pd-west-blog

[pd-west-blog]

Blog 7: The Canterbury Tales

What messages of knighthood and magic do these two tales (The Knight’s Tale and The Canon’s Yeomen’s Tale)  articulate?

Knighthood in The Knight’s Tale by Geoffrey Chaucer:

(retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deRyhTuny3w&t=114s)

The expectations of knighthood in “The Knight’s Tale” by Geoffrey Chaucer are represented by the characters of Duke Theseus, an established model of a proper knight, as well as Arctic and Palamon who are on their journey to become proper knights and win the love of Emily.  

A key component of knighthood in the “The Knights Tale” is military prowess. Lord Theseus sets an exemplary model of this. He is a renowned conquerer. Chaucer begins the tale by remarking upon his great feats.

Whilom, as olde stories teller us, There was a duke that highte Theseus.

Of Athens he was a great lord and governor, And in his time such a conqueror That great was there none under the sun.

The conquests in Duke Theseus life seems to be the key to his success and happiness. It was in his conquest of the Feminie that he won his wife, Queen Hippolyta, and in his conquests that he gained the land and power that he has. The narrator allots him respect for these deeds, singing his praises in regard to these conquests. There is little else of his life that is mentioned. Arctic and Palamon, the cousins, and the other knights present within this tale, also portray the idea that military prowess is a way in which knights should achieve success. Arctic and Palamon ultimately fight to the death over Emily in a tournament condoned and suggested by Duke Theseus. A tournament watched by the world.

Slay his contrary, or out of listes drive, Him shall I give Emily to wive, To whom that fortune gives so fair a grace.

When suggesting this tournament Duke Theseus seems to imply that who ever wins is the best. It is fortune, a higher a power, giving the victory to the knight who is the greatest. To me, this suggestion brings to mind the idea that the victor is divinely ordained to win. Succeeding militarily could be a way of proving that one is favored by God, and that winning is associated with something greater than luck or shear physical strength.

Tournaments and conquest in “The Knight’s Tale” are done for the right reasons, namely honor and chivalry, and in front of an audience. When Theseus conquers Creon it is for an audience of widows who has begged him to do so  that their husband’s bodies may be retrieved. He, in this instance, fought with honor in defense of these “poor” women to righteously restore their husbands bodies allowing them to be buried in a way befitting the traditions of the time. When Arctic and Palamon have their first duel, in the woods, and without an audience this enrages Duke Theseus when he comes across their fight. He asks of them the following.

But tell me what mister men ye be, That be so hardy for fighte here Without judge or other officer,

(Image retrieved from: http://www.canterbury-tales.net/knights-tale/)

After confronting them he ends their fight and ultimately sets it up as he see fit. A grand tournament to which the the winner shall be awarded Emily. They shall each take a year to gather one hundred men to fight on their respective sides. In this time the Duke builds a pricey and elaborate stadium in which kings and nobles from around the world may travel to in order to view the spectacle. This implies that might is only important if it is witnessed, or the appearance of strength and honor is more essential than either characteristic in and of themselves.

The knight’s in “The Knight’s Tale” fight for women, or to appease their desires. Theseus in seen to do this when he fight’s the tyrant Creon to return the widow’s bodies to them.

And in his armes he them all up went, And them comforted in full good intent, And swore an oath, as he was a true knight, He woulde do so farforthly his might Upon the tyrant Creon them to wreak

He also submits to his Queen’s and Emily’s request to spare Arctic and Palamon when they are caught fighting in the woods. Arctic and Palamon are perhaps the most significant example of this thought as their main conflict is over Emily, and for her love the declare themselves to be mortal foes.

Thou shalt not love my lady Emily, But I will love her only and no mo’; For I am Palamon thy mortal foe.

(Image retrieved from: http://www.canterbury-tales.net/knights-tale/)

As previously stated, Emily will go as a prize to the winner of the competition devised by Duke Theseus. Her choice is irrelevant. When she pray’s to Dain, she is the only one denied her request to remain a maiden and marry neither man. However she is still the grand prize, and both Palamon and Arctic are fighting to win her love and do her bidding. When Palamon say’s his pray to Vensus he asks the following.

But I would have fully possessioun Of Emily, and die in her service;

This prayer seems contradictory in nature. He wish both to own and to serve Emily. It is unclear who will be in power in this dynamic. I feel this objectifies women by knight’s as prizes to be won, and to function as any trophy would to give the possessor a symbol of their statues and in this context knighthood. However, knight’s in this story are also compelled to do the bidding of their ladies, as this is a hallmark of their chivalry. Where this leaves women is unclear, but my impression is that pursuing and winning the love of a maiden is a key marker of a successful knight.

The pursuits that the knights engage in within this tale, create the impression that their major preoccupation is the appearance of chivalry and honor. They fight not for the sake of fighting but for the sake of proving themselves in front of an audience. Fighting alone to settle a conflict is condemned, but fighting to settle is conflict as a spectacle for others is condoned. Their love, is superficial. Arctic and Palamon fall in love with Emily without ever speaking to her, but by gazing at her though a barred window. She is described as beautiful, but no other qualities are remarked upon. It seems that because of this limited interaction they must solely desire because of her beauty and her status, yet there love is strong enough to turn them against each other.  When knight’s in this tale act on behalf of women it is in tasks that forward their appearance as chivalrous men, as when Theseus conquers Creon. When a lady’s desires do not forward the status of the knight’s who may fulfill it, it is respectful ignored. This is seen when Emily’s wish to remain alone is overlooked in favor of the knight’s prayers.

