Often it is difficult to find a book that will break down the basic makeup of the medieval romance because it is widely open to interpretation as to the key components of such literature. However, the book Medieval Romance, by John Stevens, includes the basic themes and motifs of such literature broken down into ten major parts of the study. Stevens does not claim that his particular separation of categories is the only way to analyze medieval literature; rather, he acknowledges that the arbitrary labels he has provided are just for basic study and that there is a lot of overlapping in each theory. However, Stevens book establishes a few components he deems necessary for establishing a study of romantic literature in the medieval period. This evaluation of the medieval romance was a great beginning book in analyzing literature of the period across many thematic levels.
Medieval romantic literature, Stevens believes, is the most idealistic form of text that can be found. It is the culmination of the private life experiences displayed in form for the social good of the community. Because it has such cultural weight, one of the most prominent themes in the romance is just that—the concept of love. In the second and third sections of the book which analyze the importance of love to men and women and the relationship between a lover and society respectively, Stevens portrays love as the most significant because it holds the intimacy that everyone experiences, but cannot fully understand. There is the claim that love is often times forbidden, creating the need for the romance to portray the struggle to obtain that which is unobtainable. Love “is mysterious, unexpected, imperfectly comprehended [and yet] it is a way of life [that possesses a sense of] secrecy and privateness” (Stevens 35). The romance is a way in which to educate society on the appropriateness of love, the proper ways to fall in love, and, most importantly, to work to maintain love.
Because love is such a prominent theme, the rest of the characteristics of romance seem to stem forth from it. In his fourth and fifth sections, Stevens addresses man as a supernatural form of being. The perfect man in romantic literature is one whom can fight courageously, defeating all those who oppose him in hand to hand combat. Yet, this same fellow must be a gentle creature with poetic diction to talk to the ladies in court as well as a touch of tenderness by which to take care of his woman. This impossible creation of character depicted by Stevens as the ideal man is a dramatic representation of what men in the medieval period were struggling to be. He later reasserts this argument in the eighth section of the book entitled “Realism and Romance: ‘Characters” and Types” when Stevens states that the characters in a romance do “not embody achieved perfection,” rather each hero is on a “quest” in which he must “realize his potential, not come to terms with life” (Stevens 170).
Similarly, Stevens sights the natural environment as being exceedingly drastic as well. In the fifth section of Medieval Romance he describes nature as being a marvelous thing unto itself, in which there are no rules or laws, but a sense of mystical space where anything can occur. This drastic nature serves two purposes according to Stevens. First, the radical setting provides a place where anything can happen in order to depict the dramatic heroics of the chivalric knight. Without an extreme environment, the characters would have nowhere in which to prove their worth. Secondly, Stevens states that there are some passages in romances such as Marie de France “which make us aware of something unexplained and inexplicable, a residue of the mystery which belongs to a world beyond the everyday” (Stevens 113). This world contains in it a gross number of images, which “concentrate in [themselves] the meaning of an episode or theme” (Stevens 165). Through the creation of an environment containing everyday items where it seems anything is bound to happen, romantic literature has set up a backdrop on which the hero must pursue the unobtainable and defeat the odds.
The final major theme of the medieval romance is the intended understanding of the author. Stevens writes that the author, like Chaucer, has a contradicting purpose hidden within his writing. While he wants to make the reader believe what he is writing is the truth, he also wants to acknowledge that his story is just that, a story to be taken at its face value (Stevens 219). Using his poetic verse, the author of the romance is able to urge the reader to strive for the greatness of chivalry, but also to remind him that there is no way an individual can live realistically in this manner. Unfortunately, satirical or colloquial diction may be lost in the translations of these romances, so the modern reader may in fact no be as well suited as the medieval reader to catch all the puns or innuendos described by Stevens in the ninth section of his book.
In his conclusion, John Stevens acknowledges the great impact romantic literature has had on society. It is involved in all aspects of medieval life including business, social activity, ceremonies and entertainment (Stevens 226). It was a direct reflection of countless biblical passages and it forwarded religion as God was cited in such literary works as the one true God, heightening the effects love and chivalric deed. Stevens pushes for the acceptance of the medieval romance as the basis for much art and poetry as well as musical inspiration. He concludes his piece by stating that the romance became for some individuals a way of life that was to be used as a model for all of society.
