Desiring Discord: Political Conflict in Medieval Romance contends that medieval romance frequently creates and dwells on discord and political tensions left unresolved by the narrator. Accusations of treason in particular become a critical aspect of romance adventures, where the nature of the traitor’s crime or transgression is ambiguously defined at best, but is often central to the hero’s success. The steward frequently embodies this dissent and treason, even as he is silenced and vilified by the protagonist, text, and scholarship. This project clarifies why the figure of the royal steward repeatedly stands at the center of such treason. Why, for example, does the unnamed (and loyal) steward in Amis and Amiloun become the ;;fals traytour” blamed for Amis’s judicial battle or Amiloun’s leprosy when it is the heroes themselves who commit crimes against the duke?Through my analyses of Amis and Amiloun, as well as King Horn, The Squyre of Low Degree, The Erle of Tolous, and Le Morte D’Arthur, I argue that the treasonous stewards open up avenues to engage in political dissent and alternative methods of political activism—where the political intrigue of the medieval court can be functional and productive of good governance rather than obstructionist. These narratives’ political multiplicity—diversifying rather than preventing treason—raises questions about the value of internal conflict and the boundaries of criminality. Tensions over how to define and set boundaries around the reach of the crown in these romances persists from 1200 to the early sixteenth century, arguing that the steward’s literary vilificafrtion exceeds any particular historical anxieties.The steward Maradose calls attention to the diverse and competive political environment in The Squire of Low Degree, where his failed support of the duke’s law results in the princess’s rejection of the court and the narrative’s turn away from the hero. The steward is both ;;traytour” and faithful vassal, both ;;trewe” and ;;fals,” and both lover and villain. He unveils the multiple value systems competing within the romance court. Amis and Amiloun divorces treason from its political definition by condemning the steward as traitor while the text’s characters support his integrity. Not only is the court divided, but the very means of understanding and unifying it are unstable. The traitor turned steward turned emperor in The Erle of Tolous expands an unstable court structure to treat treason as a productive and beneficial response to the emperor’s misrule. The political ;;ryght” championed by the treasonous Erle Barnard suggests that readers’ sympathy may extend as much to the court’s traitors as to the hero. The characters’ and narrators’ dissonant conceptions of justice suggest that effective leadership relies on a system of power rather than an individual—a system that requires and thrives off the competing voices of political and social actors. The final chapter demonstrates that Malory’s steward Kay acts as gatekeeper to Arthur’s court. Kay’s stewardship opposes sovereign desire, statutory laws, as well as common laws and highlights the inconsistency among various affinities’ interpretive approach to power. His rude and abrasive opposition to many Round Table knights emphasizes their multiple and competing identities—but in doing so he also foregrounds diversity as a unifying factor. He allows the conflict between identities and approaches to inspire negotiation and solidarity to an overarching unity.
【 预 览 】
附件列表
Files
Size
Format
View
Desiring Discord: Political Conflict in Medieval Romance
PDF
download
878987797
028-85220240