The drama though which this tale is presented, and the superficiality of the characters gives me the impression that the author created these knights as satire. The knight’s have very little depth or complexity. Theseus is always noble and right. Arctic and Palamon are steadfast and without doubt in their love for Emily, ignorant of any other desires they may have. This makes them seems almost inhuman. Their characteristics and values are exaggerated and isolated to emphasis their flaws.

Magic in “The Canon’s Yeomen’s Tale”

The Canon’s Yeoman’s tale is one of the two tales we read that discuss magic. Magic in “The Canon’s Yeomen’s Tale” is in the form of alchemy. Alchemy is represent negatively by the Yeomen’s discussion of their failed attempts to yield results, and then through the Canon’s deceit of the Priest for his own profit. This implies that magic is essentially non existent, and that those practicing it are doing so only by deceiving others rather than performing any true alchemy.

The Canon and the Yeomen, are unsuccessful, and worse for the wear due to their magical pursuits. In the start of the tale, the Yeomen beings by reflecting on his time with the Canon:

All that I had I have lost thereby, And, God wot, so have many more than I… And where my colour was both fresh and red, Now it is wan, and and of a leaden hue.

When the Canon and the Yeomen are successful, it is only do to the Canon’s tricks which deceive the a Priest into believing in their magic and giving them money. This is the only way they succeed in any way.

To much folk we do illusion, And borrow Gold, be it a pound or two, Or ten or twelve, or many summes mo’, And we make them weenen, at the leaste way, That of a pounde we can make tway. Yet it is false; and aye we have good hope It for to do, and after it we grope: But that science it so far us before,…

It (science) will make us beggars at the last.

This section of the poem indicates not only that they have been unable to obtain the knowledge or science that they strived for, but the pursuit of it has left them without money and in debt. This leads to the Canon’s deceit of the priest. He sells him powder, and creates the illusion that it turns objects into precious metals. This trick upsets the yeomen, the narrator of our tale.

For when a man hath over great a wit, Full oft him happens to misuse nit; So doth my lord, and that me grieveth sore.

Shortly after the Yeomen begins to tell their tale, the Canon departs the company realizing his deceitful ways will be revealed. This not only confirms his misdeeds, but indicates that he is ashamed or embarrassed by his work. If one is unable to be proud of there accomplishments then they are also perhaps mentally worse of for their work as well.In the last part of the tale the yeomen goes further to denounce those seeking the philosopher’s stone by saying they go against god himself.

How that a man shall come unto this stone,

I rede as for the best to let it gon. For whoso maketh God his adversary, As for to work any thing in contrary Of his will, cortes never shall he thrive.

The “Canon’s Yeomen’s Tale” does not present itself as a traditional story, thought at the beginning one is given the impression that it might turn into one. Especially when the Yeomen begins to account his year in the service of the Canon. Edgar H. Duncan in his article, The Literature of Alchemy and Chaucer's Canon's Yeoman's Tale: Framework, Theme, and Characters, describes the tale as a rant of ever mounting bitterness in which the yeomen’s voice becomes indistinguishable from the voice of Chaucer himself. This seems an adequate interpretation of the “story”.

Sources:

Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales

[pd-west-blog]

Sir Gawain and The Green Knight, Blog 6:

In the “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight” translated by Simon Armitage tells the tale of Sir Gawain’s encounter with the Green Knight and his subsequent adventures. King Arthur and his court are described, at the beginning of the poem, when the Green knight challenges at the christmas day festival, and when Gawain returns to Arthur’s court after completing the challenge set before him. On Both occasion Arthur’s Court and Arthur himself are presented as friendly, and familiar with a family-like loyalty to one another.  Arthur’s court is also presented as the greatest court of the time, it is flourishing with renowned knights and respected for its noble character implying that its style should be an example to the world.

When the poem begins the roundtable is introduced in a very flattering way:

Arthur the greatest of Britain’s kings, hold the Christmas festival at Camelot, surrounded by the celebrated knights of the Round Table, noble lords, the most renowned under heaven, and ladies the loveliest

This passage outlines the importance of Arthur's court, and of Arthur. He is the greatest king, his ladies the fairtest, and his knights renowned. This impression was further given when the Green Knight knight challenged Arthur and his knights.

Then Arthur before the high dais salutes the Green Knight, bids him welcome, and entreats him to stay awhile at his Court. The knight says that his errand is not to abide in any dwelling, but to seek the most valiant of heros of the Round Table that he may put his courage to the proof, and thus satisfy himself as to the fame of Arthur’s court

If Arthur’s court and his knights were not the best, they would not be challenged. One would never challenge the loser of a match only the winner. Therefore the Green knight’s challenge is a mark of the greatness of Arthur’s court.

Arthur’s court gives the impression of great familiarity among the knight’s amongst themselves and with Arthur.

(retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t855W1rFYEo&t=45s)

This video clip, though reading from an alternate translation, depicts Arthur between, possibly supporting two drunk knights, in what appears to be a rowdy feast. Arthur does not hold himself above his people, at least in this interpretation of “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight”.  Arthur is also presented with energy and passion for the affairs of his court. 

