Queen Guinevere Gallery

 

By Joanna Cadena

Above I have gather various images of the Queen Guinevere character from Arthurian lituature. Among them, there are various reoccuring themes within the images of which I will discuss and analyse.

Firstly, I must disclose why I chose the images pictured above. I tried to select a wide range of images, ranging from the time Arthurian lituature was first being created to mordern day, as the characters of King Arthur have often been recreated to fit whatever time period they are being adapted to. I also picked the images that I saw common patterns arise. Although, I wanted to pick images that maybe showed Guinevere depicted differently, but surprisingly enough, that is diffcult to do.

Next, I will discuss the reoccuring patterns within the images. One of the most prominate patterns occuring was the appearance of Guinevere in white, either completely or in some partial way. There could many reasons for this. Guinevere is often described as the most beautiful woman in the land and white can sybolize the color of perfection since it is the most complete and pure color. On the opposite side of the spectrum, white can also represent coldness, emptyness or even sterility. This could represent Guinevere and Arthur’s relationship and be to foreshadow Guinevere’s ultimate adulterous behavior against Arthur with Lancelot or allude to the fact that Arthur and the queen never had any children of their own.

As for Guinevere’s romance with Lancelot, this is also an often reappearing theme. More often than not, Guinevere is depicted with Lancelot in some capacity or another. She is pictured with Lancelot more than she is shown by herself or even with her own husband. The most common depiction of Guinevere with Arthur is at their wedding. This could perhaps be because the most popular story of Guinevere and Arthur is their wedding story or maybe it could because that is when their relationship was the honorable or favorable, before her romance with Lancelot began and the ultimate fracturing of the Round Table due to this romance.

Another common repeating theme within the images of Guinevere is the portrayal of the Queen alongside nature. This could mean many things. The nature which Guinevere is often portrayed beside is flowers which could be representative of spring or summer. These two seasons are often symbolic of youth, growth and life. This could be to reflect the state of Arthur’s court, of which Guinevere played an important role. Arthur’s court was often describe as the epitomy of youth, such as in the tale of Gawain and the Green Knight. Nature can also symbolize peace, which was a common motif within the character of Arthur, as it was said he was able to bring peace and unite the lands. Perhaps here, his power is represented through his wife, an extension of himself and his court.

Lastly, Guinevere is usually depicted with blonde, reddish-blonde or red hair. Blonde hair is often associated with beauty and femininity which goes back to the description of Guinevere as the most beautiful woman in the land. Red hair, in Europe at the very least, was respected and valued. This could be to reflect her standing in the court.

Original Arthurian Legend vs. the BBC’S Merlin

By Joanna Cadena

In this essay, I will be comparing and contrasting the differences between Arthur and Merlin’s origins in Medieval stories, such as Geoffrey, Wace and Malory’s stories and one of the adaptions of King Arthur’s stories, the first episode of the BBC’s Merlin.

Starting with the differences in the Arthur character, one of the biggest distinctions is the birth and upbringing of Arthur. In Geoffrey, Wace and Malory’s versions of the Arthur origin, Merlin played an important role in the birth of Arthur; disguisting King Uther so that he could get to the woman that was put away in a castle and who would become Arthur’s mother. This contrasts with the Merlin version in that Arthur and Merlin appear to be roughly the same age, around 19 or 20, and therefore Merlin could not have played such an integral part in Arthur’s birth. Continuing with Malory’s version, Merlin was not only important in the birth of Arthur but with his childhood as well. In the Malory story, Merlin would only help Uther on the condition that he would give Merlin the son which was to be conceived. In this story, Arthur grew up away from the castle and the court whereas in the BBC’s version, Arthur grew up in the castle and was raised by King Uther.

While the character of Merlin experiences some changes when transitioning from the Medieval stories to present day, he appears to have more similarities than the Arthur character. In both the Medieval stories and the BBC’s version, Merlin is born with abilities that ordinary men do not possess. Wace, the author who speaks most of the origins of Merlin, states that Merlin was born to an upper-class woman without a father, which is the reason Merlin was born with extraordinary abilities. Parts of this contrast with the BBC’s version. In Merlin, while Merlin was raised without a father, it does not state that he was born without a father. In the TV show, it also appeared that he was born to a low-class woman from a small village.

Due to the changes made to both Arthur and Merlin’s origins, it also changes the dynamic of their relationship. In the Medieval stories, Merlin is a trust advisor to Arthur, someone to whom he looked to and trusted because his father also trusted Merlin. However, this greatly differs from the BBC’s version. Not only does Merlin not advise the king, he also has to hide his magic because King Uther has outlawed magic and greatly despises it. When Merlin and Arthur meet, they begin as rivals. Arthur’s character is initially described by Merlin himself described as “an ass.” Because of this, the two have not only mental conflicts but also a physical conflict that breaks out as well. The constant that remains in both the Medieval stories and the BBC’s version is that the pair’s destinies are intertwined and Arthur needs Merlin, his magic and wisdom to help him rule his kingdom effectively.

The Holy Grail: An Annotated Bibliography

By Dmitri Garlic

Cherewatuk, Karen. “Born-Again Virgins and Holy Bastards: Bors and Elyne and Lancelot and Galahad.” Arthuriana 11.2 (2001): 52-64. Web.

This source examines the role of virginity in the story of the Holy Grail. Malory seems to regard chastity as optional in regards to holiness. Sir Bors is still worthy of the Holy Grail despite his bastard son. The author also emphasizes the relationship between the knights and their bastard sons. In the cases of King Pellinor and Sir Bors they both follow a stylized relationship with their sons. First they partake in adultery, then they leave for many years before finally returning, recognizing their sons manliness, and bringing them to Camelot to be knighted. Lancelot and Galahad, on the other hand, buck this trend. Lancelot does not recognize his son until Galahad has already been knighted. He also never really interacts with his son like Bors and Pellinor do. Galahad and Lancelot only interact briefly when Lancelot manages to briefly repent of his relationship with Guinevere. They briefly converse on an enchanted boat before Galahad is summoned away by a mysterious knight, presumably an angel. The author emphasizes how Lancelot represents an attempt for Lancelot to fit his religious views regarding chastity into the sexual world of King Arthur’s mythos. In the end, Lancelot’s struggle is lost and he returns to Guinevere and his adultery.

