The King, Husband, and Father
(NLC, 253-65 & 305-17; CA, II, 884-930 & 986-96)
Samuel H. Norwood

Back to Table of Contents

Special note to the reader:  I examine here two short narrative units that are unified by their focus on the role of the king.  Ellen Lempereur discusses the bisecting unit (that is, NLC, 266-304, and CA, II, 931-85) in the subsequent analysis.

After Constance is acquitted through divine intervention of the charge of murder, she becomes Queen Constance, wife to King Alla, in Trevet’s version of her tale.  In fewer than 200 words, Trevet relates in whirlwind style a number of significant events, which I summarize here:  

Olda foregoes sentencing the Saxon knight responsible for the murder of Hermegild, choosing instead to imprison him until King Alla arrives.  Upon his arrival, the king sentences the knight to death.  Filled with love for the maid and convinced by the miracles of God, King Alla decides to be baptized by Bishop Lucius.  He marries Constance and fathers a male child with her.  After six months, Alla leaves Constance in the care of Olda and Lucius and goes off to repel an invasion of his territory by the Scots.  He charges her two guardians to inform him quickly of the birth of his child and to keep Constance at ease.

Following the birth of his son, Alla does not receive news from Olda and Lucius; rather, he is given falsified letters that contain reports of the evil, hideous natures of both mother and child.  In approximately 170 words, Trevet describes the reaction of the king to these reports fabricated by the king’s mother and her clerk:

The messenger charged with delivering the letters from Olda and Lucius takes his leave of Domild, the king’s mother, and promises to return that way again.  In spite of an apparent hangover, the messenger reaches Alla and orally relates the joyful news about the king’s new family.  The king, however, sternly forbids the messenger to speak further of Constance and the child because he is instantly distressed by what he reads in the letters.  Alla can scarcely believe the news, but, trusting the supposed sources, he writes a reply immediately, ordering the guardians to keep Constance and her monstrous spawn Maurice safe until he returns.

In Gower’s version of the tale, as in Trevet’s, God speaks in vindication of the accused maid Constance, but Gower offers a slightly different account of the subsequent events most closely paralleling the two sections outlined above.  Here is an abridged version of the first part of Gower’s parallel narrative, to which he dedicates nearly 100 words more than Trevet does:

Hermyngheld’s murderer obeys the voice of God by confessing his crime and then dies immediately.  Elda buries his wife, and when Allee arrives the next day, Elda informs the king of what has transpired and how God has taken action.  Out of love for Constance, Allee offers to be baptized and to believe in Christ if Constance so desires.  Furthermore, the king expresses his desire to marry the maid, and so Lucie comes from Wales to wed the two and to baptize Allee, along with many others.  Constance never reveals who she is or what her origins are, but the king is not disconcerted, for he rejoices in having found such a noble woman.  The king is supremely glad when he discovers that Constance is to bear him a child, but he must ride to war.  Before he departs, Allee appoints Elda and Lucie, men he knows to be holy, to watch over the queen. 

As in the source version, Allee is informed of the birth of his child, but in his slightly different description, Gower uses only some 70 words:

The messenger awakens unaware of Domilde’s deception and delivers to the king a letter that dishonestly notifies him of an unnatural child born to his wife, who, it is claimed moreover, is a fairy.  The king writes in a wise manner that Lucie and Elda should keep Constance from going at large until he informs them further.

Although the events in Gower’s tale correspond fundamentally to those found in his source, Gower alters several key elements in his version of the story of Constance.  His changes make King Allee a more likeable character and render him less culpable for possibly doubting the noble nature of Constance.

In an effort to increase our esteem for Allee, Gower modifies plot components that might otherwise decrease or even realign our sympathies.  In Trevet’s narrative, the first act of the king was to sentence a man to death.  As far as we knew, there had been no trial, no presentation of the evidence to the king that might warrant his sentencing of the errant knight to his death, and no chance for him to ask for forgiveness or to repent.  There was no indication that the king had been informed, even informally, of the intervention of God on behalf of Constance.  The possibility existed, then, that the king acted vengefully, or perhaps even despotically, in punishing the murderer of the constable’s wife.  Regardless of our understanding of the “fairness” of the decision, though, it remains that King Alla’s first act had been to sentence a man to death, and as readers our first impression of the king had negative undertones.  Gower, however, avoids this difficulty by removing the burden of judging and sentencing from the king.  In Gower’s version, the knight must “beknow the sothe” (CA, II, 883) in a public form of confession, and then it is God, and not the king, who takes the felon’s life.  The hands of Allee remain untainted by blood, and Gower prevents the possibility of the negative associations with kingship evidenced in Trevet’s account.