Arthur, in mood as joyful as a child, his blood young and brain wild, declares that he will not eat nor sit long at the table until some adventurous thing, some uncouth tale, some great marvel, or some encounter of arms has occurred

In this outtake, Arthur is not above excitement, he is even driving it. To me this gives the impression of Arthur when he was younger, before his betrayal, before the decay of the round table has begun. He is fired up about adventures, thirsty for excitement as the rest of the knights. He ultimately accepts the Green Knight’s challenge when his knight’s hesitate to do so, and is only later relieved by Gawain. In illustrations from this time, he also appear younger, however if this is anything more than artistic liberty it is impossible to know.

(Image retrieved from: http://csis.pace.edu/grendel/projf982j/gawain.htm)

This familiarity and interest in his knights advenutes is further emphasized upon Gawain’s return.

The king and queen kiss their brave knight, and make many enquiries about his journey...the king and his couriers comfort the knight--they laugh loudly at his adventures, and unanimously agreed that those lords and ladies that belonged to the Round Table, and each knight of the brotherhood should ever after ear a bright green belt for Gawayne’s sake.

If the King and Queen kiss Gawain, a degree of familiarity is assumed. I imagine that touching, letting alone being hugged a kissed by your King would be a privilege that was unheard of in many monarchies. Furthermore they laugh and joke with him, ultimately forcing everyone (the court) to take part in his embarrassments and successes by pronoucing that all shall wear the green lace girdle that Gawain wears. This unites them all in a brotherhood of sorts, and perhaps also serves to remind them that no one, including Arthur himself, are above human flaws.

This familial depiction of Arthur and his court could be a reactionary depiction resulting from the the style with which Richard the II ruled in 14th century Britain. Richard was a more distant King, he held himself apart from his people. The synopsis of Nigel Saul’s Book, Richard II, describes him as such. 

Richard II is one of the most enigmatic of English kings. Shakespeare depicted him as a tragic figure, an irresponsible, cruel monarch who nevertheless rose in stature as the substance of power slipped from him...Nigel Saul paints a picture of Richard as a highly assertive and determined ruler, one whose key aim was to exalt and dignify the crown. In Richard's view, the crown was threatened by the factiousness of the nobility and the assertiveness of the common people. The king met these challenges by exacting obedience, encouraging lofty new forms of address and constructing an elaborate system of rule by bonds and oaths.

This passage describes Richard II as a King very different from Arthur. Richard II came up with “lofty forms” to be addressed with. The purpose of this it seems to clarity and his status and separate himself from the common man. Another expertpt that I found compelling from Richard and the Vocabulary of Kingship again by Nigel Saul paint a picture of Richard’s court, as one that he overlooked with a cruel/distant gaze. 

It was his habit to sit enthroned from dinner till vespers, talking to no one, but watching everyone, and when his eyes fell on anyone, regardless of rank, that person had to bend the knee towards the king. 

I can’t help but be reminded of the Eye of Sauran as depicted in the “Lord of the  Rings”

(Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsGooxZ9lUY)

This is a very different court than Arthur is depicted in. One would not imagine Richard the II socializing with his subjects, but Arthur takes great joy in it. He listens to their stories, laughs, and eats with them. 

(Image retrieved from: http://www.shafe.co.uk/portrait_of_richard_ii-_c-_1390-_westminster_abbey/) 

This is a image of the portrait of Richard II that hangs at the Westminster Abby. This image to me further portrays Richard’s interest in his image and status. His clothes are fancy and appear impractical for everyday task. His crown is quite large well ornamented. His facial expression is also is distant and stern. 

To me it seems that the Author of “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight” could be writing of court that he would rather see, than the one he might have been subjected to. A form of hopeful escapism perhaps. 

Source:

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, translated by Simon Armitage 

[pd-west-blog]

Blog 5

Gawain is an evolving character in “The Buried Giant” by Kazuo Ishiguro. His motives and loyalties are developed throughout the story, and are sometimes contradictory. In the beginning he is presented as a haggard old knight, a relic from another time. He speaks of his loyalty to his King and his and mission, to slay Querig. As the story progresses one begins to question if this is his real desire.

Axl and Beatrice come across Gawain toward the beginning of the story.

Axl supposed him thin, if wiry. His armour was frayed and rusted, though no doubt he had done all he could to preserve it. His tunic once white, showed repeated mending. The face protruding from the armour was kindly and creased (Axl speaking of Gawain)

Axl’s description is warm, Gwain is a kind old knight. He is good natured and poses little harm to anyone. His appearance is also representative of the life he has lead. One that is dedicated to his mission. He clothes are worn, as is he, a mark of hardships he has endured, and the comforts he has sacrificed in service to the task set before him.

We’ll travel like this, in full armour, in the name of our king, and will do so till neither of us can take another step”(Gawain chapter 3)

Gawain, in the respective statement, claims his loyalty to King Arthur. Speaking of him as his uncle, with pride. Even though Arthur has passed, and times have changed, Gawain still wears his armour and claims to continues the work set before him by his King. Yet his task, slaying Querig, has yet to be accomplished. Gawain, even in his age, seems a formidable opponent. In his final battle with Master Wistan, a renowned warrior, Master Wistan remarks upon his condition:

I learned long ago, he said, not to fear Death as a fought. Yet I heard his soft tread behind me as I faced this knight. Long in years, yet he was close to getting the better of me.

