While trying to make sense of all the armor changes and incognito in Le Morte Darthur, one thing came to mind: Gang Gawain rarely conceals their identities. Sure Gawain plays around early on in order to get access to a castle and lady therein, but overall he and his teammates do not play with disguise.
On the otherhand, Team Launcelot (including Trystram, Paloymides, and Lamerok) goes incognito for a variety of reasons. They hesitate to give their names and even fabricate names on occasion. However, when Trystram asks Gawain and bros for their names, they boast, " Wyte thou welle, Sir Knyght...we feare nat much to tell our namys...we be nevewys unto Kynge Arthure" (411).
Ironically, Gang Gawain is more villainous than Team Launcelot and if anybody should hide themselves it should be those four brethryn. And yet they have no need to hide themselves because they're blood relatives of Arthur. They break the knightly code freely and their blood (their identity) serves as armor and shield. Nobody dares avenge them for their crimes, but Team Launcelot cannot be so relaxed.
I suspect Malory is commenting on nepotism and the hypocrisy of who is and isn't punished for their crimes. In this narrative we must question Arthur's ability to uphold justice in his court.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Malory could also be commenting on how easily transferable identity seems to be, and how attached the concept of identity is to external appearances — particularly to clothing or armor. Names are also bound up with identity here, so we shouldn't be too surprised to find people who are so willing to relinquish or exchange external appearance being reluctant to reveal their true identities through their names. We could read this as a textual debate constructed around two camps — the Gawain camp, who have no fear about exposing their true identities in appearance and name, and the Lancelot camp, who seem to find it necessary or thrilling to go around in disguise and incognito. Blood does seem to have something to do with this — right blood, right appearance and right name means you're in good. Whereas, if you don't have the right blood, you feel the need to go around hiding who you are so people don't find out.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree that Arthur's ability to uphold justice is called into question here, I don't agree with Tara's implied suggestion that Launcelot and his team lack "right blood." Like Gang Gawain, Launcelot is excused for his crimes against the Round Table which he committed while in disguise. None of these law-breaking RT knights, regardless of their blood connection to Arthur, face the same repercussions which someone outside of the fellowship would. And Launcelot, though he is not Arthur's nephew, comes from great blood--he's the son of a king. This noble genealogy, coupled with Arthur's favoritism of Launcelot, suggests that this knight may be disguising himself for reasons other than the fact that he is not Arthur's blood relative.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Launcelot uses disguise in order to test the RT knights and to test himself--a way of keeping everyone's chops up. While that may be the case, it seems simplistic. I really do like Tara's idea of a fluid, transferable identity. Perhaps Launcelot is only Launcelot proper when he is in his defining armor, playing the role of Round Table knight. Maybe when he's in disguise, Launcelot is not the same Launcelot, but a different knight altogether--a suggestion which points to his changeable mental state best exemplified during his "wild man" phase (I believe someone pointed this out in class).
Regardless of Launcelot's motives for disguise, I do think his actions, as well as those of Gang Gawain, show how the desires of an individual or of a small faction of RT knights can supersede the desires and well-being of the entire Round Table Fellowship--a reality which does not bode well for Arthur's court.
I like Megan's suggestion of the problem/issue of identity in Malory's book. Fame is one thing, but what exactly is identity? In a hierarchical society such as this, personal identity is subjected to fame. But what is really under or inside the knight's armor is almost a mystery. And along the lines of knightly literature from the non-English speaking world, Italo Calvino wrote a very interesting book called The Nonexistent Knight about a knight who was only empty armor but performs great deeds. It comments on all that this implied for himself, other men and women. Great book!
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting that you bring up the issues of disguise and villainy. Who exactly are the villains? Gang Gawain you say? Why because they abuse their power as Arthur's kin and knights of the round table? At least they don't hide their faces in their treachery. Lancelot, Tristram and the others who use disguises, even if it is for good, should also be called villains, though in a less physical way. Now don't get me wrong Tristram is by far may favorite knight but what do all the disguise wearing knights have in common? They are all adulterers and Lancelot being the worst villain of all since it is with Arthur's own Queen!
ReplyDeleteThough Malory may be commenting on the hypocrisy and nepotism shown Gawain and his kin-I would be weary to throw around the word "villain" especially if that company does not included Lancelot.
(Eh, what the heck; let's pile another one on this.) Echoing E.Riley's question regarding the actual villains; E., I'm going with you on "They're all evil"* in Malory's eyes, anyway. In some ofthe work I'm doing for semester's end I've argued that the Arthur legend is a collection of fairy stories (which is not to say they are not historical accounts based on fact, or even true historical accounts.
ReplyDeleteWhat interests me is the subterfuge with respect to opponents knowing one's name. To quote the age-old question, "What's in a name" anyway? In the ancient world--and in fantasy literature, which is often based on fairy stories--a name points to the essence of a person. I'm having trouble seeing Launcelot, 'paragon of knighthood' that he is, being willing to stain his legend by linking his name with many of the things "Team Launcelot" have done.
Also bound up in the concept of name-as-essence-described is the notion that one becomes vulnerable to an opponent when s/he knows one's name. (Incidentally, we seem to be slowly re-learning this lesson in the postmodern age, e.g. with identity theft, etc.)
Thoughts on this?
*Let's be careful with the word "villain" here, as it's linked to "village," implying backwardness and barbarity, i.e., the opposite of nobility in the blood-line/courtly sense; in a medieval text "villain" is kind of a misnomer for a bad guy. Come to think of it, maybe that's why one of my friends from the UK calls the "villain" the "baddie"; anyone know if that's a general trend?
True enough that "vileyn" in Malory's day still bore traces of its peasant origins, though the moral sense obtains more and more in his usage.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to the disguises worn by Team Lancelot vs. the general open-facedness of Gang Gawain, it's notable that Gareth, who opts out of the Orkney affinity to align himself with Benwick, is both a married man (and no adulterer) and one of the most prominently disguised knights in the Morte (what with his magically color-changing armor).