“No gretter perile”: Over-mighty Subjects and Fifteenth-Century Politics in Malory’s Morte Darthur Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Michael M. Baker, M.A. Graduate Program in English The Ohio State University 2013 Dissertation Committee: Karen A. Winstead, Advisor Richard Firth Green Ethan Knapp Copyright by Michael M. Baker 2013 Abstract Traditionally read as a deeply nostalgic text – one that looks back to Arthur’s Camelot as a Golden Age of English history and chivalry – Sir Thomas Malory’s Morte Darthur is, instead, a very contemporarily relevant text. Completed in 1469/70, at the mathematical center of the divisive Wars of the Roses (c. 1455-1485), Malory’s Morte considers problematic contemporary political issues that threaten the peace and stability of the realm. Chief among these are issues involving over-mighty subjects, identified by Sir John Fortescue in The Governance of England (c. 1471/75) as the greatest threat to fifteenth-century kings. Since K. B. McFarlane’s 1964 declaration that “only an undermighty ruler had anything to fear from overmighty subjects,” however, the over- mighty have been under-studied. It is important, though, when examining a text to consider the prevalent beliefs of its time; even if McFarlane’s statement is true, neither Fortescue nor Malory would have agreed with it. Malory’s Morte does not create perfect analogues to fifteenth-century persons or events (i.e., Lancelot is not the Kingmaker, the final battle near Salisbury is not Towton), but it does create many parallels to fifteenth-century political issues. This study argues that Malory’s selections from, alterations of, and additions to his source material intentionally recall contemporary political problems – particularly those involving over- mighty subjects – that threaten the stability of the realm. The use and misuse of royal patronage, for example, often resulted in the favoritism of some nobles and the ostracism ii of others – the former engendered envy, the latter risked rebellion. Local struggles over property and influence, if not properly addressed, could ignite blood feuds and shape political factions at court. Such problems caused the downfall of Arthur’s Camelot – and they threatened fifteenth-century England as well. In many ways, Malory’s Morte serves as warning of things to come, should such issues be allowed to fester. iii Acknowledgments First, I would like to thank my advisor, Karen Winstead, for her time, advice, patience, and encouragement. I would also like to thank the other members of my committee, Richard Firth Green, who always made insightful suggestions on my drafts, and Ethan Knapp, who offered a veritable library of secondary sources to consider. The fact that each of these professors has published works related to the fifteenth century is what originally drew me to Ohio State, and working with them has been a pleasure. I would also like to thank the many other influential professors and teachers I have had during my academic career, including: Lisa Kiser, Barbara Hanawalt, Richard Dutton, John King, Drew Jones, David Cressy, Jill Galvan, Jennifer Higginbotham, Chris Highley, Thomas Heffernan, Roy Liuzza, Laura Howes, Joseph Trahern, Martin Foys, David F. Johnson, Laura J. Rosenthal, Robert Mann, John Waller, Virginia Johnson, Randy Law, Steve Johnson, Michael Pate, and many others. Many thanks are due to Kathleen Griffin, the Academic Program Coordinator, Graduate Studies in the English Department at OSU. She patiently answered a multitude of questions during my time in the program, and did so with a kind, elegant grace. I would also like to thank my fellow graduate students, particularly Dr. Christine Moreno for her friendship and commiseration, and Dr. Ryan Judkins, who offered a wonderfully poetic translation of a Latin quotation for this dissertation (in Chapter Two). iv Over the years, I have been fortunate to have some excellent students, and I would like to thank them for making our classes enjoyable. Finally, I wish to thank my family and friends. Your support, if not always acknowledged, has not gone unnoticed. I extend special thanks to my parents; John and his family; and Kelly, Evelyn, and Wendy. Among my friends, I particularly thank Jamey, Doug, Justin, Paul, Mary, and John. v Vita 1991 ..............................................................................................Suwannee High School 1995 ...........................................................................B.A. Russian, University of Florida 1999 .......................................................................B.A. English, Florida State University 2005 ......................................................................M.A. English, University of Tennessee Field of Study Major Field: English vi Table of Contents Abstract............................................................................................................................. ii Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... iv Vita ................................................................................................................................... vi Introduction: Over-Mighty Subjects in Fifteenth-Century England and Sir Thomas Malory’s Morte Darthur.................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Background and Interpretations........................................................................ 27 1. “Thys poure knyght”: Sir Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel ................................... 29 2. “In thos dayes” Versus “Nowadayes”: Nostalgic and Contemporarily Relevant Readings of the Morte Darthur ................................................................................ 45 Chapter 2: Favoritism and Ostracism................................................................................. 84 1. “Whos lyvelode and mighte was nerehande equivalente to the kinges owne”: Lancelot as Over-mighty Subject ............................................................................. 85 2. “Cherissh thy champyons and chief men of armes”: King/Noble Relations and the Role of Royal Patronage ..........................................................................................112 3. “Noble prynce… Susteyne right, trouthe þou magnefye… Til noþer part þy fauour applye”: Royal Favoritism and the Cases of William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk and Sir Lancelot du Lake .........................................................................................126 4. “And that ys to me grete hevynes… that I was fleamed oute of thys londe”: Royal Ostracism and the Cases of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick and Sir Lancelot du Lake.........................................................................................................................151 Chapter 3: Private Feuds....................................................................................................170 1. “And for thys cause we felle at debate”: Preconditions for Feuds in Fifteenth- Century England......................................................................................................175 vii 2. “For the peopul wil go with hym that beste may sustene and rewarde hem”: The Struggles for Property and Influence in Fifteenth-Century England..........................206 3. “Thy father slew myne, and so wil I do the and all thy kyn”: The Blood Feud...........242 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................265 References.........................................................................................................................274 viii INTRODUCTION OVER-MIGHTY SUBJECTS IN FIFTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND AND SIR THOMAS MALORY’S MORTE DARTHUR In 1964, K. B. McFarlane declared that “only an undermighty ruler had anything to fear from overmighty subjects; and if he were undermighty his personal lack of fitness was the cause, not the weakness of his office and its resources.”1 Subsequent scholarship widely accepted this assertion, and the over-mighty became understudied. Even when the special status of magnates was accepted, however, scholars tended to focus on the weakness of Henry VI as much as on the power of men like Richard, duke of York. J. R. Lander, for example, recognizes York’s singular status in October 1460, when, by claiming the crown (and receiving acknowledgment as Henry’s heir), “York had acted against the wishes of well-nigh all.”2 Yet Lander also stresses Henry VI’s personal weakness: In an age when government was a cooperative enterprise between the monarch and the propertied classes, only a king of sound political 1 K. B. McFarlane, “The Wars of the Roses,” England in the Fifteenth Century: Collected Essays (London: Hambledon Press, 1981), p. 238-39. In keeping with current conventions, I will use the forms over-mighty and under-mighty except in direct quotations. 2 J. R. Lander, Government and Community: England, 1450-1509 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), 211. 1 judgment, seen to hold a fair balance between the conflicting interests of rival magnates, cold hope to control the great and, through the great, the country. Henry VI… developed or degenerated into a man who could hardly have been worse equipped to meet the unceasing stresses of such a task.3 Although Lander