FLORILEGIUM 10, 1988-91
LOVE, FREEDOM, AND MARITAL FIDELITY
IN MALORY’S M ORTE D A R T H U R
Beverly Kennedy
Sir Thom as Malory has little to say about women in his M o rte D a rth u r,
bu t this is hardly surprising. His decision to retell the entire history of King
A rthur and his knights of the Round Table necessarily entailed a prim ary
focus upon knighthood (and its principal functions, war and governance),
from which women were barred by virtue of their sex.1 Therefore, the rela­
tive lack of interest which Malory shows in women should not necessarily be
taken as a sign th a t he is, as one feminist critic has alleged, “misogynistic”
or “hom oerotic” (Stiller 94). In fact, if we examine closely M alory’s repre­
sentation of courtship and m arriage — a sphere of hum an activity within
knightly society where m en’s and women’s interests and activities converge
— we will realize th a t he is not at all “misogynistic.” On the contrary, he
is rem arkably sym pathetic towards women.
I
In M alory’s day, young women were expected (and sometimes forced) to
m arry according to the wishes of their family, even though the Church
tau g h t th a t the sacram ent of m arriage was not valid unless both parties
freely consented to it. This had been the teaching of the Church since
179
180
FLORILEGIUM 10, 1988-91
the twelfth century (Noonan, Sheehan). Nevertheless, even three hundred
years later, am ong M alory’s social milieu, i.e., the gentry and lesser nobility,
families continued to arrange marriages for political and economic benefit,
without much regard for the feelings of their children. Contem porary doc­
um ents like the letters of the Paston family reveal th at young woman were
much more likely than their brothers to be coerced into m arriage (Haskell).
In theory, of course, a young woman coerced into m arriage could have the
m arriage annulled. In practice, however, w ithout the help of her family or
her new husband, she would find it impossible even to bring her case before
the ecclesiastical court.2
Late mediaeval romances went much farther than the Church in pos­
itively advocating th a t young people be free to choose their m ates for
love. Since the late twelfth century and the innovative courtly romances
of Chretien de Troyes, mediaeval romances had often m ade erotic love the
basis for m arriage, the only m ajor exceptions being the romances of adul­
tery connected with the legend of A rthur: Lancelot and Guinevere (whose
adulterous love either Chretien himself or his patron, Marie de Champagne,
invented) and T ristram and Isode. It was not until the fourteenth century,
however, th a t poets and romancers began to argue th a t true love, or “bon’
am our,” ought to be consum m ated in m arriage. This fourteenth-century
argum ent appears to be the consequence of a conscious synthesis: to the
courtly values of freedom and fidelity in love was added the C hristian value
of chastity, th u s enabling “fin’ am our” to become “true love,” passionate
b u t also chaste, and so ideally consum m ated in m arriage.
Possibly the earliest expression of this synthesis is to be found in an
Anglo-Norman “A rt d ’aim er” w ritten either in the late thirteenth or early
fourteenth century. T he poet insists th a t true love is chaste, “Que bone
am ur ne quert peche” (line 658). No m atter how much the lover ardently
desires his lady, he m ust not touch her “S’il ne soit de baisere, / T aunt que
il ad esposé” (lines 659-60). For through the sacram ent of m arriage God
makes true lovers “un char et un saunk” and blesses their union. Indeed,
there is no better life for lovers than to serve God in this joyous m anner
(lines 676-83).3
Much better known to English readers, however, is the rather different
expression of this synthesis in C haucer’s Franklin’s Tale. T he Franklin be­
gins his tale by telling briefly of Arveragus’s courtship of Dorigen and her
acceptance of him as husband. This happy conclusion then becomes the
occasion of some philosophical rem arks upon the nature of love in which
the Franklin stresses the im portance of freedom:
BEVERLY KENNEDY
181
Love wol n a t been constreyned by m aistrye.
W han m aistrie com th, th e God of Love anon
B eteth his wynges, and farewel, he is gon!
Love is a thyng as any spirit free.
