Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory's Morte d'Arthur (PDF)

Introduction 27 28 Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur mediated by the presence of the feminine: Uther’s deceptive seduction of 1...

Introduction 27 28 Gender and 1 Gender and the Chivalric Community The Rise of Arthur’s Kingdom o In composing the early sections of the Morte d’Arthur, Malory drew pri- marily from the twelfth- and thirteenth-century French prose romances known as the Merlin and the Suite du Merlin, part of the Post-Vulgate Lancelot-Grail Cycle (also commonly referred to as the Pseudo-Robert de Boron Prose Cycle). Much of Malory’s source is concerned specifically with the story of Merlin—early evidence of his prophetic powers and the well-known episode of Vortigern’s tower—and in reducing his source, Malory has dispensed with most of the Merlin material, choosing to focus instead on those events that directly concern Arthur.1 In so doing, writes the central event of the early days of Arthur’s reign: the establish- ment of the Round Table. Malory moves this to a later point in the narra- tive and disconnects it from direct association with the Grail Quest, a link upon which the Suite insists.2 This move is in keeping with what seems to be Malory’s general intent to de-emphasize the elements of the spiri- tual and supernatural so central to his source and to present a picture of chivalry that is primarily concerned with setting out rules for adven- ture, a “secular” chivalry.3 Through revision, reduction, and the disen- tanglement of the entrelacement that structures his source, Malory pre- sents a (largely) orderly, coherent narrative of the formation of Arthur’s Round Table community, tracing its development through a series of epi- sodes that are significantly punctuated by a feminine presence. Beginning with the events surrounding Arthur’s conception and birth, the section designated by Eugène Vinaver as the “Tale of King Arthur” describes the process by which Arthur achieves, consolidates, and defends against threats to his rule. As depicted in these early pages of the narrative, the formation and development of the Arthurian chivalric society in Malory is bounded and Gender and the Chivalric Community it compendiously, in didactic form.”5 Thus, not surprisingly, critics have long regarded this moment as key to understanding the chivalric project of Malory’s narrative. But while most scholars have focused on how the ar- ticulation of the Pentecostal Oath seems to reveal Malory’s views and re- actions to the sociohistorical context in which he composed his massive text, I argue that this moment of oath-taking in fact creates the action of the narrative that follows.6 In other words, I contend that the Pentecostal Oath acts as a “master signifier”7 throughout the Morte d’Arthur. The Oath produces and mediates the movement of the text, functioning as the master trope to which all the actions of the characters refer. This act of chivalric legislation early in the Morte d’Arthur sets in motion an ideal of knightly behavior; the rest of the text tests that code in a variety of circum- stances, revealing the tensions, shortcomings, and blind spots of the chivalric project. My position would seem to directly contradict the argument of scholars such as Andrew Lynch, who states that “even Malory’s most heartfelt generalisations refer primarily to their local context,” and further suggests that “we should not make a few speeches into... unbending rules for interpreting the whole narrative.... [Malory’s] famous axioms are gener- ated in the enthusiasm of the moment.”8 Lynch’s assertion is certainly true in the sense that Malory’s text is quite evidently full of contradictions. Most famously, the “Month of May” passage has long puzzled scholars in its mention of Guenevere, for whom Malory makes “a lytyll mencion, that whyle she lyved she was a trew lover, and therefor she had a good ende” (1120.11–13), especially when read against Guenevere’s final Lancelot, when she states “Thorow thys same man and me hath all thys warre be wrought.... for thorow oure love that we loved togydir is my moste noble lorde slayne” (1252.8–11). That two such diametrically op- posed views of what—for lack of a better term—we might call “courtly love” or “fin amour” are able to exist in the Morte d’Arthur is part of what is interesting and important about this text, which itself seems in large measure to be a “working out” of the tensions of chivalry. In his text, Malory attempts to address and resolve the contradictions of noble life in his own time, imagining a standard of action and behavior that might alle- viate and prevent political conflicts such as the Wars of the Roses. Elizabeth Edwards recently has argued that “Despite the oath, which seems to approximate to written code, or positive law, chivalry in Malory is not the result of following the rules; it is more a matter of generating and regenerating the code.”9 Indeed, as the narrative progresses, we see a con- Gender and the Chivalric Community and temporal site of the initial vow and its renewal: the “hyghe feste of Pentecoste” at Camelot. Indeed, most important adventures begin and end at Arthur’s court during Pentecost: “Sir Lancelot... bade sir Melyot hyghe hym ‘to the courte of my lorde Arthure, for hit drawyth nygh to the feste of Pentecoste’” (282.7–9); “‘Sir ‘ seyde sir Plenoryus, Pentecoste I woll be at kynge Arthurs courte’” (475.24–25); “‘My lorde, sir Launcelot,’ seyde dame Elayne, ‘thys same feste of Pentecoste shall youre sonne and myne, Galahad, be made knyght’” (832.7–9); “At the vigyl of Pentecoste, whan all the felyship of the Table Rownde were com unto Camelot” (853.1–2); “Wherefore all maner of knyghtes demed that sir Lavayn sholde be made knyght of the Table Rounde at the nexte feste of Pentecoste” (1098.19–22); “than at the nexte feste of Pentecoste, were ony slayne or dede... than was there chosyn in hys stede that was ded the moste men of worshyp that were called the Quenys Knyghtes”... (1121.23–27). Malory may certainly contradict himself at various moments in his text, but a close analysis of the development of the Morte d’Arthur gests that the ideals of the Oath serve as a guide to proper behavior throughout the narrative; indeed, knights cite them as law up until the final pages. That the law is frequently violated or deliberately disregarded by various knights does not render it any less important in interpreting the actions of the chivalric agents of the community; on the contrary, the vehemence and/or cautiousness with which knights who transgress the Oath offer defenses for their behavior10 suggests that it is indeed the “mas- ter signifier” to which all knightly behavior is referred and through which it is interpreted. Many scholars have attempted to address the “problem” of the Pente- costal Oath, struggling to articulate why the seemingly straightforward legislation of chivalric values creates so much tension within Malory’s ro- mance. Thomas Wright has observed that “the shortcomings of the Ar- thurian code, and of the society which follows it, are to be found in the code’s limitations. It is too inflexible and too static; it cannot embrace enough of the contingencies inherent in the human situation. Indeed, though it may at first inspire order and impose justice, it becomes finally the weakest aspect of Camelot.”11 Indeed, even as the Oath seeks to sta- bilize and regulate the behaviors and identities of the inhabitants of Malory’s text, throughout the text it also functions as a site of contesta- tion, struggle, and resistance. We see several examples of this difficulty throughout the Morte d’Arthur: Sir Torre grants a maiden her request for Gender and the Chivalric Community nat have holy my love unto the tyme that thou be called one of the numbir of the worthy knyghtes.... And therefore go and laboure in worshyp this twelve-monthe” (327.8–10). In the Grail Quest, Lancelot belatedly recog- nizes that the emphasis he has placed on winning worship has been wrong: “And never dud I batayle all only for Goddis sake, but for to wynne wor- ship and to cause me the bettir to be beloved” (897.19–21). Although not a Round Table knight himself until late in the text, Sir Tristram generally acquits himself admirably, having several encounters that help illuminate the “problem” of worship. For example, one of Tris- tram’s experiences suggests that worship may be won through taking the side of the weaker party in a combat, regardless of which party is in the right: “Sir, leve your fyghtynge with tho twenty knyghtes, for ye wynne no worship of them, ye be so many and they so feaw.... Therefore leve your fyghtynge with them for I, to encrese my worship, I woll ryde unto the twenty knyghtes and helpe them with all my myght and power” (526.29–34, 527.1–2).13 At the request of his uncle, King Mark, Tristram fights for the “trewage” of Cornwall against Marhalt of Ireland, killing the other knight in the process. When captured by Marhalt’s kin and com- manded to explain himself Tristram tells the king of Ireland he fought Marhalt to defend Cornwall. The other exclaims: “So God me helpe!... I may nat sey but ye dud as a knyght sholde do and as hit was youre parte to do for youre quarell, and to encrece your worshyp as a knyght sholde do” (391.17–20). As the above examples suggest, the issue of “worship” complicates loy- alties—and thus adherence to the articles of the Pentecostal Oath—in that in the world of Arthurian romance, one’s enemy may frequently be some- one whose actions are worthy of admiration. Arthur’s early conflicts in trying to consolidate his realm provide clear evidence of this: in his fight against the eleven kings, Malory tells us that Arthur is “passynge wrothe” (34.31) at the war waged against him. His new allies, King Ban and King Bors, who have greater experience as both kings and knights, gently chide Arthur for his anger: “‘A, sir Arthur... blame hem nat, for they do as good men ought to do. For be my fayth... they ar the beste fyghtynge men and knyghtes of moste prouesse that ever y saw other herde off speke. And tho eleven kyngis ar men of grete worship; and if they were longyng to you, there were no kynge under hevyn that had suche elevyn kyngis nother off suche worship’” (34.32–36, 35.1–2). The comment of Ban and Bors here reveals an important truth about conflict in the chivalric community; throughout the text, there is a recurring episodic sequence, in which two Gender and the Chivalric Community whole community by means of a select few produces a series of “blind spots” that