UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE Canacee’s Mirror: Gender and Treasons in Medieval Literature A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English by Joanna Lee Scott Bradfield December 2011 Dissertation Committee: Dr. John Ganim, Chairperson Dr. Andrea Denny-Brown Dr. Deborah Willis Copyright by Joanna Lee Scott Bradfield 2011 The Dissertation of Joanna Lee Scott Bradfield is approved: _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Committee Chairperson University of California, Riverside ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the members of my committee, Professor Andrea Denny- Brown, Professor Deborah Willis, and especially my chair, Professor John Ganim. All three have helped me grow as a scholar, both encouraging and challenging me when needed. Dr. Ganim, in particular, has been a constant source of cheerful but realistic advice for nearly a decade now, and special thanks go to him, Bea, and Joey. This dissertation would not have been possible without the love and help of my friends and family; to name them all would make a long dissertation even longer. However, a few individuals either gave me good advice or brought me back to myself when I was at crossroads: my brother, Nate Scott, and my best friend, Laura Christiansen, talked me into going to graduate school in the first place; my friend, roommate, and role model Chrissy Crockett talked me into staying in graduate school; and my sister, Rachel Scott, has the distinction, for better or worse, of having read practically every page of every draft of this dissertation. Her constant feedback and helpful renditions of the Old French and Middle English proved invaluable. The rest of my family, including my sister-in-law Mary, my nephews Jack, Joshua, and Will, and my new family, the Bradfields, Barry, Dianne, Eric, Christie, and Aria all deserve thanks for keeping me going and being proof that good things will come into your life if you simply let them in. My husband, Ryan, has been a constant source of love and support during the past four years, never letting me get too frustrated, and providing cheerful distractions on trip after trip to various libraries. He gave me space and time to work when I needed it, and tricked me into having fun and relaxing when I needed that. iv Finally, my deepest thanks go to my parents, Penny and John. There really is no way to express how much their unwavering love, support, advice, and confidence has meant to me. This is for them. v ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Canacee’s Mirror: Gender and Treasons in Medieval Literature by Joanna Lee Scott Bradfield Doctor of Philosophy, Graduate Program in English University of California, Riverside, December 2011 Dr. John Ganim, Chairperson Canacee’s Mirror: Gender and Treasons in Medieval Literature examines the multifaceted and constantly shifting definitions and applications of treason law in several key texts of the Middle Ages. Whether in the form of political treason or romantic infidelity, treason presents a serious problem, the very idea of it revealing anxieties about discerning truth, judging speech and appearances, and performing loyalty. These anxieties become most pointed when examined through the lens of gender. Each chapter moves chronologically through the shifts in French and English law, drawing on the work of legal scholars to explore Roman and Germanic antecedents as well as contemporary applications of treason law. The changes in the laws are reflected and refracted in medieval literature by the way individual authors and texts present nuanced and varying depictions of treason, betrayal, guilt, and truth. These nuances are magnified and complicated when the traitor in question is a woman, and thus the chapters alternate between analysis of both male and female traitors. While the charge of treason for men could be levied for deceptive disloyalty in either realm of the political or the romantic, as Ganelon shows on the one hand, and the men of vi The Legend of Good Women show on the other, for many women in the literature of the Middle Ages romantic treason necessarily involves a breach of political or feudal bonds as well. In general, with the notable exception of Lancelot, female characters such as Béroul’s Iseut, Chaucer’s Criseyde, and Malory’s Guinevere demonstrate a much greater awareness of the repercussions of their betrayal, in both reputation and physical punishment, than their male counterparts. Each chapter, thus, examines the complicated nexus of expectations and behaviors with which medieval authors negotiated the definition, presentation, and consequences of treason for both men and women. vii Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………… ………1 Chapter One, Ganelon and Treasons in La Chanson de Roland……………………17 Chapter Two, “what suspicion can do”: Iseut and Betrayal in Béroul……...............77 Chapter Three, “so it wel may seme”: Criseyde and Betrayals in Troilus and Criseyde…………………………………………………………...........143 Chapter Four, “As a fals lover so wel can pleyne”: Treason and the Legends of Bad Men…..