Author: Hillary Lowell
11351829
Supervisor: Marjolein Hogenbirk
Second Reader: Mario Damen
Master Thesis, Research Master Religious Studies, University of Amsterdam
List of Figures
i
Acknowledgments
ii
Chapter I:
Introduction
1
Chapter II:
Historical and Literary Context
14
Chapter III:
Frameworks
44
Chapter IV:
Edward III
63
Chapter V:
Conclusion
101
Bibliography
114
List of Figures
Figure Page
1 David and his lyre, David battling Goliath 16
2 Charlemagne crowned King of the Franks 34
3 Gravesite of Arthur and Guinevere at Glastonbury Abbey 57
4 Duke of Brabant from the Codex Manesse 66
5 Froissart’s aftermath of the Battle of Crécy 74
6 Queen Philippa and Edward III at Calais 76
7 King Arthur 78
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Professor Marjolein Hogenbirk for navigating these occasionally uncertain waters with me and providing me with the necessary criticism to better this work and the encouragement to keep pushing forward. Thank you to Professor Mario Damen for the willingness to be my second reader and lend his historical perspective. Finally, a big thank you to my friends, family, and classmates who offered me support and solace through the whirlwind of writing this thesis.
Chapter I
IntroductionThere has been no shortage of kings throughout the centuries, decorating the great em-pires of the ages. Symbolism, ideology, and iconography were rife within these emem-pires and kingdoms, and as such, they were greedily lapped up by later rulers for their own royal agendas. Appropriation of powerful military or religious figures was par for the course for the later generations of monarchs. The emulation and association of oneself with successful and respected figures could prove to be advantageous for kings in the in-terwoven tapestry that was religion and politics. By aligning themselves with renowned figures, monarchs could be demonstrating that they occupy the same level of importance and grandeur as their predecessors or that they were, in some fashion, affiliated with these past legacies. This is true of Edward III, reigning from 1327-1377, and his appro-priation of several legendary kings: David of the Old Testament, King Arthur, and Charlemagne.
Working within the frameworks of symbolic appropriation and national identity, Edward can be seen utilizing various symbolism, both secular and religious. What this thesis aims to answer is what effect this appropriation and emulation may have had on Edward’s kingly image. I hope to provide insight into this question by examining Ed-ward’s colorful tournaments, his instigation of the Hundred Years War through the claim to the French throne culminating in the famous battle of Crécy and the siege of Calais, a letter to the Pope in support of his claim, the Parliament of 1377, and various chroniclers.
In order to situate Edward III within the broader English royal context, Edward’s grandfather, Edward I, and his apparent appropriation of Arthur in the thirteenth century against the Welsh will be examined.
Edward III
Edward was raised in the shadow of his militarily domineering grandfather and the equal-ly bleak shadow of his father, who reigned from 1307-1327. Edward III would have 1
been aware of his grandfather’s successes as well as his father’s uneventful military
Mortimer, Ian. The Perfect King: The Life of Edward III, Father of the English Nation. Pimlico, 2007; 1
reer. This, along with the knowledge of Arthurian romances, shaped Edward’s early 2
years and honed his desire to prove himself on the battlefield, a feat that he would achieve several times over during his reign. Edward became known for his military suc-cess against the French in what would later be dubbed the Hundred Years War. This would come to define Edward’s reign; however, Edward embodied more than just his military battles. Edward lived a life of true romance, chivalry, and bravery. Every inch the king that encompasses Arthurian romances, Edward endowed his country with pride.
Before he was hailed as a military success, Edward was known for his fondness for tournaments and festivals. Hosting multiple tournaments a year, Edward lavished his guests and participants with clothes, food, and entertainment. Tournaments were a focal point of chivalry, an engaging practice in preparation for actual warfare that a knight may take part in. Like battle, tournaments could be dangerous, but the desire to acquire pres-tige was too powerful and knights participated despite the dangers. The tournaments have been described by Wardrobe accounts as being elaborate. 3
Often the tournaments were themed and such themes were drawn from a combi-nation of real-world events and the great romances of the age. Edward was a learned man and would have been familiar with the chronicle works of Geoffrey of Monmouth and Wace as well as romances from writers such as Chrétien de Troyes. Ian Mortimer stated Edward possessed over a hundred books in his library. Arthurian legend, though having 4
originated in the British Isles, spread over Europe and shared popularity amongst other countries, foremost in France where the romance genre had its origin in the twelfth centu-ry. France was the home of Edward’s mother and his wife was from the County of Hain-ault, the Northern province of the Kingdom of France. Isabella, the daughter to French 5
king Philip the Fair, was intimately acquainted with the details of popular French ro-mances. Isabella is recorded leaving her son various romances in his possession, includ-ing Wace’s Roman de Brut, Tristan and Isolde, and about the deeds of Arthur. Accordinclud-ing to an Issue Rolls during his reign, Edward ordered for a French romance to be in his
Strohm, Paul. “The Social and Literary Scene in England.” The Cambridge Companion to Chaucer, sec
2
-ond edition. Edited by Piero Boitani and Jill Mann. Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 7.
The National Archives MS E 101/391/15, Membrane 9, translated by Mark Chambers. 3
Mortimer, 2007, p. 289. 4
For Middle English romance literature refer to Chapter II. 5
chamber for his personal use. This illustrates that not only was Edward familiar with 6
chronicles but he would have also been versed in romances. Similarly, Edward’s wife Philippa of Hainault was aware of such romance literature. A gift for Edward for Christ-mas in 1333 included a silver ewer imprinted with legendary figures such as Alexander the Great, Arthur, Gawain, Charlemagne, and others. It is within this literary environ7
-ment that Edward based not only his tourna-ments but his reality.
Another marker left by Edward III that reflected his Arthurian knowledge was his creation of the Order of the Garter. Believed to simulate the fraternity of knights found in Round Table romances, Edward aspired for his knights to value loyalty and glory above all else. This element can be seen in the harrowing battle of Crécy in particular. Outnum-bered by French soldiers, the English rallied around the king they considered just and great, securing for England a round of military successes. It is a testament to Edward 8
that the chivalric order still stands to the present.
However, Arthur was not the only authoritative figure Edward emulated. He had drawn connections between himself and the ideal kingly figure David of the Old Testa-ment. Unlike Arthur who lent an air of national pride, David embodied the intimidate connection of a king and the divine. Charlemagne fulfilled this aspect as well, reigning as king of the Franks before ascending to the role of Holy Roman Emperor. It is these three 9
kings that have significance towards Edward’s rule and whose elements worth emulating will be elaborated upon in the first chapter. These aspects along with the frameworks of appropriation, in the case of Charlemagne and Edward I, and English national identity will be analyzed in order to examine Edward III in a more comprehensive light. There are numerous scholarly research and studies that have been conducted on Edward III,
whether in relation to chivalry, tournaments, or battle. In regards to Edward emulating 10
Issues of Exchequer, ed. R. Devon (London, 1837), p. 144 as quoted in Strohm, 2003, p. 7
6
TNA E101/386/3 f.4r. 7
Mortimer, 2007, pp. 235, 238. 8
For the literary context of Charlemagne refer to Chapter II. 9
For further readings see Richard Barber. Edward III and the Triumph of England: The Battle of Crécy 10
and the Company of the Garter. Penguin Global, 2014; W.M. Ormrod. The Reign of Edward III: Crown and Political Society in England, 1327-1377. Yale University Press, 1990; Ormrod, Edward III. Yale
great figures of the past, a multiplicity of studies have been presented on Arthur. Within 11
these spheres of previous research is where this thesis lies. However, I aim to take the process a step further with examining not only Arthur as a primary symbolic figure but the deeply religious icons of David and Charlemagne, in tandem with English identity in light of the Hundred Years War and the concepts of chivalry found within tournaments and warfare.
