The False Knight
(NLC, 210-52; CA, II, 792-883)
Wendy A. Deacon

Back to Table of Contents

When Olda travels to tell Alla about Constance in Trevet’s version of the story of Constance, the knight left in charge ultimately brings grief to the household.  The scene is given in almost 525 words, which I summarize here:

When Olda journeys to visit with Alla, he leaves one of the knights in charge who had been baptized after Hermegild’s miraculous curing of the blind man.  The knight has fallen in love with Constance and, through the instigation of the devil, tries to tempt her to consent to carnal sin with him.  Constance refuses him three times and on the third refusal denounces him for his wickedness.  The knight fears that Constance will tell Olda of his deed and he plots evil against her.  On the night Olda is to return the knight waits for Constance and Hermegild to fall asleep after saying their prayers.  He then cuts Hermegild’s throat and hides the bloody knife under the pillow of Constance, who is sleeping next to her.  When Olda returns Constance awakens at the noise and finds Hermegild covered in blood beside her.  At her cry candles are lit and Olda and others witness the scene.  The murderous knight speaks out and blames the death on Constance.  He moves around in a mad fashion, pretending to be more affected by the death than others, and then he exposes the knife beneath her pillow and accuses Constance of treason.  When Olda refuses to believe that Constance could be guilty, the knight grabs a book of gospels by the bed and swears on it that she must be the murderer.  The hand of God then appears in the air, strikes the knight down, and in doing so knocks out his eyes and teeth.  The voice of God condemns the knight for his treacherous act against Constance.

Gower’s somewhat altered adaptation of the scene is told in nearly 570 words:

When Elda visits with Allee and it is decided that the king will see Constance, Elda sends a knight, whom he has seen grow from childhood to manhood and greatly trusts, to tell his wife to prepare for the king’s coming.  On his journey the knight tries to think of ways that he might win Constance, but when he has no luck devising a plan, his desire for her turns to hate and envy of her honor, and he plots a treacherous act against her instead.  He delivers the message and then waits for Hermyngheld and Constance to fall asleep.  He then steals into the bedroom, cuts Hermyngheld’s throat, and hides the knife under Constance’s pillow.  Elda returns the same night and discovers his dead wife.  His cry awakens Constance, who is sleeping beside Hermyngheld.  Constance swoons when she sees her.  Elda wakes the men in the castle and shows them the scene.  The false knight blames Constance and by quickly searching the room finds the knife he had planted under her pillow.  When Elda refuses to believe Constance responsible, the knight grabs a book by the bed and swears on it that Constance is guilty.  The hand of heaven then strikes him down and knocks his eyes out of his head.  The voice of God damns the knight to hell for slandering Constance and demands that the knight reveal the truth before he is put to death.  

Although the scenes in the two versions of the story of Constance are similar, Gower makes several significant changes in his adaptation.  He develops the relationship of the knight to Elda, removes the devil as a reason for the knight’s evil deeds, omits other religious elements that serve to characterize Constance as a saintly figure, and alters God’s punishment of the knight at the end.

Gower’s most notable changes to this scene in the story of Constance concern the false knight.  In Trevet the knight was simply described as one of the men of the household who had already been baptized and who was left in charge of the castle when Olda left to visit Alla.  Gower complicates the story by developing a personal relationship between Elda and the knight.  Elda’s reasons for choosing this particular knight to deliver his message are explained at the start of the scene: the knight is one “whom fro childhode / He hadde updrawe into manhode” (CA, II, 793-94).  Gower’s Elda has a connection with the knight that was lacking in Trevet.  He has seen him mature from a child to a man, and he trusts him with his thoughts—a trust that, we are told, he will soon regret.  Gower changes Elda’s relationship with the knight in order to further intensify the knight’s treachery.  The knight is not merely acting in response to his feelings for Constance; rather, he is betraying a long-time friend who fully trusts him.  Whereas the knight’s relationship with Olda was minimally described in Trevet, Gower alters it with several important details in order to enhance the deceit committed by the knight and to further characterize him as an evil man with no regard for the people he hurts, no matter how close they may be to him.