W om men, of kynde, desiren libertee,
A nd n a t to been constreyned as a thral;
And so doon men, if I sooth seyen shal. (V. 764-70)
A few lines later, the Franklin pauses to reflect upon the paradox at the
heart of the lovers’ m arriage: Arveragus, who was Dorigen’s servant in love,
is now also her lord in m arriage, whereas she, who was his lady in love,
is now also his wife. Is it possible for two people to be at one and the
sam e tim e both ruler and ruled? Yes it is, concludes the Franklin, because
their seemingly contradictory roles are in fact “acordefd]” by “th at lawe of
love” (798) which decrees th at love m ust be free. W ith this conclusion, the
Franklin goes beyond the notion th a t young people should be able to freely
choose their m ates, to the much more radical notion th a t, if they wish to
rem ain lovers, they m ust also remain free, unconstrained by “m aistrye,”
after they are wedded.4
Neither the teachings of the Church nor romances like The Franklin’s
Tale could alter the m arriage customs of the gentry, however. The P a sto n
L e tte rs suggest th a t by the late fifteenth century, even though young people
of both sexes were influenced by the rom antic ideal of m arrying for love, their
parents still expected to be able to arrange their children’s m arriages for
profit. In 1469, Richard Calle addressed Margery Paston, as his “owne lady
and m astres and spoke of the “greete loue” which had long been between
them (No. 861). In 1477, Margery Brews addressed John Paston III as
her “welebeloued Volentyne” (No. 416). Both pairs of lovers eventually
m arried, b u t the contrast between the m anner of their m arrying is even
more instructive than this one rom antic likeness in their courtship. Margery
Brews was able to m arry John Paston only because their respective families
finally, and after great difficulty, agreed upon the financial term s of the
m arriage contract. In contrast, Richard Calle was able to m arry Margery
Paston only because the young lovers m anaged to defy M argery’s parents
by entering into a valid clandestine union.
M argery was probably only seventeen at the time, but her parents had
been looking for a suitable husband for her since she was fourteen. She may
well have been aware of, and determ ined to avoid, w hat had happened to
her aunt, Elizabeth, when she was young. Elizabeth had been coerced into
accepting a m arriage repugnant to her, by beating, starving, and imprison­
m ent (No. 446). Margery m ust have realized th a t her parents would never
182
FLORILEGIUM 10, 1988-91
agree to her m arrying Richard Calle, the fam ily’s steward, and so secretly
she betrothed herself to him, apparently knowing th at words of betrothal
spoken in the present tense would create a binding union in canon law.5
Her m other, M argaret Paston, went to the Bishop of Norwich to have the
clandestine m arriage annulled. But after questioning Margery and Richard
separately, the Bishop concluded th at their vows of betrothal were indeed
sufficient to make a valid marriage. The family were powerless to pre­
vent this unsuitable m atch, but they made Margery pay a heavy price for
her disobedience. They disowned her, refusing ever to see her again, even
though they continued to employ her husband as their steward for some
years thereafter (Haskell 468).
II
In the way he handles the three m ain stories of love and m arriage in his
book, Malory shows not only th a t he is aware of the more difficult position
of young women with regard to courtship and m arriage bu t also th a t he
sym pathizes w ith them . Only the first of these stories — the m arriage of
Guinevere and A rthur — is an essential part of the history of King A rth u r’s
reign. T he other two Malory chose to include in his version. In fact, the
second — the m arriage of Lyonesse and G areth — he m ay have invented,
although the possibility of a lost source remains.® The third — the m arriage
of Isode and King Mark — he added as a consequence of choosing to include
the adventures of T ristram within his A rthurian history. Both of these
added stories of courtship and m arriage provide significant contrasts to the
G uinevere-A rthur story, particularly with regard to the lady’s freedom to
choose her husband.
O f the three stories, th a t of Guinevere and A rthur is both the briefest
and has the least to say regarding the wom an’s feelings. We learn th a t
A rth u r fell in love with Guinevere when he brought an arm y into her country
to help her father defeat king Royens (39.18:1.18). We learn th a t Merlin tried
very h ard to dissuade A rthur from m arrying her, because Lancelot was
destined to love her ( “scholde love hir” and “sche hym agayne” ) (97.2931:111.1), b u t th a t A rthur decided to m arry her anyway. And so we find
ourselves wondering, does A rthur not believe in prophecy? Does he simply
not care whether his queen should love another m an? Or does he have a
reason for m arrying her, other than her beauty and his desire, which is
strong enough to override the fear of cuckoldry?
BEVERLY K ENNEDY
183
W hen A rthur first expresses his desire to m arry Guinevere, he describes
her as follows:
“I love Gwenyvere, th e kynges doughtir of Lodegreance, of the londe of
Cam elerde, th e whyche holdyth in his house the Table Rounde th a t . . . he
had . . . of my fadir U ther. And this damesell is the m oste valyaunte and
fayryst th a t I know lyvyng . . . .” (97.16-20:111.1)
Having defined Guinevere as the daughter of the king who possesses the
Round Table th a t once belonged to his father, he concludes th a t she is
the “moste valyaunte” woman he knows. This suggests th a t he thinks of
her as “moste valyaunte” in the original French meaning of “m ost worthy
or valuable” (de la plus grande valeur) rather than in the more common
English m eaning of “brave” or “courageous.” 7 In other words, it suggests
th a t A rthur has his heart set upon Guinevere as much for the sake of the
Round Table (which he m ight reasonably expect as a m arriage gift, given its
origin in his fath er’s house) as for her own beauty. Certainly, this estim ation
of his motives is borne out by M alory’s subsequent development of their
love story — or rather, elim ination of their love story — for he begins
system atically to om it all evidence of A rthur’s love for Guinevere soon after
their m arriage (E.D. Kennedy).