In researching, I wanted to find something that would help me to further comprehend the basic themes and motifs that were present in the basic medieval romance. As I have not studied such work before, any bit of knowledge that I could obtain would be more than helpful. John Stevens book, Medieval Romance turned out to be the perfect book for to read. On a basic level the book studied and referenced the works of Malory, Chrétien, Marie de France and Chaucer. It provided a simple way to understanding the works of all these authors as well as any medieval romance. All romantic literature can be compared to this study and broken down into the key components that should be studied when reading a medieval text.
By breaking the romantic text into titled sections (or chapters) with specific labels, Stevens has implied that these are the most important themes or approaches of a medieval text to be studied. He, himself, does state that this is not the case, but to the naïve reader, it could still possibly appear this way. More importantly, however, when Stevens indicates that there is much overlap amongst these thematic views it allows, the reader to infer that the understanding of each approach to the literature is greatly dependant upon the other parts that make up the medieval romance. If the knight has no dramatic setting in which to perform his heroic deeds, the romance loses that element of fantasy, which is vital for its comprehension.
Stevens does, however, assume that the reader agrees with the thematic lenses he has picked through which to read the text and while this is a good basic format (and the only way for Stevens to go about writing his work) there may be some necessities of the romance that have been left out of the study. The most glaring omission is based on the fact that all the chapters of the book focus on the relationship between man and a counterpoint. Women, often objectified in courtly literature, seem to be somewhat objectified in this piece of work as well, only addressed in terms of how they interact with men on a romantic scale. There seems to be no mention of friendship or counsel that some of the women in Chrétien and Marie de France provide, nor are they given any credit for perpetuating some of the actions in each story due to misdeed, similar to Malory’s Guinever. While the main focus of these medieval romances is on the chivalric hero and his actions, it is difficult to believe that women have little or no effect on their actions except in terms of an object to be pursued in the name of love.
In reading Medieval Romance, I was impressed by all the thematic lenses that Stevens was able to touch on in such a succinct piece. Each approach is evident in many other articles, especially about the importance of diction when compared to Sturges’ “Epistemology in the Bedchamber.” Like Stevens, this article touched on the importance of the textual style, as he determines how the fourteenth to sixteenth century reader will comprehend the text that is written, and even how the understanding of the language used will evolve as the linguistic styles of people change over time. This book can also be compared with the work of Beverly Kennedy in her piece of “Adultery in Malory’s Le Mort d’Arthur.” As she depicts each type of knight and the inability to establish the “perfect” being, so does Stevens question the ability of the chivalric knight in the romantic setting. It is acknowledged in both articles that these knights are not perfect, Stevens states that each is constantly on a quest for his perfection, while Kennedy displays the sometimes irrational behavior and subjective moral standards a knight upholds for himself. In all, Stevens book offer a general overview of the many parts of the medieval romance for comparison with the specifics that can be offered in briefer and more focused journal articles.
It is difficult to say that there were parts of the book that were disagreeable, seeing as the it was such a broad overview that not many specific parts could be made evident that would evoke an opposing opinion about Stevens book. Personally, I was most impressed by his ability to cover such a large amount of comprehensive study in such a “to-the-point” way. I had been most struggling with the idea that the author of a medieval romance wished to point mainly to the idea that the story is just that, a story and should be trusted for what it was worth. Stevens work showed both sides of authorship, however, proving (and confirming my understanding) that the author of the story wants the reader to believe very much in what is being written, as though it was based on factual evidence. However, the interjections in the story allow for the reader to also understand that the events are not to be taken personally, as they are just fiction. The work of John Stevens provides the reader with a great basic breakdown of the thematic approaches to medieval romance, such as this, which creates for a pleasant and interesting read on the study of such literature.

Meredith Marconi
University of Mary Washington

The fall of the Kingdom of Logres is often blamed on the incestuous relationship between King Arthur and the wife of King Lot, which resulted in the birth of Mordred. However, David Scott Wilson-Okamura uses his article “Adultery and the Fall of Logres in the Post Vulgate Suite du Merlin” in hopes to prove that the egregious error made by King Arthur was not the incestuous aspect of the relationship, but the adulterous aspect. He asserts that the affair of King Arthur with those of King David in the Old Testament, stating that this earlier story from the Bible actually served as a model for the later one in both textual style and in philosophy. Using comparative examples from each text, Wilson-Okamura states a convincing case that Arthur’s affair with the wife of Lot was in fact the event that triggered a chain reaction, which ultimately ends in the fall of Logres. To appreciate the article itself, one must have a basic understanding of both texts, as well as a willingness to accept the broad assumptions and divergence of thought that Wilson-Okamura applies in his article.
