41
Richards
An Unhappy Knight:
The Diffusion and Bastardization of Mordred in Arthurian Legends
from Select Works of the Sixth through the Fifteenth Centuries
by
Emerson Storm Fillman Richards
University of Florida
Center for Medieval and Early Modern Studies
Department of English
Department of Geography
16 June, 2010
Table of Contents:
I. Introduction to Thesis2
II. Geographical Diffusion6
i. Geographic Effect on Interpretation of Arthurian
Literature15
III. Temporal Diffusion18
i. Historia Regum Britanniae, A Starting Point20
ii. Diffusion between Geoffrey of Monmouth & Gervase of
Tilbury22
iii. Otia imperialia24
IV. Conclusion: Redemption of Mordred27
Appendix31
Bibliography34
I. Introduction To Thesis
Every nation has endemic legends, yet some “endemic” legends are
paradoxically transnational; one such multinational “endemic” story
is the set of legends forming the narrative of King Arthur and his
knights of the Round Table. Despite a specific hearth in Wales,
Arthurian legend has permeated European literature and culture. In
order to further the understanding of the evolution of a medieval
narrative tradition, specifically the Arthurian legend and the
significance of the character Mordred to this series of legends,
scholars must locate the different concerns, values and interests
of the peoples that created the literature. The geographical
movements, reasons for movement and subsequent locations of the
authors, or performers, of Arthurian legend (as well as, any
written and orally transmitted cultural artifact) are not only of
interest, but necessary, to a complete scholarly understanding of
the different Arthurian works and the contemporaneous time periods
in which they were created. By studying cultural diffusion, the
movement of peoples and, therefore, ideas, which are influenced, in
part by spatial or situational factors, the often compounded and
complex reasons for such moves can be detected. Furthermore,
identifying what was culturally significant enough to be
transported indicates much about the culture itself. Each
adaptation due to geographic transmutation has shaped the
development of the respective narrative tradition.
From the earliest incarnations of Arthurian legend, the figure
of Mordred is a constant. Mordred’s constancy and the consistency
of his action in the set of Arthurian legends will be further
expanded upon in later sections of this paper. His character has
been carried from Wales, where he occurs initially and ambiguously,
in the Annales Cambriae[footnoteRef:-1], into the national
literatures of Italy, Germany and France, and even as far afield as
Spain[footnoteRef:0], and Belarus[footnoteRef:1] by the sixteenth
century. Thus, despite the frequent characterization of Arthurian
legend as particularly English (especially by English authors),
Arthurian legend is more accurately pan-European. [-1: Written in
970, documenting the era from 447 to 533.] [0: See: Entwhistle,
William J. The Arthurian Legend in the Literatures of the Spanish
Peninsula. New York: Phaeton Press, 1975. ] [1: See: The
Byelorussian Tristan. trans. Kipel, Zora. New York: Garland
Publishing, 1988.]
First, I will briefly introduce Arthurian legend, focusing on
the importance of, or on the significant lack of, Mordred. Next, I
will trace the geographic diffusion of Arthurian legend. The
exposition of geographic effects on literature will be facilitated
through the texts of the English author Thomas Malory’s Le Morte
D’arthur and the Scottish author of Otia imperialia, John of
Fordun. I will then explain how the geographical source of the text
influences the portrayal of Mordred.
Once Arthurian legend had been established, and diffused
throughout Europe, the authors began to use this well-known set of
characters, such as Lancelot, Guinevere, Mordred and, of course,
Arthur, in a propagandistic way. A comparison between the works of
nearly contemporaneous authors, Thomas Malory and John of Fordun,
who were writing within a century of each other, shows the way in
which Mordred was elevated from a mythological figure to an
allegory for Lancastrian and Yorkist politics. Additionally, this
comparison highlights the omnipresent conflict between England and
Scotland. The English Malory’s Le Morte D’arthur, vilifies Mordred,
whereas the Scottish Fordun’s Chronica gentis scottorum suggests
that Mordred and his half-brother, Gawain, were robbed of the
throne by Arthur.
Once the importance of geographical diffusion has been
established, I will subsequently trace the temporal diffusion of
Arthurian legend using the works of Geoffrey of Monmouth and
Gervase of Tilbury, both of whom make reference to Avalon and
Mordred within a century[footnoteRef:2] of each other. These
references are varied both in content and spatial distribution.
