CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY I IDRmRIOOE

THE MJRI'E DARIHUR: PARI'S VII AND VIII

A thesis sul:mitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in

English

by

William Alan Vaughn

May 1985 The Thesis of William Alan Vaughn is approved:

David M. Andersen

California State University, Northridge

ii TABLE OF

Chapter

1. Introcluction • • • • • • • 1

2. The Historical Model • 4

The Judgment of God 4

The Duel of Chivalry . . .. . 6

3. Malory 1 s Conception of Chivalry and the Trial by Combat • • • • • • • • • 8

The Fundamental Virtue of Action: Prowess • 9

The Appearance of Action • 13

Brute Strength for God: The Religious Duty of Fighting • • • 15

Winning Worship: The Desire for Honor • 19

The Conflict of Honor and Goodness • 21

The Conflict of Personal and Collective Honor 24

The ~rtal Magic of the Trial by Carbat 26

The Idealizatioo of Knighthood • • • • . . . . 28

4. T-he Trial by Carbat in the Morte Darthur Parts VII and VIII • • • • • • 31

"The Poisoned Apple" 36

"The Knight of the Cart" • • 42

"Slander and Strife" • • -...... 47

Aftennath of Gareth 1 s Death: Lance lot 1 s Honorable Defense • • • • · • • • • 56

s. Conclusion • • • • • • ...... 62 . 0

iii Notes 64

Bibliogra:fhy 68

iv TRIAL BY ca.181\T IN

'THE M)RI'E DARI'HUR: PARI'S VII AND VIII

by

William Alan Vaughn

Master of Arts in English

The trial by combat in Sir Thomas Malory's Morte Darthur has often been discussed by critics as an important plot element in the tragedy of the Round Table fellCMship, w'hich occurs in parts VII and

VIII: yet little attention has been focused on the thematic significance of the trial. The thesis is an analysis and evaluation of Malory' s thematic use of the trial by canbat in the Morte Darthur, parts VII and VIII. After the introduction in chapter one, a brief account of the historical trial by canbat, emphasizing the ethics and psychology of primitive European justice, is presented in Chapter two.

Chapter three is devoted to presenting the trial by canbat as the embodiment of several chivalric values such as: Violent action, honor, and the idealization of knighthood. Literary and anthropological studies are consulted to support findings. Chapter four is a thematic analysis of the actual canbat trials in part VII and the rejection of the trial in part VIII. Examples from key episodes are exami·ned to demonstrate how Malory' s literary canbat trial reflects the worldliness of Lancelot and the fellowship's shift away from an active belief in divine intervention, which is paramount in the historical trial. The fellowship's dependence on an idealistic, archaic mode of justice, one which separates appearance from reality, and honor from goodness, sets loose the destructive actions of Aggravain and Mordred in part VIII. Arthur's rejection of the trial by combat, which reflects a shift toward r~alism, contributes to social Chaos and the tragic division of the Round Table fellowship.

vi CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Critics of Sir Thanas Malory' s Morte Darthur have devoted a good

deal of attention to explaining the various causes and agents Which

lead to the destruction of King Arthur's Round Table fellowship.

Within this body of criticism, the trial by canbat in Malory' s last

two talesl has been alluded to primarily as an ~rtant plot element which provides a climactic resolution in "The Poisoned Apple" and "The

Knight of the Cart." Yet the thematic function of the trial by canbat, which develops through the t\\0 successfully executed trials in the episodes mentioned above and also through Arthur's rejection of the trial in "Slander and Strife," has not yet been fully examined.

The three episodes mentioned all share a similar sequence of events:

Guinevere is accused of treason and is rescued fran being burnt at the stake by Lancelot. Although sane critics have ccmnented on the trial by canbat and the recurring rescue scenes in the last tales, there has been no atterrpt to relate the explicit action of the trial to the nore implicit thematic patterns found in the tragedy.

The purpose of the present study is therefore to examine the thematic function of the trial by canbat in Malory' s last tales. That

Arthur's court rejoices in the successfully executed trials by canbat in the seventh tale is not surprising, because aside from a judicial process, the trial itself is an adventure which provides the knight a chance to test and prove his worth: " . • • trial through adventure is

1 2

the real meaning of the knight 1 s ideal existence ... 2 Adventure, the

essential feature of romance literature, is employed in the trial by

combat to establish social order. Yet the significance of the trial

goes beyond this practical application. The cx:mbat trial embodies the

chivalric philosophy of violent action, as well as the knighthood 1 s

need for visual manifestations to externalize abstract values such as

justice.

Chapter three of this study deals with these associations as well

as the intimate relation between the combat trial and the Chivalric

code of honor. Yet the most important issue to the study of the

combat trial in the last tales is Malory 1 s transformation of the

historic model of the trial, which was based on a belief in

providential intervention, into a literary trial Which reflects the

worldliness of Lancelot, and is based on the self-idealism of

knighthood itself. Therefore the purpose of Chapter t\\10 is to set

forth the original concept of the trial, whidh is a "judgrrent of God."

In the last tales, the knights abaOOon the divine meaning of the

original trial in favor of their am nortal magic. Chapter four deals with the actual trials in the "The Poisoned Apple, " "The Knight of the

Cart" and the rejection of the trial in "Slander and Strife." Chapter

four demonstrates in these episodes the ideas discussed in Chapter three. In "The Poisoned Apple" and "The Knight of the Cart," the social order of the Round Table fellOW'ship is maintained through a reverent belief and adherence to the archaic ritual of the trial by combat, which, as a mode of legal procedure has "no real logical connection between satisfying the form and providing truth or untruth."3 In "Slander and Strife," Aggravain and Mordred make public 3

the adultery of Lancelot and Guinevere. Arthur can oo longer ignore

the facts of this reality, and thus he is forced to reject the trial by combat as a means of resolving the scandal. The loss of the

formally sanctioned aambat trial in this instance leads to immediate and irreversible social chaos When Lancelot accidentally kills Gareth

While rescuing the queen by force. Gawain VCMS to avenge the death of his slain kinsmen and from that point the fellowship is broken into the warring clans of Lancelot and Arthur.

The legendary material that Malory inherited necessitated the destruction of the Arthurian fellowship: yet it is Malory•s unique interpretation of the tragedy that makes his book worthy of investigation beyond source material. For Malory, the tragedy is imminent in the last tale because Arthur•s ideal society cannot continue to believe the illusion of the trial by CCI'Ii:>at-nor can they continue to live without the illusion. The rejection of the trial in the eighth tale is not in itself the cause of the tragedy no m:>re than are the successful trials in the seventh tale the cause of order. The trials are, however, reflections of the human notivations, idealistic and realistic, that are the source of the tragedy. OlAPTER 2

The Historical Model

Unlike Arthur's Round Table, the trial by combat is not of a

literary origin but rather of an historical origin. This.chapter

presents basic information on the historical trial by combat,

emphasizing the philosophy behind the process more than actual

procedures, for the purpose of providing a basis for further

discussion of the trial in Malory. Malory's literary trial differs

considerably fran much of its historical ancestor, yet a brief survey

of the historical trial by combat can give us sane idea of heM the

primitive mind approaches matters of justice, an idea which will gain

relevance as our study progresses.

The Judgment of God

The oath, the ordeal and the trial by carbat are all forms of the

judicium Dei, which is an appeal to the supernatural to decide the

innocence or guilt of the accused. The oath was a simple testirrony of

one's innocence, sworn before the presence of God, and under the

threat of divine vengeance the oath was taken as proof of one's

innocence. The trial by ordeal called for the accused person to

subject himself to some painful exercise such as submerging a hand

into a pot of boiling water. The resultant degree of burning on the hand would indicate either innocence or guilt. Whether the oath or

the ordeal was taken, the result was regarded as divine judgment.

4 5

When, in A.D. 501, King Gundebald of the Burgundians suspected

that many oath takers were successfully escaping punishment by

perjuring themselves, he established the judicial camat, so that the

defendant and plaintiff could "decide the controversy by dint of

S\'v'Ord." 4 "The judicial canbat is an ordeal, a bilateral ordeal. •

It was a sacral process. What triumphed was not brute force but

truth. The combatant that was worsted was a convicted perjurer"

(PolloCk and Maitland 600).

The judicial duel was still a judgroont of God, yet the bilateral,

campetitive nature of the combat gave the accused, for the first time,

a chance to actively "defend" his case, which was hardly possible in

carrying a red-hot iron in the unilateral ordeal. The ordeal

presented men as "passive objects of divine scrutiny" (Bloch 21),

while the judicial duel put divine justice into an activity that was

at least familiar to medieval man, hand-to-hand canbat. Yet the basic

premise of the judgment of God--that justice is manifested by the

outcome of a divinely sanctioned ritual--still applied to the judicial

duel.

The nature of the judgment of God is not based on any rational

consideration of evidence, testimony, or circumstances as is our

modern method of legal process. In the judicium Dei, man sul:mits all

of these facts to God, who alone knc:Ms the causality of all events.

The primitive concept of justice is one in which "legal process

remains indistinguishable fran divine proc,ess, human will fran godly

will, positive law fran divine law."5

This conception of justice results out of the conception of an

"imnanent" universe, where all things, human, natural, and divine, are ' 0 6

inherently connected and affect each other. Since Gcx:l is the cnly one

Who clearly understands these mysterious interrelationships, man often appeals to him in matters of justice. The judgn-ent of Gcx:l is thus seen as an unerring method of justice, because Gcx:l is perfect:

Chance has no place in such a world, for it is assumed that

God remains essentially watchful of men 1 s actions • • • the

assumed targets of divine judgment--inherent innocence or

guilt--can never be known directly. They becane apparent

only through the secondary effects, reoampense or penalty,

which they engender. 6

The cutcare of the canbat, Which is the secondary effect stated above, establishes judicial truth, which "exists independently of the notion of CQgl1i tive truth"* (Bloch 46) , although it is assumed that the two always coincide. This traditional separation of judicial truth arrl cognitive truth, between appearance and reality, is one of the central conflic.ts that results out of the CCI'tbat trial in Malory 1 s Ias1: tales.

The Duel of Chivalry

The trial by combat was brought to England by William the

Conquerer and was used in both criminal and civil cases, especially in murder cases and land disputes. By the fourteenth century, 'hoNever, the courts of chivalry had significant!y roodified the ancient trial by combat into What has been called the duel of chivalry.7 This type of trial by combat took on several features of chivalry. Ideally, only

Jmight.s with a spotlessly clean record of honor were allOINed to engage in the trial (Baldick 23-24). The knights were dressed in full

* Italics mine 7

armour, rode on horseback, and fought with spears and S'I.Urds. Like

the ancient judicial battle, the duel of chivalry was fought in front

of witnesses, yet the chivalric contest was also surrounded by great

ceremonial pc:rrp and pageantry, in the fashion of the tournament. The

duel usually terminated with the death of the vanquished knight, "the

prize" of the victor.8

In the knightly duel we see the spirit of chivalry taking legal

form, 9 as the sport of chivalry is assimilated into the judicial

process. In the ~rte Darthur, the chivalric trial by ccrcbat reflects

another shift CMa.Y fran the impartial judgment of God theory, as rrore

emphasis is placed on the nobility of the combatants than on the process of the judgrrent. The chivalric version of the canbat trial in

Malory results out of the knights' intense desire to prove their worth through adventure. The objective of chivalry in the Motte Darthur is to establish a way of life in which noblemen do have control over nature. Malory's knights are dynamic creatures: they "take" adventures in order to overpa.o.rer the chaotic mystery of the world. In

the trial by combat 8 the knights will similarly ircpose their prc:Mess to achieve justice. The traditional appeal to God, which is in fact an admission of man's lack of control, is therefore contradictory to

Malory '_ s conception of chivalry, which the next chapter focuses on in sane depth. rnAPTER 3

Malory 1 s Conception of Chivalry and the Trial by canbat

It is true Malory emphasizes the martial aspect of knighthcxxl

over the court!y sophistication of the French rcrnances, yet this does

not mean that Malory 1 s conception of chivalry is primarily practical

or historical. The "flowering" of chivalry in the ~rte Darthur is

far more·than an institutional code for knighthood~ it is the

celebration of the best qualities of man, and the pursuit of actions which will "prove" that those qualities exist. The fundamental human value of the chivalric code is loyalty, because all other virtues--generosi t.y, courtesy, prCMess, and humility-are generated out of a sense of loyalty. Knights of the "High Order of Knighthcxxl"

share each others 1 fortunes as well as the bond of loyalty. When one knight is honored, the entire order of knighthood is honored. This is why Lancelot is so beloved of his fel!CM knights~ his anazing feats of prowess are shared by all. Conversely, when a knight is shamed, he shames all knights. We see an example of this when the treachery of

Meliagaunt is discovered in "The Knight of the cart" episode: "And when the kynge and quene and all the lordis knew off the. treson of sir

Mellyagaun.te, they were all ashamed of hys behalffe"

( 662. 5-7) • 10 Thus the significance of chivalry is not only to direct the lives of individual knights, but also to create an "Order of

Chi va 1 ry, " that absorbs both the honor and shame of individual actions. P. J. c. Field cooments on this aspect of Malarian chivalry:

The essence of chivalry, for Malory, was its unity. It is

8 9

not merely that he had little taste or talent for making

intellectual distinctions: he saw, al.nost certainly roc>re

intuitively than consciously, the various virtues as

generating and sustaining one another in war, love and

religion, from the most elevated nobility of mind to

competence in action. He recognises individual

variations--that one knight may have more stamina and

another more strength, that a third may be brave but

cruel--but his whole book stresses the tendency of the

virtues to generate one another and to produce action in the

world. (48)

The Fundamental Virtue of Action: Pr<:Mess

The· knight's virtue is proven by his actions. "The Healing of

Sir Urry" reinforces this point when Arthur addresses the knight who has just been healed of his near fatal, sorceress-cursed wounds:

Than kynge Arthur asked sir Urre hc::1tl he felte hymselff.

