SOURCE: "The Role of the Emir d'outre l'Arbre Sec in Jean Bodel's Jeu de Saint Nicolas," in Australian Journal of French Studies, Vol. XIV, No. 1, January-April, 1977, pp. 3-31.

[In the following essay, Horton considers the role of the Emir d'outre l'Arbre Sec in maintaining structural coherence in Le Jeu de Saint Nicolas.]

Because of a rubricator's error in the unique manuscript of Jean Bodel's Jeu de saint Nicolas, editors of the work have in effect been faced with the problem of deciding whether the one pagan leader who resists conversion at the end of the play is the Emir d'Orkenie or the Emir d'outre l'Arbre Sec. The most recent editor, A. Henry, is the first to retain the manuscript readings for lines 1473 and 1477 while systematically inverting the two names for lines 1493, 1495, 1500, 1501 and 1507,¹ thus making the dissenter the Emir d'outre l'Arbre Sec. In support of this solution he points out that the reference to the great strength of the reluctant convert (1493) indicates the giant.²

It now seems to be generally agreed that Henry is right about where the rubricator made his mistake, and recently critics have argued further that an independent stand against conversion is consistent with the character of Arbre Sec as portrayed in the earlier scenes of the play where significant differences are revealed between him and his peers. Largely on the basis of formal techniques used by Bodel, F. W. Marshall has argued that "progressively Coine, Orkenie, and Oliferne appear as courtiers, flowery in manner and preoccupied exclusively with the King's attitude to them while Arbre Sec is shown as big and clumsy, uncouth, embarrassed by his poverty and lack of courtly graces but single-minded in his loyalty to the cause of Mahommet and possibly fanatical in his hatred of Christianity."³ J. Ch. Payen points out that Arbre Sec "se définit par le fait qu'il est a l'ecart des autres émirs. Convoqué à la cour en même temps qu'eux, il n'apporte pas d'or, mais il commande une formidable armée de géants qui utilisent comme monnaie des pierres à moulin. Or, pour le spectateur médiéval, alors que les autres princes païens évoquent les trésors à conquérir en Orient, il incarne la puissance militaire de l'Islam, en même temps qu'il illustre le fanatisme des Sarrazins."⁴ While the exact nature and extent of Arbre Sec's apartness from the rest of the emir group may be open to question (if he brings no treasure to court, neither does Coine), the fact of it would seem to be beyond dispute.

Any character presented as an odd man out deserves special attention. The purpose of this article is to attempt an evaluation of the role of the Emir d'outre I'Arbre Sec in the Jeu de saint Nicolas and in particular his function in the structural coherence of the play. I shall try to show that from the moment of his first appearance he is carefully groomed for his role in the final scene; that it is virtually impossible for him to do anything else but resist conversion; and that the stand he takes against his overlord and fellow vassals is of vital significance in Bodel's conception of the work as a whole. It will be suggested as a corollary that the selection of Orkenie as the dissenter would not merely have shown an arbitrariness unworthy of Jean Bodel, but would have been entirely inconsistent with his purpose.

An examination of the structure of the emir group will bring into relief patterns of similarity and contrast the significance of which becomes progressively apparent as the drama evolves. Each of the scenes in which the emirs appear will be analysed on its own merits and then related to the context of the Jeu as a whole.

The summoning of the emirs (lines 315-38)

On hearing the news of the Christian invasion, the pagan King of Africa sends his messenger Auberon to collect an army from his vassals. Auberon, having stopped on his way at the Tavern, arrives in the domain of the first emir whence he will proceed to the second, third and fourth.

In this brief but structurally intricate episode Bodel establishes basic frames of reference which will determine and colour all subsequent development of the emir group. It calls for an analysis which cannot be done in separate segments, so I quote it in full.

AUBERONS Mahom saut l'amiral del
          Coine,
         De par le roy, qui sans essoigne
         Li mande qu'en s'aïe viegne!
LI AMIRAUS Auberon, che me di au roy
DEL COINE Je li menrai riche conroi;
          N'iert essoigne qui me retiegne.
AUBERONS Mahom te saut et beneïe,
         Riches amiraus d'Orkenie,
         Par le roy, qui secours te mande!
LI AMARAUS Auberons, Mahom sauve lui!
D'ORKENIE Va t'ent; je men irai ancui,
           Des puis que il le me commande.
AUBERONS Chis Mahommés qui tout
          gouveme
         Te saut, riches roys d'Olifferne,
         De par le roy, qui te semont!
LI AMIRAUS Auberon, che pués le roy dire
D'OLIFERNE Que g'i menrai tout men empire;
           Ne lairoie pour tout le mont.
AUBERONS Amiraus d'outre le Sec Arbre,
         Li roys d'Aïr, Tranle et Arabe,
         Pour le guerre des crestïens,
         Te mande le secours prochain.
LI AMIRAUS Auberon, le matin bien main
DU SEC ARBRE Vous menrai cent mile paiens.
(315-38)

A foundation pattern (a) (1-2-3-4) is established as Auberon meets each of the emirs separately but at the same time strings them together as he passes from one to the other. The antiphonal arrangement of summons and response is maintained from beginning to end.

Hardly less basic and perhaps just as immediate in its impact is a conflicting pattern (b), asymmetrically segmented as 1-2-3/i … In the first three interviews each speaker has three lines of the sextet; in the fourth the four-two division isolates Arbre Sec from the other emirs.

The exclusiveness of the trio Coine-Orkenie-Oliferne is further asserted in that not only is each of its members greeted in the name of Mahomet, as Arbre Sec is not, but a nucleus is created for it when Orkenie in the central position returns the salutation (324). The very name of the Emir d'outre l'Arbre Sec puts him in a category of his own. Whether or not a contemporary audience would have seen in it a more specific reference,⁵ it clearly evokes the back of beyond and, in this context, the outer limits of the Saracen empire.

To (a) and (b) respectively correspond dynamic patterns (A) (in the emirs' speeches) and (B) (in Auberon's), each of which has an ascending and a descending aspect. In (A) the movement is regular and continuous, while in (B) there is a sharp reversal at the end.

Pattern (A) traces a diminishing sense of political obligation calling for personal allegiance to the suzerain as a matter of principle, and a complementary increasing tendency towards self-sufficiency together with a more practical approach to meeting the King's demands. Coine stresses his obedience to the letter of the command. He is told to come "sans essoigne" so, with more than a hint of sycophancy, "N'iert essoigne qui me retiegne". His vague promise of "riche conroi" remains overshadowed by his studied dutifulness. Orkenie still acknowledges feudal duty: he will obey since the King commands it. But in promising to leave promptly and sending Auberon briskly on his way he gives a more solid guarantee of immediate practical aid. Oliferne, dispensing with any formal reference to the King's orders, pledges all the military power under his control. The virtual-actual opposition between Coine's "riche conroi" and Oliferne's "tout men empire" is repeated in the former's "Che me di au roy" and the latter's more self-assured "Che pués le roy dire". Finally Arbre Sec, who has nothing whatever to say of or to the King, promises, with succinct specifications, both promptness and manpower.

The development of this pattern obviously corresponds to the degree of physical remoteness between overlord and vassal as indicated in the order in which Auberon visits the emirs. So too does pattern (B), somewhat less straightforwardly.

In Auberon's address to the first three emirs the (B) movement carries a descending emphasis on the King's summons, which becomes briefer and less explicit, counterbalanced by an ascending emphasis on the greeting in the name of Mahomet, which becomes longer and more elaborate. For Arbre Sec both aspects of the trend are reversed, so that while there is no sign of a salutation he is given a relatively detailed account of who is summoning him and why his help is so urgently needed. It is no longer a question of the demands of "le roy" (the King your overlord) for help in some unspecified conflict, with a more or less extended invocation of a deity less awe-inspiring to the Saracen than the gesture of clicking the nail against the tooth (cf. 198-219): the "roys d'Aïr, Tranle et Arabe" (the head of paienime) needs forces for the war against the Christians. The fourth emir is called upon specifically to help protect paganism against Christianity. It is to this that he responds so readily, and it is in the light of this that his promise of a hundred thousand paiens must be understood.