 

Staines, David. “Tennyson’s “The Holy Grail”: The Tragedy of Percivale.” Modern Humanities Research Association, n.d. Web.

The author examines Tennyson’s account of the Grail Quest. The author argues that Tennyson reinterpreted the Grail Quest in Malory and turned it into a five part story which examined the response to the spiritual world from within the physical world. The author argues that Tennyson’s Percivale poem serves as a key to understanding the other four. The poem of Gawain shows the response to the spiritual of a skeptic who doesn’t see. The story of Lancelot shows a man who is not worthy of the grail and accepts this fact. Galahad and Percivale’s sister represent those called to the spiritual life who accept their calling. Percivale represents someone unsuited to the quest who nonetheless seeks it, to his overall detriment. While in Malory’s story, the Grail is a source of divine grace which draws the knights towards the monastic ideal, in Tennyson’s story it is a distraction from the mortal world for all but those chosen few who God wishes to follow it. Percivale’s failure to realize that the Grail is not his vocation leads him to waste his earthly life and to miss out on an opportunity to become a great and just knight. Tennyson’s poem reinterprets Malory’s story for a more secular and yet still spiritually inclined world. Only some are called to the extreme mysticism of Galahad and Percivale’s sister. The rest of us must content ourselves with our earthly vocation.

 

Tucker, P. E. “The Place of the “Quest of the Holy Grail” in the “Morte Darthur”.” The Modern Language Review 48.4 (1953): 391. Web.

In this essay the author examines the conflict between the demands of Christian morality and the demands of a lover through the story of Lancelot. The author argues that Malory dislikes the French notion that a knight is only a good knight if he is an obedient lover who follows the desires of his lady and he instead says a knight is only worthy insofar as he lives virtuously and does great deeds. Malory greatly changes the story of Lancelot in the Quest for the Grail to emphasize the sinfulness of his relationship with Guinevere. At one point a lady tells Lancelot that a good knight is only one that is an ideal lover. Malory, the author argues, puts his own ideas into Lancelot’s mouth and replies that it is instead in virtuous living. The author also emphasizes how, in Malory’s version, Lancelot fails on the quest because of his devotion to Guinevere and the inconstancy it introduces into his struggle for holiness. Lancelot is warned by Galahad to avoid the sins of Guinevere. For a while after the Quest he lives chastely and honorably serves the ladies of the court before returning to Guinevere. Malory emphasizes that for all his failings, Lancelot is still a great knight. However he will never be the greatest knight due to his relationship with Guinevere.

 

Weston, Jessie L. “The Relative Position of the “Perceval” and “Galahad” Romances.” The Modern Language Review 21.4 (1926): 385. Web.

This text discusses the dating of the composition of the first story of Perceval in relation to the composition of stories surrounding Galahad and to the historical milieu of the authors. The author uses a historical source on medieval monasticism to prove his point. The text describes how the corruption prevalent in the monasteries led to holy men and women seeking to become hermits. Later, in the early twelfth century, a number of reforms were passed that cleaned up the monasteries and led to a sharp decline in the number of hermits. From this the author argues that the story of Perceval was composed first because it rarely mentions monasteries and instead has all of its holy men be hermits. Galahad’s story, on the other hand, takes place in a number of monasteries which suggests that it takes place after the reforms took place. The author also argues that the first story of Perceval we have available, written by Chretien de Troyes, was actually written much later than the first stories of Sir Perceval were created. This is because Chretien lived in a time after the reforms and during which hermits would have been few and far between. Because of this the author argues that Perceval was most likely originally a folk story.

Myths About the Middle Ages

By Dmitri Garlic

Modern people have a very negative image hygiene in the Middle Ages. We imagine it as a benighted time where people didn’t bathe, used spices to cover the taste of rotten meat, and died before the age of thirty. These ideas, despite the efforts of historians and medievalists, have unfairly left modern people with the idea of the medieval times as a disgusting period in human history marked by ignorance and filth.

Firstly, bathing was actually quite common in the Middle Ages. In the thirteenth century there were at least 32 public bathhouses in Paris. Even smaller towns would often have bathhouses. They would usually be connected to the local bakery, where the excess heat from the ovens would be used to heat the bath water. Medieval health manuals, a genre of book few modern people are aware of, commonly mentioned the benefits of bathing and gave tips on how to maximize said benefits. Bathing was necessary to remove dirt and waste from the body and could cure diarrhea. Excessively long baths were thought to lead to obesity and weakness. Baths were recommended during winter and best avoided during summer. Even in the early Middle Ages, bathing was common. Charlemagne would often take luxurious public baths with his entire court.

Another absurd myth is the idea that medieval cooks used spices to hide the taste of rotten meat. Ignoring the fact that rotten meat, regardless of how it tastes, would still make anyone who ate it sick, this myth has recently been traced back to a 20th century English text on the history of Medieval cooking. The text provides little evidence for its claim and misinterprets the medieval expression for unripe, greene, as meaning spoiled meat when it actually referred only to unripe meat. Rather than using spices to cover up the taste of rotten meat, some medieval cooks would submerge their meat in certain spices, or even in cold water, to make the meat ripen more quickly.

Finally, there is a common belief that medieval people rarely lived past the age of thirty. While average life expectancy is impossible to accurately record without access to complete census records, something that just wasn’t done in the Middle Ages, historians have estimated that the average life expectancy in Medieval Europe was around 35 years. While this may seem to justify the popular myth, this average took into account the high rates of infant mortality in the Medieval world. If a Medieval child could survive into adulthood they would usually live around 50 or 60 years, with some people even living to the age of 70 or 80. Only with the invention of superior post natal care has this high infant mortality decreased in Modern times.

Modern people have many negative stereotypes about the Middle Ages. One of the most pervasive is the idea that the Middle Ages were a radically unhealthy time, with no parallels in pre Modern history. This is decidedly absurd. Medieval people were as hygienic as can be expected for a society without access to modern medicine. Hopefully, as time passes, this myth will fade from the public consciousness.

A Gallery of Stained Glass and Paintings of Sir Galahad Throughout the Ages

By Kaitlyn Fohn

Sir Galahad, introduced in the //Vulgate Cycle//, was one of the successful knights who achieved the Holy Grail along with Sir Percival and Sir Bors. As such, he is often depicted in works of art surrounding the Holy Grail. Gathered together here is a collection of stained glass and paintings that depict the character of Sir Galahad and his quest to achieve the Holy Grail.