'Al my good and gracious lorde, I felte myselffe never so

lusty.'

'Than woll ye juste and do ony annys?' seyde kynge Arthur.

( 668.42-44)

In asking a convalescent knight if he can return to the field of battle, Arthur intends no hurror; his natural assumption here is that a knight who feels healthy should be proving it in tournaments and adventures. Arthur is eager to see Sir Urry return to feats of anns because only then can the king truly believe that the injured knight has returned to health. Only then will Urry' s health becare visible, 10

tangible, and therefore, believable.

If action is proof of qualities unseen, we can begin to see the

logic of the trial by combat. The alleged act of the treason is

buried in the past: innocence or guilt cannot be proven by mere

accusation. However, if innocence or guilt can be "proven" through

action before an audience, then the trial by combat makes perfect

sense as a method of legal procedure in the court of chivalry. SUch

familiar phrases as ''making good" one's claim, and Lancelot' s "preve

of hondys," are indicative of this reliance on proof.

The two trials in The Book of Lancelot and Guinevere aid in

revealing the treachery of two knights, Sir Pinel and Sir Meliagaunt.

In their respective episodes, "The Poisoned Apple" and "The Knight of

the Cart," these knights are the instigators of the evil which results

in an accusation of treason laid against Guinevere, and consequently

the trial by combat. In both episodes, Guinevere is proven innocent

of the charge, and the source of evil is eliminated from the

fellowship. The trial by caribat is thus successful in preserving the

innocent and instrumental in eliminating wickedness from the

fellowship.

The dependence on action in identifying evil is not unique to the

trial by combat. Combating what appears to be evil with imnediate

action, without a great deal of thought, is characteristic of Malory's knights, who tend to see right and wrong on a narrow, simplistic, and

subjective scale.

A minor incident in "The Knight of the Cart" dem:::nstrates this tendency. When Lancelot requests the famous cart ride which will transport him to the captive queen, he is denied by the carter. 11

Lancelot swiftly eliminates this problem by backharrling the man to his death with a single stroke. This act proves to be quite effective in persuading the remaining carter to drive Lancelot anywhere he desires.

Of particular interest here is Lance lot 1 s expediency. He is above arguing with a carter and he has no time to waste in discussing the matter. Still, to kill a man for such an offense seems· rather excessive. The importance of this incident in relation to Lancelot 1 s character is not the fairness or unfairness of his action, but the intention and attitude of his action. Here is the passage:

'Thou shalt nat go with me 1 ' seyde the carter.

Whan sir Launcelot lepe to hym and gaff hym backwarde

with hys gauntelet a rermayne, that he felle to the erthe

starke dede, than the tothir carter, hys felow, was aferde

and wente to have gone the same way. Arrl than he sayde,

'Fayre lorde, sauff my lyff, and I shall brynge you where

ye \tiOll.'

'Than I charge the,' seyde sir Launcelot, 'that thou

dryve me and thys charyote unto sir Mellyagaunce yate. 1

(654.1.1-18)

We notice that at no time does Lancelot verbally express any anger or frustration in eliminating the uncooperative carter; he expresses himself through action. This is Lancelot 1 s natural reaction: To conquer problems with violent action. Lancelot never attempts to

"outwit" an opponent, nor does he take time to contemplate the consequences of his actions, for these cerebral processes only complicate and retard action. Instead, Lancelot acts instinctively, spontaneously, and often in cold blood. M. C. Bradbrook has called 12

Lancelot' s condition one of "complete simplicity, a carbination of

violence and innocence" (27). The words "s:ilnplicity" and "innocence"

describe precisely the unobstructed will of Lancelot, and his

singleness of mind, intent on rescuing Guinevere ~ captivity.

When Lancelot can act without thinking, when he engages in

innocent violence, he takes control of the situation. However, when

in the few times he cannot resort to a violent physical confrontation

with the enemy, he loses control. We can look again. to "The Knight of

the cart" to find such a situation. When Lancelot is riding through a

forest toward Meliagaunt's castle, he is ambushed by thirty of

Meliagaunt' s archers who bar the way. The archers instruct Lancelot

to stay off the road, threatening to kill his horse if he does not

comply. Angered by the idea of such a cowardly act, Lancelot

threatens to kill them. The archers then begin shooting at him and his horse. Lancelot is utterly frustrated by the many "dychys and hedgys" that prevent him fran caning within his sword's length of the

archers. The fact that the archers are cowards-in deperrling on their

thirty-to-one number advantage and in shooting his horse--only adds to

Lancelot's frustration of not being able to retaliate. In this condition, Lancelot resorts to expressing himself in epigrams: ' "'Alas, for shamel' seyde sir Launcelot, 'that ever cne knyght shulde betray anothir knight! But hyt ys an oldeseyde saw: "A gocx1 man ys never in daungere but whan he ys in the daungere of a coward."'"

( 653. 38-40) • The frustration voiced by Lancelot is echoed by Malory himself:

Than sir Launcelot walked

of hys arrnoure, hys· shylde, and hys speare. Wyte you well 13

he was full sore anoyed1 And full lathe he was for to leve

onythynge that longed unto hym, for he drad sore the treson

of sir Mellyagaunce. (653.41-44)

In contrasting Lancelot • s passive encounter with archers to his

active encounter with the carter, we can gain sane insight into the

philosophy of action that Lancelot, Malory• s best knight, subscribes

to. When Lancelot carmot confront his enemy with violence, he becanes

emotional, and sanewhat pathetic as well, especially when we consider

that he loses the essential possession of a knight, his horse. He is

not prepared, emotionally or physically, to defend himself against

enemies that will not fight on his tenns. Conversely, when Lancelot

can engage himself physically, he beccmes non-enut.ional, simplistic,

and innocent. Most importantly, Lancelot understands that only

through action are tournaments "WOn and queens saved. Contenplation

has little to do with achievement in Malory• s chivalric "WOrld.

The fighting prowess in Malory then, has a fundamental

psychological value as well as being the substance of adventures. The

trial by combat exploits the knight's aggressive mental order to

establish legal order. A question of justice assumes that one party

is wrong, and the trial by combat is the most direct method to

discov_er the unjust party. The knight fighting for a 11 wrongful

quarrel 11 will be corrected by being physically crushed by the victor,

as the Round Table fellowship witnesses the visual externalization of the wheels of justice.

The Ag>earance of Action

The Round Table knight's simplistic view of the "WOrld ultimately 14

depends on visual appearances. "All value in Malory requires sane

form of visual manifestation" (Miko 216). It rray also be said that

the recognition of evil depends on appearance as well. Any true

knight of prowess, such as Lancelot, will depend on what he has proof

of. If he has no proof of evil, the knight 1 s assUIIptions of the world

tend to be as good as his own character, which means that the best

knight is the most vulnerable to unseen evil. Malory explains this paradox:

• • • for ever a man of worshyp and of proues dredis but

lytyll of perels, for they wene that every rran be as they

bene. But ever he that faryth with treson puttyth oftyn a

trew man in grete daungere. ( 659. 38-41)

This restates Lancelot 1 s "oldesaw" concerning the danger of

CCtlduct.

The acceptance of appearance as reality is noWhere more evident than il) the trial by c:x:nbat. Justice, an abstract concept, needs to be expressed in a concrete, s:i.rrple fashion that will satisfy the Round

Table community. The righteous judgment nrust be achieved through the violent confrontation of two chanpians. In a sense, justice is acted out, so that Arthur can watch it happen and believe it is real. In the Arthurian civilization of action, the trial by combat provides a method whereby the values of innocence, guilt, honor and shame can be 15

defined on the battlefield through a violent contest of men and arms.

Brute Strength. for God: The Religious Duty of Fighting

The brute strength of knights and the force of providential intervention in the trial by conbat may seem unrelated or even at odds in nature, rut just the q:posite is true. The providential aspect of the trial is easily assimilated into the martial chivalry Which is traditionally seen in the Middle Ages as the guardian, protector, and

Champion of Christianity.

We must remember that knighthood began not as a religious institution, but rather as a secular movement arising out of feudalism. The knight was essentially a feudal warrior. He pledged his loyalty as a fighting man to a lord in return for a conditional gift of land. As the feudal wars between landowners became an incessant fact of life, the power of the knight over the unarmed population--including the clergy--became virtually uncontrollable by any public authority.

In an attempt to restrain the violence of the knights, the church asserted its authority in decreeing fran 989 to 1050, "Peace of God" and the "Truce of God. " Under these sanctions, the knights were restriGted to fighting only an certain days, and only against certain classes. And although violators were threatened with exocrnnunication, the effect of the peace movements eventually fostered in the knights a religious identification with the church. The psychological effects of the peace movements were highly significant in the Christianization of knighthood, as historian Frances Gies relates: 16 I

••• their impact on knightly psychology and hence on the

institution of knighthcod was significant. The collective

oaths helped to create a class consciousness that included

acknowledgment of a personal responsibility to the Church

and to the unanned population. (19-20}

In Gies • words, "the Church adopted knighthcod," by sanctifying the

knight through the cerenony of "dubbing, " and through the blessing of

his anoour ( 20) •

Knighthood became an "order" through the Christian church, and

the church took full advantage of the association between the t\o.Q by

enlisting the knights, as "soldiers of Christ," to fight against the

enemies of the Church in the Holy Land. The church's creation of military orders of knights, dedicated entirely to Holy War and defending Christian fortresses in the Holy Land, is seen in the

Knights Templars and the Hospitalers. These knightly orders were characterized by their "ascetic vows of poverty, obedience and chastity which their members swore ••• and by their judicial subjection to ecclesiastical authority" (Keen 180). The knight who fought in the Holy Land "wore the imaginary badge of the militia

Christi, Christ's soldiery, in the eyes of the twelfth century surely the insignia of true knighthcod" (Gies 46).

In Caxton's The Order of Chivalry we can see that this perception--of fighting as a religious duty--survived as an ideal of knighthood well into the fifteenth century:

God of glory hath chosen knyghtes by cause that by force of .I annes they vaynquyshe the mescreauntes, whiche daily laboure

for to destroye holy chirche. • • • Thoffyce of a knyght is 17

to maynteyne and deffende his lord wordly or terryen, for a

kyng ne no hyhe baron hath no power to mayntene

ryghtwysnesse in his men without ayde and helpe. • By

the Knyghtes ought to be mayntened and kept justyce." 11

This is the essence of the chanpion~ he fights for those who cannot

fight. The knight's semi-sacred status is derived from the idea

that God blesses certain men with the "force of armes." In the trial

by combat, it is naturally assumed that the chanpion fighting on the

side of right, God's side, will necessarily be blessed with enough

strength to overcome his opponent. Likewise, it is asstnned that the knight fighting a ''wrongeful quarrel," whether or not he is conscious of his wrongness, will never be all

In this way, God's righteous judgment becomes a reality. Julian

Pitt-Rivers' comment concerning the ordeal nature of the judicial combat is applicable to Malory:

God would surely not protect a perjurer who had taken his

name in vain. In this way the realities of power, be they

no more than the hazards of the field of honour, were

endo.red with divine sanction. ( 29)

For this reason it is no wonder that Malory presents the many

jousting episodes with a reverent admiration for p:rc::7oll'ess. There is little question that Malory himself saw chivalry as something that should glorify Christianity, 12 and the frequent fighting scenes are an integral part of this. Yet what the knights themselves aspire to in the story seems to be quite a different matter. Professor Vinaver has made the distinction between two types of chivalry in the Marte 18

Darthur: The spiritual chivalry of Galahad symbolized by the Grail

castle Corbenic, and the courtly Chivalry of Lancelot symbolized by

Camelot, the capital of worldly chivalry.13 Lancelot's worldly

chivalry aims at proving one's worth through adventure, with the

desire of being recognized as valorous and honorable in the eyes of

men. The spiritual chivalry of Galahad, en the other hand, seeks to

1 i ve by the altruistic ideals of the Christian ethos, in an effort to

be found worthy in the eyes of God. When Malory refers to Lancelot as

"the best knyght of the "WOrlde," he literally means the best '"worldly"

knight (Bradstock 217). The title as the best of "cny synfull rran of

the worlde" also reveals Lancelot' s knightly status; he is essentially

worldly and thus essentially sinful.