As the story progresses it becomes clear that he, Gawain, has been “trying” to slay Querig for many years. How it is that he is not yet successful?

Gawain, though a knight by trade, is inclined towards peace. He perhaps carries this resolve from Arthur’s teachings. This motive is true throughout the story. Towards the beginning of the story Gawain is approached to aide a soldier in a fight against Master Wistan, a Saxon warrior. When speaking to Wistan after he declines to aide the Briton soldier he explains himself as so:

It is the same reason I wouldn’t side with this wretch now gutted like a trout. I fear Lord Brennus is one who would undo the great Peace won by Arthur. (Gawain speaking to Wistan)

Gawain initially refused the fight, for he had no reason to fight Master Wistan. Though he is a Saxon, and he was asked to fight beside a fellow Briton, this is not enough cause for Gawain join the dispute. He, in this example, makes it clear that his loyalty to peace is above his loyalty to nationality.

Gawain, as one of Arthur’s knights experienced the slaughter of many wars. To him these wars were for a greater cause. However his reflection on the horrors of these previous experiences is perhaps a driving factor in his desire for peace.

Yes, we slaughtered plenty, not caring who was strong and weak. God may have not smiled on us, but we cleansed the land of war. (Gawain speaking)

This slaughter, though he may see it as necessary, also appears to weigh on him.

Master Axl, what was done in these Saxon towns today my uncle would have commanded only with a heavy heart, knowing of no other way for peace to prevail. Think, sir. Those small boys you lament would soon have become warriors burning to avenge their fathers fallen today...look how deep runs the lust lust for vengeance

This desire to see peace and his weariness of war, may be ultimately what drives him. He is not young, he does not glorify the battles, but wants the bones buried, and for an end to old feuds.

As the story comes to a close, and Master Wistan, Axl, Beatrice, and Edwin come alongside Gawain to Querigs lair he confess his role as her protector. A complete contradiction to the role he previously claimed. He ask Master Wistan to think of the consequences of her slaughter.

You ask it well, Master Wistan, and I know my god looks uneasily on our deeds of that day. Yet it’s long past and the bones lie sheltered beneath a pleasant green carpet. The young no nothing of them. I beg you leave this place, and let Querig do her work awhile longer. Another season or two, that’s the most she’ll last. Yet even that may be long enough for the wounds to heal forever (Gawain speaking)

It can be inferred that the green carpet burying the bones, is a metaphor for the loss of memory, created by the breath Querig expels. It was Merlin’s will that Gawain protected Querig, and Arthur’s that he slay her. It seems at the end of the story though that his true loyalty was not towards neither Arthur or Merlin.

A dark man he may have been, but in this he did God’s will, not only Arthur’s . (Gawain referring to Merlin)

Gawain, in the above statement, is not warm towards Merlin. However he sees Merlin’s spell on Querig’s breath as “God’s will”, acknowledging the righteousness of it. Gawain protects Querig to prevent wars between the Britons and the Saxons, wars like the ones he has experienced. He believes that God must have looked down on these past brutalities and been ashamed of his people.  Perhaps he believes that by preventing these slaughters he is serving God.

Gawain is never robbed of his memory, he is the gatekeeper to the past, and choose to keep this gate closed for he sees it as the only way to preserve peace. He also, to me, seems remorseful. Not that he doesn’t believe in what he did, but he feels the pain of all the wars that were waged. I believe that this influences his roll as protector of Querig. He and the Saxon both know what memories will bring. He chooses to prevent it, while the Saxon chooses to embrace it. Perhaps this choice is what distinguishes him the most.

The End

As a side note: 

I found this Article to be quite interesting. An aspect I found interesting in Gawain was his idea that God would be ashamed of what had happened. This article brings in a few ideas about God’s role in The Buried Giant.  

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/03/23/the-uses-of-oblivion

“What Ishiguro means is the most acute problem in this book. His novel does offer a theology, and a potentially interesting one. A character named Ivor, encountered on the way, tells Beatrice that the mist may be a religious punishment. Perhaps God is angry about what humans have been up to? Or not angry, Beatrice surmises, but ashamed, as if God himself wanted to forget. But what, Axl asks, could humans have done to make God so ashamed? (Beatrice and Axl are Christians, but often find themselves alongside pagans.) One of the monks, Father Jonus, also suggests that God is angry with his people, and that the time has come to “uncover what’s been hidden and face the past.” It is claimed that the monks are actually keeping Querig alive, perhaps because their focus is not on the present but on the heavenly future. Father Jonus asks Beatrice if she is afraid of the return of her unhappy memories. She is not, because she and Axl love each other, and as we are constituted by our memories, for good and for ill, so is her marriage. In the same way, although the mist has maintained a frail truce between Britons and Saxons, it is clearly right, if not desirable, that historical memory should be restored, even if the cost is a return to old warfare.”

[pd-west-blog]

Blog 4:

How important is a "national memory" to Britain? (Hint: think about its true historical past in becoming England)

I think that “national memory” is essential to a countries identity, the same as memory is essential to an individual’s identity. I don’t think this is unique to Britain. Memory invokes identity by distinguishing one’s people and one’s traditions. Shared memories are the building blocks of relationships and create unity through common experience.

“The Buried Giant” by Kazuo Ishiguro explores what memory means to Britain by presenting a situation were the memories of the country and individual are becoming lost due to the breath of the dragon Querig.

