MASARYK UNIVERSITY OF BRNO

FACULTY OF EDUCATION

Bachelor thesis

Brno 2015

Martina Eklová Masaryk University Faculty of Education Department of English Language and Literature

Concept of Love Triangle in Medieval Romance

Bachelor thesis

Brno 2015

Thesis supervisor: Author:

Mgr. Jaroslav Izavčuk Martina Eklová

Anotace

Příběhy, jejichž hlavním tématem je milostný trojúhelník a nevěra, zažily ve středověké literatuře velký rozvoj. Mezi nejznámější patří příběh Tristana a královny Isoldy, stejně jako vyprávění o královně Guinevře a Lancelotovi. Bakalářská práce analyzuje a porovnává tyto dva milostné trojúhelníky a zároveň zkoumá možný vliv Tristanova příběhu na vznik legendy o Lancelotovi. První část bakalářské práce se týká žánru středověké romance a jejích prvků. Další kapitoly zahrnují analýzu milostných trojúhelníků na pozadí středověké společnosti a tehdejšího pojetí manželství a nevěry.

Annotation

The stories with a love triangle and adultery as its main theme developed significantly during the Middle Ages. Among the most popular ones belong the story of Tristan and Queen Iseult as well as the tale about Queen Guenever and Launcelot. The bachelor thesis analyses and compares these two love triangles and it examines the possible influence of Tristan‟s story on the legend about Launcelot. The first part of the bachelor thesis comprises the genre of medieval romance and its elements. The next chapters involve the analysis of the love triangles against the background of medieval society and its concept of marriage and adultery.

Klíčová slova

Středověká romance, milostný trojúhelník, manželství, nevěra, Román o Tristanovi a Isoldě, Artušova smrt, Malory, Bédier

Keywords

Medieval romance, love triangle, marriage, adultery, The Romance of Tristan and Iseult, Le Morte d‟Arthur, Malory, Bédier

1

Affirmation

I hereby declare that I have worked on the bachelor thesis independently, using only the sources which are listed in the Bibliography.

I agree that the thesis will be deposited in the library of the Faculty of Education at Masaryk University and that it will be accessible for studying purposes.

Brno, March 25, 2015 ......

2

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Mgr. Jaroslav Izavčuk for his patient supervision of my thesis and for his priceless advice and guidance.

3

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 5

1. Medieval romance ...... 7

2. Society ...... 15

2.1. The kings ...... 15

2.2. The queens ...... 20

2.3. The knights ...... 23

3. Marriage ...... 28

4. Adultery ...... 38

Conclusion ...... 50

Bibliography ...... 51

4

Introduction

The theme of love and adultery has been popular in literature since its beginning. People will always adore stories about betrayals and piteous romances mainly because they do not want or cannot experience it themselves. Thus, the works concerning topics such as immortal love are very popular and encourage authors to write about them. One of the most favourite medieval stories is about the passionate and fateful love between Tristan, a knight of Cornwall, and the Irish princess Iseult. Their tragic tale dates back into the 12th century and it became the inspiration for many authors of medieval literature in Europe.

The aim of this thesis is to compare the love triangle of Sir Tristan, Queen Iseult and King Mark with another famous one consisting of King Arthur, Sir Launcelot and Queen Guenever. Moreover, the thesis will try to analyse the possible influence of the Cornish triangle on the origin of the Arthurian one. The aim will be accomplished by the analysis of the stories about Tristan and Launcelot and the consultation of the secondary sources, such as historical books.

The comparison will be inspired by two versions of the stories, one written by Joseph Bédier named The Romance of Tristan and Iseult and the other one by Sir Thomas Malory and his Le Morte d’Arthur. Even though Joseph Bédier began his work at the end of the nineteenth century, and therefore he does not belong among medieval authors, he wanted the story to remain as authentic as possible. Consequently, he drew inspiration from French author of the twelfth century called Béroul, who is the author of the oldest preserved version of the legend. However, his work has not remained whole, thus Bédier filled the missing parts with the versions of other medieval authors, such as Thomas of Britain, or with anonymous extracts.

Thomas Malory, the author of Le Morte d’Arthur, included the romance of Tristan and Iseult in his work, too. He was inspired by the Prose Tristan and not by Béroul or Thomas of Britain. Consequently, the storyline in his book is slightly different from the version of Joseph Bédier. Nevertheless, Sir Thomas Malory compiled in the fifteenth century a vast work about Arthur and his knights. The legends of Tristan and Launcelot are included in the book as they are the Knights of the Round Table.

In Malory‟s days chivalrous deeds were not popular as they were before in the society. Alexander points out that “he [Malory] knew well that the chivalry he portrays in his central

5 books of Sir Gareth, Sir Tristram and the Grail was not to be found” (70). Probably, the author wanted to bring the chivalry back, at least in the stories. He wanted people to remember the legends of the Knights of the Round Table. Therefore it is important to carry on his legacy and to write about the knights and their deeds so that the age of chivalry will not be forgotten.

The thesis is divided into four chapters. The first chapter includes information about medieval romance as such, about its characteristic traits and whether those traits fit the romances about Tristan and Launcelot. The second chapter offers a view into medieval society and its nobility while comparing the kings, the queens and the knights of the Middle Ages with the main heroes of the stories. The third chapter will deal with the marriages of the Middle Ages and with their purpose in reality and in the narratives. The last chapter introduces the extramarital relationships and the attitude towards adulterous men and women in medieval society in comparison with the stories.

6

1. Medieval romance

The legends of the Round Table, as well as the romance of Tristan and Iseult, belong to the literary genre called medieval romance, popular mainly during the High Middle Ages. The cradle of the genre was France, where many poets began to spread popular literature in the eleventh and the twelfth centuries. Hollister acknowledges University of Paris as “the home of many of medieval Europe‟s most distinguished scholars and writers” (94). Moreover, Sampson points out that the country “had been swept by a wave of popular love-poetry which brought in its wake the music of the troubadours” (25). The aim of the troubadours was to amuse their audience and to attract attention to their stories. Thus, they often addressed their listeners to create the right atmosphere: “My lords, if you would hear a high tale of love and of death, here is that of Tristan and Queen Iseult; how to their full joy, but to their sorrow also, they loved each other, and how at last they died of that love together upon one day; she by him and he by her” (Bédier “The Childhood of Tristan”).

France had an immense impact on foreign literature. Sampson suggests that not only was the French literature influencing other stories, it was also “importing plots, scenery and so forth, from many lands, Wales and Brittany, Greece and the further East, and giving new French forms to them, which were admired and, as far as possible, borrowed by foreign nations, according to their several tastes and abilities” (34). Generally, other countries adapted French style to their own needs and purposes, leaving out anything they did not consider important, but keeping everything which was interesting, usually the storyline and the action.

However, the origins of the medieval romance can be found even in the earlier stages of history: “Before the Middle Ages, and the first usages of the Old French grapheme, “romanz,” to signify an expanding category of fabulous narratives of a literary kind, something, we feel, existed that was already romance-like, that preceded the medieval concretions” (Heng 1). Romances were created even before medieval times, although their expansion came especially with the era of knights. Noble men who fought for their kings and queens were seen as the heroes.

The word romance was applied to narratives about knights and heroic deeds. Curtius claims that “the idea of the hero is connected with the basic value of nobility. The hero is the ideal personal type whose being is centered upon nobility and its realization—hence upon „pure‟, not technical, values—and whose basic virtue is natural nobility in body and soul”

7

(167). Knights of the chivalric era are supposed to be the heroes; virtuous, devoted and honourable in addition to being skilful fighters. King Arthur speaks about one of the knight‟s important qualities, too:

It is a worshipful knight‟s deed to help another worshipful knight when he seeth him in a great danger; for ever a worshipful man will be loth to see a worshipful shamed; and he that is of no worship, and fareth with cowardice, never shall he show gentleness, nor no manner of goodness where he seeth a man in any danger, for then ever will a coward show no mercy; and always a good man will do ever to another man as he would be done to himself. (Malory 425; vol. 2, bk. 18, ch. 24)

The knights create a brotherhood in the stories, a company of men loyal to each other. Their fraternity is based on mutual respect and friendship. They support each other while fighting for a good cause. Thus Malory offers to his readers an image of the idealised age of chivalry. The close relationship of the Knights of the Round Table is shown in Le Morte d’Arthur. When Arthur‟s knights are about to depart for the quest of the Holy Grail, the king is disconsolate because he knows that they will never return at full strength again, and that the brotherhood will never be the same. He says, “I have loved them as well as my life, wherefore it shall grieve me right sore, the departition of this fellowship” (Malory 248; vol. 2, bk. 13, ch. 7).

However, the reality was quite different, and the knights not so perfect. McKisack points out that “not all were of unimpeachable character and it was by no means uncommon for a parliamentary knight to have been in the courts on a charge of felony” (189). This statement is proved on Malory himself: “Thomas Malory led a life of adventure, much of it seemingly discreditable to his chivalrous ideals” (Graves 11). The author of Le Morte d’Arthur was charged with many crimes, such as violence or rape, which does not coincide with the code of chivalry at all. Moreover, he lived during a period of wars, and McKisack states that “the man who was looking for really substantial enrichment would pin his hopes to the plundering of the enemy which was an essential element in all the wars of chivalry” (246). Honour was difficult to find. Plundering, raping and betrayal, on the other hand, were more frequent. All in all, the period of chivalry was definitely not as ideal as it is described in the stories.

Nevertheless, the exquisite qualities of the knights in the romances had to be exaggerated in order to please. In The Romance of Tristan and Iseult, Tristan is depicted

8 according to the image of the ideal knight: “To see him so noble and so proud, broad in the shoulders, loyal, strong and right, all men glorified Rohalt in such a son” (Bédier “The Childhood of Tristan”). Likewise, the portrayal of Launcelot is based on perfection: “for in all tournaments and jousts and deeds of arms, both for life and death, he passed all other knights” (Malory 199; vol. 1, bk. 6, ch. 1). Furthermore, together they are considered to be “two the best knights that ever were in Arthur‟s days, and the best lovers” (Malory 10; vol. 2, bk. 10, ch. 5). Their characters are depicted so nicely that people tend to sympathise with them from the beginning of the stories.

However, there are also knights whose behaviour is not so courteous. They are the villains of the stories, necessary for the plot by making it more dramatic. Among those knights belong for example the barons from the narrative about Tristan and Iseult who are described as “the basest of men, who hated Tristan with a hard hate, for his greatness and for the tender love the King bore him” (Bédier “The Quest of the Lady with the Hair of Gold”). They represent an obstacle in the narrative, something that the main hero has to overcome.

Apart from defeating their adversaries, there are other heroic deeds. Among the most common belong the quests where the knights fight a beast. For example, Tristan has to defeat a dragon in order to gain Iseult‟s hand: “Tristan charged his horse at him so strongly that, though the beast‟s mane stood with fright yet he drove at the dragon: his lance struck its scales and shivered” (Bédier “The Quest of the Lady with the Hair of Gold”). Malory‟s Le Morte d’Arthur is full of tales about Knights of the Round Table and their adventures. In fact, there are many episodes concerning perilous encounters: “Anon withal came there upon him [Launcelot] two great giants, well armed all save the heads, with two horrible clubs in their hands” (Malory 218; vol. 1, bk. 6, ch. 11).

The knights usually undergo these various quests alone, or in the company of a few other knights: “Thus Sir Launcelot rested him long with play and game. And then he thought himself to prove himself in strange adventures, then he bade his nephew, Sir Lionel, for to make him ready; for we two will seek adventures” (Malory 199-200; vol. 1, bk. 6, ch. 1). Wandering knights are very common in the romances, seeking adventures and chances to show their prowess. In reality, though, such knights were scarcely seen: “The knight-errantry of the literature of chivalry, which has not always been understood, caught none of its romantic lustre from actual life in England” (Powicke 544).

9

The knights prove their skills by completing the quests which also allows them to gain respect among other knights and the people in court. Honour is very important in medieval romance. Graves states that “the Western conception of personal honour could not be reconciled with humility, turning the other cheek, and leaving God to avenge injuries” (17). Truly, vengeance is common in both stories as many knights would not forgive their enemies. In The Romance of Tristan and Iseult, Gorvenal says to Tristan, “Let us hide therein where the track passes near, and comers by it will tell us news; and, boy, if they burn Iseult, I swear by God, the Son of Mary, never to sleep under a roof again until she be avenged” (Bédier “The Chantry Leap”). Similarly, in Le Morte d’Arthur, Gawain proclaims, “I shall make you a promise that I shall hold by my knighthood, that from this day I shall never fail Sir Launcelot until the one of us have slain the other” (Malory 475; vol. 2, bk. 20, ch. 10). The desire for revenge is often provoked either by a slaughter of a family member or by love.