Moreover, near the end of the book, when Guinevere’s alleged adultery
w ith Lancelot has caused the death of m any Round Table knights, A rthur
freely adm its th a t he regrets the loss of his knights far more than the loss
of his queen,
“. . . for quenys I m yght have inow, b u t such a felyship of good knyghtes
shall never be togydirs in no com pany” (1184.1-5:XX.9)
This passage is M alory’s addition to his source and confirms w hat we already
suspected, th a t A rthur never truly loved Guinevere. He only desired her
as the beautiful m eans to an end: the Round Table and its fellowship of
knights.
More im portantly, we have no reason to believe th a t Guinevere ever
loved A rthur. King Lodegraunce is delighted to give his daughter in m ar­
riage to a king of such “prouesse and nobelesse” and “so,” as Malory puts
it rather laconically, he “delyverfs] hys doughtir Gwenyver unto Merlion,
and the Table Rounde with the hondred knyghtes” (98.14-15:111.1). We are
given no indication th a t Lodegraunce had to coerce his daughter into this
m arriage, but we are also given no indication th a t he consulted her about
the transaction, any more than he consulted the one hundred knights — or
the table.8
184
FLORILEGIUM 10, 1988-91
T he story Malory chooses to tell next — the story of Dame Lyonesse
and G areth — is a conventional late mediaeval romance of courtship leading
to m arriage.9 T he contrast between this story and the preceding one is stark
indeed. T hroughout th a t brief narrative Guinevere remained a silent and
passive object of diplom atic negotiation. By contrast, as soon as G areth
has liberated Dame Lyonesse from the odious siege of the Red Knight of
the Red Lands, she takes the initiative in their courtship.
G areth expects th a t Lyonesse will instantly reward him for his victory
w ith her “love.” In his view, he deserves it, for he has “bought [it] with
p arte of the beste bloode within [his] body” (327.16-17:VII.19). But Dame
Lyonesse is determ ined to be more than a beautiful object, a prize of war.
She sends G areth away to “laboure in worshyp this twelve-monthe” and
then sets about m aking arrangem ents for them to get to know one another
better, in a m ore intim ate, domestic setting. She persuades her brother to
lure G areth to his own castle so th at, disguised as a “strange” lady, she m ay
discover his “ryght nam e” and “kynrede,” but there are several reasons for
believing th a t this is only a pretext. First, Lyonesse already knows th a t
her rescuer is the “kynges son of Orkeney,” for the dw arf has told her so
(317.20-4:vn.l4). Next, she has already decided, on the basis of his words
and actions in dealing with the Red Knight, th a t she will love him and
no other for the rest of her life. And finally, she has already had ample
evidence th a t he desires her as a beautiful object. It seems clear, therefore,
th a t there is only one thing she can hope to discover through this ruse and
th a t is w hether or not he can love her for herself, as a woman.
In the in tim ate domestic setting of Sir G ryngam our’s castle, G areth
does not recognize Lyonesse as the lady he liberated from the C astle Perilous
(he has, after all, only seen th a t lady from afar), but he falls in love with
her anyway, rather hum orously finding her much more beautiful than th a t
other lady (331.20:VII.21). T he final proof th a t Lyonesse has engineered
this entire situation only to see if G areth can love her for herself, is th a t she
is not angered by this outcome. His faithlessness to the Lady of the Castle
Perilous does not bother her at all. On the contrary, she is delighted th a t
he should have fallen in love with her in disguise. She quickly reveals her
identity, m aking G areth even “more gladder than he was tofore,” and they
im m ediately engage to m arry. In M alory’s words, “they trouthe plyghte
other to love and never to fayle whyle their lyff lastyth” (332.35-6:vn,22).
We cannot tell if this m utual pledge of life-long love and fidelity was spoken
in the present tense, in which case, as with Margery Paston and Richard
Calle, their m arriage is valid w ithout sexual union, or in the future tense,
BEVERLY KENNEDY
185
in which case sexual union would make it valid; but it hardly m atters, for
they plan to consum m ate their love and their marriage a t once, right there
in the great hall of her brother’s castle.10
There is evidence th a t some members of both families have doubts about
the suitability of this m atch. Even though Lyonesse’s brother seems de­
lighted with her choice of husband, her sister, Lynet, goes to great lengths
to ensure th a t she will not be able to consum m ate this clandestine union.
