapter, on the status-
shifters, will assess the complexity of characters who can
change the quality of their difference in such a way as to
affect their belonging or exclusion.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Alterity is not simply a vague notion, but a crucial
factor in epic; the variety of Otherness that I have been
talking about is not simply an array of interesting
characters, but a complex, highly structured system that must
exist as a counterexample to the highly structured system of
the collective who describes the Other. It is a language, or
code, of belonging and exclusion, and the genre that uses
this code in every single one of its poems is responsible for
fashioning and reaffirming boundaries of inclusion and
rejection.
Alterity is not a static concept. It is a mental
phenomenon, bound up with cultural ideas; as these ideas
change, so do definitions of Otherness. The category of
characters who are Other are a large group; this group grows
in size and variety as a result of cultural contact. The more
a culture knows, or thinks it knows, about outside cultures,
the more it must create new divisions and criteria of
belonging and exclusion.
The variety of characters I am including in this study
is tremendous: male and female, Christian and Saracen,
powerful and weak, human, super-human or non-human, of all
ethnicities and social classes. I will not attempt to analyze
any one of these groups in great depth, since that would
affect the proportion of this study, which seeks simply to
demonstrate the variety of representations of alterity in
epic. To study any one group at length would also reproduce
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.