Most people might not know much about Edward's reign but have probably read Christopher Marlowe's play, Edward the Second, at school, college or maybe just for fun. Well, for a start take everything you read in that play and ignore it. Wipe the slate clean and come back with a clean board. The play's main focus is on the issue of Edward's supposed homosexual relationship with Gaveston. I guess its not a surprising jump considering most amateur historians in the sixteenth century also thought the relationship was sexual, but as historians we're taught to be objective... so lets be objective!The relationship between Edward II and Piers Gaveston is one that has been a topic of discussion for many years. I guess in essence it is the big scandal of his reign. The ambiguity has caused historians to question the nature of their friendship and as such a number of theories have grown from this. Due to the extreme way in which Edward treated Gaveston, putting him even before his own family and his wife, many believe that the relationship must have been of a sexual nature – although this is a view that has changed over time.
It is important not to fall into this trap and assume that because Edward did favour Gaveston so highly that something else must have been going on between them, as many historians over the years prior to Chaplais’ book have done so, even going so far as to claim that homosexuality between the king and Gaveston was a certainty. This can never be a certainty. We weren't there in the 1300s... and unless someone has a flux capacitor hidden in their basement we will never known. As such the best that can be offered is guess work based on the evidence that is present.
The most notable piece on the relationship between Edward and Gaveston is by Pierre Chaplais, who challenge the idea of a sexual relationship that had become so embedded into the narrative of Edward's reign that its almost taken for granted that he was homosexual.
Chaplais dismisses the notion of homosexuality on a number of factors. Firstly he draws attention to the French King, Philippe, and the father of Edward’s wife. He claims that Philippe would never have allowed Isabella to marry Edward if there had been any question about his integrity. His stance on this is feasible when you look into Philippe’s own biography and his actions with the Templars. It is unlikely that the French King would allow his daughter to marry Edward if he suspected his sexual tendencies lay with men. Not only that but more attention would have been drawn to Edward's sexual preferences if they lay with men. Sodomy was, after all, a mortal sin in this period. Therefore we must conclude that Edward and Gaveston’s relationship at this point was either not homosexual, nor had there been any whisperings of such an act.
To put his relationship with Gaveston into context, I guess we have to look at it from Edward's point of view. The King would have been in his mid-twenties when he was married to the twelve year old Isabella. It's understandable to think that the man would not want to spend time with his child-bride, and would instead favour the company of men his own age. He had grown up with Gaveston in his household. Is it really that strange to believe that he would prefer his company over Isabella's???
With that in mind, other reasoning’s for why Edward held Gaveston above all others, asides from a sexual relationship, must be found and Chaplais offers an alternative view.
Chaplais himself acknowledges right off the bat that there is no conclusive evidence to suggest what the relationship between the king and Piers Gaveston was but his theory, despite that, is credible.
In his works, Chaplais describes a situation were Edward and Gaveston had ‘contracted an artificial bond of fraternity' (Chaplais, p.5) and he lists a number of reasons as to why he believes this is plausible. Drawing on certain elements from the chronicles of Edward’s reign, namely the Vita Edwardi Secundi and the Annales Paulinis, Chaplais picks up on some occasions were the author of the chronicles refer to Gaveston as his ‘brother’. It seems that the majority of his argument for brotherhood diverges from this.
Indeed, it is true that contemporary chronicles from Edward’s reign do mention Gaveston as the adopted brother of Edward. The Vita itself states that ‘…they had put to death a great earl, whom the king had adopted as a brother, whom the king cherished as a son, whom the king regarded as a companion and friend’ (Vita, p.51). This passage does not imply a sexual relationship but more a close personal attachment. Brother in my mind seems to hint at something platonic. The ‘Chronicle of the Civil Wars of Edward II’ also states a ‘compact of brotherhood' (Chaplais, p.6) existed between the two men. From these declarations it is easy to see why Chaplais drew the conclusion that Edward obviously saw Gaveston as something more than just a vassal. However he is not quick to jump to conclusions and recognises that this term could simply symbolise the affection Edward felt towards Gaveston.
The use of the word brother within the contemporary texts is not, however, a substantial argument for brotherhood between the two men and it is here that Chaplais draws on his most compelling point to push his theory further. Referring to the ‘Chronicles of the Civil War of Edward II’, Chaplais notes a passage that can indeed have a alternative meaning; ‘the king’s son felt so much love for him that he entered into a compact of brotherhood with him and chose and decided to tie himself to him, against all mortals, in an unbreakable bond of affection' (Chaplais, p.12-13). In all the other chronicles Gaveston is simply referred to ‘brother’ or ‘adoptive brother’. This passage suggests, as Chaplais points out, something more formal which he compares to a number of brotherhood compacts that had been concluded in the past.