appear when the values of the Oath are enforced. One of the greatest of these “blind spots”—and indeed, the source of much of the violation of its articles—is kin (dis)loyalty, which is nowhere explicitly addressed or regulated. Loyalty to blood often problematically supersedes loyalty to the Round Table order and the ideals expressed in the Pentecostal Oath, while disloyal acts on the part of one’s own blood rela- tions are often the most destructive, in that they are entirely unexpected and unlooked for. Thus, throughout the text, Morgan le Fay causes prob- lems with her numerous attempts to destroy her brother Arthur, who in- explicably is “the man in the worlde that she hatyth moste” (145.34); Queen Morgause is killed by her own son for betraying the memory of her husband (King Lot), by sleeping with Lamorak, the son of the man (King Pellinor) her sons believe killed their father (612.9–35, 613.1–2); Morgan rescues a knight named Manassen from certain death (and kills his captor) for no reason but that he is her lover Accolon’s cousin (152.1–31); a maiden demands that Torre behead a knight—despite his pleas for mercy—in or- der to avenge the death of her brother (112.13–36); and most famously and tragically, at the end of the text Gawain insists that his uncle Arthur wage war against Lancelot (despite the desire of both the major parties to be reconciled) in retribution for the accidental death of his brothers Gareth and Gaheris (1177 ff.). One of Lamorak’s adventures perhaps best demonstrates the problem- atic collision of loyalty to kin and to knightly brethren: riding through the forest, Lamorak comes upon two knights “hovyng” under a bush. When asked, the two knights reveal that they are lying in wait to ambush Sir Lancelot, who killed their brother. Curiously, instead of criticizing them for such a dishonorable strategy, Lamorak warns them that “ye take uppon you a grete charge... for sir Launcelot ys a noble proved knyght” (485.22– 23). Lancelot shows up soon after, he and Lamorak exchange courteous words, and the greatest knight of the Round Table departs. When Lamorak finds the brother knights hiding in the wood, he berates them: “Fye on you!... false cowardis! That pité and shame hit ys that ony of you sholde take the hyghe Order of Knyghthode!” (486.1–3). Rather than praising the brothers for deciding not to attack a fellow knight in a decidedly dis- honorable fashion, Lamorak’s response suggests that “good” knights avenge their kin, and do so even when it means violating the wrongful quarrel clause. Gender and the Chivalric Community create the subjects that they supposedly represent;21 in both form and con- tent, the Oath constructs male and female in terms of a binary that opposes active, aggressive masculinity to passive, helpless femininity. The Oath reinforces, affirms, and sharpens the masculine and feminine subject posi- tions as they exist within the chivalric scheme of compulsory heterosexu- ality. The instantiation of the Oath creates what Judith Butler has identi- fied as “a false stabilization of gender in the interests of the heterosexual construction and regulation of sexuality within the reproductive do- main.”22 The stability of identity supposedly produced by the Oath—the masculine as a free, predatory subject and the feminine as a passive, power- less object—is revealed to be a fiction, in that the masculine subcommu- nity is utterly and deeply dependent upon the feminine for definition. Malory’s text repeatedly demonstrates that the construction of mascu- line knightly identity occurs at the intersection of knightly prowess and romantic love. On any foray into the forest of adventure, a knight is sure to encounter other knights—with whom he may affirm his masculine sameness through a display of martial capabilities—and a knight is sure also to encounter women—against whom he may affirm his masculine difference through courteous behavior. These two types of encounter are crucial to the continual process of establishing and maintaining identity in the Arthurian community. Equally important is that the knight return to the court to relate those adventures he has in the forests of adventure. He in effect performs his gender identity twice: once in the quest, and again in the telling of the quest. The movement between these two places is a criti- cally important aspect of Malory’s narrative. Elizabeth Edwards points out that “these two locations represent the centripetal force of the attraction of a centralized court (which we might call civilization) and the centrifugal force of adventure (which usually takes place in a wilderness).”23 Laurie A. Finke and Martin B. Shichtman have used similar terms to describe the function of violence in the Morte d’Arthur: “Malory’s Morte represents violence not only as a centripetal force encouraging order, hier- archy, and centralization, but also as a centrifugal force that creates disor- der, contention, and sometimes unbearable chaos.”24 The Pentecostal Oath attempts to control violence, to harness it, not to outlaw it altogether; if the Oath forbids a knight from participating in “wrongful quarrels,” the im- plication is that there must exist “rightful” disputes, in which the knight is free to take up his sword and slash away. Likewise, the mercy clause pre- supposes the existence of a battle in which a defeated knight might ask to yield himself as overcome, while the “soccour” commanded in the ladies Gender and the Chivalric Community Malory, Malory’s positioning of these two episodes and some slight changes emphasize the question of gender in the Morte d’Arthur in a way the Suite does not.29 For both Gawain and Torre, these are the first quests of their knightly careers, but the conduct and relative success of each while on quest is strik- ingly and significantly different. When in the course of his assigned quest Gawain challenges to a battle the knight who slew his hounds, the latter is quickly overcome and begs mercy. “But sir Gawayne wolde no mercy have” (106.18). Just as Gawain raises his sword to behead the knight, the other’s lady emerges from an inner chamber, throws herself across her lover, and is herself accidentally beheaded. Gaheris’s words of rebuke to his brother at this moment are telling in that they are almost identical to what will become the mercy clause later on in the Pentecostal Oath: “‘Alas,’ seyde Gaheris, ‘that ys fowle and shamefully done, for that shame shall never frome you. Also, ye sholde gyff mercy unto them that aske mercy, for knyght withoute mercy ys withoute worship’” (106.22–25). In violat- ing one of the social values—mercy—Gawain entangles himself in an- other transgression—violation of the values expressed in the ladies clause of the Pentecostal Oath. Almost immediately after his accidental beheading of the lady, Gawain and Gaheris find themselves “hard bestad” in a battle with four knights; rescue comes in the form of four “fayre ladyes” who intercede on behalf of Arthur’s nephews. When, on the following morning, Gawain is lamenting his wounds, one of the ladies tells him, “Hit ys youre owne defaute... for ye have done passynge foule for the sleynge of thys lady” (107.30–32). Even as she condemns him for his actions, the lady continues to work on Gawain’s behalf, persuading the four knights to allow him to return to Arthur’s court. He does not go freely, however; the lady insists that the body of the dead maiden be draped across his horse, her head hung around his neck. Upon his return to court, Gawain relates the whole of his adven- ture to the king and queen. While Malory tells us that both Arthur and Guenevere are displeased with Gawain’s behavior, significantly Guenevere metes out punishment while Arthur remains silent: “and there by ordyn- aunce of the queene there was sette a queste of ladyes upon sir Gawayne, and they juged hym for ever whyle he lyved to be with all ladyes and to fyght for hir quarels; and ever that he sholde be curteyse, and never to refuse mercy to hym that askith mercy” (108.31–35). In the early pages of the text, Gawain’s adventure and Guenevere’s ver- dict underscore the significance of the feminine in defining masculine Gender and the Chivalric Community tity as well as that of the Arthurian court that he represents. Both the maiden and Torre “perform” Arthurian gender relations in this scene—his knightly courtesy a performative reaction to the feminine behavior and language of helplessness and need that the damsel employs. Much to Torre’s chagrin, the lady wants Abellus’s head; loath to comply, Torre suggests that she seek other recompense. “‘Now,’ seyde the dame- sell, ‘I may nat, for he slew myne owne brothir before myne yghen that was a bettir knyght than he’” (112.27–29). Upon hearing this, Abellus im- mediately drops to his knees and asks Torre for mercy. The damsel here uses the same strategy employed by a variety of female figures through- out the text to obtain their desires. It is a strategy that becomes clearer when considered in light of Luce Irigaray’s theory of mimesis, which ar- gues that women may resist the assigned position of femininity through deliberate alignment with it: One must assume the feminine role deliberately. Which means al- ready to convert a form of subordination into an affirmation, and thus to begin to thwart it. Whereas a direct feminine challenge condition means demanding to speak as a (masculine) “subject,” is, it means to postulate a relation to the intelligible that tain sexual indifference. To play with mimesis is thus, for a try to recover the place of her exploitation... without allowing her- self to be simply reduced to it.30 The damsel in this episode performs as a knight would expect her to, mim- icking feminine behavior and thus managing to transcend her categor- ization as such. Although in a sense she is a woman in need of knightly assistance, she capitalizes on her position to effectively make Torre her instrument. Here we can see how the rigid conception of gender categories and the attributes that mark those categories actually create a space in which women may wield some measure of power and influence within the patriarchal social project of chivalry. While the Arthurian community un- derstands and values the catalytic effect the feminine has in encouraging feats of bravery and prowess, it fails to anticipate the use of that catalytic effect for ends other than the glorification of the community and the indi- vidual knights who comprise it. In this instance, her brother’s death pro- vides the damsel with the impetus to act for her own “selfish” interests, rather than