The trials by combat in the last tales certainly reflect the

worldly Chivalry of Lancelot. There is little menticn of providential

intervention in the battles. We are told once that "God "WOll have a

stroke in every batayle" (659.6-7), yet it is Lancelot who continually

asserts his CMI1 ability to ''make good" Guinevere's honor. Of course,

Lancelot believes that God has granted him this ability, yet as he

admits to a hermit in the Grail Quest, his rrotivation has never been

to carry out God's will, but rather his CMI1:

'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] Gaddis sake, but for to wynne "WOrship

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

nought I thanked God of hit. (539. 7-11)

A comment made by Arthur concerning Lancelot's perforrrance in the ' ; 19

combat trial, "he trustyth so much uppon hys hondis and hys myght"

(682.43-44), also reflects Lancelot 1 s self-centered trust in his own

physical strength to bring about judicial truth, which in turn

prarotes the 11\tJOrship" of his irrlividual reputation.

Winning Worship: The Desire for Honor

The worship Lancelot speaks of, which we row refer to as honor,

is perhaps the principal notivating force in Malory 1 s \tJOrld. As Derek

Brewer points out in his edition of Malory 1 s last tales, honor is

responsible for l:x:>th the foundation and collapse of the High Order of

Knighthood:

Arthur 1 s honour has created the High Order of Knighthood,

foundation stone of a potentially ideal society. The same

honour forces him, once the adultery is public, to enforce

public law by corrlemning his queen to be burnt at the stake.

Lancelot 1 s honour leads him to perform brave deeds and

loyally to keep his personal Obligations whatever the cost

to himself. The same horx>ur forces him to rescue the Queen,

whose love was also the inspiration of his honour. His

honourable love and his love of honour lead him to be

disloyal to Arthur, and also to conflict with an aspect of

1 worship 1 as presented in the Pentecostal oath of the High .

Order of Knighthood-that he should take on n6 battles in a

wrongful quarrel for no love. ( 30-31)

If we consider this, the trial by ccmbat takes on added significance, for in addition to determining the innocence or guilt of the accused, the publicly witnessed canbat trial strongly affects the honor of its 20

participants as well. Honor is generally obtained through the

society1 s recognition of a person 1 s fulfillment of an ideal pattern of behavior that has been established by that society. In Malory1 s world, this means fighting heroically and fairly in war or in tournaments, and also pledging loyalty to the man Who holds greater hOIX>r, King Arthur. Part of the ideal pattern of ccnduct is set forth in Malory 1 s Pentecostal Oath cited by Brew-er:

• • • than the kynge stablyssed all the knyghtes and gaff

them rychesse and londys; and charged them never to do

outerage nothir nourthir, and allwayes to fle treson, and to

gyff mercy unto hym that askith mercy, uppon payne of

forfiture [of their] worship and lordship of kynge Arthure

for evirmore; and allwayes to do ladyes, damesels, and

jantilwomen and wydowes [socour:] strengthe hem in hir

ryghtes, and never to enforce them, uppon payne of dethe.

Also, that no man take no batayles in a wrongefull quarrel

for no love ne for no worldis goodis. So unto thys were all

knyghtis sworne of the Table Rounde, both olde and younge,

and every yere so were the[y] sworne at the hyghe feste of

Pentecoste. (75.36-76.2)

It is clear from this passage that good behavior is expected of each knight, and it is implicit that honor comes from goodness. The so-called "flowering of chivalry, .. seen particularly in The Tale of

Gareth, operates on this principle. Similarly, the honor of the group and of the individual are synonyrrous at this point. In the seventh and eighth tales, however, we see a great discrepancy between

Lance lot 1 s goodness and his honor. We also see a discrepancy between 21

Lancelot' s personal honor and the hOIXJr of the Round Table fellowship,

anbodied in Arthur.

In relation to the CICX'Ibat trial in Malory' s last tales, the dual

concepts of shame and honor present two main issues for discussion:

First is the conflict WhiCh arises f~ Lancelot's heroic attempt to

maintain honor and goodness at the same time; second is the conflict

between personal honor and the group honor of the Round Table

fellowship. The problems created by these t'WO conflicts are at least

temporarily resolved by the trial by CICX'Ibat in The Book of Lancelot

and Guinevere. In the last tale, however, the rejection of the trial

negates the usual reconciliation of personal and public honor, and of goodness arrl honor. By rejecting the only method with which he could

unify the fellowship, Arthur sets loose the forces that eventually divide the fellowship.

The Conflict of Honor and Goodness

In the last tales, Guinevere is suspected of murder once and adultery twice but in all cases the official Charge is treascn: "(For the custom was such at that tyrne that all maner of [s]harneful* deth was called treson) 11 (614.23-25). Accused of the poisoning death of

Sir Patriae in "The Poisoned Apple, 11 Guinevere, on her knees, begs Sir

Bors to defend her in the combat trial, relating to him her worst fear: " ••• 'other else [I] shall have a shameful! dethe, and thereto I never offended'" (616.12-13). For Guinevere, to die with shame is of more concern than to die for a crime she did not cx:mnit.

* Italics Mine 22

Thus the trial by

The Round Table's recognition of Guinevere's honor after the trial assumes that her deeds are honorable, and in this case the asstnnption is a correct one.

The dramatic conflicts between honor and goodness arise when the fellowship's assumption of Guinevere's honorable behavior does not coincide with her actual conduct, which is in fact adulterous. This is the case in "The Knight of the Cart" episode, where Guinevere has carmitted adultery and is proven honorable in the trial by CClli:>at. It becomes clear from Lancelot and Guinevere's discussions that the avoidance of shame is the only thing that really matters:

'And wyte you well, ma.dam, the boldenesse of you and me "WOll

brynge us to shame and sclaurrlir, and that were me lothe to

se you dishonoured. And that is the cause I take \lPIX)Il me

more for to do for damesels and maydyns than ever y ded

toforne, that men sholde understonde my joy and my delite ys

my plesure to have ado for damesels and maydyns.' (612.9-14)

Throug~out their love affair, neither Lancelot nor Guinevere ever mentions any feelings of guilt that we might expect to develop from such a situation. Yet despite the Christian context of Malory's tale--which would normally value moral behavior above reputation--the important values to be dealt with in Malory, and especially with

Lancelot, "are not guilt and innocence, but shame and honor" (Larribert

178). 23

In his essay, "Honour and Shame in Sir Gawain and the Green

Knight," J. A. Burrows cites anthropological studies which recall the

theoretical distinction between shame and guilt. It seems that the

distinction between the internal feelings of both guilt and shame has

to do with the person's awareness of an audience. A person feels

shame when he is cpenly criticized by an audience or when he imagines

that an audience has criticized him. In short, shame is a reaction to

other people's criticism: it is often accompanied by a sense of

failure in relation to the achievements of others. Guilt, hONever, is

an internalized conviction of sin, based on personal values, and

therefore requires no audience.14 Tb the extent that public values

influence personal values, society has a role in producing guilt

feelings, but not in the direct immediate way in which society can

produce shame in its menibers.

Lancelot and Guinevere do not define their worth internally, that

is, in terms of guilt: their worth is defined by the public's perception of them, and that means that maintaining a sinless appearance is vastly more important than maintaining sinless conduct.

When Guinevere's reputation is questioned by circumstances-a poisoned knight or blood-stained sheets-the public trial by CCI'Ibat functions to prevent her shame and maintain in the public eye an appearance of goodness. Whether she is actually innocent or guilty in her actions is of little concern.

A world in which honor is placed above goodness, in which a good reputation is valued more than good conduct, would seem to contradict the Christian guilt ethos of the Middle Ages where one's objective in life is to live by moral rules of conduct in order to help secure 24 immortality in heaven. The life of chivalry, however, as s. J. Mike points out, seeks to assure immortality an earth through brave deeds and through an aJ:Pearance of perfection:

Perfection assures man of the imrortality of menory. Shame

is assurance of dishonourable death and oblivion.

Going to heaven is no reward here, for it is the earthly

endeavour that seeks final significance through chivalry;

that endeavour must endure in an earthly sense. The point

of chivalry, as inti.nated above, is to provide a manner of

living that defies oblivion. (217)

This is why the appearance of goodness must be maintained.

Lancelot and Guinevere never intend to sacrifice their honor for their love affair; they fully intend to maintain both at once. This complies with a statement made by Julian Pitt-Rivers: "An action may be potentially dishonourable, but it is only when this action is publicly condemned that it dishcnours" (37).

The Conflict of Personal and Collective Honor

Arthur•s concern for Lancelot and Guinevere•s questionable conduct in the last tale is based not an jealousy or an interest in their tndividual lives, but on the honor of the fellowship. The dishonor of any member of the group will affect the collective honor of all members. This is a common principle not only of the honor/shame value system but also of the medieval community in general. D. w. Robertson explains the relationship of the individual and his group in the Jredieval ccmn.mity:

••• a man•s interests were naturally centered on the 25

welfare of his group, which was, in effect, a part of his

own identity. The behavior of the other members of the

group to which he belonged was a matter of vital interest to

him, since the effects of that behavior on his own welfare

were i.rrmediately a~ent. {3)

This is the basic premise of Arthur's fellowship, yet as the

story progresses we see Lancelot pulling away ~ the fellowship, emerging as an individual with individual desires and responsibilities. Throughout the seventh tale, we rarely see Lancelot with the rest of the knights: he exiles h.ilnself frcm the court when

Guinevere scorns him: in disguise, he fights against the Round Table knights in two separate tournaments: after "The Great Tournament," he heals his wounds at a hermitage, While Sir Bora relays information about him to King Arthur. As king, Arthur €!tb:Xlies the collective honor of the Round Table. His ooncern is to bring Lancelot back to the fellowship while Lancelot 1s personal interests draw him ever further away from his group identity. This separation of individual and collective honor is central to the tragedy, as Derek Brewer has pointed out:

Arthur himself may be thought to be at fault in that he is

concerned so entirely with community, that is, the pUblic

virtues and necessities, that he neglects private virtues

and necessities: that is, he fails to cherish his wife as

an individual. Lancelot, on the other hand, is so concerned

with his private obligations, in particular his obligation,

which is clear, however :i.nm:>ral, to,.rcrrds Guenevere, that he

denies public values.l5 26

In a sense, each trial pits one person's personal honor against

the collective honor of the ccmnunity, because any form of treason is

dishonorable and is thus an affront to the honor of the oarrmrrUty.

The suspected law breaker is pitted against the honor of the

fellCMShip.

In the episode "Slander and Strife," Arthur's public honor, his

public identity, is so damaged by Mordred's eyewitness evidence of

Guinevere's adultery that he feels he must have Guinevere burned at

the stake. "I may nat with my worshyp but my quene muste suffir

dethe" (682.9-10). This necessitates his rejection of the trial by

canbat, which in this case would fail to restore his honor.

The ~rtal Magic of the Trial by Conbat

The practice of the trial by combat in Malory's last tales

reveals a belief in a type of ritual magic that far exceeds the reliance in the "judgnent of God" concept. The ccnbat trial, in its original form, asst.nnes that the mysteries of the past can be revealed by the palpable present in the form of a battle. The participants and spectators recognize a correspondence, a divine and mysterious connection, between the deeds of the accused and the outcane of the trial. The belief in the judicium Dei is a belief in an illusion, but it is an illusion which is seen as referential: it gives meaning to sanething other than itself, namely the past.

However, if we compare this premise to the two trials in part

VII, we notice that something has drastically changed in the characters' perception of justice. The notion that the judgment of the trial corresponds to a past event seems to be all but forgotten. 27

Substituted is the belief in a new type of justice, which is entirely

limited to the canbat itself. Arthur's society seems to be no longer

concerned with the actual past or the facts of reality. The magic of

the trial by combat, rooted in the idealism of a Chivalric contest of

noble knights fighting with noble weapcns on the IOOSt noble of beasts,

overwhelms reality and truth with a magnificent illu.sion of

perfection. The trial encompasses and supercedes all available

circumstances of reality. In the perception of Arthur and his

fellowship, the past does not exist; the trial by combat is

transformed into both the means and the end of justice,

non-referential, devoid of any divine appeal, appealing instead to the

earthly nature of Arthurian chivalry and rrortal piU.oJess.

Unlike the judicium Dei, which "rests upon a belief in the

immanence of supernatural powers within a natural sptlere, ulG Malory' s

literary trial by combat operates completely within the natural

sphere. This can be seen most clearly in part VII of the Morte

Darthur, as we sense that it is Lance lot's hands rather than God's

that shape justice. Of course, it may be argued that all human

prCMeSs is a divine gift, and that Malory rarely mentions this because

to him it was an obvious assunption that needed no ccrnnent. This in

fact is the very root of the problem. The "obviousness" of a belief

in God, is for Malory's knights, one of their deepest spiritual flaws.

The theory that knights are God' s servants on earth is so entirely

taken for granted by the knights that the actual practice is

neglected. The rude awakening to this fact is the central experience of the Grail Quest for all Round Table knights, save Galahad, Bors arrl

Percival. The worldly chivalry that celebrates the best qualities of 28

mankind may be virtuaus, 17 but it is essentially an institution of and

for men, not God.

The Idealization of Knighthood

The trial by combat is molded to fit this chivalry. The

idealization of the actions of men overshadow and suppress the

"obvious" belief in divine justice to the point where it is alrrost

nonexistent as an active belief. In the worldly chivalry of the Round

Table, the ccmbat trial fosters a belief in the earthly porNer of brave

knights in shining armour. The connecting principle between the

alleged criminal act and the judgment of the combat ritual is now

based on the Round Table's reverent fascination with its own

ritual--the joust. The belief in the sinewy prowess of knights to

bring about true justice is the magic of the trial by canbat.