In fact, heroic deeds or fighting with other knights were not the preferable topic of the medieval romance. It was love. Malory ponders in his work:

But nowadays men cannot love seven night but they must have all their desires: that love may not endure by reason; for where they be soon accorded and hasty, heat soon it cooleth. Right so fareth love nowadays, soon hot soon cold: this is no stability. But the old love was not so; men and women could love together seven years, and no licours lusts were between them, and then was love, truth, and faithfulness: and lo, in likewise was used love in King Arthur‟s days. (426; vol. 2, bk. 18, ch. 25)

He was ravished by the romances and by the use of affectionate feelings in them. It seems that he celebrated “the old love” that was described in the stories from which he drew inspiration for his book. Sampson explains the idea of love in those romances: “Love, as the troubadour lyrists understood it, was homage paid to a liege lady, who might be remote and even non-existent. This religion of love passed from the lyrics into the stories. It was the duty of every knight to have a lady for whom his deeds were done and to whom his homage was offered” (33).

In the preceding trend of the chanson de geste, the ideal hero was portrayed as a fearless and loyal fighter. In chivalric romance, on the other hand, dominates a knight who is loyal not only to his lord, but also to a lady of his heart: “The warrior gave way to the knight, and when the knight got off his horse he wooed the lady” (Alexander 42). This lady is a

10 motivation for the knight; he fights for her and does many chivalric deeds in order to please her.

However, the lady is often already married to another man. Duby claims that literature “tended to treat the game of love” (219). Truly, the knight admires the dame despite her marital status and he is devoted to her. The idea of a woman who is unattainable was exiting and inspiring. The love between the knight and the lady could have been platonic but it also happened that it was more than that. The physical love was also possible and it seems that love triangles were very common, at least in the stories. In the legends of the Round Table, love affairs occur quite frequently. There are, of course, the two main adulterous couples which will be discussed further in the thesis, but apart from them there are other episodes concerning infidelity.

For instance, the affairs of Gawain‟ mother Morgawse. Not only does she spend a night with Arthur while being married to King Lot, she is also seduced by Sir Lamorak later in the story: “And where Sir Lamorak alit he tied his horse to a privy postern, and so he went into a parlour and unarmed him; and then he went to unto the queen‟s bed, and she made of him passing great joy, and he of her again, for either loved other passing sore” (Malory 49; vol. 2, bk. 10, ch. 24). There are also cases in which the knight does not gain the love of the lady he admires: “And so he [Sir Pelleas] chose her [Lady Ettard] for his sovereign lady, and never to love other but her, but she was so proud that she had scorn of him, and said that she would never love him though he would die for her” (Malory 152; vol.1, bk. 4, ch. 21).

Besides loving fair ladies, the knights are supposed to observe the code of chivalry which tells them how a proper knight should behave. One of the main rules is that a knight is obliged to rescue women from danger. This rule is observed in both triangles. Launcelot assures Guenever when she is in danger that, “for have ye no doubt, while I am living I shall rescue you” (Malory 463; vol. 2, bk.20, ch. 4). Similarly, Tristan saves his lady from peril: “Ivan, you have been at the Queen‟s side a moment, and too long. Now leave her if you would live” (Bédier “The Chantry Leap”). This topic was very popular and many authors were inspired by an idea of an unfortunate woman in need of a hero.

The hero is her saviour but sometimes he receives a little help. Miraculous or magical aid occurs in medieval romance as well as the support of knightly companions. Sampson states that the Knights of the Round Table “appear as natives of some region of fantasy, moving about in a golden atmosphere of illusion” (28). Fantastic traits accompany stories of

11 knights throughout the whole narratives. The storyline of the tale about Tristan and Iseult is actually based on them drinking a magic potion:

The Queen drank deep of that draught and gave it to Tristan and he drank also long and emptied it all. Brangien came in upon them; she saw them gazing at each other in silence as though ravished and apart; she saw before them the pitcher standing there; she snatched it up and cast it into the shuddering sea and cried aloud: “Cursed be the day I was born and cursed the day that first I trod this deck. Iseult, my friend, and Tristan, you, you have drunk death together. (Bédier “The Philtre”)

The older origin of the Cornish triangle is evident in the use of magic. The Romance of Tristan and Iseult more resembles a fairy tale with a hero fighting a dragon to win a lady, or where magical elixirs are used. Nevertheless, Le Morte d’Arthur also shows similar features. For instance, the character of the wizard Merlin is an example of magical impact on the story. His role is to guide Arthur: “And so he told the king many things that should befall, but always he warned the king to keep well his sword and the scabbard, for he told him how the sword and the scabbard should be stolen by a woman from him that he most trusted” (Malory 117; vol. 1, bk. 4, ch. 1). Besides, Merlin is the one who foretells that Arthur will be the king of England, and then arranges his nurture and coronation.

However, towards the end of the book, Christian motives outbalance the magic motives, especially when the quest for the Holy Grail emerges. Merlin is no longer alive, the magic sword Excalibur is not mentioned until the end of the book, and the Knights of the Round Table are obliged to undergo this one sacred quest instead of the quests where they are supposed to defeat beasts and evil sorcerers. Nevertheless, the theme of adultery still remains in the story, which demonstrates the popularity of this topic.

Thus chivalric romances thrived for several centuries: “If romance did not begin in the Middle Ages, the genre is nonetheless so indelibly marked by the Middle Ages . . . that romance seems virtually synonymous with medieval time itself” (Heng 2). Truly, the romances were so popular during medieval times that they are closely connected to them. It is hard to imagine a chivalric romance without the surroundings of medieval castles and knights: “Chivalry was historical as well as literary; its cultural prestige was spread through Romance” (Alexander 42).

Romances were popular especially for their entertaining purpose. Sampson points out that “human nature in those days as in these craved of imaginative creations that would give it

12 something the world of difficult living could not provide” (25). People needed to relax after a long day of work and listening to diverting stories was welcomed. During the twelfth century, the new adventurous and romantic stories replaced the old epic narratives called chanson de geste. Sampson claims that “the chansons de geste were meant for the hall, for Homeric recitation after supper; the new romances were intended to be read in my lady‟s bower; they were for summer leisure and daylight” (33).

Even the royal courts were well acquainted with romances. Powicke writes that Edward I could “inspire the planning of towns and fortifications, take pleasure in the decoration of his palaces, turn to advantage the Arthurian romances and the symbolism of the Round Table” (230). Moreover, it happened that the kings were so inspired by the legends that they tried to bring them alive:

It may have been the example of a voluntary association of knights al Lincoln which first suggested to Edward III that he himself should found a knightly Order; and it seems to have been at the conclusion of a great tournament held at Windsor in 1344 that the king took solemn oath that within a certain time he would follow in the footsteps of King Arthur and create a Round Table for his knights. (McKisack 251)

It seems that romances, especially the legends of the Round Table, had an immense impact on medieval society and culture. This medieval genre full of heroic deeds and love was undoubtedly one of the most crucial ones of the Middle Ages. It developed through several centuries while being used to amuse medieval society, to evoke feelings in people so they could forget the woes of the hard life: “The new romances were, in fact, the nearest approach to popular novels that could exist in the days before printing” (Sampson 33). Moreover, medieval romance was not popular only during the Middle Ages; it exceeded them while laying foundations to the modern novel. Alexander rightly acknowledges the romance as the “lasting legacy of the Middle Ages” (43).

Concerning the two love triangles of Arthurian legends, they belong to the genre of medieval romance without a doubt. The stories are full of excitement, affection and battles, which makes them immortal as well as the love of the main protagonists. Both knights perform heroic deeds for their beloved ladies in order to show their prowess. Moreover, they rescue them from peril and love them with all their hearts. Thus Bédier‟s and Malory‟s works offer an excellent example of chivalric romances, especially Le Morte d’Arthur, which is composed of numerous tales about knights who go on various quests to defeat a monster or to

13 help a dame who is in trouble. The whole book is full of chivalric deeds performed by the best knights of the world, the Knights of the Round Table.

On the whole, the narratives about Tristan and Iseult as well as the tales about King Arthur depicts the age of chivalry, full of heroic deeds and courtly love. Le Morte d’Arthur was written after the era of the troubadours, in the fifteenth century, and there is a visible difference in the beginning of his work: “It befell in the days of Uther Pendragon, when he was king of all England, and so reigned, that there was a mighty duke in Cornwall that held war against him long time” (Malory 3; vol. 1, bk. 1, ch. 1). The introduction is not as melodious as the narratives of the troubadours in the twelfth century; nevertheless, the tales lost nothing of their beauty. Malory immensely contributed to the spread of Arthurian legends, thus to the spread of the stories of Tristan and King Arthur, who is justly considered by Sampson as “the supreme king of Romance” (32).

14

2. Society

The previous chapter showed that the legends of the Round Table rightly belong to the genre of medieval literature mainly because the stories offer a view into the age of chivalry. However, not only the narratives contain the ideals of the era of knights, but they also reflect the Middle Ages and the contemporary society. The question is to what extent the narratives correspond with the reality. This chapter will discuss the similarities and differences between the main characters of the love triangles and whether they are believable and would fit into the medieval society.

2.1. The kings

The first characters who will be discussed are the kings of the two tales, namely King Arthur and King Mark. Their role in the love triangles is similar; they are the men who are being cheated on. Even though they are both sovereigns and they have many things in common, their personalities are different. Nevertheless, that only contributes to the authenticity as the kings‟ personalities in the Middle Ages also varied, from William the Conqueror who “enforced justice and kept the peace” (Hollister 108) to Edward II who “demonstrated his wilfulness and incapacity” (Hollister 220).

People in medieval times craved for brave kings. Chancellor points out that the kings‟ duties were “to keep law and order in his realm and to defend it against enemies abroad” (94). The subjects favoured capable leaders who could protect their lands and defeat their adversaries. For example, Edward II was considered to be a weak ruler due to the lack of the required qualities: “Since he was deficient in all the chivalric and military virtues of the knight, he was incapable of winning the respect of his barons, who were still sufficiently medieval to prefer their kings to be warriors and heroes, not dilettantes” (Hollister 221). People glorified kings who were skilled warriors, such as Richard the Lion-Hearted, who “was much admired by the military nobility for his skill at arms, his mastery of siegecraft, and his passion for battle” (Hollister 157).

This applied to literature, too. Medieval authors created stories about the Knights of the Round Table, but the most formidable person of the legends is the king. Arthur is always described according to the image of the ideal ruler. He is depicted as a courageous and just king who loves his people and cares for them. His knights see him as “the flower of chivalry”

15

(Malory 35; vol. 2, bk. 10, ch. 17), thus they respect and adore him. He tries to be the role model for everyone else and he is known to be surrounded by the best knights of the world.

On the other hand, he has some bad qualities, too. During his wedding with Guenever, a damosel comes to the hall crying aloud that a knight has stolen a brachet from her: “With this there came a knight riding all armed on a great horse, and took the lady away with him with force, and ever she cried and made great dole. When she was gone the king was glad, for she made such a noise” (Malory 98; vol. 1, bk. 3, ch. 5). Arthur does nothing to save the lady, which is in direct contrast with the code of chivalry.

Moreover, he is quite fond of ladies. Even before the wedding he claimed that he adored Guenever, but when the wife of King Lot arrives to his court, he falls in love with her: “For she was a passing fair lady, therefore the king cast great love unto her, and desired to lie by her” (Malory 39; vol. 1, bk. 1, ch. 19). What he did not know was that she was his half- sister. To Arthur‟s misfortune, Mordred was begotten from this connection. Later in the story the king puts himself in another dangerous situation when he stares at Queen Iseult for a long time. A knight called Palomides, who is in love with Iseult and who does not know that it is the king, is infuriated by his discourtesy: “Uncourteous knight, what seekest thou here? Thou art uncourteous to come upon a lady thus suddenly, therefore withdraw thee” (Malory 152; vol. 2, bk. 10, ch. 73). Nevertheless, Arthur does not listen to him and keeps staring at the queen, which leads to an unfortunate ending: “Then was Sir Palomides wroth, and therewith he took a spear, and came hurtling upon King Arthur, and smote him down with a spear” (Malory 152; vol. 2, bk. 10, ch. 73).