Later on King A rthur publicly offers G areth a choice between m arrying Lyonesse, or else taking her as his param our. Lyonesse is a great heiress, but
she is not a royal princess. A rthur m ay hope th a t his nephew will follow
his own example and take the lady as param our until such tim e as a more
appropriate m arriage can be arranged, ju st as he took the Lady Lionors as
param our before his m arriage to Guinevere was arranged. B ut G areth is
not like A rthur. He believes th a t true love ought to be consum m ated in
m arriage, regardless of fine distinctions of rank. At the sam e tim e, as a true
lover he will not presume to make such a decision f o r his lady. And so it is
Lyonesse who first responds to Arthur:
“My m oste noble kynge, . . . w ete you well th a t m y lorde, sir G areth,
ys to me more lever to have and welde as my husbonde th a n ony king other
prynce th a t is crystyned; and if I may nat have hym, I prom yse you I woll
never have none. For, my lorde A rthure, . . . w ete you well he is my fyrste
love, and he shall be the laste; and yf ye woll suffir hym to have his wyll and
fre choyse, I dare say he woll have me.” (359.31-360.02:VII.35)
G areth instantly echoes her sentim ents:
“T h a t is trouth e, . . . and I have n at you and welde you as my wyff, there
shall never lady nother jantyllw om an rejoyse me.” (360.3-5)
W ith these words, both lovers explicitly endorse the late mediaeval idea
th a t true love ought to be consummated in marriage.
In these first two stories of courtship and m arriage the contrast with
regard to the w om an’s freedom of choice is so extrem e th a t it invites us
to read the third story with increased sensitivity to this issue. In addition,
Malory has altered the French prose version of Isode’s story in ways which
draw attention to her efforts to gain some freedom of choice.
In M alory’s version Isode has grown to love T ristram during his first stay
in Ireland, disguised as T ram tryst. W hen Tristram is forced to leave because
he has been discovered as the slayer of M arhalt, she makes an extraordinary
move to increase her chances of eventually being able to m arry him. As he
takes his leave of her, promising to “be all the dayes of [his] lyff [her] knyght,”
186
FLORILEGIUM 10, 1988-91
she promises in return th a t she “shall nat be maryed this seven yerys but
by [his] assente.” Then they exchange rings (392.9-18:Vlll.l2). Malory has
added the exchange of rings to show th at Isode’s promise is tantam ount
to a betrothal. If during the next seven years, her father should decide to
arrange a royal m arriage for her, she can refuse it on the grounds th a t she is
not free to m arry w ithout T ristram ’s consent. For she is already betrothed,
in a conditional sense, to T ristram .
It is a tragic irony, therefore, th at Isode’s promise to T ristram , the m an
she loves, should have the effect of obliging her to m arry King M ark, whom
she does not love. In M alory’s version Tristram admires Isode very much
b u t is not passionately in love with her after his first visit to Ireland. He is
also unaw are th a t since his return to Cornwall, Mark has become his m ortal
enemy as a result of his affair with Sir Segwarydes’ wife. Consequently, he
has no idea th a t M ark’s real motive for sending him back to Ireland to
negotiate a royal m arriage, is to have him killed. T ristram is fully aware
of the risk he runs in returning to the country where he is hated as the
slayer of M arhalt, b u t his loyalty to Mark is such th a t he will not refuse
the mission. Later, this sam e loyalty prevents him from agreeing to m arry
Isode himself, even though, in M alory’s version, her father asks him to. As
for Isode, she has promised to m arry according to T ristram ’s wishes, and so
she has, in a sense, chosen this marriage to King Mark of Cornwall.
Ill
If we look back at these three marriage stories with a view to the wom an’s
freedom of choice, an interesting pattern emerges. Guinevere seems to have
had no freedom of choice a t all. Lyonesse enjoyed com plete freedom of
choice. And Isode had a kind of conditional freedom, dependent upon Tris­
tra m ’s choice, a freedom which turned into its opposite only when Tristram
chose not to m arry her himself.
If we look a t these three m arriage stories with a view to the wom an’s
subsequent fidelity to her husband, an even more interesting p attern emerges.
Lyonesse, the one m ost free to choose her husband, is also the happiest and
m ost faithful of wives; although perhaps it would be more accurate to say
th a t, in true rom ance fashion, Malory simply leaves her and G areth to live
happily ever after, never adverting to their m arriage again. On the other
hand, Isode, who enjoyed only conditional freedom, is only a conditionally
faithful wife. T h a t is to say, having consented to m arry Mark because it
BEVERLY KENNEDY
187
was T ristram ’s wish, she is also a loyal wife to him, but only so long as
M ark fulfills his p art of the m arriage contract.