Stained glass is not only a beautiful art medium that requires a good amount of skill to create, but it also is a craft of the same period as King Arthur. The medieval era was a time of great craftsmanship but also poor literacy. This meant that churches and other gathering places would use images as well as oral traditions to pass along the stories of King Arthur and the teachings of Christ. Over the years, many artists have attempted to mimic or build upon the baseline that was started in churches during the medieval era. Thus many stained glass pieces from medieval times as well as those leading up into modern times were chosen to give a broad spectrum of not only the longevity of the story of King Arthur and his knights but the art of the stained glass medium.

Painting has been around for a long time with oil painting being very common throughout history. Nearly all of the selected paintings are in the style of Romanticism. This style is most commonly found when depicting fantastical worlds and characters. It is characterized by a lack of harsh realism in both form and topic as well as a muted or dark color palette. This style is used in the selected paintings to give the viewer the sense of greatness and tribulation that Sir Galahad is facing when overcoming the trials of his quest.

The Angel/Angels of Sir Galahad – In many of the works, one more more angels guide Sir Galahad to the Holy Grail or to Heaven after attaining the Holy Grail. These show Sir Galahad’s atunement with the divine and pure beings of Heaven.

Sir Galahad’s purity is perhaps best seen in the text underneath the piece “Sir Galahad’s vision of the Holy Grail”: “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God” (“Sir..Vision”). Sir Galahad has many brushes with divine powers such as angels, God and the Holy Grail and within the art he is usually bowing, praying or kneeling in reverence to the holy presence. In addition, there is a lot of symbolism that adds to this image of Sir Galahad the pure. This symbolism is most easily seen in his young age and white horse, shield and clothes. Youth as well as the color white is often associated with the pure and innocent in the Western and European worlds. This purity adds to the strength and characterization of Sir Galahad as described in a quote from Lord Alfred Tennyson’s poem ‘Sir Galahad’: “My strength is as the strength of ten, Because my heart is pure” (Tennyson). Much of the art focuses on depicting Galahad as someone of pure heart and conviction surrounded by divinity, because only the most pure should be able to succeed in the quest for the Grail.

 

 

Bibliography

Abbey, Edwin Austin. “Sir Galahad and the Holy Grail”, (1896-1901), Oil on canvas. Boston Public Library.

Clayton & Bell. “Sir Galahad and the Quest for the Holy Grail”, Nave, south window, Richmond Hill United Reformed Church Bournemouth, 1920. Stained glass.

Davies, AJ. Bromsgrove Guild. Unknown Title, All Saints, Thurlestone, Devon. 1920. Stained glass.

Photographed by Jones, Peter. Aug. 16, 2007.

Goodhue, E. Harry. “Williams Memorial Window, Sir Galahad and the Holy Grail”. First Parish in Brookline. 1920. Stained glass.

Hughes, Arthur. “Sir Galahad – The Quest of the Holy Grail”, 1870, Oil on canvas.

Paton, Sir Joseph Noel. “Sir Galahad with an Angel”, (1821-1901), Oil on canvas.

Paton, Sir Joseph Noel. “Sir Galahad”, (1821-1901), Oil on canvas.

Powell and Sons. “Sir Galahad and Sir Bors”, Nave, easternmost window. Herefordshire. Stained glass. Photographed by Holme, Lacy. Apr. 18, 2010.

Powell and Sons. “Sir Galahad”. Nave, south window, St Mary the Virgin Church Farthingstone, 1932. Stained glass.

“Sir Galahad and the Quest for the Holy Grail”, Wesley’s Chapel, London, England. Stained glass. Photographed by Klaus. Notes from Camelid Country, Dec 23, 2013, https://notesfromcamelidcountry.net/category/city-of-london/

“Sir Galahad’s vision of the Holy Grail”, St Michael the Archangel Lyme Regis. Stained glass.

Photographed by Smith, Tony. Apr. 25, 2012.

“St George, Sir Galahad and St Michael”, St Wilfrid, Alford, Lincolnshire. 1919. Stained glass.

Photographed by K, Simon. Aug. 15, 2008.

Tennyson, Alfred Lord. Wordsworth Poetry Library, 1994. The Works of Alfred Lord Tennyson. Wordsworth Editions Limited. Sir Galahad, published 1834. pp181–182. Beginning of the first stanza. Camelot Project

Whall, Veronica. “The Holy Grail descends on Sir Galahad”, King Arthur’s Great Halls. Tintagel, Cornwall, 1930’s. Stained glass. Photographed by Jones, Peter. Aug. 3, 2014.

 

The Rise of Sir Gawain: A Brief Adaptation

By Kaitlyn Fohn

The Rise of Sir Gawain is a story about how Gawain was raised not knowing who his real family was and how he came to discover them after a series of trials. Having read other stories about Gawain and not knowing this one, it was this story that I chose to illustrate as a small comic. Everyone has heard tales of King Arthur and some study Gawain and the Green Knight in school, but this one is well written and deserves to be known just as much.

For my comic, I chose to illustrate it simply with the thought that younger audiences could read it effectively. As such, thick black line work, flat colors, and a simple design in regards to people and, most especially, backgrounds would serve as a good means of portraying the events in a way where an audience can tell what is going on easily. The style comes out as rather flat and cartoonish, one that younger children would understand easily having become accustomed to it through television.

Text-wise, I went with very little, following the theme of keeping the comic simple. Lines were pulled from the text with minor alterations to fit the images and help the reader understand what was happening.

As the story is rather long with lots of detail, choosing where the comic would end presented a bit of a challenge at first. I would need to include just enough of the story to hint at further adventures, yet keep it simple enough to be put into a small comic. As such, I decide to split The Rise of Sir Gawain into four parts: how Gawain came to Rome, his quest that brings him into conflict with King Milocrates, his battle of single combat against Gormundus, and his eventual return to his family and acceptance into the King Arthur’s knights. The first part would detail Gawain’s birth and raising among the Romans, merely hinting at the rest to come.

