Guinevere
While reading The Death of King Arthur, I was extremely surprised by the way in which the people treat Guinevere and the inconsistencies which arise. First, there is no one to defend her when everyone believes that she has poisoned a knight. Then, Lancelot saves her, and everything is ok. When Agravain actually proves that she is committing adultery with Lancelot, though, no body seems to care. Only Arthur and a certain group of knights, who are deemed “traitors,” seem to want to punish Guinevere.
Gawain won’t stand up for Guinevere because he THINKS that she is in the wrong and that she poisoned a knight, but then when he KNOWS that she is in the wrong, he bails on King Arthur and basically says I won’t have anything to do with you because you are punishing her for her crime. Also, the people cry out as she is being led to her execution: “Ah, King Arthur, you who have treacherously sought her death, you can still repent, and the traitors who have arranged this can die in shame” (121). I fail to see how a group of knights, who are loyal to the king, are treacherous because they caught Lancelot in bed with the Queen. It seems entirely crazy that so many people just say screw King Arthur and lawful marriage, Guinevere and Lancelot are great. I mean, Lancelot and Guinevere betrayed the man who loved them the most and who always treated everyone with respect, but no one seems to care.
I don’t really know what to think about this as far as being able to say something about the work as a whole or French society, so are there any thoughts? Maybe advocating true love over obligation to the monarch, or somehting along those lines.
macchiato wrote:
I thought this was strange too. I think the reason that most people are okay with Guinevere and Lancelot’s love affair has to do with Lancelot’s prowess as a knight. Lancelot is such a noble, handsome knight that most people cannot blame him for this affair. If someone less noble was sleeping with Guinevere, there would probably be much more of a reaction. Even Arthur hesitates about putting Lancelot to death because he’s such a good knight. Also, when Arthur’s nephews are discussing the affair, Gaheriet says, “someone as noble as Lancelot will never be accused of that crime by me.” This probably does have to do with the romantic aspect of these stories. Love affairs that involve beautiful, chivalrous people enhance the stories, so the people committing such crimes basically recieve a free pass.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 12:36 pm ¶
BraveSirRobin wrote:
Perhaps this is a lazy solution, but to my mind the work is very evocative of Greek tragedy in its melodramatic shifts in loyalty, as occasioned by fateful misunderstandings. Hence, one should perhaps forgive many of the logical inconsistencies as the narrative contortions of an author desperate at all costs to elicit fatalist suspense.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 12:39 pm ¶
Josh wrote:
The impression I got is that a lot of lawful decision making in these stories is satisfied by duels, under the belief that God will grant victory to the side of the righteous. If one knight wins the duel, he must be the correct one in the dispute, or else it would be blasphemy. That was how I saw the poisoning incident.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 1:14 pm ¶
The Governator wrote:
As I consider the issue of Guinevere there are several things that stand out to me. The differences between the way Guinevere’s two crimes, poisoning Geheret and adultery, are treated do clearly establish a duality. The origin of this divide may originate in Arthur’s role in Guinevere’s trial by combat, Arthur cannot or will not act as Guinevere’s champion even though they are married. This implies a weakness, an inability to pass judgement on the part of Arthur. It also makes Arthur a detached figure, perhaps one unfit to rule.
I would argue that the division between Arthur and Guinevere, and the preference for Lancelot expressed by some knights, reflects a weakened Arthur. As Gawain becomes eclipsed by Lancelot as the greatest knight of the Round Table in “The Death of King Arthur”, Gawain’s uncle, Arthur, loses his ability to act as a source of power and legitimacy.
Shifting military power away from Arthur’s family, toward Lancelot, would call into question Arthur’s claim to Kingship in a feudal society where authority and military power were supposed to be identical. So, Arthur is already too weak to deserve support by the time Lancelot’s treason is made known.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 1:56 pm ¶
Mary wrote:
I don’t think that King Arthur and the knights that try to punish Guinevere are necessarily seen as traitors just because Gawain calls them that. This might just be a Gawain problem. Gawain seems to always be the best knight ever, but at this point it just looks as though he’s trying to hard to see the good in people. I think he’s been near-worshiping Guinevere for so long that he can’t get it into his head that she might be in the wrong. Lancelot, too, is one of his best friends, so I think Gawain’s just having a hard time seeing the wrong in their actions until some of Gawain’s family dies as a result of Lancelot’s fury.
It almost seems like Gawain’s a little naive about the shifty machinations of King Arthur’s court.
Posted 04 Oct 2007 at 2:18 pm ¶
cristinamabob wrote:
I’ve mentioned this in class a few times… I don’t feel like it was a shock to Arthur to learn about Lancelot and Guinevere’s affair… He knew. How could such a great king not know? He can read into things probably better than most people. He was not completely ignorant. He CHOSE to ignore the whole thing until he couldn’t because it would make him look like he didn’t know how to rule a kingdom. As long as things were fine, he turned his head the other way and let things go on because it was easier that way, happier. His queen was content, and one of his greatest knights, and friend, was also. They could all just enjoy each other’s company ignoring, or embracing, the big elephant in the room.
Posted 14 Oct 2007 at 10:36 pm ¶