You may wonder why Axl did not turn to his fellow villager’s for assistance in recalling the past, but this was not as easy as you might suppose. For in this community the past was rarely discussed. I do not mean to say that is was taboo. I mean that it had some how faded into a mist as dense as that which hung over the marshes(Chapter 1).

By removing memory, “The Buried Giant”, address what is left when memory is gone, and what identity people, and communities, have without memory. Axl in the begin of the story has a sense of unease about him. He sleeps poorly at night and he ponders what his life has been.

Had they always lived like this, just the two of them, at the periphery of the community?Or had things once been quite different (Chapter 1)?

When we identifies ourselves in this day and age we often go by our occupation or nationality. I am a student, I am a lawyer, I am American… Axl can not do this, for he dose not recollect. Axl has only has brief flashes of his life prior to his old age. This is one example of how memory is necessary to identity, and without it, a person loose a since of who they were or what they are. Memory is also essential to how others perceive an individual. If all the countries were created today, and I identified myself as British, it would have no meaning to anyone else. There would be no history to recollect, no prior knowledge of British values to judge me on. Furthermore, it would have no meaning to me as an individual. An identity is built upon memory. Without memory there is a fresh slate everyday. A compelling excerpt I found from King Arthur: Myth-Making and History, by N.J. Higham, says the following: 

How Arthur was used in within this text was crucial to the Author’s binary division of current society between ‘British’ and ‘Saxon’. However, the great “truth” which the author was seeking to address through his text was not so much the historicity or otherwise of Arthur but the particular place of his own ‘British’ people in salvation history, in the past the present and the future. (Higham) 

This excerpt refers to the documentation of Arthur in the Historia Ecclesiastica. To me, what stand out is the implication, that history factual or otherwise helps us to see our place in the world, and thus to have an identity. This history is national memory, recorded in legends encyclopedias or passed on orally, 

One key component of national memory is its ability to unite people. Our personal memories provided us (individually) with a since of identity, but national memories provide a group of people with a common idenity. A section of “The Buried Giant” that stood out in particular is when Axel and Beatrice are taking shelter in an old ruin with a boatman and an elderly lady. The lady relays the tail of how the boatman took her husband across the river to an island, separating her from him forever. She comes to sit with the boatman to torment him. With the boatman’s input it becomes clear the this is an illusion to death. He says that only rarely can a couple travel across together, and to do so they must prove their love through their most cherished memories. Beatrice leaves the ruins upset.

What chance do we have, Axl, the way we are now? If someone like that asked of us our most treasured memories? Axl, I’m so afraid. (Chapter 2).

This indicates one perspective, that memory is necessary to love. If memories are what unite people in relationships, than perhaps it is not a far stretch to say that “national memories” are what unite and bring a country together.

In Comparison to Axl and Beatrice in “The Buried Giant”, Gawain is introduced with a strong side of identity. This identity shapes his actions and choices.

I am Gawain, right enough, nephew of the great Arthur who once rules these lands which such wisdom and justice (Chapter 5). 

Gawain seems unaffected by the mist, and as such, his memory is intact. In this statement it is clear that his identity gives him a sense of pride and perhaps purpose. As he has been assigned to kill Querig by his king. This identity is based on memory though, memory of his role as a “Knight of Arthur”. Furthermore, the characterizations of “Athrur’s Knights” are based on legends and stories passed down, through memory. These memories and legends dictating what the qualities of one of Arthur’s Knights should be. Gawain identifies as one of these Knight and behaves accordingly. When approached by a solider knight to aide in a fight against Master Wistan, he says,

Sir let me remind you, I’m a knight of Arthur, no foot soilder of your Lord Brennus. I don’t take up arms against strangers on rumor of their foreign blood (Chapter 5).

Identity, national, or otherwise can place a sense of duty on us. Gawain exemplifies this in the prior quote.

National memory is significant to Britain. It and provides a British identity to it’s people and unites the country through the collective legends and tale. History defines British people as separate from the Romans, the Saxon, and everyone else, they are there own people with their own heroes. To be British is to be brought up on the legends of of these old world knights, like Arthur. Wether these memories are factual or not is irrelevant. What is important is that Britain’s history, told through the myths and legends of Arthur, or through factual accounts of anglo-saxon relationships and roman conquest provides British people with a common identity. This identity install individuals with a since of duty to the ideals of their country, these ideals are created through history and myth.  

To Be British is to feel unified through the collective memories of the country, or maybe to grow up heroizing Arthur and his ideas of chivalry. Or Perhaps it is just to drink too much tea. 

(retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xZZpE7svu8)

Source:

Kazuo Ishiguro, The Buried Giant

[pd-west-blog]

Blog 3: Arthur As King

I would like Arthur as a King. However, I feel as though I am unduly biased towards him because he serves as the protagonist in the tale. He is the epitome of a tragic character. His life’s work falls apart before him as his story comes to a close. He gave up the people he loved the most to protect his ideal of justice, and then watched as his attempt to create a just world come crashing down. However, despite his tragic ending, Arthur is admirable. Arthur in almost every instance put his country’s needs above his own, ruled with immense patience, and ultimately had the balls to realize where his downfalls were. I believe these characteristics made him a great king. 

