Desiring Discord: Political Conflict in Medieval Romance by Maia Farrar A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (English Language and Literature) in the University of Michigan 2019 Doctoral Committee: Professor Theresa Tinkle, Chair Professor Peggy McCracken Professor Catherine Sanok Professor Doug Trevor Maia Farrar [email protected] ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2012-3203 © Maia Farrar 2019 Acknowledgements My sincere appreciation to the University of Michigan Department of English Language and Literature and Rackham Graduate School for material and intellectual support for many years. I am grateful to all the professors and advisors who provided me with the skills and feedback needed to complete this project, the medievalists in particular. I owe special thanks to my committee; Theresa Tinkle, Cathy Sanok, Peggy McCracken, and Doug Trevor. I am particularly indebted to Theresa Tinkle, who patiently read and offered invaluable advice on many drafts of this and other projects, as well as moral support during the whole. Her reading first inspired this project’s focus on conflict. I am grateful to all my colleagues and friends who encouraged me and gave generous intellectual feedback; Valentina Montero-Roman, Lauren Eriks-Cline, Sheila Coursey, Amanda Greene, Laura Strout, Anne-Charlotte Mecklenburg, and Joseph Gamble. Their good advice and assistance refined and motivated chapter 4 in particular. The cheerleading and accountability they provided was indispensable. Special thanks to Valentina, whose essential encouragement and feedback during early morning runs shaped the introduction to this dissertation. Finally, thank you to my family; without your love and support, this project would not have been possible. You know who you are. — December 2018 ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………………. ii Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………………. iv Chapter 1 - Introduction …………………………………………………………………………. 1 Chapter 2 - Decomposing Heirarchy in The Squyr of Low Degree ……………………………. 26 Chapter 3 - Stewarding Treason: The Political Instability of Amis and Amiloun ……………… 58 Chapter 4 - Testing "Treweth": Systems of Dissent in King Horn and The Erle of Tolous .… 92 Chapter 5 - Sir Kay as Gatekeeper to Le Morte DArthur ……………………………………. 135 Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………………….…. 183 iii Abstract Desiring Discord: Political Conflict in Medieval Romance contends that medieval romance frequently creates and dwells on discord and political tensions left unresolved by the narrator. Accusations of treason in particular become a critical aspect of romance adventures, where the nature of the traitor’s crime or transgression is ambiguously defined at best, but is often central to the hero’s success. The steward frequently embodies this dissent and treason, even as he is silenced and vilified by the protagonist, text, and scholarship. This project clarifies why the figure of the royal steward repeatedly stands at the center of such treason. Why, for example, does the unnamed (and loyal) steward in Amis and Amiloun become the “fals traytour” blamed for Amis’s judicial battle or Amiloun’s leprosy when it is the heroes themselves who commit crimes against the duke? Through my analyses of Amis and Amiloun, as well as King Horn, The Squyre of Low Degree, The Erle of Tolous, and Le Morte D’Arthur, I argue that the treasonous stewards open up avenues to engage in political dissent and alternative methods of political activism—where the political intrigue of the medieval court can be functional and productive of good governance rather than obstructionist. These narratives’ political multiplicity—diversifying rather than preventing treason—raises questions about the value of internal conflict and the boundaries of criminality. Tensions over how to define and set boundaries around the reach of the crown in these romances persists from 1200 to the early sixteenth century, arguing that the steward’s literary vilificafrtion exceeds any particular historical anxieties. iv The steward Maradose calls attention to the diverse and competive political environment in The Squire of Low Degree, where his failed support of the duke’s law results in the princess’s rejection of the court and the narrative’s turn away from the hero. The steward is both “traytour” and faithful vassal, both “trewe” and “fals,” and both lover and villain. He unveils the multiple value systems competing within the romance court. Amis and Amiloun divorces treason from its political definition by condemning the steward as traitor while the text’s characters support his integrity. Not only is the court divided, but the very means of understanding and unifying it are unstable. The traitor turned steward