Research Portfolio 2
Kennedy, Beverly. “Adultery in Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur.” Arthuriana 7.4, Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University Press, 1997: p. 63-91
Beverly Kennedy argues that in Malory’s piece Le Morte d’Arthur there are three ethical models of knighthood present, each with a distinct set of morals relating to adultery. To understand the judgment passed on Lancelot and Guinever that ultimately resulted in the death of King Arthur and the downfall of his court, it is necessary to evaluate these three perspectives of knighthood. Her article is convincing in its breakdown of each ideal of ethical knighthood and is fully supported with textual evidence.
The first type of knight Kennedy discusses is that of the Heroic Knight, whose definition of honor revolves around his family. Such a knight, like Gawain, believes that any dishonor brought upon a member of his family also brings dishonor upon him. There is a great double standard, however, as any woman who loses her chastity to another man will bring shame to her family while any man who commits adultery does not. Instead, the woman he has sinned with is blamed and disgraced. Much of this unequal representation is a result of Gawain’s inability to view women as individuals, rather, they are property, to be owned and controlled. Kennedy argues “he does not concern himself with their wishes and takes for granted that if he has the might to take and keep another man’s woman he has the concomitant right to do so” (Kennedy 66). This allows for his justification of raping and abducting women. In turn, if another Heroic Knight were to disgrace the kinsmen of Gawain he would also be shamed as it shows his inability to control or protect his women.
The Worshipful Knight is the second type that must be accounted for in the history of Arthur. This knight is one who bases his honor as a matter between himself and other individuals. The Worshipful Knight respects women as well as his kinship and vassalage, unlike the Heroic Knight. He is willing to commit adultery only if it brings no dishonor upon him, meaning that both he and his woman are unmarried and the intercourse or relationship must be consensual. If the woman is married the relationship can still occur as long as he “is not obligated to be loyal to her husband as his kinsman, lord, vassal or retainer” (Kennedy 67). Kennedy provides examples of both Arthur and Tristan as each has adulterous affairs with married women, yet could retain their honor because neither “is deserving of loyalty because both are in some sense ‘infidels’…lacking proper loyalty to God or King” (Kennedy 67).
The final ethical ideal of knighthood addressed by Kennedy is that of the True Knight. The true knight is bound to honor by his relationship to God, which means that any act that would be regarded as sinful would also bring dishonor. Lancelot is an example of a True Knight as he alone seems to struggle with his sins as though he were constantly standing in the face of God. He feels himself shamed for going to bed with Elaine because he thinks her to be Guinever and even more so when he tries to win Guinever’s favor, as he has committed the sin of pride. Kennedy shows that it is necessary for Lancelot especially to overcome his sins as it “prevents a man from wholeheartedly loving God,” which is the most important bond to a True Knight like Lancelot (Kennedy 74). The only way to do this is to “repent, confess and do penance” (Kennedy 74).
In her concluding paragraphs, Kennedy argues that she does not believe Lancelot was involved in an adulterous affair with Guinever because he would have been sinning against King Arthur, the most Christian and benevolent king in history. She believes the twentieth century audience infers the affair because it is so commonplace at the present time. However, the audience of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries may not have been so naïve into believing the walks in the garden taken by the two lovers would have resulted in their physical love affair. Nevertheless, Kennedy includes the ethical differences each knight (Gawain, Arthur and Lancelot) as they pass judgment on the innocence or guilt of Guinever and Lancelot. Gawain, the Heroic Knight, trusts so fervently that Lancelot is loyal to Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table and will assist in the war against Mordred despite the battle Gawain and Arthur waged against Lancelot over the love affair. Arthur, the Worshipful Knight, cannot forgive Lancelot so easily as he believes that the treason and adultery occurred simply “because he appeared to be guilty and…the appearance of having been dishonored is as damaging as the reality” (Kennedy 84). Finally, Lancelot, the True Knight, will never be able to forgive himself because he has failed to save those whom he loves, his lady and his lord in the name of God.
Kennedy certainly has distinguished the three types of knights and has been convincing in her analysis that each knight has a different attitude towards the honor that is at stake when attempting an adulterous affair. She has provided her reader with numerous examples of the actions of Gawain, Arthur, Tristam, and Lancelot, which allow for comparison to make evident the distinctions in treatment of women and respect for other men. It was a most interesting contrast in the climax of La Morte d’Arthur, when all three knights were present in the story, to see how their own ethical attitude towards adultery so heavily impacted their actions towards the alleged adulterous relationship between Lancelot and Guinever.
If there are truly three types of knights, then it is possible that none of these men of the round table could possibly see eye to eye except, perhaps, when it comes to being faithful to your fellow knights. By stating that loyalty is only owed to those who deserve respect, as in the case of the Heroic Knight and the Worshipful Knight, Kennedy has created another aspect of honor that is determined by the knight himself—that is to whom does the knight owe loyalty. Though she herself does not address this fact, the idea that the knight can determine his own set of standards for honor and loyalty changes the universal understanding of the chivalric knight. Rather than general criteria to which every knight is upheld, we can only truly judge each knight by the moral level to which they uphold themselves. This difficulty in judging each knight is somewhat taken care of be the author of a text, like Malory, who offer dire consequences or harsh judgments when he feels a knight has been untrue to a general sense of propriety.
As for the True Knight, we are expected to accept that every decision made by this knight is one that revolves around a respect for God. How then, does it appear that Lancelot is never fully responsible for making the best decision all of the time. Because he tries to impress Guinever and has impure thoughts about her as Kennedy has cited, I find that Lancelot is guilty of the sins of pride, lust, and, by Christian definition referred to in Vern L. Bullough’s article, adultery. It is here where I disagree with Kennedy in respect to her article. While I do not want to believe that Lancelot has committed such treason against King Arthur, Kennedy’s own criteria for the true knight’s actions show Lancelot as having committed such sin, even if no physical adultery occurred, because he has gone against the teachings of the Lord. Lancelot chastises himself for his own actions though, something we do not see evident in either of the other two types of knight. It is a wonder here then as to another distinction among these three knights—the feeling of remorse.
Though Kennedy lightly touched upon it, the view of readership on adultery is also very important to understanding the story. Because we as twentieth century readers cannot begin to understand the thought processes of those fifteenth and sixteenth century readers, it was valuable for Kennedy to include the public opinion of the knights, especially the True Knight. The interpretations of each individual will vary considerably, but by elaborating on the reading of Lancelot to show perhaps there was no physical contact in Malory’s work was something that as a twentieth century reader I had never thought of. I inferred, like many others, that because the two lovers were so constantly alone in their walks that they were also finding times alone elsewhere. However, Kennedy proves that this may not so much be the case, which was an interesting aspect I had never thought of. Unfortunately, as previously stated, even these “tête-à-têtes” would have been sinful and adulterous to the True Knight who is always in the eyes of God no matter where he may be.
After having read this, and multiple other articles on adultery in the King Arthur stories, this article helped the reader understand the actions taken by each knight as he attempted to justify his adulterous affair. Though it does not explain the consequences of these infidelities as the article by David Scott Wilson-Okamura does or why Malory has chosen to display his characters in this way as Robert S. Sturges does, Kennedy provides a clear depiction of what prompts the characters to make the adulterous decisions or to judge other knights based on such decisions. Her article provides a refreshing look at the reading of the King Arthur’s knights as we constantly attempt to understand their justification for pursuing certain lovers and ignoring previous loyalties to fellow knights. Overall, the article was an interesting and fresh look at the ethical outlook of knights who have been read about and studied for centuries.
Meredith Marconi
University of Mary Washington