They are significant in determining the flow of diffusion and
social importance of Mordred. The way in which Arthurian legend,
and Mordred, spread and became culturally significant to the
multiple “histories” which help form national identities is salient
to the understanding of the whole of medieval society. [2: Monmouth
composed in the early middle twelfth century; Tilbury’s third book
of Otia Imperialia can be dated to the early thirteenth century.
]
This thesis, therefore, will consider, broadly, the diffusion of
Arthurian legend from the fifth century through the fifteenth
century, with particular focus on the figure of Mordred on which
the legend is largely based. The later importance of the effect of
literary diffusion will be demonstrated through a comparison of the
use of Mordred as a politically allegorical figure in Thomas
Malory’s Le Morte D’arthur and John of Fordun’s Chronica gentis
scottorum. These texts, though composed contemporaneously, and on
the same island, present Mordred in vastly different capacities.
Malory’s Mordred is villainous, whereas John of Fordun’s Mordred is
a heroic representation.
As an example of the way in which literature was diffused in the
High Middle Ages, I will propose a connection between Wales and
Italy during the Holy Roman Empire and, therefore, the rest of the
Continent, via Welsh poet and scholar in the court of Barbarossa,
Gervase of Tilbury. Gervase’ travels from Wales to Italy seem to
correspond with the emergence of a Continental Arthurian tradition
in the twelfth century. While it is impossible to claim Gervase as
the sole carrier of Arthurian legend at this time, it is likely
that this poet is responsible for some of the diffusion from the
British Isles to Europe.
The diffusion of Arthurian legend, as it will be shown, is more
than a simple spreading of ideas or books, but rather, it is the
transformative process. While I will continue to use the term
“diffusion”, it must be asserted that diffusion is too simple a of
term. Generally, “diffusion” refers to the geographic spread of an
idea or material. When applying the term to Arthurian legend, or
any literature, the geographic spread, as well as the effects, must
be considered. The transmutation of the figures must be addressed.
Arthurian legend is far from static, indicating that the geographic
influence is significant.
I. i. Introduction to the Arthurian Legend
The plethora of books presenting tales of Arthur and critical
literature on the tales shows that there is no simple, definitive
set of events that comprises the legend. Even the most relatively
static cycles, such as the Lancelot-Guinevere-Arthur cycle and the
Grail cycle have been changed by temporal and spatial
factors[footnoteRef:3]. [3: According to V. Propp’s Morphology of
the Folktale, folktales, like Arthurian legend, have a set
archetypal series of events. Certain events may or may not be
present in a specific tale, but they always occur in the same
order.]
Mordred was first mentioned in the Annales Cambriae. The passage
for the year 537 reads “Gueith Camlann, un qua Arthur et
Medraut[footnoteRef:4] corruere[footnoteRef:5]...”(“Annales
Cambriae” 4). Despite the early dates appearing in the Annales
Cambriae, their actual date of composition is almost 300 years
later, circa 954. The earliest that Arthur appears in a composition
that is not a chronicle is in a Welsh poem, the “Goddodin” written
circa 600. However, this is a cursory reference. The first
significant mention of Arthur as a historical figure occurs in
Historia Brittonum composed in 830 by Nennius, a Welsh priest.
According to Nennius’ Historia Brittonum, Arthur fought against the
Saxon invasion, where he “himself was the military commander ["dux
bellorum"]” (Chapter 56) and won twelve battles, including the
Battle of Badon Hill. It is not until 1138 that Arthur becomes King
Arthur and has a greater presence in Historia Regum
Brittaniae[footnoteRef:6]. In Geoffrey of Monmouth’s history, the
basis for many of the later versions of the Arthurian cycles
emerges, including the character of Mordred. [4: Though the
character of Mordred is a relatively static figure, insofar as
Arthurian literature allows figures to be, the spelling of his name
changes quite a bit throughout time and space. As shown by the
excerpt of Annales Cambriae, the original spelling is “Medraut”,
which became Medrod and Modred, and finally stabilized at the
commonly recognized “Mordred”. This philological transformation is
largely based on the author’s lingual capacities, oral and aural.
However, certainly, the mutations of Mordred’s name merit a more in
depth analysis. ] [5: Trans. Latin: “At the battle of Camlann,
Arthur and Mordred fell”.] [6: Henceforth referred to as
“HRB”.]