turned emperor in The Erle of Tolous expands an unstable court structure to treat treason as a productive and beneficial response to the emperor’s misrule. The political “ryght” championed by the treasonous Erle Barnard suggests that readers’ sympathy may extend as much to the court’s traitors as to the hero. The characters’ and narrators’ dissonant conceptions of justice suggest that effective leadership relies on a system of power rather than an individual—a system that requires and thrives off the competing voices of political and social actors. The final chapter demonstrates that Malory’s steward Kay acts as gatekeeper to Arthur’s court. Kay’s stewardship opposes sovereign desire, statutory laws, as well as common laws and highlights the inconsistency among various affinities’ interpretive approach to power. His rude and abrasive opposition to many Round Table knights emphasizes their multiple and competing identities—but in doing so he also foregrounds diversity as a unifying factor. He allows the conflict between identities and approaches to inspire negotiation and solidarity to an overarching unity. v CHAPTER 1 Introduction In many medieval romances the royal steward negotiates for or obstructs the hero’s amorous or political success. In Sir Orfeo the steward protects Orfeo’s throne during his exile while Amis and Amiloun’s and Bevis of Hamptoun’s stewards block the heroes’ amorous conquest—Amiloun undergoes moral and physical hardship while Bevis earns the princess’s love thanks to the steward’s jealousy. In these, and many other medieval romances, the royal steward serves as a liminal figure who personifies loyalty or treason but receives little narrative or critical notice.1 Despite his presence across the genre and his centrality to the progression of many romance plots, scholarship marginalizes and dismisses the figure as the stock “evil steward,” quickly dismissed or killed, as K.S. Whetter has noted.2 Even as the romances (and critics) dismiss him as “fals traitor” or stock villain, the steward’s dissent within his romance 1 Very little scholarship pays attention to the steward. Exceptions are Catherine Kelly’s discussion of marginalized historical stewardship, Hazell’s assertion of literary stewards serving as catalysts, and K.S. Whetter’s focus on Malory’s Sir Kay. Catherine Kelly, “The Noble Steward and Late-Feudal Lordship,” Huntington Library Quarterly 49.2 (Spring, 1986): 133-148; Dinah Hazell, “‘Trewe Man’ or ‘Wicke Traitour’: The Steward in Late Middle English Literature,” Medieval Forum 6 (2007); K.S. Whetter, “Reassessing Kay and the Romance Seneschal,” Bibliographical Bulletin of the International Arthurian Society 51 (1999): 343-63. 2 The trope emerges repeatedly in the genre, appearing in Amis and Amiloun, Sir Degrevant, Sir Cleges, Havelok the Dane, and Guy of Warwick (to name a few), and usually reveals the steward as a potentially dangerous figure opposed to the protagonist’s success. Whetter has commented briefly on the repeated trope of villainous stewards as a standard feature of romance, stating “that evil seneschals are taken to be one of the stock features of medieval literature. […] wicked stewards could easily be moved from one romance to another without causing any disturbance in the narrative” (“Reassessing Kay,” 344). Harold J. Herman argues for the critical importance of Malory’s Kay, and traces his literary heritage in multiple sources, but notes his unique status: “Sir Kay, Seneschal of King Arthur’s Court,” Arthurian Interpretations 4.1 (Fall 1989): 1-31. 1 court frequently functions in support of sovereign directive, legal precedent, or common laws. Though the steward is regularly dismissed, my analysis takes the figure seriously, asking why the steward must be ‘fals’ for the hero to succeed. What does his vilification say about the political system he seeks alternately to protect or overthrow? I argue that the steward’s simultaneous centrality and vilified irrelevance reveals the conflicted and sometimes ambiguous political order imagined by the text. This project argues that the steward makes visible the multiple dissenting opinions within the court as he mediates between and renegotiates the constantly shifting conditions offered by the romance. When we look at the steward, we see romance treating betrayal, treason, and dissent as questions for the reader to ponder—questions that the works do not resolve. The steward’s supposed “treason” not only activates the hero’s adventure, his complaint, following legal and social guidelines, raises issues of justice, legitimacy, or loyalty—and his vilification critiques the political climate that would allow favoritism, corruption or mis-rule to overlook justice. The steward “participate[s] in the aspect of social commentary