Just as in the episode of Arthur
and the Giant when the Giant imprisons, tortures, rapes, and kills women, the
characterization of women as objects emerges as a reoccurring theme in both
“Sir Lancelot and Queen Guenivere” and “The Death of Arthur” in Malory’s Le Morte Darthur.
For
example, when Sir Lancelot meets the Fair Maiden of Ascolat and wears the red
sleeve in battle to disguise himself, he demonstrates the way in which he uses
the woman as a tool to protect himself. Specifically, Sir Lancelot says, “‘for
all that I did was because I would not be known’” (428), therefore admitting
that he acts lovingly towards the woman in order to obtain the red sleeve and
protect himself in battle. In essence, she is a tool of defense, and is thus
transformed from a woman to an object that can be possessed and used.
However,
the Fair Maiden of Ascolat is in love with Sir Lancelot. When he refuses to wed
her, “‘I cast me never to be wedded man’” (432), she is suddenly possessed by
no one. Without a man to objectify and use her, the Fair Maiden dies, and she
transforms from useable object to unnecessary object, namely a corpse.
Furthermore, the Maiden’s demands that she be surrounded by rich clothing and
bedding continue to render her important only in the visual, objectified sense;
she details, “‘And while my body is hot let this letter be put in my right
hand, and my hand bound fast to the letter until that I be cold; and let me be
put in a fair bed and all the richest clothes that I have about me, and so let
my bed and all my richest clothes be led with me in a chariot unto the next
place where the Thames is’” (434). She exists as a mere corpse covered in rich
material once Lancelot no longer needs to use her for his own disguise.
So
too is Guenivere rendered an object by Sir Mordred when he usurps King Arthur’s
throne. When the narrator explains, “Wherefore Sir Mordred made a parliament
and called the lords together, and there he made them to choose him king; and
so was he crowned at Cantebury, and held a feast there fifteen days. And
afterward he drew him unto Winchester, and there he took Queen Guenivere and
said plainly that he would wed her” (505), he demonstrates the way in which
Guenivere exists as a possession of the king that passes from Arthur to his
usurper, Sir Mordred. Mordred simply “takes” Guenivere as one would take the
crown.
Though
not as violent and obvious in their objectification and possession of women as
the Giant, both Sir Lancelot and Sir Mordred use women for their own benefit,
Sir Lancelot employing the Fair Maiden of Ascolat as one would a suit of armor
and Sir Mordred taking Queen Guenivere as his prize for usurping the throne.
This leads us to think about the ways in which certain characters perhaps fight back against this objectification of women. Can you find any instances at which women assert their strength and independence and therefore remove themselves from the position of property?
This leads us to think about the ways in which certain characters perhaps fight back against this objectification of women. Can you find any instances at which women assert their strength and independence and therefore remove themselves from the position of property?
Morgan, I think your post does a good job of drawing our attention to the “traffic in women” in the tale – but also to the ways in which the exchange of women among men breaks down. After all, we should remember that Guenivere is never successfully possessed by Mordred: despite his claims to her, she successfully sequesters herself in the Tower of London. Nor does Mellyagaunt succeed. The episode involving the Fair Maid of Ascolat is, I agree, a compelling one. As you point out, when Lancelot finally leaves her, “she is suddenly possessed by no one” and immediately wastes away, as though it were impossible that she play any further role in the story. I think that Lancelot’s relationship with her is especially interesting for the ways in which he misunderstands and misuses so many of the signs of love. As you observe, he uses the Maiden’s scarlet sleeve NOT as a sign of his allegiance to her (as it would normally function) but rather as a (false) sign to indicate that he is not Lancelot. And he seems rather oblivious that he’s doing something dishonorable, or at least deeply disruptive of the precarious system of personal identification in place. (People rarely recognize one another and often disastrously misapprehend identity and allegiance, as in the deaths of Sir Gareth and Sir Gaheris.) Also, when Lancelot volunteers to pay the Fair Maiden’s dowry at the end of the episode, he shows that he grossly misunderstands her love (despite his own unwillingness to take any woman in place of Guenivere) – it is not just any man that the Fair Maiden loves, but Lancelot alone – and to miss this is to miss the fundamental structure of her affection. The episode in which Arthur and Guenivere find the corpse of the Fair Maiden is one of the most dream-like and memorable in the whole of Le Morte, and it also centers upon issues of signs, reading, and interpretation…. I’ll look forward to discussing it tomorrow in class!
ReplyDeleteI too was interested in the notion of women as property. Specifically the transmission of this precious form of "property." If the medieval imagination constructs women as property, then how is ownership of that property understood? Certainly there is no formal understanding. Strohm's incorporation of Freud's "primal scene" is valuable to this discussion. On the whole, I think Strohm reads to far into a psychoanalytical discussion of imagined characters, however he/she turns our attention to a scene which illuminates the nature of the social bond which is constructed around a male and female couple. In the scene, Lancelot wounds his hand on the bars locking Guenivere into her room. He bleeds on the bed and Mellyagant falsely surmises that she has betrayed Arthur (an act of treason). Strohm observes, " For all his hapless folly, Mellyagant is, in a sense, our -that is, the reader's - representative in this scene. He is condemned to an act of interpretation, and carries it forward in the most reasonable and empirical way, only to fall short" (3). Strohm regards Mellygant as a child, being forced to wonder about the intimate relations of two other people (even though he is Guenivere's captor). What is most significant is that he is forced into this position of subordination and childish speculation (did they really have sex?). It is a very important political event, and he must recon with it. He imagines a bond which does not actually exist. This shows how flawed the understanding of interpersonal relationships can be, and demonstrates a fundamental problem in ascertaining a woman's status as a form of property.
ReplyDelete-Tony Cuneo