In the twelfth century, Arthur and his knights shift from being
historical figures to characters in the Romances. This change
occurs not only in the literature, but is present in
society[footnoteRef:7]. The High Middle Ages is the age of
chivalry. During the time, focus often is given to other Knights of
the Round Table. Chretien de Troyes, whose primary focus is on the
knights Perceval, Yvain, Erec, and Lancelot[footnoteRef:8], is
absolutely seminal to the future of Arthurian legend. It is de
Troyes’ unfinished Perceval that Wolfram von Eschenbach uses as a
basis for Parzival (ca. 1205). [7: During the twelfth century,
Norse-influenced narratives, such as Beowulf (author unknown,
composed circa 1000) were being replaced by French Romances, such
as those of Chrétien de Troyes. While Beowulf was composed on the
British Island, and Chrétien is a distinctly French writer, it is
the style of the Romance as opposed to the Norse Saga, which will
carry on through the Middle Ages. The Romance ceases to be merely a
form of entertainment and becomes a code according to which
Chivalric Orders are constructed. ] [8: Chrétien’s writings are the
first time that Lancelot appears in the Romances.]
In the thirteenth century, Arthurian legend undergoes a
transformation from poetry into a prose style, the best-known
example of which is the Vulgate Cycle[footnoteRef:9]. This cycle
consists of three books. Prose Lancelot is based on the French
Chretien de Troyes’ “Chevalier de la Charette”. Queste Del Saint
Graal is based on “Roman de L’estoire Del Graal” by Robert de
Boron, who was also French. The final book, Mort du Roi Artu, is
based on the histories by Wace and Geoffrey of Monmouth, who were
Anglo-Norman and Welsh authors respectively. After the fifteenth
century, Thomas Malory’s Le Morte D’arthur usurped the Vulgate
Cycle as the most well-known, and arguably most definitive, version
of Arthuriana. The Malorian representation of Mordred is thus the
best-known and imitated. [9: See: Lacy, Norris J. ed.
Lancelot-Grail: the Old French Arthurian Vulgate and post-Vulgate
in translation. 5 vols. New York: Garland Publishing, 1993-1996.
Print.]
II. Geographical Diffusion
Le Morte D’Arthur was written by Sir Thomas Malory during his
interim in jail at the waning of the knightly era. Like many
medieval texts, there are several versions; yet “[u]ntil 1934, the
edition printed by William Caxon in 1485 was considered the
earliest text of Le Morte d’Arthur…”; however, the Winchester
Manuscript, displayed in 1934, “bore a composition date of 1469”
(Bryan vii). Since by 1469, the introduction of gun powder in
European warfare techniques, which were increasingly modern, and
certainly since the Bubonic Plague had, in the mid-fourteenth
century, decimated a good portion of men eligible for knighthood,
the horse-based culture of the chevalier was rapidly becoming
obsolete. Therefore, this period of progression away from the
medieval period may seem a strange time for Malory to choose to
revive the archaic, chivalric tales of King Arthur and his Knights
of the Round Table. The Battle of Crecy in the Hundred Years War,
in 1346, is considered to be the beginning of the end of the
chivalric era (Amtower & Vanhoutte 16). Malory was writing at
the end of an era transitioning out of the Middle Ages. Shortly
after Malory’s glorification of English knighthood, Miguel de
Cervantes would write Don Quijote, a satire of chivalry. However, a
closer inspection of this liminal era, shows that it was during
this time that England needed this seemingly nationalistic tale of
a brave, native king defending England from an alien force, a vile,
incestuous Northern usurper named Mordred.
The translation of Mordred from an ambivalent name on a list to
a villain to a nationalistic hero-figure exemplifies the directions
and evolutions of the Mordred story that are visible in the
diffusion of the “matière de Bretagne,[footnoteRef:10]” from its
point of origin in Wales to other parts of Britain. There is a
broad diffusion of the Arthurian narrative materials throughout
Europe in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. References to
Mordred can be seen in the literature of many other countries.