Already in the first short scene in which the emirs appear Bodel has shown that in terms of ideology the first three represent, in varying proportions of principle and practice, an essentially secular feudalism which is evidently the Saracen norm. Arbre Sec is a defender of his faith first, a feudal baron second. In terms of the formal pattern in which Bodel outlines this situation, the (A) movement carries Arbre Sec beyond Oliferne and the (B) movement, disengaging him from the linear sequence, throws him back beyond Coine to give him a potential frame of reference more comprehensive than that in which the other three emirs collectively operate. In this situation correspondences are likely between Orkenie as the central, or average, component of the emir triad and Arbre Sec. The one answers Mahom with Mahom, the other crestïens with paiens.… The dominant position of the fourth emir is matched by a physique which the audience will already have seen even if the reader has not.…

Prior to the summoning of the emirs, the normal order of values in the Saracen ethos has already been established in Palace and Tavern. At the very beginning of the Jeu Auberon's announcement of the enemy invasion provides an immediate exposition of Palace priorities which is later amplified in his meetings with the King's vassals:

Roys, chil Mahom qui te fist né
Saut et gart toi et ten barné
Et te doinst forche de resqueurre
De chiaus qui te sont courut seure
Et te terre escillent et proient
Et nos dieus n'onneurent ne proient,
Ains sont crestïen de put lin!
(115-21)

The ensuing comic scene between the King, the god Tervagant and the Seneschal (122-224) states the position even more unequivocally, while also developing emphasis on material values. The Seneschal who cringes before the petulant tyrant is even more in awe of the golden idol. Alternately insulted and appeased by the King, the monstrously ugly Tervagant is a symbol of wealth which is also expected to save the Saracens from the invaders. A literally man-made deity, Tervagant can be melted down if he proves unsatisfactory (134 ff.). As for the powers of "Chil Mahom qui te fist né",⁶ they are, as has already been mentioned in connection with the emirs, quaintly limited. The Palace society Bodel is depicting—in caricature—is one founded on political hierarchy, worship of wealth and, existing primarily to serve both, a corrupt, confused and superficial sense of spiritual values.

The same ingredients go into the making of the Tavern society—imported wholesale from Arras but flourishing in its pagan environment—through which Auberon passes on his way to the emirs (251-314). If the sovereign Tavernkeeper does not hold quite the same immediate sway over his subject clientele that the King does over his vassals, his power over them is more overtly materialistic. Fresh from the Palace, Auberon is at home in the Tavern, and gets a free drink by playing to its rules. On this occasion little is revealed about the religious attitudes of the Tavern; later, in moments of crisis, the casual quality of its religion will be amply demonstrated. When Auberon proceeds from the Tavern to the lands of the emirs, he meets in the first three only what he is accustomed to and adapts his approach to a fourth who, as his name implies, is very nearly beyond the pale.

The arrival of the emirs at court and their briefing for the battle (lines 349-95)

This scene will be chiefly remarkable for the intensifying among the emirs of the accent on wealth, an aspect of the Saracen ethos already highlighted in Palace and Tavern. The order of appearance remains as before, and it is Coine, representing almost pure principle, who reaches the King first and triumphantly proclaims what he stands for:

Roys, d'Apolin et de Mahom
Te salu con tes liges hom,
Car venus sui a ten commant;
Jel doi faire par estouvoir
(349-52)

The wording of the King's acknowledgement ("Biaus amis, vous faites savoir; / Tous jours venés quant je vous mant "(353-54)) appears to suggest to Coine that his approach has been too theoretical and generalised. In hastening to reformulate it on more pertinent lines, he then launches a series of amusingly self-laudatory speeches in which each of the first three emirs explains (i) where he comes from, and (ii) what good value the King is getting from him. Orkenie and Oliferne, a little more reticent that Coine, wait until they are invited to speak.

LI AMIRAUS (i)Rois, d'assés outre Pré Noiron,
DEL COINE     La terre ou croissent li ourton,
              Sui venus pour vostre menache.
357
          (ii) A grant tort jamais me harrés:
               Venus sui a cauchiers ferrés,
               Trente journees parmi glache.
360
LI ROIS Di, qui sont chil en chele
         rengue?
LI AMRMAUS (i)Sire, d'outre Grise Wallengue,
D'ORECENIE     La ou li chien esquitent l'or.
363
          (ii)Moi devés vous forment amer,
              Car je vous faç venir par mer
              Cent navees de mon tresor.
366
LI ROIS Segneur, de vo paine ai grant
         pec.
        Et dont iés tu?
LI AMIRAUS (i)         Roys, d'outre Mec,
D'OLIFERNE Unes terres ardans et caudes.
369
          (ii)Ne sui mie vers vous escars,
              Car je vous amain trente cars
              Plains de rubis et d'esmeraudes.
372

A minor descending movement in (i) taking "la terre ou …" to "la ou …" to "unes terres …" hints at a decreasing sense of territorial pride. If the remainder of lines 356, 363 and 369 follow the same trend, Coine's mysterious "ourton", though unlikely to represent anything supernatural (cf. below), must be something even more impressive in their way than Orkenie's dogs which "esquitent l'or". They may even represent a deliberate mystification. In any event, the verbs "croissent" and "esquitent" denote descending stages in the life process. No productivity at all is associated with Oliferne's place of origin, which is intensely hot and no doubt barren.

In section (ii) Coine stresses the personal physical ordeal he has been through in coming here for the King's sake, and Orkenie plays up the vast treasure he is having sent by sea. Oliferne's treasure, all in precious stones, is immediately available. The degree of complacency with which each of the three assesses the value of his own contribution (358, 364,370) is proportionate to the extent of its material content. Coine's tone is anxious, Orkenie appears more confident. Oliferne's "Ne sui mie vers vous escars" could as well be patronising as ingratiating. Being in effect "made of money", he is assured of his own value. The King's "Segneur, de vo paine ai grant pec" (367) is for the benefit of his colleagues only. Oliferne's relative offhandedness about his country in (i) is explained by (ii): his wealth liberates him from the necessity of identifying himself with part of the King's empire. Coine and Orkenie, on the other hand, carry over their preoccupation with their countries from (i) to (ii). Coine brings his to court with him as he insists on the rigours of his journey away from it, and Orkenie is having a consigmnent of the produce of his sent after him.

With adjustments appropriate to the new circumstances, the emir triad again expresses the principle and practice of Saracen feudalism along the lines laid down in their interviews with Auberon. Their roles in the x-xy-y pattern are summarised in Coine's insistent "venus sui…" "Sui venus …", "Venus sui" (351,357, 359), Orkenie's "Je vous faç venir …" (365), and Oliferne's "je vous amain …" (371).

In the central position the hundred shiploads of golden excrement which are on their way from the land of Orkenie recreate the phenomenon of Tervagant, an institution grotesquely enshrined in gold, cherished and despised—the core of Saracen life as painted by Bodel. It is in this scene that the emir triad comes closest to a parallel with that of King-Tervagant-Seneschal in the first scene of the play. There the x-xy-y structure becomes evident when the King tells the god—a character of the play in his own right—which oracular signs to use and the Seneschal interprets them (180 ff.). In addition the Seneschal plays the role of promoter of the material aspect of the god (162-63).

Looking further ahead, another parallel offers itself in the trio of thieves. Their organisation is more complex than that of the emirs ever becomes, simply because Bodel allows them more space to develop permutations of their principal roles; but a not over-simplified view of their functions reveals Cliket, the talker and trendsetter, as the one who, like Coine in this scene, has the most direct dealings with higher authority (the Tavernkeeper and Caignet). Rasoir, the only one to hear of the availability of the King's treasure, is the provider of easy wealth; and Pincedé in the middle carries the treasure on his shoulders. But the weight of the treasure taxes even Pincedé's quasi-superhuman strength to its limit (1007-12). In accepting it down to the escrin he assumes the same risk that Tervagant does when another layer of gold is added to his bulging cheeks, and the same one that Orkenie does when he adopts as "mon tresor" wealth in the form of a gilded scatological fossil. Through Palace, Tavern and Empire, the decadent pagan system carries the seeds of its own ruin. The principle, already corrupt, is threatened with extinction under the burden of its material expression. For the time being the threat is held off. The system is safe so long as there is a balanced distribution of its elements, more specifically so long as wealth continues to be combined with activity at its centre of gravity.