Nevertheless, he loves his wife. When Guenever is accused of poisoning a knight, he is disconsolate, but he believes in her innocence. Still, he knows he has to execute a judgement because he is the king: “Me repenteth of this trouble, but the case is so I may not have ado in this matter, for I must be a rightful judge; and that repenteth me that I may not do battle for my wife, for as I deem this deed came never by her” (Malory 378; vol. 2, bk. 18, ch. 4). He hopes that a knight will come and fight for her because he cannot do so himself. When Launcelot finally comes and rescues her from being burnt, Arthur is very grateful: “Sir, gramercy of your great travail that ye have had this day for me and for my queen” (Malory 386; vol. 2, bk. 18, ch. 7). It is obvious that he is devoted to his queen, but he also fulfils his duties of the king.

16

Then, Sir Agravain and Sir Mordred accuse the queen of adultery with Sir Launcelot. Arthur is unwilling to believe them because he is fond of Sir Launcelot. He does not want to admit his betrayal “for Sir Launcelot had done so much for him and the queen so many times, that wit ye well the king loved him passingly well” (Malory 458; vol. 2, bk. 20, ch. 2). Yet, when the villainous knights provide a proof of the adultery, the king becomes furious and wants to punish the adulterous couple immediately: “And therefore for my queen he [Launcelot] shall never fight more, for she shall have the law. And if I may get Sir Launcelot, wit you well he shall have a shameful death” (Malory 470; vol. 2, bk. 20, ch. 7). It is quite hypocritical of him, though, considering his own adultery with King Lot‟s wife.

Then, he declares war on Sir Launcelot, but in the end when he sees how courteous Launcelot is during the battles, he regrets everything: “Then when King Arthur was on horseback, he looked upon Sir Launcelot, and then the tears brast out of his eyen, thinking on the great courtesy that was in Sir Launcelot more than in any other man” (Malory 482; vol. 2, bk. 20, ch. 13). Later, he is deeply touched by Launcelot‟s speech in which he tries to defend the queen. For this reason Arthur is willing to forgive him. Nevertheless, he chooses to listen to Sir Gawain and continues to fight against Launcelot.

Generally, King Arthur is described as a good king, who is ruthless to his enemies, but merciful towards his beloved ones. All his knights adore him and see him as the perfect and rightful knight who would never betray them. His few flaws only make him closer to people and Arthur rightfully became a symbol of chivalry and an icon for the English nation.

In reality, kings with such qualities were not very common. Nevertheless, they existed. Already mentioned Richard I was not only warrior, but also a man “in tune with the new aristocratic style of courtly manners, witty talk, and chivalrous display” (Hollister 157). Moreover, he was a just king as well King Arthur: “He rewarded the men loyal to his father because he admired those who stood by their friends and acted honestly” (Chancellor 70). Finally, Richard‟s people also rested loyal to their king because of his strong personality: “His remarkable military prowess and chivalric reputation retained for him the loyalty of his vassals and subjects, even when he himself was far away” (Hollister 158). It seems that Arthur, who is a fictional character, shares similar characteristic traits with the king of the real medieval times.

King Mark, on the other hand, is quite different. Unlike the other characters, he is described differently in Bédier‟s and Malory‟s versions. In The Romance of Tristan and Iseult

17 he is depicted as a loving man, although quite hot-tempered, who is willing to forgive the lapses of his beloved ones. When the adultery of Tristan and Iseult is discovered, he acts spontaneously and angrily. He condemns them to death but they manage to escape to a forest. Later, Mark finds them sleeping in a hut and he wants to kill them both. Then he notices a sword which is placed between them and he knows they are innocent: “My God, I may not kill them. For all the time they have lived together in this wood, these two lovers, yet is the sword here between them, and throughout Christendom men know that sign” (Bédier “The Wood of Morois”). The sword signifies innocence and Mark is willing to take them back and forgive them. Generally, he is a good man in Bédier‟s version, touched by the unfortunate destiny of his nephew. This way, Mark‟s personality resembles the one of King Arthur.

However, Thomas Malory saw him differently. He probably didn‟t understand why Tristan and Iseult would be so adored and their adultery justified despite the fact that King Mark was a nice and a loving man. Thus, he chose to describe him as a villain.

For instance, Mark is a very jealous man who cannot bear being defeated. When the wife of a certain lord chooses Tristan over Mark, he becomes so envious and enraged that he develops a strong feeling of hatred towards Tristan which lasts until the end of the story: “But as long as King Mark lived he loved never Sir Tristram after that; though there was fair speech, love was there none” (Malory 337; vol. 1, bk. 8, ch. 14). Since then, he wants to destroy Tristan and makes many attempts to kill him.

Mark‟s ill behaviour spreads across the kingdom rapidly and many Knights of the Round Table despise him and favour Tristan. For example Sir Gaheris reproaches Mark for his attitude towards Tristan: “Sir king, ye did a foul shame unto you and your court, when ye banished Sir Tristram out of this country, for ye needed not to have doubted no knight an he had been here” (Malory 467; vol. 1, bk. 9, ch. 38). In a forest another knight named Sir Palomides laments his love towards Iseult and about the bad character of her husband: “And the falsest king and knight is your husband, and the most coward and full of treason, is your lord, King Mark. Alas, that ever so fair a lady and peerless of all other should be matched with the most villainous knight of the world” (Malory 29; vol. 2, bk. 10, ch. 14).

Even though Mark knows what people say about him, he does nothing to improve his behaviour. On the contrary, when Tristan becomes popular because of his great deeds as the Knight of the Round Table, Mark‟s jealousy increases to the extent that he wants to murder him: “Then in great despite he took with him two good knights and two squires, and disguised

18 himself, and took his way into England, to the intent for to slay Sir Tristram” (Malory 15; vol. 2, bk. 10, ch. 7). When the two knights refuse to slay Sir Tristan, King Mark gets angry and kills them both.

Furthermore, his shameful deeds reach the court of King Arthur: “Then was King Arthur wroth out of measure, and so were all the other knights” (Malory 30; vol. 2, bk. 10, ch. 15). Arthur forces Mark to promise that he will reconcile with Tristan, but Mark does not keep his promise and eventually, he murders Tristan.

Although Mark is a king and so is King Arthur, they are very dissimilar. Arthur is a fair king who would never sentence a man to death without a proper judgement and he would not disguise himself and kill good knights. While Arthur is considered to be the perfect king and a model of chivalry, Mark is being described as a traitorous coward and murderer.

If Arthur resembles Richard the Lion-Hearted, Mark‟s personality matches the character of Richard‟s brother John Lackland, who is considered to be “a brilliant, unscrupulous villain” (Hollister 160). Chancellor states that “King John soon showed that he had no intention of keeping the promises which he had made” (85). This is comparable to Mark‟s breaking of vows in Le Morte d’Arthur. Hollister describes further some of John‟s misdemeanours:

He was a repellent, unlovable man who probably murdered his nephew (Arthur of Brittany) in a drunken rage, who killed hostages, starved prisoners, and broke his word with exurberant abandon. Such behaviour fell far short of the standards that twelfth- and thirteenth-century England demanded of its kings; and John‟s behaviour cost him the respect of his subjects and ruined his effectiveness as a political and military leader. (162-163)

King Mark‟s deeds are very similar. He kills Tristan, who is his nephew, he does not mind killing his subjects and he does not fulfil his duties as a king. Thus his people do not find him trustworthy and he is hated by all knights, especially by the Knights of the Round Table. When he meets Sir Dinadan, he says, “I require you of one thing, that when ye come to Arthur‟s court discover not my name, for I am there so hated” (Malory 22; vol. 2, bk. 10, ch. 11). All in all, he is an unpopular king who lacks the courtesy and chivalric character of King Arthur. As a result, Mark is the villain in the stories, not the hero like Arthur.

19

2.2. The queens

Both Mark and Arthur fulfilled the expectations of their subjects and married high born ladies. The queens form the central part of the love triangles as they are the ones who connect them. They are the wives of important men, yet they search for love elsewhere. The role of the queen was easy neither in literature nor in the real life as “it was so easy to make accusations” (Duby 73). The wives of kings were under constant supervision and a little lapse could condemn them forever. Nevertheless, it did not prevent some of them from being scheming, like Queen Isabella, the wife if King John, who was “vigorous, passionate, and ambitious woman” (Powicke 89), or Eleanor of Aquitaine who was considered by contemporary historians to be a “modern Eve, a temptress and a deceiver” (Duby 196).

However, there were also queens who were popular for their qualities, such as Philippa of Hainault, the wife of Edward III: “All contemporaries agree in praising „this full noble and good woman‟, who won the love of her husband‟s people by her readiness to assume the traditional queenly role of intervention on behalf of the oppressed” (McKisack 269). Another example is the wife of Edward, the Black Prince: “Despite her chequered matrimonial history, Joan of Kent is given a high character by her contemporaries. She was beautiful, gentle, and peace-loving, a devoted wife to the Black Prince and in no sense a political intriguer” (McKisack 424).

It is obvious that people praised queens who were gentle and devoted to their husbands. They expected the same of the queens in literature. Nevertheless, if the queens were perfect, the tales would not be so exciting. Thus Queen Iseult and Queen Guenever are depicted as the noble dames who respect their husbands and who would never plot any villainy, but who are at the same time feeble women unable to control their desires.

Queen Iseult is an Irish princess who comes to Cornwall as a stranger to marry King Mark: “He led her in great pomp to his castle of Tintagel, and as she came in hall amid the vassals her beauty shone so that the walls were lit as they are lit at dawn” (Bédier “The Tall Pine-Tree”). Her comeliness is often mentioned and it is a source of constant admiration. After marrying Mark, she immediately ravishes the hearts of all people in the kingdom by her grace and virtue. She is adored for her loveliness, tenderness and wit.

She manages to avoid several dangerous situations because of her cunning; especially the ones where the disclosure of her adultery is imminent. For instance, when Iseult discovers

20 that she will have to undergo the ordeal by iron to prove her innocence, she makes Tristan to disguise himself as a pilgrim so that no one could recognise him. On the day of the ordeal she has to cross the river to the place of the trial. Therefore, she lets the pilgrim carry her to prevent her clothes from being stained. Then, while pronouncing a vow before plunging her hands into hot brazier she says, “I swear that no man has held me in his arms saving King Mark, my lord, and that poor pilgrim” (Bédier, “The Ordeal by Iron”). Thus she deftly outwits everyone and avoids certain death penalty.

Not only does she think about her own good but also about Tristan and his reputation. She does not want him to sacrifice his social status for her sake; when they are hiding in the castle of Sir Launcelot, she sends him to a feast organized by King Arthur, albeit he does not wish to go without her. She tells him, “ye that are called one of the noblest knights of the world, and ye a knight of the Round Table, how may ye be missed at that feast? What shall be said among all knights?” (Malory 231; vol. 2, bk. 12, ch. 11)

Undoubtedly, Iseult represents an image of the ideal woman. She is pure, lovely and good; a lady worth fighting for. Even though many knights fall in love with her, she remains faithful to her lover, Sir Tristan. Like him, she regrets her adultery but at the same time she realizes that she cannot live without Tristan. In both versions of the story, her love is so great that she dies from grief when she sees her lover dead (despite the fact that the circumstances leading to Tristan‟s death are different in Bédier‟s and Malory‟s version).

Queen Guenever is considered to be one of the most beautiful and good women of the world as well as queen Iseult. She is the daughter of the king of Cameliard and her gracefulness is known throughout the whole kingdom. When Arthur is asked by Merlin if he has already chosen a lady, his answer is Guenever: “And this damosel is the most valiant and fairest lady that I know living, or yet that ever I could find” (Malory 91; vol. 1, bk. 3, ch. 1). Arthur decides to marry her despite Merlin‟s warning that there will be love between Guenever and Sir Launcelot.