David, Arthur, and Charlemagne
Out of the seemingly endless historical and religious figures to draw from, those of spe-cial significance to Edward III are David of the Old Testament, the legendary King Arthur, and the renowned historical Charlemagne. David is at the root of religious author-ity with the creation of the Davidic Covenant, the agreement that the Israelites will forev-er be the chosen people of God. Jesus’ claim to divine kingship is supplanted in his ge-nealogical relation to David, the embodiment of the ideal biblical king. Edward III uti12
-lized this religious connection in regards to his claim to the French throne, an important aspect that will be analyzed in detail in the fourth chapter. Charlemagne, a more con13
-temporary historical figure than David and solidified in the halls of great kings long be-fore Edward’s time, could be considered the great Christian king of the early medieval era. Known for his impressive reign as king, Charlemagne exceeded his kingly accom-plishments by becoming the Holy Roman Emperor in 800CE and representing all of Christendom. David stood for the beginning of divine kingship within the Judeo-Christ-ian context with Charlemagne taking up this mantle during the early medieval period.
In between these two religious authorities, chronologically, is a figure that in mod-ern times has been relegated to folklore, King Arthur. However, it must be noted that dur-ing the reign of Edward III, and those of his predecessors, Arthur was considered to be a
For several articles on the topic of Arthurian legend and Edward III see Mary Flowers Braswell. “The 11
Search for the Holy Grail: Arthurian Lacunae in the England of Edward III.” The University of North Carolina Press, Vol. 108, No. 4, 2011, pp. 469-487; George R. Kaiser. “Edward III and the Alliterative
Morte Arthure.” Speculum Vol. 48, No. 1, 1973, pp. 37-51.
Gospels of Matthew and Luke in The HarperCollins Study Bible, Student Edition. Edited by Harold W. 12
Attridge, HarperSanFrancisco, 2006.
From fourteenth century English chronicler Adam Murimuth with English translation in Joshua Barnes, 13
historical figure and was treated as such. Arthur, though not originally a king in his own 14
right, had become the pinnacle of knightly chivalry by the Middle Ages and was viewed as distinctly English, despite his Welsh origins. The use of Arthurian legend by British 15
monarchs can be traced back as early as the twelfth century. However, it is during the 16
reign of Edward I, and later Edward III, that garners the most attention in regards to the connection with the legendary king.
Other equally influential figures such as Alexander or Julius Caesar will not be an-alyzed in this thesis. Though they maintained important attributes and were certainly renowned in the era of Edward III (both before and after), they do not possess the rele-vance and close connection to the English king as David, Arthur, and Charlemagne. David and Charlemagne represent the ever-present and crucial aspect of religion that was a domineering force in medieval society. Whilst Arthur embodied the very essence of what it was to be a successful military British monarch. No other figures from history or legend, though undeniably eminent, could fulfill the roles that the three chosen kings have satisfied.
Appropriation
Appropriation of symbols, ideology, and images is not a practice that can be confined to any one person, region, or era. For instance, Roger Mortimer, a noble present throughout all three medieval Edwardian courts, possessed the tendency to host tournaments and feasts in an Arthurian context. Simon Harrison gives a schematic in his 1995 article in 17
which he outlines the various categories that symbolic conflict can fall into. These spheres of conflict include valuation, proprietary, innovative, and expansionary. 18
Ditmas, E.M.R. “The Cult of Arthurian Relics.” Folklore, Vol. 75, No. 1, 1964, p. 19. 14
Faletra, Michael A. “Narrating the Matter of Britain: Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Norman Colo
15
-nization of Wales.” Chaucer Review, Vol. 35, No. 1, 2000, pp. 60-85; Lupack, Alan. The Oxford Guide to
Arthurian Literature and Legend. Oxford University Press, paperback edition 2007, pp. 16-21.
Pearsall, Derek. Arthurian Romance: A Short Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003, pp. 16
48-51.
Loomis, Roger Sherman. “Edward I, Arthurian Enthusiast.” Speculum, Vol. 28, No. 1, 1953, p. 116; 17
Mortimer, 2007, p. 75.
Harrison, Simon. “Four Types of Symbolic Conflict.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Insti
18
In the case of Edward III, the strategy of value and proprietary are most prevalent, whilst operating within the innovative category as well. The innovative strategy is the 19
heightened competition for national prestige and power that drove innovations as well 20
as the competitive creation of new categories of symbolic forms. An example of such 21
innovation is the creation of the Order of the Garter by Edward III and the popularity sur-rounding it that spawned similar orders, such as French king John’s Order of the Star. Though this is in the reverse, the French appropriating a symbol and ideology from the English, Edward III during his French campaign adopted the fleur-de-lis on his flag as a way of upholding his claim to the French throne. Charlemagne, likewise, employed the 22
practice of appropriation through innovation and proprietary strategies in his chapel in Aachen. The Frankish king utilized various past symbolic images both secular and reli-gious to enhance his own authority. 23
For the purposes of this thesis, Edward I will be discussed in order to better situate Edward III within the framework of appropriation and national identity whilst Charle-magne and the appropriation prevalent in his Palace Chapel at Aachen will also be exam-ined. The details of such appropriation will be addressed in the third chapter. Edward III fits into these categories of valuation, proprietary, and innovation. For though he did not conquer any distant peoples or lands, his ambitions were settled closer to home with Scotland and the continental neighbor of France, he used the symbolic authority of past kings in his military as well as festive roles within the context of British national identity and the overarching theme of religion that permeated medieval life. This leads me to the secondary framework of national identity that these aspects of appropriation are set with-in.
The categories of valuation and proprietary will be discussed in Chapter III. 19
The concept of medieval national identity will be examined through the works of Rees Davies, “Na
20
-tions and National Identities in the Medieval World: An Apologia.” Revue belge d'histoire contemporaine, 2004 and Andrea Ruddick, English Identity and Political Culture in the Fourteenth Century. Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Harrison, 1995, p. 261. 21
Mortimer, 2007, p. 167. 22
Tekippe, Rita W. “Coping Power: Emulation, Appropriation, and Borrowing for Royal Political Pur
23
National Identity
The common consensus amongst modern historians is that the concept of national identi-ty formed during the nineteenth century. Modern scholars have the tendency to impose 24
requirements such as literacy to make a nation, but that completely disregards the earlier practice of oral traditions. However, according to medieval scholars, national identity 25
can be seen within societies of the Middle Ages. For the purpose of this paper, it is the 26
English national identity that will be the primary focus. Rees Davies argued for the exis-tence of national identity in medieval England on the grounds of three elements. One such component is the development or articulation of people, or national, self-identity. “A nation becomes a nation when it believes itself to be such and gives itself a name to dis-tinguish it from other nations or peoples.” The birth of the English nation can arguably 27
be traced back to the arrival of Germanic people in Briton. With the arrival of the Saxons and Angles came the struggle for a new identity over and against that of the Britons, for history tells us that ultimately the Germanic tribes overtook the land of the Britons. Ac-cording to the Chronicles of the Anglo-Saxons, by the ninth century, the world English (Angelcynn) was being employed and by the tenth the land was referred to as England (Engla-lond). Whether coincidentally or not, the use of these terms took place during 28
the Viking invasion. In order to survive, the debris of broken kingdoms left behind by Briton rulers was unified under the new English banner in a front against the Vikings.