Arthur’s life’s work was his country. In the second two books of “The sword and the Stone” we rarely hear about Arthur’s personal life. Instead the story is told through the stories of his subjects. The feelings and emotions of others are represented more than Arthur’s own. When the story speaks from Arthur’s perspective it is almost solely about his thoughts on his country and his knights. This creates the impression that above all he is a king for his people. Arthur, though human, avoids intertwining himself in personal affairs. This is seen in his choice to be ignorant of Lancelot and the queen’s affair. Whether or not he is offended by the affair is unclear, but it is irrelevant to the future of his country (until the ending of the story), and as such he does not involve himself in it. Perhaps he sees that Lancelot is a great commander and his queen is a good queen, as such, disgracing them would be neglectful to the prosperity of his country. As a leader this dis-involvement with personal affairs is a great attribute, though it may be detrimental to his own happiness. But personal and professional almost always have a way of conflicting, and a King who can always make a choice for his country rather than himself is probably a better king. At the end of the tale, despite his efforts to prevent this course of action, he is forced to sacrifices his friend, Lancelot, and his wife, Guinevere. He does this as it is required to preserve the justice he created. This shows that he puts his duties as king above all else.

An excerpt from Myth and National Identity in Nineteenth-Century Britain: The Legends of King Arthur and Robin Hood by Stephanie Barczewski describes King Arthur as he is in The poem “King Arthur” by Edward Bulwer Lytton written in 1849. In this poem Arthur is given three visions and asked to choose between them. Ultimately he choose one in which he is dead in a battle field, but Queen Victoria reigns over England. 

Mild, like all strength sits Crowned Liberty,

Wearing the aspects of a Youthful Queen: 

and far outstretch’d ‘long the unmeasured sea

Rest the vast shadow of her throne; serene

From the dumb icebergs to the fiery zone

Rest the vast shadow of that Guardian throne

Arthur, in this poem, is dedicated to a better future, and is willing to give his life for that. He has a cause greater than himself and that allows him to be a selfless and great leader. 

Arthur is extremely patient. He is never hasty in his decisions, and is devoted to understanding and empathizing with his people, even when they are opposing him. This characteristic, when he takes it too far with Mordred, ultimately leads to his downfall.  Arthur entrusts his Kingdom to Mordred, his bastard son, refusing to see the evil in him. He is betrayed. When the Queen speaks to Mordred asking him to have mercy she says “He was saying how he (Arthur) loved you only a day or two before this misery began”(T.H. White). Mordred, however, appears to hate him. This exemplifies Arthur’s desire to see the good in people despite the challenge of it and the patience he employs to do this. Arthur when speaking to his knights acts as a senior advisor, but is empathetic to their situations.

“Aglovale, you have every right to try for revenge against the Orkneys, and I will not stop you if you if you do try. But I want you to know what you are doing…The Orkneys killed your father and brother. Now you are going to kill some Orkneys, and Gawaine and his sons will kill your sons(T.H. White)”.

This conversation, similar to many others that Arthur engages in, it is representative of his patience and his desire for reason. He is not tyrannical. He appeals to people logically, and gives his reason for how he should like things to be done. This not only allows for his subjects to have a voice, but allows him to engage with his subjects and understand why the are acting as they are. This mutual understanding is crucial to a well run kingdom.

Arthur realizes his flaws. It may have been to late for him, his life may have ended tragically. However, in the end he was devoted to figuring out what when wrong, and changing it.  Arthur when speaking to Lancelot towards the end of book three of the “The Sword in the Stone” says this:

“When I started the Table, it was to stop anarchy. It was a channel for brute force, so that the people who had to use force could be made to do so in a useful way…It was a mistake because the table itself was founded on force. Right must be established by right (T.H. White)”.

Arthur is a critical thinker in his speech. He is able a willing to see what is wrong, even if it is by his own hand. Furthermore he is dedicated to fixing it. This is seen in the final stage of the story when he asks his page, Tom Newbold, not to fight in what he assumes will be his last battle.

“This page was called young Tom of Newbold Revell near Warwick, and the old king set him off before the battle, upon pain of dire disgrace. You see, the King wanted there to be be somebody left, who would remember their famous idea. He wanted badly that Tom should go back to Newbold Revell, where he could grow into an old man and live his life in peace—and he wanted him to tell everybody who would listen about his accent idea, which both of them had once thought was a good idea(T. H. White).”

This is indicative of his desire for the world to be better. Even though he has failed, he admits to it with the desire that the future can learn from the mistakes of the past. He is a ruler devoted above all to the success of humanity. Arthur, with the respectively described characteristics, is a king that I would be happy to see in power.

(retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3LpQfMXmeg.)

--Although not all depictions of Arthur are the same. I found this to be quite funny and depict Arthur quite the opposite as he was depicted within “The Sword and the Stone”. Here he is a bit of a brute and yelling at his subjects to be quiet. It would be safer to say that who Arthur was is up to the author describing him and their agenda. I would like the Arthur of “The Sword and the Stone”, but I would not like the Arthur in this video as a king. 

Source: 

White, T.H. (2011) The Once and Future King. New York: Penguin Group (USA)

[pd-west-blog]

Blog 2:

How has the concept of knighthood been complicated by the various characters we've come to know in the text? Why is it important that this concept is represented as complicated?