Gower makes further emendations to enhance the character of Allee in the episodes outlined above, especially in the early stages of his relationship with Constance.  For instance, whereas in Trevet, the king simply “esposa la pucele” [“married the maiden”] (NLC, 257), we have the sense in Gower that Allee does not merely impose his will as the king, but rather, that he seeks Constance’s approval, being baptized “if that sche wolde” (CA, II, 898) and expressing his desire, not a decree, that he “wol hire wedde” (CA, II, 901).  Likewise, whereas in Trevet, Constance was responsible for the salvation of Olda and his household “al noumbre de quatre vinz et unze” [“in the number of four score and eleven”] (NLC, 202), Gower attributes the principal role in this conversion to Allee, who is baptized in Elda’s house “with many an other mo” (CA, II, 907) who seem to follow Allee’s lead rather than Constance’s prompting.  Gower’s king appears less self-centered and more charismatic than Trevet’s, and we have a greater sense in Gower that the king truly loves his new wife and his people, who in turn follow the example of their wise king.

In Gower’s description of the conversion, we see Allee as a divine instrument, yet Gower does not limit Allee’s function as such to his role as the leader of the kingdom.  Gower further enhances Allee’s holiness by transforming him into an instrument used by God within the marital union.  In his description of the conception of their child Moris, Gower goes into far greater detail than Trevet did, and Gower’s additions produce a remarkable link between God and Allee.  Whereas in Trevet, Constance simply “conceut del roi un enfant madle” [“conceived a male child by the king”] (NLC, 257-58), we read in Gower:

The hihe makere of nature
Hire hath visited in a throwe,
That it was openliche knowe
Sche was with childe be the king.  (CA, II, 916-19)

Allee is clearly not the “hihe makere of nature,” yet after the “hihe makere” visits Constance, it is known that she is “with childe be the king.”  The line separating Allee from the divine “maker” is thus strangely blurred.  In Gower’s version, it seems as though the child is conceived when God visits Constance through Allee.  To be sure, Gower’s unique portrayal here of the king as an implement of the divine is meant to augment the nature of Allee as both husband and father.  

Gower completes his enhancement of the character of King Allee by subtly altering the king’s response to the “news” that his wife and son are evil and unnatural so that we see him in a much more positive light than we had in Trevet’s tale.  Gower editorializes, for instance, by adding to the material found in his source that the king writes his reply to Constance’s two wards “in wys manere” (CA, II, 992), and he deletes King Alla’s disparaging reference to his son in Trevet as “le moustre” [“the monster”] (NLC, 316).  The charge given to the guardians in Gower also seems to demonstrate more concern than does the instruction supplied by Trevet’s Alla.  King Alla’s charge that Olda and Lucius should watch over Constance and her monster “tanqe a son retourner” [“until his return”] (NLC, 316-17) betrayed a greater concern for his business at hand than for his family issues at home.  It seemed he could not be bothered with this domestic issue while he was at war and sought to put it on hold until he returned home.  Gower’s change is subtle, but it is significant nonetheless.  Allee’s charge to Elda and Lucie is that they guard Constance “til thei have herd mor of his wille” (CA, II, 996).  This order reveals his intentions to deliberate on the matter and to act decisively while he is still attending to the necessary business of war.  The “problem” with Constance and his child is of great enough importance for Gower’s Allee to give it at least some of his attention now, and his love for them therefore seems greater here.  Thus, we see in the response to the falsified letters further evidence of the noble love of King Allee, who, Gower informs us in another expansion of his source material, had rejoiced in his son’s coming birth “above al other thing” (CA, II, 920).

