Damn Lancelot :/

"Father, I pray that my sorrow is not displeasing to God. But when I recalled the peerless grace and beauty of the Queen, and the great joy with which we all beheld her and the King at the court, my heart began to fail me. Then, seeing them together in the tomb, I fully understood for the first time how I had betrayed them and brought each ot his death through my selfish love and pride; and so it is I feel that my spirit can no longer sustain my body" (Malory)

I am so frustrated with Lancelot. This moment is the FIRST TIME he noticed that he fucked everything up?? Also, they paint his death like this beautiful thing because he ultimately went to Heaven (?)

, pssht, BS. He literally lied so much about what he and the Queen were doing, and despite the fact that he tried to be honorable throughout this whole story, he and the Queen are still the reasons for all of the death and demise. Arthur died for such a stupid reason. I am so annoyed. 

Manuscripts

I found it interesting how manuscripts are made from animal skins. The steps to creating a manuscript is elegant and time consuming, from the quill pen to the book itself. When I watched the video, I was slightly amazed at all the effort involved. I thought the manuscript would have been made from paper. Everything used is organic. Some skill is also required. Steady hands are a necessity in creating a manuscript. I imagine that they were very expensive to obtain. Geoffrey wrote a manuscript that does not have credible sources. Was the book written for history purposes or entertainment? Geoffrey seems to idolize kings and even dramatize events that occurred during various time periods. When I read excerpts of the manuscript it seemed historical, but I am not super knowledgeable on kings of ancient times. He was merely a storyteller. The book could be classified as historical fiction.  

                                                        An Example of a Manuscript

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&id=1A2D5F84209AA0E74505283EB

39D12EE29B2FAE7&thid=OIP.MpaIzYJbDl0CUKVA4XPSkQHaFj&mediaurl

=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.christies.com%2Fimg%2FLotImages%2F2014%2FCKS%2F2014_

CKS_01568_0005_004.jpg&exph=2400&expw=3200&q=geoffrey+manuscript+

book&selectedindex=66&ajaxhist=0&vt=0

God and Arthur

One of the quotes I found most interesting in Arthur in Geoffrey of Monmouth was on page 61 where Merlin is asked to explain the meaning of a star that had just appeared. He proclaimed "The glorious king of the Britons is dead, Aurelius Ambrosius, by whose death we shall all die, unless God brings help."

This really made me wonder what role God and religion played in Arthurian times, and how it weaved its way into Geoffrey of Monmouth's literature. Perhaps he thought that there must be theology, or no one would believe him. After all, aren't we all still asking whether or not King Arthur was "real?"

Merlin from giphy.com

Mr. Perfect~

Arthur is the perfect character. And by perfect, I mean he has no real flaws. He's too perfect, if you ask me. He literally becomes King because everybody likes him (p.64). This begs the question, then, why do we continue to read stories based around King Arthur if his character appears to lack depth? What about his story is so interesting, that humans continue to rewrite and rewrite and then rewrite it some more? I, of course, don't know the answer to this, but I do have a few thoughts.

First and foremost, the stories tends to follow the hero's journey, which we discussed in a previous class. For whatever reason, human society loves the rewatch, time and time again, stories that follow this specific formula. Perhaps it brings us some element of comfort--we know what is going to happen, to a point of course, and that is comforting to us.

Second, perhaps it's because Arthur is the "ideal" character. I personally don't think he is, because I don't think a character can be ideal if they have no flaws, but my opinion is not the only one out there. Maybe people use him as a source of inspiration. Inspiration for what, I'm not entirely sure, but I guarantee there are people out there who look at him as an idol of sorts.

Geoffrey of Monmouth has his finger on the pulse...of his patrons?

In "The Conquest of the Past in The History of the Kings of Britain," Michael Faltera critiques Michelle Warren for under underemphasizing "the extent to which patronage shapes ideology" (127). Put perhaps more crudely, his point is that there's a straight line between money and content (something we're all well aware of). This seems to further problematize the idea of truly original content - even people who eschew financial support for their artistic endeavors are doing so in the framework of commodifying artistic expression in general. Is it possible that we occasionally mistake creativity (or originality) for cleverness (being nimble in a specific framework, but still limited in expression)? Or are they the same thing?