However, simply calling oneself by a new name does not satisfy the basic re-quirements for a nation to form. The need for a government is essential. In the case of England, it was kingship. Kingship arrived fairly early in English history, and it was un-der this rule that the various ethnicities of Wessex, Mercian, Danish, and so forth coa-lesced. By the tenth century, the king was using the title rex Anglorum or king of the 29
See Benedict Anderson. Imagined Communities. Verso, second edition, 2006; 24 Davies, 2004, p. 567. Davies, 2004, p. 569. 25 Ruddick, 2013. 26 Davies, 2004, p. 572. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid., p. 573. 29
English. This amalgamation of various ethnicities under one cohesive unit can be seen 30
in the fact that English kings could be of any ethnicity, not exclusively Germanic.
Whether they were Scandinavian or Norman or Saxon, the king was still considered King of the English.
The third element in the creation of an English nation is a unified history. The 31
Venerable Bede is responsible for this act in his creation of the eighth-century chronicle
Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Though it has been established by scholars
such as Stephen Yeates that the works of early monks, Bede, Gildas, and Nennius, are not to be taken at historical face value, English medieval society believed them to be histori-cally true. Bede’s work gave the budding English nation something it so desperately 32
needed, a history with which to set itself apart from other societies and establish its valid-ity and distinctiveness. By creating a united history to draw upon, Bede was furnishing the groundwork for the English nation to form upon. By linking early English rulers to mythical figures such as Brutus and Trajan, Bede was establishing a mythos in the mak-ing. He was providing the last element for the English to consider themselves a nation.
It is within this framework of established nationhood that Edward III is firmly placed. Not only was England a nation by 1327, but Edward III increased this sense of nationality through his war with France, turning it from a squabble between two rulers to a fight for the very survival of British identity. However, before Edward III was his 33
grandfather Edward I. Another influential king in his own right who carried the skill of political propaganda, who will be discussed in greater detail below and in the third chap-ter of this thesis. I shall now turn to Edward I, in order to position Edward III within a more narrow royal framework.
Davies, 2004, p. 574; The first record of the title being used is found in tenth century charters of King 30
Æthelstan in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles (Keynes, Simon. “England, 900-1016.” The New Cambridge
Medieval History: Volume 3, C.900-c.1024, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 456-484).
Davies, 2004, p. 574. 31
Yeates, Stephen. Myth and History: Ethnicity & Politics in the First Millennium British Isles. Oxbow 32
Books, 2012, pp. 145, 158.
Mortimer, 2007; For the development of the English language within England refer to Chapter II. 33
Edward I
Edward I, better known for his fearsome title Hammer of the Scots, was the grandfather of Edward III and reigned from 1272-1307. Numerous studies have been conducted on Edward I and his use of Arthurian legend. The common consensus amongst historians is that Edward utilized Arthur for his own political gains. The most well-known example 34
is Edward’s visit to Glastonbury and his reinterment of Arthur and Guinevere’s bones. Scholars such as Marc Morris believe this was a political statement to the Welsh that their beloved hero was indeed dead. Edward’s reign would come to be distinguished by his 35
desire to unite Scotland and Wales under English rule. He succeeded in conquering Wales but had less success in permanently securing Scotland. As was mentioned above, Arthur was originally a Welsh figure prominent in Welsh oral literature, though that did not 36
hinder the English for taking Arthur as their own. By publicly showing what was be37
-lieved to be Arthur’s bones and leaving his skull outside the tomb, it is be-lieved that Ed-ward was demonstrating his dominance over the mighty warrior while simultaneously proving to the Welsh that Arthur’s return was impossible. Coinciding with his demon38
-stration of sovereignty over Wales through Arthur’s re-burial is Edward’s acquirement of Arthur’s crown from Welsh property. The crown had become associated with Arthur 39
and therefore it contained symbolic power. Edward possessing such a symbolic item spoke volumes to his power as a king.
Morris, Marc. A Great and Terrible King: Edward I and the Forging of Britain. Windmill Books, 2008; 34
Loomis, 1953, pp. 114-127; González de León Heiblum, Julián. “The Arthurian Legend: A Vehicle for Symbolic Appropriation of the Insular Space.” UCLA Historical Journal, 26(1), 2015, pp. 1-15; Vale, Juliet. Edward III and Chivalry: Chivalric Society and its Context 1270-1350. The Boydell Press, 1982, p. 17.
Morris, 2008. 35
Lupack, 2007. 36
Higham, N.J. King Arthur: The Making of the Legend. Yale University Press, 2018; Higham, N.J. King 37
Arthur: Myth-Making and History. Routledge, 2002, pp. 39-58; In the overarching Arthurian theme,
Arthur became King of all the Britons by uniting the various smaller kingdoms under his rule, but for this case I am referring to Edward usurping the initially Welsh narrative to fit his English agenda. For Arthur uniting Briton see Ronald Hutton, “The early Arthur: history and myth.” The Cambridge Companion to
the Arthurian Legend. Edited by Elizabeth Archibald and Ad Putter, Cambridge University Press, 2009,
pp. 21-35.
Morris, 2008; Loomis, 1953. 38
Loomis, 1953, p. 116. 39
Julián González de León Heiblum argued that Arthur had become a vehicle for in-sular appropriation by the time of Henry I. Arthur had been transformed over time and 40
“functioned as the historic-myth of sovereignty over the island, and his legend worked as the vehicle for symbolic appropriation of the insular space.” In other words, Arthur had 41
undergone changes from the time of earlier writers such as Gildas and Nennius to when Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote his History of the Kings of Britain. However, Arthur un-derwent further transformations during the eleventh and twelfth centuries of romance lit-erature, going from the lead character to a supporting role for his knights. 42
In relation to the sovereignty of his reign, Edward I was living in the age of knightly chivalry and was thus the host of tournaments and festivals. Juliet Vale stated that much of the records concerning Edward’s tournaments were either lost or never recorded. However, there is evidence of Edward hosting a Round Table and also of his 43
comrade Roger Mortimer hosting a Round Table in Arthurian fashion. It demonstrated 44
that Arthur was not reserved strictly for royalty but could be appropriated by those who were familiar with the legend and literature surrounding the famous king and his knights.
It is through this context and background that Edward III resides. Within the broader context of appropriation and the narrower frame of his grandfather, Edward III’s reign was steeped in symbolism. It is how he used this symbolism during his reign, to what end, and what effect it had on Edward’s image that warrants more investigation. It was not only Arthurian legend that Edward III found himself surrounded by, but it was also the religious environment that, though present for most medieval rulers, Edward uti-lized during his military campaigns. It is this blending of religious and secular symbol45
González de León Heiblum, 2015. 40
Ibid., p. 9. 41
A clear distinction between chronicles and romance literature must be maintained. They were two sepa
42
-rate genres with different intentions. Chronicles were intended to represent a chronological history while romances drew on said history within a prose or verse narrative, but represented the ideal, chivalric be-havior of the Middle Ages.
Vale, 1982, p. 16. 43
Loomis, 1953, p. 116; Summerfield, Thea. “Function of Fiction: King Edward I, King Arthur and 44
Velthem’s Continuation.” De Gruyer, 2015.
