The Lancelot-Gawain Parallel in Malory's Le Morte

Home , Bagdemagus, Cador, Claudas, Corbenic, Lancelot, Pelleas

THE LANCELOT-GAWAIN PARALLEL IN MALORY’S LE MORTE DARTHUR

DANIELLE RENEE TAYLOR

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts (English)

Acadia University Fall Graduation 2013

This thesis by Danielle Renee Taylor was defended successfully in an oral examination on August 29th, 2013.

The examining committee for the thesis was:

______Dr. Michael Stokesbury, Chair

______Dr. Kathy Cawsey, External Reader

______Dr. Patricia Rigg, Internal Reader

______Dr. Kevin Whetter, Supervisor

______Dr. John Eustace, Head of Department

I, Danielle Renee Taylor, grant permission to the University Librarian at Acadia University to reproduce, loan or distribute copies of my thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats on a non-profit basis. I, however, retain the copyright in my thesis.

______Author

______Supervisor

______Date

Table of Contents

Abstract v

Note on quotations vi

Acknowledgements vii

Introduction 1

Chapter One: Background and Sources 6

Chapter Two: Establishing the Parallel 38

Chapter Three: Culmination of the Parallel 72

Conclusion 108

Bibliography 111

Abstract

This thesis is an exploration of a parallel between Sir Lancelot and Sir Gawain found within Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte Darthur which has been previously overlooked in Malorian scholarship. The Lancelot-Gawain parallel runs through the entirety of Malory’s narrative, and is an important element in both his thematic structure and his characterization of both knights. By comparing and constrasting Lancelot with

Gawain, Malory is able to emphasize Lancelot as the protagonist of his narrative and presents him as a flawed, but still noble knight. The thesis begins with an exploration of

Malory’s sources, and some of the changes he has made in regards to Lancelot and

Gawain. An in-depth study of the the early tales outlines the creation and ongoing construction of this parallel. The early examples create a model for the extensive and elaborate parallel found in the Sankgreall Quest and the fall of the Round Table. This parallel offers new insights into Malory’s characterization of Gawain and Lancelot, as well as his conception of knighthood.

Note on Quotations

All quotations from Le Morte Darthur are taken from The Works of Sir Thomas

Malory, ed. Eugène Vinaver, 3rd ed., rev. P. J. C. Field, 3 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1990).

In quoting Malory, I do not reproduce Vinaver’s various emendation brackets.

Acknowledgements

I would first like to thank my family, especially my parents, Kirk and Sandra

Taylor. Their unconditional love and support has given me the confidence and the opportunity to pursue my passion for English literature. In addition to my family I would like to thank my friends for always supporting and believing in me.

I would especially like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Kevin Whetter for his help and guidance throughout the year. Working with Dr. Whetter has been a truly rewarding experience and his expertise and encouragement have helped me throughout this process.

I am also grateful to the numerous professors who I have had the pleasure of working with this year. This includes Dr. Patricia Rigg in particular, for agreeing to be my internal reader. Her comments and suggestions were incredibly informative and helpful. I would also like to thank the Department Secretary, Christine Kendrick, for all of her help.

vii

Introduction

Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte Darthur is one of the most widely known

Arthurian texts, and has enjoyed both a popular and an academic following. As one of the main characters in this narrative, Gawain has been a source of contention for scholars of

Arthurian literature. Seen often as an inconsistent character, Malory’s Gawain has not yet been fully examined for his role in the overall structure of the narrative. At times, Gawain is honoured as a great knight, while at other times he experiences great failures in his adventures. He also displays both positive and negative characteristics. Often, the different Gawains have been considered simply a result of the varying portrayals of this character found in Malory’s sources. However, Malory was very deliberate in his portrayal of Gawain, and the so-called “inconsistencies” between the “good” and the

“bad” Gawain are choices that Malory has made that affect the overall structure of the narrative. In particular, and throughout Le Morte Darthur, Malory uses the various attributes of Gawain in parallel with Lancelot. The latter is Malory’s protagonist, but this does not make Gawain the antagonist. Rather, Malory uses the character of Gawain continuously to help establish and maintain Lancelot in this position by maintaining

Gawain as a good, but flawed knight who is not developed in complete contrast with

Lancelot but rather in parallel. The parallel between both knights is used in order to either raise Lancelot’s status, such as when he outshines Gawain as a knight, or to mitigate any of Lancelot’s failings by having them pale in comparison to Gawain’s faults. Through both of these knights, Malory shows a consistent interest in the way in which his characters must try to uphold the ideals of knighthood, and the difficulties of always

1 performing well on each adventure. It is this Lancelot-Gawain parallel that I outline within my thesis. In my thesis, I use the term parallel to refer to an ongoing connection

Malory creates between Lancelot and Gawain. This parallel exists in a number of forms.

In some instances, there is a direct comparison between both knights. In other instances, the parallel explores a specific and deliberate constrast between Lancelot and Gawain. In all instances, Lancelot and Gawain are in parallel positions as prominent knights.

While both Lancelot and Gawain are key figures in Malory’s narrative, there has yet to be an in-depth study of the parallel between them within the text of Le Morte

Darthur. This study offers a new way to explore the characterization of both knights.

Gawain is not simply a bad knight to Lancelot’s good knight, nor is he a character without positive attributes. Many of these positive attributes are overlooked when

Gawain is studied only in opposition to Lancelot. By exploring the characters in parallel throughout the narrative, and not just their literary heritage, it is evident that there are similiarites as well as differences between the two knights. Beverly Kennedy is the one scholar who comes closest to the type of study I propose, with her work Knighthood in the Morte Darthur. Kennedy compares these two knights as epitomes of “True” knighthood (Lancelot), and “Heroic” knighthood (Gawain). In comparing them, Kennedy examines key passages and events in Malory’s text which I also examine. However, a number of Kennedy’s interpretations do not appear to have enough textual evidence to support the assumptions she makes, and her categories of knighthood are not presented as equal in terms of their worthiness. It is more than evident that in her opinion, the Heroic

Knight represents an older type of knighthood based more upon family loyalty. For

Kennedy, that type of knighthood is not as honourable as the True or Worshipful

2 categories. By identifying Gawain as a Heroic Knight, Kennedy highlights his negative qualities while overlooking many of the positive attributes which are evident when he is studied in parallel to, and not in contrast with, Lancelot. Beyond the fact that I disagree with some of her conclusions, Kennedy differs from my study, as she uses Lancelot and

Gawain to compare and contrast her categories of knighthood while I look specifically at how Malory uses Gawain in order to promote Lancelot as a successful knight in terms of military prowess and courtly behaviour.

In addition to Kennedy, there are some critics who have studied Lancelot and

Gawain in comparison in terms of Malory’s alterations to his sources. P. J. C. Field,

Robert H. Wilson, and Ralph Norris are all examples of scholars who give examples of

Malory’s tendancy to transfer positive actions or speeches associated with Gawain to

Lancelot. However, these scholars do not go beyond source study, and do not examine the overall parallel between the knights that exists throughout Le Morte Darthur. As a result, they overlook the literary consequences of theses alterations. No one has given meaningful attention to the overall parallel and the ways in which it functions within the narrative. As such, the characterization of Gawain is understudied or misinterpreted. He exists not as an antagonist or in mere opposition to Lancelot. Gawain’s characterization is very deliberate, and he has a number of quailities which Malory highlights which are worthy of further study.

In the first chapter of this thesis, “Background and Sources,” I outline Malory’s use of his sources. This chapter not only highlights Malory’s changes to his sources, but it also highlights the emphasis on parallels that exist in Le Morte Darthur and other

Arthurian texts. In addition, Malory’s alterations from his sources in his creation of a

3 parallel between Gawain and Lancelot indicate a level of artistry which is not always afforded to him by modern scholars. In Chapter Two, “Establishing the Parallel,” I explain how Malory first creates the parallel between Lancelot and Gawain early in his narrative. I then highlight the various elements in the first five tales of Le Morte Darthur which help to extend the parallel and explain how Malory establishes the link between

Lancelot and Gawain. The parallel gives insight into the characterization of both knights, as Malory humanizes both knights, having them struggle through their understandings of knighthood and facing both success and failure in their journeys. Understanding the characterization of two prominent characters in Malory’s narrative strengthens our ability to understand part of the overall themeatic structure of Le Morte Darthur. In the third and final chapter, “Culmination of the Parallel,” I examine the final three tales, as the

Lancelot-Gawain parallel is expanded in these last sections of Le Morte Darthur. In my analysis I emphasize two key events: the Sankgreall Quest and the final feud between

Lancelot and Gawain. It is in these events that Gawain is most explicitly used both to emphasize Lancelot’s prowess and to mitigate the effects of Lancelot’s failures as Malory presents the difficulties of trying to be a perfect knight while still human. At the same time, I emphasize that Gawain, while used to maintain Lancelot as a good knight, is not portrayed as Lancelot’s enemy throughout these tales. While they do end up on opposite sides of a battlefield, their fight is not reflective of their overall relationship with and to one another.

In my thesis I hope to elucidate how, from the background sources to the death of both knights, Malory clearly makes important structural and thematic use of the Lancelot-

Gawain parallel. Through this parallel we can gain a better understanding of Malory’s

4 characterization by examining the ways in which he presents the difficulties a knight faces when trying to uphold the concept of knighthood they are expected to maintain. The study of the parallel between Lancelot and Gawain highlights Malory’s ability as a conscious artist, and offers new insights into the characterization and overall themes of

Le Morte Darthur.

Chapter One: Background and Sources

Malory’s use of Gawain as a parallel for Lancelot within Le Morte Darthur is unsurprising given the common use of other parallels within his work, as well as within many of his sources. Larry D. Benson highlights the fact that these types of parallels would have been expected by, and pleasing to, medieval readers (77). The parallels found in Malory emphasize particular events or patterns within the work, and appear in a variety of ways, with some parallels appearing more obviously than others. For example, the parallel of the love triangles of Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot, and Mark-Isolde-Tristram is perhaps one of the most obvious within Malory. The length of the Tristram tale allows

Malory to establish, at length, the various parallels between Lancelot and Tristram, of which the love triangle is only one example. Fiona Tolhurst argues that the extensive narrative allows Malory to give “nearly equal stage time to his top two knights” (137).

Lancelot is Malory’s main hero as, apart from the Sankgreall Quest, it is Lancelot who emphasized throughout the majority of the narrative as the best warrior in Arthur’s court.

However, Tristram is also repeatedly called one of the best knights, and as such comparisons between the two knights are not uncommon. The parallel of Lancelot and

Tristram is furthered when Lancelot’s relationship with Arthur and Guinevere is placed in direct comparison with Tristram’s love for his uncle’s wife, Isolde. Each side of the parallel effectively informs and influences the other, as it is difficult to study one without directly comparing it to the other.

Benson highlights some of the parallels in Malory and his sources, and argues that

Le Morte Darthur “can best be appreciated and understood in the light of the traditions on which the author drew and in the literary and historical context in which he wrote”

(viii). Malory’s use of parallels is just one part of these traditions, and would have been one method Malory’s readers would have understood and recognized as significant in the work. One of the first parallels that Malory creates, and Benson highlights, occurs in the

“Tale of King Arthur.” When comparing the story of Uther and Ygrain to the story of

Arthur and Guinevere within this tale, Benson points out that there is a balance of material between the two couples. The amount of material on Uther and Ygrain’s relationship is almost the same as the amount of material Malory provides about the beginning of Arthur and Guinevere’s relationship. It does not seem likely that Malory focused on having the same number of pages or lines for each couple, but he “was clearly aiming at this sort of balance not just on the authority of the Suite du Merlin but because, like most romancers, he delighted in parallels” (Benson 33). The material in Malory’s source presented in equal length and Malory aims to maintain the parallel. This parallel draws the two separate relationships together and presents them as being of equal importance.

Significantly, this is not the only parallel in the first tale of Le Morte Darthur.

There is also a parallel between two separate sets of quests which take place after Arthur has been crowned king. There are two instances of one quest being undertaken by three different knights. Each knight focuses on a different aspect of the quest, but each individual adventure is directly related to the other two adventures which make up the whole. In the first set of quests Merlin suggests that Gawain, Tor, and Pellynor all be selected to attain different aspects of an adventure that is brought to court (Malory

103.17-24). In parallel to this, Malory ends the first tale with another triple quest, this time including Gawain, Uwayne, and Marhalt. These two sets of quests are presented in

7 direct parallel to one another, and have often been compared by scholars in order better to understand their purpose in Malory’s tale. For example, Benson suggests that “Malory’s fondness for symmetrical structures must have drawn his notice to how the second half of his tale began with three quests (Gawain, Tor, and Pellinor) and that his source contained the hint of three parallel quests at the end (Gawain, Marhalt, and Ywain)” (70). This pattern of parallels would have been familiar to Malory, as it was one he found in his sources. Malory then uses this pattern in his own work to emphasize elements, such as these three quests, or the love triangles previously mentioned. It is partly because of the prominence of various parallels such as those of Balin-Balan, Isolde-Isolde, and

Guinevere-Elayne that the Lancelot-Gawain parallel Malory has created deserves more attention beyond mere source study than it has previously received in Arthurian scholarship. Parallels are used throughout Le Morte Darthur, speaking to Malory’s trust in them to help establish the type of narrative he wished to create.

The triple quests from the first tale also highlight the fact that Gawain functions as a basis of comparison for other knights in addition to Lancelot. Gawain’s adventures in both sets of quests are presented first, and as such he functions in both instances as a measurement of success or failure for the other knights. There are three separate elements which make up the first adventure: a white hart, a white brachet, and a lady who has been taken away by force (Malory 102.28-103.12). Gawain, significantly, is the first to be assigned to the quest, and his adventure is the first presented. Jill Mann suggests that

Malory creates a distance when relating the quests, preventing both the knights and the readers from deciding which of the three quests is the most important (“Adventure” 75).

By exploring the ways in which Gawain is a parallel for the other knights, the three

8 quests can be examined in relation to each other, and not simply as three separate events.

There is no one more important quest, as they are each part of the adventure. Malory uses

Gawain as the basis of comparison in these quests just as he uses Gawain as a basis of comparison for Lancelot. The study of the Lancelot-Gawain parallel emphasizes

Malory’s use of Gawain as a standard of comparison, highlighting the artisty of Malory in his presentation of these quests.

To understand the significance of the fact that Gawain functions as a parallel to

Lancelot in Le Morte Darthur it is first necessary to outline the ways in which Malory makes use of the various pre-existing parallels which exist outside of his work, as well as the ways in which he manipulates his sources. Due to extensive source study, we are able to trace quite clearly the moments in which Malory follows, adapts, or ignores entirely elements of plot or theme in the creation of his own narrative. Through these studies it is possible to outline some of Malory’s intentions in his presentation. Invoking authorial intent is normal practice within Malorian studies, as critics are able to attribute specific elements of character, plot, or theme to Malory himself based upon detailed comparison to his sources. This tradition of attributing intent to Malory is found even in criticism which is not specifically source-based.1 Malory makes deliberate choices in his representation of the material, including, but certainly not limited to, the ways in which he presents the characters of Lancelot and Gawain. His alteration to these two characters is one of the elements in the parallel he creates between them.

As recognized leading figures in Arthurian literature, Gawain and Lancelot already function in parallel to each other; they both exist as protagonists in different

1Throughout my thesis, I have followed this critical tradition of attributing ideas to Malory himself. I am indebted to a personal communication from Dr K. S. Whetter about the origins of this intentional movement in Malory studies as a whole.

9 works at different times, and both have been heroes of other tales, either as excellent warriors or as lovers in romances. It is because of this pre-exisiting prominance that

Malory was faced with a literary tradition emphasizing both Gawain and Lancelot as potential heroes. He had to craft his own portrayal of these recognized figures, and in doing so, Malory elevated Lancelot to the role of the main hero, or protagonist.

Significantly, he relies on the figure of Gawain to help him accomplish this role for

Lancelot by comparing the ways in which both men attempt to adhere to a knightly code, or how they fail. Malory draws on their parallel roles in the existing literature in order to establish the parallel between them, allowing Lancelot to emerge as the hero of Arthur’s court. Lancelot’s reputation as a good knight is noted throughout the narrative.

When looking at the sources of Le Morte Darthur, it is evident that in some instances Malory specifically uses material which establishes or highlights Gawain as a hero, such as in terms of his martial prowess, and then alters it to do the same for his version of Lancelot. There are numerous instances in which Malory has “made Gawain’s part smaller and less credible and Lancelot’s bigger and more credible – sometimes by transferring material from one to the other” (P. J. C. Field, “Source of…Gareth” 250).

This trend has also been noted by Ralph Norris who argues that often Malory “takes

Gawain’s adventures and gives them to Lancelot” (79). One of Malory’s purposes in doing this appears to be the establishing of Lancelot as a leading figure in the narrative.

Perhaps the most notable example of this occurs in “The Tale of Sir Gareth.” In this tale,

Lancelot fills a role which should rightfully belong to Gawain, as the latter is Gareth’s brother. While this particular tale will be discussed at length in the next chapter, this pattern of reassigning material from Gawain to Lancelot exists in other tales as well. One

10 example in which Malory shifts materials from Gawain to Lancelot is the reassignment of a speech at the end of the Le Morte Darthur. The source speech, which originally praises

Gawain, appears to be a model for a speech Malory creates, which praises Lancelot. As pointed out by P. J. C. Field, “Ector’s threnody for his brother Lancelot, is inspired by

Mordred’s threnody for his bother Gawain in the alliterative Morte Arthure” (“Source of… Gareth” 250). In the alliterative Morte Arthure, Mordred makes the following speech after his brother’s death:

‘He was makles one molde, mane, by my trow[t]he!

This was Sir Gawayne the gude, ϸe gladdeste of othire

And the graciouseste gome that vndire God lyffede;

Mane hardyeste of hande, happyeste in armes,

And ϸe hendeste in hawle vndir heuen riche,

ϸe lordelieste in ledynge qwhylls he lyffe myght,

Fore he was [a] lyone allossede in londes inewe.

Had thow knawen hym, sir kynge, in kythe thare he lengede,

His konyge, his knyghthode, his kyndly werkes,

His doyng, his doughtynesse, his dedis of armes,

Thow wolde hafe dole for his dede ϸe dayes of thy lyfe!’ (3875-85)

Mordred gives a long list of his brother’s positive attributes, emphasizing the incredible loss that the whole kingdom suffers through Gawain’s passing. He laments the loss of a great knight, if not the best knight. Gawain’s death means the loss of his military prowess for Arthur’s kingdom as well. The significance of Mordred’s lament for Gawain is enhanced due to the fact that not only is Mordred the enemy of Gawain and Arthur in the

Morte Arthure, he is also responsible for Gawain’s death. While we expect family and allies to mourn Gawain’s death, we do not expect his enemy to do the same.

In Le Morte Darthur, Malory uses the basic elements of Mordred’s speech, but it now functions to emphasize Lancelot’s importance. After learning of Lancelot’s death,

Ector mourns the death of his brother:

“A, Launcelot!” he sayd, “thou were hede of al Crysten knyghtes! And

now I dare say,” sayd syr Ector, “thou sir Launcelot, there thou lyest, that

thou were never matched of erthely knyghtes hande. And thou were the

curtest knyght that ever bare shelde! And thou were the truest frende to

thy lovar that ever bestrade hors, and thou were the trewest lover, of a

synful man, that ever loved woman, and thou were the kyndest man that

ever strake wyth swerde. And though were the godelyest persone that ever

cam emonge prees of knyghtes, and thou was the meekest man and the

jentyllest that ever ete in halle emonge ladyes, and thou were the sternest

knyght to thy mortal foo that ever put spere in the reeste.” (Malory

1259.9-21)

As in the alliterative Morte Arthure, in which Mordred lists the various virtues which establish Gawain as a great knight, Ector’s speech after Lancelot’s death emphasizes the prominence of the knight’s role in Britain and in Arthur’s court. Both are speeches which stress the loss to the community that has occurred through the death of each knight, showing that in each death there is not just personal loss of a loved one, but also that

Gawain and Lancelot are exemplars of knighthood for each society, and their deaths become symbolic of the loss of the epitomes of the virtues listed here. Both knights are

12 highlighted through common traits, such as their roles as Christian knights; Gawain was

“the graciouseste gome that vndire God lyffede” (Morte Arthure 3877) while Lancelot was “hede of al Crysten knyghts” (Malory 1259.9-10). Gawain’s “kyndly werkes” are listed as one of his virtues, and Lancelot is called “the kindest man that ever strake wyth swerde.” Both speeches emphasize the religious, the courtly, and the martial prowess of each knight. While critics have identified this parallel, the examination has been limited to a study of Malory’s source alterations. The impact of Malory’s transferring of material from Gawain to Lancelot informs more than our understanding of the way in which

Malory used material from his sources: the transferring of material speaks to Malory’s deliberate characterization and his artistry in using various elements of the character of

Gawain to help build the the reputation of Lancelot.

Ector’s speech expands on the elements of Mordred’s speech in order to highlight specific elements of Lancelot that make him a hero as a successful knight in Malory’s tale. Michael W. Twomey emphasizes the fact that this “whole speech is enclosed in an envelope structure based on the word ‘knight’,” and the speech focuses on “Lancelot’s secular and chivalric virtues” (113). Using Ector’s speech, Malory firmly establishes

Lancelot as a hero, based upon his secular and chivalric reputation. Lancelot is a hero both as a martial warrior and a lover, as he is named “the trewest lover, of a synful man, that ever loved woman” (Malory 1259.14-5). Malory insists that Lancelot was still a good knight and a good man in his life, though he was not perfect, and did not achieve the

Sankgreall. The fact that Malory turns to a speech originally intended for Gawain is a clear example of how Malory was aware of Gawain’s role as a hero from previous literature. Readers would recognize the significance of the speech as a dedication to a

13 successful hero. Through their prominence, Gawain and Lancelot are parallel figures in

Arthurian literature, and because of this Malory is able to reassign aspects of his sources from Gawain and shift it to his own version of Lancelot, which has an impact on the overall thematic tone of the text.

Malory’s shifting of material is also evident in his alterations of source material in his second tale, “Arthur and Lucius.” Focused on the military prowess of Arthur and his knights, Malory reworks his source, the alliterative Morte Arthure, and establishes

Lancelot as one of the heroes in Arthur’s war against Rome, granting Lancelot success in this campaign. In the source, Gawain functions as Arthur’s leading knight. Malory is able to place Lancelot into a similar role because Gawain’s position in the source is one that

Lancelot can also fulfill. Gawain’s prominence as a hero on the battlefield can be matched by Lancelot, a fact Malory uses to his advantage. R. M. Lumiansky explains

Malory’s uses of Gawain and Lancelot:

Malory borrowed episodes in which Gawain plays a leading role in the

source, [but] he omitted Gawain’s name from these episodes, and … he

added Lancelot’s name; these facts represent strong evidence that as he

wrote this “Tale” Malory, unlike the author of the alliterative Morte,

intended us to understand Lancelot’s military position in Arthur’s society

as more important than Gawain’s. (Introduction 6)

Malory does shift his source material in ways which allow him to increase Lancelot’s presence and in some instances decrease Gawain’s, but Lumiansky overestimates

Lancelot’s prominence in this particular tale. In the war against Rome, both Lancelot and

Gawain play prominent roles, and Malory is only beginning to place Lancelot in the role

14 of best knight. I suggest that Malory’s concern with Lancelot’s knighthood runs throughout Le Morte Darthur. The Lancelot-Gawain parallel highlights the fact that

Malory is continuously presenting the ways in which Lancelot both achieves and maintains his position as a good knight. Lancelot’s position as Arthur’s best knight is not merely stated and accepted throughout. Malory instead explicity shows the ways in which

Lancelot either succeeds or fails in the trials presented to him.

