Medieval and Modern Romance

 I have posted before about medieval romance and epic, the two main fictional forms of literature in the Middle Ages, written in the vernacular rather than Latin from the eleventh or twelfth century on.  These were not always distinct categories, but in general an epic focused primarily on knightly deeds and often ended with a lot of dead bodies, whereas a romance focused more on interpersonal relationships and generally had a happy ending.

There could be plenty of variation. Stories of King Arthur, for example,  could be epic, great struggles against the foe, or a romance, because of the focus on personal betrayal and adultery, which while involving love and other interpersonal relationships did not lead to a happy ending.

Today romance has become more formulaic.  Many have commented that Hallmark Channel original movies, for example, all have the same basic plot.  Young woman from a big city/small town moves to a small town/big city for a Reason.  The Reason is what makes the different ones different from each other (such as they are).  Around Christmas, the Reason is always Christmas-themed.

In the small town/big city, our heroine runs into an old flame/a new handsome guy.  Sparks fly!  After a few bumpy bits, they are happy together, at least for now if not necessarily Ever After.  Time for the closing credits!

Writers of romance books follow pretty much the same formula.  They add originality through the back story of the characters (the TV movies don't have much time for that), have interesting settings (maybe the heroine is from a sheep farm in Montana and moves to a pineapple farm in Hawaii), and may put in such variations as having the heroine be divorced or a widow or more mature.  The bumpy bits can be more complicated, though from the time the heroine and hero meet (or reconnect), even though they aren't yet sure they will end up together (the reader is sure), you won't catch them smooching anyone else.

Contemporary romance, such stories set in the modern era, is the single biggest-selling genre of books in the US.  Some readers just gobble them up, reading maybe one a day.  (They tend to be on the short side, and it's not as if you have to read slowly to follow all the plot twists.)  These stories do especially well through Kindle Unlimited, where readers can borrow and read an unlimited number of Amazon's ebooks a month for only about $12, which is great for voracious readers who will probably not want to read a particular book a second time.

Medieval romance was neither so formulaic nor so focused on the heroine.  One very popular romance was "Guillaume de Dole, ou le Roman de la Rose."  Here the hero, the (fictional) King Conrad, is the chief focus.

The story begins with a swirl of love-making, in which he fully partakes.  But then he hears of the beautiful Lénore and her brother, Guillaume, a great tournament fighter.  He invites Guillaume to fight on his side in the tournament and decides to marry Lénore, even though he's never met her.

Here come the bumpy bits!  Those at court are unhappy and slander Lénore, ending the king's plans.  Now she finally becomes the center of the story and figures out a ruse to trick the slanderers and win the king's heart.  All ends happily.

I've rewritten this story for modern readers, calling it The Sign of the Rose.  (For sale on Amazon and other on-line retailers, ebook or paperback.)

Now I had to add quite a bit to the original story, starting with having the king meet Lénore before he falls in love with her, rather than just doing so from second-hand accounts.  Because the original "Guillaume de Dole" is quite short, I added several subplots, including a possible other suitor for Lénore, and Guillaume's activities at the royal court as more than a tournament fighter.  I also worked in more motivation for the slanderers and expanded the details of the happy ending.

So it doesn't match the modern romance-formula.  As a result, I think those who love reading romance have never really taken it up (it's only ranked 6 thousand and something on Amazon among ebooks of historical romance).  Those who like my wizard stories haven't been sure what to make of a story remarkably short on wizards.  But I like it just fine.

One thing I think "Guillaume de Dole" illustrates is that medieval romance was intended for a male readership as well as a female one.  Modern romances are overwhelmingly bought and read by women, and the authors also are usually women (or men writing under a female pen name).  After all, finding the right person through all the bumpy bits has never been an issue only for women.

