Evolution of the Female Figure

Evolution of the female figure in Arthurian literature is characterized foremost by stagnancy and a narrowness of personage. While Arthurian authors are gifted at describing many of the female characters in vivid, memorable terms that make many of them seem like ethereal goddesses; a one dimensionality persists in their character, regardless of whether they are considered morally good or morally bankrupt according to the codes of the Arthurian realm. The female characters created demonstrate how in Arthurian literature heroism belongs chiefly to men, and that beauty, or more aptly flawed beauty, is a trait most immediately connected to women as medieval literature often uses a lady's beauty as a means of confirming that she has a strong moral character (Schaus, 79). The reverse is also true, as in Arthurian literature a lack of beauty almost always indicates a degree of moral bankruptcy or a dubious character. These are rather black and white characterizations of women in this fictional reality and often to transcend theses narrow boundaries of character, female characters have to subvert the laws of this realm in order to achieve autonomy.

Thus, the evolution of the female as it existed in Arthurian literature is one marked by an overwhelming amount of torpidity; the Arthurian woman was most consistently characterized by flawed colors and deception. The dichotomous shades by which women are colored are invariably a result of the intricate levels of fear that Arthurian men felt at the idea of female power and this anxiety constantly manifests itself in this period of literature. Due to the strict nature of character and gender roles of this variety of literature, one finds time and again that women have to rebel or engage in subversive behavior in order to enjoy any sort of autonomy, self-determination or control.

This paper will examine the work of Chretien de Troyes in Erec et Enide (1169-81), the Quest for the Holy Grail (1215-30), History of the Kings of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth. The texts of these periods most aptly display the very specific shades of characterization that female figures were endowed with. These texts and time periods reflect the stagnancy with which female characters in Arthurian literature were portrayed; although time passes, the characterization of women all in all remains the same. This paper will strategically, though in a somewhat unorthodox manner, use the Death of King Arthur by Sir Thomas Malory (1485). This text, more specifically than the earlier century versions paints a clear and sometimes alarming portrait of Guinevere, one of the most iconic female figures of medieval literature. Death of King Arthur from the 15th century more vividly paints a picture of a woman painted in single-faceted strokes and more lucidly demonstrates that only by rebelling against the inherent moral codes embedded in Arthurian literature does Guinevere achieve some self-determination.

As implied, this paper will examine the famous and memorable character Guinevere as well as the fascinating Morgan le Fay. These two characters were selected as a result of their wildly different descriptions, powers and circumstances. However, this paper will demonstrate how time and again, Morgan and Guinevere are often shaded by the same one-dimensional coloring by Arthurian writers and that they are both similarly forced to violate the codes of their Arthurian universe to gain a sense of autonomy.

A prime example of the tendency of the narrowing of the characters of Arthurian female is in the personage Morgan Le Fay, who had her literary birth in Geoffrey's Vita Merlini in the mid-12th century, continuing to appear in works throughout the 13th century, and even used with eagerness in neo-Arthurian literature. Morgan Le Fay is an exceedingly powerful sorceress. However, unlike Merlin, who can use his powers for good, Morgan is a character who is painted in the one-dimensional shades of black, engaging in trickery and deception: "…for-by the treason of Morgan Le Fay to have slain Sir Launcelot, and for that cause she ordained thirty knights to lie await for Sir Launcelot" (Malory, 390). This unequivocally demonstrates that Morgan, however powerful, is a threat to the Arthurian realm in that she would attack this realm's most beloved hero. For Arthurian writers to create a line of action where Morgan slays Lancelot, one can easily interpret as a clear manifestation of anxiety over female strength and self-determination. There appears to be a clear fear present with Arthurian authors imagining what might happen if women were endowed with the same strength and freedom of the men of this realm. The act of Morgan attacking Lancelot one can view as Malory imagining the worst consequences if women of Medieval times were ever able to attain such power.