Giving Lancelot a more prominent position is in direct parallel with Malory’s efforts to remove Gawain from his position as Arthur’s most skilled and trusted knight. In

Le Morte Darthur, Lancelot is given a position of command he did not previously hold, while in contrast Gawain is denied the distinction of leading an attack alone. In the alliterative Morte Arthure, Gawain is singled out in a battle for his military prowess, as he leads an attack in the last battle against Lucius (Morte Arthure 2218-21). In Malory’s account, Gawain is specifically accompanied by other knights (206.7-14). However, it is vital to note that though his role is diminished by Malory, Gawain is not removed completely as a good knight in this tale. While Malory needs to remove some of the praise that would be associated with Gawain, he still maintains Gawain in an important postion. One of Malory’s alterations even appears to emphasize Gawain’s importance in the tale. In the alliterative Morte Arthure, Arthur discovers that Sir Ewain FitzHenry is injured, and makes the following speech:

‘Bot say to ϸe senator I sende hym ϸes wordez:

Thare sall no siluer hym saue bot Ewayne recouere;

I had leuer see hym synke on the salte strandez

Than the seegge ware seke ϸat es so sore woundede.

I sall disseuere that sorte, so me Criste helpe,

And sett them full solytarie in sere kyngez landez;

Sall he neuer sownde see his seynowrés in Rome

Ne sitt in ϸe assemble in syghte wyth his feris.

For it comes to no kynge ϸat conquerour es holden

To common with his captifis for couatys of siluer. (1571-80)

Arthur becomes upset over the wounding of this knight in particular and vows to keep

Rome’s senator prisoner until Ewain recovers. Other knights are wounded, but it is specifically Ewain’s injury which upsets Arthur deeply, and because of this Arthur becomes firm in his demands. In Malory, Arthur becomes upset when Gawain is wounded. Arthur’s speech after learning of Gawain’s injury in Malory resembles the one found in the alliterative Morte Arthure:

And for thy trew sawys, and I may lyve many wyntyrs, there was never no

knyght better rewardid. But there is no golde undir God that shall save

their [the prisoners] lyvys, I make myne avow to God, and sir Gawayne be

in ony perell of deth; for I had levir that the Emperour and all his chyff

lordis were sunkyn into helle than ony lorde of the Rounde Table were

byttyrly wounded. (211.10-6)

Malory takes a speech in which Arthur is upset over the wounding of Ewain, and has it refer instead to Gawain. In both speeches, Arthur makes a vow that if his knight dies then no money that Lucius offers him, either silver or gold, will be enough to get the hostages back. For Arthur, the lives of Ewain and Gawain in each respective work are important enough to be worth the lives of the Roman prisoners.

By making this alteration, Malory actually increases Gawain’s importance, contrary to what he appeared to be doing elsewhere in this particular tale. Dichmann suggests that the “probable reason for this inconsistency is that in attempting to give unity to his story Malory has merely substituted a well-known name for an obscure one” (87).

It is true that this is a pattern throughout Malory’s narrative, especially for minor characters. Robert H. Wilson explores Malory’s naming of minor characters at length, highlighting Malory’s tendency to substitute names, arguing that “[c]haracters derived from the source at one point of the narrative are also used for substitution elsewhere”

(“Naming” 372-73). Malory gives names to characters unnamed in his sources, but also replaces lesser known figures with greater names.2 In spite of the fact that Malory, on more than one occasion, substitutes more prominent characters for minor ones, it is important to note that Sir Ewain and his son appear earlier in the tale and Ewain makes a speech, vowing “to be avenged on the Romayns” (Malory 189.21-39). Ewain is specifically not absent from this tale, and is given this speech when many other knights are simply identified only by their name. In spite of this, Malory still alters the material and positions Gawain as the knight whose wounding most upsets Arthur. If Malory is willing to give a speech to Ewain and still take away his role in this scene, it seems more likely that Malory consciously decided to emphasize Gawain’s importance by reassigning the material. It is significant that Malory is substituting Gawain for a minor knight, and not a leading figure. Although Malory reassigns the role of best knight to Lancelot,

Gawain is still maintained as an important figure, used in parallel with Lancelot. Malory de-emphasizes Gawain’s role as a military leader who stands out from other knights, but

2 See Wilson, “Addenda” and Field, “Four Functions of Malory’s Minor Characters” for further exploration on the role of minor characters.

17 maintains a Gawain who exists in a vital position as one of the most important knights to

Arthur, making him a worthy parallel for Lancelot. However, in order to ensure that

Lancelot is the protagonist of Le Morte Darthur, Malory still has to shift and alter the episodes that portray Gawain as the most heroic of Arthur’s knights. Gawain’s name would still carry weight from his history in the literature, and Malory decides to de- emphasize Gawain’s role without removing him completely from the position of a good knight.

It is not until after this tale that Lancelot begins to truly function as the best knight of Arthur’s court. Mary E. Dichmann argues that “The Tale of King Arthur and the

Emperor Lucius” represents the beginning of Malory’s efforts to establish Lancelot in a position of the leading knight. At the same time that Malory begins to emphasize

Lancelot’s rise, he also begins to downplay Gawain’s position as a prominent knight, though he is still of importance to Malory, and to Arthur’s kingdom. Malory reassigns material in order to accomplish both of these goals. In order to de-emphasizse Gawain’s roles, Malory assigns “to another knight some of Gawain’s adventures in the Morte

Arthure” and he has “other knights accompany Gawain on expeditions which in the source he had undertaken alone” (Dichmann 87). Dichmann explains that Lancelot does not play a leading role in the source and “since he is mentioned only six times in the

Morte Arthure, a specific place had to be made for him” (74). By reassigning material from both Gawain and other knights, such as Sir Cador, Malory gives Lancelot a leading role in adventures in the Roman War:

In the Morte Arthure, the king gives Sir Cador command of the company

and names eleven knights to accompany him, excluding Lancelot. In “The

Tale of King Arthur and the Emperor Lucius,” however, Malory is

consistent with his policy of accenting Lancelot’s importance; he not only

adds him to the expedition, but even places him above Sir Cador in

command. (Dichmann 77; Morte Arthure 1601-10; Malory 212.4-15)

Not only does Malory add Lancelot to this scene, but he places Lancelot in command of the adventure. By reassigning material, and altering his source to highlight Lancelot specifically, Malory begins to draw attention to Lancelot’s role as a promising knight.

Lancelot is placed in a higher position than knights who would have been recognized as the leaders of this particular event in the Morte Arthure and is specifically marked as noteworthy in Malory’s text, playing a vital role in the Roman War.

The shifting of Gawain’s prominence to Lancelot is also part of Malory’s purpose in “The Tale of Lancelot.” Lumiansky argues that one of Malory’s intentions “was to introduce Lancelot as the chief knight of the Round Table, with stress upon his, rather than Gawain’s military prowess” (“Lancelot” 91). Malory had to alter material, at times simply replacing Gawain with Lancelot, in order to maintain Lancelot as the “chief knight” while using sources in which Gawain filled the role of protaganist. Other times,

Malory is able to rely on sources in which Lancelot was already the romantic or martial hero of the tale. “The Tale of Lancelot” is derived mainly from the Old French prose

Lancelot, and Malory’s retelling begins by establishing Lancelot as the lead knight of the

Round Table. Malory sets up the collective reputation and prowess of the Round Table knights after the Roman War. However, he specifically singles out Lancelot as one of the best, highlighting Lancelot’s increasing role as the hero whose adventures we follow in

Le Morte Darthur (253.1-12). Lancelot is being placed in a position to be both Arthur’s

19 chief knight and Malory’s main protagonist. This is a pattenr that can be at least partly traced through the comparison of Lancelot with Gawain.

Malory continues to elaborate on the importance of Lancelot’s position in the beginning of this tale: “So this sir Launcelot encresed so mervaylously in worship and honoure; therefore he is the fyrst knyght that the Freynsh booke makyth mencion of aftir kynge Arthur com frome Rome” (235.12-5). In his analysis of this scene, Lumiansky states that this introduction to the tale has no matching section in Malory’s source, and this is a passage which Malory has invented (“Lancelot” 93). Lumiansky also counters an argument made by Eugène Vinaver in his first edition of The Works of Sir Thomas

Malory. Vinaver suggests that “fyrst” simply meant that Lancelot was mentioned first simply because his adventure followed the Roman War (Vinaver 1398; Lumiansky,

“Lancelot” 93). As Lumiansky argues, the emphasis on “fyrst” carries more weight than a chronological account. Malory has explicitly highlighted the fact that Lancelot is mentioned first in the French book, and the regard that Guinevere has for Lancelot is in relation to this fact: “Wherefore quene Gwenyvere had hym in grete favoure aboven all other knyghtis, and so he loved the quene agayne aboven all other ladyes” (Malory

254.15-7). This favour is a result of Lancelot’s position as the best knight and “not because he is chronologically the first mentioned” (Lumiansky, “Lancelot” 94). Lancelot is being set up as the best knight by Malory, and not merely the first knight named in a list. Lancelot’s prominence in relation to the rest of Arthur’s knights highlights his significance in the tale, and Malory prefaces the statement of Lancelot’s mention in the

French Book with the statement that it is because of the worship and honour that Lancelot has gained that he is given priority over the other knights.

Lancelot’s position as second only to Arthur is a place that, at least in some of the literature, Gawain has traditionally held. This is a trend that has been noted by other scholars, highlighting the importance of the fact that Gawain’s reputation and position as best knight have been linked to his direct connection to Arthur. For example, Keith

Busby draws attention to the fact that “Gauvain is often mentioned directly after Arthur”

(Busby 15-16).3 Busby outlines this trend in order to show how prominent Gawain is within French Arthurian literature. Lancelot may be prominent throughout the French tradition, but so too is Gawain, and Gawain is often emphasized as Arthur’s best knight when he is listed second to the king. Malory understood this process and replaces Gawain with Lancelot in order to emphasize that it is now Lancelot who is in this position. This allows Malory to establish Lancelot as his protagonist before then relating various adventures in which Lancelot must prove why he worthy of this position.

Malory also makes alterations to his sources in his presentation of Lancelot and

Gawain in “The Tale of the Sankgreall.” Charles Moorman identifies specific alterations that Malory makes from the French Vulgate Cycle’s La Queste del Saint Graal. Some of these alterations relate directly to Lancelot and Gawain, and establish the parallel between the two characters. Moorman argues that “Lancelot is Malory’s hero, and from the beginning Malory has elevated him to the primacy of all knights,” and in altering his source in this tale, “Malory will turn his main attention to the figure of Lancelot in developing his version of the grail quest” (191). In direct contrast, “Malory has very skillfully changed the nondescript Gawain of the source into an almost totally unsympathetic character” (Moorman 200). While the parallel of Lancelot’s adventures with Gawain’s adventure in the Sankgreall Quest will be further discussed in Chapter

3 See further Whiting and Roger Dalrymple on Gawain’s prominence in the literature.

Three, Malory’s alterations to his sources in regards to this quest are in and of themselves an important parallel. For Lancelot and Gawain both, Malory alters the ways in which they fail in this vital quest in order to set up specific implications of those failures. In

Lancelot’s case, he is Malory’s hero, but Malory does not alter the established legend to remove Lancelot’s failure. Instead, he continues “to use Lancelot as he had used him in the earlier ‘Tales,’ as the perfect earthly knight” (Moorman 191). In doing so, Malory is still able to maintain Lancelot’s reputation as a hero within the tale, in spite of his lack of success in the Sankgreall Quest, as Lancelot is still a hero by the earthly standards of knighthood. The parallel highlights both Malory’s attempts to present the difficulties of being a perfect knight and his attempts to investigate Lancelot’s character in depth.

Lancelot, and by extention Gawain, appear as humanized beings who are not infallible, and this characterization is more evident through the study of the parallels between the two knights.

At the same time, Malory again alters his sources in order to emphasize Gawain’s own failure, omitting material which still portrayed Gawain as too good of a knight. He must be good, but he cannot be better than Lancelot at understanding how to best behave as a knight. For example, before the adventure of the Sankgreall begins, Arthur’s court is presented with the adventure of a sword stuck in a stone, floating in the water. After

Lancelot refuses to attempt to draw the sword from the stone, Arthur commands Gawain to try the adventure. Gawain informs Arthur that he “shall nat do that” (Malory 857.3).

Gawain’s refusal is blunt, and he gives Arthur no reason as to why he will not attempt the sword. This is not so in Malory’s source, La Queste del Saint Graal, in which Gawain

22 specifically refuses the sword because Lancelot has refused, and Gawain tries to convince

Arthur of the logic behind this refusal:

When the king realized that Lancelot would not do as he wished,

he said to Sir Gawain, “Good nephew, you try it then.”

“With your permission, my lord, I won’t do it either, since

Lancelot doesn’t want to try. My efforts would be in vain, as you well

know, Lancelot is a better knight than I.” (4)

At Arthur’s insistence, Gawain does attempt the sword even though he is aware of the fact that if Lancelot cannot achieve the sword, neither will he. Malory removes Gawain’s explanation, not allowing Gawain’s refusal to appear as a legitimate, reasonable, and humble decision. In the source material, Gawain argues that Lancelot is a better knight, and this is the reason he is willing to deny his king and uncle a request. What is most significant about Gawain’s initial refusal in Le Morte Darthur is that, in contrast to the source, Malory does not attribute Gawain with humbleness or foresight; rather Gawain merely appears stubborn and disobedient. In this way, Gawain and Lancelot have both still failed to achieve the sword, but Malory has altered Gawain’s failure, removing any justification for Gawain’s initial refusal. The alteration of the presentation of the failures of Lancelot and Gawain is an element which will be further scrutinized when looking at

Malory’s portrayal of the Sankgreall Quest.

P. E. Tucker is one scholar who uses both Gawain and Lancelot in his study of

Malory’s narrative. Tucker outlines the ways in which Malory works to create his own chivalry in Le Morte Darthur by altering his source material. Tucker argues that there is evidence of a “gradual discovery of [Malory’s] own ideal” (“Chivalry” 64) and according

23 to Tucker, in Malory’s presentation of chivalry “prowess is the first quality demanded of a knight, and Malory gives it particular prominence in his stories and comments” (65).

Tucker goes as far as to specifically draw a parallel between Gawain and Lancelot by outlining how the Gawain of Malory’s sources traditionally represents “courtly knights” inspired by desire for fame in Wace’s Brut and Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia, and

Lancelot represents a knighthood inspired by love, and the service of love (Tucker 68-

69). Tucker’s use of the term “courtly” in relation to Wace is slightly misleading, because it is a term that is often, if contentiously, associated with romance. Although there are elements of romance in the Brut, critics tend to classify this work as a chronicle.

However, while the application of the term “courtly” may not fit the exact genre of the sources, the fact remains that Tucker views Lancelot and Gawain as the epitomes of different types of knighthoods which Malory was working with. The comparison between both knights within Le Mortre Darthur has an impact on the narrative which goes behind a simple constrast between the two knights, and speaks to Malory’s artistry in forming his own understanding of knighthood. Malory, in establishing his own ideal chivalry, uses both Gawain and Lancelot but has altered their motivations for performing knightly deeds. What is important to understand is that their prominence as exemplars would have informed Malory’s depiction of the characters, and what he chooses to alter is as significant as what he chooses to maintain. It is Lancelot whom Malory alters to be his epitome of knighthood, and it is Lancelot who becomes the main hero in Le Morte

Darthur. Because Gawain has also existed as an exemplar of ideal knighthood, Malory is able to use Gawain and compare Lancelot to him, in order to help establish Lancelot as

Arthur’s best knight by portraying another prominent knight struggling to perform his duties as a knight.

In addition to, and because of, their prominent existence within the literature, a large amount of scholarship has been published on each knight. Explorations of the character of Gawain and explorations of the character of Lancelot are two of the most prominent categories in character-specific studies in the Arthurian field.4 It is no wonder that a number of studies have been completed upon both characters as Gawain and

Lancelot are two key figures that stand out across the Arthurian tradition. As two of the key figures in Arthurian literature, both Lancelot and Gawain have often been labelled as the epitome of different themes, elements, or ideals in Malory as well as other Arthurian texts. One example of the parallel between the knights is the fact that Beverly Kennedy uses Gawain and Lancelot as the embodiment of particular types of knighthood. When discussing Malory’s understanding of knighthood, Kennedy argues that,

Malory does not assume that his ‘subject’ has one unified nature. On the

contrary, he presents his readers with three quite different types of knight.

Although there is some sharing of qualities among them, each type has its

own distinct ethos, determined by its own particular world view and

correlative understanding of what it means to be a ‘good’ knight. (57)

The three types of knighthood that she outlines are the Heroic knight, the True knight, and the Worshipful knight. In her opinion, Gawain represents the Heroic knight, Galahad is the epitome of Worshipful knight, while Lancelot fluctuates between the three categories, eventually settling into the role of True knight. While Kennedy’s work offers

4 For example, see B. J. Whiting, Keith Busby, Bonnie Wheeler, and K. S. Whetter on Gawain, and Derek Brewer, Lori Walters, and Elizabeth Scala on Lancelot.

25 convenient and insightful categories of knighthood, there are instances where she misrepresents either characters, particular traits of knighthood, or events. For the purposes of this thesis, what is significant about her work, therefore, is that she has used

Gawain and Lancelot as two of the key figures representing particular categories of knighthood. In the same token, Barbara Gray Bartholomew believes that “the single figure of Gawain functions as a dramatic representation of all that happens to the Round

Table fellowship and thus fills an essential part in the thematic design of the Morte

D’Arthur” and “appears as a sort of embodiment of the Round Table and, by extension, of humanity” (263). In her opinion, Gawain is representative of all of Arthur’s knights, and Malory presents “Gawain as typical of the best and the worst in the Round Table fellowship” (267). Gawain’s inconsistencies as “good” and “bad” knight appear to represent the ideal of the Round Table contrasted with the reality of the knights that make it up.

Derek Brewer, on the other hand, uses Lancelot as the embodiment of Malory’s attempt to explore the contradictions inherent in human relationships. He argues against the idea that Le Morte Darthur is a tragedy of character, claiming that the characters are all merely representations of conflicts in human nature and suggesting that “Malory responded to the challenge of the self-contradiction in human relationships and followed it through to the bitter end, to make a resolution, to come to a conclusion” (“Presentation”

52). Malory’s main protagonist could have been flawless as a romantic hero and good knight, representing the expected traits and abilities associated with a romance lover, but that would not be representative of human nature. Brewer appears to view Lancelot as

Malory’s main representation of the conflicting duties of a knight as well as a

26 representation of the conflicts and contradictions that exist in relationships. In his opinion, the tragedy is in the nature of these relationships and not in a flaw of Lancelot’s character. Lancelot’s responses to the challenges he faces are representative of human nature. While Brewer, and others, have studied the ways in which either Lancelot or

Gawain exist as the epitome of some ideal, the characterization of both knights in relation to one another has still been overlooked.

Gawain has also been considered representative of the whole not only in Malory, but in the works of Chrétien de Troyes as well. William A. Nitze highlights this:

Gauvain is held up as a model of what other knights should be. Yet none

of Chrétien’s works bear his name. He plays a prominent role in Erec,

Cligés, Lancelot, Yvain, and especially Perceval, but always as a

contrasting figure with whom the title-hero is compared or associated.

(219)

Nitze is not the only one to have noticed this aspect of Gawain’s purpose in Chrétien’s writing; in a detailed exploration of La Conte du Graal, Busby argues that Chrétien’s

Gawain exists at least partially to mark the worldly chivalry that Perceval must surpass.

Existing in this fashion, Gawain becomes a symbol of all worldly knights:

Everything supports the idea that Chrétien was intent on having Perceval

surpass the worldly chivalry of Gauvain and have him finally succeed in

the spiritual adventure of the Grail…. The qualities – vices and virtues –

that Gauvain embodies are those of the Arthurian court and of the courtly

ethos in general. He illustrates both its potentials and its limitations, whilst

remaining essentially admirable. (Busby 142)

In Busby’s opinion, Gawain exists as a parallel for Perceval by representing the whole of

Arthur’s court. Perceval’s success is measured against Gawain, a recognizable hero in the literature. Malory also uses this pattern, and it is Lancelot and not Perceval who exists in parallel with Gawain, and it is Lancelot who is compared to, and contrasted with,

Gawain. While it is difficult to say whether or not Malory was inspired by this pattern in

Chrétien, what is most significant is the fact that Gawain has existed in parallel with other knights as a means to help establish the other knight as a hero who is successful in the tasks presented to him.

Malory’s use of Gawain as a basis of comparison in parallel with Lancelot is not completely without precedent. In the work of Chrétien de Troyes, we have already seen how Gawain exists in parallel with Percevale in La Conte du Graal. In Le Chevalier de la

Charrette, a narrative focused on Lancelot’s adventures, Chrétien uses Gawain in parallel with Lancelot. In this work, Gawain’s reputation as a great knight has already been established. He first appears in this tale as both Arthur’s nephew and advisor, roles which are often emphasized in Arthurian literature. As proof of Gawain’s pre-established position, Chrétien has Gawain criticize Arthur for allowing Kay to take Guinevere from the court (226-31). Few people would be able to so openly criticize their king, but

Gawain faces no repercussions. Instead, this statement leads him to take up the quest to save Guinevere, seemingly as the logical choice as one of Arthur’s best knights.

In contrast to Gawain’s appearance, Lancelot enters into the narrative as an unknown knight. In fact, his identity is not revealed by Chrétien until Guinevere recognizes him and reveals Lancelot’s identity halfway through the narrative (3661). The adventure begins with Gawain leaving Camelot and meeting up with Lancelot, whose

28 horse has fallen down dead. Gawain allows Lancelot to take one of his two horses (274-

86). While the adventure begins with Gawain, the narrative focus soon shifts to Lancelot.

The latter’s success and actions are in parallel with what would have been expected of

Gawain, as Lancelot is taking over an adventure that it appeared Gawain would undertake. Lancelot’s actions are placed in parallel with Gawain’s when both knights must decide whether or not they will ride in a cart in order to continue their search for

Guinevere. The decision is a serious one, as Chrétien explains that carts were used for criminals. Anyone who was forced to ride in a cart was shamed, as it was a sign of having lost one’s feudal rights (326-38). Lancelot hesitates only for a moment before he accepts the ride in the cart which will bring him to the Queen.

The opportunity for Lancelot to ride in the cart is paralleled when the same choice is soon after presented to Gawain. Both knights must face potential shame in exchange for the opportunity to find Guinevere and each knight responds in a different way. When

Gawain is given the opportunity to climb into the cart beside Lancelot in order to learn of the queen’s whereabouts he refuses to get into the cart (388-94). This is in direct contrast to Lancelot. Gawain, who begins Chrétien’s tale as the first knight officially on the quest to rescue Guinevere, takes a secondary position in relation to Lancelot. Lancelot, in order to fulfill his quest, is the knight who has taken on the adventure of the cart. However,

Busby points out one key difference between Lancelot and Gawain’s decision in this matter: Gawain still has a horse which he can use to ride along beside the cart, while

Lancelot does not (59). He also argues that while Chrétien is critical of both Gawain and

Lancelot, he “is not exposing Lancelot’s weaknesses by praising Gauvain’s strength”

(60). In this instance, Gawain and Lancelot both must decide how best to fulfill their

29 quest. Lancelot is willing to incur shame in order to succeed in rescuing Guinevere.