Guenever is a queen that fulfils her duties conscientiously. She is sociable, amiable, organizing feasts and participating in tournaments and social events with her husband. Moreover, she welcomes new members of the Round Table heartily and she treats Arthur‟s knights with respect. When she discovers that those knights are about to leave for the quest of the Holy Grail, she regrets it deeply: “When the queen, ladies, and gentlewomen, wist these tidings, they had such sorrow and heaviness that there might no tongue tell it, for those

21 knights had held them in honour and charity. But among all other Queen Guenever made great sorrow” (Malory 249; vol. 2, bk. 13, ch. 8). Furthermore, she always tries to act with dignity, suitable for women of her status.

However, Guenever falls in love with Sir Launcelot, one of the most beloved knights of King Arthur. Thus a love triangle emerges, as Launcelot reciprocates her feelings. The queen respects and loves her husband, but she cannot resist the passion which drives her to her lover. Guenever seems calm and courtly on the surface, but inside she is full of diverse emotions. When Launcelot is nearby, she is radiating and joyful. She enjoys his company as much as she can without thinking of the consequences.

Nevertheless, her love towards Launcelot provokes also negative feelings in her, such as jealousy and anger: “So the noise sprang in Arthur‟s court that Launcelot had gotten a child upon Elaine, the daughter of King Pelles, wherefore Queen Guenever was wroth, and gave many rebukes to Sir Launcelot, and called him false knight” (Malory 199; vol. 2, bk. 11, ch. 6). She never lets Launcelot firstly explain the situation, thus she reveals her hot-tempered character. She banishes him from court several times due to her wrath; she always regrets it after a short time, though: “So when Sir Launcelot was departed, the queen outward made no manner of sorrow in showing to none of his blood nor to none other. But wit ye well, inwardly, as the book saith, she took great thought, but she bare it out with a proud countenance as though she felt nothing nor danger” (Malory 376; vol. 2, bk. 18, ch. 2).

Even though she tries to conceal her feelings and thoughts, many knights of the Round Table are aware of Guenever‟s acts and they do not approve of them: “As for our most noble King Arthur, we love him and honour him as well as ye do, but as for Queen Guenever we love her not, because she is a destroyer of good knights” (Malory 382; vol. 2, bk. 18, ch. 5). There are also knights who defend her because of their affection to Launcelot, but the majority favour King Arthur.

However, she feels such remorse after her husband‟s death that she decides to become a nun to atone for her sins, showing a true sacrifice by giving up the life with Sir Launcelot: “And when Queen Guenever understood that King Arthur was slain . . . great penance she took, as ever did sinful lady in this land, and never creature could make her merry; but lived in fasting, prayers, and alms-deeds, that all manner of people marvelled how virtuously she was changed” (Malory 520; vol. 2, bk. 21, ch. 7). As a result, she is cleansed in the minds of people by the penance she takes, suddenly becoming pure and virtuous again.

22

There is an interesting coincidence between Queen Guenever and the wife of Henry III Eleanor of Provence. Guenever “went to Almesbury; and there she let make herself a nun” (Malory 520; vol. 2, bk. 21, ch. 7). Eleanor also decided to retire to convent: “Until her death as a nun at Amesbury in 1291 she made England her home” (Powicke 73). Both queens, the fictional and the real one, had a similar destiny after the death of their husbands.

Concerning the queens of the love triangles, their personalities do not differ as much as the personalities of their kings. Iseult and Guenever are admirable ladies whose only, though significant, fault is the passion for another man than their husband. Guenever is more hot-tempered than Iseult and she often displays her jealousy, but generally, their characters match and that is also the reason why they are close friends in Le Morte d’Arthur.

2.3. The knights

The last characters to be discussed are the knights Sir Tristan and Sir Launcelot. With their qualities, they represent the ideal image of a chivalrous knight, as it was already mentioned in the first chapter. They are idealised like many other heroes of the romances, so that people have someone to look up to because the reality was different. Powicke points out that “many who were knights were avoiding the responsibilities of knighthood” (550). Real life heroes were scarce. Nevertheless, there were some exemplary knights, such as William Marshall, who was “England‟s most illustrious baron, a doughty and aged warrior who had risen from a common tournament jouster to become earl of Pembroke and who had remained faithful to King John through all his various moods and fortunes” (Hollister 172).

The knights were learning their role in the society since childhood: “They learnt how to fight and behave themselves in a noble household until the day when they received the spurs of knighthood after a night spent in prayer” (Chancellor 98). This is true for the stories, too. In The Romance of Tristan and Iseult, Tristan‟s training is well described:

When seven years were passed and the time had come to take the child from the women, Rohalt put Tristan under a good master, the Squire Gorvenal, and Gorvenal taught him in a few years the arts that go with barony. He taught him the use of lance and sword and ‟scutcheon and bow, and how to cast stone quoits and to leap wide dykes also: and he taught him to hate every lie and felony and to keep his given word; and he taught him the various kinds of song and harp-playing, and the hunter‟s craft; and when the child rode among the young squires you would have said that he and his horse and his armour were all one thing. (Bédier “The Childhood of Tristan)

23

Thus the knights were familiar with the concept of chivalry; they just sometimes decided to ignore it. Loyalty of the knights seen in the narratives was difficult to find in real life. Hollister states that “money had been used to buy loyalty and hire troops” (202). It is true that the knights of the Middle Aged had to gain money somehow; therefore it is understandable that they sold their services. Nevertheless, the Knights of the Round Table are loyal to their king because they respect and love him. They are the ideal companions who can be trusted.

In general, people sympathise most with the character of Sir Tristan, mainly because of his unfortunate destiny. In both stories he is shown as a beloved knight condemned to love a wife of another man. Even his name provokes sympathy, as „triste‟ means „sad‟ in French. Authors describe his numerous deeds from which it is obvious that he is a remarkable knight full of good qualities. The most visible ones are bravery, loyalty and honesty. The Celtic origin of the character is evident in his abilities like hawking, hunting, sailing the sea or playing a harp and singing. He is a slayer of beasts and protector of the innocent; a typical hero able to perform almost supernatural things.

In Bédier‟s version he is always loyal to his love, queen Iseult. Even though he married another lady, he never loved her and he never fulfilled his marriage. In Malory‟s version, on the other hand, he does not show such loyalty at the beginning. There are mentions of the love between Tristan and Iseult even before they drink the magic potion. However, it seems that only Iseult is truly in love with Tristan when he, after his return from Ireland to Cornwall, falls in love with another lady: “And this lady loved Sir Tristram passingly well. And he loved her again, for she was a passing fair lady, and that espied Sir Tristram well” (Malory 334; vol. 1, bk. 8, ch. 13). His love to Iseult flourishes only after drinking the potion. Since then, he is loyal to her as well as in Bédier‟s version.

Moreover, he constantly regrets his adultery because he respects his uncle. Tristan is willing to forgive Mark‟s attempts to murder him and he always tries to reconcile with him. Nevertheless, Tristan‟s love towards Iseult is more powerful than his love towards his uncle. He tries to resist his desires but he cannot help himself and he always returns to the queen. He never hesitates to save her from peril and his courage and suffering is known throughout the whole realm.

In both stories people adore Tristan for his chivalrous deeds and many noble men defend him before King Mark when he is accused of adultery: “And sir, said Sir Dinas, ye

24 shall understand that Sir Tristram is called peerless and makeless of any Christian Knight, and of his might and hardiness we knew none so good a knight, but if it be Sir Launcelot du Lake” (Malory 368; vol. 1, bk. 8, ch. 32). He is very popular even in the court of Arthur and when he becomes the knight of the Round Table, everyone welcomes him warmly.

Sir Tristan is a character that truly corresponds to the ideal image of the knight of medieval times. He is honourable, courageous and fearless as well as able to love a lady with all his heart. These qualities tend to impress people not only in the stories but also in real life, making him an immortal source of inspiration.

While Tristan is the product of barbaric times, Sir Launcelot is more of modern times where courtesy and fighting for a lady are more important qualities than hawking or hunting. His character is strongly influenced by Christianity: “For he is of all parties come of the best knights of the world and of the highest lineage; for Sir Launcelot is come but of the eight degree from Our Lord Jesu Christ” (Malory 247; vol. 2, bk. 13, ch. 7). Even his origin is connected with religious beliefs. Furthermore, his descent is also one of the reasons why he is considered to be one of the best knights.

He is often compared to Sir Tristan and there are several mentions of them being the men of most worship. Their characters are very similar, although Sir Launcelot fits better the epoch of Christianity. He is loyal as well as Tristan, but unlike him, Launcelot is devoted not only to his king and his lady but also to God. During the quest for the Holy Grail he realizes his sins and he repents them deeply. He is tormented by the fact that he cannot see the Grail because of his sinful deeds: “From henceforward I cast me, by the grace of God, never to be so wicked as I have been, but as to follow knighthood and to do feats of arms” (Malory 273; vol. 2, bk. 13, ch. 20). He makes a promise that he will lead a moral life and he will never come close to queen Guenever again. Nevertheless, after the quest he breaks his promise and returns to her.

Otherwise, he is a perfect knight full of good qualities. He fights only for queen Guenever and never for another lady. He is loyal to his friends, willing to help them in every situation. He offers Tristan and queen Iseult a shelter in his castle Joyous Gard to avoid King Mark. He fights with other knights fairly and accordingly to the code of chivalry. Furthermore, he is a hero who inspires other people to join him: “For sithen I first saw my lord Sir Launcelot, I could never depart from him, nor nought I will and I may follow him” (Malory 412; vol. 2, bk. 18, ch. 19).

25

A number of ladies fall in love with Sir Launcelot, but he is always faithful to Guenever, apart from spending two nights with another lady while being bewitched by a sorceress. Moreover, he proclaims Tristan his mortal enemy when he finds out that he married another lady. He is a strict observer of the code and Guenever is the only lady who possesses his heart through the whole story. At the end of the narration, when Launcelot discovers that Arthur lies dead in his tomb, he does not hesitate and seeks out the queen.

He finds her in a sanctuary where she is taking a penance having become a nun. Thus he decides to follow her example: “But sithen I find you thus disposed, I ensure you faithfully, I will ever take me to penance, and pray while my life lasteth, if that I may find any hermit, either gray or white, that will receive me” (Malory 524, vol. 2, bk. 21, ch. 10). He would rather serve as a priest than live without Guenever, even though she told him to find another woman.

Generally, Sir Launcelot is described as a valiant character with only a few weaknesses. He is a brave and courteous knight but his passion for queen Guenever compels him to do unfortunate decisions leading to fatal consequences. His son Galahad surpasses him by being pure and virtuous: “And that one of the three should pass his father as much as the lion passeth the leopard, both of strength and hardiness” (Malory 277; vol. 2, bk. 14, ch. 2). Galahad is one of the three men able to see the Holy Grail, which was impossible for his father.

Having compared the main characters of the stories, it is obvious that they share many similar features. The most evident resemblance is the social status of the heroes as both of the love triangles are constituted of two kings, their wives and two knights. The only significant difference is between the personalities of King Mark and King Arthur in Le Morte d’Arthur. Otherwise, the queens are comparable to each other as well as Tristan and Launcelot. Even though all of them are fictional, there are considerable similarities to some real people. The kings are completely believable as there were medieval kings with resembling personalities. Guenever and Iseult are also credible characters representing noble and loving queens.

The most idealised and questionable protagonists are the knights who are almost too perfect to be true. It is probable that the character of Sir Tristan influenced the creation of Sir Launcelot as their personalities are identical. While the legend about Tristan dates back to Celtic times, Launcelot “is actually a late-comer into the legend, and his story is told in French” (Sampson 31).

26

Moreover, it was Chrétien de Troyes who wrote about Tristan and then added Launcelot to the stories of the Round Table. From this point of view, the Cornish love triangle strongly affected the conception of the Arthurian one.

27

3. Marriage

Having examined the society and the personalities of the main characters, another way to compare the love triangles is to look into the marriages of the heroes and their mutual relationships. As the role of marriage was important in medieval times, many romances treated this subject and a lot can be deduced from them.

Generally, there were several functions of matrimony: “Above all it is a way of restraining sensuality, i.e., women” (Duby 28). In the Middle Ages, the image of women was quite harsh. They were considered to be the inferior part of the society which needed to be supervised: “A wife is naturally deceitful and should be kept, even as a matter of justice, under the strict control of her husband” (Duby 65). They were seen as the temptresses who lure men into a trap consisting of sinful deeds. Thus it was necessary to control women and to make them modest and humble.

