Whilst researching my posts on the death of Piers Gaveston, I hadn't quite realised how often Piers was referred to as Edward II's 'brother'. The theory of a brotherhood pact between the two men was explored in depth in Pierre Chaplais' book Edward II's Adoptive Brother, published in 1994. I looked at his work in one of my very first posts on this blog, here . I can't believe that was written 6 years ago. I've read so much more since. Here are some examples of Chronicles and other sources in which the idea of a brotherhood between the two men existed.
According to one chronicle, Edward had used the term even as Prince of Wales. Throughout his reign he continued to use the term - and sometimes, even the word adopted was used. Here's a quote from early on in the Vita Secundi, when Piers returns from Ireland after exile. Edward greeted him at Chester and greeted him like a brother, -
'indeed he had always called him his brother’. This suggests Edward had been referring to Piers as brother for some time. Had he been doing this in his father's reign to the extent that his father became concerned and banished Piers for his first exile? The Vita also refers to Piers as -
'a great earl whom the king had adopted as
brother’, and then adds that Edward loved him like a son, companion and
friend, just to add confusion. Piers as Edward's son? seems strange
to me, especially as Piers was older than Edward. It seems to me the author
was trying to find a way to explain how much Edward had loved Piers. The
word 'lover' was not used. The Vita also quotes Edward as complaining
that the Ordainers were persecuting his 'dear brother'.
Another
chronicle, the Annales Paulini, quotes Edward as 'the king called Piers,
because of much love, his brother', and also used the phrase 'adopted
brother'.
Edward
himself uses the phrase in his own documentation - for example, in a letter to
his treasurer Walter Reynolds, dated July 1308, Edward writes -
‘We are sending you enclosed herein a
letter which our dear brother and faithful Peres de Gaveston….’
Chaplais points out that Edward used the same
phrase 'our dear brother and faithful'
in letters to his half-brothers Thomas and Edmund. The implication
is obviously that Edward thought of Piers as his brother in the same way as his
real brothers.
The Chronicle of the Civil Wars of Edward II also suggests that
some sort of brotherhood existed between Piers and Edward. When Edward
first saw Gaveston, the king felt such love for him that he 'tied himself to
him against all mortals with an indissoluble bond of love'. The bond of
love being the brotherhood pact, obviously.
So,
from the Chroniclers evidence, are we to conclude that Edward and Piers thought
of themselves as brothers, a pact drawn up in their early teens, and based it
on some chivalric code? Or, did they
feel such love for each other, that the only way they could express it publicly
was to proclaim they had a brotherhood pact?
This to me seems more likely.
After all, the Chroniclers also refer to Piers as an ‘evil male sorcerer’,
but that doesn’t mean that’s what he actually was. It also adds for good measure that this
sorcerer was keeping the king from his wife – what brother would come between
the king and his wife, unless of course there was more to it. Chroniclers of the time would not have been able to speculate on whether the nature of the relationship between Edward and Piers was sexual. Certainly Edward and Piers would have been discreet about this if it were so - and yet we get all those protestation of love that Edward felt. J.S. Hamilton
in his book ‘ Piers
Gaveston, Earl of Cornwall, 1307-12: Politics and Patronage in the Reign of
Edward II’ puts it perfectly for me –
'The love that
the King felt for Piers Gaveston has been described as greater than the love of
women. It still seems more likely that it was also stronger than the love of
brother'.
Sources:
Piers
Gaveston: Edward II's Adoptive Brother Hardcover – 19 Sep 1994 Pierre Chaplais
‘ Piers
Gaveston, Earl of Cornwall, 1307-12: Politics and Patronage in the Reign of
Edward II’ J. S. Hamilton
Kathryn Warner’s Edward II blog
Wow, is it really six years since you started your blog? Congrats! :)
ReplyDeleteI totally agree, that love was stronger than between brothers. Just the way they presented it for public consumption, perhaps, or how people chose to interpret it.
Yes Kathryn 6 years - only feels like a couple of years. And yes, it all comes down to interpretation. I don't think anyone else had a brotherhood like those!
ReplyDeleteHi, Anerje! I'm back from the seashore, trying to catch up with all the blogs I follow :-)
ReplyDeleteVery interesting read! And you certailnly have a point saying that scarcely anyone had a brotherhood like Edward and Piers :-) Six years... Congratulations!
Hope you enjoyed your break Kasia. Thyanks for the congratulations - I can hardly believe it myself.
ReplyDeleteThere has been an institutionalised brotherhood in the 10-12th century Germany about which Gerd Althoff has written several essays. It was basically a demonstration in an age with little literacy where symbolic acts - and formal utterances in chronicles and chartes - were important. I'm not sure if the examples are mostly restricted to the time and place which is Althoff's special area of research or if these things did indeed lose value in the 14th century. But I can see how the brotherhood of Edward and Piers could describe their closeness not only emotionally (like we see it today) but politically as well, according to tradition. So what the Lancaster party did to Piers was basically high treason in the eyes of Edward, and rightfully so.
ReplyDeleteHi Gabriele - yes I've read these type of chivalrous bonds of brotherhood existed. We'll never know the exact relationship that existed between Piers and Edward, but interesting to think Edward may have viewed Lancaster's as high treason.
ReplyDelete