Using the example of figures such as Jonathan and David, Edmund Ironside and Cnut as well as various other people strengthens the case marginally but is not concrete proof for an agreement such as this being concluded between the King and Gascon knight. There is no written evidence of such a contract existing but even so it gives historians pause to think. However, if the relationship that existed between the King and his Gascon squire was a formal bond of fraternity, perhaps in the military style, then this argument causes a number of issues. Edward was often described as being interested in ‘unkingly activities' (Haines, 1988, p.36) and had not been involved in tournaments when he was younger. In fact his lack of interest in military matters makes Chaplais’ argument somewhat problematic and so the question must be addressed as to why Edward would enter into such a contract if he had no interest in warfare?
Chaplais carefully counters this point by stating that Edward’s unenthusiastic view of warfare probably made such an oath appealing as it meant he would therefore have a skilled man, as Gaveston was, at his side. On first appearances this stands up well to scrutiny however there is a counter-argument that cannot be ignored. In official documents Edward’s wet nurse was noted as ‘the king’s mother…who suckled him in his youth’ (Chaplais, p.3). This suggests that evidently Edward chose to recognise people he was close to in this manner, bringing them into his family fold so to speak. Following that train of thought it is easy to see how Gaveston could begin to be viewed as his adoptive brother but this does not necessarily lend itself to a formal compact, especially in light of the fact that there was no written evidence of this. Perhaps the use of the word brother literally meant that Edward viewed him as a brother and has little to do with agreements or compacts.
Another aspect to be looked at is the idea of Edward as an unwilling king. Chaplais notes this himself, dismissing the idea that he was an incompetent king, as has been suggested by others in the past. If this was the case then a compact of brotherhood would have made sense. Edward could have placed menial tasks that he did not want to carry out on another person but that individual would have to be someone he trusted completely. This was not an unusual act for a king to do and Gaveston appears to fit that title extremely well. He had grown up with Edward and been a member of his household for many years. Perhaps that is why Gaveston was left as regent whilst Edward was in France, rather than his own half brothers.
Even before he became king, Edward’s relationship with Gaveston was beginning to surface, so much so that Edward I sent the man into exile after his son tried to grant him the county of Ponthieu. Chaplais sees this act as a sign of the compact, stating that in order to be involved in such an agreement both parties had to be on an equal par. Ponthieu would enable the social gap to close somewhat. Despite not receiving Ponthieu, Gaveston was eventually raised to Earl of Cornwall, making him one of the most powerful magnates in the country and thus achieving a nearing social status to the king.
Prior to Chaplais’ book some academics believed that the relationship between Edward and Gaveston was of a homosexual nature. Taking the words of the chronicles literally, historians like Hamilton drew on written evidence such as the king loved Gaveston ‘unswervingly' (Vita, p.9) and believed that his actions meant that the men must have been sexually involved. However it is important to remain objective without the proof necessary to show either way what happened.
Chaplais’ argument on a whole does raise a number of valid points and as such it can be viewed as a useful source, despite the lack of evidence to prove his case. As he rightly suggests the idea of a sexual relationship between the two men is one that would have been noted, probably with horror, by his contemporaries and yet there is no concrete confirmation of this in any sources. However without finding a written document of this compact this matter remains a mystery and academics will continue to ponder over the meaning of Edward and Gaveston’s relationship. Me?? I like to think they were more than just friends - but then, I'm a gossip monger.
Sources Used:
- Chaplais, P, Piers Gaveston: Edward II’s Adoptive Brother, (Oxford Clarendon Press, 1994)
- Childs, W, Vita Edwardi Secundi, (Oxford University Press, 2005)
- Fryde, N, The Tyranny and Fall of Edward II 1321-1326, (Cambridge University Press,1979)
- Haines, R.M, King Edward II: Edward of Caernarfon, His Life, His Reign and Its Aftermath, (McGill-Queens University Press, 2003)
Hamilton, J.S, ‘Menage a Roi. Edward II and Piers Gaveston’, History Today (June, 1999), 26-31. - Hamilton, J.S, Piers Gaveston: Earl of Cornwall 1307-1312 (Wayne State University Press,1988)
- Philips, J.R.S, 'Edward II 1284-1327: King of England and Lord of Ireland and Duke of Aqutaine', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, May 2005, Online Edition)
- Prestwich, M, The Three Edwards: War and State in England 1272-1377, (Methuen and Co. LTD ,1980)
No comments:
Post a Comment