subsuming her personal desire into that of the communal good (that is, a test of knightly ability that would bring renown back to Torre and his community). Given the conflicting values in place, Torre makes the Gender and the Chivalric Community version of Arthurian matter, not to his making a mere facsimile of the Suite du Merlin.”31 In the Suite, Arthur establishes the Round Table before his wedding; in Malory, Arthur’s creation of the Round Table order at this moment links his heteronormativity (affirmed through marriage) to the lessons learned by questing knights.32 The Ywain-Gawain-Marhalt triple-quest, which occurs after the in- stitution of the Pentecostal Oath, reinforces the values enacted in the Gawain-Torre-Pellinor triple-quest, particularly in terms of ladies. Early on in the quest, the three knights encounter three damsels sitting near a fountain: And the eldyst had a garlonde of golde aboute her hede, and she was three score wyntir of age or more, and hir heyre was whyght undir the garlonde. The secunde damselle was of thirty wyntir of age, wyth a cerclet of golde aboute her hede. The thirde damesel was but fiftene yere of age, and a garlande of floures aboute hir hede.... be here,” seyde the damesels, “for this cause: if we may se ony of arraunte knyghtes to tech hem unto strong aventures. And ye be three knyghtes adventures and we be three damesels, and therefore eche one of you must chose one of us; and whan ye have done so, we woll lede you unto three hyghewayes, and there eche of you shall chose a way and his damesell with hym” (162.31–38, 163.1–7). From its inception, this adventure dramatizes the link between feminine presence and the masculine activity of the quest.33 At the same time, the experiences on this quest also offer a suggestive warning about the power of feminine influence over knights. Gawain, for example, encounters a knight—Pelleas—who allows himself to be regularly captured, simply so that he may be brought into the presence of his unrequited love, the lady Ettard. Gawain offers to help Pelleas but is himself so besotted with the lady that he fails to do his “trew parte” and seduces the lady breaking his promise and compromising his identity as a knight of wor- ship. Ywain becomes involved with a different kind of conflict that involves a lady. In a scene that appears to be original to Malory, Ywain fights on be- half of the Lady of the Roche, who has been “desheryted... of a barony of londis” by two brother knights, sirs Edward and Hew of the Red Castle. Exclaims Ywain when he learns of the lady’s predicament: “Madam... they ar to blaime, for they do ayenste the hyghe Order of Knyghthode and the oth that they made. And if it lyke you I woll speke with hem, because I Gender and the Chivalric Community that helde warre ageynst hym long tyme.... And so by meanes kynge Uther send for this duk charging hym to brynge his wyf with hym, for she was called a fair lady and a passynge wyse, and her name was called Igrayne” (7.1–7). Malory’s source makes no mention of a specific conflict between Uther and Cornwall; in the Merlin “Une foiz prist talant au roi qu’il semondroit touz ses barons et que por l’amour de lui et por s’onor amenissient tuit lor femmes et preïssient as autres chevaliers de lor terres que il amenissient les lor” [the king happened... to wish to call his barons together, and, for the honor and love of him, he wanted them to bring their wives and noble vassals and knights].35 From the inception of Malory’s narrative, then, masculine rivalry on the battlefield is explicitly amplified and extended into rivalry over a woman. Martial and marital issues are linked in a way that they are not in his source. In response to Uther’s overtures, Malory tells us that Igrayne asks her husband that they depart from court, for “she was a passyng good woman and wold not assente unto the kynge” (7.11–13). The duke and his wife secretly leave the court and return to the castle Tintagel, whereupon the angry Uther convenes his barons to determine what should be done in the face of such an insult. They advise the king to “send for the duke and his wyf by a grete charge: ‘and yf he wille not come at your somons, thenne may ye do your best; and thenne have ye cause to make myghty werre upon hym’” (7.25–28). By his actions, Uther acknowledges and reaffirms the codependency of the ruler-subject relationship and its construction of individual and communal identity in terms of the chivalric ethos; however, the council’s assertion that Uther is justified in attacking Cornwall tacitly affirms and supports Uther’s dishonorable desire for another man’s wife. In response to this dilemma, the conflict between Uther and Cornwall is directed away from the true source—the woman Igrayne—and redirected toward con- cerns over power, rule, and insult. Even though partially obscured, how- ever, the feminine—the helpless, vulnerable Igrayne—is still a key com- ponent in the definition of communal identity in this episode. As the contested object in the quarrel between Cornwall and Uther, Igrayne helps define the identities of the parties involved as heteronormative. In the Uther-Igrayne-Cornwall conflict, the concerns of masculine war- fare are clearly intertwined with those of heterosexual desire. Further analysis of this episode also reveals that the chivalric community achieves definition in terms of a Same/Other binarism. Igrayne becomes the femi- nine Other against which both groups of men define themselves, and simi- Gender and the Chivalric Community establish and maintain as his own.38 In other words, the similarities be- tween Uther and Cornwall create the circumstances that manifest their differences. After Cornwall’s death, we see a literal reinscription: Uther smoothly reincorporates Cornwall’s holdings into his own. Gorlois’s lands, his men, and his wife are transferred from the duke to the king with little expended effort. What was once the Other is revealed to be the Same. In essence, conflict in the terms of chivalry is made possible by similarity between the warring parties—a shared chivalric ethos, sensibility, or “lan- guage” facilitates military engagement. Malory tells us repeatedly that Igrayne was a “passyng good woman,” and holds her up as a model of proper feminine behavior, reasserting the idealized and absolute dependence of women upon men in the chivalric project. Upon learning that her husband has not only been killed, but also passed away hours before her sexual encounter with Uther in the likeness of Cornwall, Igrayne “mourned pryvely and held hir pees” (9.30); she of- fers no objection when the nobles of the land decide to wed her to Uther, the man responsible for the death of her husband; when Uther reveals to her his deception and that he is in fact the father of the child she is carry- ing, Malory tells us that “Thenne the quene made grete joye whan she knewe who was the fader of her child” (10.31–32); and upon the death of Uther, her second husband, Malory relates that as was the case with the passing of her first, “fayre Igrayne made grete sorowe and alle the barons” (12.10). Igrayne stands out as the exemplary female in Malory’s text, quickly and silently adapting to the needs and wants of the men who fight over and exchange her. When word comes that Cornwall has been defeated by Uther’s forces, Malory tells us that “alle the barons by one assent prayd the kynge of accord betwixe the lady Igrayne and hym” (9.31–32), to which request the king accedes and charges Sir Ulfius to make the arrangements for the wed- ding. As with the decision to attack Cornwall, the king’s subsequent mar- riage is represented as not only the result of his own personal desire, but also as an act that will fulfill some perceived need of the community over which he presides; it is a body of—again, significantly male—nobles who comes to this decision. Just as she became the largely silent object of the erotic triangle of king, duke, and lady, Igrayne is the silent corner once again in the development of a plan to reincorporate Cornwall into Uther’s larger kingdom: “‘Now wille we doo wel,’ said Ulfyus; ‘our kyng is a lusty knyght and wyveles, and my lady Igrayne is a passynge fair lady; it were grete joye unto us all and hit myghte please the kynge to make her his Gender and the Chivalric Community most destructive element in the text: the incestuously begotten Mordred. At the end of Malory’s work, Mordred seeks to re-create the sin of his parents by attempting to wed Queen Guenevere, both his aunt and his stepmother.39 His act will provoke the final battle at Salisbury which Arthur and his nephew/son mortally wound one another. A moment from the closing pages of the text suggestively points to the negative impact Morgause and Arthur’s illicit relationship has chivalric community. On the field at Dover, Arthur stands over his dying nephew Gawain—also Morgause’s son—and laments him with a signifi- cant choice of words: “Alas! sir Gawayne, my syster son, here now thou lyghest, the man in the worlde that I loved moste. And now ys my joy gone! For now, my nevew, sir Gawayne, I woll discover me unto you, that in youre person and in sir Launcelot I moste had my joy and myne affyaunce. And now have I loste my joy of you bothe, wherefore all myne erthely joy ys gone fro me!” (1230.11–17). Malory has altered as he found it in his source, the Mort Artu. In the French, Arthur “Biax niés, grant domage m’a fet vostre felonnie, car ele m’a ge amoie seur touz hommes, et Lancelot après” [“Dear nephew, your treachery has done me great harm, because it deprived me both of you, whom I loved more than anyone else, and also of Lancelot”].40 choice of words in the Morte d’Arthur is notable; while in both Artu and the English Stanzaic Morte Arthur, Arthur refers to Gawain as his “nephew,” there is no reference to the mother who bore him. ment when Arthur laments over the body of his “syster son” both and condemns a system of social order founded upon a kin-based patriar- chal structure in which the bodies of women form the locus of masculine homosocial relationships. When viewed through the lens of Morgause, we see that the idealized patriarchal order of the chivalric community done by its refusal to recognize that the exchange of women on which its structure depends may be threatened by those very objects of transaction, should they resist their particular identity construction as commodities be exchanged. Although supposedly one of Uther’s allies through marriage to Mor- gause, daughter of Queen Igrayne, Lot is also one of several leaders who refuse to accept Arthur as