To return to the emirs at court. With the conclusion of Oliferne's speech Palace and Empire are integrated. Arbre Sec remains an incongruity to those who know nothing of what lies beyond the withered tree:

LI ROIS             Et tu qui m'esgardes
                     alec,
                    Dont iés tu?
LI AMIRAUS D'OUTRE           D'outre I'Abre
                               Sec.
L'ARBRE SEC         Ne sai comment rien
                     vous donroie,       375
                    Car en no païs n'a
                     monnoie
                    Autres que pierres de
                     moelin.
LI ROIS             Ostés!pour men dieu
                     Mahommet,
                    Confait avoir chis me
                     premet!
                    Bien sai que jamais
                     povres n'iere.     380
LI AMIRAUS D' OUTRE  Sire, ne vous mentirai
                      rien:
L' ARBRE SEC         En no pals emporte rien
                     Uns hom cent saus en
                      s'aumoniere.       383

Some critics have suggested a missing line which, supplied between 374 and 375, would rhyme with the apparently orphan "moelin" and restore the normal aabccb scheme.⁷ Others have suggested that the gap is intentional.⁸ Certainly a line corresponding in content to "La terre ou …" etc. of the other emirs⁹ seems quite uncalled for. Apart from the fact that Arbre Sec cannot be expected to mimic the others, the "missing information" is to be found elsewhere as an organic part of his argument. Besides, the extra line would detract from the baldness of his reply "D'outre l'Abre Sec" (374), surely intentional as it is introduced by neither "Rois" nor "Sire". The pattern "Rois"—"Sire"—"Roys"—"Sire" (linking Arbre Sec with Orkenie) is completed in line 381. On the other hand, a planned silence the equivalent of one line (during which perhaps Arbre Sec might approach the King from "alec" (373)) would greatly enhance the sense of a disconcerting, almost alien presence in the court. This is already conveyed in the uneasiness of the King's "Et tu qui m'esgardes alec …".

However it may be, we can only take the text as we find it. The motifs of provenance and product are completely integrated in Arbre Sec. At the end of an ascending (B) movement the increase in independence of the sections (i) and (ii) is reversed, and they become indistinguishable. Instead Arbre Sec has two separate speeches.

The fourth emir puts new wine into old bottles. He shares his country with his subjects: "en no pais" (376 repeated in 382). As representative of this country he puts forward not himself but "uns homn" (383). His answer to the gaudy, vicariously-produced "Cent navees de mon tresor" is "cent saus" of a currency bearing the stamp of hard, unpretentious labour yielding nothing that glitters but daily bread for the nourishment of a potentially powerful army. This kind of fruitful labour also contrasts with Coine's exertions, all devoted so far to getting to the court and to verbal re-enactment of his efforts. Instead of Oliferne's effortlessly-produced cartloads of precious stones he produces the strength that can carry effortlessly pursefuls of millstones.

The elements of the ideological system analysed in the first three emirs are once again synthesised in Arbre Sec and refracted into a new perspective—of which the relevant trait at the moment is that it is better adapted to the killing of Christians. In the dominant (B) movement, descending in work, ascending in wealth, the whole series "Trente journees"—"Cent navees …"—"trente cars …" (360, 366, 371-2) is devalued against "cent saus en s'aumoniere".

As a giant, Arbre Sec has in common with Orkenie what the latter shares with Tervagant and even Pincede:¹⁰ the element of the supernatural that consecrates the central ambivalence of every established group of three and produces a set of triptychs:

King	Tervagant	Seneschal
Cliket	Pincedé	Rasoir
Coine	Orkenie	Olifeme
	Arbre Sec

Arbre Sec remains an anomaly in that unlike the other central figures he is not a bearer of gold.

The King, who took Orkenie in his stride, naturally sees Arbre Sec as a freak, and is impervious to the hint of parody in the latter's words. In reply to Arbre Sec's first speech, his sarcastic witticism "Confait avoir chis me premet!" is calculated to keep him at third person distance while drawing his conventional vassals closer to him.

The parade of the vassals complete, they are briefed by the Seneschal for the battle against the Christians (390-94). Even now, the fact of a conflict between two faiths is overshadowed by that of the King's authority: "Ales i maintenant, li roys l'a commandé". The battle is presented as something the King has decreed shall take place. For the first time all the emirs can unite at least superficially and the scene concludes with their chorus: "Alons, a Mahommet soiions nous commandé!" (395).

Between this scene and the next one featuring the emirs comes the much-discussed "epic" scene in which the Christian warriors prepare for the battle (396-435). Its interest in the context of this discussion lies in its function as a transitional episode. It first of all throws into relief the expedient quality—for all except Arbre Sec—of the emirs' chorus at the end of the scene before. Whereas they spoke with one voice only perfunctorily and after being bundled "tous ensanle" by their superiors, the Christians start with a relatively extended display of their sense of oneness in their crusade (396-400). Their unanimity is expressed through a harmonic arrangement more convincing than the emirs' mechanical unison. Among the Christians all can speak for one and one for all. It is as a breakdown of "no proueche" (cf. Arbre Sec's "no païs") that, anonymously, "uns crestïens" (cf. Arbre Sec's "uns hom") and "uns crestiens nouviaus chevaliers" state their confidence in their individual prowess (401-11). Their gabs, if such they are, remain organically related to a whole working harmoniously "el Damedieu serviche", and only serve to strengthen the whole, as on the superhuman level does the visit of the Angel with a message of inspiration for everyone "Qui Dieu aime de cuer et croit" (423).

The emirs prepare for the battle (lines 436-453)

The behaviour of the emirs before the battle must now be seen in the perspective of that of their Christian adversaries. Coine is the first to speak as usual and takes a whole sextet. Two more sextets are divided equally between Orkenie and Coine, Oliferne and Arbre Sec, so that once more Arbre Sec has the last word. Allowing for the change of environment in the transposition of the emirs from throne-room to battlefield, Coine, Orkenie and Oliferne continue to play their usual roles. In the absence of a superior authority, Coine attempts to assume vice-regal powers:

Segneur, je sui tous li ainnés,
Si ai maint bel conseil donnés,
Creés moi, che sera vos preus:
Chevalier sommes esprouvé;
Se li crestien sont trouvé,
Gardés qu'il n'en escap uns seus.
(436-441)

The "je" which dominates Coine's speech from the first line is without foundation in a cooperative spirit like that of the Christians and his "Chevalier sommes esprouve", besides being probably just a sop to the others' vanity, has only generalised past reference. The cause in the name of which he assumes authority is for him only a pretext for trying to make vassals of his colleagues. His attitude is the signal for the emergence of a latent rivalry between members of the emir trio. Orkenie chooses to assert his own ego instead of submitting to Coine's:

Escaper, li fil a putain!
Je ferrai si le premerain.
Mais gardes que nus n'en estorge.
(442-44)

His originality is limited. It peters out as he lamely echoes his senior's exhortation to spare no Christian. Coine is stung to counter and better Orkenie's boast; he has been caught napping and hastens to compensate for his omission:

Segneur, ne soiés ja doutant
Que jou n'en ochie autretant
Con Berengiers soiera d'orge.
(445-47)

Oliferne, less concerned to distinguish himself as a man of action, is detached enough to see what the other two are about; but he scores in his own way by pointing it out to them:

Segneur tuëour, entre vous
Ochirrés les ore si tous
Que vous ne m'en lairés aucun?
(448-50)

His "Segneur tueour …", reminiscent of the King's "Segneur, de vo paine …" (367), again groups Coine and Orkenie together and apart from him. The significance of this subdivision of the group will soon become apparent.