For the character designs, it was a bit hard to come up with something that would ring true to what they would wear, so I settled for something simple and something that wouldn’t require too much effort to draw in a cartoonish fashion. Robes and tunics were used in the earlier scenes, while the scenes with Gawain in Rome were a bit harder. Most were given a regular toga, but the scenes with Gawain as a soldier presented a challenge. Seeing as he was raised Roman, it is most likely he would have been outfitted as a Roman soldier, though I did not know what they wore during that time period. Since the Hollywood version of a Roman soldier included the feathered helmet, short swords, and very little armor over a short tunic, I chose to use that for Gawain’s outfit. Since I had a younger audience in mind, this would help them easily recognize that Gawain was fighting as a Roman soldier because it is an outfit they would be more familiar with.

Text, images, and choice of words all were kept simple so that even a younger audience would be able to read the comic and understand what was happening. This choice was made because younger children do not get exposed to older tales like this very often until they are much older. Perhaps, by introducing tales like The Rise of Sir Gawain to them when they are younger, they will be able to understand them better when that time comes.

 

Lancelot: The Best Knight?

By Isha Vazquez

The Legend of King Arthur was popularized by Geoffrey of Monmouth’s, Historia Regum Britanie, a historical biography of King Arthur. Afterwards, many retellings of Arthur’s legend surfaced, most notably, Thomas Malory’s Le Morte Darthur. Although Malory’s account of the Arthurian world presents idealized notions of knighthood, he himself was a knight who was guilty of extortion, attempted murder and rape. Yet, one of his most prominent characters from Le Morte Darthur is Sir Lancelot, who is regarded by Malory and people of the Arthurian community as the very epitome of exemplary knighthood and chivalry. However, there are in fact many episodes throughout the text that proves that Lancelot frequently disobeys the Pentecostal Oath, and therefore, he is not the “best knight in the world” (Malory 329). Moreover, it his love and devotion for Guenivere that ultimately leads to the collapse of the Round Table, and thus, to Arthur and his kingdom’s demise.

Lancelot’s relationship with the Queen Guenivere is first seen as problematic in a conversation between Arthur and Merlin. In it, Arthur tells him that he wants to marry Guenivere, but Merlin warns him that she will fall in love with Lancelot (Malory 50). In fact, Merlin, who can see the future, knew of the danger that their love would pose to Arthur’s life, so he tried to prevent the marriage from happening. Nevertheless, Arthur marries Guenivere and he acquires the Round Table as her dowry, which he uses to establish a fellowship of knights. Moreover, to be in the fellowship of the Round Table, the knights swear an oath which serves as the paradigm of knighthood. The oath, which is sworn every year at Pentecost, is the foundation of the fellowship and their loyalty to King Arthur, and if violated, the knights are expulsed from the Round Table. Furthermore, it details the ideal behavior of a knight, where they should “give mercy unto him that asketh mercy” and “always to do [women]…succor,” Additionally, it states that a knight should not murder, nor engage “wrongful quarrel for no love, nor…wordly goods” (Malory 57). The Arthurian community believes that Lancelot, by means of the knightly behavior stipulated in the oath and by his skills in battles, “[surpasses] all the other knights” (Malory 95). However, the problems are that he does not always follow this oath nor is he entirely loyal to Arthur, instead, he tries to justify and/or force his wants into the oath. It is only because “Queen Guenivere had him in great[est] favour above all the other knights” that he performs noble deeds (Malory 95). Nonetheless, Lancelot has assisted women and aided Arthur in many successful battles. Yet, when revealed that the prime motivation for his deeds was to win the favor of Queen Guenivere, they become less righteous and more for the sake of glory.

Moreover, one of the many instances where Lancelot violates the Pentecostal Oath, ” is witnessed in “A Noble Tale of Sir Lancelot de Luke.” In this episode, a lady asks Lancelot’s help in bringing her falcon down from a tree to which he abides and takes off his armor for mobility. However, it is revealed that it was a trap devised by her husband, Sir Phelot, to kill the Lancelot while he was unarmored. Nonetheless, he manages to render Sir Phelot unconscious by throwing a bough at him then Lancelot takes advantage of his state, grabs Phelot’s sword and without mercy nor hesitation, he splits his head in two. While Lancelot’s anger is justifiable, he was never at a true disadvantage, his prowess has been emphasized and praised countless of times, which makes the cruel killing of an unconscious man even more malevolent. Afterwards, he ignores his wife when “she swooned as though she would die,” by stating that it was what they deserved for their “falsehood”(Malory 118). Janet Jesmok, who has written the Arthuriana journal, states, ” [Lancelot] kills Phelot without … mercy …  ignores the distressed lady and instead attempts … to rearm and reestablish his public persona” (38). By “public persona,” Jesmok refers to what the Arthurian community perceives him to be: “the best knight in the world” (Malory 329). Still, his actions are deemed dishonorable and unchivalrous by the Pentecostal Oath.

Accordingly, Lancelot’s failures are further emphasized in “The Noble Tale of the Sangrail,” in which he goes on the quest for the Holy Grail. However, Lancelot miserably fails the quest as God deems him as sinful because his deeds, as previously mentioned, have been performed on Guenivere’s behalf and not for Him. Lancelot himself confirms when he confesses to a hermit:

“all my deeds of arms … I have done … for the queen’s sake, and for her sake would I do battle were it right or wrong; and I never did a battle all only for God’s sake, but for to win worship and to cause me the better to be beloved, and little or not I thanked God of it” (Malory 332).

What is troubling about this quote is that it highlights Lancelot’s greatest flaws: he does not care for right nor wrong as long as it is done for the sake of Guenivere. Another concerned raised by his confession is that, although Lancelot portrays himself as a humble knight, he reveals that he performs noble deeds in order to be praised and adored by others. Afterwards, he swears to God that he shall do no more for the queen’s behalf, yet when he returns to the court he “began to resorte unto Queen Guenivere again” (Malory 403). Their affection for each other grow more passionate and they have frequent “privy draughts” that surprises many, and leaves Agravaine, the nephew of Arthur and knight of the Round Table, “open-mouthed” (Malory 403).