Nevertheless, marriage served not only to bring Eve‟s descendants to heel, but also to moderate the desire as such: “Human sexuality is too powerful and explosive a force for any society to allow its members complete sexual freedom. Some limits must be imposed, some rules upon, and some enforcement mechanisms devised to implement the observance of the rules” (Brundage 1). For medieval society, it was the Church who had the power to create laws and doctrines concerning morality and then to impose them on the society. Brundage claims that “Christian thinkers also carried over into their religious system the belief that sex was a source of impurity” (2). Therefore the clergy paid special attention to the act of physical love, wanting to reduce it as much as possible. The matrimonial union offered the best solution.

Matrimony was in general sacred and its role was to protect the husband and the wife from sin. Too much love between the partners was not welcomed, though: “If love—not charity, but strong, ardent, physical love—springs up within marriage, it can lead to excessive pleasure, which is sin” (Duby 217). The ideal image of marriage, as the contemporary clergy saw it, was a marriage which was not fulfilled at all: “The ideal couple, of course, was a pair who remained totally chaste by common consent” (Duby 29).

There is a legend about such couple. Allegedly, saint Henry II, the Holy Roman Emperor and his wife Cunégonde never consummated their marriage. Moreover, there was a miraculous episode when Cunégonde had to prove her innocence after being accused of

28 adultery: “Cunégonde submitted to divine judgement in the form of ordeal by fire; but she walked on the red-hot irons barefoot and emerged unscathed” (Duby 58).

Cunégonde‟s trial is markedly similar to the trial of Iseult. The queen, after returning to King Mark from the wood of Morois, is obliged to undergo the ordeal by iron as three Mark‟s barons want her to suffer. They say to the king, “Counsel her, then, to claim the ordeal in God‟s judgement, for since she is innocent, she may swear on the relics of the saints and hot iron will not hurt her. For so custom runs and, in this easy way are doubts dissolved” (Bédier “The Ordeal by Iron”). The queen has to plunge her hands into hot brazier and take them out again unhurt to prove that she is not guilty.

Guenever, on the other hand, is not forced to pass any test by herself. Her judgement depends on the trial by combat; therefore a knight must fight for her in order to save her from death. According to the result of the combat, she is either condemned or acquitted. Nevertheless, it is Sir Launcelot who fights for her and who always speaks in her favour, “and as for my lady, Dame Guenever, were I at my liberty as I was, I would prove it on you or on yours, that she is the truest lady unto her lord living” (Malory 204; vol. 1, bk. 6, ch. 3). As he is one of the best knights of the world, it is very difficult to defeat him.

Nevertheless, Duby adds that the story of Cunégonde “might merely have emphasized that Henry had refrained from putting away, or repudiating, a wife who was barren” (58). This was quite admirable of him, as many other kings could reject their wives if they wanted to. Men had the dominant role in the marriage and their wives “were expected to be modest and reserved” (Duby 218).

However, not all women were like that. In the first chapter, the role of vengeance was discussed. In the stories, but also in real life, women were often the ones who craved for revenge: “When news of his death reached Henry‟s grim wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, she must have felt a glow of triumph. She had her revenge on the husband who had imprisoned her. Her plan of turning his own sons against him had at last succeeded” (Chancellor 70).

In The Romance of Tristan and Iseult Tristan‟s wife, after hearing the conversation between her brother and Tristan, realises that Tristan will never truly love her. Consequently, she becomes so jealous of the queen Iseult that she desires revenge: “Now a woman‟s wrath is a fearful thing, and all men fear it, for according to her love, so will her vengeance be”

29

(Bédier “The Death of Tristan”). She lies to dying Tristan, telling him that queen Iseult is not coming to heal him, and he dies, unable to hold his life anymore.

In Le Morte d’Arthur, it is Arthur‟s sister who seeks vengeance all the time:

But as the French book saith, Queen Morgan loved Sir Launcelot best, and ever she desired him, and he would never love her nor do nothing at her request, and therefore she held many knights together for to have taken him by strength. And because she deemed that Sir Launcelot loved Queen Guenever paramour, and she him again, therefore Queen Morgan le Fay ordained that shield to put Sir Launcelot to a rebuke, to that intent that King Arthur might understand the love between them. (Malory 474; vol. 1, bk. 9, ch. 41)

She wants Arthur to discover the adulterous relationship of his wife merely because she is jealous and would like to have Launcelot for herself. The character of Morgan le Fay represents women against whom ecclesiastical men warned; she is a temptress, a vicious and deceitful lady who should be brought under control.

Apart from pacifying the women, there were also other functions of marriage. The most significant one for men was “to ensure that the manly virtue of valor was passed on in honor from one generation to the next, that blood was propagated in such a way that it did not, as they said then, degenerate, i.e., lose its genetic virtues” (Duby 37). In the Middle Ages, every important lord desired to produce heirs. Especially the kings were under constant pressure to marry and beget as many children as possible to secure the continuation of their lineage.

All in all, the function of noble marriages was more practical than romantic: “Although the poor might marry whom they chose, richer families arranged marriages which would bring money and lands to the family. Often the couple were only introduced to each other when their parents had already arranged the date of their wedding” (Chancellor 103).

The complexity of the medieval machinations performed in order to find a suitable wife is visible on the case of Henry III:

A marriage with a daughter of Leopold of Austria was considered. A year later the archbishop favoured the idea of a marriage with a daughter of the king of Bohemia. In the meanwhile a proposal for a union with the daughter of the count of Brittany, Peter of Dreux, was rejected, for Peter was not prepared to break with King Louis. In 1231

30

Henry is said to have fallen in love with a sister of the king of Scots, but his barons, including this same count of Brittany, now his friend and vassal, pointed out that a marriage with the younger sister of the justiciar‟s wife was quite out of the question. (Powicke 73)

It is obvious that the process of obtaining the appropriate spouse was sometimes very difficult and love was not a sufficient reason to marry someone. The heroes of the love triangles, on the other hand, do not experience such dilemmas. There was no place for such complicated schemes in the narratives, thus King Mark and King Arthur acquire their wives quite simply.

When Mark‟s barons demand that he should find a wife, firstly, he tries to find a way to avoid matrimony: “Just then by his window that looked upon the sea two building swallows came in quarrelling together. Then, startled, they flew out, but had let fall from their beaks a woman‟s hair, long and fine, and shining like a beam of light” (Bédier “The Quest of the Lady with the Hair of Gold”). After seeing the golden hair, Mark declares that he will marry only the lady to whom the hair belongs, thinking that such lady is very remote and unattainable. However, Tristan remembers Iseult who healed him from his wounds and who possessed such beautiful hair. He risks his own life to please his uncle and he brings him the woman he desires.

Arthur finds his wife on his own. He knows Guenever for her beauty and virtue, and these qualities are good enough for the king to choose her as his spouse. He acquires Guenever in an even more simple way than Mark acquires Iseult; he sends Merlin to Guenever‟s father to ask for her hand: “Then Merlin desired of the king for to have men with him that should enquire of Guenever, and so the king granted him, and Merlin went forth unto King Leodegrance of Cameliard, and told him of the desires of the king that he would have unto his wife Guenever his daughter” (Malory 92; vol. 1, bk. 3, ch. 1).

In the stories, the wives are chosen mainly because of their appearance and because the kings are in love with them. Their noble lineage is only a favourable bonus. In reality, on the other hand, love was not important and the only thing that mattered was the profit which the lords and kings could gain from the matrimonial union. Apart from obtaining lands and money, marriage was “the guarantee of peace” (Powicke 236). Marriages united different families and lands which helped to preserve peace: “France, England, Champagne, Brittany

31 were linked together under the masterful influence of the queen mother of France and her sister the queen mother of England” (Powicke 236).

In The Romance of Tristan and Iseult, the situation is similar. Iseult comes from Ireland which did not have warm relationship with Cornwall as Ireland demanded fealty and regular fees from Cornish kings. Nevertheless, Tristan, by defeating a dragon and winning the Irish princess for his uncle in Cornwall, points out the advantages of their union to the king of Ireland:

But that these lands of Cornwall and Ireland may know no more hatred, but love only, learn that King Mark, my lord, will marry her. Here stand a hundred knights of high name, who all will swear with an oath upon the relics of the holy saints, that King Mark sends you by their embassy offer of peace and of brotherhood and goodwill; and that he would by your courtesy hold Iseult as his honoured wife, and that he would have all the men of Cornwall serve her as their Queen. (Bédier “The Quest of the Lady with the Hair of Gold”)

Nevertheless, there is no mention of Mark obtaining any lands from his marriage with Iseult, only the peace. In Le Morte d’Arthur, the acquisition of property is mentioned as Guenever‟s father says, “And as for my lands, I will give him, wist I it might please him, but he hath lands enow, him needeth none; but I shall send him a gift shall please him much more, for I shall give him the Table Round” (Malory 92; vol. 1, bk. 3, ch. 1). He decides to offer Arthur the Round Table and knights to serve him, thus the king acquires not only a beautiful wife, but also the famous table and company of loyal knights, which is more important for the story than lands or property.

Duby points out that “most literary compositions increasingly taught that love—the love of both body and heart—found its fulfillment in marriage” (225). However, this does not apply to the stories of Arthur and Mark, as the narratives concentrate more on the adultery than on the marriages of the kings and queens. There are only slight mentions of their lives in matrimony and the queens find love outside the marriage.

The relationship of King Mark and Queen Iseult is warm in The Romance of Tristan and Iseult, despite the fact that the queen is not in love with her husband. She respects him and she tries to be the obedient wife who fulfils her queenly duties. At the beginning, the passion for her husband‟s nephew is stronger than her responsibility and it prevents her from being faithful. Nevertheless, when she is in the wood of Morois with her lover, she blames

32 herself for the whole conflict, especially after Mark finds them and spares their lives: “He that put on this ring is not the man who threw me to his lepers in his wrath; he is rather that compassionate lord who, from the day I touched his shore, received me and protected” (Bédier “Ogrin the Hermit”).

Meanwhile, Mark regrets his heated reaction and that he drove the queen and his nephew to the wood. He is willing to forgive them and accepts Tristan‟s letter: “Mark had awakened his chaplain and had given him the writ to read; the chaplain broke the seal, saluted in Tristan‟s name, and then, when he had cunningly made out the written words, told him what Tristan offered; and Mark heard without saying a word, but his heart was glad, for he still loved the Queen” (Bédier “The Ford”). The king loves his wife throughout the whole narrative and he wants to believe in her innocence.

The marriage of Arthur and Guenever is similar. Guenever is probably fonder of her husband than Iseult, because she considers him as the most valiant king. She repents her sins deeply when she says, “Through this man [Launcelot] and me hath all this war been wrought, and the death of the most noblest knights of the world; for through our love that we have loved together is my most noble lord slain” (Malory 523; vol. 2, bk. 21, ch. 9).

Before the bitter end of the story, however, they live in a contented matrimony. They organise and visit tournaments together and they support each other as well as their knights. Arthur, despite his general fondness for ladies, truly loves his wife and he does not want to be away from her: “Then the king came to Queen Guenever, and said, Lady, make you ready, for ye shall go with me, for I may not long miss you; ye shall cause me to be the more hardy, what adventure so befall me; I will not wit my lady to be in no jeopardy” (Malory 119; vol. 1, bk. 4, ch. 2).

Concerning the relationships between the queens and their lovers, it is not necessary to write about their love as the stories indicate the depth of their affections vividly. On the other hand, it is more important to mention that their relationships are more complicated and sometimes not so ideal.

For example, despite the love that Tristan feels to Iseult, he marries another lady in Brittany later in the story. It seems that he is not faithful to his queen unlike Launcelot, who would never marry or take a mistress and who says, “for to be a wedded man, I think it not; for then I must couch with her, and leave arms and tournaments, battles, and adventures; and

33 as for to say for to take my pleasaunce with paramours, that will I refuse in principal for dread of God” (Malory 216-217; vol. 1, bk. 6, ch. 10). Launcelot adores only one lady, Queen Guenever, as it should be according to the code of chivalry. Nevertheless, Tristan‟s assumed infidelity is also proved wrong because he never fulfils the marriage. Besides, his wife‟s name is Iseult, which demonstrates that he has never forgotten his first love.

Sometimes, the love and the passion which the heroes feel lead them to do unreasonable decisions; especially the queens are prone to react excessively. Once, Tristan and Launcelot lose their senses to the extent that they are running wild in the woods naked. In both cases, the reason is their love towards Iseult and Guenever and the queens‟ rebukes.

