[In the following essay, Lemke argues that Bodel created the role of the angel to facilitate the shift between humorous and religious scenes in Le Jeu de Saint Nicolas.]

The majority of critics either disregards completely the character of the Angel in Le Jeu de Saint Nicolas by Jean Bodel or mentions fleetingly the lyrical quality of his verses, without attempting a more detailed analysis on any level. The role and function of this figure are somehow forgotten or overlooked—perhaps because he has so few lines—in discussions pertaining to the attribution of lines to characters, the invention of appropriate stage directions, the mélange of genres, obscurities involving sources and analogues, and the like.¹ It is our contention that the presence and the function of the Angel must be considered per se. From such an analysis we hope to arrive at a new, clearer understanding of the play.

The critics seem to agree on at least one point: the Jeu de saint Nicolas is not a parody. Most critics find the play edifiant, for example, Patrick Vincent:

The comic element of the Jeu, covering the whole range of humor of character and action from satire to sheer buffoonery, does not detract from the new aura of dignity and spiritual worth gracing the figure of St. Nicolas.²

This opinion represents a traditional interpretation of the Jeu: it is epic, religious, and edifying.

In contrast to the traditional viewpoint, a recent article by Howard S. Robertson³ presents us with an opposing literary judgment. Basing his conclusions on a detailed analysis of the structure of the play, Robertson says,

The distribution of the alternating serious and comic scenes (according to their subject matter and setting) reveals that comedy is the central interest of the play, while the so-called epic and religious materials.. are simply part of the framework in which the comedy operates.⁴

A glance at Robertson's linear, tripartite analysis shows that comedy is indeed the major element of the play. The comic scenes occupy a central position structurally and comprise a larger number of verses than do the so-called sublime scenes. Further, the symmetry between the alternating sublime and comic scenes explains the basic dramatic rhythm of the play. Robertson concludes:

Against these aspects of the play, the "crusading-epic" framework assumes a reasonable proportion and leaves us little grounds to speak of the Jeu de Saint Nicolas as either an attempt at edification or as a reflection of the spirit of the Fourth Crusade.⁵

In general, we accept this structural analysis and the conclusions drawn from it. On the other hand, Robertson's evaluation of the role and function of the Angel is unconvincing:

The angel does appear to the preudom but not in the context in which he (or another angel) appears to the Christian knights on the battlefield. Before the preudom, the angel is simply an extension of Saint Nicolas who reinforces the preudom's faith in the saint.⁶

It is obvious that in the first three of his six appearances in the drama (lines 412-423; 428-435; 466-481) the Angel does fulfill the role of the stereotyped ange des batailles. We agree that "… the Christian ideal presented is a stylized conception of the crusading spirit necessarily remote from human experience …"⁷ Indeed, the Angel explains unequivocally his nature in purely banal terms:

Segneur, soiés tout asseür,
N'aiés doutanche ne peür;
Messagiers sui Nostre Segneur,
Qui vous metra fors de doleur.
(lines 412-415)

Angles sui a Dieu, biaus amis;
Pour vo confort m'a chi tramis.
Soiés seur, car ens es chieus
Vous a Dieus fait sieges eslieus.
(lines 428-431)

Mais le haute couronne arés.
Je m'en vois, a Dieu demourés.
(lines 434-435)

The Angel is a messenger of God (line 414), is one of God's angels who has been sent directly by Him to comfort the soldiers (lines 428-429), and is the herald of future salvation (lines 434-435). His benediction in lines 466-481 of the now martyred Christians, plus his pronouncements of orthodox dogma, seem to define his role as a traditional one. We can agree with this view, but Robertson's second evaluation of the Angel, i. e., as an extension of the saint, is unclear. Presuming that we are dealing with the same angel in lines 488-495, 550-557 and 1262-1273, there seems little reason to describe him as an extension of Saint Nicolas when he appears to the preudom. In lines 492 and 493 the Angel explicitly commands: "En Damedieu soies bien chiers / Et en saint Nicolai apres." In his second appearance to the preudom, he repeats essentially the same message:

Preudons, soies joians, n'aies nule paour,
Mais soies bien creans ens ou vrai Sauveour
             Et en saint Nicolai
(lines 550-552)

In both passages the hierarchy of Christianity is repeated and enforced: to paraphrase the Angel, we might say, "Trust in God first and in His divine instrument, Saint Nicolas." In his last appearance, the Angel remains an emissary of God, while reassuring the preudom of the saint's protection. The final words of the Angel, line 1273, are simply a repetition of the traditional Christian doctrine: "Qui pour Dieu se traveille, bien li restore." It is our first contention, therefore, that the Angel is a messenger of God, who has always been with Him, while Saint Nicolas intervenes between Man and God as an intermediary. The saint must be perceived as a canonized mortal who now accomplishes the Divine Will. There is no textual or orthodox reason to conclude that the Angel plays the role of the saint or is an extension of him.