The m ost rem arkable of M alory’s m any alterations to the French prose
version of the story of Isode, Mark, and Tristram , is the lovers’ initial loyalty
to Mark. In M alory’s version, there is no bed-substitution plot on the royal
wedding night. Despite the effects of the love potion, which has made
T ristram love Isode ju st as passionately as she has long loved him, Isode
does not need to ask her m aid, Brangwain, to take her place in the royal
m arriage bed. This implies th a t she herself is still a virgin. She and Tristram
have restrained their m utual passion and refrained from consum m ating their
love so th a t she could fulill this m ost essential part of the m arriage contract:
to deliver her body to her new lord, in tact.11
Malory continues to suggest th at Isode and T ristram rem ain true to
Mark after the m arriage by completely elim inating from his version any
evidence of an illicit liaison between them. He continues to alter his source
in this way until after Mark has proved th at he is a traito r to both lovers.12
Mark first proves th a t he is a traitor to T ristram by trying to have him killed,
merely for speaking with Isode “in a wyndowe” (4 2 6 .1 3 :v m .3 2 ). Then he
proves th a t he is a traito r to Isode by trying to have her and ninety-five
other ladies of the court burned at the stake, merely for failing to drink
cleanly from M organ le Fay’s horn of chastity. T ristram ’s response to the
first treason was to make war on M ark’s knights. Isode’s response to the
second treason is to invite T ristram into her bed (4 3 0 - l: v m .3 4 ) . W hen later
they leave Cornwall to live in exile in A rthur’s kingdom, everyone seems to
understand th a t the m arriage between Isode and Mark has been broken by
M ark’s treachery. And King A rthur, in particular, is delighted th a t now
Isode and T ristram can be “togydir” (757.17:X .78).
Finally, Guinevere, who had the least freedom of all, is also the least
faithful. Malory alters her story as given in the French prose Lancelot to
make her faithful to A rthur for a very long tim e after their m arriage. In
his version she does not betray her husband until after the Quest of the
Holy Grail, in the Knight of the C art episode. Unlike Isode, she betrays
her husband w ithout cause, for A rthur has never betrayed her. Still Malory
does not judge her harshly. On the contrary, he goes out of his way to praise
her as the “true lover” of Lancelot (1120.12:XVIII.25). We can only infer
from this th a t she would have been a faithful wife to Lancelot, had she been
free to m arry him.
188
FLORILEGIUM 10, 1988-91
IV
T he Fair Maid of A stolat m ight have provided a fourth story of courtship
and m arriage, if she had been able to win the love of Lancelot. Even so, her
sad story of unrequited love is ju st as im portant as the story of Lyonesse
in dem onstrating M alory’s sym pathy with the rom antic ideal th a t true love
be consum m ated in m arriage.
As with the story of Isode, Malory has made significant additions to
the Fair M aid’s story. One o f the most im portant is the passage in which
the dying Maid speaks of her feelings for Lancelot as “good love” :
“. . . for my belyve ys th a t I do none offence, though I love an erthely
m an, u nto G od, for He fourm ed me thereto, and all m aner of good love
com yth of G od. A nd othir th an good love loved I never sir Launcelot du
Lake.” (1093.5-8:XVIII.19)
B oth words and sentim ents echo those expressed in the Anglo-Norman “Art
d ’aim er” cited above. “Bone am ur” or “good love” comes from God and
is both chaste and passionate. Elaine’s only trespass, as she subsequently
adm its, is th a t she loved Lancelot “oute of mesure.” T h at is why, in des­
peration, she asked him to take her as param our when he would not wed
her (1089.xvill.19) and why she now dies for his love.
After the death of the Fair Maid, Malory adds another passage in which
he echoes the language of The Franklin’s Tale regarding the nature of love.13
W hen Guinevere chides Lancelot for failing to do anything to save the Fair
M aid’s life, he reminds the queen th a t love m ust be freely given:
“For, m adam e,” seyde sir Launcelot, “I love n at to be constrayned to love,
for love m uste only aryse of the h arte selff, and n at by none co n stray n te.”
Before Guinevere has a chance to respond, however, A rthur leaps in with
w hat he thinks to be hearty agreement:
“T h a t ys tro u th , sir,” seyde the kynge, “and w ith m any knyghtes love ys
fre in hymselffe, and never woll be bonde; for where he ys bonded he lowsith
hymselff.” (1 0 9 7 .2 2 -2 7 :X V III.2 0 )
Lancelot, who truly loves the queen, not only echoes the Franklin’s words
bu t also understands their meaning: love m ust arise spontaneously, from the
heart. Any attem p t to coerce love m ust necessarily destroy it. On the other
hand, A rthur, who no longer loves the queen, does not understand Lancelot’s
words at all. R ather like W alter in C haucer’s C le rk ’s Tale, he confuses
com m itm ent with “constraynte,” the m arriage “bonde” with bondage. And
BEVERLY KENNEDY
189
it is hard not to see in his statem ent an unw itting explanation for the
phenom enon we have already noted above, th a t he stopped loving his queen
soon after they were married.
