In The Erle of Tolous we are confronted with a menagerie of diabolical characters from Knights of ill repute to Emperors bent on taking of land that isn’t theirs. The only two shining spots of virtue are Tolous and Beulybon. But these two only seem like the epitome of all that is right and just with the world surrounded by these people of horrendous morals. Beulybon gives a love token to a man to whom she is not married and Tolous disguising himself as a monk, immoral in its own right, but furthers his debauchery by hearing Beulybon’s confession just before she is supposed to be executed. These characters are not the shining heroes of virtue and morality; we only excuse their trespasses because they are the best of the worst. I don’t think that these characters would have been so well received or forgiven if they were in the world of another romance such as Sir Isumbras and definitely not in Saint Eustace. We talked in class about this romance being read primarily amongst the gentry and I was wondering what other people thought about the idea that these nobles are depicted as less than perfect because non-nobles would be reading this. Would the gentry and the merchant class respond in a more welcome manner to this tale than others like Sir Isumbras because these nobles were not infallible? I think that if I had been a member of the gentry class I would be getting tired of reading about the indestructibility and luck of the nobles. They never seem to meet any foe or obstacle that they cannot overcome, simply because their noble of blood. I would have loved this tale about a noble that wasn’t this unattainable perfection. Tolous would have seemed more real to me, human in a way that Sir Isumbras does not. I wonder if the writer did this on purpose. Did the writer know that the people reading this would not be nobles? If so, how do you think the nobles would have responded to this text? Would they have seen the same lack of perfection that I do, or would they have accepted the waywardness of these nobles because they are one of their own?
Contact info
seamanm{at}cofc{dot}edu
22A Glebe Street, Room 102
953-5760
hours: T 11-12 R 3-4:30-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Research for penguin brief « hollysavagemedia2012and13 on What Makes a Knight?: Exploring the Characteristics of Knighthood in the texts of Ashmole 61
- architectos en Girona on Marshal McLuhan for Medieval Times
- arquirectura Barcelona on 29 March: Jessica Ellis (McGuire)
- Architecto En Barcelona on Understanding Chaucer In Terms of Ashmole 61
- ADT Corpus Christi on Women in the Middle Ages aka My Paper Topic!
Archives
Categories
Meta
Good evening Leslie! I was just re-reading your post and thought that you had some great ideas and concerns regarding the more humanistic characterization of the Erle of Toluous, for example, versus Sir Isumbras. I do think it is rather safe to maintain that the favor one may show towards the Erle in comparison to the other characters, or even Beulybon, is perhaps because they are “the best of the worst” and that their ‘rightness’ does not rest in their noble blood. Furthermore, in expounding on our in-class discussion of the rise of the gentry class and the economic relationship that they share with the nobility I think only confirms a notion that was brought to our attention about Sir Isumbras. Sir Isumbras was of the nobility and because of his plunder from this status, those of any lower class would have been more receiving to his characterization because it humanizes him in his loss of wealth. Let’s not forget that it was a common belief that the wealthier you were demonstrated your level of likeness or favoritism with God. So for him to be able to lose this wealth even insight of this level of favor, I would assume, would have been rather reassuring to those of lower class status. More so, it was not his noble blood that permitted him to be able to repent, gained God’s favor, ect. I believe that because he was knocked down the social hierarchy emphasizes just the opposite, that the nobility are no better than anyone else and that even a knight’s wealth and fame can be jeopardized if taken for granted. Now, if this was intentional or not can be up for debate
As for the nobility, however, I don’t think that they would have disliked his portrayal, but maybe that it would have caused them to reassess their own charity and how they demonstrated thanks to God so that something of this nature would not happen to them. I would like to think that Sir Isumbras’s ‘fall’ would have been a depiction of a common belief, so I can’t see why the nobility would have disliked his portrayal. On the other hand, this sort of depiction (again, in light of the economic relationship the gentry shared with the nobility) should have been received in a very similar manner by the gentry. Even so, I don’t know if I would agree that the Erle’s imperfections which make him more humanistic are what would have made him more likeable in the MA. Of course, yes in 21st century. I’m wondering if even the devout level of piousness, virtue and chastity that was incorporated into the daily lives and behaviors of those of the MA would have made the Erle less favorable.