To reason with his audience as to why the adulterous action is the more prominent offence, Wilson-Okamura first must dispel the more widely accepted understanding that the incestuous relationship between Arthur and the wife of Lot as the cause of the fall of Logres. He states that Arthur’s ignorance as to his own sister’s existence exempts him from intentionally committing to an incestuous relationship (Wilson-Okamura 19). Though there is an abundance of prophecy as to the impending downfall of King Arthur, often it is ambiguous or obscure, so the intended meaning is lost in the attempted aid. Also, the use of prophecy can be very frank as to its meanings, yet given at an inopportune moment, the hero may be unable to see the necessity to heed the advice. However, Wilson-Okamura describes the necessity of recognizing that Arthur committed two sins—sins that prompt Merlin to prophesize “‘just as aventure [or destiny] gave you your kingdom so aventure will take it away from you’” (Wilson-Okamura 23). The graver of these two sins, adultery, is such because Arthur committed this sin knowingly, as opposed to the sin of incest that he performed in ignorance.
Wilson-Okamura finds the story of King David to have been the model on which King Arthur’s story was based. King David as well commits an act of adultery as he seduces Bathsheba, and, like the wife of Lot, Bathsheba becomes pregnant. To avoid scandal, David sends Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, to the front lines of the war where he is killed. David weds Bathsheba and begins the sequence of events that ultimately lead to the fall of the Hebrew nation. In both the story of King David and that of King Arthur, Wilson-Okamura takes it upon himself to point to the similarities of each of the stories. Each king committed a terrible sin by knowingly taking another man’s wife (Wilson-Okamura 29). The consequences of a child in both cases caused a need for a “cover-up,” bringing about murderous tendencies. In David’s case, murder was carried out when Uriah was sent to the front lines, while Arthur’s attempted murder of his unknown child Mordred are thwarted (Wilson-Okamura 30, 33). Finally, both stories show a prophecy (for David a parable; for Arthur a dream) that indicates the forthcoming destiny of each king. He is reminded “that his elevation to the throne was God’s own doing; his sin has placed him at enmity with God [and thus] the demise of the kingdom is prophesized” (Wilson-Okamura 33).
The concluding remarks of the article call into question why it is fated that the kingdom must suffer the dire consequences put forth by the previous actions of each king. Wilson-Okamura has difficulty accepting his own writing as he states that “Logres suffers for Arthur’s crime: not because it deserves to, but because ‘the evil that men do lives after them’” (Wilson-Okamura 37). He struggles with the idea that there is no such thing as “fair” and that the arbitrary rules of life must be applied, no matter how “grim” they may seem (Wilson-Okamura 37). However, Wilson-Okamura finds his own answer in a section of the story of David. When David says he has sinned against God only, his comment refers to his adulterous affair as being a violation of obedience to God. Such obedience, to the ‘laws’ of life serve a distinct purpose in the story as “they restore a sense of contingency to a legend, the shape of which has been fixed now for nearly a century” (Wilson-Okamura 40). For Wilson-Okamura, these laws or forbidden actions create the possibility of choice by the characters, allowing for consequences to follow as they may.
The article “Adultery and the Fall of Logres,” fully fulfills its attempt at comparing the Post-Vulgate Suite de Merlin with that of the story of King David in the bible. It is apparent that the two stories are related in form and style, as they possess similar occurrences. Though the slight difference in actions both King Arthur and King David suffer from the same adulterous sin. As each story follows in its series of events, Wilson-Okamura makes plain the paralleling actions between each. The images and thematic lenses in both stories are also compared and found to be similar as each king struggles to cover-up the sin that ultimately leads to the downfall of the Kingdom. The article suggests that the stories in the romance of Arthur could possibly all be based on biblical texts. As each knight in Arthur’s court set out on their quests for knowledge, truth and adventure, so too do the prophets and disciples of God set to find these fulfilling virtues. The article also implies that the fate of an entire kingdom in a medieval romance rests squarely upon the soldiers of the aristocratic families, because their downfall also marks the fall of the kingdom into war and siege.