In “The Sword in the Stone” by T.H. White Knights represent the sovereign. They ultimately have the ability to dispose of peasants who disagree with them, and provide protection for those they like. In this story there are two ideas of knighthood. The first is the found in stories and present characters such as Uther Pendragon, Pellinore, and Grummore. In contrast, there is the idea of the knighthood that King Arthur would like to create. I see Arthur’s idea’s about chivalry as representing a better fulfillment of the social contract. The social contract being the idea that people give up some of their rights to a government in order to be protected and taken care of, and that the government in return provides protection. The “old knights” represent a dysfunctional social contract, a government the acts for itself. Arthur and Merlyn’s idea is a governments of knights and nobles who act for the people.

Image retrieved from: https://secretlifeofareader.com/2016/08/08/classics-review-leviathan-by-thomas-hobbes/

Here is a link to wiki article on the Leviathan. I think it gives some ideas about social contract: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)

One representation of the “old Knights”, or the knights who act for themselves is King Pendragon. In one tale he falls in love with the Countess of Cornwall. When she spurns his advances he lays siege to the castle.

the knight might many pavilions, and there was great war made on both sides, and much people slain!” “A thousand?” suggested Garheris.” “Two thousand at least, “ said Agravaine”

This story suggests a self serving king, one who is glorified by his vengeance against a woman who spurned him. He is willing to put this personal vengeance above the welfare of those who he has fight for him. When King Uther is described to children he is glorified because he has sacrificed so many lives to further his personal cause. Merlyn is critical of this measure of glory and instead sees King Uther as careless with the lives of his people.

Look at the barns burnt, and dead men’s legs sticking out of pends, and horses with swelled bellies by the roadside, and mills falling down, and money buried, and nobody daring to walk abroad with gold or ornaments on their clothes. That is chivalry nowadays. That is Uther Pendragon touch.

This gory and hideous scene symbolizes the result of rulers who rule for themselves and not for the betterment of the people.

Pellinore is a knight that Arthur admires significantly in the early stages of the book. Pellinore also represents the “Old Knight”. Pellinore’s cause in life is to chase a questing beast.

Image retrieved from: http://cheshfire.deviantart.com/art/King-Pellinore-and-the-Questing-Beast-421356315

“It is not for us to catch her, Pellinore. It is for you After all, she is your life’s work isn’t she?” “She’s stupid,”…”What is the point in catching her?” “What?” After all, she is probably quite happy on the cliffs.”

Later when Pellinore is in a sour mood from a love affair it is suggested that since the beast is dead they should dress up as one, and then be hunted.

“The royal melancholy,” said he, “can only be dispelled by Questing Beast. This is the subject to which the maharajah sahib has been accustomed by lifelong habit…I believe the the Questin’ beast is dead. Anyway it is in Flanders.” “Then we must dress up,”said sir Palomides. “We must assume the role of Questing Beast and be hunted ourselves.”

Reading this, it strikes me that Pellinore has little purpose in life. He comes across as a bored noble man, unable to see the point in the quest that is his life’s work. Pursing a beast provides nothing for his country, it is entirely self serving. When it is suggested that they then dress about as a beast to be quested after the questing beast is killed it becomes clear they have nothing better to do than to entertain themselves. Unlike Uther they do not directly cause harm but rather neglect to do any good and instead pursue foolish quests for their own amusement.

The old knights, the ones ones we are fighting against, will be mostly too old to learn. I think we shall be able to to get them in, and keep fighting the right way, but they will be inclined to stick to the old habits, like Sir Bruce…Grummore and Pellinore will be all right, because they were always kindly in themselves.

(Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdLS1-_lf8k)

This video clip, though an the producers interpretation of the book The Sword and the Stone, show Pellinore, as a bit of a comical and foolish character. In the video he is clumsy and comical formal in his mannerism. 

Arthur in his conversations with Merlin comes up with an idea of how knights should behave that contrasts with the knights depicted in the story. These ideas will be used to redirect knights like Pellinore. 

I will try to get them into our Order. We shall have to make it fashionable and all that. Everybody must want to be in it. And then I shall make the oath of the order that Might is only to be used for  Right? Do you follow. The Knights in my order will ride all over the world, still dressed in still and whacking away with their swords—that will give an outlet for wanting to whack…but they will be bound to only stoke on behalf of what is good, to defend virgins against Sir Bruce and to restore what has been done wrong in the past.

Arthur ’s suggestion that might shouldn’t make right but can still be used for right raises the complex question of when and how force should be used if ever, and the question of what role knights should play. Kay, during one of his rides with Arthur and Merlyn, pursues the idea that there are good reasons to start wars. He suggests that if a ruler believes he can make peoples lives better by changing their way of life that force is an acceptable way to do so. Merlyn responds:

There was such a man when I was young—an Austrian who invented a new way of life and convinced himself that he was the chap to make it work. He tried to impose his reformation by the sword and plunged the world into chaos. But the thing which this fellow overlooked, my friend is that he had a predecessor in the reformation business, called Jesus Christ… Jesus did not turn disciples into storm troopers, burn down the the temple at Jerusalem, and fix the blame on Pontius Pilate. On the contrary, he made it clear that the business of the philosopher was to make ideas available, not to impose them on people.

However Merlin also aided Arthur in wining his first battles. This suggests that though he does not believe in imposing ideas through Might, that it might still be necessary. Arthur also suggests that people may be both good and bad, and a governments role maybe to facilitate the good. This is evident when he suggests giving his knights a “good” outlet for their “fox hunting desire”.