Arbre Sec remains entirely aloof from the rivalry being indulged in by his companions. No doubt it is because he has not been distracted by it that he is the one to see the Christians approaching. At the sight of them his hitherto flat, unemotional style turns to one of excited urgency:

Veés ichi le gent haïe!
Li chevalier Mahom, aïe!
Ferés, ferées, tout de commun!
(451-53)

In his appeal "Li chevalier Mahom, aïe!" which recalls the Christians' "Sains Sepulcres, aïe!" (396), Arbre Sec shows a feeling for Mahomet unique among the Saracens. From being little more than a name to greet with or swear by, he has become a cause to fight for. On Arbre Sec's lips the significance of the verb "ferir", already used by Orkenie in the first person (443), is transformed by the "tout de commun" which, contrasting so sharply with the prevailing Saracen mood, echoes the spirit in which the Christians approached the battle. Pattern (b) shows Arbre Sec as the only Saracen diametrically opposed to the crusaders, the only one who in the fighting that is about to begin will meet the enemy on their own terms. On the reversal of the descending (B) movement of personal authority, Arbre Sec assumes command, momentarily confronting Coine across a sort of split-level chiasmus as he rallies the whole group at the moment of truth. Arbre Sec becomes eventually the leader of men whom spiritually he carries as passengers. If they respond to his call, it is not truly to his cause, for they do not speak the same language.

The numerical odds are overwhelmingly against the Christians: "Or tuent li sarrasin tous les crestïens."

The discovery of the Preudom and the St. Nicolas and their arrival at the Palace (lines 454-501)

The emirs' discovery of the Preudom and the St Nicolas is obviously a critical moment in the Jesu Tervagant's prediction of a Saracen military victory having been realised, the discovery clearly marks the beginning of a new phase which the audience knows must end in the fulfilment of the negative part of the god's prophecy. For this reason alone, the emirs perhaps deserve more attention than they have usually received.

With the progress of the action culminating in the battle, the Emir del Coine, a traditionalist better at proclaiming principles than practising them, has had to work harder to maintain his position at the head of the emir group. Even on his arrival at court he needed two bites at the cherry, his first swaggering protestations of loyalty being already out of date in the circumstances. His trite theorising on the battlefield caused him to miss the chance of a gab; to recuperate it he had to settle for the number two position in the group, and was clearly flustered. Now that the battle has been won, Coine rushes off ahead of the others in order to be the first at the Palace with news of the victory. Ironically, in doing so he finally dislodges himself from the very position he is trying to safeguard. In his absence¹¹ the others discover something that is to make him completely obsolete:

LI AMIRAUS D'ORQUENIE Segneur baron, acoures
tost!
PAROLE Toutes les merveilles de
l'ost
Sont tout gas fors de
che caitif.
Ves chi un grant vilain
kenu,
S'aoure un mahommet
cornu.
Ochirrons le ou
prenderons vif?
CII. D'OLIFERNE N' en ochirrons mie, par
foy,
Ains le menrons devant
le roy,
Pour merveille, che te
promet.
Lieve sus, vilain, si t'en
vien!
CII. DU SEC ARBRE Segneur, or le tenés
mout bien,
Et je tenrai le
mahommet.
(454-65)

The reaction of Orkenie and Oliferne to the novelty they have found is essentially that of the King to Arbre Sec and his millstones: derision with a touch of nervousness. They are drawn together by it, and the former uneasy Coine-Orkenie affinity is replaced by an Orkenie-Oliferne conspiracy.

Orkenie, indecisive without a lead from Coine, hesitates between the two traditional ways of dealing with a helpless enemy. He knows that he is dealing with something out of the ordinary but does not know how to cope with it, so he passes the decision down the line to Oliferne. We saw in the pre-battle episode that Oliferne would rather be amused than distinguish himself as a tuëour; now he sees the entertainment value of "un grant vilain kenu" praying to a "mahommet cornu" and makes the crucial decision accordingly. Such a choice item of booty, he thinks, should be presented to the King as a curiosity.

The reification of the old man with his statue is begun by Orkenie and completed by Oliferne. So long as Coine remained with the group, the internal x-xy/-y tension, however strained, ensured the control of the emir system from its source, and thus its vitality. The loss of Coine, significantly a result of the confrontation with the Christians, allows idle materialism to take over. The vulnerability of the pagan system to too heavy a weighting of the material has already been suggested. If Orkenie's first idea, to kill the Preudom, had been carried out, Coine's instruction—echoed by Orkenie himself—to let no Christian escape would have been respected. As it is, Oliferne's question "Ochirres les ore si tous / Que vous ne m'en lairés aucun?" has been answered in the negative. When Oliferne chooses to take the Preudom back to the Palace as a merveille, he is also effecting the infiltration into the heart of pagan society of the phoenix that rose from the ashes of the vanquished Christians. If the Seneschal has not so far succeeded in destroying Tervagant under an excessive weight of gold, Oliferne, newly invested with a role of counsellor-interpreter similar to the Seneschal's, has taken an irrevocable step in that direction. The presence of St Nicolas in the Palace will subject the Palace god to an intolerable strain. Tervagant had wept because the King would abandon him; St Nicolas is on his way to threaten him because Coine has already abandoned Orkenie.

Arbre Sec cooperates with Orkenie and Oliferne in taking the Preudom and the statue to the King. He too fails to recognise the enemy in this guise as a danger. But when the simple giant enters the Palace clutching the little "mahommet", so laughably unimpressive in Saracen eyes, perhaps the audience will remember that on the last occasion he was here he was subjected to the same kind of taunts as those the old Christian and his statue now have to suffer.¹²

Before the King sees the new arrivals, Coine has time to say his piece, laying his account of the Saracen victory as a trophy at the King's feet (496-501). This is the last we hear from any of the emirs until the final conversion scene. But since, as I hope to show, they all have Tavern counterparts who take over their roles, we must follow the action out of the Palace into the Tavern and back again.

To the audience, Coine's statement that the war is over is manifestly inaccurate. To the King, a report of the Saracen victory already seems superfluous when he sees what the other emirs have brought him (502 ff.). Oliferne's judgment was sound. The King's obvious fascination with the merveille prompts the Seneschal to claim the find as his own (508-13). If it was, he was certainly not an active participant in the discussion about what to do with it; but, apeing what he has already heard said, he too harps on the absurdity of the spectacle. Bodel evidently wants to drive home a point here about the Saracen attitude—the ironical reverse side of the sort of misguidedness that earlier produced apologies to Tervagant "A nus keutes, a nus genous". The audience is to be aware that in the subsequent conversation between the King and the Preudom, the King continues to display the upside down values typical of the Saracens.

As chief representative of principle in the pagan world, the King cannot remain content to treat the emirs' find as nothing more than a visual joke. He wants to know how such a pathetic apology for a god as St Nicolas "works". The Preudom enumerates the saint's powers. First of all he is the saint "Qui les desconsillies secourt" (518 ff.). As P. R. Vincent has pointed out, the claim that the palace full of gold would be safe in St Nicolas' keeping "seems to be almost an afterthought, merely a concrete illustration of his power in general, added in desperation by the Preudom in an attempt to impress the King".¹³ But the King, in the manner of Panurge when he ignores all Rondibilis' remedies against concupiscence until he comes to the last, the venereal,¹⁴ disregards everything but the concrete example. There is only one yardstick by which to measure a gift from Oliferne (and the Seneschal). The King resolves to test St Nicolas by entrusting him with the guardianship of his treasure. For this second round of the contest, the King has cleverly hedged his bets.¹⁵ If St Nicolas fails, Oliferne's judgement can still be overruled and the last surviving Christian will die. If St Nicolas wins the game, he can be absorbed into the pagan system as a proven champion of Saracen materialism, an improved version of Tervagant. Either way the test he is to be subjected to must be a stern one.

The relevance of Orkenie's and Oliferne's contribution to the war is now clear: in this round, the Saracen defence is to be paid for in gold and jewels if necessary. When the crier Connart proclaims the availability of the treasure (576-87) and issues the open invitation "Et qui le puet embler, si l'emble", he is officially recruiting to the pagan cause on behalf of its directors the professional services of thieves to replace those of the warrior emirs. The odds against the Christian saint will be ostensibly as high as the hundred to one military odds by which the Christian army was wiped out.

