By Sammie Bertagnolli
Sir Lancelot Slays the Caitiff Knight Sir Tarquin by John Cadogan Cowper
In a society rooted in honor and trust, loyalty is pertinent to survival. The Arthurian myths serve as a teaching tool for people in the Middle Ages and today. Although we cannot be certain that they are based off of any real people’s lives or real events, there are many lessons to be learned from the events that take place in them. Betrayal was damaging to the feudal system by tearing down the trust that societies needed to rely on for unity and survival, and the ways in which women and men where treated and punished differently within this system is one of the many ways that society had a say in punishing those who threatened their way of life. The importance of loyalty and the crippling effect of betrayal in the Middle Ages, is specifically represented in Arthurian literature. In instances in which loyalty was scorned and betrayal left its devastating mark, the consequences for the part played in bringing about that devastation looked different based on one’s sex. Arthurian literature presented the Medieval idea that men and women were different in the eyes of the law, were therefore given separate punishments for the committing the act of treason.
Treason is defined in an essay by Lyndia Fletcher in the way in which its context fits within Arthurian literature. She states:
“treason was thus primarily considered to be a breach of faith, a violation of a sworn oath. In a culture where loyalty was not absolute or unconditional, but the expression of a voluntary, bilateral contract of vassalage, infidelity was heinous. It was not just betrayal: treason struck at the heart of public authority…”
(Fletcher 78).
There were a plethora of punishments to choose from based on the treasonous act committed and the sex and status of the culprit. For those who were not of noble status, being drawn and quartered was seen as the peasants way to die because it was slow, painful, and most importantly dishonorable. Other commonplace ways to execute lower class personnel were to disembowel and display them or hang them. If one was of noble birth receiving a lethal punishment they were often beheaded, because this type of execution was seen as the dignified way to go (Fletcher). Every son of noble birth was destined to take up the knighthood expected of them and once they did they were to follow the Knight’s code by taking the oath of loyalty. “The Oath…is foundational both to the inauguration of the Round Table and to the ethical system [of] governing…” (Kelly 43). When a knight breaks the chivalric code, they are breaking their Oath. This warrants them to be punished by being stripped of their knighthood in a very public fashion, often involving the actual removal of garments or metals that represent their status as a knight. This is meant to humiliate the knight by stripping him of his masculinity for the betrayal he has committed. Punishments like these are not likely to be attuned, whereas if a lady of the court were to betray the trust of the king and the land, her process of punishment would look much different. Often times there would be a trial and knights would be able to accept a challenge of the accuser to fight for her honor. For women, the status of their reputation and honor determined their standing in society and whether or not they were an outcast. This was especially important for those of noble birth. If proven guilty however, women were not above the death penalty or banishment (Kelly).
Depending upon if a crime infringes on or even breaks the Oath, the code that nights and people of the court take to ensure their loyalty to serving King and Country, a punishment can be lessened or, potentially, made more lethal. This oath is a sacred agreement that if broken is the ultimate form of treason. As explained in an essay on treason in the time of King Arthur, Laura Bedwell describes this Oath and the distinctions of what it means to break it as a knight or a person of the court:
“…three of the crimes that the Oath specifically forbids: outrage, murder, and treason…Instead of being separate, these three crimes function as multiple voices speaking of the essential nature of the person who commits them. A knight who breaks one of these provisions of the Oath, who is willing to fall into outrage or treason, might equally commit murder. A queen who has previously been accused of the treasonous murder of a knight may also be guilty of a wife’s ultimate treason against her husband: adultery”
(Bedwell 7).
While men are seen as murderers when they commit treason, women are seen as temptresses. This reflects on how treason is described, but has little effect on the severity of the punishment. Adultery for women was just as bad as a Knight committing an unjust murder (Bedwell).
The ideas surrounding the binary norms of the Medieval times are very prevalent and translate to the punishments of characters who commit their famous acts of treason (Bradfield). In taking a look at the ways in which the punishments of betrayal differed in the feudal system based on gender, one can recognize that men and women were treated differently when it came to how their reputation was changed. This factor of sex is said to not have any effect on, if found guilty of the crime, wether or not they could atone for what they had done or receive forgiveness instead of a trial or prosecution. As Bedwell, Kelly, and Fletcher conceded, it seemed that no one was above the law when it came to the punishments for disloyalty. This seems contrary to popular belief but the severity of the punishments did vary based on the type of penance the sinner was willing to do. Gawain, being seen as a more of a feminine character in how he is described in his physical characteristics, is afforded this option of penance, but there is no doubt of his masculinity as proven in his knighthood, so this is a bit of an unusually situation. This could be due to the Gawain Poet being a bit disconnected from the rest of Arthurian literature, or just that the views on punishments for treason at the time were subjective. Gawain is an interesting case to be explored when looking into how punishment of betrayal differs by gender considering he embodied both in his own way (Laing).
While treason is defined in multiple ways throughout Arthurian literature, the sentiment of how the punishment differed based on sex seems to remain constant. It really depended upon a case by case situation. Those of noble birth were not to be tried in the same way of that of the peasants or receive similar or the same punishments as each other, but all were discriminated against based on gender. This was just another distinction of class within the feudal society. This is the case in Arthurian literature as well as in what we know of society in the Middle Ages and their culture which depended upon the trust of others. If that trust was broken, it had to be dealt with so as to insure no other link in the chain were to defect and ensure the security of the nation or kingdom held together by loyalty to each other.
Bibliography
Bedwell, Laura K. “The Failure of Justice, the Failure of Arthur.” Arthuriana, vol. 21, no. 3, 2011, pp. 3–22.
Bradfield, J. L. S. (2011). Canacee’s Mirror: Gender and Treasons in Medieval Literature, 363.
Fletcher, Lydia. “‘TRAYTOURES’ AND ‘TRESON’: THE LANGUAGE OF TREASON IN THE WORKS OF SIR THOMAS MALORY.” Arthurian Literature XXVIII: Blood, Sex, Malory: Essays on the ‘Morte Darthur’, edited by DAVID CLARK and KATE McCLUNE, vol. 28, Boydell and Brewer, 2011, pp. 75–88.
Gani, Aisha. “Treason Act: the Facts.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 17 Oct. 2014, www.theguardian.com/law/2014/oct/17/treason-act-facts-british-extremists-iraq-syria-isis.
Kelly, Robert L. “Royal Policy and Malory’s Round Table.” Arthuriana, vol. 14, no. 1, 2004, pp. 43–71.
Laing, Gregory L. (2009) “Treason and Betrayal in the Middle English Romances of Sir Gawain,” The Hilltop Review: Vol. 3: Iss. 1, Article 3.