It is not surprising, then, that Gower seeks to relieve this good king of a great deal of the moral responsibility, and even guilt, for possibly believing that the noble Constance could be anything other than a virtuous creature.  In both Trevet and Gower the king appears to believe the lie fabricated by his mother, but Gower again guides our understanding of King Allee through the adaptations he makes to Trevet’s text.  First, although we have the impression from Allee’s disturbed behavior and his orders that Elda and Lucie “kepe hire [Constance] stille” (CA, II, 995) that Gower’s king believes the letter, his doubt of his wife’s character is far less certain than it had been in Trevet.  Trevet’s Alla had, in fact, referred to his son as “le moustre”—signifying without question that he believed that his evil wife had spawned an unnatural, demonic being—even though he found the report “apoi noun creables” [“almost unbelievable”] (NLC, 315, emphasis added).  The absence in Gower of any such pejorative language about either the mother or the child precludes the possibility of assigning blame so definitively to the king for accepting a lie and believing his wife to be an ungodly, inhuman monster.  Indeed, in a tale used by Genius to provide Amans with a moral lesson about right living in spite of Envy and Detraction, it is significant that Gower’s changes prevent Allee from becoming a slanderer himself, regardless of whether or not he believes the calumnious report.  Trevet’s Alla had, in his own letter, defamed his wife and child by naming his son “le moustre.”  The same is not true for Allee, though, and he thus remains a more laudable figure.

Though Gower’s changes render less certain a clear judgment of the degree to which Allee questions the nobility of Constance, further modifications to Trevet’s tale make it easier for us to understand how Allee could make such a mistake, thus removing his culpability, or at least softening any critique of his misgivings.  In a remark not found in this section of Trevet’s tale, we find Gower’s first attempt to clear his king of potential accusations of transgressing in believing a slanderous report: “Bot for no lust ne for no rage / Sche tolde hem nevere what sche was” (CA, II, 910-11).  Gower draws our attention here to the fact that Allee does not know anything about this woman’s background, and he indicates that, in spite of the king’s attempts to determine her origins, she will not tell him or anyone else “for no lust ne for no rage.”  This modification is especially significant when viewed in conjunction with Gower’s earlier alteration of the charge against Constance: Gower’s Constance is accused of being “of faierie” (CA, II, 964), whereas Trevet’s queen had been accused of being “malveis espirit en fourme de femme” [“an evil spirit in the form of a woman”] (NLC, 293).  Rather than follow Trevet’s more hagiographically consistent accusation of demonic possession (as evidenced in the Gospels or The Book of Margery Kempe), Gower shifts to a fantastical element more typical of folklore, and this shift must inform our understanding of Allee’s reception of the news.  A strange, beautiful woman has arrived in his land in a boat filled with “gret richesse” (CA, II, 737) and has refused to tell the king about her origins—for Gower’s Allee, the explanation that she is “of faierie” is, in terms of folklore, plausible.  In this context, we can forgive him more readily than Trevet’s Alla, who never sought to discover the origins of his wife and who, in keeping with the hagiographical underpinnings, had supposedly been convinced of the maiden’s saintliness by “les miracles par Dieux moustrez” [“the miracles shown by God”] (NLC, 256).  Gower’s alterations place his tale in the realms of folklore and make it more acceptable for Allee to question Constance’s origins, if he does indeed believe the false report.

Gower changes other elements in an effort to encourage our sympathies for the deceived king.  One such adjustment is Gower’s removal of Alla’s request that he should be informed “quant ele fut delivrés d’enfant” [“when she (Constance) was delivered of her child”] (NLC, 263-64).  In Gower, King Allee goes off to war without ever mentioning a desire to be informed of the birth.  Again, this is a slight alteration, but one possible explanation for Gower’s decision to make the change is that Allee’s acceptance of the strange news is more plausible—and perhaps more forgivable—if the news is unexpected.  If Allee had not asked for an update, why would the guardians send him news, unless something really was amiss?  Furthermore, whereas Trevet’s messenger had contradicted the letters’ contents and “de bouche lui counta veritable novele et joyouse” [“related to him by word of mouth the truthful and joyful news”] (NLC, 308-09), the conspicuous silence of Gower’s messenger further relieves the king of blame.  Where Gower’s king has no information to counter what he reads in the letter, precisely because Gower silences the messenger, Trevet’s king actively elected to believe a slanderous lie over a truthful report and, in fact, forbid the messenger to speak further.  Gower’s Allee once again appears less worthy of censure if he actually does doubt the good, Christian nature of his new wife.

These alterations indicate a broad shift in Gower’s version of the tale of Constance toward amplification of the king’s goodness.  We see later in his tale, for instance, that the people of the Saxon kingdom approve of the king’s punishment of his mother, Domilde, which is significantly more rational and just than his punishment had been in Trevet.  It is perhaps fitting that Gower, an English writer, would choose to emphasize the righteous nobility of the Saxon king and downplay what might otherwise be viewed as a glaring fault of the Saxon king in Trevet—his unwarranted doubt about the virtue of a popular saint.

Originally Posted: April 4, 2006