In the last chapters of Le Morte Darthur Guenivere and Lancelot’s relationship grows and as the threats of danger increases for Guenivere, Lancelot becomes her champion, and with each time he saves her, “the socially divisive impact of his act[s] of rescue increases, ” as Dorsey Armstrong notes (176). One instance is when Meliagaunt, a knight of the Round Table who kidnaps the queen out of lustful love, accuses Guenivere of adultery. His allegation stems from the fact that he saw blood in Guenivere’s bed, which he thought was from one of the ten injured knights that were with her when he kidnapped her. However, her faithlessness to Arthur is acquitted by Lancelot on a technicality: it was not the other knights who were with her, but Lancelot himself, albeit he does not mention this. Thus, Arthur suggests that Meliagaunt and Lancelot engage in trial by combat. Eventually, Lancelot overpowers him and, motivated to avenge Guenivere, slays him even though he explicitly asks for mercy. Consequently, Lancelot again fails to uphold the demands stipulated in the Pentecostal oath where a knight should not engage in “wrongful quarrel” and fails to “give mercy unto him that asketh mercy” (Malory 57). Additionally, even though Meliagaunt’s death saves the queen, his allegations are left unresolved since there was still someone in the queen’s chambers. Thus, the speculations of infidelity remain and Agravaine, joined by Mordred become even more suspicious.

Lancelot’s final actions create irremediable tensions within the knighthood of the Round Table, for Mordred and Agravaine’s hate towards Guinevere and Lancelot grow and they begin to watch over them “every night and day …. [to] put them both to rebuke and shame” (Malory 466). Their concern is that the queen and Arthur’s most trusted knight have shamelessly displayed their love to the court, and they perceive this as an attack to Arthur’s worshipfulness, since, as Agravaine claims, “King Arthur [will] be shamed” (Malory 468). Consequently, they and twelve other knights, decide to apprehend the traitorous pair, and even though they succeed, only Mordred was able to escape from Lancelot’s wrath alive. Finally, Lancelot becomes Guinevere’s champion once more as he rescues her from Arthur’s death sentence, yet in the process, he kills Gawain, and Gaheris and Gareth, who were both “unarmed and [unaware]” (Mallory 480). Due to Lancelot’s love and devotion for Guenivere, he ends up singlehandedly destroying the Round Table, as he kills Arthur’s most cherished and trusted knights.

Although Lancelot is thought to be the best knight of the Round Table, it is because Arthur seeks to bring Lancelot to justice that he is vulnerable to Mordred’s attack which ends his life, thus destroying his kingdom. Thomas Malory purposefully portrays Lancelot as if he were an exemplary model of knighthood and chivalry, yet when his character is examined closely and unbiasedly, one realizes that this is not necessarily true. In fact, the episodes previously noted, clearly point out how Lancelot fails to follow the stipulations of the Pentecostal Oath. Additionally, he often manipulated the oath to his convenience as he performs chivalric acts for the sake and adoration of Guinevere, which became a dangerous threat to the unity of the fellowship of the Round Table. Moreover, he betrays King Arthur, and ultimately, it is his relationship with Queen Guinevere that results in Arthur’s demise and the destruction of his kingdom, thus proving he is not the best knight of the Round Table.

 

 

Works Cited

Armstrong, Dorsey. Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory’s Morte D’Arthur. UP of Florida, 2003.

Jesmok, Janet. “Comedic Preludes to Lancelot’s ‘Unhappy’ Life in Malory’s ‘Le Morte Darthur.’” Arthuriana, vol. 14, no. 4, 2004, pp. 26–44. JSTOR, JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27870654.

Malory, Thomas. Le Morte Darthur. Edited by Helen Cooper, Oxford University Press, 2008.

 

Religion and Magic in Arthurian Folklore

By Karolina Trevino

One of the peripheral motifs in Arthurian legends is the use of magic in a time when religion, Christianity to be precise, sought to condemn any inkling of straying from the aforementioned faith. In King Arthur’s tales we see multiple instances where characters or places blatantly imply occultism and a higher than natural theme. There is also the question of whether the magic presented was meant to be divine or nature based. Was it given to those whom God chose to be worthy or those who sought to learn the practices of Druidism? Why would a Middle Age and Victorian England so heavily covet stories that would undermine their Christian beliefs?

The most prominent location intertwined with a sense of mysticality is the final resting place of King Arthur- Avalon. Descriptions of this fortunate isle note it to be self sufficient and everlasting with many inhabitants living in it as if it was a second Heaven. On that note, readers could also argue that Avalon was created as an interpretation, or replacement, of  the literal Heaven since Arthur was on the brink of death when he arrived. Comparing it to the holy land brings into question whether authors of these stories intended it to be viewed in that manner. If not, perhaps they wrote it to compare what readers in the Middle Ages viewed as religious stories to simple tall tales of magical occurings. Either or, readers were enchanted by the place where if brought in at the brink of death they could be revived by the skilled healer who ruled over the land. Overall it seems as though the island was created specifically to be the greatests king’s resting place. Another point connecting the religious scripture and these tall tales is that Avalon is mentioned to have a fruitful collection of apple trees relating the story to those of the Garden of Eden. Readers could view this as another attempt to connect to the religious stories they had heard growing up to the magical tales of Arthur.

Merlin and Morgan Le Fay are the two main magic characters in the Arthurian tales. The former’s position in Arthur’s court normalized the idea of magic. Although he was magical he was Arthur’s most trusted confidant using his prowess to accurately advise the King. Merlin’s abilities to deliver prophecies were examined by Kathy Cawsey in Merlin’s Magical Writing as followed, “His writing, then, is not truly written at all, for Merlin himself cannot write. Merlin writes like God writes, in full, sudden meaning rather than mundanely, manually scribed words and letters.” She goes further on to state, “Because Merlin’s writing is dictated, or magically inscribed, but never actually ‘written’, it carries some of the same authority, the same ‘truth,’ as the divine writing and prophecies carved into stones and swords.” This argument is evident from texts such as Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain where we witness his prophetic powers straight from his mouth, never written or even referred to as written from other characters. Said power is accepted but not discussed as much as one would assume considering the time frame in which these stories were written. It seems as though authors and readers alike prefer the dramatics of having a mystical character instead of one based on pure luck. In Geoffrey of Monmouth’s text, Merlin is introduced as a known prophet who aids Uther in transfiguring himself to look like the husband of the woman he loves with a potion of his own creation. This implies Merlin is not only a prophet but an alchemist as well. All various ways in which Merlin aids the Kings he serves revolve around supernatural practices. The second magical character, Morgan Le Fay, was, depending on which story you read, either the healer of King Arthur after his fatal fight with Mordred or the destroyer of Arthur’s rule. In both tales she studied magic in the nunnery in which she was raised. Although she was not as prominent as Merlin, Morgan was the focal point for Arthur’s death scene. She is also the reason for why many would have the inspired belief that King Arthur can and will rise again in the time of great need. It is by her hand that Arthur would have the means to return as she was thought to have given him the gift of immortality.