The knights' overdependence on their own idealistic values and

institutions has been seen as the Round Table's fundamental dilemna:

• • • there is another element fundamental to the demise of

the Round Table: its overevaluation of its own pcwers. The

source of this exaggeration of its strengths is urrloubtedly

to be found in the idealism of Arthurian chivalry. • • • we

are faced with a society which as a result of such excessive

idealization of its own powers is living psychologically

beyond its means • • • (Pochoda 106)

The knights are existing psychologically beyond their own means because their magical conception of justice necessitates "a false conception of natural law" (Frazer 35). In other \\Urds, the Round

Table fellowship, in an attempt to achieve the perfect civilization, 29

sacrifices truth for an appearance of perfection. Similarly, the

trial ~ combat is an at~ernpt to adhieve perfect justice. But perfect

justice cannot be achieved in reality, so it is an appearance of

perfect justice that must instead satisfy the fellowship. This is

aChieved through the public spectacle of oombat, whidh in turn results

in the communal agreement: "This must surely be perfect justice."

That the process is dependent of what we would consider a false

perception of reality is no hindrance to its believability, for as we

have said earlier, the chivalric mentality defines reality by

appearance, and that is the magical premise of the oombat trial.

It takes a leap of imagination to conceive of a society, in

literature or reality, that could actually believe in such a magical

system of justice. Sir James Frazer's anthropological observations of

the primitive magician are applicable to the Arthurian mentality,

especially in regards to the belief in a non-scientific process:

The prirni tive magician, however, never analyzes the mental

assumptions on which his performance is based, never

reflects on the abstract principles involved. With him, as

with the vast majority of men, logic is implicit, not

explicit: he knows magic only as a practical thing, and to

him it is always an art, never a science, the very idea of

science being foreign to his thinking. ( 35)

Similarly, in Lancelot and Guinevere, Arthur never consciously

analyzes the logic of the trial by oombat. To him, the illusion of

the trial is a practical application of prowess, for as long as

everyone accepts the judgment reached by the trial, there will be order, however illusionary. But the illusion begins to disintegrate 30

when sane knights begin to act and think for themselves rather for the

fell~hip. As Pochoda points out, the ideal fellCMship fails because

it ignores the less-than-ideal impulses of real men:

Arthurian society, as a result of such excessive ideali­

zation of itself, has lost sight of the dangerous ~ulses

of self-interest and has set free other destructive impulses

which are unrecognized by the group. {106)

By employing the trial by c:a:tbat not as a traditional appeal to God,

but rather as an a~l to the pro,..ress of ~ ~ing knights, Malory

incorporates the trial into the theme of idealism and reality. While

idealizing man's best qualities, "Chivalry too easily ignores the fact

that Iren are often petty creatures. Petty creatures are info:r:med with base desires--greed, hatred, lust and the like" (Miko 221) • In the

last tales, these realistic forces within the knights confront, and eventually overthrow the idealistic order of the Round Table civilization. The progression from idealistic acceptance to rejection of the trial by combat reflects this upsurge of realism in the last tales to which we may no,..r turn. The Trial by Ccrnbat in the t-brte Darthur

Parts VII and VIII

The following analysis of the trial by ccrti::>at in the last tales attempts to explain the effect that each trial has en the order of the

Round Table fellowship. It soon becomes clear that a successfully executed combat trial leads to order and satisfaction in Arthur's court. This ·is the case in "The Poisoned Apple" and "The Knight of the Cart. " Both episodes climax in the ooo:bat trial, which resolves the complicating action of each, and returns Arthur's court to an ordered state of neutrality, where a new complicating action can begin. The fellCMShip' s reaction to the result of the canbat trial in these two episodes is not only a reaction to one"' of their own institutions: it is a reflecticn on their am existence. For as we have seen, the trial is a microcosm of the knight's existence.l8 It is a compression of an adventure, made infinitely nore significant by a public audience who will automatically evaluate the knight's worth by his performance. It is thus possible to examine the trial as an indicator of the state of chivalry. Consequently, the factors that necessitate the abandonment of the trial in "Slander and Strife, " are the very same factors \thli.ch lead to the annihilation of the Arthurian fellCMShip.

The characters' perception of the trial by cctrbat seems to change as the tragedy progresses. In "The Poisoned Apple," the belief that the trial results in true justice is reluctant, as there is some

31 32

concern for circumstances of reality. In "The Knight of the Cart," however, the fellowship accepts, without question, the illusion of combat justice as proof of Guinevere's innocence, despite the glaring evidence of her blood-stained sheets. Then suddenly, in "Slander and

Strife, •• when Arthur is forced to publicly recognize the cirCllllStances surrounding Guinevere' s adultery, the trial by cx:rti:>at is abandoned as a useless illusion, a1e that the fellCMship will rx> lcnger accept as truth. In the end, truth becomes defined by reality rather than illusion, and this is the nature of the tragedy. The loss of the

Arthurian ideal is, more specifically, the fellowship's loss of a belief in illusions, one of the grandest being the trial by CCI'I'bat.

When circumstances of reality are considered to arrive at a judgnent of innocence or guilt~-which is in fact the premise of modern justice--the archaic practice of the trial by combat, which is oblivious to cirCI.miStantial evidence, must be abandoned.

Arthur' s forced decision to abandon the archaic trial is repre­ sentative of the Rourrl Table fellowship's inevitable nDVement fran an idealistic, archaic \tJOrld, to a Irodern \tJOrld where a1e cannot escape from the cold facts of reality. In Brewer• s \fJOrds, "The tragedy for

Malory is indeed the advent of the nodern \tJOrld. The tragedy is the collaps_e of the archaic \tJOrld ... 19 This progression tc:Mard reality in matters of justice parallels the theme of over-idealization in the last tales. 20 The knights • belief in their own power leads to an idealization which ignores both the baser qualities of men, and the religious nature of knighthood.

The Book of Lancelot and Guinevere and The Death of Arthur comprise what has been referred to in this paper as "the last tales." 33

Vinaver sees these tales fonni.ng together a self-contained tragedy of

Lancelot and the Round Table. 21 Frequent editions of the last t\«>

tales of the t-Drte Darthur i.rrlicate as nuch. 22 Yet it is iJtt:x>rtant to

establish the context of the tales in the entire cycle of the legend

Malory has assenbled, for Whether his book is one ranance or eight, 23

it is generally agreed that the book has a definite dhronOlogical

sequence of related stories that should be read in the order that the

M::>rte Darthur presents.

The significant ccntextual position of Lancelot and Guinevere is

that it follows The Tale of the Sankgreal (the Grail Quest). Malory

begins by declaring that the quest of the Sankgreal is finished and

that there is great joy in Arthur's court. The return to Arthur's

court is also a return to ~rldly ccncerns after the general failure of the knighthood to achieve the full experience of the spiritual quest.

The reason for the knighthood's failure in the quest is also worth considering before discussing the last tales. As Larry Benson asserts, Arthur and his knights trust too nuch in values of a rrutable world (207). Lancelot is the exemplary figure which represents worldly behavior in the spiritual realm of the quest. Malory frequently mentioos "instability" as Lancelot' s main fault and critics generally agree.

The unstable character of worldly dti.valry nani.fests itself in several ways. Although Lancelot realizes that the seardh for the

Grail is a spiritual quest, :iOOicated by his sincere repentance, ''he cannot," as Mary Hynes-Berry claims, "fully cOIIIIli.t himself to act always according to the requirements of the Christian vocation of 34

knighthoOO" . ( 251) • This would seem to apply to all unsuccessful Grail

knights, such as Lionel, who beheads a hennit, or Gawain, who kills a

fell01ot1 Round Table knight in a friendly joust. Lancelot vacillates in

the quest; at times he seems a repentant sinner, at other times, a

chavalric hero. He demonstrates his trust in his ONll arrrour rather

than in God when he draws his 5\'t'Ord when oonfronted by lions at the

gate of the Grail castle. The division of chivalric loyalties is also

a source of instability; Lancelot has inward thoughts of Guinevere while showing an outward semblance of goodness to God. On the broadest thematic level, Lancelot's personal instability is representative of the world which is ruled by Fortune, and is therefore unpredictable am unstable.

Comparative source studies of the Tale of the Sankgreal often point out Malory's secularization of the French Queste del Saint

Graal, and Malory' s synpathy with Lancelot as a sinner. It is perhaps more accurate to say that Malory transformed the French CXXldemnation of a sinful knight into the justification of the perfect secular knight. In other words, Malory presents a consistent p:>rtrayal of

Lance lot: It is only natural that "the world's" best knight is unstable as a Christian knight in the spiritual adventure of the Grail

Quest.

The return to worldly adventure in Lancelot and Guinevere after the Grail Quest has been observed by same critics as anticlimactic,

"for it provides only a pause between the high point of the Grail

Quest and the final disintegration of everything" (Reiss 159). It is true that there are ff!M inp:>rtant plot develq::.ments occurring within the Lance lot am Guinevere, yet the tale is successful in reaffinning 35

Lancelot's position as the world's best knight. As Larry Benson

states, ". • • the world of Arthurian chivalry nust be reestablished

and its virtues reasserted •••• we nust again be brought to admire

Arthur and Lancelot so that we can understand that the final

catastrophe is tragic rather than merely just retribution" (225).

Therefore the Lancelot and Guinevere is signficant in its developrent

of character rather than plot, while simultaneously creating a

volatile situation that erupts into tragedy in The Death of Arthur.

Malory wastes no time in establishing one of the central themes

in the last tales-the ClCClflict between private or "prevy" matters and

public or "outwarde" matters:

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

unto quene Gwenivere agayne and fargate the p~se and the

perfeccion that he made in the queste; far, 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 nore

hotter than they dud toforehonde, and had many such prevy

draughtis togydir • • • (611.1D-17)

The opposition is clearly set forth in Malory's repetitive but forceful style: "In" thought, "in" mind, "inwardly" are followed by

"semynge outewarde." Malory also tells us here that Lancelot • s failure to fully achieve the Grail Quest was due to his inward thoughts of Guinevere. In the Grail Quest, one• s private thoughts must be as virtuous as one's appearance or "semynge," rut rY:M the 3~

quest is over, Lancelot. forgets his premise, am returns to Guinevere:

he returns to a world where one can possess a pUblic appearance of

perfection While simultaneously living a private life of sin without

any substantial penalty.

"The Poisoned Ag>le"

The problems that arise in "The Poisoned Apple" are directly

linked to both Lancelot. and Guinevere 1 s attenpt.s to maintain a plblic

appearance which is contrary to reality. Lancelot., in an attenpt to

silence rum::>rs about his love for the queen, surrat.lOOs himself with

other maidens and damsels. Guinevere, however, finds this ploy

unacceptable and as a result of her anger, she banishes Lancelot. fran

the court. Yet she then folla,..rs Lancelot. 1 s exanple by hosting a feast

for twenty-four knights "for to shew outwarde that she had as grete

joy in all other knyghtes of the Rounde Table as she had in sir

Launcelot" (613.15-17}. 'llrls feast is the occasion for the poisoning murder of a Round Table knight, Sir Patriae. The culprit is Sir

Pinel, Whose motivation in poisoning an a.wl;e was to kill Gawain to avenge the death of a kinsman in the a1-going Lot-Pelli.Ix>r feoo.

When, by mistake, Sir Patriae dies eating the deadly fruit, the immediate -reaction of the knights is to accuse Guinevere, dE!!l'laOOi.ng satisfaction for the crime. The question of motive is never considered. 24 Visible circumstances are what matter-the hostess has prepared food, the food is poiscned, therefore the hostess is guilty.

That false syllogiSm leads Sir Madore to formally accuse Guinevere of murdering Sir Patriae, thereby initiating the procedure of the trial by carbat. 37

It is no small detail that the murdered-knight, Sir Patriae,

happens to be Sir Madore's cousin. The order of knighthood has lost a

member, yet we must notice that it is the blood-kinship bond, a

primitive bend which predates any fonn of chivalry or knighthood, that

leads Madore to demam satisfaction for the crime:

• for here have I loste a full noble knyght of tey bloode, and

therefore ~ thys shame and dispite I \\1011 be revenged to

the utterauncel' (614.12-14)

There is, in Arthurian chivalry, a division of loyalties, bet\r.teen

one's loyalty to the Round Table fellowship, a brotherhood of

civilization, and one's loyalty to his kinsmen, a brotherhood of

blood. Madore's passionate complaint is .rx>t based on the chivalric

desire for justice, but rather on the pre-feu:lal desire for revenge,

which is .rx>t chivalric.

Madore • s willingness to carry out his kinship obligation through

the chivalric trial by C'Cl'rba.t, a fonnal invention of civilization, is

testirrony to the curious mixture of loyalties fourx'i in the fella-mhip.

Chivalry must respect the blood bond, yet as in Madore's case, attempts to sublimate the kinsman's proclivity for vengeful slaughter into a more civilized form of violence, the trial by cx::rrb:lt. This attempt, is successful in "The Poisoned Apple," yet the power of the blood l::x:>D:l remains a constant threat to drl.valric order.