The Tavern is at hand to answer the summons. Although there can be no open alliance between the Palace and the pagan underworld, there is no mistaking the fact that the Tavern is engaged by the Palace to act on its behalf. Connart follows up his proclamation by making personal contact with representatives of the Tavern. He and Raoul the wine-crier meet halfway when in the street they dispute territorial rights. Caignet calls the Tavernkeeper, in agreeing to whose arbitration Connart, not without some swallowing of pride, hands over the action from Palace to Tavern (594-641). Like Auberon who has been there before him testing the climate, Connart makes contact with the Tavern on his own initiative, not according to any instructions from his superiors. The relegation downwards of responsibility for action is more or less underhanded when it involves a physical relocation; but it began openly enough with the passing of the custody of the Preudom to the Arrageois servant of the Palace, Durant (538). The withdrawal of the Palace from direct action is sealed in Connart's final words to Raoul: "Pais en est, va ten vin crier."¹⁶ By this time the Palace proper is asleep (cf. already 566). Since the arrival of St Nicolas the struggle against the Christian invasion has been half-hearted and also half-conscious. Its progress for the next 542 lines will only be dreamed in the Palace.¹⁷

The Tavern-dwellers being hybrid Saracen-Frenchmen, a move away from paganism in its original pure Saracen form is already being explored.¹⁸ It was foreshadowed in the first Tavern scene in which Auberon showed his familiarity with St Benedict (254); and Connart has just identified himself as crier not to the King of Africa but "as eskievins de la chite" (600-01). Since Raoul is "as homes de le vile" (606), this also reflects the passing of responsibility from a higher to a lower form of the same system.¹⁹

Inside the Tavern, the formation of the group of larrons is effected smoothly and rapidly. The groundwork for it was done in the first Tavern scene in which it was shown that the Tavernkeeper was fully accustomed to dealing with a clientele short of both money and scruples, and in which Cliket was introduced. In that scene the motivation was indicated for the eventual stealing of the treasure; now the machinery is added. Cliket is joined by Pincedé (661-64) and then by Rasoir (711-19). The manner in which they greet one another—before there has been any mention of the treasure—shows that this is no ad hoc arrangement. The easy passage from "je tous seus" (662) to "nous deus" (663) to "compaignon tout troi" (719) was predetermined.

Into each of these connections is plugged a second lead linking Palace and Tavern. The difficult client in the first scene was Auberon, and it was the chance of a dice game with him that conjured up Cliket. Now Pincede is attracted to the Tavern by the crying of the wine (642 ff.) to which Connart has just given the seal of his approval. Rasoir has come especially to find Cliket and Pincedé because—as is soon revealed (772 ff.)—he has heard Connart's proclamation and needs the others to help steal the treasure.

Insofar as all reference must ultimately be back to the Palace, the structure of the Tavern society emerges as a shadow version of that of Palace cum Empire²⁰ established when the emirs arrived at court and were briefed for the battle:

King…	(Auberon)…	Tavernkeeper
Seneschal…	(Connart/Raoul)…	Caignet
Coine		Cliket
Orkenie		Pincedé
Oliferne		Rasoir
Arbre Sec		Durant

This is the complete Saracen answer to the Christian metamorphosis of the aristocratic crusaders into a simple old man and a popular saint. A detailed comparison of the two sets of characters would be out of place here. Briefly: the special relationship between the King and Coine is paralleled with the Tavernkeeper and Cliket, the only two Tavern representatives to meet Auberon in the first Tavern scene. Like the Seneschal, Caignet looks after the practical side of his employer's business. He sometimes, but not invariably, acts as intermediary between the Tavernkeeper and his customers. Like the King, the Tavernkeeper stays on his home ground, and like the emirs the thieves are workers in the field. The "service" owed to the Tavernkeeper is of course overtly and solely monetary: the theft is carried out largely to satisfy his demands on his customers' empty pockets. The Tavern-dwellers (excluding Durant) are nominally Christians and are shown to be at least the equals of their Palace counterparts in religious shallowness and sacrilegiousness (cf. for instance 988-91).

The special parallelism between the emir trio and the three larrons was touched on earlier. Although it is Rasoir who has heard about the treasure, he does not on that account assume the position of "tous li ainnés". The chronological order in which the three are introduced remains the key to the way in which the group functions. The treasure is a godsend to those in need (772-73), and Cliket as the one in the stickiest financial position (666) initiates the action of the theft (953-58). Rasoir backs him up, but with emphasis on the gaaing itself (959 ff). The main role of Pincede is, as noted earlier, intermediate between those of the other two.

Durant takes over Arbre Sec's unique unconcern with wealth and hatred of Christians. His physical size and strength are indicated in the Preudom's fearful "Sire, con vo machue est grosse!" (544). Though he is of the Tavern stock he is accommodated at the Palace end of the Palace-Tavern continuum; but like Arbre Sec he is a fringe-dweller, reigning over a personal kingdom which has only a superficial bond with the Palace.

Far from monopolising the energies of the trio of thieves, the theft is integrated in their normal activities of drinking and dicing. The besants from the King's treasury simply provide real money for them to gamble with and become drunk on. While they are actually stealing the treasure, they work together in amicable harmony for the good of all, whereas dicing and drinking cause discord. But either way the group remains for a time vital and in good working order. As the emir triad remained functional as long as its normal centre of gravity was undisturbed, so do the larrons. Pincedé not only carries the treasure, helped by the other two, but is involved in both the major quarrels that erupt over the dice. Before the theft he disputes Cliket's right to the stakes (899-952), and after it the same with Rasoir (1139-70). The first quarrel is settled by Caignet who decrees that the deniers be shared, "Car se li uns les avoit tous, / Che seroit ja uns mautalens" (943-44). The second time the Tavernkeeper decides that all the besants must be put back in the chest: "Comme devant resoit communs" (1176). It is in his interests that the equilibrium of the group be safeguarded.

But there are ominous signs. It is only with reluctance that Rasoir agrees to let the Tavernkeeper settle the dispute (1170). The theft, successfully accomplished despite St Nicolas (at whose image Rasoir jeers just as the Palace did), duplicated the emirs' apparent victory over the Christian faith, and as the counterpart of Oliferne Rasoir is likely to get his way in the end. The shift within the group of the x-xy/-y weighting before the theft to x-/xy-y after it is reflected in incidents other than the two quarrels. Before the theft Cliket and Pincedé decide between them what kind of dice game will be played (870-71); afterwards it is Pincedé and Rasoir who decide (1059-62). In the matter of drinking (with which both quarrels are associated), the bar re marks the middle of the winebarrel. Before the theft Cliket, Pincede and then Rasoir are content with the wine as it comes, presumably from above the barre;²¹ afterwards it is Rasoir who asks Caignet to tilt the broche so that they may taste the more highly-prized tourbke from below it (1030-31, 1037-38). The thicker wine makes for thicker heads (cf 268-69), and Pincedé's exertions have left him with a gargantuan thirst (1022-24, 1047-52). Just as he would not leave the treasure-chest behind, he is ready to consume the tankard with the wine. Significantly, it is Cliket, no doubt already drunk himself, who jokingly warns him against it. All this ends in satisfaction for Rasoir when, resisting the Tavernkeeper's demand that the treasure be shared out as promised, he procrastinates.

Ostes, un petit entendés!
Nous sommes auques travilliet,
S'avommes toute nuit veilliet.
Bien partironmies comme ami,
Mais nous arons anchois dormi.
(1179-83)

No-one disputes Rasoir's judgement now. The effort to keep the eschekier level (1072 ff.) has at last been abandoned. In falling asleep over the undisturbed treasure the group has settled for inactive wealth and placed itself in the same vulnerable position reached earlier on the Palace level.²² Perhaps the substitution for Pincedé's dice, which he claimed were "drois et quemuns", of a set tested by the eschievins (825 ff., 1053-54) helped to ensure it.