An interesting aspect of the comparison between the lives of King Arthur and King David that has seems to have been forgotten are the roles of the women who bear each King a son. It is prophesized that Guinever will cause Arthur great trouble because of her great beauty, but no such implications are made about Bathsheba by Wilson-Okamura. Likewise, Guinever’s alleged adulterous relationship with Lancelot helps to bring about the final events in Arthur’s story, yet, after bearing David’s son, Bathsheba does not seem to be present with an important role in the story.
In the book study of Medieval Romance by John Stevens, there is a discussion about the relation of the medieval romance to stories of the Bible. It is abundantly clear in this article that the great number of parallels between the biblical story of David and the story of Arthur, yet it does not appear as to what end. None of the characters, save Lancelot, seem to reference God in anyway other than as the one who bestowed upon each king his Kingdom. There is no sense of fidelity to the Lord, nor are there strong Christian virtues present within the story itself as Arthur violates one of the ten commandments by taking to bed his neighbors wife. Stevens suggests that the reference to the bible is to further the idea that romance is heightened in its comparison to those things holy. However, especially in this reading and application of the Bible to Le Suite de Merlin, this is definitely not the case as there is no reference to real love at all.
The article provides a basic comparison between the story of King David and King Arthur and most readily calls into the fact that the story of Arthur could in fact be based on the story of David. In the conclusion of his article, Wilson-Okamura questions why it is necessary that the fall of the Kingdom of Logres must coincide with the death of King Arthur. He considers the suggestion that the gods do not seem to care, a bit of irony based upon the article he has just completed. However, it appears that the downfall of the kingdom is inevitable and not due to the disdain of god, rather, because without Arthur the entire inner-workings of the kingdom have become unraveled. With so many connections in aristocratic families and the supreme reign of Arthur ruling over them all, such conflict is destined to arise when he is no longer present. The article, while being an easily understood read, provides an exemplary comparison of King David and King Arthur while it follows the moral statement being made in each.

Meredith Marconi
University of Mary Washington

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

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

The courtly tradition in literature is an area of study defined by a specific set of characterized themes. These reoccurring trends focus on the identity created by the chivalric knight and the definition of the courtly lady as well as the role each occupies in the court and during courtship. As lovers intermingle, many adulterous relationships develop and if unfamiliar with the medieval definition of adultery, the stories of courtly literature may handle the subject in a confusing manner. In the article “Medieval Concepts of Adultery,” Vern L. Bullough presents a background of traditional meanings of adultery as well as provides examples of punishment for offending parties. He provides the interested reader with information that helps one further understand the basis of adulterous punishments in the traditional medieval writing. Seeing as I had no real experience in understanding adultery during this time, I was to learn the cultural setting that helps to explain the attitude towards adultery in the courtly style of writing.
Vern L. Bullough breaks down the article into six influences on the medieval understandings of adultery. Each section features a definition and examples that show the punishments for such a crime. Bullough describes the Germanic tradition as one where women “were not so much persons…as they were property” (Bullough 6). Savage punishments were inflicted upon women who were caught in adulterous relationships. Her head was to be shaven, she was publicly humiliated in front of her family and her husband was free to beat her and even kill her and the offending man at his own discretion. However, men were able to have sex with whomever they desired, as long as it was not another man’s wife. This double-standard, Bullough said, can be linked to the fact that women are seen as property and if their virtue or purity was tainted the value of the woman would decrease, so the husband, brother or related “owning” male could distribute punishment as was fitting. Similarly, the Roman tradition that Bullough describes also emphasizes women as a piece of property. The Sabine women and the rape of Lucretia are given as examples of the necessity for a man to find a virtuous wife as only such women are worthy of being possessed. Again, men were allowed to have as many extramarital affairs as they desired as long as the woman was unmarried.
Bullough addresses one difference in the laws of adultery between the Germanic tribes and the Roman tradition. Until Augustus created the Lex Julia de adulteries coercendis, death was not the punishment if two lovers were caught in the act. Instead it was “confiscation of parts of the property of the male, and the loss of half of the woman’s dowry” (Bullough 7). However, with the introduction of the Lex Julia, Bullough confirms that an accusation of adultery against a woman would result in an immediate divorce from her husband as well as an allowance for the husband to kill the adulterer, but not his wife (Bullough 7). Later, Constantine and Justinian introduced and confirmed the death penalty and the ability of a husband to kill his wife as punishment for the adulteress.