The complexity of knighthood and how it is portrayed is important, because it relates to the complexity of governance. The experience that Arthur goes through to learn how to rule, and how his ideas transform through his conversation with Merlyn indicate that there isn’t a clear answer to how one should rule and how one should use might. We still grapple with this today. The US struggles with what makes a reasonable case for war, when wars should end, and if they are necessary.

Image retrieved from:https://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/k/king_arthur.asp

Source: White, T.H. (2011) The Once and Future King. New York: Penguin Group (USA).

[pd-west-blog]

[pd-west-blog]

Blog 1:ENGL 1500

Based on what you've read so far, how does White depict an ideal king of Britain? Why might this be important in considering British rulers in the early 20th century?

In the legends of Arthur and the knights of the round table, Arthur seems to be idolized as an perfect ruler. In “The once and Future King” By T.H. White, the relationship between Arthur and his foster brother Kay is used to compare their traits, and highlight characteristics within Arthur such as loyalty, courage, and an innate sense of justice and equality. Towards the beginning of the book Wart (later know as Arthur) and his foster brother Kay take Cully, a hawk, out to go hawking. Kay is the legitimate son of Sir Ector and Author is an adopted child. As such Kay is leading the adventure. It appears that Kay decided to take the hawk out, despite it being in a condition where it was unsuitable to be flown. Respectively they lose the bird when they head out into the woods. During the following search for Cully a dispute breaks out between the boys.

“Kay lost his temper. ‘Let him go, then,” he said. ‘He is no use to anyway.’ ‘Oh, we  could not leave him,’ cried the Wart. ‘What would Hob say?’ ‘It is my hawk, not Hob’s,’ exclaimed kay furiously. ‘What does it matter what Hob says? He is a servant.’ ‘But Hob made Cully. It is all right for us to lose him, because we did not have to sit up with him three nights and carry him all day and all that. but we can’t lose Hob’s hawk. It would be beastly.’(White)”

Following this dispute, the Wart stays out in the woods throughout the night to find Cully and Kay return to the castle. This argument highlights Arthur’s sense of loyalty and respect for people, including those of a lower social standing. The Wart is defensive of Hob’s work towards training Cully, and aware of their “moral” responsibility to return Cully. He displays this by acknowledging Hob’s work, “Hob made Cully”  and stating their obligation to return him. “We can’t lose Hob’s hawk. It would be beastly”. This is compared to Kay’s reaction. Kay is dismissive of both his responsibility to returning the hawk, and dismissive of Hob, and Hob’s devotion towards the bird. Kay justifies the situation by saying “It is my hawk, not Hob’s…What does it matter what Hob says? He is just a servant”. This indicates that Kay has little respect for Hob because he is of a lower social class. This statement also displays a lack of empathy. He is unable to, or does not want to put himself in Hob’s shoes and recognize the importance of Cully to Hob. This comparison highlights Arthur as being courteous and respectful, empathizing with the lives of others. Furthermore Arthur choosing to stay, and Kay choosing to leave displays both courage and devotion on the side of Arthur. Preceding another adventure the boy’s take, Kay is upset that Arthur has been receiving more attention from Merlin their tutor. Kay wakes up Arthur to ask where he had been. Arthur had spent the night with the hawks as part of his lessons with Merlin. When Arthur refuses to tell Kay where he had been Kay starts a fight by pinching Arthur. Afterward Arthur goes to speak to Merlin.

“‘Well, Kay thinks it is unfair it is unfair that you are always turning me into things and not him. I have not told him about it but I think he guesses. I think it is unfair too.’ ‘It is unfair.’ ‘So will you turn us both next time that we are turned?’ (White)”

Merlin is initially disagreeable, but Arthur persist until Merlin devise an adventure in which Kay could accompany Arthur. This scene displays Arthur’s insistence on equality and his unwavering loyalty towards this brother, despite their quarrel prior to his conversation with Merlin. These characteristics are again contrasted with unfavorable characteristic’s in Kay, mainly in this scene, jealously. T. H. white, assuming Arthur is representative of an ideal monarch, emphasizes the characteristics of a ideal ruler to be a ruler who is able to listen to and respect his people, and one who rules with a sense of justice and equality. The comparison between Kay and Arthur is an effective for highlighting these characteristic because it provides an example of both a potentially good and potentially bad ruler.

20th Century Implications:

T.H. White published “The Once and Future King” in 1958. WWII ran from 1939-1945, with the British declaring war on Nazi Germany in 1939. Within the text there does seem to be illusions toward the state of the world when the book was written. Merlin is described to live backward in time. Throughout the text he references modern times. At one point he describes “An Austrian who plunged the world into chaos  (White)”. Another reference to current times could perceived to be when Arthur visits/spends time as an ant. The world of the ants is depicted as an almost communist society. The worker ants compulsively follow direction’s from their queen without thought. Furthermore Arthur complains that their language doesn’t even allow him to ask the ant if they like or agree with their situation. This is reminiscent of a dictatorship, perhaps even that of Nazi Germany.   I wonder if the characteristics that make Arthur good, his strong moral compass, empathy, and loyalty are a reaction to the lack of these qualities in the leadership of Nazi Germany?

Source: White, T.H. (2011) The Once and Future King. New York: Penguin Group (USA).