The Tavern can go no further under remote control from the Palace. As soon as the thieves fall asleep the Seneschal wakes and, after ascertaining that the treasure is indeed gone as he had dreamed, rouses the King, who is again faced with the dilemma: to kill or not to kill the Christian. Again he fails to act decisively against the enemy. When the Preudom begs for more time, the King's initial resolution to destroy him (1207) softens, not into compassion or even hope for the return of his lost treasure, but into a procrastinating lassitude like that of the drowsy thieves:

Que caut? Durant, laisse le hui mais,
Et le matin le me ramaine.
(1233-4)

Just as Arbre Sec had done earlier, Durant unwittingly promotes the cause of Christianity. In his case it is the tirant's preference for torture over quick death (cf 1224-25, 547-49) that is self-defeating.²³

While the Palace dozes off again the thieves are wakened by St Nicolas in person²⁴ and made to return what they have stolen. Pincedé's bold suggestion that they each take a handful of the treasure before putting it back is rejected, and the chance of a token distribution which would have rendered St Nicolas' miracle invalid (cf. 536-37, 568-69) is allowed to slide. In their defeat the thieves lose more than they had gained, as Pincedé points out (1334). A fearful Tavernkeeper banishes them from his house and Cliket leaves his cloak behind to cover the debts of all three. Pincedé was correct on both counts when, before the treasure was ever mentioned, he told Rasoir "nous comprons vo ricoise, / Qui ne nous est mie commune" (763-64). The unanimous decision that it would be safer for each to go his own way in future completes the disintegration of the Tavern world which has stood in for the Palace and is now dispensible. The thieves are unregenerate; they are right in not associating the fright St Nicolas has given them with the normal moral or physical dangers of thieving. Their calling has been used for a higher purpose and their conversion to an honest way of life would have been no less inappropriate than their hanging (cf. 1282-84). As they separate on the final "A Dieu" (1377), the Palace comes back to life ready to resume the action permanently, to take over the Tavern's defeat and translate it into their own language. On the Palace level everything is now ready for the conversion to St Nicolas.

Up to this point in the play, Bodel's method has been first to establish the motivation and sense of direction of pagan society, to show a vulnerable but still viable organism operating on the two partially interchangeable levels of rulers and people and only then to expose it to the direct influence of Christianity at work. Theoretically the pagan system could have rejected the hostile Christian element in its second manifestation after the battle as it had destroyed the crusading army, but in practice it was predisposed to accept it. It puts the Preudom and St Nicolas on trial, but the pagan machinery itself is geared to provide for their vindication. Tervagant made his prophecy before the Angel did. St Nicolas adapts his language to that of the Tavern. While taking nothing away from the power of Christianity to change the world, Bodel has always shown it as working with, never against, the grain of its medium.²⁵

At the present stage, this means that St Nicolas, in thwarting those who pursue wealth illicitly, has demonstrated his ability to safeguard the interests of those who do the same thing legitimately. The Christian audience will know that the restoration of the stolen treasure was only incidental to the saving of a supplicant, but for the time being the Saracens are not expected to judge the significance of the miracle by any criteria other than their own traditional ones. In approaching the conversion scene, we remember that the traditional criteria of the pagan mainstream were never those of the Emir d'outre l'Arbre Sec.

The conversion of the Saracen leaders (lines 1378-1533)

As the Tavern version of the pagan world breaks up, the Palace, rising reinvigorated from its sleep, reconstitutes itself piece by piece on the Tavern model which was also originally its own. An immediate hint of the restoration of the old order comes with the restoration of the treasure. Between the theft and St Nicolas' visit to the thieves, it was the Seneschal who led the Palace into its brief and inconclusive action, because it was, appropriately, he who dreamed of the disappearance of the treasure. His dream of its return is surpassed by the King's dream of a "couronne nouvele", and now it is the King who goes to wake the Seneschal instead of vice versa.

Ecstatic at finding that the treasure has been doubled, the Seneschal is apparently ready to offer his devotion to St Nicolas on those grounds alone (1438-41). The King is more circumspect. He first orders the Seneschal to bring the Preudom, and the last Tavern element is dismissed from service when Durant is told to release him, since "II n'a mais garde de ton cors" (1403). It is not until the King has made sure that the Christian's faith in St Nicolas is still intact that he is ready to announce his own belief in the saint. But even though he goes further than the more limited Seneschal in relating the return of the treasure to the saint's wider powers, the miracle that he has actually witnessed is still uppermost in his deliberations (1430-34). Since the treasure was in fact stolen, St Nicolas has shown not merely that anything put under his guard is safe, but that he can restore what has been lost (cf. the Preudom's speech, 518 ff.). The King appreciates that he has been given more than he asked for. This is the real sense—or the beginning of it—of the doubling of the treasure which the Seneschal interpreted in purely concrete terms.²⁶ Nevertheless, the King's judgement that "Assés sont li miracle apert, / Puisqu'i fait avoir che c'on pert" (1432-33) reminds us of Rasoir's "Car recouvrees sont nos pertes. / Les granges Dieu sont aouvertes" (772-73). The King is only one step ahead of a simple equation of material abundance and religious satisfaction. When he sends for the St Nicolas promising that "Son bon ferai sans contredit" (1443), he is still acting as a pagan.

Before the King formally confesses his conversion to the saint, Durant, done out of the pleasure of torturing the Preudom to death, growls out a forewarning that St Nicolas has not necessarily met the requirements of those living on the fringe of the Palace world:

Crestïens, crestïens, duel ai
De chou que tant ai respité.
(1454-55)

So far he is the only person present who regrets his part in the series of respits, the withholding of action which has enabled St Nicolas to bring about the—as yet superficial—change of heart now being generally welcomed. But, like the Tavern-dwellers, he is only small fry and can safely be ignored.

The Preudom has exhorted the King to surrender himself to God and St Nicolas (1451-53). Throughout the play Bodel has stressed the derivative nature of the saint's powers.²⁷ But the King is not yet able to see beyond the Christian saint to the Christian God, and he remains true to form in acknowledging only the more superficial aspect of the Preudom's advice:

Sains Nicolais, je me rent chi
En te garde et en te merchi,
Sans fausseté et sans engan.
Sire, chi devieng jou vostre hom,
Si lais Apolin et Mahom
Et che pautonnier Tervagan.
(1456-61)

The renunciation of Apolin and Mahomet is no more than a formality. All the evidence of the Jeu suggests that these two deities had only a very nebulous existence in the typical Saracen mind. As for the all too solid Tervagant, the King has been provoked before into insulting and threatening to destroy him (134 ff.). He has not yet shown convincingly that he has abandoned Tervagant.

The Seneschal loses no time in following the King's example, characteristically paraphrasing his words. The harmonising of the interests of political loyalty (and expediency) and materialism gives him a new security. Old patterns which had been disrupted are being reset on a stronger basis. The Emir del Coine, his adherence to the principle of feudal duty now standing him in good stead, can resume with confidence in the King's approval his role as trend-setter for his fellow-vassals:

Rois, puisque tu convertis iés,
Nous, qui de toi tenons nos fiés,
Aussi nous convertirons nous.
(1468-70)

However, when he instructs all the other emirs to follow his lead, another of his old traits re-emerges: the tendency to miscalculate. Certainly Orkenie and Oliferne will click back neatly into place, and with the most convincing display of unity ever seen in the trio, but the very factor which ensures their acquiescence will isolate Arbre Sec even more decisively than before:

LI AMIRAUS DEL COLNE Segneur, metés vous a
genous;
Si con je fai, faites tout
troi.
LI AMIRAUS D'ORQUENIE JOU l'otroi bien.
LI AMIRAUS D'OLIFERNE Et jou l'otroi.
Que tout soions bon
crestïen,
Saint Nicolai obedren,
Car mout sont grandes
ses bontés.
(1471-76)

Contrary to the intention behind Coine's words, the carillon of "… tout troi / … l'otroi … l'otroi" helps to re-create the old (b) pattern which locks out the fourth emir.²⁸ The trinity is tightened in the chorus "Que tout soions …", the wording of which shows that the King's attitude towards his own conversion has filtered down the line intact. Again it is the perfect coincidence of political and material interests that ensures the smooth falling into place of Coine, Orkenie and Oliferne. Orkenie in the centre is buttressed firmly on both flanks. His exclusion from this formation, let alone defiance of his overlord, would hardly be conceivable.

At this stage the conversion has progressed only as far as a line of Saracens kneeling to the humble image of a Christian saint in the shadow of an obscenely resplendent Tervagant.