It is fitting that Arthur, the embodiment of chivalry, is the ally knight present that is willing to deferrl Guinevere against Madore in the trial, yet because the king nust take the neutral position of

"ryghtfull juge," Arthur cannot defend her in the trial. Arthur's main concern here is for honor, both the personal honor of Guinevere 38

and the collective honor of the court:

And therefor I suppose she shall not be all distayned, * but

that some good knyght shall put hys body in jouperte for my

quene rather than she sholde be brente in a wronge quarell.

And therefore, sir Madore, be nat so hasty; for, perde, hit

may happyn she shall nat be all frendeles. And tl)erefore

desyre thou thy day of batayle, and shall purvery hir of san

good knyght that shall answere you, other ellis hit were to

me grete shame and to all my courte. (614.29-36)

We notice that both Guinevere's honor and her body are at stake,

literally, and therefore the knight who would defend her in combat

risks both his honor and his body in an attenpt to save those of the defendant.

Julian Pitt-Rivers has noted the initirnate relation between one's honor and the physical person ( 25) , thus the fact that 11 saoo good knyght shall put hys body in jouperte11 means that the knight • s body will represent Guinevere • s in the carbat trial. Consequently, 11 the ultimate vindication of hctlour lies in physical violence ..... (Pitt­

Rivers 29) • Sir Madore, who has suffered the loss of his kinsman, Sir

Patrise, is participating in the trial to vindicate the honor of his clan. ·His claim, 11 I woll preve hit [the queen's guilt] with my body, honde for hande, who that woll sey the contrary.. (618.14-15), again reflects the relation between honor and the Physical body, WhiCh is given expression in combat.

The suspense of the episode builds when Arthur sets the date of

* dishonored 39

the trial in 15 days, when, if no knight volunteers to fight against

Sir Madore, Guinevere must be burnt at the stake; "absence of a

champion is tantamount to conviction" (Bloch 17) •. Guinevere is, of

course, a victim of circumstances here, circumstances that seem so

incriminating to the Round Table knights that all apparently perceive

Guinevere' s case as a "wrongful quarrel." Lancelot, however, as Sir

Bors tells the queen, will fight for her in any event: " 'Now rnysse ye

sir Launcelot, for he wolde nat a fayled you in youre ryght nether in

youre wronge .•. '" (616.2-3). This is the power of Lancelot's

loyalty to Guinevere, for it transcends right and wrong; he will never

fail her, no matter what she has done. In this case she has done

nothing, but it is clear that Lancelot would defend her just the same

if she had poisoned the knight. Lancelot's blind devotion is

especially evident in this episode because, of the three criminal

proceedings involving Guinevere in the last tales, the poisoning is

the only alleged crime that Lancelot has nothing to do with, nor does

he have any inside knowledge of Guinevere's actual innocence or guilt.

That Lancelot does not investigate the incriminating evidence before

he fights is not surprising; he doesn't care about the circumstances,

or innocence or guilt. What he does care about is Guinevere' s honor.

The atmosphere of Malory's literary trial is sacrificial,

dominated by the "grete fyre made aooute an iron stake" (618.6), which

is set prior to the judgment. The pre-trial discussion between Sir

Bors, who has taken the battle in Lancelot' s absence, and Sir Madore

reveals something of the human nature of the trial. Madore says to

Bors "'we shall preve whethir thou be in the ryght or I!'"

(618.20-21). At no point does Madore openly acknowledge the role of

' <) 40

God in the trial, although it is clear from the above quotation and others like it that he fully believes in the justice of the trial.

Bors declares to Madore "I shall nat feare you so gretely but I truste to God* I shall be able to withstonde youre malyce" (618.22-23).

Madore replies, "Is that all?", thereby completely deflating the

formal seriousness of Bors' utterance and, more importantly, showing what little value he places on such a statement. Bors' allusion to

God's role in the trial comes as a formulaic commonplace, not unlike

the only other mention of God in the trial, which is rra.de by Arthur,

"God spede the ryght" (615.11-12). The statements rra.de by Bors and

Arthur in relation to the providential intervention in the combat trial carry as much real meaning as the phrase "God bless you" in relation to someone' s sneeze. Claims that involve the proof of men's hands and bodies carry the real assertorial weight in the episode,

indicating again the real nature of the trial, which is not divine, but hurra.n.

Another characteristic of the trial in Malory is Lancelot's impressive last minute arrival. This follows a romance tradition rather than a legal tradition and in "The Poisoned Apple," Lancelot is disguised as well. The trial begins as always, on horseback, with a clash of lances. After Madore is unsaddled, the fight continues on foot, where after an hour of "many sadde strokes," Madore is left

"groveynge uppon the erthe." Lancelot spares Madore's life on the condition that he forever release the queen of the charge.

So Guinevere is proven innocent, and this is the only case in

* Italics Mine 41

which she is in reality totally innocent of the charge. It may be for

that reason that Malory concludes the tale with the deus ex machina

presentation of the enchantress Nynyve, who, through her magic arts,

reveals the true culprit of the crime:

. . • she tolde hit opynly that she [Guinevere] was never

gylty, and there she disclosed by whom hit was done, and

named hym sir Pynel, and for what cause he ded hit. There

hit was opynly knowyn and disclosed, and so the guene was

[excused]. (621.3-6)

Apparently it was important enough to Malory to include this

explanation of the questionable circumstances. It seems only

reasonable that after Guinevere is proven innocent, the knights would wonder who in fact did poison the apple. The fact that the answer is

supplied in this episode through Nynyve indicates that there is a concern for reality and that circumstantial evidence does not dissappear when the trial is over.25

Yet in Malory 1 s wording of the alx:>ve passage there is a curious hitch. In a.ddition to the revelation of Sir Pinel as the culprit,

Nynyve also discloses the fact that Guinevere was "never gylty •.. and so the quene was excused."* Supposedly the queen had already been excused by Lance lot 1 s victory, yet the word "never" seems to suggest that it may be possible to be guilty at one time, and innocent later.

It implies a distinction between the innocence or guilt of the act itself and the "proven" innocence or guilt of the trial by combat.

Nynyve 1 s revelation answers questions alx:>ut reality. The culprit of

* Italics mine the poisoned apple is revealed, as is Guinevere's true innocence. So

if Guinevere can only be totally cleared in reality by Nynyve's revelation, then what did the trial by conret accomplish? The trial proved her innocence to the public that accepts appearances on faith, yet that faith is not quite enough in this episode, for it is only after an explanation of reality that the pUblic completely excuses

Guinevere. In the case of "The Poisoned Apple" episode, the rragical belief in the trial by combat is justified and reinforced, ironically enough, by a magical revelation of reality. Yet in "The Knight of the

Cart" there is no such revelation to suprx:>rt the rragic of the trial.

"The Knight of the cart"

The trial in "The Knight of the Cart" results from Sir

Meliagaunt's discovery of Guinevere's blood-stained bed sheets, which he considers evidence of her adultery with one of the ten wounded knights that roomed in the chamber next to her bedroom. This being the official charge, it happens that Guinevere is an innocent victim of circumstances, but only technically innocent. Guinevere did in fact sleep with a wounded knight--Lancelot--yet he is not included in

Meliagaunt's accusation. Therefore, the queen is again innocent of the official charge, but is in fact guilty of adultery.

The blood on the sheets came from Lancelot's hand, which he lacerated while gaining entry into the queen's chamber. It is an excellent bit of irony that Lancelot' s "hurt honde," which bloodied the sheets that resulted in Meliagaunt's charge against the queen, will be the same hand that will prove the queen's innocence in the trial by ccrcibat, or "preve of hondys." In a larger sense, we see the 43

irony of the queen's lover being her prime defense of fidelity, a

situation which sustains the dramatic irony of the entire tale.

The events leading up to the conibat trial in "The Knight of the

Cart" share some similarities with those pre-trial events in "The

Poisoned Apple. " In roth cases Lance lot is absent when the charge is made7 both times there is a knight who believes in Guinevere's

innocence but for some reason is unable to fight: Arthur in "The

Poisoned Apple" cannot fight because he is judge7 in "The Knight of

the Cart," any one of the ten wounded knights would do battle if only

they were healthy. In both trials, a knight loyal to Lancelot is

substituted to defend Guinevere in Lancelot's absence7 in roth trials

Lancelot arrives at the last moment before the trial begins.

Yet within this plot pattern there are several important differences, which have to do largely with the nature of the

accusation and the accusers in both episodes. First, we may consider

the accusers. In "The Poisoned Apple," Sir Madore, having assessed the evidence, may be vengeful and hasty in his accusation of

Guinevere, but he is not dishonest. In "The Knight of the Cart," however, we see ~1eliagaunt, who has already proven himself a selfish coward by abducting the queen, rudely barge into the queen's bedchaniber and to his advantage, discover the bloody sheets:

And wyte you well sir Mellyagaunte was passyng glad that he

had the quene at suche avauntayge, for he demed by that to

hyde hys awne treson. (658.26-28)

Meliagaunt attempts to divert Arthur's attention toward a greater mischief than his awn. His motive, unlike Sir Madore's, is ulterior 44

and private. Meliagaunt is a villain: Madore is not. Sir Madore's accusation, in effect, voices the Round Table's suspicion of

Guinevere; whereas Meliagaunt's accusation is an individual act, totally selfish in motive. Madore wants to engage in battle to bring about true justice and to avenge the death of a kinsman. Meliagaunt wishes only to see Guinevere shamed: he has no real concern for

justice or whether the queen has actually committed adultery, for it was in fact Meliagaunt who had earlier hoped that it would be him

engaging in adultery with the queen!

The actions of Sir Meliagaunt indicate the rising tide of

selfishness coming from within the Round Table. Sir Madore and even

Sir Pinel, the culprit of "The Poisoned Apple," both act on the communal obligation of avenging a slain kinsman. Meliagaunt' s only obligation is to himself and as such he is a precursor to the most dangerous villains of the Morte Darthur, Aggravain and Mordred.

When in the trial, his life is threatened by Lancelot' s mighty strokes, Meliagaunt yields:

Moste noble knyght, sir Launcelot, save my lyff! For I

yelde me unto you, and I requyre you, as ye be a knyght and

felow of the Table Rounde, sle me nat, for I yelde me as

overcomyn . • • (662.16-19)

In accordance with the knight's oath, 26 Lancelot rrnJ.st shCM mercy to him who asks for it, yet by taking off his armour and tying a hand behind his back, Lancelot cleverly lures Meliagaunt back into battle.

A victory here is not enough for Lancelot as he demonstrates by carving Meliagaunt' s head in two. It would be easy enough to justify

Lancelot's extermination of this deceitful CCMard, yet in the larger 45

thematic pattern we can see in this minor character's slaughter the

decline of the merciful grace that is characteristic among Arthur's

knights. In Malory's earlier tales it is one of the great

achievements of the knights to forgive enemies and often recruit them

as new Round Table knights. Yet in the last tales the pattern is

reversed: Round Table knights Sir Pinel and Sir Meliagaunt no.v become

enemies, are not forgiven, and are eliminated from the fello.vship.

It is quite ironic that Meliagaunt, Who earlier had brought all

attention to the bloody sheets, seems in the end to draw attention

away from them, as he dies a contemptible co.vard. Equally ironic is

the fact that Lancelot, whose blood it is on the sheets, takes all the

glory: "And than the kynge and the quene JTB.de more of sir Launcelot,

and more \A.ras he cherysshed than ever he was aforehande" ( 663 .16-17) .

The issue of the bloody sheets is not only left unexplained, it

is left unquestioned by the characters, and the reason for this

silence is a point of critical contention. R. M. Lumianski assumes

that although Arthur is silent about the blood-stained sheets, they

are uppermost in his mind (Malory's Originality 227}. Lambert

explains the problem of the bloodied sheets as "simply a loose end,"

one that Malory had no concern to tie up (188-89). But if this is

true, why then did Malory think it important enough to explain a

similar "loose end "--the identity of Sir Patrise' s murderer--in "The

Poisoned Apple?" 27 The inforJTB.tion from Nynyve is necessary because

the trial by combat, as shown earlier, does not totally satisfy the

Round Table knights. At that point the society was still somewhat

concerned with circumstantial evidence. In "The Knight of the Cart," however, the trial is sufficient proof for all concerned. Directly 46

after Lancelot kills Meliagaunt, Halory states: "Than there was no

rrore to do • • • " ( 663 .12) • Lancelot 1 s victory in the trial by combat

has succeeded in convincing everyone of Guinevere 1 s innocence. "The

appearance has triumphed over the reality and has in a sense become

that reality. "28

The "reality" mentioned here ma.y be called the public appearance

of shame and honor. Lancelot vindicates Guinevere 1 s honor by winning

in the combat trial, and this honor is a rrore powerful reality to the

eyes of his fellCM Round Table knights than the blood-stained sheets,

which by themselves signify nothing. The Round Table fellowship

becomes so completely absorbed in maintaining honor, that real

goodness--the value that is r~varded in the Grail Quest--is forgotten.

