Kaeuper R.W. - Chivalry and violence in medieval europe (1999)(en)

offence when he neglects to greet another squire waiting before some tents he passes; the offended squire attacks and mortally wounds him. A lapse of courtesy has cost him his life.84

Denial of hospitality can easily be fatal if it touches Lancelot. Near the end of the Lancelot, the hero seeks lodging in a pavilion, but is refused by the maiden within, who tells him her knight will return and will object. He announces he is staying regardless, for he has no other lodging. Her knight does return, denies Lancelot hospitality, and orders him out with threats. Lancelot arms and tells the knight he will die for this dishonour. His Þrst sword stroke cuts off the manÕs arm. Both the mortally wounded knight and his lady faint. When the knightÕs brother tries to take vengeance, Lancelot stuns him with another great sword stroke, rips off his helmet, and beats him nearly to death with it. He spares the manÕs life on condition of pardoning him for the death of his brother. It then emerges that there was a hermitage nearby; the battered brother takes Lancelot there.85 For the audience of this romance, was the point not that hospitality must not be denied?

Chivalric largesse, mythology, and reÞned manners certainly purveyed social power. They created an image of knights as naturally superior to all other laymen and on a par with the clerics; pious and appropriately violent, they are splendidly reÞned in life and love.

These chivalric ideas, even if they sometimes seem rather abstract in their details, ßowed into daily life through a thousand channels to became a force in social relationships. If the process is complex and can only be seen indirectly from our six or seven centuries of distance, the broad social result is by no means in doubt.

84Krueger, tr., Lancelot Part IV, 64; Micha, ed., Lancelot, II, 232.

85Carroll, tr., Lancelot Part VI, 272Ð3; Micha, Lancelot, V, 274Ð9.

10

KNIGHTS, LADIES, AND LOVE

ddd

ALONGSIDE prowess, piety, and status, a fourth major element constituting the great fusion of chivalry comes from its role as a framework for love and the relationship between the sexes. Thoughtful men and women pondered much about love in all of its manifestations in high medieval Europe, but we are concerned here with romantic love, eros rather than agape or caritas. Many modern scholars have focused on romantic love since it is this wonderfully complex and compelling human emotion, seen here in something like the springtime of its life in Western culture, which interests and attracts

them.

The result has been enthusiastic and even heated scholarly debate. Since the nineteenth century scholars have argued in particular over Ôcourtly loveÕ, disputing whether it is simply a modern scholarly construct, or whether it had an existence outside of literary texts; more recent scholarship has argued over whether it brought an advance or a regression in the status of women, and whether the question has meaning in such sweepingly general terms.1

The discussions have produced much interesting work, but we need not enter the prickly thickets of controversy in order to register the power invested in chivalry by its connections with ideas about love and, in a broader sense, about relations between the sexes. It will serve the purposes of this book to attempt simpler goals in this chapter: Þrst, to show through all the evidence presented in the sections that follow that in one of its essential dimensions chivalry formed the frame for the important issue of gender relations; second, to document the variety of medieval views on this subject, in the process showing that chivalric literature isÑin this area as in so manyÑa literature of criticism and reform as much as a mirror to society; third, to establish the close link

1 See the extensive bibliography in Burns and Krueger, eds, Courtly Ideology, 375Ð90, which lists earlier bibliographies as well as selected works. A general discussion on knights, ladies, and love, published just after the foregoing bibliography, appears in Ch•nerie, Le Chevalier errant, 411Ð501. On the opening page of this section, she notes that warrior societies are usually characterized by ÔlÕattitude de gynopnobieÕ. Cf. Krueger, Women Readers.

opportunity, would be an intolerable loss to his own honour. Such a man Ôwould just be the butt of jokes, and people would esteem him less because of itÕ. When his father continues to denounce such views as vile, Agravain ends his side of the argument: ÔThen there is no other way out . . . than for my brother and me to become monks in a place where we do not see women.Õ3