The general complacency is shattered by Arbre Sec:

Segneur, onques ne m'i contés
Car je n'oç goute a cheste oreille.
Maudehait qui che me conseille
Que je deviegne renoiés!
A! rois, car fusses tu noiés
Comme falis et recreans,
Que devenus iés mescreans!
Fourfait as c'on t'arde ou escorche!
Toi ne ton savoir ne te forche
Ne pris mais vaillant un espi.
Garde de moi, je te deffi
Et renç ton honimage et ton fief.
(1477-88)

This impassioned diatribe is no bolt from the blue, but the product of an explosive combination of old differences and a new context. Mutual toleration and cooperation between the main emir group and the outsider was possible only so long as their values joined horizontally (patterns (a) and (A)) or overlapped vertically ((b) and (B)). Now St Nicolas has forced a polarisation of conventional and unconventional on a common plane. The former unifying patterns (a) and (A) are obliterated, and (b) and (B) (x-xy-y/XY) overlaid by the simplified form positive-negative. Pattern (b) (general compliance) is completed in "Segneur, onques ne m'i contés" (1477) and the (B) movement (awareness of feudal status) brings Arbre Sec into overt defiance of his overlord.

Arbre Sec's bold condemnation of the King's faithlessness recalls the Preudom's courage in pointing out the error of the King's ways (1428). Each is capable of his own brand of divine recklessness.

The King (swearing "par mon chief as at this stage of his conversion he is without a deity to call upon) angrily insists that Arbre Sec "Fache mon plaisir et mon boen" (1491). Refusing to face the challenge squarely, he avoids addressing the rebel in the second person; but, unlike Durant, Arbre Sec must be dealt with, so he is handed back to the emirs for "reprocessing". The King's obedient vassals spring to do his bidding:

LI AMIRAUS D'ORQUJENIE Or cha! segneur, il est
mout fors;
II le vous convenra
sousprendre.
LI AMIRAUS D'OUTRE Fi! mauvais! Me cuidies
vous prendre,
L'ARBRE SEC Tant que Mahom ches
bras me sauve?
Fuiés, mauvais chevalier
fauve!
Poi pris ne vous ne vo
engien.
CIL D'OLIFERNE VOUS en venrés, car je
vous tien!
CIL D'ORKENIE Rois, ton traïtour ves le
chi.
(1493-1500)

Arbre Sec has not necessarily failed the traditional test of right and wrong by equal combat. Even if three ordinary men against one giant might be considered fair odds, he is taken by engien. On the other hand, he does accept engien as part of the force he will overcome with the aid of Mahomet. The case is not clear-cut, and there is every reason for Bodel to leave it that way, since this is not an issue between the true and the false faiths at all. It means also that Arbre Sec can persist in his belief in Mahomet without complete loss of dignity.

Although the Emir del Coine evidently takes some part in the scuffle (cf. "segneur", 1493), his silence probably reflects the amount of effort he puts into it. Orkenie, who best combines principle and practice, is the one who measures his strength against the giant,²⁹ and Oliferne succeeds in subtler methods. Arbre Sec has ruffled the trio's new-found unity by provoking another bout of the sort of action that disoriented Coine on the occasion of the Saracen-Christian battle. The pagans are still struggling to protect their own loi.

Although Arbre Sec is eventually overpowered, his spirit has no more been subdued than was that of the defeated crusaders, reborn in the Preudom and St Nicolas. Arbre Sec's position vis-a-vis the King is that of the Christian when he was taken from the battlefield, except that he devises his own test of faith. The King had told Durant—Arbre Sec's shadow and the Preudom's gaoler—to "pourpenser / Cruel mort a sen cors destruire" (1221-22); Arbre Sec now does it for himself:

A! rois, pour Mahommet, merchi!
Ne me fai mes dieus renoier!
Fai me anchois le teste soier
Ou mon cors a cheval detraire.
(1501-04)

The King, faced once again with the possibility of destroying a hostile element, still backs away and instead informs Arbre Sec, with a "par mon chief' against his "pour Mahommet", that "il vous convient faire / Si comme moi" (1505-06). Faire si comme moi was in essence exactly what the King demanded of St Nicolas. At this point Arbre Sec—who had originally carried the "mahommet" into the Palace—takes over from the saint himself in that, like him, he now allows himself to be moulded to the requirements of the pagan system, with reservations:

Sains Nicolais, c'est maugré mien
Que je vous aoure, et par forche.
De moi n'ares vous fors l'escorche:
Par parole devieng vostre hom,
Mais li creanche est en Mahom.
(1507-11)

This confession is a mockery of the King's (1456-61, quoted above), and as a response to the order to "faire si comme moi" suggests a deliberate parody. Arbre Sec has shown on at least one previous occasion that he might be capable of it (374-83). Whether the parody is conscious or not, to give oneself completely to St Nicolas while ignoring God, as the King did, is a contradiction in terms and tantamount to giving only the escorche. The King has no objection to the formulation of Arbre Sec's confession; it is what he asked for. He can overlook his Parthian shot as easily as he could ignore the Preudom's "Tel grasse li a Dieus donnee" (531).

This last speech of Arbre Sec represents the revised and definitive conclusion of the (B) movement traced earlier in the scene. The deviant pagan ideological form is once again superimposed on the norm, represented now not just in the emirs but in the highest Palace authority. At this level the full force of "Mais li creanche est en Mahom" falls squarely on Tervagant. The beleaguered deity reacts immediately in the outpouring of gibberish "Palas aron ozinomas …" (1512-15) which is his swan-song. Tervagant, who has survived both rejection par parole and the shift of allegiance to St Nicolas (merely a horizontal transference), finally begins to succumb to something from which he has been shielded until now: the sincerity and steadfastness of a man's faith in a higher power than him. And the King takes the cue. In reply to the Preudom's query as to what Tervagant means, he explains without hesitation:

Preudom, il muert de duel et d'ire
De che c'a Dieu me sui turkiés;
(1517-18)

This is the first time the King has pronounced the name of God. While Tervagant gave no sign of cracking he could not have done so. In order for his own prophecy to be completely fulfilled, Tervagant must "die". He had been raised so high that he had blocked the view beyond him and beyond his replacement, St Nicolas, also. In the end, the sincerity of Arbre Sec's faith in Mahomet has given the King his vision of God. When St Nicolas consented to faire si comme moi in his fashion, he brought about the first stage in the Saracens' conversion. Arbre Sec, in following suit, has completed his work.

The sense the King makes of Tervagant's raving finally strips the idol of all mystique and leaves it a mere heap of metal which the Seneschal is ordered to throw down the steps of the temple. Tervagant is not to perish by being melted down and shared "entre me gent" (141); the finest gold of Arabia is to be sacrificed to the Christian faith. Before carrying out the order, the Seneschal returns Tervagant to himself:

Tervagant, du ris et du pleur
Que feistes, par vo doleur
Verrés par tans le prophesie!
(1522-24)

The deed done, the last traces of Tervagant's influence have vanished. The King is now ready for baptism, because "De Dieu servir me voeil vanter" (1531). With this final step he has at last moved to a position diametrically opposite to that of the fourth emir.³⁰ It was to the accompaniment of Arbre Sec's battle-cry "Li chevalier Mahom, aie!" that the Christians were vanquished. In the King's final surrender to the service of God, the crusade is ultimately victorious. The Angel's prophecy has been fulfilled after Tervagant's, and only now can the Preudom conclude: "Te Deum laudamus."

The triumph of Christianity as dramatised in the Jeu de saint Nicolas is achieved by attrition. The disturbance of the centre of gravity of the tripartite formations mounted in defence of the pagan loi enables the Christian assault to penetrate obliquely the units spear-headed by Orkenie and Pincede to reach the real target Tervagant, and, through the Emir d'outre l'Arbre Sec, destroy him. The initial Christian invasion, though apparently abortive, causes a shift of weight towards the inactive extreme of the Saracen system, which allows Christianity a foothold within the essentially secular pagan loi. This leads to an extended central phase of experimental pagan-dominated syncretism, during which the main action is carried out in the Saracen-French Tavern. The paganisation of Christianity is completed when St Nicolas is adopted by the Saracens in place of their own idol Tervagant. Through Arbre Sec, the relationship between paganism and Christianity is reversed so that the true faith dominates.

The gradual nature of the movement from paganism to Christianity entails the evolving of hybrid or mutated forms of the given paien and crestfen. One such form exists from the beginning and remains constant to the end: that represented by Arbre Sec. When Durant takes over from him in the central section of the play, he represents a double mutation, and Bodel does not flinch from the bizarre logic of "Par Dieu, vilains … Peu pris vo dieu …" (1250-53). The friction produced as Arbre Sec remains static amid the movement all round him is what eventually brings about the destruction of Tervagant.