Janet 'Wilson states that Lancelot has enforced honor by fighting on "a

technical pretext and by ignoring the spirit of the law. "29 This is

true, but when we recall Lancelot 1 s promise to Guinevere, "to be her

knyght in ryght othir in wronge" ( 620.29-30), we can assume that

Lancelot has no need for a legal technicality to defend Guinevere: his

loyalty to her supercedes the spirit of the law.

The total belief in the "appearance justice" of the combat trial,

coupled with the total obliviousness to the circumstances Which led to

the trial, indicates the degree to Which the Round Table society can

ignore reality. By not acknowledging the existence of the bloody

sheets, the community has also denied the possibility that any wrong

doing has occurred. The trial by combat is used by the entire

conmuni ty to solidify their comnon awroval of Guinevere. This is why

Lance lot is so cherished at the end of the episode: he has unified the

belief of the fellowship.

' v 47

Righteous judgment and unity have been achieved, but not without a high price. Lancelot and Guinevere is the autumn of the Round

Table, and although Malory sprinkles the tale with images of healing

(of Urry and Lancelot) and forgiveness, the ultimate effect seems to be one of loss. Elaine, the maid of Astolat dies of lovesickness; Sir

Patrise dies of poisoning; Sir Pinel departs a traitor; Meliagaunt is executed by Lancelot. That Arthur and Lancelot are oblivious to this

sense of loss only makes the story more tragic, for by denying that the destructive forces of hatred and selfishness exist, just as they deny the existence of the bloody sheets, they leave themselves more vulnerable to the attack of Aggravain and Mordred in the last tale,

The Death of Arthur.

"Slander and Strife"

11 • • • and here I go unto the Morte Arthur, and that caused sir

~ggravayne. 11 This line from Malory' s explicit follo.ving the Lancelot and Guinevere would indicate to us that Aggravain, at least in the opinion of ~1alory, is the most direct cause of the tragedy. Of course, there are many causes and agents involved in the destruction of the ideal society, yet it's typical of Malory to label a direct action such as Aggravain' s as a cause rather than the result of some greater intangible force, which he suggests in the beginning of the

last book:

• • • a grete angur and unhappe that stynted nat tylle the

floure of chyvalry of [alle] the worlde was destroyed and

slayne. (673.6-8)

This serious note of doom comes quite abruptly on the heels of a 48

,graceful depiction of the lusty month of May that begins the sentence.

•Cl,early, Aggravain is the prime agent of the "unhappe, " and his plot is no l!ess sudden and ironic than the destruction of the "floure" of chivalry in Nay.

In the episcrle "Slander and Strife," the idyllic existence of the

RGtmd 'Table, ,symb:Jlized by the flourishing image of May, is undennined by ~A

~tale :whH:1~:e [a'1celot 1 s noble achievements are undennined by his "prevy thoughts 11 of ·Guinevere, and the many "prevy draughtis" they share

·together. Things which t·1alory designates as "prevy" are clearly at odds :wiHl the social structure that defines reality by appearance.

Appearance m.ay be equated with one 1 s public reputation, or the public"s evaluation in general. And perhaps it is Aggravain 1 s ability t_o ,privately hate that allows him to see through Lancelot 1 s public reputa··tion, .and to confront the reality of the adultery between

.;Lancelot and Guinevere. By speaking openly about the definitely

•prb;ate matte-r, Aggravain is viewed more as a trouble rraker than a loyal 'knight concerned with Arthur 1 s honor. Aggravain states:

'I ·mervayle that we all be nat ashamed bothe to se and to

kmow how sir Launcelot lyeth dayly and nyghtly by the quene.

,Ana all we know well that hit ys so, and hit ys sha[m]efully

,suffird of us all that we shulde suffir so noble a kynge as

'kynge Arthur ys to be shamed. 1 {673.17-20)

P. ,J. C. 'Field has called Aggravain 1 s rroti vation "hatred disguised as duty" (\53), and that it may be. By intentionally causing shame to came tn both Lancelot and Arthur, he is often viewed as a rerrorseless trai'tor and villain who triggers the unstoppable chain of events that 49

finally ends in complete ruin for Arthur on the bloody fields of

Salisbury.

Yet what Field does not consider is the possibility that

Aggravain's hate may be a result of his sense of duty, though his duty is not directed at Arthur but at exposing reality, no matter the consequences. To willfully calculate the entrapnent of the \I\/Orld' s best knight, Lancelot, is to strike at the very foundation of the

Round Table's existence. Aggravain, regardless of his motive, is undeniably a realist, and as the above quote demonstrates, he views the current state of "affairs" as shameful. In other \I\/Ords, if the glory of Arthuriana means continually avoiding the shame of the world's best knight bedding the queen, why bother preserving it at all? This attitude, orie which abandons the security of separating appearance and reality (a security which Lancelot and Arthur desperately cling to), definitely requires a bold, if not heroic mind-set. As active readers we identify with Lancelot at all times, and we see Aggravain as selfish, inconsiderate, deceitful, and rebellious. We see this rebellion extend to the kinship bond as well, when Gawain, Aggravain's brother, Who is particularly levelheaded at this point, pleads with Aggravain to cease his quarrel with Lancelot, which he warns will lead to war between Lancelot' s clan and their o,.m.

Aggravain's reply to these serious cautions is shockingly arrogant:

"Falle Whatsumever falle may" ( 673. 31) •

The role Aggravain plays is brief, but cannot be overstated.

When Gareth and Gawain realize that there can be no stopping their reckless brother, they lament the imminent division of the fellowship:

"'now ys thys realme holy destroyed and myscheved, and the noble 50

felyshyp of the Rounde Table shall be disparbeled'" (674.17-19}.

Determined to expose Lancelot and Guinevere's adultery, Aggravain takes his case to Arthur, who decides that he must have Lancelot

"takyn with the dede." Arthur's decision to allCM the entrapment of

Lancelot presents a problem to critics, for Malory makes it abundantly clear that Arthur does not want to m:1ke public the affair that would shame Lancelot or the queen:

For, as the Freynshe l:xx:>ke seyth, the kynge was full lathe

that such a noyse shulde be uppon sir Launcelot and his

quene; for the kynge had a demyng of hit, but he wold nat

here thereof£, for sir Launcelot had done so much for hym

and for the quene so many tymes that wyte you well the kynge

loved hym passyngly well. (674.37-41)

So why does Arthur arrange for Lancelot's entrapment? John Michael

Walsh believes that Arthur is av.rare of the adulterous affair, but is willing to tolerate it (as long as it is private) rather than risk the public exposure of the evil, which would divide the Round Table knights (525). The consent to trap Lancelot, as Walsh sees it, is not an encouragement to Aggravain, but rather a challenge, to prove openly the discreet affair, in the hope that Aggravain would fail, and end his quarrel. "He is relying on the discretion of his wife and her lover, or at least on the prCMess of the latter, to make it so" (Walsh

525). Edmund Reiss states that "Arthur is apparently willing to forgive being deceived; but because of worldly concepts of honor, he must take action" (177).

A close reading of the :passage supports the observations of roth

Reiss and Walsh, for honor forces Arthur to respond in same way to the 51

boldness of Aggravain, who in effect challenges the king with the

reality of the cuckoldry, as if to say, "What are you going to do about it?" Arthur calls Aggravain's hand and raises the stakes considerably by proposing a dangerous bluff: Arthur instructs

Aggravain to capture the lovers in the act, rather than to meet

Lancelot in a trial by combat, which is what Aggravain initially proposes. 30

The real intention in planning the entrapnent of Lancelot may be to silence Aggravain, yet Arthur's statement also reveals his thoughts on the efficiency of the trial by canbat:

••• I wolde be lothe to begyn such a thynge but I myght

have prevys of hit, for sir Launcelot ys an hardy knyght,

and all ye know that he ys the beste knyght anonge us all,

and but if he be takyn with the dede he VJOll fyght with hym

that bryngith up the noyse, and I know no knyght that ys

able to macch hym. (674.31-35)

In effect, Arthur says that Lancelot should not be approached with an accusation followed by a combat trial, because right or wrong,

Lancelot can defeat any knight. This comment, indicating Arthur's literal disillusionment with the inadequate mode of justice, fore­ shadCMS his later rejection of the trial.

Arthur makes a distinction in the above quotation between "takyn with the dede" and "noyse." The latter is the accusation, part of the normal process of the trial by combat. The former is known in medieval law as "capture in the act, "31 which "involves the entrapnent of an offender in the act, especially in the act of adultery" (Bloch

54). In the event that a person was caught in the act, this was 52

considered conviction of the crime, and thus the normal trial or

ordeal proceedings could be waived. This is the danger that Arthur

risks in his all-or-nothing proposition: If Lancelot is caught, he may not have the option of combat to defend himself.

The entrapment, hc:Mever, tums out to be less than the impossible

task that Arthur had envisioned as Aggravain easily catches Lancelot

in the queen' s chamber, yet not in the act. Malory emphasizes the

fact that Lancelot is caught without his amour. Throughout the Morte

Darthur we find instances where a knight is caught without armour,

always signifying the mental unpreparedness of the knight in that particular situation. Lambert makes note of Lancelot's repeated

laments that he is caught without his anrour. Even for the practical minded Malory, this focusing on equipment is atypical. Lambert accurately observes it as an appropriate metaphor for the entire civilization's "unprotected flank."32

Lancelot, outnumbered and h\.IDli.liated, does not want to caribat the

intruders at the scene of the crime, and therefore offers to perform on the follc:Ming day, his specialty-the trial by ca:nbat:

For I prornyse you be :tey knyghthode, and ye Y.Oll departe and

make no more noyse, I shall as to-morne appyere afore you

all and before the kynge, and than lat hit be sene whych of

you all, other ellis ys all, that woll deprave me of treson.

And there shall I answere you as a knyght shulde, that hydir

I cam to the quene for no maner of male engyne, and that

woll I preve and make hit good you wyth my hondys. (677.38-44)

Aggravain and Mordred not only refuse the offer, but inform 53

Lancelot that they fully intend to murder him on the spot. Astonished

by Aggravain • s idea of justice, Lancelot asks, 11YS ther none other

grace with you? 11 (678.5). This question expresses Lancelot's utter

confusion more than any other comment he makes about ~ds. He

cannot believe what is happening, and the threat of dying a shameful

death forces him to swiftly kill all but Mordred.

The public scandal that Aggravain creates has irreversible

effects on the Round Table knighthood. Lancelot•s chivalric

loyalties, to Arthur as king, and to Guinevere as lady, have clashed,

publicly. This leads to the Round Table fello.vship's division into

the clans of Arthur and Lancelot, indicating the knights • distrust in

the chi val ric bond between knights. Lancelot • s kin remain loyal to

him: whether he has done right or wrong is not an issue. Not

surprisingly, his kin fully expect him to rescue Guinevere, whether

she is innocent or not. Bors says:

Insomuch as you were takyn with her, whether ye ded ryght

othir wronge, hit ys now youre parte to holde wyth the

quene, that she be nat slayne and put to a rn_yschevous deth.

(680.2Q-23)

D. s. Brewer comments, 11 the distinction between right and wrong must 33 go when honour• s at stake. u This is true, but the peculiarity lies

in the fact that honor is always at stake, whether the action is in

the bedroom or on the battlefield, which leads us to ask if the

distinction between right and wrong ever matters, in this camplex

systan of loyalties and worship.

We gather that it is Arthur's worship that is at stake when he

sentences Guinevere to be burned .. • • • I may nat with rn_y worshyp but

' I 54

my quene muste suffir dethe" ( 692.9-10), and yet there is sa:re debate

concerning the reason for Arthur's hasty judgment. J. M. Walsh

believes that the high death toll that resulted from the entrapment

necessitates the punishment (528). Malory informs us that for

subjects found guilty of treason, the law provides no other remedy

than death, and that if "takynge with the dede," a swift sentencing is

appropriate. Arthur's multidimensional role--as husband, judge,

knight and king--would allav a number of motivations to influence his

judgment. As a husband he is humiliated, although he shavs no great

love for Guinevere: as knight and king he is infuriated and distraught

that thirteen of his fellow knights have been slaughtered: and as

judge, in light of the law cited, he has the option to execute the

guilty. It's quite possible that all these motives are at work to

some degree, and we are given further insight When Gawain Challenges

the decision, attempting to persuade Arthur to allav Lancelot the

trial by combat " ••• 'he woll make good for my lady the quene'"

(682.40-41).

This would seem to be the perfect solution for the queen's

dilerrrna, but as Arthur suggests in his refusal, there is nore at stake than just the queen:

'·That I beleve well,' seyde kynge Arthur, 'but I woll nat

that way worke with sir Launcelot, for he trustyth so much

uppon hys hondis and hys myght that he doutyth no man. And

therefore for my quene he shall nevermore fyght, for she

shall have the law. ' ( 682.43-683 .1)

This passage indicates that there are no unbreakable statutes Which

Arthur is legally forced to execute, but rather that he has a Choice 55

in the matter. Arthur also 'kn<::Ms that Lancelot will not hesitate to fight a "wrongeful quarrel" for Guinevere, for after his oambat with

Sir Madore in "The Poisoned Apple," Lancelot openly admits to Arthur,

"I promysed her at that day ever to be her knyght in ryght othir in wronge" (620.29-30}. His decision in abandoning the cctnbat trial is a major event in the collapse of Chivalry, for it heralds the end of a belief in an idealistic system of justice.