Tristan‟s madness is slightly different in Bédier‟s and Malory‟s versions. In Bédier‟s story, Tristan is banished by Iseult who thinks that Tristan is a coward and does not fight for her name. Then, he only pretends to be a fool in order to get to her again. In Malory‟s version, on the other hand, he becomes truly mad after finding letters between Iseult and another knight, thinking that the queen does not love him anymore. He then runs into to woods: “And then was he naked and waxed lean and poor of flesh; and so he fell in the fellowship of herdmen and shepherds, and daily they would give him some of their meat and drink” (Malory 424-425; vol. 1, bk. 9, ch. 18).

Launcelot is banished by Guenever because he unintentionally spends a night with another woman and what is more, under Guenever‟s own roof. He is so devastated that he runs away as well as Tristan. The lady with who he spent the night says, “I said never nor did never thing that should in any wise displease him, but with the rebuke that Queen Guenever gave him I saw him swoon to the earth; and when he awoke he took his sword in his hand, naked save his shirt, and leapt out at a window with the grisliest groan that ever I heard man make” (Malory 204; vol. 2, bk. 11, ch. 9). In both cases the accusations of the queens are wrong but they act out of jealousy and later regret their decisions. Nevertheless, Tristan and Launcelot later recover from their conditions. Launcelot is cured by the Holy Grail and Tristan gets better when he is recognised again by Iseult.

Apart from the relationships inside the two love triangles, there are many references concerning mutual relationships between all the heroes of the narratives. These relations influence the actions of the characters, thus also the marriages, and they create an important part in the stories.

34

In The Romance of Tristan and Iseult there is only a slight mention of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table. They are called into Cornwall by queen Iseult to be the witnesses of her trial. She does not believe Mark‟s barons so she wants Arthur to be her guarantor. She trusts Arthur because she knows that he is a just and courteous king: “But if my warrantors, King Arthur and his knights, be there, the barons will not dare dispute the judgement” (Bédier “The Ordeal by Iron”). Likewise, King Arthur is willing to protect Iseult because he believes in her innocence.

In Malory‟s Le Morte d’Arthur, mutual relations between the characters are often discussed and they add many interesting facts to these two tales.

The most important relationship is between Sir Tristan and Sir Launcelot. They develop a brotherly love and help each other whenever it is possible. They agree that they will never do a battle with each other and swear to be friends. Nevertheless, once when they were disguised, they fought each other. When Sir Tristan recognised Sir Launcelot, he immediately stopped fighting and started blaming himself: “Alas, what have I done? For ye are the man in the world that I love best” (Malory 11; vol. 2, bk. 10, ch. 5). Sir Launcelot, in a similar way, called Sir Tristan “a man of most worship in the world” (Malory 437, vol. 1, bk. 9, ch. 25).

Launcelot is also very concerned about Tristan‟s situation in Cornwall. He does not believe King Mark and he tells his friend not to believe him, too. Moreover, he would gladly kill King Mark for Tristan‟s sake and regrets that he cannot do so. Thus, the only thing he can do is to constantly warn Tristan: “But Sir Launcelot bad ever Sir Tristram beware of King Mark, for ever he called him in his letters King Fox, as who saith, he fareth all with wiles and treason” (Malory 52; vol. 2, bk. 10, ch. 26).

The affection between Launcelot and Tristan is damaged only once. It is when Tristan marries another lady. Since Launcelot likes queen Iseult because she is a true lady and a friend of queen Guenever, he is furious finding out that Tristan is with another woman. He thinks that it is inappropriate for a true knight to love more than one lady. Consequently, he claims that Tristan is a traitor who betrayed the lady of his heart, which is the queen Iseult from Ireland: “Say ye him this, said Sir Launcelot, that of all knights in the world I loved him most, and had most joy of him, and all was for his noble deeds; and let him wit the love between him and me is done for ever, and that I give him warning from this day forth as his mortal enemy” (Malory 376; vol. 1, bk. 8, ch. 36). However, when Launcelot finds out that

35

Tristan has no intention of consummating his marriage, he forgives him. Otherwise, their relationship is very cordial and they remain friends ever after.

On the other hand, Sir Launcelot‟s relationship with King Mark is very cold. Sir Launcelot supports Sir Tristan and Mark hates him for that. To get his revenge on Launcelot and Tristan, Mark sends letters to Arthur telling him to be aware of the love between Launcelot and Guenever. Mark‟s intent turns against him when Arthur and Launcelot get angry at him. As a result, they let make a song about King Mark which is not very pleasing: “And so by the will of Sir Launcelot, and of Arthur, the harpers went straight into Wales, and into Cornwall, to sing the lay that Sir Dinadan made by King Mark, the which was the worst lay that ever harper sang with harp or with any other instruments” (Malory 55; vol. 2, bk. 10, ch. 27).

The relationship of King Mark and King Arthur is quite formal. Mark is subordinate to Arthur, but due to his wicked behaviour he is not popular in Arthur‟s court. Thus, King Arthur has no love for him and favours Tristan, who is a knight of his Round Table. Moreover, Mark is afraid of Arthur‟s authority and when a knight wants to accuse Mark of treason afore Arthur, Mark begs him not to reveal his name: “Wit thou well, and thou appeach me of treason I shall thereof defend me afore King Arthur; but I require thee that thou tell not my name, that I am King Mark, whatsomever come of me” (Malory 16; vol. 2, bk. 10, ch. 7). Later, when Arthur commands him to promise that he will reconcile with Tristan, he swears he will do it because he fears the wrath of the king. Arthur is willing to forgive him but Mark does not keep his promise and he murders Tristan. Overall, King Arthur despises King Mark, but he is a just king and he knows that he should treat another king with politeness, even if he is a villain.

The same applies to queen Guenever. She does not like King Mark because she knows what trouble he causes to her friend, queen Iseult. Furthermore, when Mark writes to King Arthur accusing her of adultery, she is justly enraged.

Queen Guenever and Queen Iseult have many things in common so their friendship is completely understandable. They often write letters to each other, for example, when Iseult is unhappy that her lover married another lady, she writes to Guenever to relieve her pain: “And in this meanwhile La Beale Isoud made a letter unto Queen Guenever, complaining her of the untruth of Sir Tristram, and how he had wedded the king‟s daughter of Brittany” (Malory 377; vol. 1, bk. 8, ch. 37). Likewise, when Queen Guenever finds herself in trouble because of

36

Sir Launcelot, she writes a letter to Iseult describing the situation. Queen Iseult immediately sends Sir Tristan to help them. Thus, they support each other all the time because they know that no one else could understand their feelings so well.

Arthur loves both Tristan and Iseult. He cherishes Tristan for his noble deeds and courteous character and invites him to become one of the Knights of the Round Table. Tristan and Iseult respect Arthur and know they can trust him. Generally, the relationship of Tristan and Iseult with Arthur, Launcelot and Guenever is very friendly. They care for each other and King Mark is the only one who is excluded from their hearts.

All in all, the mutual relationships between the characters are significant for the storylines of the narratives mainly because they show how the heroes interacted in their marriages and outside them. Apart from the character of King Mark in Le Morte d’Arthur, they show how true friends should behave as they constantly support each other.

After comparing the matrimony of King Mark and Iseult with King Arthur and Guenever, it is visible that they have many similar traits. The kings fall in love with their wives because of their comeliness and that is the main reason why they desire to marry them in the first place. They remain in love with them even though they suspect them of adultery. Furthermore, both queens esteem their husbands but they simply cannot stop loving another man. On the whole, the resemblance of the two unions is evident, as well as the characters of Launcelot and Tristan. Thus, the influence of the Cornish triangle on the Arthurian triangle is even more probable.

37

4. Adultery

The preceding chapter discussed the similarities and differences of matrimonial unions and relationships of the heroes. The last chapter of the thesis will compare the central motive of the two stories which is closely connected with marriage and that is adultery. The authors of the medieval times had to attract their audience with entertaining stories full of danger and excitement. Love without obstacles would not be interesting, thus they were forced to use a topic which would be more desirable. Creating a love triangle was the perfect option for an enticing romance.

Since people will always be interested in tales concerning forbidden and bad things, adultery is one of the most preferable topics. Moreover, Duby states that a “more effective way of putting across the message about adultery was to dramatize it” (213). Truly, if the story is seasoned with a tragic end, the audience adores it even more. The two love triangles of the Arthurian legends meet these requirements without a doubt. They are two romances which do not lack excitement, passion and affairs with disastrous consequences. Thus the tales became immortal as well as the love of the main characters.

In the Middle Ages, when the marriages were often premade and the ladies married lords according to their families‟ wishes, they could at least dream about true love, which could be found in the romances. Such love flourished in courts, especially between knights and the dames. The heroes of the narratives were charmed by beauty of the noble ladies and their glamour, while the dames admired knights‟ courteous character and courage: “A young knight no longer seized a noble lady by force; he won her favors by his bravery, by the fame he had won in the lists or in the courts of love” (Duby 279). The tales allowed people to be carried to other worlds, similar to theirs, but at the same time full of chivalry and love.

The reality was different, though. Marriages were taken very seriously and the Church insisted that it should be as moderate as possible: “Marriage was an order and therefore subject to discipline, and it was outside that order, on the wilder shores of life, that amorous adventures belonged, together with prostitution. Courtly love and prostitution both performed a useful function by siphoning excessive ardour from marriage, thus helping to preserve its proper state of moderation” (Duby 218).

The extramarital adventures, of course, applied only to men: “Men, even married men, could stray, as long as they did not go too far and destroy noble marriages in their quest for

38 pleasure” (Duby 218). They were allowed to search for mistresses if it helped them to keep their marriages on a moderate level. The adulterous affairs of men were not taken so seriously: “Of course, the husband‟s own escapades did not give rise to any such proceedings; nor were they a fit subject for romances. For it was honor that was at stake, and honor, though it was the business of men, depended on the behaviour of women” (Duby 220).

That also applies to the stories of the Round Table. Nobody is concerned about Mordred being a bastard. The adultery of Morgawse with the king is not discussed and it does not spark any disputes which would doubt Arthur‟s morality: “So illegitimacy was a normal part of the structure of ordinary society—so normal that illegitimate children, especially males, were neither concealed nor rejected” (Duby 262). Such cases were known in real life, too. For instance, Henry I “holds the record for illegitimate royal offspring, having sired more than twenty bastards” (Hollister 116).

King Arthur dubs his illegitimate son a knight and Mordred lives among the Knights of the Round Table in his father‟s court. Moreover, Arthur trusts him to the extent that he leaves his kingdom in Mordred‟s hands, while he pursuits Launcelot to France. However, Mordred is a villainous character who plans to usurp his father‟s throne.

Women, on the other hand, had different position. They were believed to be predisposed to sin. Duby states that females “were seen as perverse themselves, and likely to pervert the men” (70). Always seen as the temptresses, women represented a danger to society and men were supposed to guard themselves against their lustful intentions. Duby also claims that in the houses of noble people, it was easy for a man to be tempted as “outside the bedchamber of the master and mistress there was a private area full of females who were an easy prey” (70). Consequently, the adultery of women was “a feature of high society” (Duby 197). This is typical for the stories, too, as Iseult and Guenever are queens living in courts while they commit adultery on a daily basis.

Furthermore, there were suspicions that women were using magic to seduce men: “We are given one hint when Bourchard speaks of the spells and incantations resorted to by women, always witches to a greater or lesser degree, weak creatures having to make use of devious methods” (Duby 71). Women were sometimes accused of bewitching men while using potions or spells on them.

39

Some examples are shown in the narratives. Launcelot spends a night with a dame due to an enchantment. The lady‟s name is Elaine and she is the daughter of the king Pelles who wishes for the union of his daughter and Sir Launcelot. At the same time, a sorceress dwells in Pelles‟ castle and she tells him, “Sir, wit ye well Sir Launcelot loveth no lady in the world but all only Queen Guenever; and therefore work ye by counsel, and I shall make him to lie with your daughter, and he shall not wit but that he lieth with Queen Guenever” (Malory 191; vol. 2, bk. 11, ch. 2). Launcelot truly believes that he is with the queen, not aware of the fact that he is being deceived. Furthermore, he begets a child with Elaine. Altogether, he is charmed twice. Spending the night with Pelles‟ daughter for the second time leads to his banishment and madness.