The range of views on knightly relationships with women could scarcely be made clearer: the scale begins with rape, with a determination to have sex whatever the womanÕs wishes, and moves on through protection, to mutual affection. The element of reform likewise appears prominently. Willingness to use force is denounced by two of the three debating knights and by both judging knights. Just after the passages quoted the author even alerts his readers to AgravainÕs deserved suffering for his attitudes to women, to be detailed later in the story. Yet we should also note that the reform position is carefully tempered; the high ideal of mutuality in love is acknowledged as best in theory, but the goal of simple protection and maintenance of the knightÕs own honourÑby avoiding giving shame either to the woman or perhaps especially to another male protectorÑis stressed in GawainÕs judgement and in King LotÕs subsequent angry conversation with Agravain. In later romances, even GuerrehetÕs record is far from a perfect match with his announced standards. When a lady he has rescued resists his pleas for sex, he respects her wishes. Shortly after this he climbs into bed with a sleeping lady in a tent and enjoys sex with her, she sleepily thinking he is her husband. When this man appears, Guerrehet kills him, forces the lady to ride off with him, kills a knight who tries to stop him, and defeats the ladyÕs four brothers. When they stop in a nunnery, she joins the order to escape him.4

Chivalric literature, then, does not establish a single ideological position, some uniform and elaborated code, but, rather, shows intense concern with the issue of relations between males and females. It seems impossible to press all of these views into a single ideology and attach a label such as Ôcourtly loveÕ or even ÞnÕamors in conÞdence that we have captured the essence of Ôthe medieval viewÕ. The texts show us not a single view, but a running debate.5

Idealization of women in many chivalric texts, of course, stands as one of their signiÞcant features, generally noted and examined in great detail by scholars. Scenes of Lancelot trembling and barely able to speak or to look up when he is Þrst in Queen GuinevereÕs presence, of Lancelot genußecting at the

3 Pickens, tr., Story of Merlin, 361Ð2; Sommer, ed., Vulgate Version, II, 350Ð1. 4 Kibler, tr., Lancelot Part V, 120Ð7; Micha, ed., Lancelot, IV, 30Ð52.

5 Interesting arguments in support of this view appear in Leclercq, ÔLÕamour et le mariageÕ; Gold, The Lady and the Virgin; Calin, ÔContre la ÞnÕamor?Õ; Krueger, ÔMisogyny, ManipulationÕ; idem, Women Readers; Keen, Nobles, Knights, 20Ð42.

foot of Queen GuinevereÕs bed as if it were an altar, before joining her in it for a night of bliss, provide unforgettable emblems of this worship.6 Even Geoffroi de Charny, that scarred and experienced knight of the very real world, urged his readers to Ôindeed honour, serve and truly love these noble ladies . . . who inspire men to great achievement, and it is thanks to such ladies that men become good knights and men-at-armsÕ.7

This point of view was not entirely theoretical. An English knight died outside Douglas Castle in Scotland, trying to live up to such a belief. His enemies found he carried a letter from his lady saying he must hold the castle a year to win her love.8 Sir Thomas Gray tells the better-known story from this part of the world. A page whose lady-love gave him a helmet with a gilt crest, telling him to make it famous in the most dangerous part of Britain, charged headlong into the besieging Scots outside Norham Castle. After they Ôstruck him down, wounded him in the face, and dragged him out of the saddle to the groundÕ, the garrison, on foot, rescued him as they had pledged to do.9

If love exercises great power in this literature and in this society, some writers place women on a pedestal; others spit sour misogyny. Negative views of women can be found most readily in texts with particularly strong monastic inßuence, The History of the Holy Grail, or The Quest of the Holy Grail, for example.10 But the chansons de geste can provide an abundant supply of evidence and even the romances of ChrŽtien have similar passages. If women are protected, idealized, sometimes even worshipped, they may also be denounced as wily, unstable, controlled by appetite, the very impediments to real male concerns in the most timeless manner of anti-feminist diatribes. The classic case appears early in Raoul de Cambrai. Raoul scornfully denounces the advice of his mother when he decides on a course of action that will unleash feud between powerful families for generations:

Devil take the noblemanÑwhat a coward he must beÑwho runs to a woman for advice when he ought to go off Þghting! Go and loll about in bedrooms and drink drinks to fatten your belly, and think about eating and drinking, for youÕre not Þt to meddle with anything else.11

6 Rosenberg, tr., Lancelot Part I, 65; Elspeth Kennedy, Lancelot do Lac, I, 157Ð8; Kibler, ed., tr., ChrŽtien de Troyes, Lancelot, ll. 4583Ð684.

7 Kaeuper and Kennedy, Book of Chivalry, 95. We might note, of course, how much his view is characteristically focused on women as the inspiration for the great virtue, prowess.

8 McDiarmid and Stevenson, eds., BarbourÕs Bruce, bk. VIII, ll. 490Ð9. 9 Maxwell, tr., Scalacronica, 61Ð2.

10See the ÔLegend of the Tree of LifeÕ section of The Quest of the Holy Grail, for example.