king. Malory tells us that: And thydir com unto hym kynge Lottis wyff of Orkeney in maner of a message, but she was sente thydir to aspye the courte of kynge Arthur, and... she was a passynge fayre lady. Wherefore the kynge caste grete love unto hir and desired to ly by her. And so they were Gender and the Chivalric Community position of the earliest sections of the French Vulgate that the story of Mordred includes his incestuous conception.45 While the incestuous aspect of Arthur’s relationship with Morgause effectively renders Mordred a more horrific, inherently evil villain for both medieval and modern audi- ences, what seems to be of greatest importance here is that Arthur is appar- ently the author of his own undoing, whether it be the sin of incest or adultery that ultimately brings about the destruction of his realm.46 While critics have long rightly looked to Arthur’s incestuous and adulterous re- lationship with Morgause as the source of one of the destructive forces that will cause the collapse of the Arthurian community, their focus—on Arthur’s sin—has been entirely wrong. The chivalric social order is not primarily damaged by the actions of the king in begetting the traitorous Mordred. It is not even Mordred, villainous as he is, who is fully to blame: Morgause’s behavior is a much more important force in the undoing of the chivalric community. We can see the full significance of Morgause’s actions through a com- parison of her relationship with Arthur to that of Uther and Igrayne. The Uther-Igrayne and Arthur-Morgause episodes follow in many ways a similar pattern; however, each has strikingly different outcomes. While Uther’s semi-rape of Igrayne produces the noble Arthur, Arthur’s consen- sual yet adulterous liaison with Morgause results in the evil Mordred. What is to account for these different outcomes? The answer is in the role that the feminine plays in each of these encounters, and how each of these women conform to or resist chivalric ideals of femininity. Igrayne never knowingly consents to the betrayal of her lord, while in the case of Morgause, Lot’s wife willingly participates in the cuckolding of her hus- band: “Wherefore the kynge caste grete love unto hir and desired to ly by her. And so they were agreed, and he begate uppon hir sir Mordred” (em- phasis mine).47 Where Malory emphasizes the agreement between Arthur and Lot’s wife, the source text does not: Moult fist li rois Artus grant joie de la dame et moult le festia ses enfans. Li rois vit la dame de grant biauté plainne, si l’ama durement, et la fist demourer en sa court deus mois entiers. Et tant qu’en chelui terme il gut a li et engenra en li Mordrec, par cui tant grant mal furent puis fait en la terre de Logres et en tout le monde. [King Arthur received the lady and her children with rejoicing and feasting. He saw that the lady was beautiful and loved her passion- Gender and the Chivalric Community exchanges depends upon the construction of the feminine as silent, pas- sive, and malleable—a commodity to be exchanged. Morgause, however, resists commodification. Exchanged by her step- father, Uther Pendragon, to secure an alliance with King Lot of Orkney, Morgause clearly serves her function as a commodity in the patriarchal chivalric community of the Morte d’Arthur, a system in which loyalty is indeed first established by blood and then extended in alliance with other kin groups through a practice of exogamy. Once married, Morgause pro- duces four sons and is therefore removed from the marketplace of patriar- chy. In the terms of Luce Irigaray, Morgause becomes “use value”: “moth- ers, reproductive instruments marked with the name of the father and enclosed in his house, must be private property, excluded from ex- change.”52 But as Morgause’s relationship with Arthur demonstrates, pa- triarchy can only succeed when those commodities exchanged—women— are stringently controlled as property under the name of the father or husband to whom they “belong” or have been “gifted” and when men acknowledge the right of another man to possess a woman, seeking to ob- tain access to her only through the proper channels. As Gayle Rubin points out, “kinship systems do not merely exchange women. They exchange sexual access, genealogical statuses, lineage names and ancestors, rights and people—men, women, and children—in concrete systems of social re- lationships.”53 Morgause and Arthur transgress patriarchal systems of so- cial relationships by breaking the incest taboo and committing adultery; but what is of greatest import here is the active role Morgause plays in the exchange of her body.54 In agreeing to the relationship with Arthur, Morgause effects a transac- tion of feminine sexuality that subverts the conventions of patriarchy. No man contracts access to Morgause’s body, or exchanges it for power, wealth, or status—Morgause is both gift and giver, a stark contrast to her mother. Igrayne resists Uther’s overtures as long as she is married to an- other man; upon Cornwall’s death, Igrayne’s resistance dissipates, and she silently permits herself to be the object of masculine exchange, thereby strengthening the chivalric social order. Morgause’s behavior runs con- trary to the greater communal good, and her agreement to commit adul- tery threatens not only her husband, King Lot, but also her transgression poses a danger to the larger Arthurian community, in that the product of that adultery is Mordred. Although it is Mordred’s adulterous and incestu- ous conception that is repeatedly invoked as one of the primary causes of the destruction of the chivalric community, the questions of adultery and Gender and the Chivalric Community wounded Gawain and offers up a lament for his “syster son,” he mourns not only the loss of his nephew and ally but also the collapse of the entire community, a collapse in part precipitated by another “syster son,” Mor- dred. In her marriage to King Lot and her subsequent production of sons who become strong allies of their uncle Arthur, Morgause exemplifies how the exchange of women is central to the establishment of relationships and alliances between and among men, and further, how such exchanges and relationships form the foundation of the Arthurian social order. As a will- ing participant in her adulterous liaison with Arthur, she similarly reveals the tenuous quality of that order. An examination of another of Arthur’s sexual liaisons clarifies the de- structive nature of Morgause’s actions: “Than in the meanewhyle there com a damesell that was an erlis doughter; hys name was Sanam and hir name was Lyonors.... And so she cam thidir for to do omage as other lordis ded after that grete batayle. And kynge Arthure sette hys love gretly on hir, and so ded she uppon hym, and so the kynge had ado with hir and gate on hir a chylde. And hys name was Borre, that was after a good knyght of the Table Rounde” (38.27–34). Lyonors, like Morgause, willingly ac- cedes to the king’s overtures. The difference is Lyonors’s unmarried state. While fornication is a sin as surely as adultery, the lack of anxiety over this coupling and its offspring, Borre, is due to the fact that genealogy is here not a question. That Arthur is Borre’s sire does not compromise the integ- rity of another man’s identity and power as Arthur’s parentage of Mordred compromises Lot’s stable identity, nor does it pose a threat in terms of claims of inheritance, at least from the position of Lyonors’s father. Al- though as an unmarried woman Lyonors is still considered the property of her father in the terms of patriarchy, her union with Arthur—far from shaming her father, who has only control over (and not access to) her sexuality—brings Earl Sanam into closer relationship with the king, and thereby derives for him some benefit.55 As a husband Lot’s only profit from Morgause’s incest and adultery is shame. The Uther-Igrayne and Arthur-Morgause episodes demonstrate the in- tense anxiety surrounding gender identities in the Arthurian chivalric community and the need of the masculine to objectify, marginalize, and construct the feminine as passive and vulnerable, thereby maintaining the stable masculine heterosexual identity essential to the maintenance of pa- triarchy. Having claimed his rightful throne and successfully defended his right to do so against the eleven dissenting kings, to further consolidate his power and assert his heteronormativity, Arthur next takes a wife: Guene- Gender and the Chivalric Community undermines their knightly masculine identities. While Guenevere is one of those feminine figures who later on destabilizes the social order, for much of the text she demonstrates a positive, explicit, and direct engage- ment with the shaping of knightly identity in her role as queen. In the triple-quest of Gawain, Torre, and Pellinor, Guenevere acts as judge, ren- dering verdicts on the actions and behavior of the knights as they return from questing.57 At this early stage in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur, Guene- vere successfully models proper queenly behavior, arguably complement- ing, enhancing—and indeed, in some sense compensating for—the silent, passive model afforded by Igrayne.58 As queen, Guenevere functions dif- ferently from those female characters who pierce the masculine fellowship from without to present the opportunity for adventure.59 The queen dif- fers also from those so-called quest maidens who never enter the court at all, but are instead encountered by knights within the mysterious realm of the forest of adventure.60 The queen has a special relationship to the Gawain-Torre-Pellinor triple-quest, as the “mervayle” that precipitates it is seemingly created specifically as entertainment to mark the occasion of her marriage to King Arthur: “Than was feste made redy, and the kynge was wedded at Camelot unto dame Gwenyvere in the chirche of Seynte Stephyns.... Merlion wente to all the knyghtes of the Rounde Table and bade hem sitte stylle, ‘that none of you remeve, for ye shall se a straunge and a mervail the Chivalric Community in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur mediated by the presence of the feminine: Uther’s deceptive seduction of Igrayne, Arthur’s unwitting incest (and knowing adultery) with his half- sister Morgause, Arthur’s marriage to Guenevere, and his conflict with his other half-sister Morgan le Fay. Significantly inextricable from this femi- nine presence is an economy of violence. The “Tale of King Arthur” makes explicit the link between masculine violence and the marginal—yet essen- tial—feminine. Again and again, passive