Gawain, understanding there is no need for him to give up his horse, knows he can still follow the cart easily. Most notably, Lancelot, an unnamed knight at this point in the tale, is able to accomplish the same feat as Gawain; they both find their way onto a path that will lead them to Guinevere. The significance of the fact that they both succeed is highlighted when Lancelot is offered the same shelter, food, and bed as Gawain upon reaching their destination (Chrétien 446-72). Even though Lancelot has arrived in a cart he has still achieved this first part of the quest. He has also proven the strength of his love for Guinevere, as this is what convinces him to get into the cart (372-77). Though he is mocked later, at this moment Lancelot has proven that, just like Gawain, he can succeed in an important quest.

In the next segment of the quest, Lancelot and Gawain again set out together, though this time both knights are on horses and travel as equals. They come upon a damsel, and their interactions with her constitute another example of the parallel that exists between them. The damsel informs them both that in order to get information from her, they must make a promise, and if it is “enough” she will help them. Each knight makes a different promise. Gawain makes the following pledge:

Dameisele, se Dex m’aïst,

je vos an promet a devise

que je mete an vostre servise

quant vos pleira tot mon pooir,

mes que vos m’an dites le voir. (622-26)

So help me God, Miss,

I pledge my word

That if it should please you

I shall put all my strength into your service,

If only you will tell me the truth.

Lancelot’s response is related in direct parallel to Gawain:

Et cil qui fu sor la charrete

ne dit pas que il l’an promote

tot son pooir, einçois afiche

(com cil cui Amors fet riche

Et puissant et hardi par tot)

que, sanz arrest et sanz redot,

quanqu’ele voldra li promet

et toz an son volour se met. (627-34)

The knight who had ridden in the cart

Did not say that he pledged her

All his strength, but rather swore

(Like one whom Love has made powerful

And strong and bold for any endeavor)

To do, without hesitation or fear,

Anything she might wish

And to be entirely at her command in everything.

Here, both knights must respond to the same situation, and Lancelot’s response is given in comparison with Gawain’s reply. Gawain, notably, offers to put all of his strength into the damsel’s service, pledging himself to her. Lancelot, on the other hand, offers to do as she will command, but does not actually pledge his whole service to her. Busby argues that Lancelot “is unable, because of his love for the Queen, to commit himself so wholeheartedly” (61). Lancelot and Gawain are operating under two different motives as knights. While both hope to rescue the Queen, Lancelot is motivated by love as well as by his duty to the Queen in his role as a knight. Gawain is operating as a knight, and thus his pledge to the maiden is focused on his strength as one. Lancelot, on the other hand, has pledged his service to Guinevere, but still offers to be at the other damsel’s command in order to repay her for her help.

While both knights give slightly different pledges, the damsel approves of both, and presents the knights with the next challenge in their quest. This is where their adventures split, and they must take parallel paths in order to find Guinevere. Both paths involve a bridge which the knights must cross, highlighting the fact that while the paths are separate they are also alike (656-73). Lancelot gives the choice to Gawain, who opts to take the Underwater Bridge, leaving the Sword Bridge, which is more perilous path, for Lancelot (689-96). At this point in the narrative, Lancelot and Gawain embark on the rest of the adventure on parallel paths, making literal the figurative parallel between them. Lancelot fully overtakes Gawain for the spotlight in the adventure; Lancelot is the knight who undertakes the most dangerous and difficult quest and becomes the main hero of the tale. Gawain is still used to help establish Lancelot in his adventure; however it is

Lancelot’s adventure which is the focus of Chrétien’s narrative.

Lancelot’s success in crossing the Sword Bridge is later paralleled, this time through constrast, by Gawain’s own failure to cross the Underwater Bridge. While searching for Gawain, Lancelot is taken prisoner by Meleagant, leading to the need for a search party for Lancelot. When there is no sign of him, those on the search decide to look for Gawain. They cannot find Lancelot so they turn to another prominent knight.

However, upon reaching the bridge the search party must first rescue Gawain, who is stuck in the water, unable to free himself. (5106-11). Gawain takes the easier path but is not successful. Lancelot’s success on his parallel adventure is even more notable in light of this, and Gawain’s struggle helps to emphasize Lancelot’s victory.

However, Gawain’s reputation as a good knight is not harmed in this instance.

Rather, he still exists in parallel with Lancelot, as they both appear as honourable knights, worthy of adoration. This is evident when Guinevere is both happy for Gawain’s return, and yet grieved that Lancelot is still missing (5192-201). In spite of the fact that he has not crossed his own bridge, Gawain is still honoured by Guinevere. Gawain and Lancelot are both prominent and important knights, and Guinevere cannot feel complete joy or complete sorrow. Just as she feels joy that Gawain has arrived safely, she experiences grief that Lancelot is missing. Both knights are important to the Queen. While Lancelot is her lover, Gawain, as a knight, is still prominent enough to be worthy of her concern.

Another example of how Gawain and Lancelot exist in parallel in Chrétien’s tale is in relation to another battle which Lancelot arranges to fight with Meleagant. In spite of the agreement to meet and duel later, Meleagant has captured Lancelot, and is holding him prisoner. Meleagant goes to Camelot, acting as if he is in search of Lancelot to honour their agreement. When the court is forced to admit they have not seen Lancelot,

Meleagant states that Lancelot must appear within a year to honour their pledge to do battle. Gawain steps forward, and offers to arm himself and fight on Lancelot’s behalf if

Lancelot does not appear by the end of the year (6210-13). Because Lancelot and Gawain are both great knights, Meleagant is happy to allow for the substitution of one knight for another. He urges Arthur to grant Gawain the battle because of this fact:

Qu’el monde chevalier ne sai

a cui si volentiers m’essai,

fors que Lancelot seulemant.

Mes sachiez bien certainnemant,

s’a l’un d’aus dues ne me combat,

nul eschange ne nul rachat

fors que l’un d’aus deus n’an prandroie. (6217-23)

For I know of no knight in the world

I’d rather test myself against,

Unless it is Lancelot himself.

But know for certain

That I will only fight one of those two - -

I’ll accept no exchange or substitution

And will only engage one of those two.

Meleagant highlights the fact that Gawain and Lancelot are equivalent to one another. No other knight could replace Lancelot. It is those two knights who are the best, and only those two are worthy, in Meleagant’s belief, of the battle that has been pledged.

This parallel between the two knights is strengthened after the year has passed with no sign of Lancelot. When Lancelot does appear, Gawain has already armed himself to engage in the battle against Meleagant. Gawain still offers to fight for Lancelot, but the latter insists that he will uphold his pledge and will meet Meleagant in combat. In order to do this, Gawain gives Lancelot his armour:

Si desvest son hauberk et sache

de son dos, et toz se desarme.

Lanceloz de ces armes s’arme

tot sans delai et sanz demore. (6908-11)

So he loosed his hauberk and lifted it

From his back, then disarmed himself totally.

Lancelot armed himself with these arms

Quickly and without delay.

Chrétien specifically highlights the fact that Gawain has disarmed in order for Lancelot to prepare for the battle. The fact that Lancelot wears Gawain’s armour highlights the parallel which exists between them: not only are they matched in reputation, but now they even bear the same armour. On the field, a knight is recognized by his armour and his shield before he is recognized by his skill. Through this tale, Gawain exists as a parallel for Lancelot, and that parallel culminates in the transfer of Gawain’s armour to

Lancelot. Significantly, Malory’s version of the “Knight of the Cart” does not include

Gawain in anyway. The tale occurs late in Malory’s narrative, and Lancelot is already

35 established as Arthur’s leading knight. It would not make sense for another knight to take up the quest to rescue Guinevere.

The parallel of Lancelot and Gawain in Malory, then, goes beyond merely functioning within Malory’s narrative. It is present in Malory’s sources, in Malory’s alteration of his source material, and in the scholarship on Malory and other Arthurian literature. The prominence of this parallel enables readers to see that Malory’s use of

Gawain in parallel for the character he wishes to establish as his protagonist, Lancelot, is not all that unusual. The parallel which Malory crafts emphasizes the fact that throughout

Le Morte Darthur, Malory is conscious of his sources and alterations. He selects and changes material to suit his purposes, and does not merely copy what has been presented to him. Malory’s handling of Gawain is complex, and not merely a reproduction of the

“good” and the “bad” Gawain of previous literature. This characterization of Gawain, as well as Lancelot, and the fact that Malory consistently weaves the parallel between them through the whole of his narrative speaks to his artistry. Many scholars do not attribute

Malory with this level of artistry. Robert H. Wilson points out that “[c]ondescending remarks about Malory’s materials and his lack of art have not been uncommon” (771).

Even Field, while praising the literary characteristics of Le Morte Darthur, suggests that the success of this work is in spite of Malory, whom he does not see as a conscious artist

(Romance 7). I argue that there is evidence of Malory’s artistry throughout Le Morte

Darthur, and that this artistry underlies Malory’s conscious choices in how to present his narrative. Other scholars have voiced similar sentiments. K. S. Whetter, for example, argues that “the textual and generic evidence reveals that Malory had considerable knowledge of what he was doing” (Understanding 158). Whetter does not, however,

36 examine the Lancelot-Gawain parallel. The elaborate Lancelot-Gawain parallel is evidence of the fact that Malory knew what he was doing, and that he skillfully crafted his narrative. One of his purposes throughout Le Morte Darthur is an exploration of

Lancelot’s understanding of the adventures given to him as a knight. As a prominent figure in Arthurian literature, Gawain makes a logical choice to place in parallel with

Lancelot. Gawain, a recognizable and successful figure from previous literature, is used by Malory in order to continue to expand and emphasize Lancelot’s growing importance and reputation as the hero of this work. Gawain is not used solely in contrast with

Lancelot, nor does he begin, or end, as Lancelot’s enemy. They are both knights who are central to Arthur’s Round Table community. The use of the parallel allows Malory to begin to outline Lancelot’s establishment as a prominent knight by comparing his adventures and actions with Gawain’s. The next chapter will outline how this parallel is established between the knights, and the implication of this parallel in the events leading up to the Sankgreall quest.

Chapter Two: Establishing the Parallel

In his adaptation of the Arthurian story, Malory undeniably highlights the life of

Lancelot in order to establish him as the leading figure of the narrative. Malory not only focuses on the adventures of Lancelot, but also creates parallels with other characters for his protagonist. These parallels highlight both Lancelot’s successes and failures, and speak to Malory’s concern with how well Lancelot is able to navitage the complexities of knighthood, or how he struggles. Malory uses Gawain, as a less than perfect, but still noteworthy knight, to show that good knights are not always successful, and understanding the code of knighthood is not always simple. Throughout the narrative,

Malory builds up the comparison between Lancelot and Gawain, and he includes material which confirmes the parallel as integral to the whole of As Le Morte Darthur. Near the end of the narrative Arthur’s kingdom has collapsed and the Round Table is divided. In a battle against Mordred’s army, Gawain is fatally wounded. Arthur laments Gawain’s approaching death, and confirms the prominent position of both Gawain and Lancelot:

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!

(1230.11-8)

Arthur’s speech reinforces Gawain’s importance to Arthur, and establishes Gawain’s function as a parallel for Lancelot. Of all of the knights he has lost or will lose, it is

Gawain and Lancelot who have stood out as the two most important to Arthur. When comparing Lancelot and Gawain, most scholars focus on either the Sankgreall or the Fall of the Round Table. The Lancelot-Gawain parallel may culminate within the Quest of the

Sankgreall and its aftermath, but the true significance of the parallel is the fact that it exists throughout Le Morte Darthur. It begins before Gawain and Lancelot take their places at the Round Table. In order to understand the significance of the Lancelot-

Gawain parallel in the end of the narrative, it is vital to observe the parallel that is carefully crafted by Malory throughout the whole of the narrative. Gawain cannot be reduced to a mere antagonist for Lancelot as throughout most of the narrative they are not enemies or in opposite positions, but rather are comrades and are both attemping to understand the ideals of knighthood they are expected to uphold.

While Gawain may not be Malory’s primary hero, he still maintains a key role within the narrative as a whole, and his adventures are still important in Malory’s presentation of the difficulties of living up to the ideals associated with knighthood. In her assessment of Gawain, Barbara Gray Bartholomew argues that “Malory never quite grants Gawain the status of a principal actor. Thus, Gawain’s role as an almost-major character meshes with Malory’s presentation of him as a sort of microcosm of the Round

Table” (263-4). As Bartholomew correctly maintains, Gawain is never meant to act as

Malory’s main hero, as it is Lancelot who must be the most successful. Margaret Robson also notes the fact that Gawain is not the leading figure, pointing out that Gawain is “at the edges of events, not the centre” (89). Nevertheless, Gawain is a key figure in many of the events and plays a pivotal role in Malory’s establishing of Lancelot. Malory uses

Gawain as an example of a knight who, on a number of occasions, struggles to do the

39 correct thing as a knight. At the same time, Gawain is still, overall, a good knight, speaking once again to the fact that he is not merely an atagonist for Lancelot, and is rather another prominent knight in Malory’s narrative who struggles through the intricacies of trying to be a good knight. As K. S. Whetter highlights, the marginalia in the manuscript of Malory’s text suggests this importance. Whetter argues that “the overwhelming number of marginalia concern [the] paragons of Malorian chivalry,” a list which includes Gawain (“Characterization” 124). Whetter states that there are seventeen marginalia which refer to Lancelot, and eleven which refer to Gawain, more than any other figure except Tristram. While many critics have studied Lancelot in comparison to

Tristram, the parallel between Gawain and Lancelot has been overlooked. With evidence of Gawain’s importance in the mariginalia, his role in the overall narrative should be explored further, including in his role as a basis of comparison for Lancelot, as he is a central figure to the overall structure and theme. In addition to the textual evidence of

Gawain’s importance, his status as a parallel for Lancelot becomes undeniable in light of

Arthur’s lament for the loss of both knights, quoted above. Gawain functions not as a hero for his own tale, but rather in a parallel position to which Lancelot is compared. This position has not received enough critical attention. There are plenty of source studies on the characters individually, but in terms of character study, no one has looked at how

Gawain functions in relation to Lancelot.

Perhaps it is because Gawain is not often considered to be the principal actor that his role as a parallel for Lancelot has been overlooked in favour of the parallel of

Lancelot with other key figures, particularly Tristram. It is not difficult to understand why, as Lancelot and Tristram are both good knights and are both in adulterous affairs

40 with their lords’ wives. As previously mentioned, a number of scholars have noted, either in passing or at length, the parallel between Tristram and Lancelot. Donald G. Schueler argues that “[i]t would be difficult for any reader not to notice the insistence with which

Malory draws connections between Tristram and Lancelot” (53). Fiona Tolhurst studies the Lancelot-Tristram parallel and argues that both knights function as measurements of knighthood. She advocates that this can be seen through Malory’s extensive inclusion of the Tristram narrative:

[T]his allotment of narrative space reinforces Malory’s presentation of

Lancelot and Trystram as the world’s two greatest knights through his

references to them as the standards by which other knights are measured

and as equals in chivalric prowess. (137)

As Tolhurst suggests, Malory devotes a large portion of his narrative to the Tristram story, giving Tristram a prominent position next to Lancelot as an epitome of knighthood.

Terence McCarthy discusses the Tristram narrative, often through a parallel between

Tristram and Lancelot. For example, he outlines the relationship of Tristram, Mark, and

Isolde, comparing it to that of Lancelot, Arthur, and Guinevere, and argues that “Tristram and Isolde may live on a lower plane, but their story provides a clear foil to that of

Lancelot and Guenevere” (29). Larry D. Benson, in his examination of the Tristram section, argues that, in spite of the focus on Tristram, Lancelot is still an integral character in the tale (123). The Tristram section of Le Morte Darthur clearly parallels themes and major elements of the narrative as a whole, and this parallelism has rightly been noted by many scholars, such as D. Thomas Hanks Jr., Thomas C. Rumble (“The

Tristram”), and Kevin T. Grimm. However, the parallel between Lancelot and Gawain

41 also offers an opportunity to study the ways in which Malory characterizes these two prominent knights and it highlights evidence that Malory is concerned with showing how

Lancelot functions as a good knight. The parallel with Tristram is significant and important in its own right, as Lancelot’s role as a lover is paralleled. With the parallel with Gawain, Malory further emphasizes the ways in which Lancelot is successful, or unsuccessful, in order to highlight the fact that Lancelot must work to maintain this reputation and position. By comparing Lancelot to Gawain, Malory draws attention to the choices and actions Lancelot makes which give him the reputation of a good knight. The significance of the Lancelot-Gawain parallel is heightened by the Lancelot-Tristram parallel, as it is clearly a pattern Malory uses throughout the narrative to establish

Lancelot as his protagonist. In that regard, the comparison with Gawain deserves more attention, both for understanding Malory’s use of Gawain but also for understanding the intricate ways in which he develops the character of Lancelot.

In that regard, fact that Lancelot can be paralleled with other characters such as

Tristram does not weaken, but in fact strengthens the possibility of another parallel.

Gawain may not function as a parallel for Lancelot’s role as a lover, but he still is used to help establish Lancelot’s character and prestige throughout the narrative. Beverly

Kennedy observes at least part of this parallel, but her assessment of Gawain’s overall role in the narrative is at times problematic. Kennedy suggests that there is a “contrast between the values of Lancelot, the True Knight, and the values of Gawain, the Heroic knight” (144). Kennedy often belittles or critizes Gawain in her attempts to make Gawain fit her idea of the Heroic knight, as she presents it as the least noble of her three

42 categories. However, Kennedy’s judgments of Gawain’s actions are not always fully supported. For example, she argues the following:

We never meet Gawain’s wife and therefore have good reason to assume

that his attitude towards her and the institution of marriage is like that of

every other exemplar of Heroic knighthood: marriage is the means by

which a knight produces legitimate heirs and, except for her essential

reproductive function, a wife does not play a significant part in his life.

(146)

Malory at no time focuses on Gawain’s role as a husband in Le Morte Darthur, but to assume that the lack of reference to Gawain’s wife is an example of Gawain’s attitude towards marriage seems rather questionable. In fact, Malory rarely seems interested in wives other than in their roles as lovers. Gareth, Gaheris, and Tristram are other knights who marry, but the focus is rarely on their roles as husbands. Gawain, for Malory, also does not need to be examined in his function as a husband, and as such his wife does not factor into the narrative. Claiming that this is a sign that a wife is only significant to

Gawain in terms of her reproductive capability appears to be more of an attempt by

Kennedy to force the character of Gawain to fit into her mold of a Heroic knight than an accurate observation. However, in spite of some of the problems associated with

Kennedy’s definitions within her labels, she is one of the few scholars who studies

Lancelot and Gawain in comparison at length, and she does makes interesting and important comparisons which can be used to study the parallel of Lancelot and Gawain.

Gawain’s function as a parallel for Lancelot extends from the beginning to the end of Le Morte Darthur. Compared to this, the parallel with Tristram exists only in the

“Tristram” section. Gawain is able to function as a parallel throughout the narrative because “he is a part of Arthur’s noble fellowship at every significant point in its history, and he reflects the qualities of good and bad which prove the Round Table’s strength and its downfall” (Bartholomew 263). In the same way, Lancelot’s importance extends from before his arrival at court to after Arthur’s death. Even before Gawain and Lancelot become Knights of the Round Table, Malory establishes key aspects of each of their characters. Malory highlights important characteristics beyond their knightly abilities.

Gawain is first introduced as a son; Lancelot is first introduced as a lover. Both characters, while also established early as knights, are also characterized by other roles.

Malory establishes these other connections for each of the knights in order to show that other factors will influence their decisions and actions throughout Le Morte Darthur. The influence of blood ties on Gawain leads him to make poor decisions, just as Lancelot’s love of Guinevere leads to his mistakes. Kennedy makes a similar argument about the faults of Lancelot and Gawain throughout her work, proposing, for example, that

“Lancelot’s relationship to Guinevere is the source of his only imperfections as the epitome of True Knighthood” (94). Malory uses Gawain and his involvement in a blood feud as a comparison for Lancelot and his involvement in an affair. Lancelot’s love of

Guinevere appears to be more noble than the desire for revenge born out of a bloodfeud.

Gawain’s kinship loyalty, while noble in its own right, makes enemies of other Knights of the Round Table, whom he is supposed to be in fellowship with. Both knights are introduced, at least in part, through their faults. Using Gawain, a figure well known in

Arthurian literature for both his virtues and his vices, Malory is able to establish that good knights are not necessarily perfect and allows them to make mistakes without

44 destroying their reputations completely. Malory does not simply replicate his sources and instead establishes his own characterization. The parallel between Lancelot and Gawain is significant partly because it provides proof of Malory’s creativity and his ability for indepth characterization.

Gawain is introduced in Le Morte Darthur through his family connection. As

Malory explains that Uther married Igraine he also states that “kynge Lott of Lowthean and of Orkenay thenne wedded Margawse that was Gaweyns moder” (Malory 10.5-6).

The first thing revealed about Gawain’s character is his lineage, highlighting his family connection to Arthur. The importance of Gawain’s role as the son of Lott is an example of how “the text insistently bonds [Gawain] to his family” (Wheeler 119). For example,

Gawain’s name appears for a second time when he is again listed as the son of Lott

(Malory 26.3-4). While he is named as “Sir Gawayne,” the emphasis is on his position as

Lott’s son and not his position as a knight. Lott is the knightly figure, and Gawain is linked to him by blood and not profession. It is also significant that in this moment Lott is considered to be “a passyng good knyght,” in spite of the fact that he is preparing for war against Arthur. Gawain’s connection to his family is significant both because of his own later involvement with a disastrous blood feud and because of the fact that he comes from a good knight’s family. Gawain’s connection to family ties is also established briefly in relation to his sons. Rumble argues that Gawain is the only knight in Malory “portrayed with fully acknowledged sons” (136). Rumble highlights that when Gawain takes part in an effort to heal Sir Urry, he is accompanied by his three sons, Sir Gyngalyn, Sir Florent, and Sir Lovell (Malory 1147.30-2). As Rumble states, this is the only time in Le Morte

Darthur that any man enters “a room flanked by his sons” (136). Gawain is established as

45 a son, and later as a father. Malory explicitly connects Gawain to his fathers, his brothers, and his sons, emphasizing the importance of family to Gawain.

Gawain will function as more than simply one of Arthur’s knights, as he is established early in the narrative as Arthur’s nephew (Malory 41.15-21). This further establishes Gawain’s importance in Arthur’s world. Arthur will see him as a key knight because of their connection through not only feudal loyalty but also blood, especially as

Gawain is Arthur’s sister’s son. Gawain’s connection to Arthur in this moment is emphasized only for their family connection and Gawain’s future as Arthur’s knight is not even mentioned at this time. Malory could easily have stated that all four of

Morgause’s sons will eventually become knights of the Round Table, especially because it is not unusual for Malory to make reference to future events. As P. J. C. Field states,

“Malory is particularly interested in the early books of the Morte Darthur in establishing forward links with the later ones” (Romance 91). However, when first arriving in

Camelot with his mother and his brothers, Gawain is important more for his family connection than for his chivalric identity.