11Kay, ed., tr., Raoul de Cambrai, laisse LIV. As Gold notes, Raoul is showing the demesure that will cause so much trouble in this story. The Lady and the Virgin, 12Ð18.

ChrŽtien de Troyes would never give his characters such crude language, yet he can tell us that changeable women have a hundred hearts, and says of the lady Laudine:

but she had in her the same folly that other women have:

nearly all of them are obstinate

and refuse to accept what they really want.12

The constant goal across the entire spectrum of views is to establish for males the right way to understand and to relate to these creatures who seem so different from themselves, standing outside the code of practising prowess in the quest for honour. Pero Ni–oÕs biographer, praising his heroÕs temperance, quickly slides into characterizing male/female differences: Ôhe said that sharp words should be left to women, whose vice and custom they were, and that men would do better to come to blows, which are their virtue and calling; but no man ever cared about coming to blows with him.Õ13

The honour involved is usually focused on the male. In the ÔTale of BalainÕ, when Balain suddenly decapitates the lady who has come to ask a favour of the king, ArthurÕs response is directed to his own honour: his complaint is that BalainÕs act has shamed him, tarnished his honour, violated the protection offered by his court.14 In the Perlesvaus Lancelot enforces a marriage promise on a knight who is trying to renege on his agreement; Lancelot threatens the man with death, but speciÞcally states that he acts,

not so much for the maidenÕs sake as to overcome the wickedness in you, lest it be an object of reproach to other knights; for knights must keep a vow made to a lady or a maiden and you claim to be a knight; and no knight should knowingly act wickedly. And this is a greater wickedness than most, and whatever the maiden may say I will not permit it; if you do not do as you promised, I will kill you lest it bring reproach upon chivalry.15

Modern scholars reading such evidence can observe not only the reform ideal of knights keeping their word to ladies, but also the clear and exclusive focus of concern on knighthood itself.

Perceval later encounters the unhappy couple, sees this knight reviling his lady, and is told he can have lodging with them if he makes no criticisms. He responds that Ôsince she is yours you may do as you please with her, but in all

14Asher, tr., Merlin Continuation, chs 8, 10Ð13, 16Ð23; Paris and Uhlric, eds, Merlin, I, 212Ð25, 233Ð61, 276Ð80; II, 1Ð60 tell the story of Balain. Campbell has also translated these passages: see Tale of Balain. Of course, honour is focused on the leading male even when another male is killed in his presence, as Balain is when the invisible knight slays those under his protection.

15Bryant, tr., Perlesvaus, 113; Nitze and Jenkins, eds, Perlesvaus, 172Ð3.

things one should keep oneÕs honour.Õ This knight, who now forces his wife to eat with the squires, away from high table, has become a leper. In a tournament Perceval wins the gold cup that is coveted by this knight and sends it to the patient, long-suffering wife, whose views on knighthood we do not learn.16

In Raoul II, Bernier, who has been presumed dead, returns to Þnd that his wife Beatrice hasÑwith the aid of a wondrous herbÑprevented Erchambaut, the new husband forced upon her, from consummating the marriage. ÔI have managed him like this for a whole yearÕ, Beatrice informs Bernier proudly. ÔWhen Bernier hears this he gives a heartfelt sigh and says in a whisper so that no one can hear, ÒAll honour to you Father of glory, that my wife has not brought shame on me.Ó Õ17

Geoffroi de Charny asks rhetorically:

Which one of two ladies should have the greater joy in her lover when they are both at a feast in a great company and they are aware of each otherÕs situation? . . . Is it the one who loves the good knight and she sees her lover come into the hall where all are at table and she sees him honoured, saluted and celebrated by all manner of people and brought to favourable attention before ladies and damsels, knights and squires, and she observes the great renown and the glory attributed to him by everyone?