femininity and masculine vio- lence intersect, perhaps nowhere quite as significantly as in the swearing of the Pentecostal Oath. The Pentecostal Oath In the attempt to better understand Malory’s text, much research has fo- cused on those parts of the Morte d’Arthur that appear to be purely the creation of Malory—that is, with no corresponding passages in the many French and few English texts from which the author drew. One such mo- ment that appears to be wholly original to Malory occurs near the end of the “Tale of King Arthur.” It is the swearing of the Pentecostal Oath, in which King Arthur articulates a code of conduct for the members of his knightly community to follow: he re- the kynge stablysshed all the knyghtes and gaff them rychesse and londys; and charged them never to do outerage nothir mourthir, and allwayes to fle treson, and to gyff mercy unto hym that askith mercy, uppon payne of forfiture of their worship and lordship of kynge Arthure for evirmore; and allwayes to do ladyes, damesels, and jan- tilwomen and wydowes socour: strengthe hem in hir ryghtes, and never to enforce them, upon payne of dethe. Also, that no man take no batayles in a wrongefull quarell for no love ne for no worldis goodis. So unto thys were all knyghtis sworne of the Table Rounde, both olde and younge, and every yere so were they sworne at the hyghe feste of Pentecoste. (120.15–27) Malory’s direct source for these early episodes of Arthur’s life and reign contains no such injunction to the knights of the Round Table.4 In his commentary on the first book of Malory’s Morte d’Arthur, Vinaver calls special attention to the delineation of knightly duties as articulated by Arthur: “This is perhaps the most complete and authentic record of M[alory]’s conception of chivalry. Elsewhere he expresses it incidentally or indirectly, whereas here for the first and perhaps the last time he states 29 30 Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur stant weighing, evaluation, and application of the values expressed in the Pentecostal Oath. The particular articles of the Oath simply articulate the chivalric ideals already in place in the community, functioning at the level of convention, if not law. What Edwards calls the “generating and regener- ating” of the code never occurs free of the ideals articulated in the Oath; chivalry in Malory is never made from whole cloth, as it were. Throughout the Morte d’Arthur we see a discovery, refinement, and testing of the prac- tical application of the chivalric code, a process that also reveals where the chivalric ideal falls short as a means of ordering the Arthurian community. In Lynch’s view, then, the applicability of the Pentecostal Oath might only be responsibly considered in terms of the earliest episodes of the Morte d’Arthur, its “immediate context,” and indeed, in this chapter these early episodes and their relationship to the Oath are my primary focus. Yet, throughout Malory—and far beyond the “Tale of King Arthur”—numer- ous characters explicitly cite the Oath: upon learning that two “perelous knyghtes” have disinherited a noblewoman, Sir Uwayne notes that “they ar to blame, for they do ayenste the hyghe Order of Knyghthode and the oth that they made” (177.10–12); when a damsel asks Lancelot’s assistance in defeating a serial rapist, Arthur’s greatest knight responds with “What? Is he a theff and a knyght? And a ravyssher of women? He doth shame unto the Order of Knyghthode, and contrary unto his oth” (269.22–24); when Gaheris challenges Uwayne to a joust, the other reminds him that “the first tyme that ever ye were made knyght of the Rounde Table ye sware that ye shuld nat have ado with none of youre felyship wyttyngly farewell to... ye know me well inow by my shylde... and thaughe ye wolde breke youre othe, I woll nat breke myne” (546.26–31); when Sir Bleoberys finds himself at a four-on-one combat disadvantage, he gathers his courage by reminding himself, “I am a knyght of the Table Rounde, and rathir than I sholde shame myne othe and my blode I woll holde my way whatsomever falle thereof” (685.25–27). Again and again, knights in the Morte d’Arthur recall the Pentecostal Oath and deliberately choose to act in accordance with its strictures. As the examples above suggest, it seems unlikely that Malory “forgets” that early in his massive work he has made law out of many of the conven- tions of chivalric behavior. Quite the contrary: throughout the text Malory has the Oath and its rules firmly in mind. But even if it were the case that Malory’s creation of the Pentecostal Oath is something done in a fit of momentary enthusiasm, the reader cannot help but be reminded of the Oath and its articles as the text returns again and again to the geographic 31 32 Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur a gift, which turns out to be the head of a knight who promptly begs for mercy (112.13–36); Accolon serves his lady, Morgan le Fay, by promising to battle Arthur to the death, an act that surely violates both the “outerage nothir mourthir” and “wrongefulle quarell” clauses (142–47); Lancelot is ‘at the nexte feste of tricked into disarming and climbing a tree by Sir Phelot’s manipulation of the Oath (282.10–37; 283.1–36). Perhaps most significantly, Lancelot’s se- ries of defenses of Guenevere that punctuate the end of the text bring “soccour” for ladies and the prohibition on wrongful quarrels and treason into direct conflict. Indeed, in his combat with Meleagant, the mercy clause further complicates matters when Meleagant yields himself: “Moste noble knyghte sir Launcelot, save my lyff! For I yelde gyff there me unto you, and I requyre you, as ye be a knyght and felow of the Table Rounde, sle me nat....” Than sir Lancelot wyst nat what to do [and] loked uppon the queene.... And anone the quene wagged hir hede uppon sir Launcelot, as ho seyth “sle hym....” Than sir Launcelot bade hym “Aryse, for shame, and perfourme thys batayle sug- with me to the utterance!” (1138.21–31, 1139.1–5).12 Lancelot is here caught between two articles of the Pentecostal Oath: if he grants mercy, he displeases—and more important, perhaps harms the reputation of—the lady to whom he has attempted to render “soccour”; if he obeys the request of his lady and slays his opponent, he has disobeyed the mercy clause. Unable to decide which guideline to follow, Lancelot chooses to disobey both articles. He has run out of options. Part of the problem is that the Pentecostal Oath is at once too general and too specific; its clauses delineate proper knightly behavior—that which knights should do—and improper activity—that which knights should avoid—without addressing a possible intersection of the two. It also fails to satisfactorily address the very real need of members of the Round Table community to “win worship,” a process that generally occurs in combat. It seems that a knight may “win worship” both by adhering to the Pentecos- tal Oath’s articles and disobeying them, depending on the situation. For example, King Pellinor (whose adventure on the occasion of Arthur’s wed- ding I discuss at greater length below) refuses to stop and aid a damsel in distress because “he was so egir in hys queste” (114.16–17); the desire to win worship through successful completion of the quest here compels Pellinor to transgress against chivalric values concerning women, with unfortunate results: the maiden commits suicide. While on his own quest, the newly knighted Sir Gareth is told by his lady that “as yet thou shalt 33 34 Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur knights fight almost to the death, but then are so impressed with one an- other that they decide to become allies and fast friends. The line between “evermore love” and “evermore warre” in the Morte d’Arthur is a fine one indeed. P.J.C. Field points out that “Malory gives us a style of dialogue which stresses the similarity of all knights, not the difference between individu- als.”14 The similarity among knights permits for this ease of movement across boundaries of alliance and animosity in the text; indeed, single com- bat demonstrates this likeness, for the two knights face each other as mir- ror images, legible to one another in their shared status, denoted in Malory both by costume and by language.15 In the early episodes, King Pellinor and Arthur fight as enemies; later, Pellinor becomes a knight of the Round Table and one of Arthur’s allies. This fact of chivalric life explains how it can be that Arthur inters his enemy, King Lot, with all the rights befitting a trusted and noble ally: “But of all the twelve kyngis kynge Arthure lette make the tombe of kynge Lotte passyng rychely, and made hys tombe hymselff” (77.30–32). Yet, the ease with which enemies morph into allies causes problems within the chivalric social order. In order to win worship, knights quite clearly need plenty of opportunities to demonstrate their prowess, but as more former enemies are absorbed into the Round Table order, authorized foes are harder and harder to come by. In order to legitimately counter with other knights outside the confines of the tournament, Malory’s text frequently makes use of the “knight in disguise” ploy—particularly in the massive Tristram section—which permits knights to engage with one an- other when it might otherwise be legally forbidden.16 Malory’s conception of knighthood in the Morte d’Arthur suggests a departure from the focus of knighthood in the Suite, where worries over knightly behavior are primarily expressed as concerns over the spiritual well-being of individual knights. Malory’s text shifts this emphasis, re- placing individual, spiritual concerns with a collective, secular focus. The public, annual ritual of the swearing of the Pentecostal Oath demonstrates this. Elizabeth Pochoda notes that “the code... displays a striking concern for the welfare of the realm.... The oath which the knights swear to at each feast of the Pentecost is basically a code of public service. At its center are the spiritual virtues of mercy and justice to be sure, but the context of these virtues has been changed.... [these are] not acts of private individu- als; they are done for the community.”17 This attempt to regulate the 35 36 Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur The Pentecostal Oath’s other critical “blind spot” is in the area of gen- der identity. Among the articles of the Oath is the so-called ladies clause: “and allwayes to do ladyes, damesels, and jantilwomen and wydowes socour: strengthe hem in hir ryghtes, and never to enforce them, upon payne of dethe.” Embedded in the