Refer to Chapter IV. For religious symbolism surrounding David and Charlemagne refer to Chapter II. 45
ism during such an influential era for English nationalism that opens new avenues for Edward III to be examined.
Religion
Religion was a fundamental component to any person living within a medieval context. This is especially the case for Edward III, an influential king who was expected to lead the country by example in his own personal religious behavior. For Edward, his very right as king was immersed in religious ideology. Edward was the king of England by divine right. For him, he ruled by the grace of God, a sentiment that directly echoes that of Charlemagne. As will be analyzed in subsequent chapters, Charlemagne was a key figure in early medieval Christianity. He was the champion of Christianity against the infidels. It was due to Charlemagne’s extensive empire that Christianity became the dominant reli-gion in medieval Europe. He was also known for having possession of various holy relics. Edward, likewise, was reputed to have a multitude of relics in his inventory. Such 46
relics included a thorn from the crown of Christ, a fragment of the True Cross known as the Neith Cross, as well as varied relics belonging to a slew of saints including “St. Leonard, John the Baptist, James the Less, Agnes, Margaret, Mary Magdalen, Agatha, Jerome, Adrian, Sylvester, and the eleven thousand virgins as well as the chasuble and alb of Edward the Confessor, a bone from the arm of St. Amphibalus, the blood of St.
George, and the blood and hair of St. Stephen.” Though these relics were not in the im47
-mediate possession of the king, they were stored in the Tower of London and were acces-sible if need be. 48
Though Edward would have trouble with the Church and the Pope during his reign, that does not mean that he shirked his religious duties. Edward continued to offer 49
alms to the poor and at various shrines throughout the country, as well as developing a 50
Nelson, Janet L. “Religion in the Age of Charlemagne.” The Oxford Handbook of Medieval Christiani
46
-ty, edited by John H. Arnold, 2014, p. 491.
Ormrod, 1989, p. 856 as quoted from the document PRO E101/385/19, fol. 10r, which details an inven
47
-tory of royal relics in 1331- 32. Ibid., p. 864. 48 Mortimer, 2007. 49 Ormrod, 1989, pp. 854-558. 50
fierce devotion to St. George starting from a young age. Throughout his participation in 51
tournaments and his continuous battles with the Scottish and French, Edward flew the crest of St. George. While Edward did appear to sincerely treasure and maintain loyalty 52
to St. George, Edward was not above using religion as a political means. During the Scot-tish campaigns early in his career, Edward supposedly aligned himself with northern Eng-lish saints in order to rally national pride. This is but one small instance of Edward’s use 53
of religious propaganda to promote a particular agenda. For within medieval kingship, the world of religion and secular politics were blended together until they were nearly insep-arable. To move politically was to move religiously and often times vice versa. This can be summed up with Edward’s claim to the French throne in which he wrote a letter to the Pope using explicit religious rhetoric in order to secure his position. 54
It should come as no surprise then that David and Charlemagne are also figures under scrutiny within the context of Edward III’s reign or that religion played such an in-tegral role. It is within this world of religion, and as an extension within politics, that we find the figures of David, Arthur, and Charlemagne in connection to Edward.
Research Questions and Content
The goal of this thesis is to analyze the reign of Edward III through the lens of both reli-gion and politics through the use of symbolism from the three specific kings briefly dis-cussed above. Much has been researched on Edward III in relation to Arthur, but it is my hope to shed even further light on Edward’s courtly and military achievements by exam-ining the utilization of other figures. It is known that Edward appropriated the authority 55
and symbolism behind past figures, he was by no means the only king to do so, but how it impacted his image is of interest. What sort of effect did Edward’s symbolic appropria-tion and emulaappropria-tion have on his religo-political image? Through primary sources includ-ing Parliament Rolls, the Chronicle of Lanercost and Froissart’s Chronicles, a letter that
Mortimer, 2007, p. 67. 51 Ibid., pp. 60, 61, 233; Ormrod, 1989, p. 859. 52 Ormrod, 1989, p. 859. 53
The other examples of religious propaganda along with Edward's letter will be discussed more fully in 54
Chapter IV.
This point will be more fully examined in Chapters IV and V. 55
was written by Edward, as well as various secondary sources, this question will be ana-lyzed within the contexts of tournaments, several military campaigns, English national identity, and religion.
The second chapter will provide a more extensive background of the historical and literary contexts on the figures of David, Arthur, and Charlemagne to better understand their significance, not only for Edward III but for the broader historical context. This chapter will include the elements and attributes I have concluded are worthy for emula-tion by Edward III. The third chapter will outline the framework for symbolic appropria-tion within Harrison’s categories and will look at Charlemagne’s chapel at Aachen and through Edward I’s manipulation of Arthurian legend to further his political agenda. Likewise, English national identity will be examined leading up to Edward I and ulti-mately Edward III. This is to help better situate Edward III’s appropriation and emulation of, not only Arthur but David and Charlemagne as well. This appropriation and emulation will be discussed in the fourth chapter. It will offer details on the French campaigns of Crécy and Calais, the creation of the Order of the Garter, the chivalry of Edwardian knights, and the religious aspects and connotations that were intertwined within Edward’s political and imperial goals. It is within these events that the emulation of all three leg-endary figures can be seen, both directly and indirectly. Through this thesis, I hope to an-swer these intriguing questions and open new avenues of study for Edward III.
Chapter II
The Historical and Literary Contexts of Kings David, Arthur, and Charlemagne David
In order to gain a better understanding of why Edward III chose to employ the ideology of these particular kings, it is crucial to determine why they were important and influen-tial during their respective eras, beginning chronologically with King David. Harking back to the Old Testament and the Books of Samuel, David became renowned within the confines of Judaism as the most celebrated king. He was a part of the fundamental in-strument that would create the very basis for Judaism and later Christianity to be ground-ed within: the Davidic Covenant. This contract between David and God enablground-ed the Is-raelites to be the chosen people, regardless of any later sinful behavior on their behalf whilst simultaneously ensuring the continuation of David’s bloodline. The covenant il56
-lustrated the close relationship between God and his chosen king David.
Now therefore thus you shall say to my servant David…I have been with you wherever you went, and have cut off your enemies from before you; and I will make for you a name great, like the name of the great ones of the earth…More-over the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your off-spring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he shall be a son to me….Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever. 57
The Davidic Covenant not only secured the place of Israelites in the annals of Judaism and later Christianity, but it also sealed David’s position in the halls of kings worthy of
This did not deter the Israelites in the Books of Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Lamentations of grieving their 56
woes of being conquered by Babylonians in 586BCE and the desertion of Yahweh because of Israelites’ believed sinful behavior. The destruction of the Temple added to this believe of divine punishment. Dur-ing this chaotic era, hopes for a Davidic kDur-ing to return and restore Israel were prominent.
