Research Portfolio 3
Sturges, Robert S. “Epistemology of the Bedchamber: Textuality, Knowledge, and the Representation of Adultery in Malory and the Prose Lancelot.” Arthuriana 7.4, Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University Press, 1997: p. 47-62
In “Epistemology of the Bedchamber,” Sturges analyzes the representation of the adulterous relationship between Lancelot and Guinever as told by Sir Thomas Malory and as depicted in his source for the story, the prose Lancelot. These texts, he argues, have a distinct narrative style, which promotes a specific reading of each text changing the interpretation of the adulterous actions between the two lovers. Malory’s text is said to be ‘memorial,’ a term coined by Mary J. Carruthers which focuses on past events, while the Prose Lancelot is ‘incarnational,’ Alexandre Leupin’s idea of the textual creation of the divine reality. Sturges cites key components of both Carruthers and Leupin as he leads the reader through a verbose and confusing article of long quotation passages to ultimately prove the textual framework of both Malory’s work and the prose Lancelot are different.
Sturges first focuses his attention on Malory’s depiction of the love affair between Guinever and Lancelot. He states that, for Malory, the basis of the adulterous relationship is “not of [the lovers] feelings or intentions, but of what the lovers actually did together, as the question that must be answered in order for their moral status to be properly assessed” (Sturges 47). Sturges applies Carruthers’ theory that Malory writes from a memorial standpoint, which allows for the work to be fully internalized by the medieval reader. This type of textuality presents the work as a historical and uncertain recreation of the human past allowing for an imaginative creation. Because the text references completed actions, “Malory tends to refer…to the difficulty or impossibility of such direct representation, insisting…that he is referring to that which is not present and therefore cannot be known” (Sturges 59). This unknown allows for the vague detail provided in the story, leaving ample room for the reader to be activated into interpretation. Sturges also notes that it is suggested by the narrator of the tale that the reader cannot trust instinctual interpretation because even these notions are based upon the reader’s own understandings of historical events, which will, in turn, shape the interpretations.
Carruthers memorial theory is also applied to the prose Lancelot, however, here Sturges uses it to establish the differences in text between this one and that of Malory. Unlike the other interpretive text, Lancelot shows more reference to a “singular, definitive reality”-taking taking place within the story. This sense of fact provides for the written text to become a clear evidential statement of the adulterous actions between Lancelot and Guinever (Sturges 51). This straightforward textual approach is characterized by Leupin as an ‘incarnate’ narrative: one in which the texts are seen as “an eternal, divine reality rather than memorializing past events” (Sturges 53). By treating the text as if it were real events, it creates an iconic or idolatrous view of the text. Using inscriptions and prophecies, Lancelot ultimately writes itself, by referring to events in the past and that are to come, creating an ever present, all-knowing “reality” (Sturges 57).
With this knowledge of the interpretations of Malory’s text and Lancelot, Sturges concludes his article with the evaluation of the key effects that shape the understanding of the adulterous actions of Lancelot and Guinever. The two texts are said to have different epistemologies, though each provides the reader with a basic feeling of power and a sense of truth. Malory’s text offers only the “historical, which is to say uncertain” understanding of the story, that which can only be provided by human knowledge (Sturges 61). Such ignorance as to fact empowers the reader into creating an interpretation of the text unique unto each reader. Lancelot creates a “blasphemous” divine knowledge that “invites the audience’s unquestioning idolatrous acceptance” which provides the readers with the power of that accompanies an understanding of fact (Sturges 61). Similarly, Sturges also points to the differing treatment of the textuality as affecting the interpretation of the adulterous affair. Lancelot is shown as relating the oral and aural tradition as functioning the same way the textual narrative does: as a reference to the continuing present reality of the story. Malory’s memorial shows the written text as a common history, a reference to past events.
