[CW for discussion of rape in analogy to other violations of bodily autonomy in fiction, references to spousal abuse and misogyny]
This post is a sequel to this one I made a few days back.
The Necro-Cav Dynamic as a stand-in for Marriage:
This one's pretty surface level. We have a union of two people, apparently bonded for life in a ceremony in which vows are exchanged. But we are talking "old-fashioned" marriage here. Not an equal partnership. The roles of a necro and a cav don't exactly map one-to-one onto those (traditionally) of a husband and wife. This is because they are heavily influenced by liege-and-knight dynamics. It is worth pointing out, though, that traditionally, both "husband and wife" and "liege and knight" can be seen as subsets of the broader category, "master and servant." This is why, as I've said before, trying to fully boil down necro-cav dynamics to "the necro is the man and the cav is the woman" will always fall short. That said, there still is plenty to be gained from reading the cavalier through the lens of wifehood, so long as we don't lose the thread of the cavalier's textual function: as their necromancer's bodyguard and champion, which is generally caught up in 'masculine' coding.
An interesting aside, when analyzing through the framework of marriage: In the Houses, it is acceptable (even expected) for a necro of a certain class to have more than one cav (having a primary and a secondary, etc.) - paralleling polygamy (the practice of having multiple wives). Meanwhile, it's a bit scandalous that the Tridentarii share a cav - from an outside perspective, Babs seems to be practicing the necro-cav equivalent of polyandry (having multiple husbands). Fun bit of subtext! I like it for Normal Reasons.
The Consent Problem:
Much like traditional marriages (esp. among the upper classes historically)--which may be a love-match, a social/political agreement benefiting one or both parties, or arranged entirely by a third party without either of the betrotheds' willing participation--the necro-cav pairings we see at Canaan House reflect varying levels of foundational consent. Some, such as Abigail & Magnus, as well as Palamedes & Camilla, we could call a love-match ("love" here not necessarily limited to the romantic variety). Others, like Judith & Marta, represent a professional arrangement (with an application process and all), but still were formed with the consent of both parties. The same cannot be said of Harrow & Gideon -- Harrow consented to the arrangement, but Gideon vocally did not.
Meanwhile, both Colum and Babs were literally made for the express purpose of being a cav to a necro who wasn't even born yet. Those arrangements were nonconsensual from the get-go. Yes, by the time the exchange of vows came along, all involved may have been convinced that this was indeed what they wanted, but crucially neither Colum nor Babs had the option to back out. Colum was Silas' only proper genetic match. Babs was the heir to a hereditary cavaliership, and an only child to boot. If either of them even considered declining the position, they would have known there would be Consequences. (The same was pretty much true for Ortus, too, though unlike the other two, he seems to have spent the last seventeen years acutely aware that he was being taken advantage of, and shirking his cavalier duties as a response to that.)
Importantly: the blame for these nonconsenual arrangements does not lie with the Tridentarii or Silas (or Harrow, in Ortus' case), as, again, none of them were even born when the arrangements were made, and all of them were children (and younger than their respective cavs, for that matter) when the vows were taken. All of this happened absent their freely-given consent, too. That fact does not, however, absolve them of responsibility for the abuses of power they commit within the bounds of these relationships.
Violations of the Flesh and the Soul:
The schools of necromancy practiced by the Third and Eighth Houses require routine, painful sacrifices on the part of the cavalier to a degree that seemingly none of the other Houses demand. Both are couched in extreme intimacy, yet much like with sexual violence, the end goal is an expression of power, not genuine human connection. Same can be said of, y'know, swallowing the soul of your cavalier to become a lyctor.
This isn't to say that soul siphoning your cav or cannibalizing bits them (or even their whole soul) is inherently analogous to the rape of that cavalier. Despite the non-con start to their necro-cav situation, we see that Harrow gets somewhat better about respecting Gideon's bodily autonomy as the book goes on, to the point that Gideon not only fully consents to being siphoned the second time, but in fact suggests it, and volunteers herself so completely to Harrow eating her soul that she sorta kinda steps on Harrow's ability to freely consent to the act (oops).
But in the case of Colum, who explicitly asked Silas not to siphon him that one time, only for Silas to view it as backtalk and to siphon him anyway to exert control, wrapped in the language of patriarchal moral authority?
And in the case of Babs, who was literally stabbed from behind, apparently without warning, his soul pinned, extracted, and consumed, entirely against his will?
Those actions both read very much like rape -- and, personally, given the themes of the series, I think it highly probable that that reading is intended.
Harrow at one point talks about an ideal cavalier as a "helpmeet". Which is a reference to Genesis 2, the same bit of the Bible from which we get "one flesh" as a concept relating to marriage - the creation of Eve as a companion for Adam.
But Bible references in TLT are usually from the Catholic Douay Rheims version of the Bible. And in Genesis 2, the Douay Rheims has "a help like unto himself". It's the Protestant King James Version that has "a help meet for him". And "helpmeet" as a single word is a shibboleth in more conservative interpretations of complementarianism. There is very much an inherent sense of submission in the idea of "helpmeet".
The favourite Bible verses of people with concerning views about women tour continues in the Sermon on Cavaliers and Necromancers at the end of GTN, which gives us something of the in-world theology of cavaliership. The Sermon draws heavily on Ephesians 5, the Pauline letter which gives instructions for proper behaviour in Christian families, and which also mentions the concept of "one flesh", instructing wives to submit to their husbands in the same way that the church submits to God.
There are some almost direct quotes from Ephesians: "So the necromancer and the cavalier are no different. They are one flesh. And yet that is only one understanding of the mystery that characterises us as a society"/"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery." (Ephesians 5:31-32).
As you can imagine, the kinds of theologies of marriage being drawn on here can, particularly in their most extreme interpretations, lend themselves to apologias for abuse, or the idea that consent is simply irrelevant within a marriage.
There's also a brief reference in the Sermon that makes me wonder quite what cavaliership does to your legal personhood. When Bias is decrying a necromancer marrying their cavalier, he rubbishes the concept of "sword-marriages", with a necromancer and cavalier "married to one outside party as dual spouses." And while he writes it off as pornographic fiction, we have no other evidence of legal structures for polyamorous marriages in the Houses. This might just be because we've met relatively few Housers, but it could also have a whiff of coverture to it, suggesting that, theoretically at least, one could imagine a necromacer and cavalier marrying the same person because they constitute a single legal person to some extent. If that is the case, it adds another dimension to even the cavaliers who have freely chosen their roles - they may have in some way ceded rights by doing so.