2 Samuel 7: 8-17. HarperCollins Study Bible, 2006. 57
emulation. David was marked as the ancient Israelites’ highest standard of kingly 58
stature due to several reasons. Based on the events and known dates of the Pentateuch as well as extra-biblical sources, David is believed to have been placed sometime during 59
the late eleventh to middle tenth century BCE. During this shift from separate tribes to a 60
monarchy, the early Israelites were in conflict with the Philistines. The first king, Saul, 61
was ultimately dethroned due to his inability to defeat the Philistines and ensure security for his budding nation. It was Saul’s rejection as King that led to the rise of David. 62
David was already known for his incredible feat of strength and skill in the slaugh-ter and defeat of the giant Goliath. 1 Samuel 17 holds the narrative of the Philistine champion Goliath and his defiance of God during Saul’s campaigns against the
Philistines, which ultimately were unsuccessful. David accepted the challenge put forth by Goliath, who maintained a steady stream of defamation and insults to the Israelites and God. Goliath was clad in armor and chainmail and wielded a sword. David chose to forego these and confronted Goliath with merely a slingshot and several stones. After de-claring that he was coming before Goliath in the name of the Lord, “…You come to me with sword and spear and javelin; but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. This very day the Lord will deliver
The primary text concerning David is the Old Testament and the corresponding books relating to him. 58
Therefore, the authorship, of which there were multiple, of Samuel 1 and 2 must be noted. These books were written by the Dueteronomistic Historians who wrote from one particular viewpoint with a particular agenda. They do not necessarily reflect the ideas and viewpoints of the Israelite population as a whole. The DH wrote the Davidic narrative through the framework of divine will. David’s initial successes and later failures were due solely to God’s will. This was a defining element of the Davidic narrative. See Michael Coogan, The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to Hebrew Scriptures,
sec-ond edition. Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 250-267.
The Tel Dan Stele is comprised of several fragments discovered in the early 1990’s in Northern Israel 59
and is believed to be from the Syrian king Hazeal. The stele has been dated to the eighth or ninth century BCE and details a battle between the Syrians and the ancient Israelites. The stele boasts of the Syrian vic-tory over the death of King Joram of the kingdom of Israel and his ally King Ahaziah of the “House of David” in Judah. See Avraham Biran and Joseph Naveh, “An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan.”
Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 43, No. 2/3, 1993, pp. 81-98.
Coogan, 2011, p. 242. 60
It is likely that under both Saul and David, Israel was less of a monarchy and resembled a chiefdom, 61
representing a more realistic gradual transition from one form of authority to another (Ibid., p. 236). Saul was also found guilty of performing sacrifices without Samuel’s permission and failing to slaugh
62
-ter all of the Amalekites and destroy their property; thereby, disobeying God and being deemed unworthy of retaining the position of God’s chosen. Though Saul was chosen by the people of Israel to be their king, the status of king belied sharing a special connection with God.
you into my hand…” And thus David slew Goliath with a stone to the head, delivered 63
with enough strength to pierce his helmet, and he gained a position in Saul's court. He eventually deposed Saul, becoming the second king of the Israelites and God’s chosen son.
Once he had become king, David proved his worth further with the successful de-feat of the Philistines. Though praised by the biblical writers as a military hero, David maintained another title of poet. Before replacing Saul as king, David lulled Saul with his lyre. Thus, David and his lyre became an iconic symbol to be seen in the illustrations of medieval manuscripts. One thirteenth century manuscript is adorned with David playing his lyre in the upper left-hand corner, while the bottom of the page is decorated with the image of David battling Goliath. 64
1 Samuel 17: 45-46. HarperCollins Study Bible, 2006. 63
See Figure 1 (The British Library, Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts, Additional 24686 f. 11). 64
Figure 1
David playing his lyre in the upper lefthand corner, David and Goliath battling, with the arms of Alphonso, son of Ed-ward I and Margaret at the bottom of the page.
The British Library, Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts, Additional 24686 f. 11
Numerous psalms have been attributed to David, many of them illustrating the special relationship between King and God.
“I will tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have begotten you.” 65
“I have exalted one chosen from the people. I have found my servant David…” 66
After the defeat of the Philistines, David achieved another success that can mark the greatness of any king. He unified his young nation, moving the capital from Hebron to Jerusalem. Though the unification did not last past his son Solomon’s rule, the memory of this powerful act was cemented in David’s legacy. These are the traits and characteristics that are remembered concerning David, despite the tumultuous and somewhat lackluster end of his reign. 67
Successive Israelite kings all the way to Jesus were connected genealogically to David by biblical writers to illustrate their royal and divine right to the claim of King. 68
King Hezekiah in the Book of Isaiah was prophesied to be born to a young woman, or virgin, during the onset of the Assyrian invasion and conquest of Israel in the eighth 69
century BCE. The child was to be named Immanuel. Immanuel in Hebrew means “God is
Psalm 2:7. HarperCollins Study Bible, 2006. 65
Psalm 89:19-20. HarperCollins Study Bible, 2006. 66
David committed adultery with Bathsheba and murdered her husband, thus resulting in the child of the 67
union to be taken in penance for David’s sin. This allowed David to remain on the throne, keeping in line with God’s promise from 2 Samuel. It must be noted that the Davidic Covenant played a significant role in his status as an ideal king. This was an aspect that was not repeated with any successive Israelite king up until the capturing of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, and the Babylonian Exile in the sixth century BCE. This was when kingship in Israel ended.
Jesus was considered less a Davidic, or military, king and viewed by the Gospel writers as a figure with 68
heavenly attributes. Jesus was the Son of God and the Son of Man. For a thorough examination of biblical and extra-biblical literature concerning Jesus’s status as the Son of Man see Adela Yarbro Collins and John Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in
Bibli-cal and Related Literature. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008.
There has been much debate over the translation in Isaiah 7:14. Coogan believes the Greek mistranslat
69
-ed “woman” to “virgin” or παρθένα. This translation nuance is also reflect-ed in the HarperCollins Study
Bible. The translation from “woman” to “virgin” would have a great impact on the Gospel writers’
with us,” signifying God’s continued promise to the House of David through the Davidic Covenant. 2 Kings 18:3, 6 likewise places Hezekiah on the same idealized level as 70
David.
“He did what was right in the sight of the Lord just as his ancestor David had done before him….He held fast to the Lord; he did not depart from following the commandments that the Lord commanded to Moses.” 71
Other Old Testament instances referring to the importance of David are 1 Chronicles 17, Jeremiah 23:5-6, 33:15-16, Zechariah 3:6-10, and a multiplicity of Psalms. Psalm 2, in 72
particular, is associated with David as it is titled God’s Promise to His Anointed. 1 Chron-icles 10-29 is a recapitulation and extension of 1 and 2 Samuel and centers around
David’s rise to power as God’s chosen. The section titles of Jeremiah 23 and 33 are The
Righteous Branch of David and The Righteous Branch and Covenant of David
respective-ly. These verses refer to the idea that God will raise up the branch of David once again 73
to restore Israel. In other words, David’s descendants as future kings will be restored on the throne of Israel. Zechariah 3:6-10 is a later reference to the earlier books of Jeremiah 23 and 33, as well as Isaiah 11:1. Specifically Zechariah 3:8 which states, “I am going to bring my servant the Branch.” This line is an explicit reference to earlier passages con74
-cerning the key role David played in the Old Testament. David’s centrality did not fade in the New Testament.
The Gospels of Matthew and Luke open with the genealogical link of Jesus to David, tracing Jesus’ ancestry through the ages.
Isaiah 7:14 and footnote 7.14. HarperCollins Study Bible, 2006. 70
2 Kings 18: 3, 6. HarperCollins Study Bible, 2006. 71
David is credited with authorship of numerous psalms. Psalms 72
3-9; 11-32; 34-41; 51-65; 68-70; 86; 101; 103; 108-110; 122; 124; 131; 133; and 138-145. HarperCollins Study Bible, 2006.