The second lady has nothing, Charny thinks, because her lover lacks the essential deeds of arms:

Ah God! what small comfort and solace is there for those ladies who see their lovers held in such little honour, with no excuse except lack of will! How do such people dare to love when they do not know nor do they want to know about the worthy deeds that they should know about and ought to perform. . . .18

Sometimes, readers of chivalric literature will even encounter the view, implicitly or explicitly, that knights are the only humans who truly count, worth much more than any women. The Lord of the Fens says just this to Hector in the Lancelot, as Hector is about to Þght on behalf of the manÕs niece: Ô ÒShe is my niece,Ó said the lord of the Fens, Òbut donÕt do it for that reason, for God help me if I did not prefer her death to yours; more is lost in the death of one worthy knight than in the death of all the maidens in a land.Ó Õ19

Better known, but stating the same view, is King ArthurÕs assessment of the loss of Guinevere compared with the loss of the Round Table fellowship of

16Bryant, tr., Perlesvaus, 258Ð62; Nitze and Jenkins, eds, Perlesvaus, 398Ð404.

17Kay, ed., tr., Raoul de Cambrai, laisse 304.

18Kaeuper and Kennedy, Book of Chivalry, 121.

19Rosenberg, tr., Lancelot Part III, 215; Elspeth Kennedy, ed., Lancelot do Lac, I, 517; Sommer, ed., Vulgate Version, III, 389.

knights near the end of the Morte Darthur: ÔAnd much more I am soryar for my good knyghtes losse than for the losse of my fayre quene; for quenys I myght have inow, but such a felyship of good knyghtes shall never be togydirs in no company.Õ20 A maiden whom Eric meets in the Merlin Continuation makes a similar assessment; she is carrying a badly wounded knight over whom she utters grieving words: ÔOh, noble knight, how much better it would have been if I, who am worth nothing and can do nothing, had been killed in this misadventure, rather than you, who were so worthy and valiant and true [preux et vaillans et loyaux].Õ21 Only a few pages earlier in this same text Gaheriet, who has found his mother in bed with Lamorat, commits matricide, but spares the adulterous knight, Ôbecause he seemed too handsome and valiant, and he was disarmed, and if he laid a hand on an unarmed knight, people would think him the worst and most cowardly knightÕ.22

Even clearer is the statement of the Grail companions (Galahad, Perceval, and Bors) who Þnd the tombs of at least sixty maidens who died giving the basin of blood required by harsh custom to save the lady of a castle. Especially upset to Þnd stones marking tombs of twelve daughters of kings, Ôthey said that the people of this castle had upheld an evil custom and that the people of the land had done great evil by enduring it so long, for many good men could have sprung from these maidensÕ.23

Many texts thus try to convince knights that women really do count, that a good knight will not abuse them and will keep his word sworn to them. Le Bel Inconnu, for example, recognizes that many make a habit of deceiving women and say this is no sin. The author assures his audience it is a great sin and more than once warns that those who ill-use ladies will suffer for it.24

Male Bonding

Some scholars have even argued that the attraction between males in important chivalric romances is more powerful than that between knight and lady.25 Those interested in psychological analyses might well think that some form of special bond is created between knights by the common element of violence in

20Vinaver, ed., Malory. Works, 685.

21Asher, tr., Merlin Continuation (end.), 61; Bogdanow, ed., ÔFolie LancelotÕ, 25.

22Asher, ibid., 53; Bogdanow, ibid., 3. Though condemned by many others, GaherietÕs weighing of the merits of his action remains of interest. Arthur and many worthy men soon decide that they do not want Gaheriet to die for his deed since he is Ôa good and worthy knight [bon chevalier et preux]Õ. Asher, ibid., 54; Bogdanow, ibid., 6.

23Asher, tr., ÔQuestÕ, 239; Piel, ed., Demando, 306Ð7.

24Fresco, ed., and Donagher, tr., Renaut de B‰gŽ, ll. 1243Ð64, 4927Ð8, 4848Ð50.

25Frappier, ÔLa mort GalehotÕ; Marcello-Nizia, ÔAmour courtoisÕ. Duby makes the same case for the biography of William Marshal: Guillaume le MarŽchal, 52Ð4.

their lives, perhaps especially by their violence against each other.26 In Marie de FranceÕs ÔMilunÕ, a father unhorsed by his son (neither recognizing his opponent) declares:

I never once fell from my war-horse because of a blow from another knight. You knocked me down in a joustÑ

I could love you a great deal.27

Certainly the pattern of truly savage Þghting, respect, reconciliation, and great affection between two knights is repeated often enough at least to raise questions about a process of bonding that would be a powerful element in understanding the primacy of prowess in chivalry.

