Translation and Temporality in Benoît de Sainte-Maure’s Roman de Troie by Maud Burnett McInerney

Abstract

Reviewed by: Translation and Temporality in Benoît de Sainte-Maure’s Roman de Troie by Maud Burnett McInerney Sylvia Federico maud burnett mcinerney, Translation and Temporality in Benoît de Sainte-Maure’s Roman de Troie. Gallica Vol. 47. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2021. Pp. xii, 228. isbn: 978–1–84384–615–4. $99. The central argument of this study is that Benoît de Sainte-Maure’s translation of the Troy story ‘from Late Latin into Old French, from Late Antiquity to the twelfth-century Renaissance, and from prose into verse also translates history into romance, reconfigures narrative time, and causes the appearance of unexpected textual objects’ (p. 2). Acknowledging that her subject is very well-traveled ground, McInerney claims a narrower path of interest for the present book: not the ‘external, political effects’ of the medieval Troy story but ‘its internal, narrative effects’ with special emphasis on how ‘what I call Trojan time’ . . . ‘shapes the temporality and spaciality of its own telling and that of the new genre, the romance, that it helps create’ (p. 2). Following this statement of intent, the Introduction reviews medieval translation theory and the curiosities of temporality it permitted and disallowed, with supporting reference to Gérard Genette, Paul Ricouer, and Jorge Luis Borges. Chapter One reviews the historical contexts of Benoît’s poem and summarizes the author’s claims about his identity, purpose, and source; the evidence for the fraudulence of ‘Dares’ and ‘Dictys’ as eye-witnesses to the Trojan War is reiterated. The main argument in this section is that Benoît fills the ‘gaps’ left by his prose sources with ‘the themes and techniques that animate the Roman de Troie: heroism, courtly love, and a passion for ekphrasis’ (p. 46). Chapter Two summarizes the central conceits and contexts of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s De gestis Britonum, including its linking of Troy to Britain, its specious claims to veracity, and its author’s political relationships with his dedicatees. Geoffrey’s notoriously inventive and elaborate prophecies are compared to the ‘brief and somewhat dismissive’ (p. 80) approach to the material in the Dares text. The chapter concludes with a discussion of Matilda Bruckner’s assertion regarding Benoît’s embedded technique with regard to prophecies. In Chapters Three and Four, McInerney treats ‘heterosexual erotics’ (with reference to Mikhail Bakhtin’s definition of ‘romance time,’ p. 89, n. 3 and passim) and ‘queer time’ in the Dinshawian sense (p. 123, n. 2 and passim), respectively, to show how Benoît expands on the topics of sexuality as presented by other versions of the Troy story. Ultimately, McInerney claims, the Roman de Troie ‘is a romance in which the heterosexual system of courtly love . . . fails’ (p. 154). The fifth and final chapter turns to Benoît’s use of ekphrasis ‘to turn epic and history into romance’ (p. 190). A short appendix reviews the manuscript history of the poem through reliance on Marc-René Jung. Few readers would be surprised by any of the points raised in McInerney’s study. Its themes and its arguments are readily familiar, drawn as they are from some of the criticism (of the poem itself and of the medieval Troy story) published largely between 1985 and 2000, with further sampling from the early twenty first century. Students who are unfamiliar with the Roman de Troie and its traditions will benefit from this book: it handily summarizes the content of the story and offers an extremely selective and [End Page 81] digested version of its existing critical analysis. Seasoned readers of Benoît and experts on the matter of antiquity in the Middle Ages may enjoy the stroll down memory lane, renewing with fondness our reflections on this poet’s treatment of ‘Troy time.’ Sylvia Federico Bates College Copyright © 2022 Arthuriana