In the above quotation, Arthur also makes what seems to be a confusing distinction in giving Guinevere "the law" instead of trial by combat. The difference has to do with the nature of Guinevere's capture. 34 According to medieval feudal law, the judge can invoke civil law in place of a trial between oambatants:35

• • • judge in cases of capture had the _payer • • • to make

rational distinctions and positive indentificatians of fact,

he alone determined the accuracy of testimony, assessed

relevant evidence .•. and condenmed the guilty party When

warranted, all without the obvious advantages to the accused

of the Chance to defend himself through trial by battle. 36

Arthur maintains his honor by invoking civil law, prohibiting Lancelot from resorting to the trial by combat, Which Arthur now recognizes as a showcase for Lancelot's unrivaled prowess.

Arthur, like Aggravain, has come to the point Where he cannot allow appearance to contradict reality. Miko has accurately observed

Arthur's decision as an "open recognition of the illusion involved in trial by battle and a fundamental rejection of the Chivalric code in favor of one more realistic" (219}. Mr. Walsh sees Arthur as the embodiment of the law and therefore "cannot countenance a COIT'plete 56

travesty of justice" (530). This seems to understate the significance of Arthur's refusal. If the trial by corribat is rlCM a travesty, then it has always been so, and this is exactly What Arthur is rejecting: not the particular application of the trial in this case, but the method itself, which is based on the belief in an illusion, a belief which is fundamental to the chivalric order.

In saving his honor by rejecting the trial, Arthur denies

Lancelot the normal opportunity to save his arm. honor, thus Lancelot is forced to take more drastic measures to save honor: as Bors tells him, it is Lancelot's honorable duty, his "parte," "to holde wyth the quene. " The immediate tragic consequence of this struggle for honor is Lancelot's inadvertent killing of Gareth during the rescue of

Guinevere from the fire.

Aftennath of Gareth's Death: Lancelot's Honorable Defense

Mr. Walsh's assertion that Arthur cannot endure a miscarriage of justice implies, by opposition, that Lancelot can. After Lancelot saves the queen fran the fire, Arthur lays seige to the Joyous Gaurde.

Appealing to Arthur's sense of fairness, Lancelot requests a trial by combat, so that he can answer the charges rna.de against him. If this trial is a travesty because Lancelot is knowingly defending the side of wrong, then we must judge Lancelot a hypocrite of chivalry, as a knight abusing the law to defend himself. Yet this is not the case:

Lancelot is acting quite within the confines of the honor ethic which separates the guilt or innocence of the deed itself from the process of "proving" innocence. It is quite an intriguing problem, often overlooked by critics, because this is the first situation in which 57

Lancelot asks to defend a totally guilty queen. In "The Poisoned

Apple," Guinevere was totally innocent of the deed and proven

innocent~ in "The Knight of the Cart," she was technically innocent of the charge and proven innocent. Here, ho.vever, she is guilty of the charge, and Lancelot is sincerely asking Arthur for the opportunity to prove her innocent:

• • • there nys no knyght undir hevyn that dare make hit

good uppon me that ever I was traytour unto youre person.

And where hit please you to say that I have holdyn J11Y lady,

youre quene, yerys and wynters, unto that I shall ever make

a large answere, and prove hit uppon ony knight that beryth

the lyff, excepte your person and sir Gawayne, that nw lady,

quene Gwenyver, ys as trew a lady unto youre person as ys

ony lady lyvynge unto her lorde, and that v.ull I make good

with nw hondis. (688.19-26)

We notice that at no time does Lancelot flatly assert that the queen is innocent. In essence what he says is "no cne can prove guilt and I can prove innocence." This is a good example of Lancelot' s mastery of equivocation, which becanes only nore outrageous When he returns Guinevere to Arthur by the Pope's commandment. He says,

" .•. they [Aggravain and Mordred] that tolde you tho talys were lyars and so hit felle uppon them" (694.34-35). We krl<:M that Mordred and Aggravain were telling the truth to Arthur concerning Lancelot's adultery, so how can Lance lot call them "lyars" with a clear conscience? First it is necessary to recall the shame/honor system that Lancelot operates within:

• what matters for Lancelot here is not the fact of his 58

guilt or innocence of the adultery and his personal

awareness of that fact, but the pUblic recognition of the

charge, the public machinery for making the charge good, and

the way the public accusation and public "making good"

affect his reputation and the queen's. For Lancelot the

important values are not guilt and innocence but shame and

honor. (Lambert 178)

Lambert claims that Lancelot's concept of liars are those that cannot publicly back up their words, which explains his canment quoted above,

"and so hit felle uppon them." In other words, Aggravain and the

slain Round Table knights were killed because they were wrong to stir up trouble. 37 Likewise, Lancelot defends his righteousness by recalling how God was on his side in the slaughter of thirteen Round

Table knights, which he feels could only be accarnplished py the grace of God. Lancelot still believes ardently in the archaic mode of

justice which ignores the truth of reality in an attempt to establish proven truth in the outccme of canbat.

The difference between "real" truth and "proven" truth is made clear in a brief exchange between Lancelot and Gawain. After Lancelot has labeled Aggravain and Mordred liars for accusing him and Guinevere of adultery, Gawain disagrees:

'Be my fayth, they called the ryght!' seyde sir Gawayne. "my

lorde, sir Gawayne,' seyde sir Launcelot, 'in their quarrel

they preved nat hemselff the beste, nether in the ryght.'

(694.41-43)

Gawain here speaks of real truth~ Lancelot speaks of proven truth.

We can attribute Lancelot's inability to satisfy Gawain to the 59

difference in their respective truth philosophies. After Lancelot realizes that a trial by corribat is out of the question, he alludes to his past achievements, with the belief that his worth should be evaluated in terms of all his deeds rather than only the nost recent allegations. 38 This fails to placate Gawain's vengeance, so Lancelot then makes an offer of penance, to walk barefoot from Sandwich to

Carlise, building hermitages every ten miles (696.12-25). Yet neither

Lancelot's ideas of proof, reputation, or penance will appease Gawain, whose reply to these explanations reflects his unyielding vengeance:

• • • • I have ryght well harde thy langayge and thy grete

proffirs. • • • I '.NOll never forgyff the my brothirs dethe,

and in especiall the deth of my brothir sir Gareth. And if

myne uncle, kynge Arthur, wyll accorde wyth the, he shall

loose my servys, for wyte thou well, • seyde sir Gawayne,

• thou arte bathe false to the kynge and to me. • ( 696. 28-33)

We also notice here that Gawain • s vengeance, based on his loyalty to his clan, now supercedes his loyalty to Arthur as his lord.

Allegiance has shifted from king to clan because chivalry has failed to satisfy Gawain • s honor as a blood kinsman. When Gareth is slain unarmed, Gawain's duty is to vindicate the honor of the clan, and

Arthur is pc:Merless to stop him in this duty.

Arthur • s demise as ruler is largely due to his rejection of the combat trial, which is ironic when we recall that the judge usually gains power and authority when invoking civil law. What actually happens is exactly the opposite: Lancelot • s loyal kin desert camelot for the Joyous Gaurde and Gawain threatens to leave Arthur's service if the king attempts to make amends with Lancelot. Malory states in 60

no uncertain terms that it is now Gawain who is sustaining the division of the fellowship:

But the Freynsh booke seyth kynge Arthur wolde have takyn

hys quene agayne and to have bene accorded with sir

Launcelot, but sir Gawayne 'NOlde nat suffir hym by no m:mer

of rneane. (689.44-690.2)

In the midst of the "fratricidal struggle"39 which dominates "The

Siege of Benwick, " we see t."1e final perversion of the trial by conbat when Gawain uses the legal terminology of the trial procedure to incite Lancelot to face him in combat. Gawain has no interest in revealing judicial truth or in proving What he says about Lancelot is true~ he accuses Lancelot of treason because he wants to kill

Lance lot: "Loke oute, thou false traytoure knyght, and here I shall revenge uppon thy body the dethe of my three brethirne!" (703.4-6).

True to his honorable nature, Lancelot responds to the charge: "I am ryght hevy at sir Gawaynes wordys, for nON he chargith me with a grete charge. And therefore I wote as well as ye muste nedys deffende me ••• " (703.13-15).

Although there is an accusal and a denial, this is no trial.

There is no mention of Arthur as judge, nor is there any time gap before the combat. Unlike the usual trial by combat which is carefully planned and agreed on by knights Who respect each other,

Gawain's battle occurs spontaneously out of his thirst far vengeance.

Like Gawain, the chivalrous knight who has regressed into "a fierce warrior of the pre-feudal age,"40 the trial by cc.rrbat regresses into the duelling right of private vengeance.41 Gawain's hatred, in Mike's words, "is disguised as chivalry" (223). Gawain is defeated in the 61

gruelling battle. The fact that he canes back to fight Lancelot as soon as his wounds heal demonstrates Gawain•s rejection of the

11proofs.. that were established in the previous canbat.

As the best knights of Arthur • s divided fellowship batter each other into dizziness, the traitorous Mordred plots the final destruction of Arthur•s reign. Through a farce of a combat trial,

Gawain fights for revenge, Lancelot for honor, as the monument of chivalry crumbles in failure:

• • • they perish clutching to a way of life, to a system

that they can no longer bend to meet events and that has

failed to provide its promised ends. In modern

philosophical terms the knights have placed 11 essences, 11

theoretical standards of behavior, before the facts of

11 existence. 11 (Moonnan 125) Conclusion

In relation to Malory' s entire 'l:xx:lk, the last tales contain few of the fantastic and magical elements that characterize the early tales. There is, in the tragedy, a new awareness of the cause and effect nature of the world rather than the arbitrary poetic justice that dcminates the Grail Quest. Malory establishes a dramatic tension in the last tales by juxtaposing the emergence of this realistic, logical world and the magical belief in the justice of the trial by combat.

By transforming the historical rrodel of the trial, which is based on divine intervention, into a literary trial of Chivalry which is predicated on worldliness, violent action, appearance and honor,

Malory exposes the knighthood's belief in its ONn pc:wers to maintain order in an unstable world.

The magic of the combat trial does work for a while, but the world of reality, represented by Aggravain, triggers the collapse of the all too delicate idealism of the fellowship. Just as Lancelot has no defense against the cowardly archers, chivalry has no defense against the terrorism of Aggravain. The tragedy is a hurran drama, driven by Lancelot, Guinevere, Arthur, and Gawain, all of whom are bound to a code of honor which they will not canprcmise. The source for the conflicts of loyalties is to be found in the decay of idealistic beliefs. Aggravain's break from fellowship and family to expose the reality of adultery is the fundamental crack that leads to 63

the complete division of the Round Table. This happens not only in terms of plot--Aggravain•s entrapment of Lancelot, the killing of

Gareth, Gawain•s vow of vengeance--but also in terms of values:

Arthur • s rejection of the trial shONs roth his disillusionment with the unscientific method of justice and also his attempt to save his honor.

The absence of the trial in 11 Slander and Strife11 results in chaos as Lancelot is forced to lead an attack on Round Table knights at the planned burning execution of Guinevere. Gareth • s death at the hands of Lancelot is the tragic mishap that Arthur himself brings oo when he dismisses the trial by cc::xrU:et.

The destruction of the fellowship is inevitable: there is no solution for Arthur, no decision he 11 should have made. 11 In Malory• s tragic world of the last tales, honor must be maintained, and it is the force of honor under constant pressure from reality that leads

Arthur to reject the trial, Lancelot to accidentally kill Gareth, and

Gawain to swear vengeance against Lancelot. The old world, where conflicts could be settled in sanctioned combat, is gone forever.

Malory• s tragedy is thus :rrore than the destruction of Arthur• s Round

Table fellONship of individual knights: it is the end of an ideal, the end of a way of looking at life.

Malory reluctantly recounts the prophecy of Arthur•s return:

• • • and men say that he shall com agayne, and he shall

wynne the Holy Crosse. Yet I woll nat say that hit shall be

so • • • (717 .31-32)

The possibility that Arthur may return is left open, but Malory convinces us with his book that Arthur•s world will never return. 1 The division of tales and all quotations frcrn the Marte Darthur are according to the one volume edition of Malory: Works, ed. Eugene Vinaver, 2nd edition (1971: rpt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983). This edition is based on the revised text of Vinaver's brilliant three volume Oxford English Text edition (Clarendon Press, 196 7) , which separates Malory' s Marte Darthur into what Vinaver sees as eight separate romances, hence the new title, Works. I have used Vinaver's title designations for tales and episodes, yet I refer to Malory' s entire work as the Marte Darthur. The last two tales, which are often referred to as "the last tales," or parts VII and VIII, are entitled The Book of Sir Lance lot and Queen Guinevere and The Marte Arthur (The Death of Arthur), respectively.

2 Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: The Re resentation of Reality in Western Literature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971 , p. 135. Auerbach's comment is in reference to twelfth century French rcmances yet is applicable to Malory.

3 Harold Potter, Potter's Historical Introduction to English Law and its Institutions, ed. A. K. R. Kiralfy (London: Sweet and Maxim Ltd., 1958), p. 240.