The debate over the supernatural powers shown in Arthurian God literature being given or nature based will ultimately be up to the reader to decide. Druidism concepts seem to branch these two ideas together. Druid followers are spiritually connected to nature and, in some tale versions of the practice, used the elements to create a form of sorcery. Practices of the religion include educating others who wish to practice and is also associated with alchemy and paganism. This notion was eventually incorporated into Arthurian tales. The mostly Christian Britain at the time was uncertain on how to view the stories after these additions. Before they could easily claim the magic was God sent, but now there was an entirely new religion that fit the narrative in a superior way. Above all the association to paganism was the most conflicting to readers as it was believed to be the religion of the peasants and their almighty King Arthur should not be associated with those likes. King Arthur’s stance through all was the most unclear as he supported the supposed pagan Merlin but also bore many symbols of the Christian religion. Readers could conclude that based on Merlin’s in-story correlation with religious symbols and Morgan Le Fay’s known education of magic from Merlin and her connection to nature means that the former was meant to represent holy magic gifted by God and the latter was meant to be seen as the learned practices of Druidism.

Where is the line drawn between spiritual and magical? Is religion not simply defined as a system of faith and worship? In such case, sorcery and Christianity both fall under the same category only set apart by an individual’s particular beliefs. It can be said that the readers of Arthur folklore were drawn by the sense of faith displayed by the characters surrounding the magical threads. Human curiosity is drawn out by commodities we do not understand, such as how this supposed everlasting King unabashedly supported magic while still maintaining his religious identity. Like Adam Frisch and Joseph Martos state in their collaborative piece Religious Imagination and Imagined Religion, “If religious consciousness fundamentalizes reality, ultimatizes values, and moralizes about human behaviour, and if religious imagination pictures such realities, values, and behaviours in myths and parables, then it certainly seems
that a good deal of science fiction is a product of religious consciousness and imagination.” The real reason people around the world flock to stories of mysticism is because of their hidden doubt surround the concept and reality of religion. Being anything other than Christian in England during those times was such a rarity that it is possible that common folk felt the need to explore another way of living safely by the means of a harmless book. Of course, everyone else was reading them as well so it was not as ostracized as an outsider looking in would think.

Ultimately, there would be no King Arthur without both religious and magical tropes making it a superb tale to be told for endless more generations. The distinctions of God-given magic and nature-based Druidism serve to prove that there is no need to seperate the two ideal forms of magic to create a perfectly enchanting tale. There will always be a need for a hero, and his magic assistants, to come and save the day making this the perfect story to forever be ingrained in history.

 

 

 

Works Cited

Cawsey, Kathy. “Merlin’s Magical Writing: Writing and the Written Word in ‘Le Morte Darthur’ and the English Prose ‘Merlin.’” Arthuriana, vol. 11, no. 3, 2001, pp. 89–101. JSTOR.

Doherty, John J. “‘A Land Shining with Goodness’: Magic and Religion in Stephen R. Lawhead’s Taliesin, Merlin, and Arthur.” Arthuriana, vol. 9, no. 1, 1999, pp. 57-66. EBSCOhost.

Frisch, Adam J. and Joseph Martos. “‘Religious Imagination and Imagined Religion,’

The Transcendent Adventure: Studies of Religion in Science Fiction/Fantasy.” Ed. Robert Reilly. London: Greenwood, 1985, pp. 11-26

Lacy, Norris J., and James J. Wilhelm. “The Romance of Arthur: An Anthology of Medieval Texts in Translation.” 3rd ed., New York, Routledge, 2013.

Geoffrey’s Depiction of Masculinity Within Arthur

By Tommy Sirks

Within Geoffrey’s text Historia Regum it’s evident that Arthur is being depicted as a strong, brave, honorable man. He’s seen as someone that everyone loves and wants to be, as someone who can’t be defeated. By reading Geoffrey’s work you can tell he wants Arthur to be view as not only a “perfect” man, but a powerful image of what a king and man should be at that time. This is primarily most evident within the origin of King Arthur with Uther and how throughout Geoffrey’s story Arthur is so fixated on conquest. Geoffrey made it this way for multiple reasons. One of which being because at that time his work was published, AD 1138, the majority of the population that could read were men. The second reason, which ties in to the first, is that society at that time was almost completely a patriarchy (where men are the “dominant” figure, lineage and ownership of land passes down with the sons). That means that Geoffrey knew that any oral stories that were passed down from his book were primarily going to be given to the sons. And you could say that at that time men were “hyper-masculine” and so Geoffrey wanted to appeal to them by crafting a story that highlighted a beyond average man.

Geoffrey “shows Arthur to be a figure of destiny, his reign foretold in the stars” (Loomis 59). Immediately, even prior to his birth, Arthur is set up with high expectations. A comet shining a dragon-like ray with beams of light coming from its mouth is seen across a lot of Western Europe. Per Merlin this represents Uther and what his lineage will accomplish and take over. If that is the introduction of an individual’s role and life, you can only imagine the kinds of things this man is going to do. What is more masculine than having a comet’s meaning be that of you and everything you are going to do.

Another event is with the conflict between Gorlois and Arthur’s father, Uther. To put it in the most simple way Uther started a war with a Duke because of his pride and because he wanted that man’s wife. At that time one’s pride and reputation was one of the most important things. And to have someone storm out of your castle without permission was quite the insult. Obviously, being a man of power you can’t accept that, its demeaning and will give your people the idea that you aren’t as powerful as you claim. He felt the need to prove himself to not only his people, but to Igerna and himself, that Gorlois was not superior to him. So Uther decided to not only risk his life, but his people’s lives as well by attacking Cornwall and setting fire to towns. Additionally, when he finds out the location of Igerna, he uses Merlin to transform himself to look like Gorlois to commit adultery. When Gorlois is killed and he went back to his troops he then “went back to Tintagel Castle, took it, and took Igerna, and had his wish” (Loomis 64). Clearly, he committed an act that was heavily frowned upon and debatably not viewed as masculine. However, that’s not what’s being addressed in this argument. Post winning the war with Gorlois he did officially take Igerna, which was a common practice at the time to take what belong to you, to take and plunder what now you just won. Igerna knew this and complied to it, because she knew that was the standard and unofficial policy at the time. And by doing so he was now addressing to everyone that she was with him now.