These elements, as well as the narrative style that Sturges emphasizes in his article, are instrumental pieces in creating different interpretations of the adulterous affair between Lancelot and Guinever. To Lancelot the statement of fact has created an explicit representation of the adulterous affair that has been embraced by the audience, and along with it the judgment of the two lovers. For Malory, however, there is an inability to make a definitive statement on the involved relationship between the two lovers. So long as human nature continually creates an evolving textual style that allows for the interpretation of the story, Sturges and Malory are both convinced that there will never be a true understanding of the affair, and in turn, no way to pass judgment on Lancelot and Guinever.
I was somewhat disappointed in reading this article, as it did not seem to discuss the issues in the way that I had expected. Overall, the articles introduction and conclusion provided for the most comprehendible part of the study between Malory’s text and the prose Lancelot, while the body of the article was quite confusing. Sturges included many long citations from each text, which were helpful in supporting his thesis, but they seemed to be used rather poorly because it was difficult to follow each point until he summarized these ideas for the reader himself. Also, there were so many references to Mary J. Carruthers and Alexandre Leupin that one wants to question how much of Sturges’ work is his own thought and how much is just the application of other theorists in comparison. Nevertheless, the article itself was somewhat intriguing as it brought forth the importance of the author’s use of the text to forward his own intentions of the adulterous relationship between Lancelot and Guinever. The analysis of the two textual styles has a great impact on the question of adultery and is an aspect that I had wondered myself. Seeing as these works are deemed Romances, would it not be that the author could change the “facts” of the story to suit his own purpose? Sturges helped to support the answer to that question as he pushes his own ideas in “Epistemology of the Bed Chamber.”
When reading the article, it was brought to my attention that there are many other directions that this article could digress because of the differences in the two texts. It is curious as to why Malory has chosen to change the events of the affair between Lancelot and Guinever creating vague parts of his story so as not to condemn the two lovers. Sturges fails to mention Malory’s motivation in writing that could be helpful to accepting the textual style, because it would have helped Malory to achieve his own goal. Also, I have difficulty accepting the dichotomous reading of these two bodies of work because, as a reader, a story has to be ever-present in order to make it somewhat believable and worth telling. The reader acknowledges that Malory’s text is a story, not a history, which allows for the vague and unknown to be present because it is not an accurate recording of “fact.” However, despite this unknown, Sturges almost seems to be forbidding the reader from passing his own judgment on Lancelot and Guinever as though because there are no “facts” we cannot condemn the two lovers. But is not the point of a story, of a romance to allow the reader free interpretation of the events? Sturges even cites Carruthers as affirming to be a text written in the memorial style, the text itself must allow the reader to become one with the text, providing free and easy interpretation and awareness. If we are never supposed to interpret the text as we see fit, then we would be resigning ourselves to an ‘incarnational’ reading of all texts, as we would blindly accept what the author has told us without question. Lancelot is treated as an almost historic text, demanding the acceptance because of its “divine knowledge.” However, was not Lancelot originally written down by some historian of sorts? This means that there is some bit of authorship that needs to be applied to this body of work as well, not blindly accepted for its truth as both Sturges does when he applies Leupin’s theory to the piece.
Compared to other works on adultery in stories of King Arthur, I enjoyed the different approach to the text of the story from a textual point of view as opposed to most other articles that are written on a character level. However, I seemed to have to most difficulty following this article and, as a result, I do not feel it being of the same caliber as some of the other articles that I have read. While I appreciate the daunting viewpoint Sturges has attempted to display in his work, I feel it could have been better had he included the questions that could have arisen in the mind of the reader. By explaining why he did not try to apply Leupin’s theory to both texts as he did with Carruthers theory, or why Malory’s motivation in his own work has been omitted, the reader would have been more readily prepared to focus only on the issues the article that were included. Unfortunately, as a curious reader, I am left with questions that I thought the article would address before its close. Overall, however, the article was an interesting perspective on the Arthurian concepts of the adultery between Lancelot and Guinever, even though Sturges could not answer the question as to the extent of the affair because it is too vague to tell. The article provided a new understanding of the concept of interpretation as it displayed two differing theories on ways to read text and, it helped me to further analyze the application of theory when reading.
Meredith Marconi
University of Mary Washington