Gower’s other—and more important—change to the knight is his motivation for killing Hermyngheld and blaming Constance.  Trevet’s version of the story relied largely on the influence of the devil as the reason for the knight’s betrayal.  Trevet described the knight’s endeavor to tempt Constance as a result of the “malveise emprise et temptacioun del diable” [“evil instigation and temptation of the devil”] (NLC, 214).  The knight was furthermore “en la main al diable” [“in the hand of the devil”] (NLC, 223) when he plotted to kill Hermegild.  Trevet portrayed the knight as acting under the influence of the devil rather than through his own volition.  The devil instigated him to seduce Constance, and furthermore he was caught in the devil’s control when he slit Hermegild’s throat.  In contrast, Gower gives the devil no role in his version of the scene.  He first changes the knight’s reason for killing Hermyngheld by removing him from the household.  Gower’s knight does not even approach Constance to seduce her.  Instead, he struggles with his feelings for her privately and tries to find a way to win her on his journey home.  When he fails, “his lust began tabate, / And that was love is thanne hate” (CA, II, 809-10).  It is not the devil’s influence that causes the knight to plot his evil but rather his own feelings as “A lesinge [deceit] in his herte he caste” (CA, II, 813).  The knight casts this deceit himself without any help from the devil or any direct participation of Constance. 

Gower omits the devil’s involvement in order to make the knight fully responsible for his actions.  He does not allow the knight any excuses of being caught in the devil’s grip or acting under his influence.  In denying the knight an external rationale for his actions he changes the emphasis of the motivation for his deed from an evil, supernatural influence to a more natural human desire and failing.  Gower’s story is less concerned with finding religious justification for the knight’s evil deed than it is with punishing him accordingly.  Gower is less sympathetic to his knight than Trevet was.  By first establishing a relationship between him and Elda, and then making him solely responsible for his actions in killing Hermyngheld and blaming Constance, he is depicting the knight as a man who commits a treacherous act of his own accord and wickedness.  By refusing to allow any excuses for the knight’s behavior Gower is ultimately justifying the need for his punishment of death by the hand of God and leaving no room to question its validity.

The omission of the devil is one of several changes concerning religion that Gower makes to this section of his adaptation of the story of Constance.  In Trevet’s version, the knight was one of those who were baptized after the miracle in which Hermegild restored the sight of a blind man.  He was thus a Christian man caught by the devil’s evil grasp.  Furthermore, on the night of the murder Constance and Hermegild “fortment endormies apres longes veiles et oreisons” [“fall asleep after long vigils and prayers”] (NLC, 222-23).  Perhaps most importantly, the book that the knight swore on when he accused Constance of murder was “q’estoit livre des Evangeils, quel les seint femmes Hermegild et Constaunce” [“a book of the gospels that the holy women Hermegild and Constance”] (NLC, 242-43) had with them every night.  Trevet’s many references to the holiness of the women suggested to the reader that Constance would surely be saved by her faith in God, as she had been on prior occasions in the story.  The knight was a fallen Christian man who was caught in the devil’s grip and who needed to be punished accordingly, and Constance was a saintly woman who conversely desired to be saved because of her unwavering faith.

Gower omits all three references to religion in his version.  We are not told that the knight has been baptized, so instead of being a Christian man caught under the influence of the devil he is a pagan fully responsible for himself.  The women are said to have gone to bed after arranging things for the arrival of the king, but there is no mention of prayers prior to their retiring.  Perhaps most significantly, the book that the knight swears on is not said to be a book of gospels.  He picks up a book that could contain anything and swears on it that Constance is guilty instead of swearing on something holy used in the devotions of saintly women. 

By making these changes Gower humanizes the scene.  As we have seen in his omission of the devil as a factor in the murder, he is choosing not to put such an emphasis on religion in order to render the knight wholly responsible for his actions and moreover to portray Constance as more of a human than a saintly figure.  The knight’s motivation for framing Constance in Gower’s version likewise suggests a humanizing of the scene.  This knight does not fear for himself because of her refusal, but rather envies her honor.  If we understand envy in this instance to consist of malice and resentment, it is clear that the knight begrudges the morality and goodness that make Constance unattainable for him.  This instance of envy connects to the larger moral of the story.  Envy is a deadly sin, and in the tale several characters, like the knight, are punished for acting under the influence of envy.  In the scene of the false knight, then, Gower includes envy as part of the knight’s motivation in order to offer an explanation for his cruel act and to justify the severity of his punishment.  Gower thus makes the knight more human in that his own feelings lead him to commit a crime rather than the influence of the devil, and he makes Constance more human by focusing the knight’s envy on her goodness and virtue rather than figuring her as a saint.