All of this is just the introduction and set up for Arthur. It displays his family being that of aggression and power and it shows his conception being that from adultery. By allowing Arthur to conceive and come from adultery, but then thrive as a king, allows him to be one of the “started from the bottom now I’m here” stories. Its not that he was poor, but that he came from an “evil” and overcame it by conquering for the country and doing good. Additionally, but tricking Igerna into sleeping with him, Uther’s action is de-feminizing. By humiliating the feminine culture and women in general it just separates the gap between men and women in the story. It puts them on such different levels that by objectifying women it puts more of a focus on men and masculinity, within the story. This can further be seen in Geoffrey’s text by his lack of addressing Arthur’s sister, Anna. Throughout the whole story she’s almost never mentioned and appears to be unimportant to the life of Arthur, essentially. So even prior to this man’s birth he heritage is that of taking what you want. And that almost sets the stage for his entire life and the rest of Geoffrey’s text.

Upon Uther dying Saxons and Germans attempted to attack the Britons, due to this power vacuum. Arthur being 15 years old, inherited the throne at this time and made the decision to fight back. At one point he even says, “Arm, and manfully attack those we shall surely conquer, with the help of Christ” (Loomis 68). This child just inherited the throne a few days prior and additionally claims the title in a time of war. Geoffrey intentionally labels him as an individual who’s tactful, is decisive and is extremely brave. Typically a 15 year old in battle, nonetheless the leader, would fold under the pressure. But not Arthur, Geoffrey, depicts Arthur in the opening scene of his reign that he is going to be the best king that the Britons have ever seen. He makes this child extremely courageous and inspiring to his men killing, “four hundred and seventy men with only his sword Caliburn” (Loomis 67). Arthur is being labeled already as an expert on the battlefield and a generous king. Geoffrey allows Arthur to have all the quality traits that any leader or man in the 12^th Century would want.

The rest of Geoffrey’s text is essentially just Arthur expanding his empire and going one-on-one with kings and giants and slaying hundreds of men single-handedly. He unified all of Britain, before going to conquer Europe: Iceland, Orkney, Gotland, Norway and Denmark. During this time Geoffrey wants he readers to understand Arthur as being not necessarily a tyrant, but someone ridding Europe of those non-christian people, as someone purifying all of the land. In some ways he creates him as, “the imperial dignity as a consequence of lineage; he is the protector, liberating all Europeans from the taint of a usurping emperor; he is the Christian against the Saracen and heathen.” (Wheeler 9). Then in an interesting way Geoffrey changes the field and has Arthur feel, “exalted that he was a source of dread to everyone, and he longed to win all of Europe for himself” (Loomis 69). By doing so it allows Arthur to be viewed as being more intense; not only is he someone committing a noble act, but he’s some who enjoys doing it and its something deep within him and his personality. This depiction shows how aggressive Arthur really is. Through these actions and his thoughts you can tell that he’s a warrior that no one can stop.

To add more to his story, Geoffrey even has Arthur fight a giant by himself because “he scorned to lead an army against such monsters, and he hoped to give inspiration to his men by showing that he alone was enough to destroy them” (Loomis 76). Arthur is conscious of his men’s worries and how they can be scared. So he decides to kill the giant himself and bring the head back. This is leadership 101, leading by example, which is a lot harder to do then it sounds. Geoffrey intentionally makes Arthur a man that isn’t just heartless and ruthless, but one that cares for his men. Which is arguably more masculine, because it makes him such a renowned leader.

Geoffrey skillfully displays Arthur in such a manner that kids look up to him, women adore him and men are jealous of him. And at that time the primary means of doing that was to make the story, not just Arthur, full of extremely masculine men. It appealed to everyone, feminism wasn’t a thing and the patriarchy system was prominent across all of Britain and Europe. It only makes sense that the traits of aggression, pride and power were the ones that he chose, because they were going to be the best sellers and the ones that took his text the furthest. So Geoffrey made Arthur’s life to revolve around that masculinity complex. From his lineage, with Uther and Igerna, his birth due to adultery and his life literally only being full of war, Geoffrey makes Arthur into being the man that women want to get and the man that everyone wants to be.

 

 

 

 

References

Wilhelm, James J. The Romance of Arthur. III. Routledge, 2013, New York, NY.

Wheeler, Bonnie. “The Masculinity of King Arthur: From Gildas to the Nuclear Age.” Quondam et Futurus, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1992, pp. 1-26.

William the Conqueror’s Influence on King Arthur the Character

By Devin Shaw

Geoffrey of Monmouth’s character, King Arthur, is the ideal king. He wins his noble knights over with generous gifts. He dominates the battlefields regardless of his opponent. He seeks counsel and takes advice to heart when making decisions. Where did Geoffrey gather the components to build up such a mighty, feared, but loved king? Did a real person influence him, or did he dream up what qualities a perfect king should hold?

Geoffrey of Monmouth grew up in Wales in the 11^th century. During his time, the Normans had recently come into power. William the second ruled Britain from 1087 to 1100, followed by Henry the first from 1100 to 1135. Word of mouth was very common for the passing down of historical events. Stories of rulers and their successes and failures were kept alive through this media. William the Conqueror was England’s first Norman king, so details of his reign could have been compared to the actions of the kings in Geoffrey’s time. It is very likely that Geoffrey of Monmouth heard the history of William the Conqueror’s reign even though he lived after William the Conqueror’s life. This essay will argue the case that King Arthur’s character was modeled after William the Conqueror’s life by explaining William’s life and then Arthur’s to highlight the two men coming into power young, facing resistance to their crown, and the overcoming it by demonstrating their authority and ability to rule.

William of Normandy was better known as William the Bastard before he gained his conqueror title. His parents were Robert Duke of Normandy and Herleve, his mistress; he also had a sister, Adelaide (Mahoney, “The House of Normandy”). The duke was out of Herleve’s class status and could not join together in holy matrimony with her. Due to this, William was born a bastard.