73
Zechariah 3:8. HarperCollins Study Bible, 2006. The “Branch” is another meaning for House of David. 74
“An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” 75
“He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David.” 76
It is clear that the gospel writers felt it significant to connect Jesus to David to empower Jesus with the authority such an association to a well-respected, heroic, and holy figure would provide. The foundation for an earthly, but divinely inspired king, is found in the Book of Samuel and is carried on through the rest of the Old Testament and into the New. However, like the many authors that contributed to the creation of the Old Testament, it must be noted that each gospel was written for a different audience with a different pur-pose and, therefore, certain elements vary between accounts. This means that the historic-ity of the genealogical link between Jesus and David, indeed, the historichistoric-ity of these fig-ures, has no concrete evidence or method with which to be ascertained and is not relevant for this research.
The examples listed above are only a mere handful of instances that showcase the crucial role David maintained in the foundation of Judaism, and it was within this Judaic framework that Christianity was born. Ultimately, David was the leading religious, albeit political, king who laid the foundation for later rulers to emulate and draw authority from by associating themselves with David’s legacy as God’s begotten son. Because David was a religious as well as political figure, it is an aspect that Edward III could utilize in his bid for the French throne, a simultaneously religious and political event. However, 77
unlike the biblical David, the next king resides more in the secular realm.
Matthew 1:1. HarperCollins Study Bible, 2006. 75
Luke 1:32. HarperCollins Study Bible, 2006. 76
Refer to Chapter IV. 77
Arthur:
The second king in the chronological timeframe is the legendary King Arthur. Through various early medieval chronicles such as Gildas and Nennius, the figure of Arthur has been pinned down to the sixth century CE during the Saxon invasion. Best associated 78
with the Battle of Camlann where he suffered a fatal wound but achieved overall
victory, Arthur eventually came to be viewed as the pinnacle of British kingship through 79
the works of chroniclers in the eleventh century. Though not originally a king in his 80
own right, Arthur later became the symbol of chivalry during the Middle Ages for many 81
medieval courts and nobles. In this case, it is the medieval English court that is of inter-est.
The context in which Arthur was portrayed was during the thrust of the Saxon in-vasion in post-Imperial Rome. The majority of Roman rule in Britain had come to an end in the fifth century and had left the early Britons with no immediate government. This led to the emergence of several ruling figures, including Vortigern. According to the early medieval chronicles, Vortigern invited the Saxons as mercenaries to help protect his kingdom from Pictish attacks. It was this invitation that led to the invasion. Arthur arose 82
some years later as a dux bellorum who was credited with briefly uniting the kingdoms of Briton under his militaristic reign.
A brief examination of the earliest chronicles of British history is merited. Gildas, a sixth-century monk, maintained a stark, condemning religious tone throughout his famed work De Excidio et Conquesta Britanniae. He admonished the ruling and
Yeates, 2012, pp. 138-143; The accounts of Gildas, Bede, and Nennius are not taken as accurate histor
78
-ical accounts of early British history. Their accounts do not accurately reflect the Roman sources that they employed, building on the inaccuracies and inconsistencies of one another;
There has been debate on whether the Saxons invaded Britain or were present as part of the population before the sixth century. See Yeates, 2012; Guy Halsall. Worlds of Arthur: Facts and Fictions of the Dark
Ages. Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 184-252.
This is not to discount the numerous Welsh literature that features Arthur. However, this section will focus primarily on early British sources.
Nennius. Historia Brittonum. Translated by J. A. Giles, In Parentheses Publications, Medieval Latin 79
Series, 2000, pp. 2-27. Nennius was the first chronicler to explicitly link Arthur to Camlann.
Geoffrey of Monmouth. History of the Great Kings of Britain. Translated by Aaron Thompson revised 80
by J.A. Giles, In Parentheses Publications, Medieval Latin Series, 1999, pp. 2-214. Referred to by Nennius as a dux bellorum or leader of battles.
81
Chronicles of Bede, Gildas, and Nennius. 82
astical classes for being sinful and bringing on the invasion of the Saxons as a direct re-sult. In tandem with his overtly religious title referring to the biblical Exodus, Gildas fre-quently made mention of the Israelites and their experiences. However, Gildas limitedly 83
mentions the legendary battle of Camlann and even then does not specifically attribute such a victory to Arthur. It is through later chronicles that Arthur becomes linked to Gildas’ work. The next monk in the early British historical timeframe is the Venerable Bede. Having lived during the seventh century, Bede’s chronicle titled Historia
ecclesias-tica gentis Anglorum outlines the history of the British clergy up until his time. Like
Gildas, Bede discussed figures Vortigern, Ambrosius Aurelius, Hengist and Horsa, but made no mention of Arthur. This is largely because Bede drew information from the work of Gildas. 84
It was not until the next century in 796 that Arthur made his first real appearance in a chronicler’s work. Nennius, the monk attributed to the work Historia Brittonum, di-rectly connected Arthur to the famed Battle of Camlann. Nennius, along with the tenth-century author who penned the Annales Cambriae, provided a “battle list” of Arthur and the twelve battles he supposedly participated in and won. Nennius, again with the An85
-nales Cambriae, listed the victorious Battle of Badon and the fateful Battle of Camlann
where Arthur fought against Medraut (later Mordred) and both perished. Arthur had 86
now entered the early British stage in written text, but it was the next clergy member sev-eral centuries after Nennius that gave Arthur the foundation for later romance texts to take hold and mold his legend.
It is widely agreed upon by the scholarly community that Geoffrey of Monmouth, a Welsh monk born in the late eleventh century, was responsible for the twelfth-century work of Historia regum Britanniae. This work documented the history of British kings up till Monmouth’s present and the recent Norman conquest of 1066. As with the three earli-er chronicles utilizing the work preceding them as their informational source, scholars
Gildas. De Excidio et Conquesta Britanniae. Translated by J.A. Giles, In Parenthesis Publications, Me
83
-dieval Latin Series, 2000, pp. 2-80.
Yeates, 2012, p. 158. 84
Halsall, 2013, p. 4; Historia Brittonum, 2000, p. 23. 85
Historia Brittonum, 2000, p. 23; Lupack, 2007, pp. 15-16. 86
have concluded Monmouth’s work was also rooted in the earlier sources of Bede, Gildas, and Nennius.