center of the Oath, the position of this particular rule reflects the similar embeddedness of gender in the forma- tion and refinement of identity in Malory’s chivalric society, and thus, its imbrication in all aspects of the Arthurian community. An analysis of the forces and values operative in Malory’s text reveals that identities of self and community are inextricable both from one another and from the chivalric enterprise. While foregrounding masculine activity, chivalry re- veals itself as an impossible project without the presence of the feminine, and indeed, only possible when the feminine is present in a subjugated position.18 The legislation of chivalry through the Pentecostal Oath de- fines and sharpens the issue of gender so that it resonates throughout Malory’s fictional Arthurian society. Knights in Malory always read women as vulnerable, helpless, and ever in need of the services of a knight—in short, the object through and against which a knight affirms his masculine identity. Even as the Pente- costal Oath offers explicit protection to women in the ladies clause, it also simultaneously and deliberately constructs them as “feminine” in the chivalric sense—helpless, needy, rape-able. The threat of sexual violence— and the need to protect women from it—provides knight after knight with the opportunity to test and prove his prowess and knightly identity.19 As Kathryn Gravdal notes: “[R]ape (either attempted rape or the defeat of a rapist) constitutes one of the episodic units used in the construction of a romance. Sexual violence is built into the very premise of Arthurian ro- mance. It is a genre that by its definition must create the threat of rape” (emphasis in original).20 While Gravdal’s assertion is generally correct, she does not articulate its full implications: in affirming his knightly iden- tity and his right to belong to the heteronormative masculine commu- nity of the Arthurian court, a knight not only needs a vulnerable, helpless woman, but more specifically, he needs “woman” to signify as vulnerable and helpless. In essence, the Pentecostal Oath effects a disciplinary production of gender in both its particular focus—a structure that locates knights at the center, looking outward at the rest of the society—and in the particular articles it legislates, such as the ladies clause. In his theorization of power systems, Michel Foucault has argued that juridical power systems in fact 37 38 Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur clause very often manifests itself in the text as defense of helpless women by means of arms. Adherence to the Oath, then, demands that knights participate in sanctioned forms of violence, and opportunities for such are most often to be found away from the court. Thus, knights return again and again to the wilderness to enact the ideals of knightly masculine iden- tity. The repetition of these identity-shaping episodic units reveals the performative nature of gendered identities in Malory’s romance; that is, the attributes of masculinity and femininity that characters display are in fact the very constitution of the particular gender identity they suppos- edly represent. As Butler has argued, “Gender proves to be performative— that is, constituting the identity it is purported to be.... There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender; that identity is performatively constituted by the very expressions that are said to be its results,” and she further contends that “the action of gender requires a performance that is repeated” (emphasis in original).25 Butler’s definition of gender—that the signs or marks by which one is categorized “masculine” or “feminine” are not the expression of a preexisting gender identity, but rather, the appear- ance or repeated performance of these signs or marks is gender itself— offers a provocative way into Malory’s text. In the Morte d’Arthur, knightly masculine identity is both the cause and effect of knightly behav- ior, while feminine identity is similarly the product and the process of its production.26 In the Morte d’Arthur, feminine acts of facilitation, enabling, and me- diation repeatedly manifest themselves as necessary to the project of the quest, the primary vehicle by which knights construct themselves as par- ticular individuals belonging to a particular community. Throughout the “Tale of King Arthur,” but particularly in the “triple-quests” of Torre, Pellinor, and Gawain, and Gawain, Ywain, and Marhalt,27 the feminine op- erates as either instigator of quest, mediator of quest, or witness to completion (and thereby validation) of the quest. The ubiquitous and seemingly necessary presence of female characters who ask favors, bestow gifts, intercede for, and pass judgment on knights, points to the impor- tance of the feminine in establishing, shaping, and confirming masculine knightly identity. Geraldine Heng points out that “the feminine mater- ialises in order to be inducted into providing the enabling conditions of the chivalric enterprise: to prop, justify and facilitate the masculine drama of chivalry, the feminine is drawn in, allowed a point of access.”28 Although Heng’s observation applies with equal facility to both the Suite and 39 40 Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur identity. In the space of less than a hundred lines, Malory has given his Gawain an unforgettable lesson in the power of the feminine. As the acci- dentally beheaded gentlewoman signifies the potential vulnerability of la- dies, the four women who rescue Gawain and his brother from almost cer- tain death demonstrate the power the feminine may exercise over knights. Guenevere’s verdict, that Gawain should “for ever whyle he lyved... be with all ladyes and... fyght for hir quarels” transforms the literal—the maiden attached to Gawain’s horse and person—into the figurative, con- structing out of her physical body the general dictum that Gawain must follow for the rest of his life. Malory takes care to remind us how service to ladies has shaped Gawain’s reputation, even in death. In the closing pages of the Morte d’Arthur, the dead Gawain appears to Arthur in a dream, surrounded by “a numbir of fayre ladyes” (1233.29). Gawain brings to his uncle an important message from beyond the grave, and it is his devotion to the feminine while living that makes his visitation and warning pos- sible: “‘Sir,’ seyde sir Gawayne, ‘all thes be ladyes for whom I have foughten for, whan I was man lyvynge. And all the ar tho that I ded batayle fore in ryghteous quarels, and God hath gyvyn hem that grace at their grete prayer, bycause I ded batayle for them for their ryght, that they shulde brynge me hydder unto you. Thus much hath gyvyn me leve God for to warne you of youre dethe’” (1234.1–7). By learning his lesson about ladies early in the text, Gawain is accorded special grace at the end. In contrast with Gawain in the early pages of the Morte d’Arthur, Torre does a much better job in his first quest of negotiating the difficult tensions and hierarchy of values in the Arthurian community, although his experi- ence reinforces the connection between knightly behavior and gender sug- gested by the Gawain episode. Unlike Gawain, this new-made knight readily grants mercy to his opponents when they ask it. In the course of fulfilling his quest—retrieving a brachet taken from Arthur’s court—he must fight that knight, Abellus, who took it, and in the midst of their battle a maiden arrives and asks Torre for a gift: “‘I beseche the,’ seyde the damesell, ‘for kynge Arthurs love, gyff me a gyffte, I requyre the, jantyll knyght, as thou arte a jantillman.’ ‘Now,’ seyde sir Torre, ‘aske a gyffte and I woll gyff hit you’” (112.16–20). The maiden here behaves according to expectations of the feminine as it operates in Malory’s text—always in need of something that only a knight can provide. The terms of her request cleverly invoke the reputation and identity of both Arthur’s court and Torre himself, linking the two and thereby compelling Torre to behave as a “jantillman” should, a move that affirms his own courteous knightly iden- 41 42 Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur best decision he possibly can and beheads the knight. That Arthur and Guenevere praise him for his behavior further reinforces the fact of the helplessness of a knight when confronted by a lady asking favors; the knightly understanding of women as powerless ironically renders them powerful. The quest of King Pellinor offers an interesting corollary to the Torre- Abellus episode, as he in fact does not accede to the request of a lady, and is condemned and punished for this behavior. Malory tells us that early in the quest “as he rode in a foreyste he saw in a valey a damesell sitte by a well and a wounded knyght in her armys, and kynge Pellynor salewed hir. And whan she was ware of hym, she cryed on lowde and seyde, ‘Helpe me, knyght, for Jesuys sake!’ But kynge Pellynore wolde nat tarry, he was so egir in hys queste; and ever she cryed an hondred tymes aftir helpe” (114.12–18). As he returns to Camelot at the conclusion of his quest, he passes by the same spot and finds the pair now dead, the maiden a suicide, their bodies partially eaten away by wild animals. When he relates his ad- venture, the king and queen chastise him severely, not least of all because to this the maiden, he discovers, was in fact his own daughter. Had Pellinor fol- that lowed the value system of the code and yielded to the lady’s request as is would main- convention—and as the Pentecostal Oath will explicitly instruct him woman, to later—not only would he have been behaving as a proper knight, but he would have had the added reward of saving the life of his own daughter. Disobedience of both the letter and spirit of the ladies clause results not only in public rebuke (the disapproval of Arthur and Guenevere), but in- curs personal loss as well (the suicide of his daughter). In reworking his source material, Malory significantly chooses to insert the Pentecostal Oath immediately at the conclusion of this first triple- quest: “Thus whan the queste was done of the whyght herte the whych folowed sir Gawayne, and the queste of the brachet whych folowed sir Torre, kyng Pellynors son, and the queste of the lady that the knyghte toke away, whych at that tyme folowed kynge Pellynor, than the kynge stab- lysshed all the knyghtes and gaff them rychesse and londys” (120.11–16). Several scholars have pointed out the significance of the fact that the Oath comes immediately upon the completion of these quests. Thomas Wright, for example, argues that “in its own terms Malory’s narrative fol- lows a course from disorder and rebellion to the oath of chivalry, itself a code that grows out of the wedding quests and is proved in the adventures that close the ‘Tale of King Arthur.’ Such departures from the inherited tradition... point unmistakably to Malory’s conscious drafting of a new 43 44 Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur am a knyght of kyng Arthurs, and to entrete them with fayrenesse; and if they woll nat, I shall do batayle with them for Goddis sake and in the defence of your ryght” (177.10–15). This original passage is particularly important in terms of Ywain’s citation of the Round Table Oath; as Tho- mas Wright notes, “[Ywain] remembers the sworn oath of Arthur’s court, and his actions are so conditioned by it that they attain a moral relevance for which Malory himself is responsible.”34 Here we see one of the first instances in which the institution of the Oath clearly sharpens the issue of knightly behavior—and in particular, behavior toward ladies—when it is compared to its Oath-less source. All of the women encountered during knightly adventures seem to act with a clear understanding of the knightly code and their expected role in terms of it. In turn, many of these female characters demonstrate an awareness that, while the code does not address women directly, they are implicated in that it addresses the issue of women for knights. Signifi- “We cantly, resistance to categorization as feminine, when it does occur, usually occurs in the terms of the code, generally through the act of mimesis. The awareness of the code, in combination with the lack of a parallel code de- signed to regulate feminine behavior, opens up a space of feminine influ- ence at the very heart of the masculine chivalric enterprise. The feminine is so critical to the construction of knightly identity that to acknowledge the possibility of a feminine appropriation of power—let alone to attempt to combat it—threatens to expose the fiction of gender identity upon which the community is founded. These feminine figures, whether or not their conduct is subsumed within a desire for the common good, are able to use the Pentecostal Oath and its understanding of the feminine as either a defense or a weapon against their socially constructed identities. Gender, Genealogy, and Gifts: Igrayne, Morgause, and Guenevere himself, Although it comes near the end of the first portion of Malory’s text, the Pentecostal Oath articulates the connection between gender and violence that is present from the very first moments of the “Tale of King Arthur.” Malory begins his text with an episode from Arthurian prehistory, and significantly, he opens the Morte d’Arthur with a familiar romance theme—the love of a man for an unattainable woman—and immediately pairs this motif with the masculine display of violence intrinsic to chivalric literature: “Hit befel in the dayes of Uther Pendragon, when he was kynge of all Englond and so regned, that there was a myghty duke in Cornewaill 45 46 Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur larly, Cornwall and his allies are constructed as a masculine Other against which the Same of Uther and his men are consolidated. In both of these processes, however, the Other necessarily becomes essential to the con- struction of the Same, and thus, is not really Other, but in fact proximate. Jonathan Dollimore has termed this “transgressive reinscription,” arguing that “the proximate is often constructed as the other, and in a process which facilitates displacement. But the proximate is also what enables a tracking-back of the ‘other’ into the ‘same.’ I call this transgressive rein- scription.”36 Significantly, Dollimore’s theorization of proximatization is easily applied to both the female-male dynamic of Uther and Igrayne as well as the male-male relationship between Uther and Cornwall, indicat- ing the similarity of formation of heterosexual and homosocial identities. This similarity necessarily provokes anxieties in the heteronormative chivalric society of the Morte d’Arthur. To maintain stable boundaries around these identities—to quell such anxieties—is the source and focus of much of the knightly activity of the text. As with all knightly encounters that take place in the Morte d’Arthur, the Same/Other binarism here quickly becomes destabilized and recast as a Same/Same. We are not told the cause of the long-standing feud between Uther and Cornwall that takes place before the opening of the tale, only that in (seemingly) seeking to end it, Uther sends for his enemy and his enemy’s wife. The masculine rivalry that already exists between them then extends from the masculine homosocial sphere into the realm of het- erosexual desire in a move that links the two explicitly. Drawing on the work of René Girard, Eve Sedgwick has pointed out that in an erotic tri- angle such as this “the bond that links the two rivals is as intense and potent as the bond that links either of the rivals to the beloved.... the choice of the beloved is determined in the first place, not by the qualities of the beloved, but by the beloved’s already being the choice of the person who has been chosen as a rival.”37 Although mutual desire for Igrayne causes the conflict to escalate, Uther’s desire itself would seem to be a prod- uct of his earlier conflict with Cornwall. And while the king and the duke stand in opposition to each other, seemingly each the Other to the Other’s Same, it is their likeness that facilitates the fact of their contention: both men are leaders of chivalric courtly communities with similar values, desires, and gender-identity “templates.” When ranged face-to-face on the battlefield, they and their armies are as mirror images, just as two armored knights on horseback reflect back to one another the picture of masculinity each is attempting to 47 48 Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur quene.’ Unto that they were all well accordyd and meved it to the kynge. And anone, lyke a lusty knyghte, he assentid therto with good wille, and so in alle haste they were maryed in a mornynge with grete myrthe and joye” (9.36–39, 10.1–4). While the king’s assent to the will of his people is important to the re- establishment of order, Igrayne’s explicit consent is deemed unnecessary for the act of reintegrating her first husband’s realm into that of her sec- ond. Igrayne is the gift, an object that is exchanged for peace, property, and a means of establishing male homosocial bonds within this patriarchal, kin-based social order. In a striking example of community solidarity, sev- eral other important unions are consecrated at the same time that Uther and Igrayne are wed: “And kynge Lott of Lowthean and of Orkenay thenne wedded Margawse... and kynge Nentres of the land of Garlot wedded Elayne: al this was done at the request of kynge Uther. And the thyrd syster, Morgan le Fey, was put to scole in a nonnery.... And after she was wedded to kynge Uryens of the lond of Gore” (10.5–12). This is the first time that the theme of wedding proliferation occurs in Malory; the text insistently repeats this pattern, each time pointing to the importance of such unions in affirming social bonds and the critical role that women play in this exchange and alliance of power and kinship. Silently, passively, obediently, women are circulated or “gifted” away— by, to, and for men—serving, in their transfer from one male to another, to reinforce and strengthen the homosocial ties that bind the Arthurian com- munity together. Wedding proliferation supports and reinforces the valid- ity of those institutions; the occurrence of these other marriages at the same time as Uther and Igrayne’s sanctions the king’s actions. At the same time, King Lot and King Nentres derive for their own unions important significance in that they are connected in a special way with the power and status of King Uther. Each of these marriages affirms and increases the significance of the other, and a double benefit is derived: for the commu- nity, which is strengthened through this act of solidarity, and for each of the individuals of this community, who derive for themselves some mea- sure of extra power and influence through their participation in this so- cially important ritual. While these appropriate transfers of women among kin groups serve to strengthen the chivalric community, the early pages of Malory’s text also depict the potentially destructive power of inappropriate feminine ex- changes. In particular, the relationship of Queen Morgause and King Arthur—unknowing half-brother and half-sister—produces arguably the 49 50 Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur agreed, and he begate uppon hir sir Mordred. And she was syster on the modirs syde Igrayne unto Arthur.... (But all thys tyme kynge Arthure knew nat that kynge Lottis wyff was his sister.) (41.12–25)41 Plain, in When critics speak of this scene, they focus primarily on Arthur and his actions; Morgause merits little discussion. Most of the critical ink spilled on the subject is devoted to establishing which is the king’s greater sin— had on the adultery or incest. For example, in an issue of Arthuriana devoted to the topic of “Arthurian Adultery,” David Scott Wilson-Okamura focuses on Malory’s source for the “Tale of King Arthur,” the Suite du Merlin, and states, “My primary goal is to correct what seems to me an oversight on the part of the Suite’s previous critics, who have consistently emphasized the incestuous aspect of Mordred’s conception, neglecting its adulterous aspect altogether.”42 In the same issue, Beverly Kennedy similarly exam- ines the king’s sin, arguing that Arthur’s act of adultery with Morgause this speech does not result in any loss of honor for the king because “the woman is exclaims, willing and the adulterer is not honor-bound to be loyal to her husband.”43 tolu vos, que Scholars have also looked to the first example of adulterous activity in Malory and his sources—Uther Pendragon’s seduction of Igrayne while disguised as her husband, the Duke of Cornwall—and sought to draw par- Arthur’s allels and connections between the two events. Speaking of Malory’s the Mort source text, Victoria Guerin attempts to render the nature of the Arthurian tragedy down to its core elements: “Uther’s adultery with Igerna, and The mo- Arthur’s own consequent birth, now become a realization of the biblical exalts threat of ‘visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.’ Arthur is doomed to repeat, in all innocence, his father’s sin of adultery in a far more serious form and... to sow the seeds of his own downfall.”44 While Arthur’s adultery with Morgause is un- should hardly be referred to as an act committed “in all innocence,” Guerin’s succinct description of the factors that produce the final social collapse suggests that the ending of the Morte d’Arthur has been foretold to from its opening pages and that Arthur and the other characters have in some sense been nothing more than puppets, seemingly unable to avoid fulfilling the destiny that Uther’s acts of deception and conception have created. The sin of incest, then, appears subordinate to that of adultery. Al- though Mordred had from the time of Geoffrey of Monmouth been por- trayed as Arthur’s enemy, the nephew who attempts to usurp the throne while the king is away, it is not until the thirteenth century and the com- 51 52 Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur ately and kept her at his court for two whole months, until finally he lay with her and begat on her Mordred, by whom such wrongs were later done in Logres and in all the world].48 The most significant difference between Arthur’s and Mordred’s concep- tions is not the fact that Mordred is conceived incestuously or adulter- ously, but rather that Morgause is an active player in the adultery—she is not seduced, or deceived as Igrayne is. Rather, she agrees to commit the sin of adultery. It is her agreement, her active role in the exchange of her body, that threatens the patriarchal social order of Arthur’s kingdom. The work of Claude Lévi-Strauss has relevance here in understanding the problem posed by Morgause’s actions. In his discussion of kinship sys- tems (an important preoccupation of medieval literature, specifically chivalric romance literature), Lévi-Strauss identifies the transfer or ex- change of women as the means by which such systems generate broader social structures: The total relationship which constitutes marriage is not established between a man and a woman, but between two groups of men, the woman figures only as one of the objects in the exchange, not as one of the partners.... This remains true even when the girl’s feelings are taken into consideration as, moreover, is usually the case. In acquiesc- ing to the proposed union, she precipitates or allows the exchange to take place, she cannot alter its nature.49 Lévi-Strauss further identifies the incest taboo as an important element in the formation of kinship systems, arguing that such a constraint amplifies the possibilities for wide-ranging social relationships and linking of kin- ship groups: “The prohibition on the sexual use of a daughter or sister compels them to be given in marriage to another man, and at the same time it establishes a right to the daughter or sister of this other man.... The woman whom one does not take is, for that very reason, offered up.”50 et li et Gayle Rubin, engaging Lévi-Strauss in her now-classic essay “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of Sex,” points out that in the distinction between “gift and giver” in such a system, it is those who are the “givers” who enjoy the benefits of social linkage with one other, and that as “gifts” women cannot derive any benefit from their own circula- tion: “As long as the relations specify that men exchange women, it is men who are the beneficiaries of the product of such exchanges—social organi- zation.”51 In the Morte d’Arthur, the social organization effected by such 53 54 Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur incest are silenced beside the larger question of proper feminine behavior. It is Morgause’s agreement—as was the case with Igrayne’s resistance— that is critical to an understanding of the destructive impact of this act on the rest of the community. Through Morgause, then, Arthur acquires one of his greatest allies— his nephew Gawain—as well as his greatest enemy—his nephew/son Mordred. Significantly, Morgause herself is later destroyed by her own kin, killed by her son Gaheris when he catches her in bed with Sir Lamorak: “So whan sir Gaherys sawe his tyme he cam to there beddis syde all armed, wyth his swerde naked, and suddaynly he gate his modir by the heyre and strake of her hede. Whan sir Lameroke saw the blood daysshe uppon hym all hote... wyte you well he was sore abaysshed and dismayed of that dolerous syght” (612.9–15). Although a widow at this point, Mor- gause has again enacted a double transgression against the patriarchal so- cial order by acting as her own agent in gifting herself to Lamorak and further, by betraying the kin group of her husband and sons: Lamorak is the son of King Pellinor, the man whom Gaheris and his brothers believe slew their own father, King Lot. Tellingly, Gaheris does not slay Lamorak, although he is naked and un- armed at the time of Gaheris’s attack on Morgause: “Alas, why have ye slayne youre modir that bare you? For with more ryght ye shulde have slayne me!” exclaims Lamorak. Gaheris’s response—“And now is my modir quytte of the, for she shall never shame her chyldryn” (612.18– 35)—points up the hierarchy of transgressions and values around which the ideology of the Arthurian community is ordered. Morgause’s trans- gression, clearly, poses the greater threat to the social order than does Lamorak’s. Her refusal to adhere to the structures of kin-loyalty and sub- mit to the sanctioned circulation of women between and among groups of men identifies Morgause (or more appropriately, her transgressive ac- tions) as a danger to the Arthurian community. Indeed, Gaheris’s act is an attempt to rescue the threatened social order, but it comes far too late. In stepping outside the prescribed role of the feminine in agreeing to a rela- tionship with Arthur, Morgause has already compromised the foundation of the chivalric community years before her relationship with Lamorak. Morgause’s willing participation in the liaison that leads to the conception of Mordred—not the adultery or the unintentional incest—makes of Arthur’s nephew/son such a monster, a figure for whom the structure of patriarchy has no place. Thus, when near the end of the text Arthur stands over the mortally 55 56 Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur vere, daughter of King Leodegran. This episodic subsection of Malory’s first tale—called “Torre and Pellinor” in the Winchester manuscript but referred to by Malory in the explicit as the “Wedding of King Arthur”— begins with Arthur’s marriage to Guenevere and establishment of the Round Table and concludes with the articulation of the Pentecostal Oath. Arthur’s marriage and the activities surrounding it dramatize the function of the feminine in maintaining the coherence of the chivalric community. In her role as queen, Guenevere does what Louise Fradenburg has de- scribed as “lend[ing] sovereign authority to sexual difference and hetero- sexualiz[ing] sovereignty.”56 As Arthur’s wife, Guenevere validates the ideal of a compulsory heterosexuality while simultaneously removing any need for Arthur to perform his adherence to this gender scheme; the fact of the king’s marriage effects a continuous performance of his heteronor- mativity. In exchange for the increase in status Leodegran receives from the transaction of Guenevere, he sends to Arthur an additional gift: “‘That is to me,’ seyde kyng Lodegreauns, ‘the beste tydynges that ever I herde, that so worthy a kyng of prouesse and noblesse wol wedde my doughter. And as for my londis, I wolde geff hit hym, but he hath londis inow, he nedith none. But I shall sende hym the Table Rounde which Uther, hys fadir, gaff me. And whan hit ys fulle complete there ys an hondred knyghtes and fyfty’” (98.3–11). Leodegran’s statement makes explicit the link between control of the feminine and access to power. The cementing of homosocial bonds with Leodegran through the exchange of Guenevere provides Arthur with the agents of his chivalric community: the Round Table knights. Although similar to Uther’s privy council, the Round Table sub- community is more rigidly defined, the actions of its members narrowly pre- and pro-scribed by the articles of the Pentecostal Oath. In adhering to these rules, the Round Table knights also engage in a performance of mas- culinity that quickly emerges as an essential and endlessly repetitive en- terprise designed to maintain the Round Table subcommunity as the cen- ter of power. As I have suggested above, in the Morte d’Arthur the primary vehicle by which knights construct themselves as particular masculine individuals belonging to a larger particular community is the quest. Feminine acts of facilitation, enabling, and mediation repeatedly manifest themselves as essential to the project of questing. Upon completion of the quest, knights must offer an account—a verbal performance—of their adventures to Queen Guenevere, whose judgment of their behavior either validates or 57 58 Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur storytelling—of fiction—for self-definition. Each quest offers to the court more stories about itself, a plethora of individual experiences valuable pri- marily as representative experiences of the community as a whole. The moment of storytelling, of recounting the experience of the quest, permits those who have stayed behind to participate through the expression of praise or condemnation. Through its positive or negative response, the community refines and clarifies the idea of proper knightly behavior. Guenevere’s assigned sphere of influence seems limited to the realm of “feminine concerns,” and, significantly, the power afforded her is given on the condition that she exercise it in concert with the dominant masculine concerns of the community. If, as Elizabeth Pochoda claims, “the quest is motivated by the desire to perfect the nature of Arthurian society through chivalry,”61 and the Arthurian chivalric community depends upon a mar- ginalized feminine presence for enactment and completion, then Guene- vere’s role as arbiter of justice underscores the paradoxical position—criti- cal yet marginal—of the feminine in the masculine activity of the quest. Significantly, Guenevere here models the ideal of feminine chivalric be- havior in that all of her judgments in this episode correspond with Arthur’s own desires. Guenevere’s ability to speak from a position of au- thority—even though her verdicts must be understood as reflective of Arthur’s own concerns—hints at the potential for the feminine to co-opt

Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory's Morte d'Arthur (PDF)

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript