What was
the relationship between Edward and Gaveston?
The extent of the relationship between King Edward II and Gaveston has long been the subject of debate amongst historians. Indeed, the representation of Edward as the homosexual English king emerges into popular culture largely through representation of Edward and Piers Gaveston in Christopher Marlowe’s play 'Edward the Second’. The play bases its prejudices as alluded to in the chronicles written after the period, such as Annles Paulini and Vita Ædwardi Regis respectively. Both sources have indeed been used by leading historians P. Chaplais and D. Hamilton in the debate. So Marlowe, like many of his predecessors is not the first to conclude a sexual component to the couples relationship. It shows the extent to which contemporary chroniclers of the mid-fourteenth century viewed the period in a negative light, starkly in contrast to successes of Edward I’s reign. One of the negative presumptions of the chroniclers is the accusation against the king of sodomy and sexual deviance. Indeed, following the trail of the Knights Templar in 1307 Boswell pinpoints such prejudices to the socio-religious concerns present in the post-Gregorian reformatory world. Chapais’ argument of ‘adoptive brothers’ develops out of the historiographical debate, conflicting with that of Hamilton who argues that the homosexual relationship and their relationship contributed to the fall and difficulties of Edward’s reign. And indeed, particularly the concern of contemporaries regarding the king’s and Gaveston’s relationship.
Chapais argues that the relationship was a more sacred and close personal one. He terms it an adoptive brotherhood, possibly to create a romantic disconnect and dissolve the sexuality aspect through vulgarity of its nature. In this, Chaplais accumulates the basis for his argument. The friendship, which extended to close personal ties and trust allowed the king to disconnect from kingship trusting his ‘adoptive brother’ would fulfil his kingly duties. The creation of a ‘two king’ government is what ultimately problematic in Edward II’s reign as he favours particular nobles such as Gaveston over rival nobles. The question as to the personality, in regard to homosexuality; Chapais sees as doubtful to be true and even if they were the extent of the problem presented is not necessary of huge concern to medieval society. Even Hamilton acknowledges that is access to royal patronage and privilege rather than benefits of a sexual nature which contemporizes were threatened by. Nevertheless, certainly, the chemistry of a sexual relationship would certainly influence how his contemporaries formed relationship with the king.
Chaplais’ explanation to assert assess the anxiety of his sexuality and personality would be as much a concern then as today. Indeed, it is knowing the homophobic stance of king Philip of France as with man medieval contemporizes. And certainly before the marriage of his daughter Isabella to the future king, the character and habits of the individual would have been investigated. Chaplais argues, "that [if] Philip might have been remiss in that respect is unthinkable, particularly if there were rumours Edward and Gaveston were lovers". Indeed, a compelling argument to oust the notion of contemporary concerns to the relationship. Particularly following the Gregorian reformation in which the church stamped authority regarding moral righteousness over sexual activity regarded as sodomy. Thus, considering the expectation of contemporary kings who were expected to model their kingship upon old testament kings such as King David and others to whom were regarded with moral integrity. However, the issue of Edward II’s sexuality remain. Hamilton concludes that "the two men [King Edward II and Gaveston] were lovers beyond doubt. Largely based on the evidence presented by chroniclers. But Chaplais responds noting the relative silence of contemporary sources and also notes the successful production of four heirs with the Queen and furthermore an illegitimate child. Therefore, suggesting that their relationship if sexual, surely limits the king to what we would now term ‘bisexual’ if one persists to argue Gaveston’s relationship with King Edward was sexual. Nevertheless, contemporary persons would have surely been outraged by the king’s engagement in sodomy as not conforming to a biblical model of kingship to which one’s piety is paramount.
In more recent historiography Albrecht Classen, Marilyn Sandidge have re-examined the nature of the ‘friendship’ between the two men, finding ‘fraternitatis fedus’ could be rightly translated as adoptive brotherhood descending from Germanic tradition. It is typical of the romance of middle English writings and that the sources are frustrating in that they lack detail. However, more recent historiography such as that of Lisa Benz who responded to recent literature arguing that the debate serves no use and declares it as simply a ‘queership’’. She claims the debate imposes a modern cultural belief upon medieval society who see "heteronormative practices of medieval ruler ship were seen as vital for patriarchal stability; these practices dramatized the patriarchal ideology". However, one must surely recognize that modern attitudes to sexuality and mortality in western society are products of the Latin church. And there was clearly a heterosexual model of kingship necessary to accept. However, ultimately all historians including Hamilton recognizes, it was patronage and not the sodomy which caused outrage. But due to the nature of closeness, there was clearly some concern as noticed in Annles Paulini, concerning "two kings reigning together in one kingdom". And indeed, this is logical, as head of the government, the office of kingship being somewhat shared between two individuals presents issues with leadership and responsibility. Indeed, Chapais expresses this point clearly noting a political scandal as a royal charter granted Gaveston the earldom of Cornwall without the permission or knowledge of the king (‘sibi absenti et ignoranti’). Although, Chaplais does assess the integrity of the kings supposed ignorance through examination of papal correspondence with the Pope. The nature of such a friendship, brotherhood or what Benz calls a ‘queership’. Ultimately, it is this which hinders the king’s office functionality though potential beneficially defaulting on ‘sibi absenti et ignoranti’ kingship. Thus, allowing the invasive advisor to attain great wealth, power and influence; but nevertheless, take upon perhaps unwelcomed kingly responsibilities to which the king is able to use to his advantage.
There is an issue regarding the translation medieval chronicles into modern English, as indeed meanings change and so have understandings. There is particular concern of flamboyant language used by chroniclers which are less than useful when describing event events for historians to recreate. Indeed, in Annales Paulini the term ‘exercereret triclinium’ is used to describe an elaborate long chair but actually, complicates and distracts the historian from understanding what is actually real or exaggerated through description. However, this issue is further problematic when dealing with accounts of love. Indeed, the sources, which is used by both Chaplais and Hamilton goes on to describe how "the king loved the wicked magician more than his bride a most elegant lady". On the surface, to those reading in modern English would presume this to describe a relationship involving adultery and confirm our homosexual suspicion of the king’s relationship with other men. But a more profound examination into the Latin and historical describes the twenty-year king being entertained by a ‘hominem magum et maleficium’ away from his twelve-year-old who he has only very recently met. Historian Kathryn Warner argues "the Pauline annalist called him ‘an evil male sorcerer’ and said that Edward did Piers great reverence and worshipped him as though his friend were a god, and the Vita also said that Piers ‘was accounted a sorcerer’." So indeed, the reality of the extent of mystery and anxiety surrounding Gaveston extends to contemporary literature about him as there is no certainty through translation and interpretation. However, one which understanding this contextual reality of the environment Edward was in, as the groom to an unknown foreign twelve-year-old. We can understand Edwards behaviour to disobey royal etiquette and procedure at the wedding feast and spend time in a more comfortable setting, and enjoy Gaveston’s display of ‘black magic’, more likely than he was enjoying Gaveston's other many pleasures.
So indeed, the modern historian reading in modern English should be careful when dealing with the nature of elaborately written sources and the semantics in question. Indeed, Chaplais is keen to compile a range of source material and translations to overcome this difficulty. When describing what we would now call Gaveston’s ‘exile,’ Chaplais cites three chronicles:
- ‘Perpetuo’ according to Guisborough.
- ‘Etrnaliter’ according to Trokelowe.
- ‘absque aliqua gracia seu spe in posterum redeundi’ according to Foedera.
Indeed, once overcoming this linguistic barrier, Chaplais is able to understand more accurately the relationship between the two men in question to which he concludes to be adoptive bothers, through what could be termed loyalty and compassion. Which had been described in many primary sources as love. However, while this approach may well offer a greater micro-historical analysis. It fails to properly engage with genuine concerns of the closeness of the relationship and particular concerns of contemporaries within the king’s court, largely regarding particular favouritism and patronage. Regardless of the motives; sexual or brotherly affection. The upset caused to the balance of power, through what Chapais describes as ‘adoptive brotherhood’ is clearly indeed a major fault of Edward’s reign. Clearly these relationships presented political opportunity and power with such intimacy for both the ‘reluctant king’ and Gaveston. Indeed, particularly when acquiring land and patronage. But however, many modern historians still enjoy to take a rather homophobic attitude towards the reign in which the young Queen Isabelle is repeatedly alienated by her rouge husband, who neglects his duties to fulfil his homosexual lustful desires. In this story we can portray Edward, and all homosexual men in an erotic way which pleases many historians innate homophobia. But there is little evidence of ground to even support it, and even if there was a relationship, extra-martial romances where not uncommon or unheard of. So surely we can conclude sodomy alone did not generate the romantic enthusiasm for such a relationship, although one cannot deny such desires, if any, were not fulfilled. One can, however, suspect it was rather more secular materialistic thirst for power and wealth to which one could in essence fast track opportunity available through tight friendship or brotherhood.
Bibliography
Primary sources
Annles Paulini
Vita Edwardi Secundi
Walter of Guisborough
Secondary Sources
Burgwinkle, W. Sodomy, masculinity, and law in medieval
literature. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
Boswell. J. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and
Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian
Era to the Fourteenth Century. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1980).
pp. 296–300.
Chaplais, P. Chaplais, P. Piers Gaveston. (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1994).
Classen, A. and Sandidge, M. Friendship in the Middle Ages
and early modern age. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,2010).
Hamilton. J. S. Piers Gaveston, Earl of Cornwall, 1307-1312,
(Virginia: Wayne State University Press, 1988). p109.
Rohr, B. & Lisa. B. Queership, Gender, and Reputation in
the Medieval and Early Modern West, (United Kingdom: Palgrave, 2016). P xxii.
http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/nineteen-things-you-never-knew-about.html#uds-search-results
(Accessed: 15/07/2017).
