I’ve been thinking about the relation between the mindset that determined the way in which conflicts were faced and law was carried out in the Middle Ages, which is the topic of my presentation a few weeks ago, and how this applied to literature. So, first a short reminder of the presentation in order to make my comment about Malory…
According to Medieval French Literature and Law, by Howard Bloch, and as I stated in my presentation, the form of doing justice during feudal times was by facing each other in battle, a situation in which the verdict was decided by God, who determined who would win the battle. Later on, as law and trials came more and more into use, humans gave the verdict; justice became much more secularized. At the same time, this had an interesting effect upon the way justice and society worked. Before, the entire community was committed to the conflict and enmity not only involved all members of the community at the time of the conflict, but it was also inherited (which is the same way in which peace worked). Later on, the process of justice became individual as the person faced a trial on his or her own. One last characteristic: during the feudal period, power tended to lie dispersed among the feudal lords; whereas, later on, with the development of the trial, it was possible to centralize power in the hands of the king.
Bloch compares the two periods of the Middle Ages with the two typical forms of literature of the time: the epic and the romance. According to his analysis of the ways of carrying out law, the epic is highly descriptive of the feudal period while the romance is more descriptive of the individuality of the tests the knight will face as in a trial.
I think that Malory’s Le Morte dArthur serves as an interesting transitional text. It makes the struggle for the centralization of power of the king in the High and Late Middle Ages very clear. In the beginning of the text, we have a King Arthur who must fight against innumerable lords that do not accept him as their king because of his age and origins. However, regardless of their motivations, this first trial is also an indicator of the enormous power that these lords had. In Malory’s narration, Arthur serves as a tremendously centralizing power for the reign. Despite the obstacles of his age, his unusual birth and origins, and the opposition of so many of the lords of the reign, he is able to establish himself as the ruler over them all. This first period of his seems to depict this transition that is moving away from this feudal system and towards a centralized one, which is made evident in the fact that all the adventures are reported back to him.
Another element that seems transitional to me is how the older concept of communal justice is merged with that of the individual challenge. Though this is something that is been present in most of the texts we’ve read and is present in Malory’s text once more. When Lancelot encounters Terquyn, who has imprisoned many knights, they face each other, and Lancelot proves himself good enough to be the liberator of the “three score and foure” prisoners his opponent has as well as being worthy of his friendship. However, Terquyn refuses to release the prisoners when he knows that he is Lancelot… Lancelot had taken the life of his brother, Sir Carados; therefore justice must be done for his brother, just as in the other romances we’ve read. The reason for one knight killing another is long forgotten. There is no intention or desire to establish justice as we understand it today. A family member’s blood that has been shed must be avenged. However, in this romance is in the others, it is the individual who must face the opponent to carry out the act of justice.
Hi, Natalia! I actually see the centralization of power in Arthur as a more emphatic instance of feudalism rather than as an opposite pole; it's the strengthening of the fundamental structure of feudalism, in which middle-tier guys are all subservient and beholden to the monarch.
ReplyDeleteBy the time Malory's Morte Darthur was penned, it had been over two hundred years since English/Scottish/Welsh barons had pressured King John to sign the Magna Carta, setting the foundation of constitutional liberty and impinging the absolute rights of the King. Thus, consolidation of power in Arthur would have been a drastic move away from that. (Though not a complete move away, since we still see Arthur keeping counsel with his barons. And his wizard.)
I see your point. Having barons is the way of structuring feudalism, but creating a strong, centralized force in the figure of the king makes these "subpowers" that the barons are become essentially subdued to the king. Arthur actually carries out that strong centrazling force in Malory's story. In the Middle Ages, in earlier moments of feudalism, these barons many times barely responded to the king and were practically ruled on their own. To some extent, here, Arthur forces them under his will, and thus, places himself as the central figure. That's the way I see his centralizing figure.
ReplyDeleteNatalia, I agree that this text definitely embodies the tension between these two different legal models; I think the knightly oath, though, is a nod to the idea of law that trumps an individual ruler. The knightly oath seems to me to be a set of rules that all knights, including the king, have to follow, and that sounds a bit like a constitution. I wonder, though, if Malory, in showing the downside of that ideal (such as Lancelot's being trapped by his fidelity to the oath) is critiquing the idea of constitutional law.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post and comments, here, and salient reminders of the ways that history impinges on literature. The situation is complicated for Malory and the Morte by the facts that, one, he's largely constructing his story out of literary materials that are up to two centuries older than his period, and two, the contemporary situation in England was unusually chaotic, with the greater magnates (read: the barons) pitted against each other in contests for the throne that repeatedly replaced one king with another, Henry VI and Edward IV swapping places for a while before Richard III popped in until Henry VII finally settled affairs until the Stuarts came in (more or less). In other words, the real-world picture is hard to match up with the still fairly impressionistic picture of law and justice that Malory gives us. I wouldn't say it ever quite reaches the clarity of a constitutional law system, though common-law maybe, given the frequent knightly invocations of custom, precedent, and precept.
ReplyDelete