The structure of the play as a whole is the same as that of the emir group as analysed in the first scene in which they appeared. Within the overall unity of the play (pattern (a)) and the logical progress of the action (movement (A)), pattern (b) traces the three phases of action during which Christianity remains under the domination of paganism, and a fourth in which Christianity triumphs. In a vital ascending (B) movement, the progressive absorption of Christianity by paganism is abruptly reversed on the secular level to attain its true meaning and value on the higher spiritual plane. The shift from x-xy/-y to x-/xy-y occurs when St Nicolas converts his "defeat" by the thieves into victory.…

The action from left to right being cumulative, the Tavern is reintroduced in the last stage. Not only does Durant's protest foreshadow Arbre Sec's, but the King's conversion to God and a new way of life is the definitive serious version of the comic piety of the three thieves as they dispersed in search of new pastures ("Dieus nous ramaint a plus d'avoir" (1376)). The final scene also includes a section in the Tavern metre (octosyllabic couplets) from lines 1471 to 1515, beginning with Coine's instructions to the other emirs to follow his example and kneel before St Nicolas, and ending with Tervagant's swansong. This section is central to the final scene as the Tavern episode is to the whole Jeu.

The key position occupied by Arbre Sec in the overall scheme makes him number three in the sequence of those who combat mainstream paganism. Just as he relinquished his position of outsider to complete a temporary triad Orkenie-Oliferne-Arbre Sec at the crucial moment when the Preudom was taken from the battlefield to the Palace, he is here in a position to complete what first the crusaders (432) and then St Nicolas (1430) have "bien commenchié".³¹ But the final result, the true conversion of the chief of all the Saracens, echoes on the level of the total sense of the Jeu the situation of Arbre Sec in relation to the emir group.

On the psychological level, the role of the Emir d'outre l'Arbre Sec, discussed in this study from a structural standpoint, becomes that of the "faithful Infidel". As P. R. Vincent has observed, the sort of Saracen of whom it could be said: "Deus! quel baron, s'oust chrestientet!" would be likely to excite in a contemporary audience "at least a grudging admiration".³² The foregoing analysis would suggest that those most sensitive to the presence of God in St Nicolas would most appreciate Arbre Sec.

Notes

¹ All line references and quotations are from Henry's edition of the Jeu de saint Nicolas, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Travaux de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres XXI, 2e édition revue, Bruxelles, 1965.

² See Henry, p. 274, note to 1. 1473.

³ "Characterisation, Comedy and Textual Criticism in Jean Bodel's Jeu de saint Nicolas" (synopsis) in Proceedings and Papers of the Fourteenth Congress of the Australasian Universities Language and Literature Association (19-26 January, 1972), ed. K. I. D. Maslen, p. 247.

⁴"Les éléments idéologiques dans le Jeu de saint Nicolas", Romania, 94, 1973, p. 489.

⁵ Cf. Ch. Foulon, L 'Œuvre de Jehan Bodel, Travaux de la Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de Rennes, Paris, 1958, pp. 633-34.

⁶ The third deity, Apolin, is mentioned relatively rarely in the play, and his name is usually coupled with that of Mahomet.

⁷ A. Jeanroy in his edition of the Jeu (CFMA, Paris, 1925) notes "une lacune et une altération assez grave" (p. 78). F. W. Warne in his edition (Oxford, Blackwell, 1951) suggests that a line may have dropped out between 374 and 375, although he finds no obvious lacuna in the sense (p. 75). T. B. W. Reid, "On the Text of the Jeu de saint Nicolas", Studies in Medieval French presented to Alfred Ewert, Oxford, 1961, p. 109, feels that both sense and versification point to the dropping of a line after 374.

⁸ Henry, p. 204, note to 1. 377; F. W. Marshall, loc. cit.

⁹ Suggested by T. B. W. Reid, loc. cit.

¹⁰ Pincedé is "larger than life". There is a comic heroism in his insistence on carrying every bit of the treasure on his own; and he has a prodigious capacity for drinking (cf. 1047-52).

¹¹ Alternatively, Coine is present at the discovery but fails to see any possibilities in it.

¹² This would at least mitigate any tendency to take Arbre Sec as a joke, as the King did, simply because he is different. The joke is on the Saracens.

¹³The 'Jeu de saint Nicolas' of Jean Bodel of Arras: A Literary Analysis, Johns Hopkins Studies in Romance Literatures and Languages XLIX, Baltimore, 1954, p. 98.

¹⁴ Rabelais, Le Tiers Livre, Ch. XXXI.

¹⁵ On the gambling aspect of the challenge to St Nicolas, cf. A. Adler, "Le Jeu de saint Nicolas, édifiant, mais dans quel sens?", Romania, 81, 1960, pp. 119-20.

¹⁶ The transposition from Palace to Tavern is actually via a spiral movement. The Palace "life cycle" having run its course to its material end, entry is made into a new cycle in which materialism is principle.

¹⁷ For a differently-angled and more developed evaluation of the significance of the dreams, see A. Adler, op. cit., p. 119.

¹⁸ In octosyllabic couplets. For a suggestive and enlightening study on the relationship between metre, stage areas, actors' movements, and the sense of the Jeu, see F. W. Marshall's two articles "The Rhyme Schemes of the Jeu de saint Nicolas as an Indication of Staging", Australian Journal of French Studies, I, 1964, pp. 225-256, and "The Staging of the Jeu de saint Nicolas: an Analysis of Movement", Australian Journal of French Studies, II, 1965, pp. 9-38.

¹⁹ Cf. Henry's note to lines 606 and 632, p. 212.

²⁰ K. Heitmann, "Zur Frage der inneren Einheit von Jehan Bodels 'Jeu de saint Nicolas"', Romanische Forschungen, LXXV, 1963, p. 289-315, has noted extensive parallelism between Palace and Tavern without, however, systematically linking representatives of the two milieus.

²¹ Pincedé's preference for wine "deseure le bare" (667), though merely a preference for "Le vin aforé de nouvel" (642) (see Henry's notes to lines 667 and 1038), still evokes the almost intact as opposed to the almost worn out, and symbolises the relative vitality of the trio at that point.

²² Cf. also the first scene of the play when the King's threat to melt Tervagant down and share out the gold comes to nothing.

²³ That it is not his superiors' wishes that prevent him from making an end of the Preudom is suggested in the Seneschal's enquiry "Vit encore tes charteriers?" (1209).

²⁴ It is Pincedé who asks on behalf of the others: "Preudom qui nous as effreés, / Qui iés, qui tel paour nous fais?" (1285-86). Cf. the reaction of "li crestïens" (intermediate between the Christian collectivity and the sharply individualised "crestïens, nouviaus chevaliers") to the appearance of the Angel: "Qui estes vous, biau sire, qui si nous confortés / Et si haute parole de Dieu nous aportés?" (424-25).

²⁵ At least in the play itself. In the Prologue the thieves fall asleep only because God causes them to do so (56-57).

²⁶ The audience has recently been warned against taking the materialistic and facile Seneschal as a reliable guide: in his dream the thieves were hanged.

²⁷ Lines 485, 492-93, 531, 551-52, 1229-30.

²⁸ Cf. the way in which Cliket, Pincedé and Rasoir, in that order, agreed to separate: "Li quels que soit iert eureus. / Soit, certes.—Soit, si m'aït Dieus" (1358-59).

²⁹ If the rebellious emir were Orkenie, his proving more than a match for the giant Arbre Sec would make his performance the more impressive. Ch. Foulon, op. cit., p. 660, writing before the appearance of Henry's edition of the Jeu and taking Orkenie to be the rebel, implies as much in his discussion of the character and behaviour of Orkenie. However, the rebellion of the second emir has in no way been prepared, whereas his defence of conventional Saracen interests in direct confrontation with Arbre Sec was always a likely outcome of the relationship between the two within the totality of the emir group.

³⁰ Arbre Sec's earlier defiance of his overlord was still a conflict between faith and feudal authoritarianism.

³¹ Arbre Sec was perhaps "chosen" for this by the young Christian knight: "Je ferrai cel forcheur, je l'ai piecha eslit" (410).

³² Op. cit., pp. 61-62.