V
M alory’s handling of stories involving true love, courtship, and m arriage
shows th a t he sym pathized with the plight of those women who were not
able to m arry the m an of their choice, for whatever reason, whether arranged
m arriage, as in the case of Guinevere and Isode, or unrequited love, as in
the case of the Fair Maid of A stolat. His handling of the Fair M aid’s story
also implies, however, th a t she m ight not have suffered so, if she had known
from the beginning th at Lancelot was unattainable. Lancelot is like G areth,
a true lover who would never m arry anyone except his first (and last) love,
Guinevere.14 B ut Elaine had no way of knowing this until it was too late.
And this suggests th a t M alory’s sym pathy for Isode, Guinevere, and the
Fair M aid, m ay be read as an im plicit criticism of the entire system of
arranged m arriages th a t has, directly or indirectly, caused their suffering.
C ertainly M alory’s narrative pattern, correlating the wife’s degree of
m arital fidelity with her prior degree of freedom in choosing her husband,
strongly implies a causal link between the two. Lyonesse, who freely chose
to m arry G areth, is the happiest and m ost faithful of wives. Isode, who con­
sented to, but did not choose, her m arriage to Mark, was only conditionally
faithful to him . And Guinevere, who seems to have had no choice w hatso­
ever concerning her m arriage to A rthur, was in the end unable to be true to
him . Such a pattern also points to the fact th a t the men who arranged to
m arry these young women w ithout taking their feelings into account, also
suffered because of it. Mark suffered ridicule and the tem porary loss of his
royal power because of the adultery of Isode and Tristram . And A rthur lost
both his kingdom and his life, in part because of the adultery of Guinevere
and Lancelot.
Finally, it m ust be observed th a t this striking narrative pattern corre­
lating freedom of choice and m arital fidelity is not confined to the stories
of Guinevere, Lyonesse, and Isode. Malory also extends it to include the
stories of Nyneve, Chief Damsel of the Lady of the Lake, and Morgan le Fay,
A rth u r’s half sister. In M alory’s version, Nyneve freely chooses to m arry
Sir Pelleas, the m an she loves, and continues to be his faithful wife until
his death (1150.21—22:XX.II). On the other hand, Morgan le Fay, who was
forced by her step-father, King Uther, to m arry Uriens of Gore (1 0 .5-12:1.2),
190
FLORILEGIUM 10, 1988-91
becomes an exceptionally faithless wife and at one point even attem pts to
kill her husband. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion pointed to by such
a persistent and pervasive pattern: if men want women to be loving and
faithful wives, then they m ust allow them to choose their husbands.
M arianopolis College, Montreal
NOTES
1 In K nighthood in the M orte D a rth u r I h av e a rg u e d t h a t M a lo ry ’s re p re se n ta tio n of
k n ig h th o o d is n o t o nly h is c e n tra l concern, b u t also th e c h ie f m e a n s b y w hich h e endow s
h is b o o k w ith a u n ify in g th e m a tic s tru c tu re . In a very re c e n t a rtic le , G e rald in e H eng h a s
e x p lo re d w h a t sh e calls th e “fem inine s u b te x t” in M a lo ry ’s w ork, b y w hich she m ea n s th e
few references re m a in in g fro m e a rlie r tra d itio n to t h a t “e n c h a n te d w orld o f w itches a n d
feys w here w o m e n ’s p o w er is m an ifested . She is p rin cip ally c o n ce rn ed w ith th e figures of
M o rg a n a n d N yneve.
2 E x c e rp ts fro m case re co rd s show , how ever, t h a t a d e te rm in e d h u sb a n d co u ld m ake
i t a lm o st im p o ssib le for a wife to free herself, even if she c o u ld e n list th e s u p p o rt o f h e r
ow n fam ily o r frien d s (O ’F a o lain 133—35).
3 A n o th e r sy n th e sis, b e tw ee n e ro tic love a n d classical n o tio n s o f frien d sh ip , p ro d u c ed
a so m e w h a t sim ila r o u tco m e, w hich th e early fo u rte e n th -c e n tu ry a u th o r o f“L a D ifinission
d e A m ure" calls leal (loyal) o r verroie (tru e ) love. He m ak es n o m e n tio n o f c h a s tity o r
m a rria g e , how ever, a n d h e n e v er uses th e a d je ctiv e bone (g o o d ).
