Malory and Monmouth
...s just buried the duchess while in the Monmouth version we find that Bedivere comes upon the nurse of the duchess who recently had the unpleasant chore of burying the duchess. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the widow in Malory’s version tells Arthur ‘…an if thou have brought Arthur’s wife, dame Guenever, he [the giant] shall be gladder than thou hadst given him half France’ (Malory, pp. 157) All of these changes from the earlier text force us to wonder why Malory found it necessary to use such blatant imagery in reference to the giant violating the sacred bond of marriage. To understand it is necessary to explore a little further. The description of the giant in Malory’s text has some interesting differences as opposed to the description of the giant in Monmouth’s version. The widow that Arthur stumbles upon in Malory describes the giant as ‘a devil’ and Arthur himself refers to the giant as a ‘tyrant’ (Malory, pp. 157) while in Monmouth the old woman describes the monster as ‘a foul monster’ (Monmouth, pp. 133). Additionally, the giant in Malory’s edition has ‘vanquished 15 kings’ whereas Monmouth simply writes of the giant vanquishing the district’s knights. Further differences are revealed in both versions when Arthur first glimpses the giant. Malory gives the giant a much more sinister appearance, the giant is breechless, i.e. wearing no pants, which serves to emphasize the giant’s feral nature. Malory further emphasizes the ferocity and daemoniacal persona of the giant by placing three maidens turning a respective number of roasting spits with four children each on them; Monmouth simply had pigs roasting on the spits. Moreover, Monmouth is content to have the giant feasting upon the pigs as Malory has the giant devouring the limb of a man. These individual elements, when amalgamated, illustrate the rather obvious point Malory was attempting to make. The giant is made to seem overwhelmingly daemonic, a feral beast, indeed, a devil. Witness also the fact that fifteen kings were unable to defeat the giant, at this point it is important to note that in this time period it was believed that kings were given the authority to rule by divine right, that is, kings were specifically chosen by God. This alone raises a number of interesting conclusions. First, it is proof positive that Arthur is a true king, chosen by God, as one chosen by God could not be defeated by an agent of the devil. It is evident that this was also used as a means to bolster the aristocrats of Malory’s time, one more allusion to the conception that the aristocracy was more exalted than the commoners. If we enter into this combination the repeated sentiment of broken marriages and rape more conclusions as to Malory’s intentions are made evident. The relationship between the king and his kingdom is marriage, whereas the antithesis of this is broken marriage and/or rape. The giant is not only personified as an agent of the great tyrant, Satan, but is blatantly called a tyrant by Arthur. This draws a parallel between the rule of tyrants and the rape of the kingdom, likewise; only by the intervention of a true king will the tyranny come to an end. Through the differences in Malory’s version of the story Arthur is made to seem more beneficent, more holy, more civilized. In Malory’s account Arthur refuses to take any of the giant’s treasure, but instead decides to distribute it among the people who were afflicted by the giant. Arthur also refuses to accept an...