Bullough also mentions biblical references. Again, because women were the possession of men, any act in which violated his exclusive right to his wife was a violation of his property. The woman did not own her man and thus, the affairs of the wife were adulterous, but those of the husband were not. Introduced by the Bible was the idea that “even to be found alone with an unidentified man was sufficient reason to receive the death penalty [usually by stoning] as the story of Susannah would indicate” (Bullough 8). The New Testament brought about changes to the idea of adultery. Jesus Christ extended adultery to include thoughts as well as actions and the adulterous wife was not to be killed, but forgiven for her crime. Finally, divorce was redefined, as it no longer broke the eternal bonds of marriage. Instead, if divorce was granted and the wife was to remarry it was to be considered adultery as well.
The rising Christian presence in the medieval experience created a world where sex was no longer a private affair. Bullough explains that, by ranking “unapproved sexual activity [as one of] the three capital sins, along with idolatry… and paganism,” the church was able to pry into the lives of its parishioners (Bullough 9). Strict penances were given to prevent adulterous practices. If a man was caught with another woman he had to do penance as well as refrain from sex with his own wife for an extended period of time. Adulterous individuals were to be excluded from the rest of the community and could only return to the church after strict public penance. Bullough includes in his article a brief section about canon law (or the law of the Church). Here he examines the elimination of the double standard between the sexes. Suddenly, both parties were held responsible—in some cases the man even more so because he was the head of the family (Bullough 10).
Bullough’s final discussion on the non-legal aspects of adultery focus on those evils that are a result of wrongful sex that have nothing to do with the law of the land. Here, he mentions myths such as how extramarital sex robs men of their courage as it drains their soul or affairs cause women to masturbate, a crime worse than adultery. His final reference is to the work of Dante. Bullough comments how even Dante placed adulterers on the second level of hell, where storms and winds were “whirling and smiting them for all eternity. [This fate was regarded as] a fitting punishment since in life they were seen as having been pushed and pulled by the winds of passion and death” (Bullough 12). Bullough’s closing remarks focus on the strong negative emotions adultery provoked during the medieval period. His final comment is that the saving grace of confession and secrecy of affairs was that it allowed for those hearing adulterous confessions to work towards the preserving of the marriage and a lesser punishment.
After only one reading on this article, I was fascinated by all the information that I was previously unaware of. It provided a chronological evolution of adultery and the punishments distributed as a result of such affairs. By breaking down the basics of each cultural shift in relation to adultery, Bullough was able to create a clearly articulate and concise summery that was easily understood by the reader. The basic structure was helpful as I was referencing this article for another reading. In reading various works by Chaucer or Marie de France, I have noticed many slight innuendoes about other cultures in the stories, whether it is the setting for the piece itself or a reference to an event that has taken place in a foreign land. This article has become a guide a bit of the cultural background relating to extramarital affairs that has helped to make evident the ironic lines against the “heathens” of another culture.
Unfortunately, this article did not directly study a specific work written during the medieval period so the application of this article to said readings are purely my own speculation. Had the article applied different approaches to adultery on a specific piece, it would have been beneficial to see how different groups would have read or interpreted the same piece of literature. Also, a breakdown by country would have also been interesting as authors like Marie de France and Chaucer could have written completely different texts mocking adulterous attitudes of another country as well as their own. It is difficult to compare an article that is mostly based on historical research to articles of opinion and citation because there are no countering opinions to argue.
Vern L. Bullough contends that the definition of adultery is constantly evolving. Such an idea insinuates that though the article may have been enhanced by an analysis of a different piece as mentioned above, it is impossible to interpret a body of work based on the “ideals” of another culture. This is a result of the inability to understand or accept the basic societal laws that have been established in another time and place. It is suggested by the article that adultery turned from a physical “rape and blame” of the women into an disgraceful action or unfaithful thought that had equally demoralizing consequences for both men and women. Though it is a provoking thought, adultery in twentieth century society seems to be as commonplace as marriage and, therefore, it is difficult to relate to the article on the level that Christian values are prevalent enough to ostracize a member of the community for such an act. Similarly, while there is a mention in the article that men and women are equally responsible for an adulterous act, there is no real representation of that on a personal level because the double standard is so prevalent in today’s society. Adulterous women are degraded and slandered with horrific names, while adulterous men seem to escape blame completely. However, the article was an interesting introduction to the various punishments and cultural discriminations of adultery as well as a good resource to be compared with other articles and texts to better understand the origins of societal judgment.

Meredith Marconi
University of Mary Washington

Just link it here or something