Speaking about adulterous women in medieval romances, they may have had a real model in Eleanor of Aquitaine, the wife of Louis VII and later the wife of Henry Plantagenet. McCracken writes about the possible influence of her person on the romances:

Eleanor herself has long been associated with medieval love literature as both a patron and a model, and it is possible that Eleanor‟s experiences may have been well enough known to have influenced accounts of queenship in medieval romances; the rumors of the queen‟s adultery predate by about twenty-five years the composition of the first major French romance about an adulterous queen, Chrétien de Troyes‟s Chevalier de la charrete, a work whose patron was Eleanor‟s daughter, Marie of Champagne. (1-2)

Eleanor was under suspicion twice. Once, when she allegedly offered herself to Geoffroi Plantagenet, Henry‟s father, during her sojourn in Paris, and the second time when she and her husband Louis VII were visiting Eleanor‟s uncle, Prince Raymond of Antioch. Supposedly, Louis did not like the way his wife and Raymond talked to each other. It was believed that “conversation was the first stage in the ritual of courtly love, and the prelude to other pleasures” (Duby 193).

Duby claims that Eleanor was “dissatisfied with the king‟s way of life and complained of having married a monk” (196). The queen probably yearned for more adventurous life and the contemporary superstitions and rumours did not bother her. McCracken summarises the inquiries that Eleanor‟s behaviour provoked: “The reports of Eleanor‟s conduct in Antioch stress the importance of the queen‟s chastity, the threat to the king‟s honor that could be posed by his wife‟s sexual transgression, and the importance of undisputed succession in the royal

40 family. All of these issues are featured in romance representations of queenship and adultery” (2).

Duby ponders over contemporary conditions concerning protection of women: “What comes across even more clearly is how freely men could gain access to the lady in princely houses. Eleanor does not seem to have been given much protection at Antioch; and, according to the perhaps apocryphal story of her relations with Geoffroi Plantagenet, she was equally accessible in Paris” (197). Even though the Church emphasised the importance of watching over women, it seems that in practise the strict doctrines were not observed very diligently.

Another example of an adulterous queen was Isabella of France, the wife of Edward II. Unlike the affairs of Eleanor, Isabella‟s relationship with Roger Mortimer “was becoming a national scandal” (Hollister 227). Their affair went so far that Isabella‟s brother, Charles IV, “was being urged by the pope to countenance the guilty couple no further” (McKisack 83).

Duby claims that in general, it was easy for a lady to “meet her lover in the orchard or in the chamber” (219-220). That is true even for the romances. Queen Iseult, after she marries King Mark, enjoys the company of his nephew: “And her love too she had, love high and splendid, for as is the custom among great lords, Tristan could ever be near her. At his leisure and his dalliance, night and day: for he slept in the King‟s chamber as great lords do, among the lieges and the councillors” (Bédier “The Tall Pine-Tree”). Tristan even sleeps in the same chamber as Iseult which makes it very easy for him to meet the queen.

Even though Launcelot does not enjoy such privilege, his visits to Guenever‟s chamber are not less frequent as he does not encounter any obstacles: “So Sir Launcelot departed, and took his sword under his arm, and so in his mantle that noble knight put himself in great jeopardy; and so he passed till he came to the queen‟s chamber, and then Sir Launcelot was lightly put into the chamber” (Malory 460; vol. 2, bk. 20, ch. 3).

However, there is always someone who has a suspicion and who waits for the right time to reveal the lovers: “A wife could be spied on from all sides—by those who envied her, by the chosen suitor‟s rivals, by the ladies he had spurned, and by her husband, who might fall prey to morbid jealousy as he grew older” (Duby 220).

In both narratives, there are people who wish death to both adulterous couples out of jealousy. In the story of Tristan and Iseult, there are several barons who dislike Tristan: “They knew that the King had intent to grow old childless and to leave his land to Tristan; and their

41 envy swelled and by lies they angered the chief men of Cornwall against Tristan” (Bédier “The Quest of the Lady with the Hair of Gold”). The most vicious of them is Tristan‟s cousin, Sir Andret. He is aware of the fact that he is not Mark‟s favourite nephew. Therefore, he wishes to get rid of Tristan and to replace him.

At the beginning, Andret does not want Tristan to inherit the kingdom, thus he convinces his uncle to find a wife. Then, when his plans do not succeed because of the love between Tristan and Iseult, he tries to find another ways to do harm to his cousin. Constantly, he spies on the two lovers unable to prove their affair for a long time. Eventually, however, he manages to reveal the adultery and to set Mark against them.

In the court of King Arthur, there is also a man who wishes to ruin Launcelot and Guenever. It is Agravain, Sir Gawain‟s brother, who spies on Launcelot and plots with Sir Mordred the exposure of the queen‟s affair. He is successful, as well as Andret, and the discovery of his wife‟s adultery causes Arthur to declare war upon Sir Launcelot.

In the Middle Ages, doctrines and laws were created to deal with adultery: “Until the fourteenth century, canon law retained a virtual monopoly on legal control of lust and it physical manifestations” (Brundage 3). A bishop of the tenth and eleventh centuries, Bourchard of Worms, wrote lists which were dealing with crimes. One of these lists comprises the topic of infidelity:

A decreasing scale of guilt emerges: guiltiest of all is a married man who takes the wife of another; next comes a man who keeps a concubine in his own house; then comes he who repudiates his wife and remarries; then he who merely repudiates his wife. Next, and of much less importance, comes mere fornication. This may occur in one of two degrees: the first where one or both of the partners is married, the second where neither is. Last in this part of the list, and very venial because it was so frequent an occurrence in large houses filled with chambermaids, is the dalliance indulged in by young men and single women. (Duby 62)

The numerous types of sexual transgressions indicate how much the Church thought about adulterous affairs. Nevertheless, the situation changed: “After about 1300 and especially after 1350, however, municipalities and other lay authorities moved with greater urgency and increasing effectiveness into the business of imposing limits and controls upon sexual conduct, especially nonmarital or extramarital sexual relationships”(Brundage 4). It was not only the clergy, but also the other authorities who dealt with adultery.

42

In the stories, the discovery of the adulterous couples and following punishment is very similar. Tristan takes advantage of his privilege several times and he lies with Iseult when Mark is gone. However, Mark becomes suspicious and he lets a wizard dwarf test his wife and his nephew. One night, the dwarf simply scatters flour on the floor between Tristan‟s and Iseult‟s bed while everyone else is asleep. Tristan, already expecting wickedness from Mark‟s barons, stays awake and sees the wizard. After the dwarf is gone, Tristan leaps across the flour to Iseult‟s bed in order not to leave footprints on the floor: “But that day in the hunt a boar had wounded him in the leg, and in this effort the wound bled” (Bédier “The Discovery”). He does not realise that his wound is open again, staining not only the floor but also the sheets of the bed. When Mark and his barons enter the room, Tristan is already back in his place feigning a sleep, but the blood is everywhere, serving as the proof the adultery.

Launcelot, who wants to visit Guenever at night, has to climb into the window of her chamber. The window is barred, but that does not stop the lover: “And then he set his hands upon the bars of iron, and he pulled at them with such a might that he brast them clean out of the stone walls, and therewithal one of the bars of iron cut the brawn of his hands throughout to the bone” (Malory 438; vol. 2, bk. 19, ch. 6). Like Tristan, he does not pay attention to his bleeding wound and he spends the night with the queen, which leads to the discovery of her infidelity. The only difference is that it is not Arthur who finds her in bed with sheets covered in blood, but another knight, and that it is not known that it was Launcelot who visited Queen Guenever.

Nevertheless, later in the story, the relationship between Lancelot and Guenever is also revealed. Then, King Arthur is obliged to punish the couple as well as King Mark: “The shame had to be public and established in order to be legitimately avenged. The husband had the right to kill” (Duby 220). Both queens are sentenced to death by being burnt at the stake because of their treason. Iseult‟s judgement is changed when she is standing by the stake, though, after a crowd of lepers persuades Mark to yield the queen to them. Their leader Ivan tells the king, “She has had pleasure in rich stuffs and furs . . . but when she sees your lepers always, King, and only them for ever, their couches and their huts, then indeed she will know the wrong she has done” (Bédier “The Chantry Leap”). Mark consents despite the disgust of all other people, and the lepers take Iseult away. However, she is saved by Tristan and together they escape to the wood of Morois.

43

Guenever is led to the stake as well as Iseult. Nevertheless, Launcelot is prepared to save his lover from death. He storms into the city with several knights, eliminating anyone who stands in their way to rescue the queen: “Then when Sir Launcelot had thus done, and slain and put to flight all that would withstand him, then he rode straight unto Dame Guenever” (Malory 472; vol. 2, bk. 20, ch. 8). They take refuge in Joyous Gard, Launcelot‟s castle where Tristan and Iseult were hidden before, too.

In this moment of the stories, the influence of the Church and its teaching about morality emerges. Brundage ponders over the actual Christianity and the interpretation of the clergy:

Jesus was in favour of marriage (although apparently he did not practice it) and he opposed adultery (which is a special case of his general condemnation of deception and infidelity). He also seems to have disapproved of promiscuity and commercial sex, although he scandalized some of his contemporaries by befriending prostitutes. But it remained for medieval Church authorities, confident of the authenticity of their own beliefs, to wrap their views on sex and the family in the mantle of Christian orthodoxy. In effect, then, Christian sexual morality received its cachet of authority from the medieval Church. (5)

When the conflict between King Arthur and Launcelot caused by the discovered adultery escalates, the king is angry to the extent that he declares war on Sir Launcelot. He decides to lay a siege about Launcelot‟s castle Joyous Gard, where Launcelot is hiding with Guenever:

Of this war was noised through all Christendom, and at the last it was noised afore the Pope; and he considering the great goodness of King Arthur, and of Sir Launcelot, that was called the most noblest knights of the world, wherefore the Pope called unto him a noble clerk . . . and the Pope gave him bulls under lead unto King Arthur of England, charging him upon pain of interdicting of all England, that he take his queen Dame Guenever unto him again, and accord with Sir Launcelot. (Malory 483; vol. 2, bk. 20, ch. 13)

Thus Arthur is forced to withdraw his troops as he is obliged to obey the leader of the Catholic Church. The king therefore agrees to negotiate with Launcelot and they agree on the return of the queen. Arthur would gladly forgive the lovers because he regrets what has happened, but Sir Gawain is strongly against it: “But in nowise Sir Gawain would not suffer

44 the king to accord with Sir Launcelot; but as for the queen he consented” (Malory 484; vol. 2, bk. 20, ch. 14). Gawain is wrath with Launcelot because when he was rescuing Guenever from being burnt, he accidentally slew Gawain‟s two brothers.

In the Cornish triangle, the ecclesiastical power is not so substantial. After the disclosure of the adultery, both lovers are sentenced to death. Tristan manages to escape and to save the queen, which results into their flight into the wood of Morois. Eventually, they reconcile with the king on their own, only with the help of the hermit Ogrin who counsels them to return to virtuous life: “A man that is traitor to his lord is worthy to be torn by horses and burnt upon the faggot, and wherever his ashes fall no grass shall grow and all tillage is waste, and the trees and the green things die. Lord Tristan, give back the Queen to the man who espoused her lawfully according to the laws of Rome” (Bédier “The Wood of Morois”). Thus the only Christian influence on the behaviour of the adulterous couple is the hermit who “is the only one to deliver the message of Christianity to lovers and married couples” (Duby 225).

Tristan‟s situation is similar to Launcelot‟s. After he returns Iseult to Mark, the king asks his barons for advice, because he would like to forgive them both. However, they are willing to take back only the queen and they refuse to forgive Tristan: “Sire, take back the Queen. They were madmen that belied her to you. But as for Tristan, let him go and war it in Galloway, or in the Lowlands” (Bédier “The Ford”). Thus both knights are banished from their countries while leaving their lovers to their husbands.

Another interesting fact is that in Bédier‟s and Malory‟s versions, both queens remain childless. Duby explains simply why the authors avoided children in the narratives concerning female adultery: “Bastardy was too serious a matter to be treated lightly even in literature. People were too afraid of it to use it as a subject for a tale” (222). The only characters who have heirs are Launcelot and Arthur, although both of them beget a child with another lady than Guenever. It is clearly visible that male‟s illegitimate descendants were accepted, but when it came to the queens, they had to remain childless.