Repeatedly Malory reminds the reader that Morgan has committed treason, and indeed she has. Morgan has violated the very strict code of morals of this realm and in doing so has expressed her own autonomy. One sees time and again that violating Arthurian moral code, with its strictness and narrow role for women, is one of the foremost ways that women can achieve some autonomy. This implies a reluctance of Arthurian authors to give these female figures their own ability to self-determine in the same heroic terms as men; when women are able to self-determine, it's often in violation of the rules of the kingdom. On the other hand, male characters are afforded all the heroism the authors can dream up: "…and by the way upon a bridge there was a knight proffered Sir Launcelot to joust, and sir Launcelot smote him down, and then they fought upon foot a noble battle together, and a mighty; and at the last Sir Launcelot smote him down to grovelling upon his hands and knees. And then that Knight yielded him, and Sir Launcelot received him fair" (Malory, 360). The words used in this brief passage are entirely revelatory. Words like noble, mighty, and fair. These are all terms that female figures in Arthurian literature seldom receive for description. The image of the two knights sparring is vivid, as is the triumph of Lancelot who overpowers the other knight, leaving him a groveling mess. It is indeed a description of glory, and women in the Arthurian realm seldom get to indulge in such glory. While one sees this as a male anxiety about the ability of women to be able to self-determine in Medieval times, other scholars see the matter simply. When it comes to Morgan le Fay, Fries cites her change as one who promotes life, healing and transformation to a personage who is strongly associated with bloodshed and sex (2). To Fries this: "indicates the increasing inability of male Arthurian authors to cope with the image of a woman of power in positive terms" (2). What Fries cites as the lack or inability of these authors to be able to envision and thus create a woman that can embody the sense of justice, wisdom and heroism that the men of this universe do so fluidly and completely, is actually an inability of these authors to grant the women of this realm the self-determination and autonomy that they so easily grant men. Arthurian writers are so reluctant to allow that autonomy to manifest, that it comes out in the most subversive actions of the females they've created. The best object of comparison is without a doubt King Arthur, the beloved leader and defender of Britain, who was always painted in literary colors which were all good and just and true. Perhaps a more fitting character for comparison is that of Merlin, also a sorcerer like Morgan who remains a sage and a guide, only until he is beguiled of course, by a woman in this mythical universe.

Morgan le Fay eventually comes to represent all that is evil in the Arthurian universe, her attack on Lancelot one of the foremost pinnacle representations of her evil, a deceptive woman of "false crafts" and "false lusts" (Malory, 119). While this might seem like an evolution of the female figure in Arthurian literature, albeit a negative one, it's actually not. When female characters in this realm begin to embody more and more negative qualities, it's not an evolution, but rather just a maintenance of the status quo. Morgan becomes the representative anarchist of the Arthurian realm, a veritable tornado dedicated to destroying all the values that are held sacred (Slocum, 26). Morgan's supernatural powers make her a formidable opponent, and being a facilitator of evil becomes her reputation (Slocum, 26).

Thus, the reader can clearly see that Morgan makes quite a transformation; all of her powers are eventually used for evil and she becomes a direct opponent to all that is good in this universe. This clearly demonstrates that difficult that Arthurian writers had in imagining a female hero that was autonomous and self-determined and determined to accomplish good. Morgan le Fay dichotomously embodies all that Arthurian writers find wicked in women: jealousy, vengefulness, lust.

Mentioning self-determination and autonomy are important distinctions to make. Technically, female "heroes" do exist in the realm of Arthur but they only exist so as to help the (presumably "more important") male heroes. "Arthurian female heroes, contrariwise, exist (at least for a time) as active helpers to male heroes, but always in the service of the patriarchal culture the hero upholds" (Fries, 3). One could argue that since this universe is thus so narrow for women, that embodying these counter-hero roles is actually the one way in which women can become empowered. Since autonomy and self-determination does not so strongly exist for women this fictional realm, and that they often function as a means of reflecting or mirroring the desires and goals of the greater male hero that the only way for these women to manifest desires and goals of their own is by attacking the already established values and structure.

While Fries strongly attributes this narrowing and general one-dimensionality of the female figure in Arthurian literature, to the sheer inability of male authors of the period to imagine anything else, and this is in fact an accurate take on the situation, it's not the only reason why women in the Arthurian universe have to take on the role of counter-hero so immediately. So much of the female dynamic as counter hero is connected to the male fear of female power, and that if females were to actually achieve this power, they would use it to the detriment of men (Saul, 1). Arthurian authors have not created a female character who is as a powerful as Merlin or as brave and noble as Lancelot and who uses all of their power for good. Thus, perhaps it's not simply that Arthurian male writers couldn't imagine a powerful woman with her own abilities for self-determination, they just couldn't imagine one who was powerful, autonomous and good. This sheer inability to imagine revolves around fear of women obtaining this power: Morgan le Fay is such a threat to the male writers of this period in that she's not just willing to create treason, but that she also has the powers of a sorceress. This gives her an untamed, supernatural quality and a renegade power that makes it difficult for the men of this realm to confront or anticipate. Morgan le Fay states regarding her brother King Arthur, "I shall put an enchantment upon him that he shall not awake in six hours, and then I will lead him away unto my castle, and when he is surely in my hold, I shall take the enchantment from him" (Malory, 179). These planned actions not only show an ability of a female figure to self-determine and act with complete autonomy, but to do so through magic, completely overpowering the male, an act which no doubt was a source of anxiety for Arthurian writers. More importantly, Morgan le Fay accomplishes everything she sets out to do, overpowering the great King Arthur with her enchantment.

Thus, Morgan le Fay is an archetype of the main way that a woman can enjoy unbridled power, authority and independence in the realm of Arthurian literature, through rebellious and seditious acts. It appears that only through breaking the codes of this very male universe can a woman achieve a palpable level of sovereignty. The perhaps underlying fear that informs the bulk of Arthurian writers' thoughts and fears about women in power is most heavy-handed when it comes to Morgan le Fay. As these writers paint in her in the colors of counter-hero, they do so in an entirely dichotomous manner, reducing her perhaps to an almost unoriginal archetype of evil: they took away her beauty. One could argue that this was indeed a calculated move as Morgan was not created in the Arthurian universe as an ugly hag: this was a transformation the authors gave her; in certain respects this was a way of damning her as she became more powerful. Arthurian authors precisely and strategically change Morgan's physical appearance along with the ability of her healing powers; Morgan becomes described as hot, lecherous, and brown-faced (Fries, 5). Since physical beauty is a coefficient of moral goodness in medieval literature, her ugliness emerges as spiritual as well as corporeal" (Fries, 5).

Thus, even in this fictional universe one could argue that by making Morgan hideous, the writers were essentially punishing her for becoming so powerful, even though ironically, they were the ones who empowered her in the reality of the stories. Physical beauty has been linked to moral goodness for centuries upon centuries since physical beauty for long was seen as a reflection of the divine (Federici et al., xii). Some scholars even go so far as to wager that in Medieval European scholastic literature, beauty and moral goodness weren't just immediately connected, there was no distinction made between the two (Stewart, 10). Making Morgan unattractive was also a vehicle for the men of this realm to be protected, since the Arthurian world did have such a strong connection between moral goodness and beauty, an ugly character was a way of warning everyone else in the reality of the story.

Another way in which Morgan is transformed throughout the Arthurian realm is via the construction of her voracious sexual appetite, something else which showcases the very real and very prevalent male fear of female power. it's also another way of the male writers to damn a powerful female in the reality of the fiction. The women of Arthurian fiction who are good, are beautiful gentle creatures who mirror the objectives of the more powerful male hero. In using the word gentle, this implies an exclusively ladylike relationship with sex, treating sex as a means to become a mother and as one's wifely duty. Morgan's sexual appetite: "…underscores the fundamental gynophobia that marks both the Malorean and the modern Arthurian tradition. In Malory's book, female sexuality -- active or passive -- is by its very nature structurally threatening" (Slocum, 27). The reader cannot forget how Malory has reminded one that Morgan is a creature of "false crafts" and "false lusts" (Malory, 119); thus, such words imply there's something about her appetite and objectives that cannot be trusted. This is strategic as Malory can conceal male anxiety regarding female prowess by essentially demonizing Morgan's character.

The actions and fate of Morgan le Fay showcase time and again how Arthurian writers create female figures who are cast in dichotomous shades of black and white, something which equals to a sincerely limited existence in the Arthurian realm. Possessing power, she becomes distrustful and hideous, as Morgan le Fay thus evolved. But in keeping with the values of the realm, the heroine lacks autonomy, unless she is willing to break the codes of the realm. The most striking example of this is Guinevere, a woman who is objectified repeated in Arthurian literature. "And then Sir Lamorak asked him why he loved Queen Guenever as he did: For I was not far behind you when ye made your complaint by the chapel. Did ye so? Said Sir Meliagaunce, then I will abide by it: I love Queen Guenever, what will ye it? I will prove and make good that she is the fairest lady and most of beauty in the world" (Malory, 372). This brief passage shows without a doubt where the Arthurian feminine values lie. Goodness is always equated with beauty; even more disturbingly now, the feminine beauty of Guinevere is attributed to why men love her so. Guinevere's objectification is complete; she is as beloved as a prized possession. "Arthurian heroines, of whom Guinevere is the most notable, are mostly passive figures whose beauty and favor operate to lure and/or guide the hero to his destiny: love-objects and/or wives (like Chretien deTroyes's Enide or Laudine), they have a potential for danger as well as patriarchal service" (Fries, 1998, p.67). While scholars almost unanimously agree that Guinevere is the ultimate and foremost Arthurian heroine and fits that archetype almost perfectly, there's still a certain degree of male anxiety that shapes her actions within this fictional realm and which represents a general mistrust of women and female power.

In Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of Kings of Britain one finds out that King Arthur, "heard that his nephew Modred, to whose protection Britain had been entruste, had treacherously usurped the crown, and that queen Ganhumara had repudiated her former vows and united with him in sinful love (Geoffrey, 248). These actions of Guinevere -- betrayal, incest, treachery -- are so out of character for a feminine heroine in this universe. At the same time, committing such sins is the only way for a woman in the Arthurian realm to exercise any sort of autonomy. Just as Morgan le Fay indulged in trickery, treason and subterfuge as an exercise in self-determination, so Guinevere takes a lover, committing adultery.

Guinevere is very much like the sun in the Arthurian universe, around which all the remaining planets or characters orbit. Guinevere is indeed a sun, though one must keep in mind that she is a sun in the most objectified sense. Guinevere is constantly being put into situations of all forms of trouble by the Arthurian authors, situations where she relies upon the courage of other people to become free. Numerous examples of this abound in Arthurian texts: "…left behind with Queen Guenever; and by sudden adventure there was an horrible lion kept in a strong tower of stone, and it happened that he at that time brake loose, and came hurling afore the queen and her knights. And when the queen saw the lion she cried and fled, and prayed her knights to rescue her" (Malory, 352). This section most clearly reflects how Malory uses Guenever as an object to drive the actions of the plot. Guinevere is so dependent on the strength and courage of the men in this universe; her safety and well-being depend so heavily on the courage of the knights around her, that one can see she would not even bother to fight or escape the lion, but her first course of action is merely to pray that her knights will help her. With such a profound lack of self-determination, even the self-determination needed for one's survival, it's no wonder that Guinevere commits adultery, as in this very strict universe, it's the only way she's able to exercise free will: by breaking the laws and codes of this universe. "Gunievere exists, like other heroes of Arthurian and other romance, to get into trouble the hero must get her out of. The incentive to heroic action, she is at the same time its reward. Functionally, Guinevere is unable to act on her own. She is carried off and imprisoned; fought for and defended; freed and returned home, and fought for again: all at the will of and/or agreement between the males in the tale" (Slocum, 8). This description is perhaps the most damning one of Guinevere and the most accurate. Like so many beauties that appear in Arthurian literature, Guinevere is practically a non-entity, and everything happens all around her.

So much of the condemnation of Guinevere is in direct connection to the fact that she committed adultery and took in a lover, not necessarily because of what those actions did to Camelot, but because such actions play upon the anxieties of the male writers of the period. When Lancelot confesses his relations with Guinevere, the reader can easily spot common sweeps of the writer in painting Guinevere with the one-dimensional brush that most female characters of this realm are painted with: namely Lancelot's description of her makes Guinevere seem calculating and manipulative. "I have sinned unto death with my lady, she whom I have loved all my life, Queen Guinevere, the wife of King Arthur. It is she who gave me an abundance of gold and silver and such rich gifts as I have distributed from time to time among poor knights. It is she who exalted me and set me in the luxury I now enjoy… She it is who raised me from poverty to riches and from hardship to the sum of earthly bliss" (Matarasso, 89). This passage clearly implies that so much of the courtship between Lancelot and Guinevere was a result of the queen showering him with gifts and presents, and making him used to a luxurious lifestyle. This implies a cunning calculation; it implies that perhaps Lancelot was simply not able to resist the material charms that Guinevere was pushing onto him. Interestingly enough, this passage shows how Lancelot continues to be drawn with a high moral brush, as he confesses that he would share the gifts his lover gave him with some of the poor knights. This confession by Lancelot adequately flaws queen Guinevere's character, acting as yet again another example of the anxiety of Arthurian male writers towards female autonomy. In this case, the free will that Guinevere exercises is now colored with the shades of manipulation and cunning: in taking Lancelot as a lover, she needs to ply him with gold and silver. Once adultery is introduced to Camelot, Guinevere's character is painted with increasingly darker shades. As one says to Lancelot, "it is noised that ye love Queen Guenever, and that she hath ordained by enchantment that ye shall never love none other but her, nor none other damosel nor lady shall rejoice you; wherefore many in this land, of high estate and low, make great sorrow" (Malory, 191). This pattern demonstrates how Malory is now coloring Guinevere in shades that are becoming evocative of Morgan: Guinevere is indulging in enchantment and magic to fulfill her objectives and is successfully overpowering a chosen male. These are all dynamics which yet again represent a manifestation of the anxiety of male writers at the time: the fear that if given power and autonomy, women will use to exert authority and control over men.