Gawain’s connection to his family is also established in another early mention of the knight, though this time Malory is directly referencing once of the main traits of

Gawain that will cause him to play a role in the downfall of the Round Table. After

Pellynor slays King Lott in battle, the reader is informed that “sir Gawayne revenged the deth of hys fadir the tenthe yere aftir he was made knyght, and slew kynge Pellynor hys owne hondis” (Malory 77.20-2). Malory specifically chooses to highlight the fact that after Gawain is made a knight he avenges the death of his father. Pellynore is also a

Knight of the Round Table and because of this fact Gawain should have been in

46 fellowship with him. The fact that Gawain chooses to avenge his father and kill Pellynore proves that Gawain honours a blood feud over the fellowship that the Round Table is supposed to represent. Kate McClune highlights the importance of this as she argues that the “foundation of the Round Table fellowship is an attempt to establish a loyalty system in which chivalric brotherhood can overcome the potentially unstable clan relationships that precede its inception” (“Blood Ties” 89).1 The Round Table is meant to represent

Arthur’s improvement to the kingdom, as he will unite the knights in fellowship, and hopefully end blood feuds which often lead to the death of good men. However, Gawain appears to be proof that Arthur’s Round Table cannot completely overcome the blood ties of the knights. Gawain becomes an important figure for Arthur, partly because of his blood. The fact that Gawain’s role in Arthur’s downfall is tied to a blood feud is made all the more important because of this fact. Gawain, and his brothers (not including Gareth), function as “a microcosm of the conflicts and tragedies that often, for Malory, result from the prioritization of familial bonds, rather than chivalric loyalties” (McClune, “Blood

Ties” 91-92). Gawain from the outset is tied directly to one of the major elements that will cause Arthur to lose his kingdom and his life, just as Lancelot is tied to another.

This act of revenge is the first action of Gawain as a knight that is related to the reader, and becomes one of Gawain’s most notable actions throughout Le Morte Darthur.

However, it is significant that the language used in this passage in no way condemns

Gawain’s actions. In fact, Gawain’s vengeance is merely listed as one of the many events in the middle of the description of a battle. Gawain’s dedication to his father and his family may eventually lead to his part in the downfall of the Round Table, but the action in and of itself does not condemn him as an undeserving knight. Gawain’s role as a

1 See also Kennedy 218-19.

47 knight is only briefly mentioned in this section. It is not his heroic deeds but his loyalty to family that is first highlighted by Malory. Malory’s characterization of Gawain goes beyond his reputation as a knight and focuses on the humanized element of Gawain belonging to a family. One critic who has noted this is Sally Mapstone. In her exploration of the Scottish aspect of Gawain’s character in Malory, she points out that “[t]he bloodfeud was not all about vengeance. It was part of a localized way of doing things…. In

Scotland blood-feud was part of an unofficial social system” (110). Gawain’s role as a signifier of blood ties places him in a difficult position, as “one cannot be equally loyal to king and kin” (McClune, “Blood Ties” 94). Gawain’s loyalty to his family may in part be the cause of the downfall of the Round Table, but it is important to note that this loyalty to his family is at least in part noble.2 In the same way, we will see that Lancelot’s loyalty to Guinevere as her lover is both noble and a major reason for the division of Arthur’s court. The associations made with Gawain before his arrival in the narrative have also been noted by Bonnie Wheeler. She contends that “Sir Gawain’s context and fate thus precede his entrance: before he speaks, the reader is told of his father, his mother, his best friend and the instrument of his death” (119). Gawain’s reputation may not be firmly established before he arrives in the narrative, but the reader is presented with key biographical information. In addition to those features listed by Wheeler is the fact that

Gawain will slay Pellynor in revenge of his father. The reader is told of Gawain’s family and of just how important that family connection is to him. Gawain’s actions as a son and knight are also when his future revenge is fortold on the tomb of Peryne: “And on the morne they founde letters of golde wretyn how that ‘sir Gawayne shall revenge his fadirs

2 This argument has also been made by Robert. H. Wilson (Characterization 51-3) and C. David Benson (269).

48 dethe kynge Lot on kynge Pellynore’” (81.16-8). Gawain’s blood feud has been set in writing and stone. So far, Gawain is characterized by his direct relationship to his family and the fact that he will avenge the death of his father against Pellynore. Gawain’s reputation as a knight is not mentioned, only his role as son in revenging his father.

Gawain is thus an example of a well rounded character: he has characteristics beyond his function as a knight.

In parallel with the background information presented on Gawain, Malory introduces aspects of Lancelot’s character before he arrives in court. Just as Gawain is introduced in connection to family, Lancelot is introduced in connection to love: he is named as one of the truest lovers in the first mention of his future prowess:

Merlin mentions Lancelot in a prophecy he makes after Balyn slays Launceor and

Columbe, Launceor’s paramour, takes her own life in sorrow:

“Here shall be,” seyde Merlion, “in this same place the grettist

bateyle betwyxte two knyghtes that ever was or ever shall be, and the

trewyst lovers; and yette none of hem shall slee other.”

And there Merlion wrote hir namys uppon the tombe with lettirs of

golde, that shall feyght in that place: which namys was Launcelot du Lake

and Trystrams. (Malory 72.5-11)

The first mention of Lancelot is not as one of the best warriors, but rather as one of the

“trewyst lovers.” Lancelot is also connected in this first mention with Tristram, emphasizing the parallel with another knight who is known as a lover. The prophecy also highlights two important aspect of the parallel between Gawain and Lancelot, the first being that both knights have their names written in gold upon tomb stones and thus both

49 are singled out as significant characters in the tales to come. Their names in gold speak to their role in future significant events, as well as to their importance in general. These engraved names are paralleled by the engraved names of the knights at the Round Table, signifying the prominence of those men chosen to be part of Arthur’s fellowship.

Secondly, Lancelot’s role as lover, and the influence that will have over him, is also established, just as Gawain’s connection to his family, and his participation in blood feuds, is accentuated. Both knights are immediately associated with elements of their characters, other than merely their skills as knights, that will come into play throughout the narrative, and will be key factors in the fall of Arthur’s kingdom. The connection of

Lancelot to Tristram does not undermine the connection of Lancelot to Gawain. Both

Lancelot and Gawain are connected to elements of their characters which will bring them trouble, and both are in a way, connected to love. Gawain is connected to family love and

Lancelot is connected to romantic love.

Just as Malory introduces Gawain first in relation to his family, without specifically condemning his involvement in a blood feud, Lancelot’s first connection to love is not condemned. Lancelot is first listed as a true lover, without any detail as to whom he might love. The fact that he is named a “true” lover indicates approval of this role as a knight and a lover. That fact that he is a “true” lover is a positive attribute, at this moment. It is only in subsequent references that Lancelot’s potential for fault is listed, just as Gawain’s blood vengeance against Pellynore is not revealed until after Gawain has been connected, positively, to his family. Lancelot’s role as lover will become the one factor that prevents him from becoming a successful Grail knight. However, the first specific mention of his role as Guinevere’s lover comes only after he has been called one

50 of the best knights. Tolhurst argues that this fits with the overall structure of Le Morte

Darthur, as “[t]he knights need their partnerships with females to establish their chivalric identities as much as they need their friendships and battles with each other, and

Launcelot needs Guenevere to achieve his place in Heaven” (139). Lancelot’s character and reputation is tied, at least in part, to his relationship with Guinevere. According to

Tolhurst’s arguments, Lancelot should have a relationship with a lady. Part of his knightly reputation is established and maintained by his connection to his lady. This begins even before Lancelot is an active character. When Arthur decides that he will marry Guinevere, Malory makes reference to the future affair by stating that, “Merlyon warned the kyng covertly that Gwenyver was nat holsom for hym to take to wyff. For he warned hym that Launcelot scholde love hir, and sche hym agayne” (97.29-31). By highlighting this relationship, Lancelot is introduced in connection to the affair with

Guinevere, just as Gawain is connected to a blood feud avenging the death of his father.

Both knights are established as being part of the events which will lead to the breaking of the fellowship of the Round Table.

In addition to his connection with Guinevere, Lancelot is branded as one of the noblest knights of Arthur’s realm early in the tale, again through Merlin. During the

Balyn narrative, Lancelot still has not arrived in Camelot as one of the knights of the

Round Table; yet Merlin will speak to his future reputation. The tale of Balyn and Balan ends after both brothers have fought in a fatal battle, each unaware of the fact that he is fighting his brother. The lady who buries them “knewe not Balyns name” (91.7). It is up to Merlin to appear and write the name “Balyn le Saveage” on the tomb. But in addition to needing Merlin to name Balyn, Malory uses Merlin in order to further establish both

Lancelot’s reputation and his connection with Gawain, as “[a]lso Merlyn lete make there a bedde, that ther shold never man lye therein but he wente oute of his wytte. Yet

Launcelot de Lake fordyd that bed thorow his noblesse” (91.11-4). Merlin’s prophecy thus establishes Lancelot as one of the best knights, while at the same time highlighting his connection with Gawain when Merlin sets Bayln’s sword in a floating stone:

[T]here shall never man handyll thys swerde but the beste knyght of the

worlde, and that shall be sir Launcelot other ellis Galahad, hys sonne. And

Launcelot with thys swerde shall sle the man in the worlde that he lovith

beste: that shall be sir Gawayne. (91.21-25)

Gawain is the man Lancelot will love best in the world. It is not his son, his brothers, or

Arthur. Lancelot, according to this moment, values Gawain above all others and

Gawain’s death by Lancelot’s hand will be one of the final outcomes of the fall of the

Round Table. If there had been no division between Lancelot and Gawain, and by extension, the Round Table, Gawain would not have suffered a wound from Lancelot’s sword. Gawain’s function in the narrative is undeniably tied to Lancelot. Malory, moreover, establishes this connection from early on in the narrative.

While Lancelot and Gawain are both immediately tied to their involvement in the fall of the Round Table, it is significant to remember that characters can, and do, prove themselves as great warriors and noble knights in one episode only later to partake in actions which the readers and other characters may view as unacceptable. A knight can have great honour in the beginning only to have his reputation suffer or change later in Le

Morte Darthur. Gawain is a notable example, as he is at times praised and other times denounced by characters within the narrative. His various reputations and actions have

52 been highly criticized by scholars. This is one indication of Malory’s concern with the idea of knighthood. The parallel between Gawain and Lancelot is one way to expand the study of this concept. Critics have outlined the reputation of both of these knights.

Wheeler studies Gawain’s reputation and argues that “Sir Gawain sometimes seems to be held to a higher standard of behaviour than other characters” (121), such as being chastised for not upholding elements of the Pentecostal oath before it is even created.

However, Gawain’s actions and reputation are not simply in opposition to Lancelot.

Rather, Gawain functions as an example of a good knight who has faults and who makes mistakes. Gawain, and for that matter Lancelot, are certainly not the only characters in Le

Morte Darthur that make mistakes or have fluctuating reputations. Whetter highlights the fact that there are multiple misinterpreted characters:

Malory’s characters are often misunderstood or maligned by critics. This

is true of Kay, who is generally considered rude and inept despite his

heroic prominence in the early episodes of the Morte. . . . This is true of

Balin, who is accused of violence towards women and labeled an ‘anti-

knight’ despite the evidence of being the only individual in Arthur’s (or

Royns’) court able to draw the blade which only the best knight in the

world can draw. (Whetter, “Characterization” 125; Malory 63.30-4)

As Whetter suggests, many characters are criticized by scholars for their actions. The apparent inconsistencies of Malory’s characters are indications that every knight, no matter how much praise he has received, is not perfect. Every knight has faults which do not always appear to adhere to the code of chivalry for knights. Malory presents knights who are flawed heroes. They are often successful warriors in battle, but it does not mean

53 they never fail when trying to behave and win as a good knight should. They appear humanized, as they have faults and sins which prevent them from always doing the right thing. Malory uses Gawain as a parallel for Lancelot, as both knights have their flaws. In comparison to Gawain, Lancelot appears as the better knight as he consistently performs better than Gawain in his knightly duties, or is able to avoid making mistakes which are as severe as Gawain’s. However, this does not mean Gawain fails entirely as a knight.

Malory’s “The Tale of Sir Gareth” provides a concrete example of Malory using the figure of Gawain as a means of measuring Lancelot’s position as the best knight in

Arthur’s court. In this tale, as Ralph Norris suggests, “Gawain’s own worthiness is regularily undercut” and “he is virtually superseded as Gareth’s mentor by Lancelot”

(83). “The Tale of Gareth” has created division in scholarship, as no immediate source can be identified for this section of Malory’s narrative. There are a number of critics who argue that Malory was incapable of creating this entire tale, while others are willing to credit Malory with more narrative ability. Eugène Vinaver argues there must have been a lost French source (1427-34). Field suggests that there is a lost English source, but it is an exaggeration to say “that Malory was incapable of inventing a story” (“Source” 246).

Wilfred L. Guerin argues that while the tale is similar to others, it is still highly original

(“Gareth”). I argue that the Lancelot-Gawain parallel which runs through this tale is directly related to that same parallel in the rest of Le Morte Darthur. Malory crafted the elements of this tale which fit into his overall purpose for both Lancelot and Gawain.

While we can point to similarities with romances or “Fair Unknown” tales, there are very specific choices that Malory makes in his particular construction. One of the choices he makes is to complicate the relationship of both knights to Gareth and Malory

54 places Lancelot in a position which Gawain should, according to tradition, fulfill. The

“Tale of Gareth” resembles “a folktale in which a younger brother proves himself worthy of his established elder brother by a series of adventures incognito, culminating in an evenly matched fight between them” (Field, “Source” 248).3 Gawain is Gareth’s elder brother, and yet it is Lancelot, and not Gawain, who becomes the “brother” that Gareth, a young knight, looks up to and admires. Gawain will be the knight whom Gareth fights at the end of his adventures, but for the better part of the tale, Gawain is overshadowed in his role as brother and chivalric exemplar by Lancelot.

The parallel between Gawain and Lancelot in this tale is first evident in their reactions to Kay’s cruel behaviour towards Gareth: “Therat was sir Gawayne wroth. And in especiall sir Launcelot bade sir Kay leve his mockyng, ‘for I dare ley my hede he shall preve a man of grete worshyp’” (295.9-12). Malory emphasizes the fact that both Gawain and Lancelot are, like Arthur, able to see Gareth’s potential as a knight. While it is both

Gawain and Lancelot who believe Gareth to be of noble blood, Malory specifically highlights Lancelot’s reaction, as it is Lancelot who is especially insistent in attempting to correct Kay. Gawain is angry at the treatment, but Lancelot is angrier, and as such he takes further action. Malory expands on the comparison between Gawain and Lancelot’s actions when he explains how they treat Gareth after Kay has made him a kitchen boy:

And than sir Launcelot aftir mete bade [Gareth] com to his chamber, and

there he sholde have mete and drynke inowe, and se ded sir Gawayne . . . .

But as towchyng sir Gawayne, he had reson to proffer hym lodgying,

mete, and drynke, for that proffer com of his bloode, for he was nere kyn

3 See also Wilson, “Fair Unknown”.

to hym than he wyste off; but that sir Launcelot ded was of his grete

jantylnesse and curtesy. (295.27-35)

Gawain’s response to the treatment of Gareth is significant as a basis of comparison for

Lancelot’s behaviour and response. In spite of the fact that Gawain does not know the identity of Gareth, Lancelot’s genorisity is praised above Gawain’s kindness since

Lancelot has no blood tie to Gareth. Whetter highlights this, arguing that “Malory himself belittles Gawain’s generosity to Beawmaynes at the beginning of the tale”

(“Characterization” 127). Malory presents Gawain’s actions as a means of measurement for those of Lancelot, placing Lancelot into a leading position once again. Malory has not mistakenly argued that Gawain, as Gareth’s brother, should treat him well. He uses this connection between the two characters in order to emphasize Lancelot even more. The fact that Gawain does not know Gareth is his brother is not an oversight on Malory’s part.

Rather, in this moment for Malory, Gawain’s actions towards Gareth are significant more for a basis of comparison with Lancelot than for Gawain’s own nobility.

Kennedy has also noticed Malory’s attempts to use Gawain to elevate Lancelot, pointing out that “every time Gawain does something admirable, Lancelot is said to do it as well or better” (128). This is representative of the fact that in other tales, as well as this one, Malory “made more of Lancelot’s friendship with Gareth, and made Gawain’s part smaller and less credible and Lancelot’s bigger and more credible – sometimes simply by transferring material from one to the other” (Field, “Source” 250). Lancelot’s treatment of Gareth is compared to Gawain’s and is presented as being more praiseworthy.

However, it must be noted that Gawain continues to support Gareth without knowing his true identity. After Gareth has defeated Kay, Malory again singles Gawain out for his

56 support of Gareth: “And all men scorned sir Kay, and in especiall sir Gawayne” (299.36

– 300.1). Lancelot lectures Kay on his behaviour in this moment, but unlike Gawain, he is aware of Gareth’s identity, as Gareth has revealed his name to Lancelot in order to be knighted. Lancelot’s connection to Gareth has surpassed Gawain’s connection to his own brother, but Gawain still functions as the basis of comparison for Lancelot. It would not be as effective if Gawain were to scorn Gareth. Lancelot would simply be the only knight of the court who is singled out for his noble behaviour. By having Gawain acknowledge

Gareth’s worth, Malory is able to say that Lancelot treats Gareth as well as, and then even better than, Gareth’s own brother.

Gawain and Lancelot are also connected through another aspect of the Gareth tale. On his quest, Gareth overcomes the Red Knight and learns this knight has caused the death of many noble knights. The Red Knight explains his behaviour:

Sir, I loved onys a lady fayre, and she had hir bretherne slayne, and she

told me hit was sir Launcelot du Lake othis ellys sir Gawayne. And she

prayed me as I loved hir hertely that I wolde make hir a promyse by the

faythe of my knyghthode for to laboure in armys dayly untyll that I had

mette with one of them, and all that I myght overcom, I sholde put them to

vylans deth. And so I ensured her to do all the vylany unto Arthurs

knyghtes, and that I sholde take vengeaunce uppon all these knyghtes.

(325.1-9)

Lancelot and Gawain are the two knights singled out from the entire one hundred and fifty Round Table Knights. The Red Knight has sworn to be against all of Arthur’s knights because of these two in particular, not simply because of Lancelot. What is also

57 significant is that either Lancelot or Gawain could be the cause of this event, meaning that either one could have slain the brethren of this lady. Gawain and Lancelot in this instance are on equal footing, with one aspect fitting both of their reputations in this instance.

It should be noted this is not the only lady to place Lancelot and Gawain in parallel. Hallowess the Sorceress is another example of a lady who views Lancelot and

Gawain as knights of equal status. The sorceress informs Lancelot that the chapel is a trap after he successfully avoids her ambush. However, the trap is not only for him:

I have loste all my laboure, for I ordeyned this chapell for thy sake

and for sir Gawayne. And onys I had hym within me, and at that

tyme he fought with this knyght that lyeth dede in yondir chapell, sir

Gylberte the Bastarde, and at that tyme he smote the lyffte honde of

Sir Gylberte. (281.8-13)

The elaborate trap set up by Hallowess is either for Gawain or Lancelot, speaking to the fact that Gawain must be a good knight as well, if his reputation in this moment is equal to that of Lancelot. It is also important to note that Gawain also succeeds in this test. Both damsels would be happy with either Lancelot or Gawain, one in her desire to kill them, the other in her desire to have them as lovers. This fact has a twofold significance. On the one hand, it means that Gawain is worthy of comparison to Lancelot, and he must at least in some cases have equal worship to Lancelot. On the other hand, it means that Lancelot is not above all knights in every regard and he does not supersede all knights all of the time. The parallel between Lancelot and Gawain draws attention to Malory’s choices in characterization and to the ways in which he actively demonstrates Lancelot’s worthiness

58 of his reputation as a good knight. Gawain, then, is not as bad as critics sometimes make out, and his relationship with Lancelot runs throughout the narrative.

Another noticeable comparison between Lancelot and Gawain is Gareth’s attitude towards both. As Gawain’s younger brother, it is reasonable to assume that Gareth will turn to his brother as the model of knighthood. However, when Gareth asks Arthur for his final request this is not to be the case: “Than, sir, this is that other gyffte that ye shall graunte me: that sir Launcelot du Lake shall make me knyght, for of hym I woll be made knyght and ellys of none” (297.15-7). Gareth turns to Lancelot for his model of knighthood rather than Gawain, suggesting that Lancelot’s reputation surpasses Gawain, even in the eyes of Gawain’s own brother. However, Gareth has not, at this point, explicitly shunned Gawain’s role in his life. If Malory simply wanted Lancelot to be the role model in this tale he could have left out references to Gawain, or had Gareth shun his brother’s company from the beginning. However, Gareth is more than willing to associate himself with Gawain at the beginning of the tale. When Gareth first reveals his name to

Lancelot he identifies himself as “brothir unto sir Gawayne of fadir syde and modir syde”

(299.27-8). Gareth is firmly establishing his connection to Gawain. By indicating that they are full brothers, Gareth is emphasizing the blood bond that they share. Gareth’s initial respect for Gawain is also evident in when Gareth sends the Red Knight to

Arthur’s court. Gareth does not simply have the Red Knight report to Arthur or

Guinevere. He leaves instructions that the Red knight should “aske sir Launcelot mercy and sir Gawayne for the evyll wylle he hath had ayenst them” (325.23-3). Lancelot may have been mentioned first, but Gareth has enough respect for his brother to include him in his instructions to the Red Knight.

Even when Gareth and Gawain meet in combat, it occurs unknowingly to the brothers. They have been fighting two hours, both with blood running to the ground, when Lyonette appears and calls out to Gawain, demanding that he leave off his fighting with his brother. As soon as Gawain is aware that the other knight is Gareth “he threwe away his shylde and his swerde, and ran to sir Gareth and toke hym in his armys, and sythhen kneled downe and asked hym mercy” (357.10-2). Gawain’s devotion and loyalty to his family overrides any pride he might have, and he is more than willing to be the first to yield and ask mercy of his brother. As soon as Gareth is informed that he has been fighting Gawain he too yields and “eythir of them gaff other the pryse of the batayle, and there were many kynde wordys betwene them” (357.20-2). Gareth loves and respects

Gawain at this moment, which only adds to the significance of Gareth’s decision to attach himself to Lancelot over Gawain. If Gareth merely hated his brother it would come as no surprise when he asks to be knighted by another man. Lancelot’s nobility and reputation are so well established that Gareth is willing to choose an alliance with Lancelot over his blood relation to Gawain. It is significant that it is Gawain, and not Lancelot, in the last battle of this tale, however. Whetter points out that this battle is a testament to the fact that Gawain does hold a high stature in Arthur’s court, pointing out that this is Gareth’s final battle and “the battle that clinches [Gareth’s] reputation” (“Characterization” 127).

Gareth begins his adventure as a knight after “sir Launcelot gaff hym the Order of

Knyghthode” (299.32), and he achieves his reputation in a final battle with Gawain.

Gawain, then, is at least momentarily on equal footing with Lancelot in terms of prominence. If Malory had simply wanted to use Gawain, and not Lancelot, so that

Gareth could be successful in besting a knight of the Round Table, then he would not

60 have had Gawain yield to Gareth out of love for a brother, and not because he was defeated. In this moment, Gawain is a good knight who has proven to be at least a good match for Gareth. Both Gawain and Lancelot then are significant enough to have influence over Gareth’s journey to becoming a great knight in his own right.