ChrŽtien provides an excellent case in point in the combat between Guivret the Short and Erec in his Erec et Enide.28 When from his tower Guivret sees any passing knight he rushes into armour and into combat; to him Erec represented someone Ôwith whom he wished to exhaust himself in combat, / or the other would wear himself out / and declare himself defeatedÕ. He rides full tilt at Erec, his horseÕs hoofs grinding pebbles like a mill working wheat and shooting so many sparks the four feet seem to be on Þre. EnideÕs last-minute warning heard, Erec meets his challenger in a classic encounter: broken shields, hauberks ripped, spears lodged in entrails, horses and riders on the ground. Then the sword play keeps them active from mid-morning to mid-afternoon, blades biting through chain armour to vulnerable ßesh. One would have killed the other, ChrŽtien tells us, but for an accident; GuivretÕs sword snaps on the rim of ErecÕs shield and he ßings away the useless remnant in disgust. He calls for mercy, but hesitates to say he is defeated and must be threatened into the admission. As soon as they exchange names, however, Guivret is delighted to learn how noble Erec is, and Ô[e]ach of them kissed and embraced the otherÕ:

Never from such a Þerce battle was there such a sweet parting, for, moved by love and generosity, each of them cut long, broad bands from the tail of his shirt,

and they bound up each otherÕs wounds.

26Lorenz writes of Ôthe ingenious feat of transforming, by the comparatively simple means of redirection and ritualization, a behavior pattern which not only in its prototype but even in its present form is partly motivated by aggression, into a means of appeasement and further into a love ceremony which forms a strong tie between those that participate in it. This means neither more nor less than converting the mutually repelling effect of aggression into its oppositeÕ: On Aggression, 167. I owe this reference to Michelle Dowd.

27Hanning and Ferrante, trs., Marie de France, 174; Rychner, ed., Marie de France, 140.

28The following quotations all come from Carroll, ed., tr., Erec, ll. 3629Ð889.

Since the shirt-tail could carry phallic meaning in medieval literature, a determined Freudian might read this scene as a symbolic end of the phallic aggression so evident in the previous several hundred lines of verse, and note its conversion into mutual respect and love. The latter phenomenon is striking, even if one hesitates over the former.

Other cases could make a similar point. The bond between Lancelot and Galehot in the Lancelot do Lac, again based on prowess, represents an unusually high peak in the mountain ranges of knightly friendships. Indeed, in this romance the tension emerges not out of the competing claims of prowess and love, but rather, as Corin Corley writes, Ôbetween friendship with a companion in arms and love of a man for a womanÕ.29 Gretchen Mieszkowski has even made an argument that, at least from GalehotÕs perspective, this is a homoerotic relationship.30

Having seen Lancelot, in disguise, perform on the battleÞeld, Galehot, Arthur, Guinevere, and Gawain discuss what each would give up Ôto have his companionship foreverÕ.31 Arthur would offer half his possessions. Gawain, in turn, declares, ÔIf God gives me the health I desire, I should wish there and then to be the most beautiful damsel in the world, Þt and well, on condition that he loved me more than anything, as much as I loved him.Õ Ô ÒIndeed,Ó said Galehot, Òyou have offered a good deal.Ó Õ The queen skilfully sidesteps the issue, observing, ÔBy the Lord, Sir Gawain has made every offer that a lady can make, and no lady can offer more.Õ Following a round of polite laughter, Gawain tells Galehot that he must answer his own question. He swears, ÔAs God is my witness, I should change my great honour to shame, provided that I could always be as sure of him as I should wish him to be of me.Õ Gawain praises this answerÑstunning in the context of an honour societyÑas the most generous, but he later warns Arthur that Galehot will take Lancelot away, Ôfor he is more jealous of him than a knight who has a beautiful young ladyÕ. When Arthur wants to keep Lancelot as his companion, Galehot issues a passionate objection: ÔAh! my lord . . . I came in your hour of need with all my might, for I could not do more. And may God never be my witness, if I could live without him: how could you take away my life?Õ In order to be with Lancelot, Galehot, a king who could have conquered Arthur, offers his own services to Arthur as a simple retainer, Ôfor I would rather be poor and contentÕ, he states, Ôthan rich and unhappyÕ. He begs Arthur to accept his offer: ÔAnd

29Corley, tr., Lancelot of the Lake, xii.

30Mieszkowski, ÔLancelotÕs Galehot, MaloryÕs LavainÕ; I am indebted to Professor Mieszkowski for a copy of this article.

31What follows comes from Corley, tr., Lancelot of the Lake, 303Ð4; Elspeth Kennedy, ed.,

Lancelot do Lac, I, 333Ð4.