4 T h e n o tio n is to ra d ic a l, in fa c t, t h a t som e critics h a v e in te rp re te d The F ranklin’s
Tale a s iro n ic al. T h ese te n d to b e c ritics o f a R o b e rts o n ia n o r, w h a t D ouglas W u rtele
h a s re c e n tly called , a “leg alistic” b e n t. M oreoever, a s W u rte le ’s a rtic le m ak e s clear, th e y
focus th e ir ire, n o t u p o n th e p a ra d o x a s su ch , b u t r a th e r u p o n its n a rra tiv e consequences,
i.e ., A rv e ra g u s’s in sisten c e t h a t D origen keep h e r w ord to A urelius.
5 T h a t M a rg ery h a d som e know ledge o f c a n o n law o n m a rria g e is su g g e ste d b y h e r
r e p o rte d re p ly to th e B ishop of N orw ich a fte r he h a d q u e stio n e d h e r re g a rd in g th e w ords
sh e u se d in b e tro th in g h e rself to C alle: “. . . y f th o s w orddys m a d y t n o t su h e re, sche seyd
b o ld ly l>at sc h e w old m ak e [yt] su e rh ere ore t^an sche w en t th e n s; fore sche th o w th e in
h e re conschens sche w as b o w n d w a t so euere J>e w orddys w e m ” ( P a tto n L e tte r t, No. 203).
F o r a c le a r e x p o sitio n o f th e e v o lu tio n o f c an o n law re g ard in g c la n d estin e m arriag e , see
T hundy.
® P .J .C . F ie ld arg u es for a lo st source t h a t is E nglish r a th e r th a n F rench.
^ T h e E n g lish m ea n in g o f th e a d je ctiv e valyannt ( “b ra v e ” , “c ourageous” ) seem s to
h a v e b e e n d e te rm in e d b y re s tric te d u sag e. In E nglish it a lm o st alw ays d escribes a m a n ’s
w o rth ; in fa c t, a check of th e N ew Oxford E n g lith D ic tio n a ry su g g ests t h a t in E nglish
valyaunt w as n ever a p p lie d to a w om an. O n th e o th e r h a n d , valyavnt w as com m only
a p p lie d to w om en in F rench a n d specifically to G uinevere in th e P ro se L ancelot, w here
L an celo t p ra ise s h e r a s “»«' vaillante que oncquet p lu t b o n n e tte dam e ne vy ” (G odefroy).
M alory w ould h a v e b e e n fa m ilia r w ith th is F ren ch u sage, a n d in tim e th e M iddle English
D ic tio n a ry m a y re v e a l t h a t h e is n o t th e only E nglish a u th o r to use th e a d je ctiv e w ith
its o rig in a l F re n c h m e a n in g o f “w o rth y ” w hen describ in g a w om an.
BEVERLY KENNEDY
191
8
In his c o m m e n ta ry o n th is p assag e, V in av er n o tes th a t in M a lo ry ’s F ren ch source,
th e M erlin , K ing L o d eg rau n ce su m m o n s th e k n ig h ts of th e R o u n d T a b le to e x p la in w hy
h e h a s d e cid ed to se n d th e m to A rth u r. H ow ever, th e re is no evidence t h a t h e e x te n d s
e ven th is c o u rte sy to his d a u g h te r.
® F o r a discussion o f th is co n ventional ty p e of rom ance, see M athew .
F ° r 411 ex ten siv e discussion of c la n d estin e m arriag e in la te m ediaeval ro m an ce,
as well as c an o n law , see Kelly, P a r t III.
^ 1 w as p lea se d to discover th a t th e d ra m a tiz a tio n of th e M o rte D a rth u r sta g e d a t
th e L yric T h e a tre , H a m m e rsm ith , d u rin g A u g u st, 1990, m a d e th is in feren ce exp licit. In
a p a n to m im e o f th e b o a t jo u rn e y a n d delivery of th e b rid e to M ark , th e lovers use b o d y
la n g u a g e to ex p ress a lte rn a tin g waves o f desire a n d re s tra in t u n til th e b o a t a rriv e s a n d
T ris tra m h a n d s Isode o ver to M ark, w ho a w aits h e r in th e ro y a l m a rria g e bed.
12 F o r a review o f th e e vidence of a d u lte ry in th e F rench p ro se T rista n w hich M alory
o m its, see B. K ennedy, K nighthood 168-69.
P .J.C . F ie ld n o te s th e a llu sio n to C h a u c e r in his e d itio n o f th e la s t tw o ta le s of
th e M o rte D a rth u r (255, n o te to lines 1464—69). Felicity R id d y th in k s it u n likely th a t
M alory w as influenced b y C h a u c e r a n d su g g ests a source in P e te r Id le y ’s In stru c tio n s to
H is S o n , in s te a d (16).
