In our discussion of Yonec the question was raised of why the zombie-king was executed after his change of heart. Personal journeys of spiritual redemption are commonplace in Marie’s works, yet the king’s redemption (he “never assaulted or abused [the lady]” after the knight’s death) is disregarded (456). Marie’s denial of the king’s redemption reflects a fundamental flaw in his change of heart- it is the ring that exerted its agency to change the king’s ways, overwhelming the agency of the king who would otherwise have preferred to be an abusive husband. In an assemblage, agency shifts between different actants within, and in the king’s network the ring shifted agency from the king’s will, rendering his redemptive actions as morally weightless as they were not backed by the king’s true will. Marie seems to be saying that virtue can only exist in a knightly world if it comes from the soul, something the zombie-king either lost to the ring or never possessed in the first place.
ENGL 395 | Making Matter Matter in Premodern England
Myra Seaman | Fall 2011
Thomas, your post has helped me feel a little better about the fate of the husband in Yonec. I felt kind of bad for him when he was beheaded without the faintest recollection of his past indiscretions. It seemed like he should have had a little warning and been able to understand the reason for his death. I suppose, however, he really had the best fate of all. The hawk-king had to bleed to death very slowly, the lady had to live first with her emotionally abusive husband and then live with the pain of losing her love after which she bears his child and also has to live with the husband she hates and pretend like there’s nothing wrong. When she is finally able to reveal the truth, she dies. Though we are not given specifics of the relationship between the wife and husband, we are told he does not imprison her anymore, so we presume things are better. He gets a second chance (although unknowingly) at life and when it’s time for his death, it’s a quick one. Perhaps his punishment for being a bad person was the revocation of his free-will.
Your last sentence here, Erin, points toward the aspect of Thomas’s post that returns our attention to questions of agency and how the ring exerts a stronger one than even the powerful, abusive husband’s–highlighting an instance of an assemblage driven in part by human will (that of the owner of the ring) but also extending beyond that (with the ring having an opportunity to act independently, if in alliance with the hawk-king).