As Fulton illuminates, when a woman takes a lover it's a direct violation of social and moral codes, which men often find as a threat to the male social order and thus something that is a hazard to the social fabric in its entirety, regardless of how genuine the love is (1). Thus, it is no wonder that the male Arthurian authors dictated that Guinevere would live out the remainder of her days in a convent (Geoffrey, 212). A convent is a place where her feelings and actions would no longer threaten the delicate make up of this male-regulated society.

Guinevere, the prize and trophy, the mirror which has been instructed to reflect the ambitions of her husband, has deviated from her role as wife and mother and that's an unacceptable divergence. The price for this is very high; the male writers seem to want to instruct their readers. The Arthurian male writers seem to want to convey the message that such indiscretions could unravel the very fabric that makes up society, just as Guinevere was given blame for destroying Camelot.

Even in today's modern times, the fate of Guinevere, the adulterous woman, is still subjected to the harshest fates and most critical punishments. Scholar Tison Pugh ponders on how male screenwriters could best incorporate Guinevere's adultery into a film for children and determined that the answer was to kill her (69). Pugh surmises that the male screenwriters of the film seemed to think that: "…a dead Guinevere provides a better female role model than a live but adulterous one" (69). The dead Guinevere in the film works as a message to young girls everywhere, alluding to the limits of their rights and femininity (Pugh, 69). Pugh reminds one that even in this modern film it is controlled heavily by a male hand and mindset, one which deemed it just to kill the adulterous wife (69). Thus, one can conclude that the male anxiety and complete intolerance for female indiscretions is not something unique to the medieval period or medieval authorship, but that even in the 20th century, men decided that the best punishment and treatment of Guinevere was complete annihilation.

Guinevere is not so unlike the female counter-heroes that abound throughout Arthurian literature. Just as Morgan was able to achieve empowerment by breaking the rules and codes of this fictional realm and by engaging in subversive behavior, Guinevere, in certain respects, mimics the prototype of this behavior. Guinevere's empowerment is achieved by breaking the bounds of the codes that envelop her in holy matrimony to Arthur.

Guinevere's sole purpose in the Arthurian realm was to reflect the desires and goals of her husband King Arthur; the simplest and clearest example of this is when King Arthur is addressing and knight who is in durance and declares, "release this knight from his durance" (Troyes, 38). Upon which the reader is told, "When the King had thus spoken, the Queen straightway released the Knight" (Troyes, 38). This example demonstrates how Queen Guinevere is almost like a magnet to King Arthur: he moves, she moves; he commands something to be done; she completes it immediately. In certain respects, this makes Guinevere a very valuable prize to the marriage: she's like a well-programmed robot that will do whatever her owner (King Arthur) wants.

This passage reveals volumes about the profound non-existence that Guinevere was forced to lead in the Arthurian realm. She was objectified as a prize of marriage, becoming a living symbol of the good of the nation, and held captive to a relationship that was based on political strategy rather than on love. Confined in this marriage, she really embodied the proverbial caged bird or beautiful object enclosed within a glass case. As other scholars have noted, Guinevere is at times portrayed as a shadow of herself; a fundamental anxiety resounds throughout le Chevalier de la Charrette the poem composed by Chretien de Troyes in the 12th century (Sample, 107). The poem hints at unrest in the rapport between Guinevere and Arthur and their court; Guinevere is portrayed as weak and without a healthy sense of self or power (Sample, 107).

The objectification is Guinevere is immediate; when Arthur is informed of Guinevere's impending return, he does not act like he's being reunited with a beloved partner and trusted companion, but rather with a prized object: "His heart is so lightened by the pleasure he takes in his Queen's return that his grief concludes in joy. When he has what he most desires, he cares little for the rest" (DeTroyes, 337-38). Guinevere's objectification continues when the ladies of the court ask her to attend a tournament; not because they treasure her presence there or want to support her, but as a result of self-interest: they know that like a magnet she'll attract the attendance of the most eligible knights (Sample, 108).

Like Morgan, her empowerment comes from a place of complete subversion, as Guinevere's affection for Lancelot bring betrayal upon her marriage and is attributed to the annihilation of Camelot. However, just as Morgan was punished for her power by transforming into a hideous creature, Guinevere was indeed punished as well, being forced to live out the remainder of her days in a convent where she eventually died. This is akin to being forced to live in a prison cell in certain respects and an ending which continues to reflect the smoldering anxiety of the male writers of the time. In a convent, the fearful feminine sexuality is completely controlled and no longer such a threat. In a convent, Guinevere is forever punished for succumbing to her own sexuality with a lifetime of celibacy.