At only eight, William took over the Dukedom from his father who had died on his return from the Holy Land (Mahoney, “The House of Normandy”). Objections were raised, but since William was the only heir to his father’s title, his legitimacy was overlooked.  Since he was so young, his uncle became Regent. In William’s early twenties, he became acquainted with the King of England, Edward the Confessor. England was being taken over by the Danes, so he hid out in William’s home and during this time, Edward named William as the successor to the English Crown (“Biography of William”). As England was in an unsteady position, it is not certain how reliable this claim made by Edward was, but William would later overcome many obstacles in his way to get to the throne. One of these obstacles was a man named Harold, who claimed the English throne after Edward the Confessor’s death. William immediately took action against this by acquiring support from the French and the Pope, who sanctioned a Holy War between William with his Normans and Harold with his Saxons (“Biography of William”). William had to fight for his crown. In the battle of Hastings, he defeated Harold and sent the Saxons running. He was crowned king and would be now known as William the Conqueror.

With William the Conqueror freshly sitting as King of England, several rebellions occurred-all were started by people with ties to Harold (“Biography of William”). With each rebellion’s defeat, William established his dominance and rightful place as the King. England was in a state of feudalism, which consisted of the King’s universal ownership, feudal lords, and tenants (Haskins 453-476).  He ruled with help from the curia regis, or royal council. The curia was assembled “for purposes of counsel on matters which ranged from a transfer of relics to invasion of England, and for judicial business” (Haskins 473). William the Conqueror had a variety of titled men to trust and seek guidance from.  The members also judged matters, with judges usually consisting of bishops and men “from the two classes which had most occasion to become acquainted with the law…” (Haskins 474). King William established his place above all others, but realized that his reign would be more successful with a king who knew how to accept assistance.

William’s strength and system of ruling brought about better times for England. The number of violent encounters and disputes between the people was brought down considerably, the military became a force to be reckoned with, and his high ranked men served as voices of advice (Haskins 453-467). William’s conquering of England was a success and served as the perfect role model for Arthur’s qualities and conquests of many nations.

Arthur’s parents were Uther Pendragon and Igerna, the wife of Gorlois of Cornwall. With the help of Merlin and his magic powers, Uther shape shifted into Gorlois and conceived Arthur and then on the same night this occurred, Gorlois died and Uther arranged his marriage with Igerna soon after (Lacy and Wilhelm 62-63). Arthur was born after their marriage and they also had a daughter, Anna. Although William the Conqueror’s parents did not get married, there is a parallel between the two sets of parents and their unusual circumstances that lead to having sons who would rule and then daughters after them. Geoffrey of Monmouth does not address technicalities of the whole bastard situation for Arthur. Maybe he was trying to keep things simple, or avoid questioning Arthur’s claim to the throne. Regardless, one can make the connection between William clearly being a bastard and Arthur falling in the gray area.

Arthur’s father died and the Saxons soon tried to take over. At fifteen and with support from leaders of Briton, Arthur was crowned by Dubricius, Archbishop of Caerleon due to the pressure of the kingdom brought on by Colgrin and his Saxon invaders (Lacy and Wilhelm, 64). Colgrin is comparable to Harold. The two opposing men are fighting against two kings coming into power who will defeat them. They are both fighting for the Saxons and against losing their potential kingdoms. After Arthur defeated Colgrin, Colgrin’s brother, Balduf, continues battling Arthur (Lacy and Wilhelm, 65). One of the rebellions against William’s crown was led by Harold’s brother, Earl Morcar (“Biography of William”).  Like William, Arthur faced much opposition to his crown. In every battle he fought, he never gave up and always earned his victories. Arthur’s passion and skill in battle earned the respect of his army, like William.

In Arthur’s Briton, there was also a system set up similar to feudalism. He had sole control over his land with knights to oversee it and fight when needed. In battle and in ruling dilemmas, Arthur consistently turned to his knights for advice. Although Geoffrey of Monmouth does not discuss the Knights of the Round Table, this well-recognized aspect of the King Arthur story can be compared to King William the Conqueror’s curia regis. Since there is no talk of the Knights of the Round Table in Geoffrey’s History of the Kings of Britain, the comparison will be limited to simply the knights King Arthur seeks advice from. Arthur sought advice for resisting the pagan’s invasion, during battles, and when he received the letter from Rome, just to name a few (Lacy and Wilhelm 58-87).  While William the Conqueror’s curia regis does more than offer advice, the idea of a group of supporting, loyal, and connected men joins each ruler and highlights the fact that good leaders, like King Arthur and William the Conqueror, know that a group of minds can think of more possibilities than a single one.

In the story of King Arthur, he dominates the battlefield and conquers many countries while keeping the people at home loyal. His ultimate downfall is when he is drawn back to his court because of Mordred who took his crown and his wife (Lacy and Wilhelm 86).  He defeated Mordred in battle, but had succumbed to a mortal blow to the head.

The lives of William the Conqueror and King Arthur from Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain have been explained and showcase likeness of the two coming into power so young allowed them to prosper on the throne and learn. They both obviously caught on fast and crushed those opposing their rules. Through battle they gained the loyalty of knights and empowered their men to fight for them. King Arthur shows undeniable similarities in comparison to William the Conqueror. Based on the acute gap in time between William the Conqueror’s life and Geoffrey’s History of the Kings of Britain along with other commonalties, I believe William the Conqueror was a true model King Arthur’s characteristics and qualities were based on.

 

 

Works Cited

Biography of William the Conqueror, http://www.normaninvasion.info/biography-william-the-conqueror.htm. Accessed 17 Sept. 2017.

Haskins, Charles H. “Normandy Under William The Conqueror.” The American Historical Review, vol. 14, no. 3, Apr. 1909, pp. 453–476. JSTOR, doi:10.2307/1836442. Accessed 17 Sept. 2017.

Lacy, Norris J., and James J. Wilhelm. The romance of Arthur An Anthology of Medieval Texts in Translation. Florence, Taylor and Francis, 2015.

Mahoney, Mike. “The House of Normandy.” William the Conqueror., www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/normans.htm. Accessed 17 Sept. 2017.