© C. Dale Brittain 2025

Rois fainéants

 The Merovingians have always held an ambiguous position in medieval history.  On the one hand they are considered the founders of France, because, after all, the Merovingian dynasty ruled the Franks, the people who essentially gave France its name, "land of the Franks," rather than Gaul, which is what the Romans had called it.

On the other hand, they are often derided as "do-nothing kings," rois fainéants, which if said in French in a sneering tone really sounds bad.  And not only did they "do nothing," the account goes, they were barbarians! ethnic Germans, part of the supposed fall of Rome (on which see more here).

So how do we reconcile this image, the glorious founders of France, those who first adopted Christianity, with the concept of crude barbarians who were probably half pagan as well as murderers, to say nothing of being weaklings who sat around not doing anything?  Well, we don't.  Let's break it down.

Clovis, considered first king of France (481-511), did indeed adopt Christianity, doubtless urged on by his Christian wife. He also surely realized that getting along with the bishops, who were major political figures in Gaul at the time, would be a whole lot easier if he were Christian.  Saint Remigius, bishop of Reims, baptized him, as commemorated in the ivory carving seen below, dating to somewhat later.  Clovis is seen here sitting in a baptismal font.  Note the dove coming down with an ampoule of holy oil (used to consecrate kings).

 

The bishops of Reims never forgot this glorious moment.  From the tenth century or so on, most French kings were crowned at Reims, in honor to Clovis and tradition.  If one visits the thirteenth-century cathedral of Reims today (well worth a visit), one can see a plaque marking the spot where the baptism supposedly happened.

The Merovingians were a lively bunch.  Clovis's descendants all had it firmly in their minds that anyone descended from him ought to be king, and if Brother stood in the way, well, that was too bad for Brother.  Accounts from the sixth and seventh centuries are full of murders, poisonings, people hustled off to join a monastery whether they wanted to or not, people sent off on pilgrimage whether they wanted to go or not, betrayals, plots, and lots of wicked women.  Someone should make a mini-series out of it.  It would put Game of Thrones to shame.

And yet abruptly the accounts change.  According to Einhard, writing in Charlemagne's court in the early ninth century, two generations after the Merovingian dynasty ended in 751, these active, blood-thirsty kings, who often had multiple wives and concubines (and who founded and supported monasteries), were instead rois fainéants, weaklings who were cognitively impaired and had lost all their wealth on top of it.

Einhard describes them as having long hair and dangly beards, sitting on the throne with no idea what was going on, repeating whatever they were told to say by the mayor of the palace, that is the head of palace activities (we would say "chief of staff").  By a bizarre coincidence, Charlemagne's ancestors were mayors of the palace.

The Merovingian kings, Einhard continued, were driven around in ox carts, like peasants, because they were too feeble to ride a horse.  All they had was a single manor to call their own.  If it weren't for the kindly mayors of the palace, he indicated, they would have perished long since.  And it was almost an act of mercy, he suggested, for Pippin, Charlemagne's father, last mayor of the palace, to depose the last Merovingian king and make himself king instead.

For almost 1200 years historians have believed Einhard.

All of a sudden his creating the image of weakling kings makes a lot more sense.  The Merovingians had been kings of the Franks for three centuries before 751, appreciably longer than the US has existed.  The dynasty of Pippin and Charlemagne, the Carolingians, had to find a justification for deposing them.  Indeed, during the two generations between Pippin taking the throne and Einhard writing about it, royal accounts did not mention the Merovingians at all.  The deposition was too horrible to talk about.  Although Einhard claimed the pope approved the deposition, papal accounts from the 750s record nothing of the kind.

It was a lot better to suggest a confused old man (the last Merovingian) being "put out of his misery" by being sent to a monastery, and the mayor of the palace patriotically stepping up to be crowned because somebody had to do it, than to admit that the Carolingians were usurpers who had staged a coup.

© C. Dale Brittain 2025

For more on medieval kings, see my ebook, Positively Medieval:  Life and Society in the Middle Ages.  Also available in paperback.