Robertson's hierarchy "… on the Christian side running the full distance from religious abstraction to the human level, which is roughly: ange—un chrétien... and le nouveau chevalier—les autres chevaliers—le preudom," is balanced by ".. the hierarchy of the pagan religion, which runs again from religious symbol to human being in the following order: Tervagan—I 'emir d'outre l'Arbre sec—other emirs—roi d'Afrique and his seneschal."⁸ Thus, a continuum from the abstract-religious to the concrete-mundane has been established in which the pagan deity is equated with the Angel. This juxtaposition is stated explicitly:

From the concrete and colorful reality of the non-religious center.. the spectrum of interest spreads out to practical human religion … then to formal religious idealism … finally to the supernatural manifestations of the religious abstraction itself (Tervagan; ange.)⁹

Robertson justifies the omission of Saint Nicolas from this spectrum by stating that "Saint Nicolas himself… has no contact at all with any characters in the play outside the three central categories."¹⁰

Once we conclude that the Angel and Saint Nicolas are separate entities, fulfilling different functions, we see that Robertson's spectrum is no longer in equilibrium. The Angel is an extra factor, operative in both the chivalric-ideal sphere and the bourgeois-practical sphere. The diagram is as follows:

Ange … (nil)

Saint Nicolas…Tervagan

un chrétien &… Emir d'outre

le nouveau chevalier l'arbre sec

autres chevaliers … autres emirs

Preudom. …roi d'Afrique & le seneschal.

This imbalance is functional, representing the dominance of the power of the Christian God represented by the Angel. The pagan god is on the level of the Christian saint, yet the saint is more powerful. The comparison of the saint and Tervagan fully justifies their identification in the above scheme: the latter is only "alive" as a grotesque golden statue, garbled in language and ineffectual in action; Saint Nicolas is represented by a modest wooden statue but enjoys a separate existence, a powerful command of appropriate language and complete success in his undertakings. The Angel tips the balance even more in favor of the Christian God. Speaking always with dignity and often with lyrical—if platitudinous—quality, he represents God on two levels of society while remaining a unity himself We may identify his first function as the presentation of the chevalric-idealistic ethic embodied in the banal ange des batailles. The second function of the Angel is more interesting. When speaking with the preudom, the Angel descends from the noble, abstract plane of heroic Christianity from which he addressed the knights to the empirical, concrete level of quotidian human existence. Robertson defines this second ethic as the "bourgeois-practical."¹¹

Continuing this interpretation, we may consider the two ethics presented by the Angel. Are we not to choose finally between the chevalric-idealistic and the bourgeois-practical view of Christianity? Unless we consider ourselves as possible martyrs, do we not identify with the empirical preudom rather than with the heroic chevaliers? Indeed, it is our conclusion that Jean Bodel, in re-creating the stereotype of the ange des batailles with all its inherent clichés, shows us dramatically the choices available. Unless we are crusading knights, we must opt with the preudom for the practical-bourgeois brand of Christianity, totally anti-epic in nature. To us as to the preudom, the choice offered between the two ethics—that is, "die" or "live"—is obvious. In this optique, then, the first three passages of the Angel must be considered as ironical.

One must note and appreciate the subtlety of the playwright in presenting this second perspective of religion. Intellectually and psychologically, the preudom demands an interpretation of Christianity which corresponds to his personal needs. To offer this non-heroic bourgeois a noble martydom and the abstract hope of eternal bliss would be ineffectual, since the preudom is interested in continuing his mortal existence. He needs reassurance that all will go well and more or less demands immediate results. The reader almost suspects that the preudom would change his allegiance and put his spiritual trust elsewhere if the Christian apparatus failed to "work" for him. The Angel, of course, replies in God's behalf and fulfills the preudom's wishes. The point to be made is that the Angel vis-a-vis the preudom serves the bourgeois-practical function yet continues to act on an elevated plane.

This interpretation of the Angel's role actually reinforces Robertson's general conclusions. Within the framework of his structural analysis, we may re-examine the structural function of the Angel. Five of his six appearances occur at the end of "act one," between lines 315 and 587, in a sublime scene. His last passage is situated in the first sublime scene of "act three."

Viewed in this light, we see that the Angel's presence on stage is confined to the two brief sublime scenes, the first at the end of "act one" and the second at the beginning of "act three." In other words, the Angel appears immediately before and immediately after the long, central comic scene. Thus, we discover a structural balance in his appearances which serves to highlight in a most ironical way the comic contrast.

Jean Bodel has made this contrast perfect: structurally and dramatically the spectator is presented with an abrupt transition from the sublime to the comic and then back again to the sublime, which reinforces the essential rhythm of the play. As Robertson contends, the central interest of the Jeu is comedy; but the key to the comic-serious transition may indeed be the so-called sublime but actually ironical Angel.

In our evaluation of the role of the Angel as double but essentially unified, we have tried to show that a redefining is necessary. The Angel is certainly never ridiculous; the Jeu de Saint Nicolas is clearly not a parody. The Angel's presence, however, is unique: he cannot be confused or equated with the saint. He presents us the option between two conflicting interpretations of Christianity. It is clear where the play's choice lies.

Notes

¹ A. Henry, ed., Le Jeu de Saint Nicolas de Jean Bodel. Presses Universitaires de France. Paris: 1962. In regard to these problems left open by the ms., we have chosen to use A. Henry's editorial decisions.

² Patrick R. Vincent, The "Jeu de saint Nicolas" of Jean Bodel of Arras, A Literary Analysis. The Johns Hopkins Studies in Romance Languages and Literature, XLIX. Balitmore: 1954, p. 103.

³ Howard S. Robertson, "Structure and Comedy in Le Jeu de Saint Nicolas," Studies in Philology, LXIV (1957), 551-63.

⁴lbid, p. 551.

⁵Ibid, p. 563.

⁶Ibid, p. 560.

⁷Ibid, p. 559.

⁸Ibid, p. 558.

⁹Ibid, p. 559.

¹⁰Ibid., p. 560.

¹¹Ibid., p. 560.