………………………………………………........ .207 Chapter Five, Malory and the “Grete Worde”..……………………..………….........265 Works Cited…………………………………………………………………….........343 viii Introduction In Dante’s Inferno, the ninth and innermost circle of hell is reserved for the treacherous, those who have betrayed kin (Caina), homeland (Antenora), guests (Ptolomea), and benefactors (Judecca). The very center of hell is occupied by Lucifer, who committed the first betrayal according to Christian theology. The monstrous, giant creature has three heads, and so three mouths, and in one mouth is Judas Iscariot, traitor to Christ; in the other two mouths are Brutus and Cassius, both damned for betraying Julius Caesar. Brutus and Cassius are condemned to be consumed constantly, feet first; Judas, however, is being eaten head first, and only his writhing legs and feet are visible to Dante and Virgil (423).1 All suffer eternally: Lucifer in remaining frozen in the center of the earth, and Judas, Brutus, and Cassius in being torn open, gnawed at, devoured forever. Treason, Dante makes clear, is the worst of all crimes, the most terrible thing of which humans are capable, worse than lust, greed, heresy, and even murder. Treason is so awful that it is the only sin for which humans who are still living are consigned to hell— in Canto 33, he describes meeting two Italians who have not yet died, but whose souls are already suffering the torments of the ninth circle while devils inhabit their bodies on earth (411).2 Once they have reached this level of hell, the absolute center, Virgil begins to guide his pilgrim out of hell, for as he explains, “we have seen all” (423). There is nowhere lower to go, no worse sinners to see. 1 All references to Dante come from John D. Sinclair’s dual-language edition. The Divine Comedy of Dante Aligheri: Volume I, Inferno. Trans. John D. Sinclair. New York: Oxford Press, 1939. 2 These are Dante’s contemporaries Fra Alberigo and Branca d’Oria. Dante himself seems surprised to see them there, asking Alberigo “then are thou dead already?” (411). 1 As the multiple geographies of Dante’s hell indicate, treason can occur in many different ways. My study focuses on treason’s unstable location within the nexus of personal and political betrayal, examining several key pieces of literature from the Middle Ages and their depiction of constantly shifting ideas of truth, loyalty, and expected behavior. To this end, I have chosen the title of my project, “Canacee’s Mirror,” from “The Squire’s Tale” by Geoffrey Chaucer.3 The mirror, a mysterious gift for the beautiful Eastern princess Canacee, magically reflects political traitors on one side and romantic betrayers on the other. Its two sides thus represent the two major areas I explore, while the fact that it is a single mirror highlights the fact that the basic elements of both trespasses are the same. Whether in the form of political treason or romantic infidelity, treason presented a serious problem in the literature of the Middle Ages, the very idea of it revealing anxieties about the fact that appearances, whether of feudal loyalty or romantic fidelity, can be manipulated, and bonds meant to hold social units together can be broken, all in secrecy. While a full study of the history of treason lies outside the bounds of my study,4 any discussion of what treason means for medieval English and French literature must examine its Roman and Germanic antecedents and parallels. In this respect I have relied 3 All references to Chaucer come from The Riverside Chaucer, 3rd edition. Ed. Larry D. Benson. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1987. 4 When possible, I have consulted primary sources for the early laws of both France and England, including Phillipe de Beaumanoir’s The Coutumes de Beauvaisis of Phillipe de Beaumanoir. Trans. and ed. F.R.P. Akehurst. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1992; Glanville’s Tractatus de Legibus et Consuetudinibus Regni Anglie Qui Glanvilla Vocatur [The Treatise on the Laws and Customs of the Realm of England Commonly Called Glanvill]. Ed. G.D.G. Hall. London: Nelson in association with the Selden Society, 1965; and Henry de Bracton’s De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae [On the Laws and Customs of England]. Ed. George E. Woodbine. Trans. Samuel E. Thorne.Vol.1. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1968. 2 on the work of legal scholars and historians such as Floyd Lear, John G. Bellamy, and Richard Firth Green.5 Floyd Lear’s prolific work on the early history of treason in Roman law and early Germanic law and culture is a crucial starting point for understanding the origins of eventual medieval concepts of treason. Lear points out the king-centered concept of laesa maiestas in the Roman law, whereby treason is an offense against the ruler and his realm; it is a crime based on a breach of hierarchichal expectations.