Classic Arthur

Image sourced from slideshare.net 

As this is my second time reading Loomis's Arthur Geoffrey of Monmouth, I found it interesting that this quote stood out to me in each reading: "No wonder-- Arthur's generosity, famous throughout the world, had attracted everyone by his love" (72).

Hardly Believable

         I find this chapter to be quite amusing but at the same time frustrating. This is an iconic piece of history pertaining to our knowledge of the 'magnificent' King Arthur, but with that being said, was anyone actually believing anything Geoffrey said? So many aspects of this tale are so painfully unrealistic and some downright impossible to believe to the point where it cannot be ignored.  For example, the constant supply of thousands of men for Arthur's battles seems endless. The mention of fantastical beast and events like giants and shapeshifting is also unreal. And, of course, the great detail with which Geoffrey describes each event also make me suspicious: “Arthur unsheathed his sword, too, and was hurrying to kill him, when Frollo stood up quickly and, with his lance straight before him, ran at Arthur” (Geoffrey 70).
         Also, Arthur seems way too good to be true; he is great at battle, compassionate, forgiving, competent, and every other great quality under the sun. Maybe I'm being cynical, but I doubt anyone like this existed.
         I think that it is clear that most of this probably didn't happen like Geoffrey said it did, or maybe didn't even happen at all. If this is is the case, why did it stick? Why are these stereotypes still used to depict Arthur, and why are we even still depicting him at all?

They really loved blood

"Blood and guts": from Rochefoucauld Grail manuscript

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328819/The-Rochefoucauld-Grail-Sothebys-auction-14th-century-King-Arthur-text.html

After reading about the process of making a manuscript, I couldn’t stop thinking about the sheer amount of effort put into making this version of King Arthur exist in physical form. It makes sense that monks would have created manuscripts of their religious text and doctrine because they had devoted their entire lives to those teachings. Geoffrey of Monmouth, on the other hand, put a lot of time and energy into producing a standardized version of historical folklore. And people liked it enough to make hundreds of copies! That process surely took more hours than Star Wars: Uncut. The fact that this was a story that people were willing to put so much work into tells us a lot about the culture at that time in terms of what they wanted to read about (those that could read and would have access to the manuscript, of course). More than anything, it highlights that they rewarded military accomplishments, other-ed their enemies (“those half-men, mere weaklings compared to you” [84]), and, overall, were fond of outfitting themselves as conquerors.

Enduring, for Better or Worse

Jaleel White as a talking mutant chicken with an axe for a beak? Some elements are better to forget.

I can think of few stories as persistent as King Arthur and his knights. In a way, it is the perfect example of how popular culture engages with and alters a story a over time. One need only look at how many different adaptations and interpretations there have been between the work of Geoffrey of Monmouth and the modern day. There are so many adaptations of the basic stories that it's impossible to name them all, and then there are all the twists: sequels where Arthur awakens from his death-sleep in the modern world, Avalon High in which the characters are all teenage reincarnations of Arthur and his court, prequels about the life and adventures of Merlin, anime/manga that include on... uniquely altered versions of Arthur and Merlin, numerous films ranging from the hilarious Monty Python and the Holy Grail and the quasi-historical 2004 film based on the "Arthur as Roman commander" element to the 1998 animated film Quest for Camelot which gave us the abomination shown above.

For better or for worse, some stories loom large in popular culture long after their initial impact. They endure because people keep finding new ways to make that story hold meaning they can identify with and make it their own.

Nationalist Value

From the Conquest of the Past in The History of Great Britain  by Michael Faletra.