However, Gareth does eventually draw an unequivocal separation between himself and Gawain, and this separation is in direct contrast with his desire to align himself with Lancelot. Gawain’s position of importance is one which Lancelot attains and surpasses. In spite of the fact that there has been no mention of Gawain’s less than favourable qualities in this tale, Malory makes certain to explain that Gareth does not willingly continue to align himself with his brother:

For evir aftir sir Gareth had aspyed sir Gawaynes conducions, he

wythdrewe hymself fro his brother sir Gawaynes felyshyp, for he was evir

vengeable, and where he hated he wolde be avenged with murther: and

that hated sir Gareth. (360.32-6).

This passage directly follows an explanation that there is no knight that Gareth loved better than Lancelot and “ever for the moste party [Gareth] wolde ever be in sir

Launcelottis company” (360.30-1). Based on Gawain’s reputation as a murderer, Gareth specifically chooses to replace Gawain with Lancelot in the position of a brother after whom he can model himself. However, as critics have noted, until Gareth states that he will not associate with Gawain, there has been no evidence of Gawain’s poor reputation within this particular tale.4 Malory needs to have Lancelot come out above Gawain, and so he draws on the reputation of Gawain that exists elsewhere in Le Morte Darthur, but has not come into play in the actual Gareth narrative. While it cannot be said for certain,

4 e.g., Field, “Source” 248-50; Wilson, Characterization 13, 46.

61 the discrepancy in the characterization of Gawain has been argued to come from

Malory’s variety of sources. Wilson suggests that it is likely this tale “had as one source a narrative in which Gawain was an admirable figure” (“Fair Unknown” 5). The influence of this admirable Gawain is seen throughout the tale, and the negative Gawain is added to the end of the tale, a product of other sources and Malory’s need for negative aspects of

Gawain to contrast with Lancelot. What is especially significant for my argument is the fact that Malory includes this admirable Gawain at all. Through this, Gawain can be used as a basis of comparison for Lancelot’s behaviour. Gareth’s love for Lancelot is compared to, and comes at the cost of, his relationship with his brother, Gawain. Gawain functions a means of establishing Lancelot’s position as a prominent knight by having

Lancelot equal and then replace Gawain’s position as a role model for Gareth. Malory’s

Gawain is not an accident of conflicting sources. Malory includes both positive and negative attributes of Gawain, both because he is a good, but flawed knight and because

Gawain must be good, but cannot exceed Lancelot’s position as the most noble of

Arthur’s knights.

A number of scholars do note that by replacing Gawain with Lancelot there is a discrepancy in a traditional motif of the “Fair Unknown.” For example, Field points out that “various of the Fair Unknown romances agree that Gawain alone speaks up for and looks after the hero at Arthur’s court” (“Source” 252). Even if Gawain is not the kin of the hero, he is the knight who supports the unknown knight. Most scholars agree upon the fact that Lancelot fulfills a role which should belong to Gawain. In fact, there is no reason for a reader to assume at the beginning of the tale that this will not be a story connected to Gawain. As Gareth’s brother, Gawain should be the knight who is a role model for

Gareth, and who is the first to learn his true identity. Additionally, while the court observes its usual custom of waiting for an adventure before beginning their Pentecostal meal, Gawain is the first to take notice of Gareth’s approach to the castle, and is the first to inform Arthur of the coming adventure (293.13-20). Of all of Arthur’s knights, it appears that Gawain will be the most affected by the adventure brought by this approaching knight. It would not be the first time Gawain takes up the adventure brought to court at Pentecoste, as evident in the first set of triple quests. Gawain is also the knight to take up the adventure in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight which is presented to

Arthur’s court during a festive celebration. Thus, the sudden shifting of a role from

Gawain to Lancelot is significant, as it suggests a deliberate attempt by Malory to emphasize Lancelot’s position as the role model for young knights. Kennedy argues that

“since Malory has already established a pattern of contrast between Lancelot and Gawain in the two preceding tales, it is quite likely that he deliberately altered the thematic structure of the folk tale in order to continue this pattern” (129). Kennedy acknowledges that Gawain is used in comparison to Lancelot in the “Tale of Gareth,” but focuses on the contrast between the two knights. The ongoing parallel suggests instead that Malory emphasizes the similarities between the two knights. Both knights are in a prominent position and have an impact on Gareth’s adventure. It is true that Lancelot surpasses

Gawain as the better knight in this instance, but in light of the continuous parallel it is just as significant that both knights are in an equal position to begin this tale.

Outside of the “Tale of Gareth”, the parallel between Lancelot and Gawain is presented in a variety of forms. An earlier example of this is related to the moment in which Merlin foretells that Gawain will revenge the death of his father King Lott (Malory

77.20-2). In parallel to this event, Merlin also prophesies that Lancelot will attain revenge for his family. Merlin visits Benwick, and he speaks with King Ban and his wife, Elayne, while Lancelot is still just a child. Elayne is upset because they are at war with King

Claudas, but Merlin reassures her:

“Take none hevynesse,” seyde Merlyon, “for this same chylde yonge

Launcelot shall within this twenty yere revenge you on Kyng Claudas,

that all Crystendom shall speke of hit; and this same chylde shall be

the moste man of worship of the worlde.” (126.3-7)

Lancelot’s revenge is justified as protecting his family, while Gawain’s revenge is presented as a blood feud. Malory, from the outset of his narrative, views Lancelot and

Gawain as two prominent knights. Both knights will play key roles in the end of Malory’s narrative, and he makes certain to form this type of connection between them at the outset.

The Lancelot-Gawain parallel continues throughout the narrative, beginning with the Roman War. One significant parallel between Lancelot and Gawain that exists in

“Arthur and Lucius” occurs when their actions are each singled out in confrontations with the enemy. Gawain’s reaction occurs first, and as such he functions as a basis of comparison for Lancelot. Gawain and Bors are sent to the Emperor’s tent to deliver a message insisting that the Emperor either leave the lands or fight. They assure the

Emperor that they will stand against him, and in return are taunted by the Emperor’s cousin:

Then a knyght that hyght sir Gayus that was cosyn unto the

Emperour, he seyde thes wordys: “Loo! how thes Englyshe Bretouns be

braggers of kynde, for ye may see how they boste and bragge as they

durste bete all the world.”

Than grevid sir Gawayne at his grete wordys, and with his bowerly

bronde that bryght semed he stroke of the hede of sir Gayus the knyght.

(207.20-27).

There is no condemnation of Gawain’s actions, and he is not chastised for the response.

However, Malory does later portray Lancelot in a similar situation, in which Lancelot’s patience and self-control are noteworthy. While engaged in battle, Sir Berel, cousin to Sir

Cadore, is killed by the king of Lybye (215.1-3). The king then taunts Cador and the others, including Lancelot:

Than the kynge craked grete wordys on lowed and seyde,

“One of yon prowde knyghtes is leyde full lowe.”

“Yondir kyng,” seyde sir Cador, “carpis grete wordis. But and I

may lyve or this dayes ende I shall countir with yondir kynge, so Cryste

me helpe!”

“Sir,” seyde sir Launcelot, “meve you nat to sore, but take your

spear in your honde and we shall you not fayle.” (215.7-14)

Lancelot does not attempt to prevent Cador from fighting. In fact, he encourages it; but he does caution Cador against letting his emotions rule him. Gawain’s emotions are what drove him to action. In comparison, Lancelot’s actions appear thoughtful and rational.

Lancelot remains in control, whereas Gawain allows Gayus to goad him into action. It is clear that Malory wishes to present Lancelot as being more firmly in control of both himself and the situation. Albert E. Hartung’s analysis of Lancelot’s characterization can

65 apply to the Roman War, though Hartung himself does not focus on this tale. Hartung argues that “in place of the often interesting, at times fascinating, but different Lancelot of the sources, Malory gives us a Lancelot whose emotions and impulses are more clearly under control” (268). Malory’s changes in the characterization of Lancelot show a deliberate attempt to portray a Lancelot with self-control and rational responses. Gawain loses his self-control in response to words while Lancelot maintains his composure.

Malory has used Gawain in order to portray another aspect of Lancelot’s character, a fact overlooked by critics caught up in the belief that Gawain represents one type of knighthood and Lancelot another, better, type.

One of the thematic elements which can be better understood through the use of

Gawain in parallel with Lancelot, and other knights, is the way in which knights are expected to treat ladies. In the first set of triple quests which has previously been mentioned, Gawain beheads a lady by mistake because he refuses to grant mercy to a knight (106.18-21). Gawain does not behave in a knightly fashion, and Gaheris insists that the shame of this event will never leave Gawain (106.22-3). Kennedy criticizes

Gawain for this, claiming that “he has violated not only the knight’s obligation to give mercy to those who ask mercy, but also his obligation to protect and serve women” (61).

While Gawain’s actions are unacceptable, it is not after this quest that he makes a pledge to “be with all ladyes and to fyght for hir quarels” and “never refuse to mercy to hym that askith mercy” (Malory 108.29-35). In comparison to Gawain’s adventure, Tor attempts to give mercy to a knight, though the knight refuses. A lady then appears and asks Tor to take the life of the knight, as she insists he is a murderer (112.21-3). Tor, unlike Gawain, attempts to show mercy. Even though he does kill the knight at the lady’s request, his

66 actions are not shameful because he has promised to do as the lady bid him. Gawain accidentally kills a lady, and Tor keeps a promise to one. Tor, in this instance, has clearly fared better than Gawain. Pellynore too is responsible for the death of a lady but his shame will be somewhat mitigated by Gawain’s actions. As Pellynore sets out on his quest, he comes upon a damsel who calls out for help, “[b]ut kynge Pellynore would not tarry, he was so egir in hys queste” (114.12-7). When Pellynore returns at the end of his quest, he finds “the lady etyn with lyons other with wylde bestis, all save the hede”

(118.32-3). Both Gawain and Pellynore bring the head of the slain ladies to court. Like

Gawain, Pellynore must face the queen. Guinevere tells him that he was “gretely to blame” (119.22-23). However, Pellynore has not slain a lady by his own sword, and as such, has not failed in his knightly behaviour as much as Gawain. Gawain fails because he loses control of his temper and refuses to show mercy. Pellynore fails because he is so eager in his quest. Both Tor and Pellynore are compared to Gawain, as Gawain is the first to take the adventure. Gawain is used to highlight Tor’s prowess as a knight, as Tor is more successful in his quest. Gawain is also used to mitigate Pellynore’s failure on his quest, as he does not do quite as badly as Gawain. Gawain’s role in this quest is comparable to his role as a parallel with Lancelot. Gawain’s failures are used to show the difficulties knights can face in becoming good knights.

Gawain’s adventure on the second quest presents another example of how difficult it can be for a knight to uphold the ideals of knighthood in regards to the treatment of ladies. In relation to this, one of the most significant aspects of this quest, and the first, is a parallel Malory creates between Gawain and Lancelot. Both knights will inadvertently and unintentionally cause a lady to die of sorrow. Gawain’s incident occurs

67 early in Le Morte Darthur, as it takes place in the first tale. Gawain meets Sir Pelleas and discovers that Pelleas is in love with Ettarde, who does not return the knight’s love

(167.22-35). Gawain’s actions in this adventure have met with great criticism, as he eventually sleeps with Ettarde after having promised to help Pelleas. Wheeler points out that many critics, going back to B. J. Whiting, have argued that Gawain has betrayed

Pelleas in this moment (Wheeler 122). Wheeler, on the other hand, argues that Gawain actually keeps his promise, as part of Gawain’s plan to secure Ettarde’s love for Pelleas is to have her “cheryshe” him (Wheeler 122-5; Malory 168.25-30). When Pelleas finds

Gawain and Ettarde together, both he and Ettarde turn against Gawain, claiming that he has betrayed them both (171.10-11). However, Pelleas no longer loves Ettarde and instead turns his attention to Nynyve, the Damesel of the Lake (172.26). After she is thus rejected, “this lady Ettarde dyed for sorow” (172.29). Gawain takes part in actions which culminate in a lady dying of sorrow, though how much he is to blame is debatable.

Pelleas and Ettarde are both upset with Gawain, but their own actions do not bring them closer together and yet “it is Sir Gawain who is blamed for the choices made by each of these characters” (Wheeler 125). Wheeler points out, significantly, that Gawain, while part of the events, is not necessarily completely to blame for the death of Ettarde. Instead, it is another example of how difficult it can be for knights to always do the right thing.

Gawain’s intentions are to help Pelleas, but his plans lead to the death of Ettarde.

In spite of this question of blame, it is still evident that Malory specifically uses

Gawain here as a parallel for Lancelot in order to demonstrate that even when a knight has the best intentions, things can still go wrong. Gawain’s involvement with the deaths of two ladies mitigates Lancelot’s late role in the deaths of two ladies. The first of these

68 deaths occurs in the “The Noble Tale of Sir Launcelot du Lake.” In this tale, Sir

Pedyvere’s wife begs Lancelot to keep her safe from her husband while Sir Pedyvere claims his wife has betrayed him (284.15-9). To resolve the issue, Lancelot decides that they will travel to Camelot, with Lancelot riding between them both to keep the lady safe.

However, not long after they set out, Pedyvere tricks Lancelot into looking away: “And so sir Launcelot turned hym and thought no treson: and therewith was the knyght and the lady on one syde, and suddeynly he swapped of the ladyes hede” (285.10-2). While

Lancelot is not the one who murders the lady, he is still partly to blame, as he had given his word to protect her from her husband. Derek Brewer highlights that Lancelot himself is aware of the shame of the event, and that “Queen Gwenyvere comments that not only is Pedyvere’s a horrible and shameful deed, but it is a great rebuke to Sir Launcelot”

(Brewer, “Proving” 130; Malory 286.4-5). However, Lancelot’s shame in the event is mitigated by Gawain’s earlier beheading of a lady. Both knights are involved in the beheading of a lady, but the shame to Lancelot’s character is lessened when placed in parallel with Gawain’s actions as, unlike Gawain, Lancelot does not actually strike off a lady’s head with his own sword. The parallel between both knights is one way to examine the ways in which Malory focuses on the difficulties knights face when trying to do the right thing.

The death of Elayne of Ascolat is the second death in which Lancelot has a role.

Elayne has fallen in love with Lancelot and informs Lancelot that if he will not love her in return she will die for his love (Malory 1089.12-4).5 Lancelot informs Elayne that he cannot return her love. He returns to Camelot, and Elayne does die in sorrow for

Lancelot’s unrequited love (1095.7-8). Lancelot, like Gawain, is involved in events

5 See also Whetter, “Characterization” 125-26.

69 which end with a lady dying of sorrow when she loves a man who does not return that love. However, Gawain’s actions when compared to Lancelot’s appear reprehensible.

Gawain sleeps with Ettard, causing Pelleas to turn away from loving her. Lancelot, while refusing to marry Elayne, suggests that should she find another good knight to marry he will give her “a thousand pounde yerly” (1089.30-3). Both are trying to help, but

Gawain’s actions lead to Ettard’s death. In constrast, it is a lack of action on Lancelot’s part that leads to the death of a lady. The parallel with Gawain suggests that Lancelot’s involvement with these deaths does not destroy his reputation as a good knight. Even after Gawain has killed a lady with his own sword, and whose actions led to another lady dying of sorrow, he is still a prominent member of the Round Table. He has not been banished from the court, and in fact his killing of the lady is not mentioned again. While it causes him shame in the immediate aftermath, Gawain’s entire and lifelong reputation is not tied back to this one event alone. Both knights are faced with difficult situations with unfortunate outcomes. Malory emphasizes the fact that knights are not always successful through the Gawain-Lancelot parallel. Through this, Malory shows the real and human nature of his proganists and as such, Lancelot can fail without losing his position as the best knight of Arthur’s court.

I suggest that despite the fact that critics most often focus on the comparison between these two figures in the “Tale of the Sankgreall” and the close of Le Morte

Darthur, Malory establishes Gawain as a parallel for Lancelot in the narrative well before the Sankgreall Quest. Admittedly, it is in this quest, and in the final war, that this parallel will become most significant. Both knights will return to Camelot without achieving the

Sankgreall, and both knights will take part in the fall of the Round Table. Malory uses

Gawain in order to mitigate Lancelot’s failure in this significant quest, and his role in the death of Arthur’s fellowship. The fact that Malory establishes this parallel in the very beginning of Le Morte Darthur is evidence of his conscious efforts to present Lancelot’s attempts to uphold the ideals of knighthood throughout the narrative as a whole. The tales leading up to the “Tale of the Sankgreall” help establish numerous elements which will be significant in the last three tales, in which the Lancelot-Gawain parallel is most prominent. By exploring the various elements of the parallel leading into these last tales, I suggest that the comparison between Gawain and Lancelot can, and does, go beyond the

“Tale of Gareth” and the Sankgreall Quest, in spite of the fact that most critics have only drawn the connection between both knights in these two aventures. The parallel has an impact on the characterization of Lancelot and Gawain in both in the search for the

Sankgreall, and in the aftermath of that quest. The Lancelot-Gawain parallel suggests a concern with Lancelot and his knighthood which extends beyond the last three tales of Le

Morte Darthur, and offers an opportunity to better understand Malory’s efforts and choices in these tales.

Chapter Three: Culmination of the Parallel

While the parallel between Lancelot and Gawain is evident throughout Malory’s

Le Morte Darthur, it is in the events surrounding the Sankgreall Quest and the fall of the

Round Table that the parallel becomes most prominent. Lancelot’s failure in the

Sankgreall is mitigated by Gawain’s inability to come as close as Lancelot to achieving the Grail. In addition, the actions of both knights will play integral roles in the downfall of Arthur’s kingdom in Malory’s last tale. Leading into the “Tale of the Sankgreall,” the

Gawain-Lancelot parallel is emphasized in a key event near the end of the “Book of Sir

Tristram de Lyones:” the begetting of Galahad. Galahad’s significance is revealed to both the readers and to Arthur and his knights before he is born, as a hermit appears in the court, explaining that the knight who will sit in the Sege Perelous “ys yet unborne and unbegotyn, and this same yere he shall be bygotyn that shall sytte in that Syege Perelous, and he shall wynne the Sankgreall” (Malory 791.17-20). Galahad will be the one knight who is worthy to sit in the Sege Perelous, and who will achieve the Grail. Both of these achievements are a sign of his future greatness. It is significant that there is an emphasis placed upon the fact that he will be “begotyn.” This draws attention to the fact that this unknown knight will be the son of someone. The fathering of Galahad will bring prestige to whoever fills that role, who, of course, is Lancelot. While Lancelot does not intentionally set out to become the father of the knight who will achieve the Grail, this is still his adventure, and is specifically not Gawain’s. While the rescue of Elayne, leading to the begetting of Galahad, is not the first adventure that Lancelot and Gawain both take part in, it is the first event in which Lancelot is specifically able to do something that

Gawain is not, a pattern which will continue into the Sankgreall Quest.

The events leading to the birth of Galahad begin when Lancelot discovers that the daughter of King Pelleas, Elayne, has been trapped in great pain for “many wyntyrs and dayes, for ever she boyleth in scaldynge watir” (791.31-3). She will only be delivered from the water when “the beste knyghte of the worlde had takyn her by the honde”

(792.19-20). As Lancelot is Malory’s “beste knyght of the worlde,” he is able to pull

Elayne from the water when many other knights have failed. This success has two outcomes which will further speak to the fact that Lancelot is a good knight. Firstly, he is permitted to see the Sankgreall (793.27-36). Lancelot is granted a vision of this relic before it appears, notably veiled, before the entirety of the Round Table. Secondly,

Lancelot then begets Galahad, the knight who will sit in the Sege Perelous. While this is done through a trick on Elayne’s part, Lancelot is still given the honour of being the father of a Grail knight. Lancelot will not achieve the Sankgreall Quest on his own, but he is still given an important role in the ultimate achieving of the Grail. Galahad is conceived only because Lancelot believes he is sleeping with Guinevere (794.21-795.23).

As Elizabeth Scala points out, this suggests both that “Lancelot cannot achieve the grail because of his love for Guinevere” and that “the grail is ultimately achieved as a result of his love for Guinevere (393). Malory has found a way to use positively one of Lancelot’s downfalls in this moment. Lancelot will not be able to gain the honour of achieving the

Grail, but he is given the honour of fathering the knight who will. In this instance, the cause of Lancelot’s failure, his love for Guinevere, is partly redeemed by being the cause of the birth of Galahad, who will win the honour of achieving the Sankgreall.

What is most significant about the Corbenic adventure for my purposes is the fact that Malory uses Gawain specifically as a means to show that Lancelot is able to

73 accomplish what other prominent knights, especially Gawain, cannot. Because he cannot rescue Elayne, Gawain also fails to become the father of the Grail knight, while Lancelot succeeds. Before the events leading to the Sankgreall Quest, the parallel between the knights is less direct, or at least is not presented as Lancelot explicitly to doing better than

Gawain. For example, in the Hallowess the Sorceress adventure, Lancelot discovers that

Gawain has also undertaken and survived her trap only after they have both already succeeded (281.8-13). In this instance, there is not a direct contrast in what Lancelot and

Gawain can do, but rather an emphasis on the fact that everything Gawain is able to accomplish, Lancelot is also capable of, and more. It is with the saving of Elayne of

Corbenic that Lancelot is explicitly called into the adventure only after he is informed that “sir Gawayne was here, and he myght nat helpe her, and so he leffte her in payne stylle” (792.1-3). Lancelot takes up a quest which others, but most notably Gawain, have failed. Lancelot’s subsequent actions are unequivocally to be judged based upon

Gawain’s lack of success. This extends beyond Elayne, as it now means that Gawain fails to achieve a vision of the Sankgreall, and fails to father a son who will bring him prestige in the upcoming quest.

It is also noteworthy that Lancelot is not assured of his own ability to succeed where Gawain has failed, as he states that he well may “leve her in payne as well as sir

Gawayne” (792.4-5). This statement suggests that Lancelot, and by extension Malory, views Gawain as a capable knight. Lancelot believes that as a good knight, Gawain’s failure is proof of the difficulty of the task, and not indicative of Gawain’s shortcomings.

If Gawain were an incompetent knight, then accomplishing a task in which Gawain failed would not be an achievement for Lancelot. The fact that the villagers feel it necessary to

74 point out that Gawain was unable to rescue Elayne suggests that Gawain’s reputation led them to believe he would succeed. If Gawain were an unknown knight, or if his reputation were strictly negative, then his failure would not be surprising or noteworthy.

Through the parallel with Lancelot, the character can be viewed as more than inconsistent. The failings of Gawain are not simply used by Malory because they exist in his sources. Rather, Malory needs Gawain to be an overall good knight, who has some key moments of failure so that Lancelot can still be the leading knight of Arthur’s court.

Malory makes full use of the Lancelot-Gawain parallel in the Sankgreall Quest.

This quest, the most momentous in Le Morte Darthur, has attracted vast attention from scholars, as both the meaning of the quest as well as Malory’s intentions in his retelling continue to exist as sources of discussion and debate.1 While the meaning of the Grail quest is clearly an important topic, it need not be definitively decided upon for my purposes here. Instead of the meaning of the Sankgreall Quest, and the place of religion, I focus on what Malory did with the characters, specifically Gawain and Lancelot. The parallel created between them allows for a study of Malory’s characterization in this tale that does not need to rely on the religious or secular debate. Instead, by comparing

Lancelot and Gawain, we can begin to understand Malory’s ongoing questioning of a knight’s ability to always uphold the ideals of knighthood and chivalric codes. No matter the ultimate meaning of this quest for Malory, the fact remains that he uses Gawain as a parallel for Lancelot in order to uphold the integrity of Lancelot’s reputation, even in the face of failure. Both knights struggle in this quest, but Lancelot is still able to avoid performing as poorly as Gawain.