Before examining Monmouth’s version of Arthur, it would be remiss not to briefly take a look at another figure that had earned his way into medieval romances: Merlin. Monmouth’s account detailed the narrative of the boy Merlin being called forth to the king Vortigern in order to secure his success against the Saxons. Vortigern was to spill the blood of a boy with no father onto the stones and this would allow for military success. However, according to Monmouth, Merlin retained his life and gained his freedom by providing Vortigern with compelling demonstrations of his magical abilities of prediction and prophesy. Monmouth then goes on to expound on the details of Merlin’s prophecies 87
to Vortigern concerning the fate of Briton under the threat of the Saxons. Within these prophecies is the death of Vortigern and his progeny, along with the rise of Uther Pen-dragon and the conception of Arthur. Twice throughout Merlin’s prophecies, the Boar of 88
Cornwall is mentioned as a threat to Vortigern’s issue but a savior for all of Briton against the Saxon forces. The prophecies of Merlin were taken seriously amongst the British, for prophets and prophetic rhetoric were a staple within the Old and New Testaments, Jesus being the ultimate prophet. Therefore, prophets could be deemed as authentic and their abilities readily believed. 89
The groundwork for the romance version of Arthur was laid down first by the British monk Monmouth, secondly with the Anglo-Norman poet Wace’s translation and adaptation of Monmouth’s work in the Roman de Brut in the mid-twelfth century, and thirdly with English poet Layamon’s English translation of the Brut in the late twelfth to early thirteenth century. These three chronicles, the latter two composed in verse poems, shared the narrative of the history of the kings of Britain, as well as the depiction of Arthur as an illustrious king. However, Wace and Layamon’s works elaborated on Mon-mouth’s chronicle, going the extra step by expanding and expounding upon narrative
The History of the Kings of Britain. 1999, pp. 108-111. 87
The History of the Kings of Britain. 1999, pp. 113-125. 88
Lawrence-Mathers, Anne. The True History of Merlin the Magician. Yale University Press, 2012, pp. 89
ements, most notably the introduction of the Round Table by Wace that was further flushed out by Layamon. 90
There are, however, differences in content between the three, notably at the end of the works. Monmouth left Arthur’s fate open-ended, leaving the reader unsure if Arthur is to return from Avalon after suffering mortal wounds. Wace definitively described Arthur as having no opportunity to return due to his fatal wounds, while Layamon wrote that Merlin claimed Arthur would return for the benefit of Britain. Wace, in particular, added 91
courtly love into his rendition of Monmouth’s chronicle and wrote in the metrical chroni-cle style. This was a form caught in-between the prose chronichroni-cle tradition seen by Mon-mouth and the metrical romance traditional utilized by Chrétien de Troyes. MonMon-mouth, 92
Wace, and Layamon are responsible for taking Nennius’ dux bellorum and expanding the narrative to allow Arthur to be transformed into a glittering and chivalric king that came to represent the pinnacle of honorable knighthood. 93
Several other contrasting elements presented themselves within the contexts of these three chronicles. Geoffrey of Monmouth, a cleric, wrote in the traditional Latin lan-guage of the ecclesiastic and wrote for the upper echelon of society which included the clergy. Wace, likewise, wrote for an audience of French nobility whilst Layamon, by writing his work in the vernacular, subscribed to a larger English audience. Therefore, 94
while Geoffrey was the first to demonstrate Arthur’s magnificent kingship, Wace intro-duced courtly love to the Arthurian tradition by having Arthur not only marry for ge-nealogical reasons but marry a significantly beautiful woman. Layamon lengthened Wace’s chronicle from 15,300 verses to 32,241 and with his rhetoric invoked a different image from his earlier counterparts, a scene of wild Saxon feast. 95
Lupack, 2007, p. 29. 90
Meyer, Matthias. “The Arthur-Figure.” Handbook of Arthurian Romance: King Arthur’s Court in Me
91
-dieval European Literature. Edited by Leah Tether and Johnny McFayden, De Gruyter, 2017, p. 84.
Arthurian Chronicles: Roman de Brut by Wace. Translated by Eugene Mason, Penn Sate Electronic 92
Classics Series Publication, 2007, p. 5. Lupack, 2007, p. 27.
93
Arthurian Chronicles: Roman de Brut by Wace, 2007, p. 12. 94
Ibid.; Layamon, The“Arthurian” Portion of the Brut. Translated by Frederick Madden, In Parenthesis 95
The Round Table that was created within Wace’s work and embellished in Laya-mon’s is of particular interest, for not only has it become a staple in the Arthurian legend but Edward III attempted to create his own Round Table at Windsor in 1344. Wace 96
brought forth this idea of the Round Table as a way of commenting on Arthur’s method of kingship by handling the squabble over the ranking of knights and creating them all equal. Layamon extended this scene by including a brawl for precedence between the 97
knights. The Arthurian Chronicles asserted that Layamon was influenced by early Celtic traditions of fighting amongst warriors during festivals and feasts with the largest portion of meat going to the bravest warrior. It was because of this brutal brawl that Layamon 98
introduced the Round Table.
What sprung forth from chronicles such as Monmouth’s and Wace’s depiction of Arthur was the popular romance literature that Edward III would likely have been famil-iar with. Like the chronicles that came before, Monmouth began his own with the list99
-ing of Britain’s early history and its connection to great continental rulers. He then 100
placed Arthur squarely within this elaborate schema of British kings. By doing this, Monmouth was demonstrating Arthur’s significance to Britain’s history and arguably to British identity. Monmouth’s work, along with Wace and Layamon’s French and Eng101
-lish translations respectively, glorified Arthur’s deeds, battles, and accomp-lishments and were contributing factors for the rise of the romance tradition. Each writer highlighted Arthur’s tenacity and skill in battle, an attribute that was key for medieval kingship, and his ability to unite a fractured kingdom under one ruler.
See Barber, Richard, Brown, Richard, and Munby, Julian. Edward III’s Round Table at Windsor: The 96
House of the Round Table and the Windsor Festival of 1344. The Boydell Press, 2007.
Meyer, 2017, p. 84. 97
Arthurian Chronicles, 2007, p. 18. 98
This claim is supported by the various French romances Edward had in his possession and those in pos
99
-session of his mother, Queen Isabella, (Vale, 1982, pp. 49-50, 170). Likewise, Edward believed himself to be the new King Arthur, suggesting that he was familiar with the Arthur of romance tradition, (Mortimer, 2007, passim). However, Richard Barber argues that Edward would have been just as familiar with chron-icles on Arthur that focused more on his military attributes (Barber, Edward III and the Triumph of
Eng-land: The Battle of Crécy and the Company of the Garter, Penguin, 2013).
Lupack, 2007, p. 24. 100
Refer to Chapter III for the twelfth-century chronicles of William Malmesbury and Henry Huntingdon 101
One can see a waterfall effect of chronicles to the start of romance literature, be-ginning with Gildas. Bede drew inspiration and information from Gildas, Nennius from Bede and Gildas, Monmouth from all three, Wace from Monmouth, and Layamon from Wace. It is this domino effect that led to the most prominent and influential medieval ro-mance writer, Chrétien de Troyes, though in his prologue of Eric and Enid he referred to the oral literature of Arthur rather than the chronicles. Chrétien was responsible for the corpus of romance literature that heavily features the chivalric adventures and courtly romances of Arthur and his knights Perceval, Lancelot, Ywain, Gawain, Kay, and others. Chrétien’s focus on court romances was prevalent and relevant for his time in 102
the twelfth century, where etiquette or cortoise was highly valued in French courts. 103
This courtly behavior was communicated through the poetic form of metrical romance. A concept put forth by scholars, such as Constance Bouchard and Matthias Meyer, illustrates within Chrétien’s romances this contrasting idea of the ideal versus the
reality. One such example can be seen in “Lancelot, le Chevalier de la Charrette.” 104
Lancelot is caught between two conflicting themes presented to the audience. The dilemma of bringing dishonor upon himself by riding in a cart, an action that Chrétien had labeled as undesirable, and rescuing his love interest, which was only possible through the transport by cart.
Yet, it was unlucky for him that he shrank from the disgrace, and did not jump in [the cart] at once; for he will later rue his delay. But common sense, which is in-consistent with love's dictates, bids him refrain from getting in, warning him and counselling him to do and undertake nothing for which he may reap shame and disgrace. Reason, which dares thus speak to him, reaches only his lips, but not his heart; but love is
enclosed within his heart, bidding him and urging him to mount at once upon the cart. 105
See Joseph J. Duggan, The Romances of Chrétien de Troyes. Yale University Press, 2001. 102
Arthurian Chronicles, 2007, p. 6; Bouchard, Constance Brittain.“Strong of Body, Brave and Noble": 103
Chivalry and Society in Medieval France. Cornell University Press, 1998, p. 103.