Page 123- "This model would see Geoffrey as a compiler, providing access to native Welsh traditions to larger audiences; it is not difficult to see this editor-Geoffrey as preserving the nativist bias of his source materials, and thus to see the historian as fitting easily within a pro-Welsh (and essentially anti-Norman) camp"

Page 124- "If we accept the implications of Neil Wright’s arguments that Geoffrey significantly manipulates all the source materials we can identify, it becomes easier to see Geoffrey as a true compositeur: he is by and large fabricating the past that he is narrating. Indeed, it is still very much an open question how much of The History is completely the product of Geoffrey’s imagination; at the very least, it seems he probably patched together a variety of Welsh, Breton, and Latin sources, organizing them as it suited his purposes and filling in the gaps with fabricated details when necessary"

Falerta and Loomis texts establish Geoffrey's historical shortcuts in his work very well. However what is the value in viewing his work as a critical piece of British folklore that helps create a sense of nationalism with a shared "history?"

King Arthur - Religious and Mythical Parallels

Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britannie draws several parallels between King Arthur and Jesus Christ, from his "natural goodness" (64) to his downfall being set into action by someone close to him (86).  An important difference, however comes though Arthur's origin.  In stark contrast to Christ's immaculate conception, Arthur is conceived through through deception, disguise, and a serious lack of consent (63). Is this "dark spot" on Arthur's history necessary for him to be seen as a powerful ruler instead of a peaceful savior? Is this a parallel to Hercules' conception, which involves Zeus disguising himself as Alcmene's husband?

Differences in Interpretations of the King Arthur Myth

As I was reading Geoffrey of Monmouth's portrayal of Arthur, I could not help but wonder how and why the legend of King Arthur was spread and how is this different from the myth that we know today?  According to the introduction given before the excerpts from Geoffrey of Monmouth's work, this was the first point in Medieval History that King Arthur was mentioned.  In books I have read and in movies, I have always seen King Arthur as this great and noble king that is guided my Merlin the Sorcerer and the knights of the round table.  Geoffrey's account of Arthur shows him to be somewhat self centered and war hungry; he is always going into battle to conquer distant lands motivated by his own interests and religious fervor.

Image Source-https://arthurian.home.blog/tag/quest-for-camelot/

Image Source-https://boingboing.net/2020/01/18/brawny-disneyland-guest-remove.html

Was Jeffrey of Monmouth a welsh nationalist?

Was Jeffrey of Monmouth a welsh nationalist? If Jeffrey intended his history of the British realm to be subversive then yes if he intended it simply to be a salute to the bank on rule of the Saxons then no. The welsh almost uniquely among the Saxons we’re never comfortable with the Norman conquest and the odd language they spoke at court and the customs they imported from France. The story Of King Arthur can therefore be understood as a Clarion call for the remembrance and revival of the Saxon era with its customs politics and social organization. The political situation wheels today is unique in that whales is not a self-governing Dominion it is a constituent part of the United Kingdom that can legislate for it self only in specific areas the Welsh Parliament only exists because Westminster allows it to exist same thing applies with The Scottish Parliament Wales and Scotland our nations within a larger nation it lacks  ability to fully and completely govern themselves they enjoyed autonomy in so much as the central node allows them to enjoy it.
When we examine the spread of Jeffrey of months seminal work the amount of readership that it was able to collect along with the number of copies distributed was remarkable for its time. It had a rich and influence in its own time across Europe that could only be eclipsed by the holy Bible. And it would not be seen again until the printing press centuries later.

Truth only matters when it fits our schema!

I came across this quote from Norris J. Lacy, author of The New Arthurian Encyclopedia. He states, "The popular notion of Arthur appears to be limited, not surprisingly, to a few motifs and names, but there can be no doubt of the extent to which a legend born many centuries ago is profoundly embedded in modern culture at every level."  As I begin to approach this legend for the first time in my life, it does make me wonder, why?  What do we still find approachable and relevant in the name King Arthur to our culture?  Why do we allow this relatively made-up story still affect our culture and beliefs?  Why does flour have to be blessed by King Arthur to make really good cookies?