Gahmuret and Belacane
So I know we already talked a little about this in class, but I still don’t really understand why it was okay for Gahmuret to just completely ditch Belacane. I know she isn’t baptized, but he tells her “Madam, you can still win me, if you will be baptized” (39). Her instantaneous reply is:
How soon that can be done! I will be christened with all speed if only he will come back…I would gladly be baptized to the glory of God…and live according to his liking! (40).
He completely leads her on, he doesn’t really give her a real chance at being baptized because he’s already gone by the time she reads his letter, AND he abandons her while she’s pregnant! How is this not a bad thing to do? How is it possible that he escapes all blame? Especially when all the descriptions of her are like this:
Yet the dusky lady was dearer to him than life. Never was there a woman of comelier form. Her heart, too, was ever mindful of the truly modest woman’s ways that were in constant attendance on it (39).
If Belacane is such a flawless model of feminine virtue, and if she’s willing to convert, and if Gahmuret supposedly loves her so much, AND if she’s pregnant, I really don’t see any way in which abandoning her is okay. Thoughts?
madison73 wrote:
This totally reminds me “Erec and Enide”. Man has perfect Woman, Man and Woman share perfect love, and then all of a sudden Man’s manly desires to fight, conquer, and obtain honor and glory take over and he ditches the woman to seek these things out. When Gahmuret leaves Belacane he places these duties to mankind above his duties to his woman. This could still be read two ways though…The author could be siding with Gahmuret and exalting the “man-duties”, or maybe by making us question why Gahmuret leaves he is proposing a criticism of this practice of leaving their perfect women in order to glorify themselves/serve mankind. I think it’s the latter since he does set up a contradiction with the descriptions of Belacane/the love they share and Gahmuret’s actions. Eschenbach’s potent attitude towards women should definitely be considered when determining this though..
Posted 09 Oct 2007 at 9:22 pm ¶
Agravaine wrote:
It’s not Ok, but Wolfram doesn’t care (at least if the reactions of the secondary characters are any suggestion).
I think you’ve picked up on Wolfram’s general project of inverting the entire romantic project of knights and chivalry. In that tradition, the cycle goes something like this: knight seeks woman’s blessing to motivate him in his adventures, wins tournaments to bring fame both to himself and to her, and then translates that fame and “favour”/ courtly “love” into a way to serve others. For example, people hear of the knights’ reputation and ask them to defend their towns, perform a quest- all the things we’ve been reading about.
Wolfram inverts that notion to bring it into accord with the current events of his time: using women as a commodity for self-aggrandizement by marrying them to unify holdings in land and other wealth. (This is even, perhaps, somewhat of a jab at Chretien, whose own project was indirectly funded by such a method. His patron’s mother was Eleanor of Aquitaine, who was highly sought by European monarchs for her extensive holdings in France).
Gahmuret clearly has feelings of guilt about walking out on Belecane; he initially refuses Herzolyde’s advances by citing his “wife…dearer to me than my body” (21 in mine, a few pages into chap 2). But the Queen of Wales? Who can say no to that? Certainly not the people around Gahmuret nudging him to get some big tracts of territory.
Wolfram concisely summarizes their agreement to marry thus: “he received the land and also the virgin.” (22) Several lines down the chaplain (of all people!) congratulates Gahmuret by saying, “She also has land and a mind to give you her body and goods.” I’d also add that this haggling takes place after the death of Gahmuret’s brother, thereby making him a landholder in name as well as in fact (his brother had violated primogeniture by giving Gahmuret a stake beforehand).
Morally ok? Not really. Part of Chretien’s chivalry? Not that either. Knocking knighthood off its pedestal back into the realm of petty local politics? Indeed.
Posted 10 Oct 2007 at 10:35 pm ¶
Caprica Six wrote:
I think husbands abandoning their wives (or knights abandoning their lovers) is a motif Wolfram constantly develops. He opens with the story of Gahmuret, and on the second to last page of the book he closes with Gahmuret’s grandson Loherangrin abandoning his wife (with no explicitly stated reason).
It seems like a curse on the whole family. All of the men in the family start out with the intention to serve/honor ladies, and then wind up ditching them. But the reasons are different each time. Gahmuret ditches Belacane reluctantly in favor of another Christian woman. Parzifal temporarily ditches Condwiramor in the Gral quest – probaby a nobler cause than Herzeloyde’s love pangs, but in the end they are reunited. Loherangin permanently ditches his wife because of the Gral, and they’re never reunited as far as Wolfram’s concerned. So I guess I’d argue that Wolfram’s women help the heroes find God, but they’re just the means to an end. Gradually, the line of Gahmuret permanently finds God through Loherangin and women become dispensable.
Posted 10 Oct 2007 at 11:20 pm ¶
koricature wrote:
I agree that he had no right to leave Belacane, especially with how much they (supposedly) loved each other. I am not justifying anything here, but I found the entry right after the court’s decree that he should be Herzeloyde’s wife interesting. He explains how Gahmuret seemed to be unable to resist the Queen of Whales due to his ‘fairy blood.’ Eschenbach mentions this once before when describing the lineage of Gahmuret. Apparently the arrival of April and the beauty of Herzeloyde mixed with the decree of the court was enough to make Gahmuret overcome his grief and love of his wife.
Posted 11 Oct 2007 at 1:11 pm ¶