1 See, for example, Larry D. Benson; Charles Moorman; C. S. Lewis; Mary Hynes-Berry; P. J. C. Field, “Grail”; Raluca L. Radulescu, “Grail”; and Dhira B. Mahoney.

Critics, such as P. E. Tucker, discuss the role of character within this tale; Tucker argues that the Sankgreall Quest should be considered based upon the effect it has upon

Lancelot, as he believes that the story of Lancelot is “Malory’s main interest in the Morte

Darthur” (391). Tucker explores how the Sankgreall Quest fits into the narrative of

Lancelot. Raluca L. Radulescu also studies Malory’s characterization of Lancelot in the

Sankgreall Quest. Radulescu focuses on the changes Malory makes to the characterization of Lancelot from the sources (“Crisis”). She also examines Lancelot’s spiritual state (“Lancelot”). In both instances, Radulescu outlines specific choices Malory makes in his characterization of Lancelot. The changes Malory makes in order to create the characterization are certainly noteworthy in the Sankgreall Quest and its aftermath.

However, the characterization of Lancelot in this tale is also influenced by the rest of

Malory’s narrative. Stephen C. B. Atkinson argues this as well, stating that “Malory’s treatment of Lancelot during the Grail adventures derives from his depiction in earlier episodes and proves crucial to his role in later ones” (“Lancelot” 129). I argue that the parallel with Gawain is one method we can use to better understand the characterization of Lancelot throughout the narrative as a whole.

Charles Moorman is another critic who, in addition to mapping the changes in religious material, looks at a number of knights, including Lancelot (191-97) and Gawain

(200-1). He identifies the changes in characterization from Malory’s sources to Le Morte

Darthur; Moorman argues that “Malory has very skillfully changed the nondescript

Gawain of the source into an almost totally unsympathetic character” (200). I do not agree that Gawain becomes an “unsympathetic character,” and rather argue that Malory has distinguished Gawain from the other knights on the Sankgreall Quest in order to

76 continue to present Gawain’s attemps to uphold the ideals of knighthood in parallel with

Lancelot’s own attemtps. Gawain is not an antagonist to Lancelot’s protagonist; they are both men who must try to understand the complex ideals of what a knight should be.

While these studies of character are important, the parallel between Lancelot and Gawain is evident throughout Le Morte Darthur, and as such the study of their characterization can extend beyond the Sankgreall Quest. The fact that Gawain exists as a parallel for

Lancelot throughout the whole of the narrative emphasizes the importance of the comparison between both knights in the Sankgreall Quest. This is not a comparison that

Malory uses only for the one tale.

In addition to the fact that the Gawain-Lancelot parallel is emphasized in this tale,

Gawain’s role as a basis of comparison for other knights is highlighted once more. This is demonstrated with the appearance of the Sankgreall to the Round Table knights. Gawain is the first knight who responds to the veiled appearance of the Sankgreall in Camelot by making a vow to find and see the relic more clearly (866.3-13). The Sankgreall Quest is the only adventure which will involve all one hundred and fifty Knights of the Round

Table and Gawain is the first who takes the adventure onto himself. The other knights follow suit, all making “such avowes as sir Gawayne hathe made” (866.15-6). The actions of the other knights are initiated by Gawain, which sets him up in a position of comparison, as once again he is the first to take the quest, just as he is the first knight in the dual set of triple quests from the first tale. Gawain in all of these instances sets an example by which readers will then judge the subsequent adventures and performances of the other knights.

Malory emphasizes the Gawain-Lancelot parallel before they even set out on the beginning of the Sankgreall Quest. Immediately following the unanimous decision of all the Round Table knights to take up the Sankgreall Quest, Malory highlights the fact that both Lancelot and Gawain are prominent knights in Arthur’s court, and, as such, share a place of importance with the King and Queen. This is evident as both Gawain and

Lancelot are addressed as individual knights even in this moment of unity between all the knights. Arthur addresses both after the vow has been made by all of his knights. He first turns to Gawain and states: “Sir Gawayne, Gawayne! Ye have sette me in grete sorow, for I have grete doute that my trew felyshyp shall never mete here more agayne” (867.7-

9). Lancelot attempts to comfort the King, reminding Arthur that this will bring great honour to them all. Arthur then turns to Lancelot, lamenting the loss of him as well:

“A, Launcelot!” seyde the kynge, “the grete love that I have had unto you

all the dayes of my lyff makith me to sey such dolefull wordis. For there

was never Cryten kynge that ever had so many worthy men at hys table as

I have had thys day and the Table Rounde. And that ys my grete sorrow.”

(867.13-868.2)

Lancelot and Gawain stand out as the only knights to whom Arthur individually expresses his sadness over the Sankgreall Quest. A number of critics have discussed

Arthur’s ‘holé togyders’ speech. Moorman argues that Arthur’s speech is a lament for the entire fellowship and is a shift from the original French passage (203-4). Sandra Ness

Ihle highlights the repetition of “holé togydirs,” arguing that it “underscores what is for

Malory the beauty and strength of this fellowship as well as the tragedy that not all of its members can measure up to the ideals it embodies” (140-41). Jill Mann also studies this

78 speech and suggests that the appearance of the Sankgreall strengthens the “sense of unity and completeness” of the Round Table, but that it also “initiates the quest which will scatter the fellowship” (“Grail” 210). Arthur’s speech laments the fact that he believes he will never see his fellowship whole again. While these critics clearly highlight the importance of this speech, the significance of the parallel speeches to Gawain and

Lancelot has been overlooked. The parallel indicates that both knights are representatives of the whole of the Round Table, and representatives of what Arthur is afraid of never having again. Beyond the fact that Arthur makes known his lament to both Gawain and

Lancelot is the fact that there are similar speeches made by the King to Gawain and the

Queen to Lancelot. In the first speech, Arthur states: “A, Gawayne, Gawayne! Ye have betrayed me, for never shall my courte be amended by you. But ye woll never be so sory for me as I am for you” (870.12-4). Guinevere’s speech, which follows shortly after, echoes the first speech: “A, sir Launcelot, Launcelot! Ye have betrayede me and putte me to the deth, for to leve thus my lorde” (872.10-1). These speeches have obvious similarities in both the wording and the sentiment, and speak to the fact that Lancelot and

Gawain exist in parallel. They are both prominent knights who play key roles in Camelot, and are both recognized on individual levels by Arthur and Guinevere. In both instances the knight being addressed is accused of “betraying” his King or Queen by leaving

Camelot in search of the Sankgreall. The losses of Gawain and Lancelot are both significant enough to warrant speeches by both Arthur and Guinevere.

Malory is able to use Gawain specifically to moderate Lancelot’s failings in this adventure by making both Lancelot and Gawain appear to be of equal status in Camelot immediately before the Sankgreall Quest. Lancelot is able to have some success in the

Quest itself, insofar as Lancelot does not do as poorly as another knight in a similar position to him. This parallal highlights Malory’s focus on the difficulties a knight faces in trying to uphold the ideals of knighthood. Before the Sankgreall Quest, Lancelot has been mostly successful. Now Malory outlines the difficulties a knight faces when taking an adventure not meant for him. The first element of parallel found in the Sankgreall quest begins with Gawain’s first appearance in this adventure. Gawain, along with Gareth and Uwayne, takes part in the slaying of seven knights at the Castle of Maidens (891.4-

13). Gawain finds himself at a hermitage where he is given the opportunity to make a confession. However, Gawain’s response to this opportunity to admit that he had been called a “wycked knyght” by a monk earlier in the Quest (891.28-9). The hermit must explain Gawain’s sins:

“He myght well sey hit,” seyde the eremtye, “for whan ye were made first

knyght ye sholde have taken you to knyghtly dedys and vertuous lyvyng.

And ye have done the contrary, for ye have lyved myscheviously many

wyntirs . . . for ye have used the most untrewest lyff that ever I herd

knyght lyve. For sertes, had ye nat bene so wycked as ye ar, never had the

seven brethirne be slayne by you and youre two felowys.” (891.30-892.3)

Gawain has failed to uphold the knightly code on a number of occasions, both before and during this adventure, and this is why he will not achieve the Grail. As Moorman points out, “[i]n Malory’s book Gawain’s sins are against the ideal knightly code; to blame

Gawain for not being a saint would have been in this context contradictory” (190).

Gawain in this instance is specifically criticized for his inability to adhere to the knightly code, something Lancelot is at least able to do. While neither knight is pure enough to

80 achieve the Grail, Gawain is blamed here for not being a good knight rather than being blamed for not being a pure knight, or saint. He is still expected to uphold the code of knighthood. Gawain’s inability to do this is one way in which Lancelot will surpass him.

Gawain’s opportunity for confession is shortly thereafter paralleled by a similar chance presented to Lancelot. Lancelot, in his search, is given another vision of the

Sankgreall while he lies sleeping, but “he was overtakyne with synne, that he had no power to ryse agayne the holy vessell” (894.35-895.1). While Lancelot is also said to have sinned, he is still within close proximity to the Sankgreall, something which Gawain will never achieve in this quest. Dorsey Armstrong notes this, arguing that Lancelot’s

“earthly status allows him to experience in a limited fashion the miracles of the grail, but full participation is never permitted” (158). Lancelot’s status as Malory’s best knight does afford him the chance to be close to the Sankgreall. Just like Gawain, Lancelot has an opportunity to confess his sins at a hermitage. Unlike Gawain, Lancelot makes a full confession:

And all my grete dedis of armys that I have done for the moste party was

for the quenys sake, and for hir sake wolde I do batayle were hit ryght

other wronge. And never dud I batayle all only for Goddis sake, but for to

wynne worship and to cause me the bettir to be beloved, and litill or

nought I thanked never God of hit. (897.17-23)

As Atkinson suggests, “Lancelot’s attitude in this section contrasts sharply with

Gawain’s: he is quite prepared to repent his past life” (“Lancelot” 133). Lancelot is aware of the fact that his love for Guinevere and his worldly pride are two sins which are holding him back on the Quest of the Sankgreall. Radulescu argues that in contrast to

Malory’s French source, the Queste del Saint Graal , this is deliberate characterization, as

“Malory suggests that Lancelot is aware of the nature of his sin” (“Lancelot” 97). Malory, by Radulescu’s account, wishes to emphasize Lancelot’s understanding of his own faults.2 Whereas Gawain does not seem to understand that the slaying of the seven brethren is unacceptable and akin to murder in the nature of this quest, Lancelot has a sense of the fact that this adventure does not follow the code of worldly chivalry within which the knights have previously operated. Even before his confession to the hermit,

Lancelot proves his awareness of this fact:

My synne and my wyckednes hath brought me unto grete dishonoure! For

whan I sought worldly adventures for wordlely desyres I ever encheved

them and had the better in every place, and never was I discomfite in no

quarrel, were hit ryght were hit wronge. And now I take uppon me the

adventures to seke of holy thynges, now I se and undirstonde that myne

old synne hyndryth me and shamyth me, that I had no power to stirre

nother speke whan the holy bloode appered before me. (896.1-9)

After realizing that the Sankgreall was within reach, and yet still denied to him, Lancelot proves that he understands that, while he has been successful in worldly chivalry, there is no guarantee that he will be successful in the adventures presented to him in this spiritual quest. Malory highlights the fact that Lancelot has had success before, while suggesting that Gawain even fell short of Lancelot before the Sankgreall. Malory uses the parallel between both knights to highlight the difficulties of knowing how to perform as a knight in different situations. Lancelot has been more successful than Gawain in the past, and he continues to be slightly more successful in the world of the Sankgreall. Understanding the

2 See further Radulescu, “Grail” 332-35 on Lancelot’s penance.

82 parallel allows us to see that Malory emphasizes the fact that Lancelot, though not always completely successful, at least understands how to uphold certain ideals of knighthood better than Gawain does.

These confessions of Lancelot and Gawain to the hermits are also paralleled in another respect, as both Gawain and Lancelot are given the opportunity to do penance for their sins. Gawain, upon learning that the hermit expects him to do whatever penance the hermit sees fit, flatly refuses (892.14-20). Gawain is unwilling to atone for his sins, and instead decides to continue to focus on finding adventures. This type of pride is exactly what Lancelot has just confessed, as he knows that earthly adventures are not the answer to achieving the Grail. Gawain’s immediate return to this mindset is a way for Malory to emphasis that Lancelot is at least attempting to overcome his own failings. In addition,

Lancelot is also given the opportunity to do penance for his sins. Whereas Gawain is told he should atone, Lancelot asks for the hermit’s counsel (897.22-3). He is willing to listen to the hermit and accepts the penance he must do, and “than sir Launcelot repented hym gretly of hys myssededys” (899.11-2). Lancelot and Gawain have both sinned in ways which will hold them back from achieving the Grail, but Malory uses Gawain’s refusal to repent as an opportunity to preserve some of Lancelot’s honour. Lancelot is at least attempting to learn the new set of chivalric values presented on this quest. Atkinson notes that Lancelot’s willingness to repent is emphasized again in a second passage:

At Lancelot’s request, the hermit at the second chapel imposes a fresh

penance on him: that he wear the hair shirt of the dead hermit-knight

(whose story is itself a model of heavenly chivalry offered for Lancelot’s

emulation) and that he abstain from meat and wine – precisely the sort of

privation that Gawain, pleading the exigencies of knight-errantry, refused.

(Atkinson, “Lancelot” 139; Malory 927.24)

The fact that Lancelot seeks penance twice is significant, as it is a testament to his character. Malory accentuates the fact that Lancelot may have sinned, but he is still trying to become a better knight. He may not achieve the Grail, but he does not turn his back completely on the lessons of this quest. Gawain represents the difficulty a knight faces in trying to understand the new ideals of knighthood presented. Lancelot at least begins to understand, even if he is not able to live up to the ideals completely.

While the parallel presents Lancelot has having at least mariginal success in comparison to Gawain, it is significant that Lancelot still fails to achieve the Grail.

Moorman highlights the fact that Malory, even by changing his sources, can only mitigate Lancelot’s failure, not remove it completely:

Malory cannot protect Lancelot, since he is fully aware that to do so would

be to defend the whole complex of adultery and strife that he had been

preparing all along to indict. What Malory does, therefore, is to continue

to use Lancelot as he had used him in the earlier “Tales,” as the perfect

earthly knight, the best exemplar of Round Table civilization. (191)

Malory cannot have Lancelot achieve the Grail, but does wish to maintain Lancelot as his protaganist in spite of this failure. Through changes to his source, but also by comparing

Lancelot with Gawain, Malory is able to achieve this.

The Lancelot-Gawain parallel in the Sankgreall Quest is expanded when both knights fail to avoid committing the sins for which they were chastised. In Lancelot’s case, he comes upon a great tournament of five hundred knights, split between two

84 parties, with one side in black and one side in white. When he notices that the white knights appear have the advantage on the field, “[t]han thought sir Launcelot for to helpe the wayker party in incresyng of hys shevalry” (931.24-5). Lancelot specifically helps the weaker party because he believes it will increase his chivalric reputation. Tucker argues that Lancelot “is censured in the Quest not because the life of chivalry is wrong in itself, but because he abused it; he fought for Guinevere and for self-glory” (“Quest” 393). For

Tucker, Malory wanted to highlight that Lancelot’s sin is his love of Guinevere and his pride in his own prowess, not any failing as a chivalric knight. If this tournament were guided by worldly chivalry, Lancelot’s actions would have made sense. A number of critics have noted this fact. When discussing Lancelot’s desire to help the weaker party,

Larry D. Benson argues that “[i]n worldly terms, this is exactly what he should do” (213).

Ihle argues that Lancelot is “armed with the best of intentions” but “he falls quickly into error as a result of his long blindness to the spiritual world” (86; see also Armstrong 156-

57). While he is doing what he believes to be right, Lancelot is once again searching for worldly fame, the very thing which has already once prevented him from reaching out to the Grail. And his side is bested by the other army. Benson highlights the fact that

Lancelot repeats the same sin he had confessed to, arguing that Lancelot “remains a knight of this world and cannot achieve full fellowship with the other Grail knights. As soon as he has done penance and has acquired new armor, he takes up his old ways”

(213). He is relying on pride in his own ability and his desire to increase his chivalry leads him to side with the army in black, symbolizing their sins, instead of the army in white for their purity (Malory 933.25-30). Lancelot may have confessed but this does not

85 prevent him from following the worldly chivalry he understands. While aware of his sins,

Lancelot is unable to overcome them to succeed in the Sankgreall Quest.

Gawain will also commit the same sin for which he was rebuked by the hermit, as he will again be responsible for the death of another knight in this quest. While it is not his intention to kill, just as it was not Lancelot’s intention to sin, Gawain’s mistake is used to highlight his sinful nature. Immediately following Lancelot’s adventure at the tournament, Malory turns his narrative to Gawain, who “rode longe withoute ony adventure” (942.2). While Lancelot is afforded opportunities to partake in adventures to prove his worth in the Sankgreall Quest, it appears that Gawain is unable even to attempt these tests. In fact, the first adventure Gawain finds after this is merely to joust with an individual knight, whom he fatally wounds (944.4-14). Gawain has once again committed murder, and while it was unintentional, he understands that he is shamed by killing another member of the Round Table. Lancelot puts his faith in his own chivalry instead of God and Gawain causes the death of another knight on the Sankgreall Quest. As such, both are unsuccessful in overcoming their sins. Malory is once again deliberately using

Gawain in order to mitigate’s Lancelot’s failure. It is through the parallel of Gawain and

Lancelot that we can track the ways in which Malory is concerned with the difficulties of always performing as a perfect knight.

Malory specifically uses the fact that Gawain has committed murder as another element of the parallel between Gawain and Lancelot. Nacien the hermit specifically compares Gawain to Lancelot when he informs Gawain that he will never achieve the

Sankgreall because he has “bene an untrew knyght and a grete murtherar” (948.18-9).

Nacien places this in contrast specifically with Lancelot:

For I dare sey, as synfull as ever sir Launcelot hath byn, sith that he wente

into the queste of the Sankgreal he slew never man nother nought shall,

tyll that he com to Camelot agayne; for he hath takyn upon hym to forsake

synne. (948.20-4)

As Radulescu suggests, “Malory highlights two sides of Lancelot’s nature here: refraining from murder and forsaking sin” (“Lancelot” 101). Lancelot is flawed, but

Gawain’s failure to achieve the Sankgreall is specifically worse than Lancelot’s failure.

Gawain commits murder, which Lancelot has not committed since starting this quest.

Malory here explicitly uses Gawain as a means to show that while Lancelot will not succeed, he at least is able to do better than other prominent knights, such as Gawain. It is not surprising that Gawain is judged in relation to Lancelot. Gawain is once again struggling to perform as a knight should, allowing Lancelot to have at least avoided failing as terribly as Gawain.

A number of critics have emphasized Lancelot’s prominent role in the Sankgreall

Quest. For example, Scala highlights Lancelot’s importance in comparison with the actual Grail Knights:

Malory’s entire presentation of the adventure of the Grail, which should

focus on the holy knights (Bors, Perceval, and Galahad), makes continual

recourse to Lancelot and offers a valorization of his worldly perfection.

From the first moments of the departure scene, the text is concerned with

Lancelot’s status. (390)

While Lancelot is not the knight to achieve the Grail, he is still Malory’s protaganist.

This is emphasized when Lancelot is asked to add his own account to that of Bors when

87 the adventure of the Sankgreall is recorded at its close (Malory 1036.13-22). Bors, as a

Grail Knight, should give an account of the adventure. What is significant is that

Lancelot’s account is also recorded in the official record, though he did not achieve the

Sankgreall. Benson also emphasizes the prominence of Lancelot in the Sankgreall Quest, arguing that “Malory makes Lancelot even more prominent than he was in the French”

(217). Benson points out that the tale begins and ends with Lancelot, creating “a bracket for the entire action,” which suggests Lancelot, and not Galahad, is the main knight of this tale (217). This position for Lancelot is also noted by Moorman, who argues that

“Malory accomplishes what he must with Lancelot; he makes him the protagonist of the quest without making him the Grail knight” (196). Malory maintains his focus on

Lancelot, and while maintaining Lancelot’s sins, he also attempts to make him a good earthly knight. However, while Scala and Benson both rightly highlight Malory’s attempts to increase the importance of Lancelot through the Sankgreall Quest, I argue that this is something he does throughout his narrative. Furthermore, Malory’s concern with establishing and maintaining Lancelot as a protagonist throughout Le Morte Darthur is achieved in part through the parallel with Lancelot and Gawain.

The trend of diminishing Lancelot’s failures has also been noted by Charles W.

Whitworth, who argues that if Malory “could not diverge so radically from the received version as to allow Lancelot to succeed in the Quest, he at least took pains to show that

Lancelot’s failure is not due to any shortcomings he may have in the way of chivalry or prowess” (19). Not only does Malory attempt to separate Lancelot’s failure from his chivalry, but the sins which will prevent Lancelot from being completely successful as a

Grail knight are lessened by the fact that another prominent knight, Gawain, has been

88 unable to uphold the chivalric code of Arthur’s court at all times. This parallel which runs throughout Le Morte Darthur suggests Malory’s ongoing concern with how Lancelot performs as a knight. He remains a protagonist throughout the narrative, even though he experiences a setback in the Sankgreall Quest.

After the Sankgreall Quest, Malory needs a way to ensure that Lancelot’s reputation is not completely tarnished upon his return to Camelot. In order to accomplish this, Gawain is compared to Lancelot on a number of occasions in order to rebuild the latter’s reputation. For example, Arthur is fully aware of the fact that Lancelot will likely arrive at a tournament in disguise, and he will not allow Gawain to enter the tournament as “never had sir Gawayne the bettir and sir Launcelot were in the fylde, and many tymes was sir Gawayne rebuked so whan Sir Launcelot was in the fylde in ony justis dysgysed”

(1069.11-4). Malory establishes the fact that Lancelot is a better knight on the field than

Gawain, both in the past and presumably after the events of the Sankgreall. The fact that

Arthur worries that Lancelot will best Gawain also suggests that Gawain is typically a good knight on the field. If he were not, then Arthur would never be able to let him joust, as many people would be consistently better than Gawain. In this instance, we see that it is only Lancelot that Arthur is worried will put Gawain to shame.

In order to emphasize the fact that Lancelot can best Gawain on the field there is a second tournament in this tale in which Malory has Gawain and Lancelot encounter each other. Not only does this tournament provide an opportunity for Malory to show that

Lancelot is able to overcome Gawain, but it also allows Malory to set up Gawain as an impressive opponent on the field. Gawain and his brethren arrive on the field before

Lancelot appears, and while Gawain’s brothers (sans Gareth) each strikes down a knight,

Gawain “smote downe foure knyghtes” (1108.14-1109.2). Significantly, Lancelot is brought into the scene only after Malory establishs Gawain’s ability in this tournament.