Gower does not go so far in omitting religion as to remove God’s punishment of the knight at the end, but he does make changes to it.  In Trevet’s version the hand of God literally appeared after the knight swore on the book of gospels that Constance was guilty and struck him down, knocking out his eyes and teeth.  A voice then said, in Latin, “‘Adversus filiam matris ecclesie ponebas scandalum; hoc fecisti et non tacui’” [“‘You were placing a stumbling block against the daughter of mother Church; this you have done and I have not remained silent’”] (NLC, 251-52).  God did not actually kill the knight.  He punished him only in accordance with his crime against Constance.  The knight was later put to death by the king for the murder of Hermegild.  Gower offers a different version of the knight’s punishment.  When the knight swears on the book against Constance he is struck down, but the hand of heaven is not said to literally appear.  Instead, he falls and only his eyes are knocked out of his head.  The voice of God then speaks:

O dampned man to helle,
Lo, thus hath god the sclaundre wroke
That thou ayein Constance hast spoke:
Beknow the sothe er that thou dye.  (CA, II, 880-83)

God does not merely condemn the knight for his treachery against Constance; instead, he demands that the knight confess.  After confessing the knight dies—notably by the hand of God rather than the king.  Also, we find here another reference to the knight’s “sclaundre,” or envy.  The significance of envy in the tale is made apparent by the fact that God is punishing the knight not for murdering Hermyngheld, but instead for his envy and slander of Constance.  His speech indicates the severity of the knight’s crime of envy, and again connects to the overall theme or moral of Gower’s tale.

Why does Gower make these alterations of God’s punishment of the knight?  By not having the knight’s teeth knocked out, Gower makes it possible for him to confess before he dies.  We can, after all, scarcely imagine a toothless man with a mangled mouth speaking a confession—without laughing.  The scene, while still not entirely realistic, is far less comical in Gower’s version than it was in Trevet’s.  Gower maintains an element of the supernatural by having the knight’s eyes knocked out while making the scene more effective by eliminating a comical element that took away from what was supposed to be a horrifying punishment in Trevet’s version.  Gower’s punishment is also more fitting as a parallel to a prior event.  Hermyngheld restores the sight of a good blind man as a result of her faith, but the knight loses his sight because of his evil deeds and lack of faith.  The scene of Hermyngheld’s miracle is less prominent in Gower’s version than it was in Trevet’s, which suggests that Gower is more concerned with humanizing the tale than focusing so closely on its religious aspects.  God’s demand for a confession and punishment of death can be attributed to the fact that the knight is not a Christian, and so cannot be absolved in the Christian sense.  While God did not kill the knight in Trevet’s version because of the knight’s Christianity, in Gower the knight has no faith to protect him.  Moreover, the knight has made a public accusation against Constance, and so he must make a public confession in order to clear her of guilt.  Gower thus includes the confession because he takes away the various religious elements that serve to characterize Constance as a saint.  Without such references to her holiness Constance is made more human and thus would be less easily cleared in such a situation.  God then demands the confession because it is necessary in order to prove Constance’s innocence, whereas in Trevet it was enough for God to strike the knight down without requiring a confession because Constance was viewed as such a saintly figure.  Without the presence of certain religious elements, Constance must be declared innocent both by the interference of God and by her own accuser so that there can be no doubt about its truth.

Gower makes other changes in the scene of the false knight that are less important than the ones analyzed here, but that are still notable for the comparison of the two versions of the story.  For instance, whereas in Trevet, Constance was the first to discover Hermegild’s death and cried out, “‘Ma dame est morte’” [“‘My lady is dead’”] (NLC, 231), in Gower, Elda is the first to see his wife covered in blood, and his cry wakes Constance, who swoons at the sight of the blood.  The swoon suggests a weakness in Constance that was not found in Trevet’s version.  Gower is putting emphasis on Constance’s human qualities in order to portray her as less saintly.  Her faith here is not enough to sustain her from physically succumbing to the horror or alarm she feels.  In addition to taking away some of her strength, Gower also denies Constance the only voice she was granted by Trevet in this scene, thus further removing her from the scene.  In doing so he emphasizes her lack of involvement with the incident and denies her any agency in order to focus more fully on the knight.  Furthermore, in Trevet the knight revealed the knife under Constance’s pillow by acting like a mad man and leaping about the room until he found it.  Gower does not have the knight use such a ruse, but instead has him go straight to the bed to search it after he accuses Constance.  Gower is less concerned with giving the knight a cover for his deed than he is in having him quickly expose the weapon.  By doing so he further implicates the knight in the crime by having him so easily reveal the knife.  Finally, whereas Trevet described the hand of heaven as actually appearing and striking the knight down, Gower refers to the hand without figuring it as literal.  He thus omits another supernatural element in order to make the scene more realistic.  These smaller changes coincide with the larger ones discussed in this essay, and their effects on the story further support Gower’s reasons for making such alterations.  Rather than focus on the role of the devil and the saintliness of Constance, Gower chooses to humanize the false knight in order to make him solely responsible for his evil actions and also to humanize Constance by making her less saintly and not able to be cleared solely by God.  He also alters God’s role at the end in order to justify the knight’s punishment and leave no doubt as to Constance’s innocence in the crime.

Originally Posted: April 4, 2006