Bouchard, 1998, pp. 112-116; Meyer, 2017, p. 87. 104
Chrétien de Troyes, “Lancelot, The Knight of the Cart.” Translated by W. W. Comfort, Everyman's 105
There is a strain between love and honor, between the ideal and reality, that can be seen. Meyer noted that the ideal and reality was represented in the young knights who flocked to Arthur’s grand court, who did not rule a kingdom but sought glory. In this sense, Mey-er’s stated, Arthur’s court embodied a utopian sentiment. The reality is of knights join106
-ing a k-ing’s court in search of honor but the ideal version be-ing Arthur’s glitter-ing and glorious court.
Differing from the verse tradition of Chrétien is the prose tradition, most notably the Lancelot-Grail Cycle. Meyer claimed the primary discrepancy between the two 107
was the tendency of prose literature to propagate the historicity of Arthur, while the verse tradition was capable of functioning in a world of unadulterated fantasy. However, in 108
the prose, Arthur was more inclined to make mistakes, culminating, in Lancelot, the near burning of Guinevere in a case of mistaken identity and the loss of Arthur’s kingdom by the hand of Mordred.
The Arthur of the prose tradition is thus very different from the comparatively perfect, stable and staid Arthur of the verse tradition…But in the end, the func-tion of both Arthurs is the same…their co-compilafunc-tion, both reflect, and reflect on, one another, and open up the possibilities for the first time in European liter-ature to meditate on love, death, human relations, society and more in an all-en-compassing literary world. 109
It was French literature such as this that permeated the court of Edward III. He inherited several romances from his mother Queen Isabella, who appeared to be an avid reader of romance literature and who would have been intimately familiar with Arthurian and Charlemagne themed literature. Edward inherited from Isabella various French ro110
Meyer, 2017, p. 87. 106
For prose and verse Arthurian imagery in art see Loomis, Roger Sherman. Arthurian Legends in Me
107
-dieval Art. The Modern Language Association of American Monograph Series, Oxford University Press,
1938; It must be noted that representations of Arthur shifted over the centuries, with value being placed on differing elements of the Arthurian narrative. See The Cambridge Companion to the Arthurian Legend. Edited by Elizabeth Archibald and Add Putter, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Meyer, 2017, p. 91. 108
Ibid., p. 93. 109
See the following section on Charlemagne epics in medieval England. 110
mances including Tristan and Isolde, deeds of Arthur, a Brut, and romances featuring Gawain and Perceval. Edward himself is now known to have had over 150 books in his 111
personal library that he frequently lent out. Not only was his mother familiar with 112
Arthurian legend through romance literature and therefore influenced her son from an early age, but Edward’s wife Philippa of Hainault was likewise well versed in the ro-mance genre.
Philippa hailed from the Low Countries which had maintained a corpus of Arthurian literature. Because the vernacular of the Hainault court was French, Philippa would have been familiar with the French romances on Arthur and his knights and would have, therefore, brought this knowledge with her to the English court. As if this influence at home was not sufficient, Edward spent a considerable amount of time in his earlier years in the Low Countries. It is without doubt that Edward would have come into con-tact with Arthurian symbolism either through his time in the Low Countries or through his wife at home. Incidentally, Philippa gifted Edward a silver ewer engraved with sever-al various great, heroic, and romantic figures. These included Julius Caesar, Judas Mac-cabee, Charlemagne, Roland, Oliver, Arthur, Gawain, and Lancelot , who are ex113
-traordinary heathen and Christian kings, pairs of Charlemagne, and the best knights of Arthur.
A Middle English alliterative verse poem that bears mentioning is Sir Gawain and
the Green Knight, dated to the late fourteenth century. It must be noted that it is
conceiv-able that Edward did not read Sir Gawain, as it was likely written either at the end of his reign or after his death. However, its status as an Arthurian romance composed originally in Middle English should be acknowledged. The Gawain-poet appeared knowledgeable in the French romances that had been popular for several centuries and was familiar with the
Strohm, 2003, p. 7; “Unus liber cons’ de Perceual et Gauwayn” as quoted from E101/393/4, fo. 8r and 111
cited in Vale, 1982, Appendix 10, p. 170. Vale nor the primary document specifies which romances of Gawain or Perceval were in Isabella’s possessions.
Mortimer, 2007, p. 289; Vale, 1982, pp. 49-51. 112
TNA E 101/386/3 f. 4r; Mortimer, 2007, p. 97. Vale, 1982, p. 45. The significance of the ewer and its 113
engraved figures will be examined in more detail in Chapter IV.
Several of these figures are featured in the fourteenth-century literature the Nine Worthies. See Leo, Do-minic. Images, Texts, and Marginalia in a “Vows of the Peacock" Manuscript. Series edited by Richard Gameson, Brill, 2013; “The Parlement of the Thre Ages: An Alliterative Poem on the Nine Worthies and the Heroes of Romance.” Select Early English Poems, edited by I. Gollancz, Oxford University Press, 1915.
themes of chivalry and courtly romance. Ad Putter argued in favor of Sir Gawain dif114
-fering from the insular Middle English romances and mirrored more the earlier French Arthurian romances in terms of the question raised and the themes represented. Present 115
in Chrétien’s romances that can be seen in Sir Gawain is the strain between the ideal and reality. Can one even attain the oftentimes contradictory chivalric values that are so high-ly celebrated? Should one uphold their honor if it means certain death? Should one give into love instead of performing their duty? Tensions such as these were noted in Lancelot,
Le Chevalier de la Charette, and they expressed themselves in Sir Gawain. Gawain
sub-mitted to the deadly blow he promised to receive by the Green Knight as part of the agreement they had struck, as well as struggling to maintain his chivalry whilst being se-duced by a lord’s wife. These brief examples of both French and Middle English Arthuri-an romArthuri-ances demonstrate the inherent struggle of moral laws prevalent in societies Arthuri-and highlight the chivalric values that had become popular amongst medieval courts.
In light of Layamon’s English Brut, Middle English Arthurian romances, and the Middle English Charlemagne epics, which will be discussed below, the matter of the commonality of the English language during Edward’s reign should be briefly touched upon here. While the legal language of the medieval era was Latin, the preferred lan-guage amongst the British highborn and elites was French. English was the lanlan-guage spoken by the lower classes and peasantry. However, Edward made a tremendous move during the Parliament of 1362 when he passed the Statute of Pleading. This piece of leg-islation dictated that complaints and pleas to Parliament were to be made in English, as opposed to French, and recorded in Latin. Not only was it a gesture of fairness on Ed116
-ward’s part, for the peasantry were not as well acquainted with French, but it labeled the English language as a national language, as “Tongue of the Country.” This would have 117
Spearing, A.C. The Gawain-Poet: A Critical Study. Cambridge University Press, 1970, pp. 15-17. 114
Putter, Ad. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and French Arthurian Romance. Clarendon Press, 1995, 115
p. 5. Putter stated that the insular Anglo-Norman Middle English romances focused on themes such as feudal customs and land ownership, to name a few. Sir Gawain instead centered on love, honor, duty, brotherhood, etc. that were common motifs in French Arthurian romances.
Mortimer, 2007, p. 355. 116
Ibid.; The notion that English experienced an increase during Edward’s reign has often times been 117
linked to the conflict with France during the Hundred Years War. See Chapter IV for the relevance of Eng-lish in the context of national identity during Edward III’s reign.