This is necessary, as Lancelot will meet with Gawain twice, and his besting of Gawain will only increase his own honour if Gawain is a worthy opponent. When they meet in battle, Lancelot smites Gawain from his horse twice (1110.7-9, 1111.21-3). This is proof that Lancelot is a better knight, but for my purposes it is noteworthy that Malory establishes Gawain as a worthy adversary. Lancelot’s ability to overcome Gawain would not be as significant if Gawain were merely his enemy. The hero is expected to win against the antagonist. Gawain functions as a good knight whom Lancelot is still able to overcome, as evident by the ongoing parallel, and not contrast, between them both.

Another notable instance in which Malory uses Gawain to help rebuild Lancelot’s reputation is in the healing of Sir Urry episode. A number of critics have discussed the significance of both Lancelot’s ability to heal Sir Urry and his reaction to his success.

Catherine Batt, for example, argues that the healing “compensates for Launcelot’s relative failure on the Grail quest by extending divine grace to earthly values” (153).

Tucker suggests that this episode stands as “a reminder that although [Lancelot] is sinful, he is still the best knight in the world, still in touch with grace when he prays” (396).3 It does appear that Lancelot’s ability to heal Sir Urry is an attempt by Malory partially to redeem Lancelot’s reputation. The importance of this episode for my purposes is that

Malory has found a way to repair damage to Lancelot’s reputation partly through

Gawain. Sir Urry arrives in Camelot and Arthur is informed that “[Sir Urry] sholde never be hole untyll the beste knyght of the worlde had searched hys woundis” (1146.11-3).

3 See further: Mark Lambert 55-66; Elizabeth Archibald 326-27; Radulescu “Lancelot”; Scala 395-96; and R. M. Lumiansky, “Lancelot and Guinevere” 228-32.

Malory then gives a complete list of all those men who attempt to heal Sir Urry. Gawain, notably, is the first knight Malory lists who attempts the healing (1147.30-2). While kings and earls are listed after Arthur, Gawain, once more, is the first knight to whom others, specifically Lancelot, will be compared. Malory thus indicates that Gawain is in a prominent position. It is assumed that he has a chance of healing the man and thus of being the best knight. When he fails, others follow, until Lancelot finally succeeds.

Malory is also once again presenting an example of how difficult it can be for knights to succeed in all adventures, and the long list of knights who attempt to heal Sir Urry is an indication that their inability to heal Sir Urry is not indicative of the whole of their knightly reputation. However, Lancelot is the one who is granted the honour of healing

Sir Urry (1152.16-32). Lancelot is not able to achieve the Grail, and this is one of his most prominent failures as a knight. By granting Lancelot the ability to heal Sir Urry after it is explicitly stated that only the best knight could succeed, Malory firmly reestablishes

Lancelot as a good knight, indicating that a knight’s entire reputation does not depend on one success or failure. Once again, Malory uses Gawain in order to achieve his goal of emphasizing Lancelot’s ability to succeed in knightly adventures.

Malory’s use of Gawain as a means of comparison in this particular episode has not been completely unnoticed by critics. Atkinson argues that “Malory juxtaposes the rosters of Gawain’s kin and Lancelot’s, underlining the rivalry between them that he has shown developing out of the Lot-Pellinore feud in the fifth and seventh tales and which will destroy the court in the eighth” (“Healing” 345). While Atkinson perhaps overstates the rivalry between Lancelot and Gawain’s kin, as it is only Aggravain and Mordred of

Gawain’s brothers who appear to be jealous of Lancelot’s position, this rivalry is still an

91 important factor. Atkinson also notes the parallel between Lancelot and Gawain in that both knights are ordered by Arthur to attempt a quest which they appear reluctant to take part in. When Lancelot is first asked by Arthur to attempt to heal Sir Urry, Lancelot hesitates as he does not wish to assume he succeed when many others have failed

(1151.20-3). Atkinson parallels this instance with the moment when Gawain attempted to refuse to pull the sword from the floating stone, arguing that this “exchange between

Arthur and Lancelot echoes that between Arthur and Gawain when the floating stone first appeared at Camelot” (Atkinson, “Healing” 346; Malory 857.1-6). As Atkinson rightly claims of these events, “[t]he same pattern is followed in both – request, denial, and finally, command” (346). Both Gawain and Lancelot are in positions which allow them to deny a request from their king, but not a direct command. Going beyond this Malory once again uses Gawain as a means to emphasize Lancelot’s nobility. As discussed in

Chapter One, in the source for the floating-stone sword, La Queste del Saint Graal,

Gawain refuses Arthur’s initial request specifically because Lancelot, the better knight, has already failed. Malory removes that reasoning for Gawain in his narrative, but we see him use a similar excuse for Lancelot. In Malory’s narrative, Lancelot’s refusal appears nobler than Gawain’s earlier unexplained refusal. The parallel between the two knights emphasizes key moments in which Lancelot and Gawain’s actions are compariable and exist in relation to one another.

Not only is Gawain used to help rebuild Lancelot’s reputation, but he is also used in parallel with Lancelot in order to diminish those negative features which will once again undermine Lancelot’s perfection As outlined in Chapter Two, both Gawain and

Lancelot are established early in Le Morte Darthur as two prominent knights with

92 characteristics leading to their involvement in the fall of the Round Table. Lancelot’s affair with Queen Guinevere will ignite actions which lead to the beginning of the fracturing of the Round Table, and Gawain’s inclination towards revenge will prevent reconciliation. Significantly, both knights attempt to avoid making these mistakes, but they both ultimately fail. A hermit offers Lancelot counsel while he still in the Quest of the Sankgreall. The hermit tells Lancelot that he should avoid spending too much time with the queen, at least as much as possible (Malory 897.24-6). While the hermit does not order Lancelot to be completely separate from Guinevere, the implication is that Lancelot should at least attempt to avoid spending too much time with her. Lancelot does vow to do this. In this way, Lancelot’s vow is an attempt to avoid partaking in those actions which will help bring the fall of the Round Table. Lancelot cannot foresee the future so he cannot predict the exact outcomes of his affair with Guinevere, though he is aware that they are treasonous actions. As stated, though, Lancelot is unsuccessful. In fact, immediately after returning from the Sankgreall Quest, Lancelot turns his attention once again to Guinevere:

Than, as the booke seyth, sir Launcelot began to resorte unto quene

Gwenivere agayne and forgate the promyse and the perfecion that he made

in the Queste: for, as the booke seyth, had nat sir Launcelot bene in his

prevy thoughtes and in hys myndis so sette inwardly to the quene as he

was in semynge outewarde to God, there had no knyght passed hym in the

queste of the Sankgreall. But ever his thoughtis prevyly were on the

quene, and so they loved togydirs more hotter than they dud toforehonde.

(1045.10-8)

It is clearly evident that Lancelot is unable to hold up his vow to stay away from

Guinevere. His love for her overrides his wisdom, as he knows that it would be best if they did not consort together in this way. Had Lancelot upheld his vow, it is likely that a division in the Round Table would have been avoided. This is certainly a mark against him, but in this instance, and others, Malory attempts to place the blame for this fault in

Lancelot’s character elsewhere. He makes certain to highlight that the “booke seyth,” and as such he must include this particular element of Lancelot’s character. This is one moment in which Malory appears to be bound to his source material, as Lancelot and

Guinevere must be lovers. Their affair is needed for the whole of the narrative, even if it reflects negatively on Lancelot.

There is another event which Malory must present, and that is Lancelot and

Guinevere spending the night together after he arrives to save the Queen in his version of the Knight of the Cart episode (1131.11-32). Robert H. Wilson argues that Malory

“distastefully” summarizes this portion of the tale with the following statement: “So, to passe upon thys tale, sir Launcelot wente to bedde with the quene” (1131.28-9; Wilson,

Characterization 24) Wilson points out that Malory’s account of this event is shorter and glossed over in comparison to Chrétien de Troyes’s version, as well as the version in the prose Lancelot. Anna Caughey also suggests that Malory is “dismissive” of this particular event, and highlights the fact that Malory “does not actually show the couple engaging in sexual contact until it becomes unavoidable in the scene at the castle of Mellyagaunce”

(157). While Malory’s account may be shorter than his sources, he does state that

Lancelot “toke hys plesaunce and hys lykynge untyll hit was the dawnyng of the day”

(1131.30-1). Malory appears to dislike having to tarnish Lancelot’s reputation, but he

94 understands it is necessary for his narrative. Malory does, however, have Lancelot heal

Sir Urry after this particular episode, as a way of affirming his reputation as a good knight.

In the same manner, Gawain too attempts to avoid actions which will lead to the complete destruction of Arthur’s fellowship, insofar as he does not immediately seek revenge for the death of his kin. Gawain is fully aware that going against Lancelot will create a division not only between their families, but between all of the knights of the

Round Table and that many of Arthur’s knights, if forced to make the choice, will stand with Lancelot. It is because of this, and the fact that Lancelot has rescued him and others numerous times, that Gawain does not take part in the attempt to trap Lancelot (1161.31-

2.18). After confronting Lancelot, Aggravain and two of Gawain’s sons are killed in combat (1167.18-1168.20). Even after this, Gawain understands the implications of going to war against Lancelot, and informs Arthur that he does not wish to fight against

Lancelot. Arthur, who at this moment plans to stand against Lancelot because of the affair with Guinevere, tries to incite Gawain into taking up a blood feud by reminding him of the deaths of his brother and sons, but Gawain argues that he warned them not to go against Lancelot, and so their deaths cannot be blamed on the other knight (1175.27-

1176.11). Gawain, who before was willing to avenge his father who was killed in combat, is at this moment not willing to begin a blood feud with Lancelot. Gawain does not blame

Lancelot for these deaths. Just as Lancelot understood the implications of his affair with

Guinevere, Gawain understands the implications of standing against Lancelot, and here attempts to avoid starting a blood feud.

However, just as love of the queen prevents Lancelot from upholding his vow, love of his family will prevent Gawain from withholding his desire for revenge. The deaths of Gareth and Gaheris force Gawain to vow vengeance against Lancelot. After learning that Lancelot is responsible for their deaths, especially when both knights were unarmed, Gawain no longer wishes to avoid a war with Lancelot, and vows to fight against him: “I shall make you a promyse whych I shall holde be my knyghthode, that frome thys day forewarde I shall never fayle sir Launcelot untyll that one of us have slayne that othir” (1186.2-5). Love of Gareth especially forces Gawain to stand against

Lancelot, even knowing that this will permanently create a division among the Round

Table knights. Malory originally presents Gawain as wishing to avoid this war, making

Gawain appear to be a good knight.

In Gawain’s case, critics have seen this as inconsistent characterization. Wilfred

L. Guerin argues that “Gawain’s attitude toward Lancelot is sometimes strongly favorable, sometimes violently antagonistic” (“Death of Arthur” 265). Guerin appears to approve of Gawain’s initial refusal to take up arms against Lancelot, and then condemns his later vow of revenge, arguing that this Gawain “is the Gawain who carelessly slew a lady on his first quest, the Gawain eager to revenge King Lot’s death, the enemy of

Lamorak, the knight for whom the spiritual heights of the Grail were boring” (266-67).

Guerin parallels this version of Gawain with another, which he calls “the magnanimous and regretful Gawain” (267). This Gawain, according to Guerin, is the one who calls

Lancelot a friend in the beginning of the “Death of Arthur” and who returns for Gawain’s death, accepting blame for his actions. Derek Brewer claims that “Gawain had not previously shown any fondness for Gareth” (“Presentation” 49). In the “The Tale of Sir

Gareth of Orkeney,” however, it is quite clear that Gawain does show fondness for his younger brother. As outlined in Chapter Two, Gawain and Lancelot are the two knights who stand up for Gareth when he first arrives in court (Malory 295.9-18). Gawain does this before knowing that Gareth is his brother. When Gawain does learn Gareth’s identity, he immediately yields the field in a battle between them, refusing to continue to fight against his own brother (357.10-2). Gawain continually shows support and love for

Gareth, even when Gareth forsakes Gawain as his role model in favour of Lancelot.

Gawain is a not a perfect knight, but this is a conscious choice by Malory, and not simply a result of inconsistent accounts of Gawain from the sources.

It is this love which fuels Gawain’s need to revenge the deaths of his brothers.

Beverly Kennedy claims that in Gawain’s case, “fear of shame will never be enough to restrain him from committing ‘outerage’ and even ‘morthir’ if he is angry enough, or if, by his own standards or right conduct, his action is justified” (72-3). Kennedy condemns

Gawain’s actions, arguing that it is his temper and his own set of morals which lead him to commit murder. C. David Benson, on the other hand, is one scholar who acknowledges

Gawain’s faults without completely condemning him as a knight. He argues that

“Gawain’s vengeance against Lancelot, though often condemned by modern commentators as wicked and obsessive, is equally demanded by honour” (“Ending” 232; see further C. David Benson, “Defence”). Benson suggests that Gawain is honour-bound to revenge the deaths of Gareth and Gaheris, at least in part because both Gareth and

Gaheris are unarmed. Another scholar who is willing to acknowledge that Gawain, while flawed, still tries to be a good knight is Wilson. Wilson suggests that “Gawain’s vengeance becomes something in part admirable” (53). Wilson also argues that “Gawain

97 can be considered as a good knight save for his one tendency toward revenge of injuries to his family – a tendency which he holds in check as long as possible, but which finally overmasters him” (41). Significantly, a similar comment can be said of Lancelot. Even as a good knight, there is one tendency which holds him back, a tendency which the hermit calls a lack of stability. Armstrong argues against the notion of Lancelot’s “instability,” claiming that Lancelot instead is operating “with a lack of spiritual understanding,” which leads to the fact that he “persistently misreads, misinterprets, and misbehaves” in the Sangkreall Quest (150). In spite of disagreeing with the term “instability,” Armstrong too argues that “Arthur’s greatest knight is still guilty of loving the queen – with his heart and mind if not his body” (155). Lancelot does not achieve the Grail partly because of his love for the Queen. Lancelot’s love for Guinevere, and Gawain’s tendency to instigate blood feuds, both lead to the fall of the Round Table. Malory must have Lancelot as part of that fall, but in order to mitigate Lancelot’s faults, he uses Gawain to show that

Lancelot is not the only knight who cannot avoid those actions which lead him to be part of the tragic destruction. Gawain’s desire for revenge is a direct threat to fellow Knights of the Round Table while Lancelot’s love for Guinevere has only indirect consequences for the other knights.

It is Gawain’s vow of revenge which leads Arthur into war against Lancelot, but it is really a feud between Lancelot and Gawain. Malory needs Gawain and Lancelot to stand against each other in order to maintain the parallel he has built, but Gawain cannot simply function as an antagonist. Lancelot, while he must defend himself against Gawain, shows no desire to actually stand in opposition to his former friend, and by extension his king. As F. Whitehead highlights, Lancelot is “willing to make the most ample reparation

98 for the death of Gareth and even to abase himself before Gawain if this will persuade the latter to drop the feud” (105). The feud between Lancelot and Gawain functions as another opportunity for Malory to use the comparison he has built up between these two knights. In the feud between these two knights, there is one notable example in which

Malory once again makes use of the parallel in order to try to maintain Lancelot as the best knight. This example occurs when Gawain and Arthur arrive at Lancelot’s stronghold, Joyous Garde, and Gawain refuses to allow Lancelot to reconcile with

Arthur. Gawain informs Lancelot that he will forever make war upon him for the slaying of Gareth. It is in this moment that Malory uses Gawain’s earlier slaying of Lamorak to mitigate Lancelot’s accidental killing of Gareth and Gaheris. Gawain accuses him of being a “false recrayed knyght” and the destroyer of “many of oure good knyghtes”

(1189.31-3). Lancelot responds with his own charge against Gawain for the killing of Sir

Lamorak: “Sir, ye say as hit pleasith you,” seyde sir Launcelot, “yet may hit never be seyde on me and opynly preved that ever I be forecaste of treson slew no goode knygh, as ye, my lorde sir Gawayne, have done” (1189.34-1190.3). Lancelot has killed both Gareth and Gaheris while both knights were unarmed. However, in order to prevent Lancelot’s actions from condemning him as a good knight, Malory reminds the readers that Gawain has villainously slain a noble knight. As Kate McClune suggests, Gawain’s “immediate recognition of the unspecified event. . . and his failure to excuse or defend himself, indicate that he too seems to be aware that this was not an honourable killing” (“Gawain”

115). While Lancelot has killed good knights in Gareth and Gaheris, his actions are not as deplorable as Gawain’s previous actions, and Gawain himself is aware of this fact.

It should be noted that until the final feud, Gawain and Lancelot have shown no animosity towards each other. In fact, there appears to be a mutual respect between both of these knights. One early example of this occurs when Lancelot, while in disguise in

Kay’s armour, manages to win jousts with a number of knights, including Gawain

(275.22-276). All of the knights have been defeated, but none vow any sort of vengeance against the knight they suspect to be Lancelot. When they arrive at court, and it is revealed for certain that Lancelot wears Kay’s armour, “there was lawghyng and smylyng amonge them” (286.21-5). Rather than be angry that Lancelot beat them, or jealous of his prowess, the knights, including Gawain, all find humour in the event.

Throughout Le Morte Darthur, Gawain’s jealousy towards Lancelot is nonexistent. Kennedy argues that “Gawain has long envied Lancelot his superior prowess and his favour with the king” (321). The only incident in which this is mentioned, one to which Kennedy alludes, occurs when Sir Dinadan states that Gawain and all his brothers, apart from Gareth, “hatyth all good knyghtes of the Rounde Table” and claims that

Gawain’s brethren hate “sir Launcelot and all his kyn, and grete pryvay dispyte they have at hym” (Malory 700.2-6; Kennedy 321). However, this is mentioned only once, and there is no evidence in Gawain’s actions that he, unlike his brothers Aggravain and

Mordred, is jealous of Lancelot or Lancelot’s kin. Rather, the jealousy appears to come from Gawain’s two middle brothers alone, and is by extension applied to Gawain by

Dinadan. In spite of Kennedy’s claim, Malory does not relate a moment in which Gawain was especially jealous of Lancelot when the other has bested Gawain, or received high praise for his prowess.

100

While the absence of such a moment may not appear to speak to Gawain’s respect for Lancelot, it is important to remember that Malory does emphasizes Gawain’s envy of other knights. For example, Gawain shows great displeasure after King Pellinor is given the honour of sitting next to the “Sege Perelous” (102.12-5). Gawain displays this same animosity towards Pellinore’s son, Lamorak, later in the narrative. After Lamorak has defeated Gawain, and many others in a tournament, the entirety of the Round Table, save for Gawain and his brethren, celebrate. Gawain, angry that Lamorak is able to defeat him, displays his jealous and vengeful nature, and calls on his brothers to help him get revenge against Lamorak (608.8-20). It seems likely that if Malory wished to emphasize Gawain’s jealousy of Lancelot he would have included a scene to this effect. Instead, Gawain never displays this jealousy towards Lancelot, even notably when Galahad is seated in Sege

Perelous, and Arthur highlights this to Gawain (862.12-5). Whereas before Gawain was jealous of a knight for sitting next to this seat, in this moment he shows no jealousy of the knight who is afforded the actual honour of the seat. In another instance, Gawain also displays only friendship towards Lancelot when the latter returns to Winchester. Malory specifically highlights that “whan kynge Arthur wyst that sir Launcelot was com hole and sownde, the kynge made grete joy of hym; and so ded sir Gawayne and all the knyghtes of the Rounde Table except sir Aggravayne and sir Mordred” (1092.1-4). It is Aggravain and Mordred, but explicitly not Gawain, who are jealous of Lancelot.

Just as there is little evidence to suggest that Gawain has any animosity towards

Lancelot until the fatal events of the last tale, there is also little evidence, despite

Kennedy’s claim to the contrary, to suggest that Lancelot wishes to distance himself from

Gawain’s company. Kennedy argues that “Malory has deliberately eliminated the

101 friendship between them which is so prominent a feature of the French prose Lancelot”

(143). Kennedy, in her examination of the “Tale of Gareth,” points out that in spite of their consistence proximity, Lancelot and Gawain have not spoken, suggesting that because of Gawain’s nature neither “Lancelot nor Gareth would choose the ‘felyship’ of such a man” (144). The suggestion that Lancelot scorns Gawain’s fellowship is an unfounded one, and there are a number of instances in the text which allude to friendship or, at the very least, mutual respect between Lancelot and Gawain. One notable example of this is the fact that, as discussed in Chapter Two, Merlin states that Lancelot will be responsible for Gawain’s death, but specifically highlights the fact that Gawain is “the man in the worlde that [Lancelot] lovith beste” (91.24-5). Through this statement,

Gawain and Lancelot’s friendship is established early within the narrative. Beyond this,

Lancelot actively proves his respect for Gawain when he later saves Gaheris from Sir

Tarquyn. This is evident in Lancelot’s explanation of why he has saved the other knight, as he states that it is “for kynge Arthurs sake, and in especiall for my lorde sir Gawayne his sake” (268.5-6). Lancelot specifically has respect for Gawain, as he saves Gaheris not only for his King’s sake, but more for Gawain’s sake. In this way, Malory stresses the fact that Lancelot undertakes this rescue with Gawain in mind.

Another example of an existing bond between Lancelot and Gawain occurs while both knights are in search of the Sankgreall. Lancelot comes upon a tomb with a gold inscription explaining that the tomb is for King Bagdemagus of Gore, and that Gawain is the man responsible for the king’s death. Lancelot is upset over the loss of Bagdemagus

“and had hit bene ony other than sir Gawayne he sholde nat ascape frome the dethe”

(1020.10-1). Malory highlights the fact that Lancelot would have sworn vengeance on

102 any other knight for the slaying of this king, but because it is Gawain, he does not. This does not support the claim that Lancelot refuses to be in fellowship with Gawain. Instead,

Lancelot’s fellowship with Gawain appears to be strong enough to overcome the desire to fight against him, as will also be the case in reverse, when Gawain refuses to stand against Lancelot after the killing of his sons and Aggravain, but before the killing of

Gareth and Gaheris. This heightens the parallel between the knights, as they both find themselves in a position of opposition against the other, but their mutual respect, for the time, prevents war between them.

Beyond these examples is the fact that Gawain and Lancelot forgive each other before the end of Le Morte Darthur, and while Gawain dies before they can truly be reconciled, their actions prove that the feud between them is not an ultimate division.

Their love for each other extends beyond this conflict. This is evident firstly by the fact that on his death bed, Gawain realizes his mistake in holding this grudge against

Lancelot, and asks that a letter be sent to Lancelot. In this letter, Gawain takes blame for their feud. Significantly, he begs Lancelot to come and help Arthur, calling upon “all the love that was ever betwyxte” them (1231.24-5). Gawain needs Lancelot to help Arthur, and the fact that he calls on a love that was once between himself and Lancelot suggests that Malory never intended for them to exist as enemies throughout the narrative. It is clear that Gawain and Lancelot have had respect for each other before this feud.

Lancelot further proves this fact in his response to the letter. Lancelot calls

Gawain “a full noble knyght as ever was born” (2149.23). This indicates that, contrary to

Kennedy’s claim, Lancelot has in the past respected, and continues here to respect,

Gawain as a man and a knight. Lancelot is unhappy that he has caused a wound which

103 leads to the death of this noble knight. Lancelot goes on to honour Gawain’s last wish, and visits Gawain’s tomb (1250.20-3). This visit to Gawain’s tomb proves the respect and love Lancelot has for this other knight. He wishes to ensure that Gawain’s soul is prayed for, and he honours Gawain through all of his actions, including giving a gift of money to all other mourners at the tomb (1250.27-1251.5). If Lancelot had no desire to be in Gawain’s company he would also have no desire to make this kind of offering at

Gawain’s death.