Even though the wives of the kings avoid having children with their lovers, they cannot avert the disastrous consequences of their affairs. In The Romance of Tristan and Iseult, Tristan dies of grief in exile because he cannot see his love again. In Malory‟s version of the story, he is stabbed by his uncle: “Also that traitor king slew the noble knight Sir Tristram, as he sat harping afore his lady La Beale Isoud, with a trenchant glaive, for whose

45 death was much bewailing of every knight that ever were in Arthur‟s days” (Malory 450; vol. 2, bk. 19, ch. 11). Queen Iseult is not able to continue her life without Tristan; therefore she always passes away shortly after him. Launcelot and Guenever decease peacefully, but apart from each other, while repenting their sins several years after Arthur‟s death. There are not many mentions about King Mark‟s death. In Bédier‟s version, he does not die at all as the story ends with the lovers‟ death. In Malory‟s version, he is slain by another knight who takes his revenge on him because Mark murdered his father. King Arthur dies because of the wounds he receives during the battle with his son Mordred.

However, Arthur‟s death is not certain. Malory says, “Yet some men say in many parts of England that King Arthur is not dead, but had by the will of Our Lord Jesu into another place; and men say that he shall come again, and he shall win the holy cross” (Malory 519; vol. 2, bk. 21, ch. 7). The death of the king is disputed and mysterious, making him immortal in the minds of people, thus enabling them to hope that one day he will come back.

All in all, the narratives do not end happily, but they remained in people‟s minds until today. The characters of Tristan and Iseult are always described so nicely that it is impossible for the audience to condemn their adulterous relationship. It is obvious from the very beginning that the romance concentrates on the two lovers. The storyline begins with Tristan‟s birth and it follows him until the end. He is the hero of the tale, thus people sympathise with him.

The character of Iseult‟s husband and Tristan‟s uncle, King Mark, is easily forgotten, though. Mark is the least known member of the love triangle, thus the least popular. He does not provoke such strong feelings as the two lovers. In both versions of the story, he is seen as the third member of the triangle, not the first. It is obvious that Tristan and Iseult belong to each other and Mark is the obstacle preventing them from living a happy life. Malory must have seen him like this and that may be the reason why he decided to follow the version of the story where Mark is wicked, to create a villain who stands in the way of love.

The love triangle of the Arthurian legends is different. Arthur is the one who is the most famous and beloved, which makes it difficult for people to favour Launcelot and Guenever. The King is the hero of the whole tale. This is obvious even from the name of Malory‟s work. Malory concentrates on Arthur‟s life and his feelings, although there are parts in which he does not occur at all. These are numerous adventures of other knights where

46

Arthur is always the king of the realm. Those knights are his companions who, after they complete their quests, return to his court.

Concerning the affair, the king is seen as the victim, as a person who loves his wife but who cannot prevent her from loving another man. Furthermore, this man is his favourite knight and a cherished friend whose betrayal is even more hurtful. Arthur is the first and the most important part of the triangle. Therefore, people tend to pity him and the infidelity of the queen with Sir Launcelot is seen as a despicable act.

The adultery of Tristan and Iseult, on the other hand, is easily excused. The main reason is that it is not entirely voluntary. By accident, a maid offers them a drink which she discovers while they are sailing across the sea towards King Mark in Cornwall: “Now she had found not wine — but Passion and Joy most sharp, and Anguish without end, and Death” (Bédier “The Philtre”). The drink is in fact a magic potion prepared by Iseult‟s mother for her daughter and her future husband. The elixir serves to evoke great love in those who drink it, thus the triumphant sailing turns into a bitter voyage for them.

As they fall in love with each other, they realise that they have drunk their doom. From the moment they drink the potion, they are bound to each other by a magical force which cannot be avoided. However, Iseult is on her way to marry Tristan‟s uncle, and it is too late to cancel the wedding. Nevertheless, they decide to suffer together rather than live apart. Iseult then marries Tristan‟s uncle as expected, but she never loves him: “Then Iseult lived as a queen, but lived in sadness” (Bédier “The Tall Pine-Tree”). She has to pretend that she is happy in order not to raise suspicion. The new queen seeks comfort only in Tristan‟s arms, yet their relationship must remain a secret. Thus begins their clandestine love and misery. They try to resist the urge of their hearts several times as they respect King Mark, but they never succeed.

Launcelot and Guenever do not experience such torment. They are not forced by magic to love each other eternally, thus they do not suffer like Tristan and Iseult. Moreover, they enjoy each other‟s company without remorse, especially after Launcelot‟s return from the quest of the Holy Grail: “They loved together more hotter than they did toforehand, and had such privy draughts together, that many in the court spake of it” (Malory 373; vol. 2, bk. 18, ch. 1). Their relationship is known in the court as they are not careful enough to hide it. Launcelot often visits the queen in her chambers and many Knights of the Round Table are aware of their affair.

47

Arthur, on the contrary, does not expect anything wrong in Launcelot‟s visits because he considers Launcelot his dearest friend: “The king was full loth thereto, that any noise should be upon Sir Launcelot and his queen; for the king had a deeming, but he would not hear of it” (Malory 458; vol. 2, bk. 20, ch. 2). Even though he has suspicion, he refuses to believe that they would be capable of betraying him. He does not listen to other people talking about their affection towards each other.

As a result, Launcelot and Guenever feel safe, never realising how destructive their love is until they are discovered. The revealed affair is in fact the cause of Arthur‟s death. After declaring war on Sir Launcelot, he leaves his kingdom in the care of his son, Sir Mordred: “As Sir Mordred was ruler of all England, he did do make letters as though that they came from beyond the sea, and the letters specified that King Arthur was slain in battle with Sir Launcelot” (Malory 505; vol. 2, bk. 21, ch. 1). Mordred is a wicked knight who wants to usurp his father‟s throne as well as his wife. He intends to marry Guenever but she manages to escape to the Tower of London.

Meanwhile, Arthur pursues Launcelot to France along with Sir Gawain to besiege his castle. Launcelot tells Arthur, “I needs defend myself, insomuch Sir Gawain hath appelled me of treason; the which is greatly against my will that ever I should fight against any of your blood, but now I may not forsake it, I am driven thereto as a beast till a bay” (Malory 499; vol. 2. bk. 20, ch. 20). Launcelot does not want to fight Arthur, even though Arthur wishes to kill him. He is devastated by the conflict and he would gladly make his peace with Arthur.

When he hears about Mordred‟s treason he returns to England, only to find out the consequences of his adulterous love—Arthur has been slain by Mordred and the queen is gone. He regrets it deeply and he tells his friends, “We came too late, and that shall repent me while I live, but against death may no man rebel. But sithen it is so . . . I will myself ride and seek my lady, Queen Guenever” (Malory 522; vol. 2, bk. 21, ch. 8). Realising what damage he has done by being careless, he follows Guenever‟s example and becomes a man of the clergy.

Iseult and Tristan are not as reckless as Launcelot and Guenever. They try to hide their emotions and their dates are secret. Eventually, their relationship is also discovered, but the whole kingdom adores the couple. Even King Arthur approves of their adultery. When Tristan takes Iseult to visit Arthur‟s court, the king says: “Now I dare say ye are the fairest that ever I saw, and Sir Tristram is as fair and as good a knight as any that I know; therefore me

48 beseemeth ye are well beset together” (Malory 165; vol. 2, bk. 10, ch. 78). People know how the lovers suffer and they pity them instead of condemning them. It is obvious that they did not choose their destiny. Even though it was not their fault, they have to bear the consequences of drinking the magic potion.

Generally, the feelings towards the two adulterous couples are different as people tend to favour Tristan and Iseult while condemning Launcelot and Guenever. However, the stories are very similar. The discovery of the queens‟ infidelity by the bloodstains, their condemnation to death and the following rescue by their lovers, all of these episodes from the narratives indicate that there had to be some kind of influence of the Tristan‟s story on the story of Launcelot.

49

Conclusion

Medieval romances were created in order to please and captivate the audience with the themes of love, passion and chivalry. Listening to poets and their stories was one of the favourite forms of entertainment in a world full of wars and betrayals. Romances helped people to forget all the difficulties in their lives and to live for a while in other lands along with brave heroes and noble dames.

Nevertheless, the resemblance of real people with the heroes of the stories proves that the legends were not only invented, but they also reflected the reality, although idealised. The characters are authentic because they show their weaknesses as well as their virtues and it is probable that some of them were inspired by actual people.

The marriages of the main protagonists are depicted more romantically, though. Love is the main reason for the matrimonial union in the stories, and not material profit as it was common in the real Middle Ages, especially among nobility. The kings love their queens devotedly even when they suspect them of adultery. What is more, they are willing to take them back after the queens flee with their lovers.

The extramarital relationships of the queens with the knights are the main theme of the stories. The reason why the French authors wanted to revive the tale about Tristan and Iseult from the Celtic legends and to introduce it to their contemporary society was the idea of forbidden love which lasts even after death. Thus, the adultery of Tristan and Iseult didn‟t seem to be an immoral act worth loathing when people sympathised with them. The adultery of Launcelot and Guenever, on the other hand, is not embedded in such romantic light. The fact that they fall in love naturally unlike Tristan and Iseult creates the image that they had a choice not to surrender to their lust. Thus, their affair is seen as a betrayal.

Apart from the general perception of the two adulterous couples, where Tristan and Iseult are seen almost as martyrs and Launcelot and Guenever as traitors, the resemblance of the legends is obvious after the analysis of the stories. It is worth examining the narratives to find out how much the story of Tristan influenced the story of Launcelot. The comparison of the texts reveals many interesting similarities, such as the almost identical characters of the two knights, the same way the adulterous couples are discovered or the merciful act of the kings who take their wives back. Thus it is evident that the legend about Tristan affected Launcelot‟s creation and also the conception of his affair with Guenever.

50

Bibliography

Print sources Alexander, Michael. A history of English literature. 3rd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Print. Allen, Valerie. English literature in context. Ed. Paul Poplawski. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Print.

Chancellor, Valerie E. Medieval and Tudor Britain. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1967. Print.

Curtius, Ernst Robert. European literature and the Latin Middle Ages. Trans. Willard R. Trask. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979. Print. Darcos, Xavier. Histoire de la Littérature Francoise. Paris: Hachette livre, 1992. Print. Drabble, Margaret. The Oxford companion to English literature. Rev. ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Print. Duby, Georges. The knight, the lady and the priest: the making of modern marriage in medieval France. Trans. Barbara Bray. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1981. Print.

Graves, Robert. Introduction. Sir Thomas Malory’s Le morte d’Arthur: king Arthur and the legends of the Round Table. By Keith Baines. London: George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd., 1962. xi-xx. Print. Hollister, Charles Warren. The making of England: 55 B.C. to 1399. Ed. Norman Clark Adams. 3rd ed. Lexington: D.C. Heath, 1976. Print.

Malory, Thomas. Le Morte D'Arthur. 3rd ed. Ed. Janet Cowen. 2 vols. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1969. Print. Malory, Thomas. Le Morte D’Arthur. 2 vols. New York: Hyperion, 2004. Print. McKisack, May. The fourteenth century: 1307-1399. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Print.

Powicke, Maurice. The thirteenth century: 1216-1307. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Print. Sampson, George. The concise Cambridge history of English literature. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Print.

51

Electronic sources Bédier, Joseph. (2004). The Romance of Tristan and Iseult. Trans. H. Belloc. Retrieved from https://ia601407.us.archive.org/22/items/theromanceoftris14244gut/14244-h/14244- h.htm Brundage, James A.. Introduction. Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe. By Brundage. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press, 1990. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 21 March 2015. Heng, Geraldine. Empire of Magic: Medieval Romance and the Politics of Cultural Fantasy. New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press, 2003. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 21 March 2015. McCracken, Peggy. Introduction. Middle Ages Series : Romance of Adultery : Queenship and Sexual Transgression in Old French Literature. By McCracken. Philadelphia, PA, USA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 23 March 2015. Nicholson, Helen. Love, War and the Grail : Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights in Medieval Epic and Romance, 1150-1500. Leiden, NLD: Brill, N.H.E.J., N.V. Koninklijke, Boekhandel en Drukkerij, 2001. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 23 February 2015.

52