Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T17:00:59.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Theme and Structure of the Stanzaic Morte Arthur

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2020

Richard A. Wertime
Richard A. Wertime*
Affiliation:
Douglass College, New Brunswick, New Jersey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Though not a wholly successful work, the Stanzaic Morte Arthur is more coherent, more serious in intent, than is usually acknowledged. Dramatically and thematically organized in terms of the opposition between Launcelot and Gawayne, the work is best described as “tragedy of consequence.” Launcelot's adultery with Gaynour is ostensibly the root cause of the destruction of Arthur's realm, but the poet transfers the principal blame to others, above all to Gawayne. He achieves this by (a) distinguishing the adultery itself from its revelation to Arthur; (b) depicting the illicit love as favorably as possible; and (c) creating an implicit duality in the characters of Launcelot and Gawayne. The two undergo a reversal of primary roles by which Gawayne becomes the aggressor and Launcelot the placator. As the hero, Launcelot comes to embody the wiser course of action— withdrawal from worldly conflict—which leads him, eventually, to the priesthood. Confusion, however, results from the viewpoint of the narrator, who seems so indiscriminately generous with his praise that he contradicts the obvious implications of the course of events. This difficulty is resolved when one understands that the narrator's compassion transcends, not contradicts, the rigorous justice of events.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 87 , Issue 5 , October 1972 , pp. 1075 - 1082
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Le Morte Arthur, ed. J. Douglas Bruce, EETS, E.S. No. 88 (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1903). Ail citations will refer to this text. In quoting I have not italicized letters which indicate expanded scribal notations and abbreviations.

2 Since the publication of H. Oskar Sommer's Le Morte Darthur by Syr Thomas Malory, Vol. iii : Studies on the Sources (London: D. Nutt, 1891), the Stanzaic Morte Arthur has been primarily a pawn in the running source-controversy concerning Malory's last two tales. Bruce, in Anglia and in his “Introduction” to the text of the Stanzaic poem, took strong issue with Sommer (see pp. xi-xx of the “Introduction”), and there followed a harsh, ungentlemanly exchange between the two that became the groundwork of subsequent source studies by Richard M. Wilson, Eugene Vinaver, E. Talbot Donaldson, Robert M. Lumiansky, and Wilfred L. Guerin. Guerin gives a brief, fair-minded history of this scholarship in “ ‘The Tale of the Death of Arthur’ : Catastrophe and Resolution,” Malory's Originality, ed. Robert M. Lumiansky (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press, 1964), pp. 237–40. For typical readings of the poem see George F. Kane, Middle English Literature (London: Methuen, 1951), pp. 66–69, and Robert W. Ackerman, “English Rimed and Prose Romances,” Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages, ed. Roger S. Loomis (Oxford: Clarendon, 1959), pp. 489–91.

3 Guerin, p. 236, and Kane, p. 67, respectively.

4 Kane, p. 69.

5 Comparison of the Stanzaic poem with its source, the Old French Mort Artu, strongly supports my conclusions. Too complex a subject to be treated here in full, this much may be said about the changes the Stanzaic poet makes: while following the general outlines of the Mort Artu, he simplifies the sequence of events by unraveling most of the interweaving of episodes; he drastically condenses such explanatory material as physical description, accounts of internal psychological struggle, and expository dialogue. He makes basic alterations in some of the major figures, diminishing Arthur's importance, softening Launcelot's assertiveness as a knight and lover, and increasing the contrast between Launcelot and Gawayne. His most striking innovation is his narrator's point of view, the generosity of which is absent from the Old French version. See La Mort le Roi Artu, ed. Jean Frappier, 3rd ed. (Geneva : Librairie Droz, 1964).

6 See 11. 123–28, 818–23, 1624–31. 1736–43, 2198–205, 2388–95. Concerning Arthur's dependency on Launcelot, see 11. 1698–99, 2288–93, 2400–01, 2656–57.

7 Further explanation of the narrator's attitude is given below, p. 1079. See also 11. 1800–05, 3624, 3956 concerning Gaynour.

8 Gawayne tells Arthur that he “gabbyd” on Launcelot (1. 1105), and repeats this confession to Gaynour (11. 112843); yet when Gawayne first meets the maid (11. 576–607) and reports her story to the court (11. 635–47), he seems sincerely convinced that Launcelot has pledged himself to her. I see no way to resolve this contradiction.

9 R. M. Lumiansky, “ ‘The Tale of Lancelot and Guenevere’: Suspense,” Malory's Originality, pp. 215–18, points out that the Stanzaic poet, not Malory, does most of the unweaving of the poisoned-apples (a) and maid-of-Ascalot (b) episodes in the Mort Artu by reducing them to a b 1a 1b 2a 2 arrangement.

10 Here a break in the MS occurs. Furnivall surmised that 137 lines are missing, and Sommer suggested that the MS pages might possibly have been disordered; but Bruce argued more convincingly that a single MS page is missing, in which space it can be reasonably assumed that the burial of the maid takes place. For details of these hypotheses, see Bruce, “Introduction,” pp. x-xii.

11 Gawayne's role, interestingly, finds a mirror image in Sir Bors's. One of Launcelot's men, Bors, too, begins as a placator and gradually changes into a hostile aggressor—with Gawayne for his principal enemy. It is he, in fact, not Gawayne, who goads Launcelot into battle at Ioyus Gard (11. 2126–41); and he is the first to accept Gawayne's challenge at Benwyk (11. 2738–53). Their mutual antagonism is succinctly noted when, at Ioyus Gard, they wound each other almost simultaneously (11. 2214–29). The manner in which Bors's role reinforces the opposition of Launcelot and Gawayne is also evident.

12 R. M. Lumiansky, in “Gawain's Miraculous Strength: Malory's Use of Le Morte Arthur and Mort Artu,” Etudes Anglaises, 10 (1957), 97–108, illustrates the tendency of critics to emphasize Malory's achievement at the expense of the Stanzaic poet. Lumiansky gives a lucid account of the changes which the Stanzaic poet makes in Gawayne's fights with Launcelot at Benwyk; he then proceeds directly to Malory without considering the patterns of meaning explicit in his own account.

13 Bruce, “Introduction,” p. xxviii. Bruce's supposition of authorship is generally accepted; see Ackerman, pp. 489–90.