Just as the friendship between Lancelot and Gawain extends beyond this, so too does Malory’s use of a parallel between them. In the end, both Gawain and Lancelot are celebrated as good knights by Arthur, and by extension Malory; this is evident in the king’s speech lamenting the loss of both men (1230.11-7). Scholars have also presented the last actions of these two knights in a positive light. Whitehead, for example, claims that “[n]othing in the concluding section of the work – in which Lancelot retires into a hermitage – mars the splendor of his chivalry” (106). As Whitehead argues, Lancelot may have been part of the fall of the Round Table, but in the end, Malory still emphasizes his chivalry. C. David Benson points out that Gawain’s death-bed “willingness to take full responsibility” for the final destruction “is an advance beyond honour” (“Ending”

234). Gawain’s actions are part of events which lead to the war with Mordred, but it has not been all his doing. His willingness to claim this is a sign of his nobility. This self- blame is mirrored by a similar speech by Lancelot at the graves of Arthur and Guinevere

(Malory 1256.32-8). As Kennedy points out, Lancelot is ready “to blame himself for the fact that his ‘pereles’ lord and lady have been ‘layed ful lowe’” (344). As Mark Lambert highlights, “both Lancelot and Gawain blame their pride for what has happened” and

104 they, along with Guinevere, are the only characters “who take the blame for the disaster upon themselves” (195). Both Lancelot and Gawain are aware of their own roles in the tragic ending of Arthur and his court, and both knights fully blame themselves for this action, suggesting that while they have made mistakes, they are, in the end, good knights.

In fact, the Gawain-Lancelot parallel extends even into their deaths, as both knights, while flawed and guilty of varying degrees of sin in their lives, are forgiven by

God. While this may come as no surprise in terms of Lancelot, the fact that Malory includes a similar fate for Gawain is significant. In Lancelot’s case, the fact that God has forgiven him is quite evident. After Lancelot passes away, a bishop witnesses “the angellys heve up syr Launcelot unto heven” (1258.9). The fact that Lancelot enters

Heaven proves that while he was not pure enough to achieve the Grail, he is pure enough to be accepted and forgiven by God. A similar fate is related for Gawain. After Gawain’s death, he appears to Arthur in order to give the king a warning against attacking Mordred without Lancelot’s help. Gawain appears with a number of fair ladies and explains their meaning to Arthur:

“Sir,” seyde sir Gawayne, “all thes be ladyes for whom I have foughten

for, whan I was man lyvynge. And all thes ar tho that I ded batayle fore in

ryghteuous quarrels, and God hath gyvyn hem that grace at their grete

prayer, bycause I ded batayle for them for their ryght, that they shulde

brynge my hydder unto you. Thus much hath gyvyn me leve God for to

warne you of youre death.” (1234.1-7)

105

Gawain is unequivocally granted this opportunity by God, suggesting that he has been forgiven for his sins. Gawain is surrounded by the ladies he served in his life. Larry D.

Benson argues the importance of these ladies accompanying Gawain:

This is significant, since it means that our last view of Gawain is of a

good knight doing his duty by his king. But more significant is the fact

that God allowed Gawain to return from death in this manner because of

the chivalric deeds he achieved while he was living. (241)

For all of his faults throughout Le Morte Darthur, Gawain’s last appearance is as a good, chivalric knight. These positive traits are emphasized over any of Gawain’s previous sins or wrongdoings. While Malory has not related the adventures in which Gawain saved all of the ladies accompanying him, it is still clear that there are enough for Gawain to have gained the approval of God. This is another way in which he is paralleled with Lancelot.

As Whitehead claims, the “emphasis in this last chapter [of Le Morte Darthur] is not on the sins for which Lancelot is now doing penance, but on the exemplary piety of his new life and his attachment to spiritual exercises” (106). In the end, Malory makes certain to insist emphatically that both Gawain and Lancelot are good knights. As Malory’s best knight, it only makes sense that Lancelot be recognized as a good knight and man after his death. Gawain too has been forgiven of his sins and is honoured for his good deeds.

Malory views Gawain as a worthy comparison for Lancelot, and not merely an antagonist for his protagonist. In doing so, Malory weaves the parallel between Gawain and

Lancelot throughout the text, and the successes and failures of both knights is one way in which Malory emphasizes the difficulties they face in navigating their roles as knights.

106

Gawain’s difficulties are used to help emphasize that Lancelot’s successes take effort on his part, and his failures do not condemn him forever as a bad knight.

What began with allusions to their roles in the fall of the Round Table even before either was made knight has now extended and expanded through the narrative with the conclusion that both were chivalric in their lives, and are honoured for this in death.

While a number of scholars have explored Lancelot’s difficulties in understanding the type of knighthood required in the Sankgreall Quest and its aftermath, the parallel with

Gawain which exists throughout the whole of Le Morte Darthur speaks to Malory’s concern with this theme in his entire narrative. Malory shows an interest in mainting the codes of knighthood in general, and not only in the difficulties of transitioning from an earthly knight to a celestial knighthood. While this is an important element of the

Sankgreall Quest, it is not Malory’s only concern in the last sections of his narrative. The

Lancelot-Gawain parallel helps to highlight this fact. The parallel is established early and then used it to its fullest extent both in the Sankgreall Quest and in the feud between

Lancelot and Gawain which leads to the downfall of Arthur’s kingdom. Throughout the narrative Malory emphasizes the fact that good knights do not always know how to uphold the ideals of knighthood, and it is not only in the fact of the Sankgreall Quest that they experience challenges and failures. Even as Malory’s protagonist, Lancelot does not always succeed in understanding what he must do in order to be considered the best knight. He is, however, able to prove that he understands the challenges better than another prominent knight, Gawain.

107

Conclusion

Gawain and Lancelot are undeniably two prominent figures in Arthurian literature, and as such, they appeared to Malory as well-established figures, with histories he was forced to contend with throughout Le Morte Darthur. One of Malory’s main goals in his text was to establish Lancelot as the consistent and overall hero of the narrative, both as a warrior and a lover, and much of the narrative focuses on Lancelot.1 Malory found a way to use Gawain in parallel with Lancelot to establish and maintain Lancelot in the position of best knight through an exploration of the ways in which both of these characters function as knights. While there are a number of parallels evident in Malory’s sources, other medieval writings, and even Malory’s own narrative, the parallel between

Lancelot and Gawain found in Malory’s narrative is an elaborate and well crafted element of Le Morte Darthur, and is evidence of Malory’s artistry in the crafting of his narrative. This Lancelot-Gawain parallel extends from the beginning of Malory’s narrative all the way through to the end, speaking to Malory’s careful use of and alterations to his source materials in order to accomplish his own narrative themes and structure. Malory establishes both characters as key figures in his narrative before either arrives to take his place at the Round Table. Both knights are also linked early in the text to important events which will lead to their eventual involvement in the downfall of

Arthur’s kingdom: Lancelot is named as Guinevere’s lover, and Gawain’s desire for revenge is clearly foretold. Malory continues to use Gawain throughout Le Morte

Darthur, as Lancelot continuously either outperforms or does not fail as badly as Gawain.

This pattern is emphasized most prominently in the Sankgreall Quest, leading into their

1 See McCarthy 19-23 on Lancelot’s prominence.

108 involvement in the fall of the Round Table fellowship. Charles Moorman highlights how, in the Sankgreall Quest, “at every opportunity, Malory degrades the character of Gawain”

(201). Modern critics often follow suit. In relation to the complete collapse of Arthur’s court, for instance, Helen Cooper goes so far as to blame Gawain and his brethren for the entire outcome, arguing that Lancelot has been absolved of blame. She claims that the blame lies first with “the jealousies and hatreds of Gawain and his brothers,” and then

“the ‘unhappy’ Mordred” (154). While Gawain certainly has a role in the downfall of

Arthur’s court, Lancelot too plays a role. The same is true of the Sankgreall quest, as both knights face failure in this adventure. As I have argued in this thesis, Malory uses

Gawain’s involvement in both the Sankgreall Quest and the final battle in order to lessen the damage to Lancelot’s reputation by presenting the maintaining of all the codes of knighthood as a complicated task. The characterization of both knights speaks to

Malory’s concern with presenting a protagonist who can fail and still be considered a good knight.

By exploring the various ways in which Malory places Gawain in parallel with

Lancelot, it appears evident that Malory’s choices about the characterization of Gawain are deliberate and that the character of Gawain is not as inconsistent as has been argued.

Both Gawain’s positive and negative attributes are included in Malory’s Le Morte

Darthur because both serve an important function. Through both Gawain’s good and bad traits, Malory is able to emphasize Lancelot as the hero, both by extending Lancelot’s prowess and mitigating his failures. Not only does this approach allow for a deeper understanding of the characterization of Gawain, it also allows us to understand the various ways in which Malory emphasizes the story of Lancelot throughout the text.

109

Lancelot, for most of Le Morte Darthur, is Malory’s protagonist. Gawain does not exist in the narrative as an antagonist for Lancelot’s protagonist. The parallel which Malory creates is quite calculated, and Lancelot and Gawain are not meant to appear in constrast with one another but rather as two knights who must struggle throughout to try and uphold the ideals of knighthood which have been presented to them.

The previously unexplored parallel presents a deeper understanding of the complex narrative which Malory has created, especially in relation to our understanding of Malory’s use of Gawain, his conception of the character of Lancelot, and his depiction of the intricacies of knighthood. The parallel highlights both the similiarties and the differences between Lancelot and Gawain, allowing for an understanding of the characters which goes beyond merely depicting Lancelot as good and Gawain as bad.

Malory is a conscious artist who uses an elabarorate parallel throughtout his narrative to establish his characters and overall thematic focus. The Lancelot-Gawain parallel emphasizes Malory’s artistry through his characterization of both Gawain and Lancelot, and offers new insight into the ways in which Malory presents the struggles of upholding the ideals of knighthood.

110

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Chrétien de Troyes. Lancelot, or, The Knight of the Cart (Le Chevalier de la Charrete).

Ed. and Trans. William W. Kibler. New York: Garland, 1981. Print. Garland

Library of Medieval Literature Volume I, Series A.

Malory, Sir Thomas. The Works of Sir Thomas Malory. Ed. Eugène Vinaver. 1st ed. 3

vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1947. Print.

---. The Works of Sir Thomas Malory. Ed. Eugène Vinaver. 3rd ed. Rev. P. J. C. Field. 3

vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. Print.

Morte Arthure : A Critical Edition. Ed. Mary Hamel. New York; London: Garland, 1984.

Print. Garland Medieval Texts 9.

The Quest for the Holy Grail. Trans. E. Jane Burns. Lancelot-Grail: The Old French

Arthurian Vulgate and Post-Vulgate in Translation. Ed. Norris J. Lacy. New

York: Garland Pub., 1995. vol 4. 1-87. Print.

Secondary Sources:

Archibald, Elizabeth. “Malory’s Ideal of Fellowship.” The Review of English Studies

43:172 (Aug., 1992): 311-28. Print.

Armstrong, Dorsey. Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur.

Gainsville: UP of Florida, 2003. Print.

111

Atkinson, Stephen C. B. “Malory’s ‘Healing of Sir Urry’: Lancelot, the Earthly

Fellowship, and the World of the Grail.” Studies in Philology 78:1 (Fall, 1981):

341-52. Print.

---. “Malory’s Lancelot and the Quest of the Grail.” Studies in Malory. Ed. James W.

Spisak. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Pub, 1985. 129-52. Print.

Bartholomew, Barbara Gray. “The Thematic Function of Malory’s Gawain.” College

English 24.4 (Jan, 1963): 262-67. Print.

Batt, Catherine. Malory’s Morte Darthur: Remaking Arthurian Tradition. New York:

Palgrave, 2002. Print.

Benson, C. David. “The Ending of the Morte Darthur.” A Companion to Malory. Eds.

Elizabeth Archibald and A.S.G. Edwards. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1996. 221-38.

Print. Arthurian Studies XXXVII.

---. “Gawain’s Defence of Lancelot in Malory’s ‘Death of Arthur’.” The Modern

Language Review 78.2 (April 1983): 267-72. Print.

Benson, Larry D. Malory’s Morte Darthur. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard UP,

1976. Print.

Brewer, Derek. “Malory’s ‘Proving of Sir Launcelot.” The Changing Face of Arthurian

Romance: Essays on Arthurian Prose Romances in Memory of Cedric E.

Pickford. Eds. Alison Adams et al. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1986. 123-36. Print.

Arthurian Studies XVI.

---. “The Presentation of the Character of Lancelot.” Arthurian Literature 3 (1983): 26-

52. Print.

Busby, Keith. Gauvain in Old French Literature. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1980. Print.

112

Caughey, Anna. “Virginity, Sexuality, Repression and Return in the ‘Tale of the

Sankgreal’.” Arthurian Literature 28 (2011): 155-80. Print.

Cooper, Helen. “Counter-Romance: Civil Strife and Father-Killing in the Prose

Romances.” The Long Fifteenth Century: Essays for Douglas Gray. Eds. Helen

Cooper and Sally Mapstone. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1997. 141-62. Print.

Dalrymple, Roger. “Sir Gawain in Middle English Romance.” A Companion to Arthurian

Literature. Ed. Helen Fulton. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Pub., 2009: 265-77.

Print.

Davies, R. T. “Malory’s Launcelot and the Noble Way of the World.” The Review of

English Studies 6.24 (Oct., 1955): 356-64. Print.

Dichmann, Mary E. “‘The Tale of King Arthur and the Emperor Lucius’: The Rise of

Lancelot.” Malory’s Originality: A Critical Study of Le Morte Darthur. Ed. R. M.

Lumiansky. 1964. Reprint. New York: Arno, 1979. 67-90. Print.

Evans, Murray J. “Camelot or Corbenic?: Malory’s New Blend of Secular and Religious

Chivalry in the ‘Tale of the Holy Grail’.” English Studies in Canada 8 (1982):

249-61. Print.

Field, P. J. C. “Four Functions of Malory’s Minor Characters.” Medium Aevum 37

(1968): 37-45. Print.

---. Romance and Chronicle: A Study of Malory’s Prose Style. Bloomington: Indiana UP,

1971. Print.

---. “The Source of Malory’s ‘Tale of Gareth’.” Malory : Texts and Sources. Cambridge,

[England]; Rochester, NY: D.S. Brewer, 1998. 246-60. Print. Arthurian Studies

XL.

113

Gowans, Linda. Cei and the Arthurian Legend. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1988. Print.

Arthurian Studies XVII.

Grimm, Kevin T. “Fellowship and Envy: Structuring the Narrative of Malory’s ‘Tale of

Sir Tristram’.” Fifteenth-Century Studies 20 (1993): 77-98. Print.

Guerin, Wilfred L. “‘The Tale of Gareth’: The Chivalric Flowering.” Malory’s

Originality: A Critical Study of Le Morte Darthur. Ed. R. M. Lumiansky. 1964.

Reprint. New York: Arno, 1979. 99-117. Print.

---. “‘The Tale of the Death of Arthur’: Catastrophe and Resolution.” Malory’s

Originality: A Critical Study of Le Morte Darthur. Ed. R. M. Lumiansky. 1964.

Reprint. New York: Arno, 1979. 233-74. Print.

Hanks, D. Thomas, Jr. “Malory’s Book of Sir Tristram: Focusing Le Morte Darthur.”

Quondam et Futurus 3 (1993): 14-31. Print.

Hartung, Albert E. “Narrtive Technique, Characterization, and the Sources in Malory’s

‘Tale of Sir Lancelot’.” Studies in Philology 70.3 (July, 1973): 252-68. Print.

Hynes-Berry, Mary. “Malory’s Translation of Meaning: ‘The Tale of the Sankgreal’.”

Studies in Philology 74:3 (July, 1977): 243-57. Print.

Ihle, Sandra Ness. Malory’s Grail Quest: Invention and Adaptation in Medieval Prose

Romance. Madison: U of Wisconsin, 1983. Print.

Kennedy, Beverly. Knighthood in the Morte Darthur. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1985.

Print. Arthurian Studies XI.

Lambert, Mark. Malory: Style and Vision in Le Morte Darthur. New Haven: Yale UP,

1975. Print. Yale Studies in English 186.

114

Lewis. C.S. “The English Prose Morte.” Essays on Malory Ed. J.A.W. Bennett. 1963.

Oxford, Clarendon. 7-28. Print.

Lumiansky, R. M. Introduction. Malory’s Originality: A Critical Study of Le Morte

Darthur. Ed. R. M. Lumiansky. 1964. Reprint. New York: Arno, 1979. 1-7. Print.

---. “The Relationship of Lancelot and Guenevere in Malory’s ‘Tale of Lancelot’.”

Modern Language Notes 68.2 (Feb., 1953): 86-91. Print.

---. “‘The Tale of Lancelot’: Prelude to Adultery.” Malory’s Originality: A Critical Study

of Le Morte Darthur. Ed. R. M. Lumiansky. 1964. Reprint. New York: Arno,

1979. 91-8. Print.

---. “‘The Tale of Lancelot and Guenevere’: Suspense.” Malory’s Originality: A Critical

Study of Le Morte Darthur. Ed. R. M. Lumiansky. 1964. Reprint. New York:

Arno, 1979. 205-36. Print.

Mahoney, Dhira B. “The Truest and Holiest Tale: Malory’s Transformation of La Quest

del Saint Graal.” Studies in Malory. Ed. James W. Spisak. Kalamazoo: Medieval

Institute Pub., 1985. 109-28. Print.

Mann, Jill. “Malory and the Grail Legend.” A Companion to Malory. Eds. Elizabeth

Archibald and A.S.G. Edwards. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1996. 203-20. Print.

Arthurian Studies XXXVII.

---. “‘Taking the Adventure’: Malory and the Suite du Merlin.” Aspects of Malory. Ed.

Toshiyuki Takamiya and Derek Brewer. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1981. 71-91.

Print. Arthurian Studies I.

Mapsone, Sally. “Malory and the Scots.” Arthurian Literature 28 (2011): 107-20. Print.

115

McCarthy, Terence. An Introduction to Malory. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1988. Print.

Arthurian Studies XX.

McClune, Kate. “Gawain.” Heroes and Anti-Heroes in Medieval Romance. Ed. Neil

Cartlidge. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2012. 115-28. Print. Studies in Medieval

Romance.

---. “‘The Vengeaunce of My Brethirne’: Blood Ties in Malory’s Morte Darthur.”

Arthurian Literature 28 (2011): 89-106. Print.

Moorman, Charles. “‘The Tale of the Sankgreall’: Human Frailty.” Malory’s Originality.

Ed. R. M. Lumiansky. 1964. Reprint. New York: Arno, 1979. 184-204. Print.

Nitze, William A. “The Character of Gauvain in the Romances of Chrétien de Troyes.”

Modern Philology. 50:4. (May, 1953): 219-25. Print.

Norris, Ralph. Malory’s Library: The Sources of the Morte Darthur. Cambridge: D. S.

Brewer, 2008. Print. Arthurian Studies lxxi.

Radulescu, Raluca L. “Malory’s Lancelot and the Key to Salvation.” Arthurian Literature

25 (2008): 93-118. Print.

---. “Malory and the Quest for the Holy Grail.” A Companion to Arthurian Literature. Ed.

Helen Fulton. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Pub., 2009: 326-39. Print.

---. “‘now I take uppon me the adventures to seke of holy thynges’: Lancelot and the

Crisis of Arthurian Knighthood.” Arthurian Studies in Honour of P. J. C. Field.

Ed. Bonnie Wheeler. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2004. Print. 285-295.

Robson, Margaret. “Local Hero: Gawain and the Politics of Arthurianism.” Arthurian

Literature 23 (2006): 81-94. Print.

116

Rumble, Thomas C. “‘The Tale of Tristram’: Development by Analogy.” Malory’s

Originality: A Critical Study of Le Morte Darthur. Ed. R. M. Lumiansky. 1964.

Reprint. New York: Arno, 1979. 118-83. Print.

Rushton, Corey. “Absent Fathers, Unexpected Sons: Paternity in Malory’s ‘Morte

Darthur’.” Studies in Philology 101.2 (Spring, 2004): 136-52. Print.

Sanders, Arnold. “Sir Gareth and the ‘Unfair Unknown’: Malory’s Use of the Gawain

Romances.” Arthuriana 16:1 (Spring, 2006): 34-46. Print.

Scala, Elizabeth. "Disarming Lancelot." Studies In Philology 99.4 (2002): 380-403. Print.

Schueler, Donald G. “The Tristram Section of Malory’s “Morte Darthur”.” Studies in

Philology 65.1 (Jan., 1968): 51-66. Print.

Tolhurst, Fiona. “Why Every Knight Needs His Lady: Re-Viewing Questions of Genre

and ‘Cohesion’ in Malory’s Le Morte Darthur.” Re-viewing Le Morte Darthur:

Texts and Contexts, Characters and Themes. Eds. K. S. Whetter and Raluca L.

Radulescu. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2005. 133-47. Print.

Tucker, P. E. “Chivalry in the Morte.” Essays on Malory. Ed. J.A.W. Bennett. Oxford:

Clarendon, 1963. 64-103. Print.

---. “The Place of the Quest of the Holy Grail in the Morte Darthur’.” MLR 48 (1953):

391-97. Print.

Twomey, Michael W. “The Voice of Aurality in the Morte Darthur.” Arthuriana 13.4

(Winter 2003): 103-18. Print.

Walsh, John Michael. “Malory’s Characterization of Elaine of Astolat.” Philological

Quarterly 59.2 (Spring, 1980): 140-49. Print.

117

Walters, Lori. Lancelot and Guinevere: A Casebook. New York: Garland Pub., 1996.

Print. Arthurian Characters and Themes 4, Garland Reference Library of the

Humanities 1513.

Wheeler, Bonnie. “Romance and Parataxis and Malory: The Case of Sir Gawain’s

Reputation.” Arthurian Literature 12 (1993): 109-32. Print.

Whetter, K. S. “Characterization in Malory and Bonnie.” Arthuriana 19.3 (Fall, 2009):

123-35.

---. Understanding Genre and Medieval Romance. Burlington: Ashgate, 2008. Print.

Whitehead, F. “Launcelot’s Penance.” Essays on Malory Ed. J.A.W. Bennett. 1963.

Oxford, Clarendon. 104-13. Print.

Whiting, B. J. “Gawain: His Reputation, His Courtesy and His Appearance in Chaucer’s

Squire’s Tale.” Mediaeval Studies 9:1 (1947): 189-234. Print.

Whitworth, Charles W. “The Sacred and the Secular in Malory’s ‘Tale of the

Sankgreall.” Yearbook of English Studies 5 (1975): 19-29. Print.

Wilson, Robert H. “Addenda on Malory’s Minor Characters.” The Journal of English and

Germanic Philology 55:4 (1956): 563-87. Print.

---. “Caxton and Malory.” A Manuel of Writings in Middle English 1050-1500 Ed. Albert

E. Hartung. New Haven: Yale U. P., 1927. vol 3. 757-810. Print.

---. Characterization in Malory: A Comparison with His Sources. Chicago: University of

Chicago Libraries, 1934. Print.

---. “The ‘Fair Unknown’ in Malory.” PMLA 58.1 (Mar., 1943): 1-21. Print.

---. “Malory’s Naming of Minor Characters.” The Journal of English and Germanic

Philology 43:3 (Jul., 1943): 364-85. Print.

118