14 T h a t is w hy it is a p p ro p ria te to M a lo ry ’s version o f e v e n ts a fte r th e d e a th of
A rth u r, t h a t L an celo t sh o u ld tell G uinevere o f h is h opes to ta k e h e r b a c k to F ra n c e w ith
h im , a s h is q u e en (1253.19-22:X X I.9). In d eed , o nly in M alo ry ’s v ersion o f th e ir love sto ry
is L an c elo t c o n sisten tly re p re se n te d a s G u in ev ere’s ideal h u s b a n d b e c a u se of th e ir long
a n d tru e love (B. K e n n ed y “M a lo ry ’s L an c elo t” ).
W ORKS CITED
“U n a r t d ’a im e r a n g lo -n o rm an d .” EM. O . S ôdergard. R o m a n ia 77 (1956): 289-330.
C h a u ce r, Geoffrey. The R iversid e C haucer. 3 d ed n .
H o u g h to n M ifflin, 1987.
L arry D . B en so n , ed.
B oston:
“L a D efm ission d e A m u rs.” E d . P a u l S tu d e r. M élanges de Philologie et d ’H istoire offerts
à M . A n to in e T h o m a s. P a ris, 1927, p p . 433-36.
F i e ld ,P .J .C . “T h e Source o f M a lo ry ’s T ale o f G a re th .” h i A spects o f M alory. C am bridge:
D .S. B rew er, 1981.
------ , ed. S ir T hom as M alory: Le M orte D arthur, The S e ve n th and E ighth Tales.
L ondon: H o d d e r a n d S to u g h to n , 1978.
G odefroy, F rederic. D ictio n n a ire de l ’ancienne langue fra n ç a ise. P a ris , 1937.
H askell, A n n S. “T h e P a s to n W om en o n M a rriag e in F ifte e n th -C e n tu ry E n g la n d .” V iator
4 (1973): 459-71.
H eng, G e rald in e. “E n c h a n te d G ro u n d : th e Fem inine S u b te x t in M alory.” In C ourtly
L itera tu re: C ulture and C o n tex t. E d . K e ith B usby a n d E rik C o o p e r. A m sterd am :
J o h n B e n ja m in s, 1989.
K elly, H enry A. Love and M arriage in the Age o f C haucer. I th a c a , NY: C ornell U P,
1975.
K ennedy, Beverly. K nighthood in the M orte D arthur. C am bridge: D .S . B rew er, 1985.
------ -. “M a lo ry ’s L an celo t: ‘T rew est L over, of a Synfull M a n .’” V ia to r 12 (1981): 4 0 9 56.
192
FLORILEGIUM 10, 1988-91
K ennedy, E .D . “T h e A rth u r-G u in ev e re R e la tio n sh ip in M alo ry ’s M orte D a r t h u r S t u d ­
ies in the L itera ry Im a g in a tio n 4 (1971): 30-36.
M alory, S ir T h o m a s. W o rks. 2d ed n . rev. E ugène V inaver, ed. O xford: C lare n d o n ,
1973.
M a th ew , G ervase. ‘‘T h e H eroine a n d M arriag e.” In The C ourt o f R ichard / / . L ondon:
J o h n M u rra y , 1968, p p . 129-37.
N o o n an , J o h n T . “P o w er to C hoose.”
In “M arriage in th e M iddle A ges.”
V ia to r 4
(1973): 4 19-34.
O ’F a o lain , J u lia a n d L au ro M a rtin e s, eds. N ot in G o d ’s Im age: W o m en in H isto ry fro m
the G reeks to the V ic to ria n s. New Y ork: H a rp e r & How , 1973.
P a sto n L e tte rs and P apers o f the F ifteen th C en tu ry. E d . N o rm a n D avis. 2 vols. O xford:
C la re n d o n , 1971—76.
R id d y , Felicity. S ir T h o m a s M alory. L eiden: B rill, 1987.
S h eeh an , M ich ael M . “C hoice o f M arriag e P a r tn e r in th e M iddle Ages: D evelo p m en t
a n d A p p lic a tio n of a T h e o ry o f M arriag e.” In Stu d ies in M edieval and R en a issa n ce
H isto ry , n .s. 1 (1978):3-33.
S tille r, N ikki. E v e ’s O rphans: M others and D aughters in M edieval E nglish L itera tu re.
W e s tp o rt, C T : G reen w o o d P re ss, 1980.
T h u n d y , Z a c h a ria s P . “C la n d e stin e M arriages in th e L ate M iddle A ges.” In N ew I m ­
ages of M edieval W om en: E ssa ys Toward a C ultural A nthropology. Eld. E d e lg a rd
E . D u B ru c k . L ew iston, NY: E dw in M ellen P re ss, 1989, p p . 3 0 3 -2 0 .
W u rte le , D o u g las. “C h a u c e r’s F r a n k lin a n d th e T r u th a b o u t ‘T ro u th e ’.” E nglish Stu d ies
in C anada 13 (1987): 3 5 9 -7 4 .