4 Robert Baldick, The Duel: A History of Duelling, 2nd ed. (London: Spring Books, 1970), p. 13. See also George Neilson, Trial by Combat (New York: Macmillan & Co., 1891), pp. 4-7 and Henry c. Lea, Superstition and Force, 2nd ed. (New York: Haskell House Publishers Ltd., 1971), p. 91. Lea disagrees that the judicial canba.t originated in Burgundy.

5 Howard R. Bloch, Medieval French Literature and Law (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), p. 18. Bloch later states that the Church' s acceptance of the ordeal of battle was due in part to the belief that the legal process is indistinguishable from the divine process.

6 Bloch, p. 19. On the immanent universe in Malory, see Derek Brewer, "Malory and the Archaic Mind," Arthurian Literature I, ed. Richard Barber (Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk: St. Edrnundsbury Press, 1981), pp. 94-120.

7 See Ernest York, "The Duel of Chivalry in Malory' s Book XIX," Philological Quarterly, 48, No. 2 (April 1969), 23-31.

8 The execution of the vanquished knight differs strikingly fran Malory' s combats, where the honorable victor usually shCMs mercy for the defeated knight. In Malory's world, shCMing mercy on the field of

64 65

battle is one of the rrost sensational acts of courtesy that a knight can perfonn.

9 See Neilson, Trial by Combat, p. 188-89, for a basic list of procedural differences between the ancient judicial combat and the chivalric duel.

10 All page-line references are from Vinaver's 1971 one-volume Works edition. See note 1.

11 Quoted from Margaret Greaves, "The Dream of Sir Thomas Malory," in The Blazon of Honour (london: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1964), p. 50. See also William caxton, trans. , The Book of Fayttes of Annes and of Chyvalrye, by Christine De Pisan, ed. A. T. P. Byles (london: Oxford University Press, 1932), pp. 9-10.

12 It is generally agreed that Malory, especially in the Tale of the Sankgreal, intended to portray chivalry as a way of life that should lead knights to the highest level of spirituality. See R. T. Davies, "Malory' s Lancelot and the Noble Way of the World," Review of English Studies, 6 (1955), 356-64 and Eugene Vinaver, Malory (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929), p. 78.

13 See Vinaver, Malory, pp. 7Q-84.

14 J. A. Burrows, "Honor and Shame in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight," in Essays on Medieval Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), p. 117. I have paraphrased BurrCMs' sources which he cites: The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture (London: 1947), p. 223 and J. K. Campbell, Honour, Family and Patronage: A Study of Institutions and Moral Values in a Greek Mountain Ccmnunity (oxford: 1964), pp. 327-8.

15 D. S. Brewer, introd. , The Morte Darthur: Parts Seven and Eight (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1968), p. 28. See also Elizabeth T. Pochoda, Arthurian Propaganda (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1971), p. 107.

16 Bloch, p. 19. See also Derek Brewer, "Malory and the Archaic Mind, " pp. 106-13. Brewer sees the archaic mind of Malory 11 incapable of the distinguishing between the world of nature and the \\lOrld of culture, 11 referring to Malory' s mixture of love and the seasons as evidence of this.

17 Although the chivalry of the Round Table knights is earthly rather than spiritual, it is virtuous. As Vinaver states, Malory "did not seek condemnation of the Arthurian \\lOr ld. On the contrary, he set himself to restore and exhibit its rroral value ••• 11 (Malory, p. 78). On the notion of the "noble worldly way," see R. T. Davies pp. 357-58.

l8 See Auerbach, pp. 135-36.

19 Brewer, "Malory and the Archaic Mind, 11 p. 118. 66

20 On the theme of over-idealization, see Pochoda, pp. 104-122.

21 Vinaver, Works, 2nd ed., 3 vols., (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), I, p. xciv.

22 Two popular editions are by P. J. c. Field, Le Morte Darthur: The Seventh and Eighth Tales (New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1977) and Brewer, The Morte Darthur: Parts Seven and Eight. Both editions include extremely interesting introductions.

23 Vinaver' s separate rauance theory in Works has been challenged by several studies which favor a one book theory. Two of the rrore farrous studies are Malo 's Originality: A Critical Study of Le Morte Darthur, ed. R. M. Lumianski Baltirrore: John Hopkins Press, 1964 and Charles Moorman, The Book of K g Arthur: The Unit of Malo 's Morte Darthur (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1965 •

24 Bloch ccmnents on the reason for this: "Arthur's court, like its feudal counterpart, does not possess an adequate investigatory mechanism--a system of inquest, testimony, witnesses, written proof, and documentary evidence--to determine the motivation behind infraction ••• under a system of inmanent ordeal it is God, and not man, who alone is capable of assessing intent" ( 32) •

25 The presence of Nynyve (The Lady of the Lake) , in this episode has no known source, and has thus been attributed to Malory. Vinaver' s note in Works reads: "Malory seems to find the evidence insufficient and brings in The Lady of the Lake to make the truth 1 I Openly knCM11 II ( 769) •

26 "and to gyff mercy unto hym that askith mercy' (75.39).

27 Lambert makes an atterrpt to answer this question in his note on p. 118: "I would guess that Malory included this explanation primarily because ••• it introduces The Lady of the Lake."

28 s. J. Miko, "Ma.lory and the Chivalric Order," Medilml AeVtml, 35 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 215 • Janet Wi 1 son makes a similar comment: " • • • the fellowship accepts uncritically his victory as an assertion of the Queen' s honour and as proof of Meliagaunt' s treachery. Thus they accept the fallacy, inherent in the convention of trial by combat • • • " ( 26) • "Lancelot and the Concept of Honor in the Morte Darthur, Parts VII and VIII," Parergon, 14 (1976), 23-31.

29 Wilson, p. 26. The technical pretext here is that Lancelot' s defense is based on the wording of Meliagaunt' s accusation rather than on the conduct of Guinevere, which is what the spirit of the law--as reflected in the Pentecostal Oath (Works, 75.36-76~2)--would be concerned with.

30 Aggravain states to Arthur: "We woll preve hit that he [Lancelot] is a traytoure to youre person" (674.29). Arthur takes 67

this to mean a trial by combat, and proposes instead the idea of entrapnent.

31 See Bloch, pp. 53-56. The capture may include the .imnediate slaying of the felons, yet the eyewitness account ·of the capture is all that is needed for the deed to be kna.vn publicly, which is the case in Malory.

32 Mark Lambert, Malory: Style and Vision in Le Marte Darthur (New Haven Yale University Press, 1975), p. 195. Janet Wilson also comments on this: •• without armour he lacks not only the identity of the a knight but also the ability to act as a knight. Literally defenseless, his honour is vulnerable as well • " (28).

33 Brewer, Malory: The Marte Darthur, p. 28.

34 Guinevere has not been officially captured in the act, but Malory attributes "the menour other the takynge wyth the dede" as a reason for the hasty judgment. The indication is that the incident in Which Lancelot has killed thirteen knights (which hardly indicates his innocence) , has made the adultery public.

35 See Bloch, p. 59. The trial assumes that there is a question, but capture attributes blame independent on the need of sUbsequent validation of the trial.

36 Bloch, .PP• 57-58. See also Wilson, p. 28.

3 7 A similar incident occurs in "The Knight of the Cart, " when Lancelot strongly rebukes Meliagaunt for rudely pulling away the curtains around Guinevere's bed. Both cases show the high value Lancelot places on formal procedures.

38 Lancelot is alluding to a principle of honor stated by Julian Pitt-Rivers: " ••• the possession of honour guarantees against dishonor, for the simple reason that it places a man (if he has enough of it) in a position in which he cannot be challenged or judged." In "Honour and Social Status," Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society, ed. J. G. Peristiany (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), p. 37. The obvious problem Lancelot encounters is that Gawain does not subscribe to the same principle. See also Miko, p. 217.

39 Vinaver, Works (Clarendon Press, 1967), I, xciii. 4° Field, p. 65. 4l Lea makes a basic distinction between the pre-judicial custom of duelling and the judicial combat: "The object of the one was vengeance and reparation: the theory of the other was the discovery of truth, and the irrpartial ministration of justice" (88). BIBLIOORAPHY

Primary Source

Malory, Sir Thomas. Malory: Works. Ed. Eugene Vinaver. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971.

Secondary Sources

Auerbach, Erich. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Trans. Willard R. Trask. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971.

Baldick, Robert. The Duel: A History of Duelling. 2nd ed. I.Dndon: Spring Books, 1970.

Barron, W. R. J. "Knighthood on Trial: The Acid Test of Irony. " In Knighthood in Medieval Literature. Ed. w. H. Jackson. Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk: St. Edmundsbury Press, 1981.

Benson, David c. "Gawain' s Defense of Lancelot in Malory' s 'Death of Arthur.'" Modern Language Review, 78, No. 2 (April 1983), 267-72.

Benson, Larry D. Malory's Morte Darthur. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976.

Bloch, Howard R. Medieval French Literature and Law. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977.

Bradbrook, M. c. Sir Thanas Malory. London: I.Dngrnans, Green & Co., 1958.

E. M. Juxtaposition of 'The Knight of the cart' and of Sir Urry. ' " Journal of the Australasian and Literature Association, No. 50

Brewer, Derek. "Malory and the Archaic Mind." In Arthur ian Literature I. Ed. Richard Barber. Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk: St. Edrnundsbury Press, 1981.

------, introd. The Morte Darthur: Parts Seven and Eight. By

68 69

Sir Thomas Malory. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1968.

BurrCMs, J. A. "Honour and Shame in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight." In his Essays on Medieval Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984.

Caxton, William, trans. The Book of Fayttes of Armes and of Chyvalrye. By Christine De Pisan. Ed. A. T. P. Byles. London: Oxford University Press, 1932.

Davies, R. T. "Malory' s Lancelot and the Noble Way of the World." Review of English Studies, 6 (1955), 356-64.

Ferguson, Arthur, B. The Indian Surrrner of English Chivalry. Durham, North Carolina: DUke University Press, 1960.

Field, P. J. C., introd. Le Morte Darthur: The Seventh and Eighth Tales. By Sir Thomas Malory. New York: Holmes & Meir PUblishers, 1977.

Frazer, Sir James. The New Golden Bough. Ed. Theodor H. Gaster. New York: Mentor Books by New American Library, 1964.

Gies, Frances. The Knight in History. New York: Harper & Row, PUblishers, 1984.

Greaves , Margaret. "The Dream of Sir Thomas Malory. " In her The Blazon of Honour. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1964.

Guerin, Wilfred L. II 'The Tale of the Death of Arthur: I catastrophe and Resolution. 11 In Malory's Originality. Ed. R. M. Lumianski. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1964.

Hynes-Berry, Mary. "Malory' s Translation of Meaning: 'The Tale of the Sankgreal. '" Studies in Philology, 74 (1977), 243-57.

Keen, Maurice. Chivalry. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984.

Lambert, Mark. Malory: Style and Vision in Le Marte Darthur. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975.

Lea, Henry C. Superstition and Force. 2nd ed. New York: Haskell House Publishers Ltd., 1971.

Lumianski, R. M. "Malory' s Steadfast Bors." Tulane Studies in English, 8 (1958), 5-20.

------. "'The Tale of Lancelot and Guinevere:' Suspense. 11 In Malory' s Originality. Ed. R. M. Lumianski. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1964.

Miko, S. J. "Malory and the Chivalric Order." Medium Aevum, 35 (1966), 211-30. 70

Moonnan, Charles. "Malory' s Tragic Knights." Mediaeval Studies, 27 (1965), .117-27.

Neilson, George. Trial by Canbat. New York: Macmillan & Co., 1891.

Pitt-Rivers, Julian. "Honour and Social Status." In Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society. Ed. J. G. Peristiany. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966.

~hoda, Elizabeth T. Arthurian Propaganda. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1971.

Pollock, Sir Frederick and Frederick William Maitland. The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I. vol. II, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952.

Potter, Harold. Potter's Historical Introduction to English Law and its Institutions. Ed. A. K. R. Kiralfy. 4th ed. London: SWeet and Maxim Ltd., 1958.

Reinhard, J. R. "Burning at the Stake in Medieval Law and Literature." 8peculum, 16 (1941), 186-209.

Reiss, Edmund. Sir Thomas Malory. New York: '!'"wayne Publishers, Inc., 1966.

Robertson, D. w. Jr., introd. The Literature of Medieval England. Ed. D. w. Robertson Jr. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Carpany, 1970.

Tucker, P. E. "Chivalry in the Morte. " In Essays on Malory. Ed. J. A. W. Bennet. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.

Vinaver, Eugene, introd. and commentary. The Works of Sir Thomas Malory. By Sir Thanas Malory. Ed. Eugene Vinaver. 3 vols. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.

Malory. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929.

Walsh, John Michael. "Malory' s Arthur and the Plot of Aggravain." Texas Studies in Literature and Language, 23, No. 4 (Winter 1981), 517-34.

Wilson, Janet. "Lance lot and the Concept of Honour in the Morte Darthur, Parts VII and VIII." Parergon, 14 (1976), 23-31.

York, Ernest. "The Duel of Chivalry in Malory' s Book XIX." Philological Quarterly, 48, No. 2 (April 1969), 186-91.

------. "Legal Punishment in Malory' s Le Morte Darthur. " English Notes, 11 (September 1973), 14-21.