France and Germany are the most significant points of the early
diffusion[footnoteRef:11]. [10: This is a body of contiential
Celtic literature pertaining to Arthur that later influences the
French romances. See: Barber, Richard. King Arthur in Legend and
History. Ipswich: The Boydell Press, 1974. See also: Snyder,
Christopher. The World of King Arthur. London: Thames and Hudson,
Ltd., 2000. ] [11: For example, the twelfth century romances by
Chretien de Troyes and Wolfram Von Eschenbach. For examples, see:
de Troyes, Chretien. The Complete Romances of Chretien de Troyes.
trans. & intro. David Staines. Bloomington & Indianapolis:
Indiana UP, 1990. von Eschenbach, Wolfram. Parzival. trans. Hatto,
A.T. London: Penguin Books, 1980. ]
From fragments to epic poems, Arthurian references are scattered
throughout Europe. Arthur, king or merely leader, was born in
Britain and fought there, giving the British a seemingly inherent
claim to him, and an exclusion from other European nations. Why,
then, would France or Germany show interest in a potentially
mythical king of a land with which they had a rivalry? The interest
of France and Germany in this English king is parallel to the
Italian interest in Frederick I, the German-born emperor of the
Holy Roman Empire and the German interest in his Sicilian-born
grandson, Frederick II. These men, Arthur and the Fredericks, are
national figures, but their importance in the history of Europe as
a whole is undeniable.
The German and French authors of Arthurian legend have, by the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, influenced the supposedly
English legend insurmountably. For example, the English Sanzaic
Morte of the fifteenth century encapsulates several themes found in
the Vulgate Cycle of the thirteenth century; “it is a brilliant
condensation of the French prose romance (La Mort Artu)” (Benson
and Foster). The German author, Wolfram von Eschenbach found his
source in the French Chretien de Troyes, and expanded upon the
narrative of Perceval (or Parzival, depending on the nationality).
What is more, Chretien de Troyes was the first author to write of
Lancelot in the Romantic tradiation. Since Lancelot becomes a
seminal character in English Arthurian romance, acknowledgement
must be given to this French author. While the German influence is
not as obvious, several books of Le Morte D’arthur “declare plainly
that ‘Sir Thomas Malleorré, Knyght’ drew these tales out of the
French” (Bryan viii). Furthermore, not only do Scotland and Wales
lay claim to Arthurian legend, but, the Welsh abbots were also the
first to transcribe the legend[footnoteRef:12]. Thus, Malory was
using a “barbaric[footnoteRef:13]” legend, knowingly or otherwise,
as pro-English[footnoteRef:14] propaganda against the nations
supported by the French kingdom, such France proper and Scotland.
Claim to Arthur is laid in the fifth chapter of Malory’s text
wherein Arthur “pull[ed] out this sword of this stone and anvil,
[he was] rightwise king born of England” (Malory 10). This is not
to present an argument that Arthur is not intrinsically an English
king, as a historical figure; however, English authors have
portrayed Arthur from an overly nationalistic perspective since
Arthur was given mystical custodianship over England and thus
promised to return as the once and future king. This gesture often
negates the trans-European nature of the Arthurian legend. By the
time Malory was writing his adaptation, the narrative had been
through many other countries’ reinterpretations. Malory often
mentions that his source is “The French Book”. Despite the obvious
schism between France and England caused by the Hundred Years War
in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, it can be maintained
that “a cultural exchange and admiration, surprisingly, continued…
the influence of French styles upon English literature and art
appear in the English poets’ imitation of French authors and their
genres and rhymes. ” (Amtower and Vanhoutte 17). [12: An important
medieval, verging on early modern, theory about nationalist
semiotics is featured in this xenophobia. The further outlying a
country is from the central location, usually Jerusalem, but in
this case, London, the stranger and more perverse the peoples will
be. The Orkney Islands are practically the farthest northern extent
of the British Kingdom, so by this theory, the Orkney Clan will the
“strangest” people. ] [13: For a more extensive discussion on views
on Celtic Arthurian legend, please see Michael J. Bell’s article on
William Newell’s research “about the claims for the Celtic origins
of Arthurian materials” (Bell, 25). Bell, using Newell’s theories,
justifies the designation of the Celtic material as barbaric
thusly: “Newell argued to the contrary that "existing romances bear
no mark of evolution from barbarous antecedents. . ."; he claimed
instead that even those narratives which bore traces of a Celtic
heritage ". .. have been so reworked as to have little resemblance
to the legend[s] in which [they] may have originated" (King Arthur,
p. xi). Without evidence of primitive character, it seemed to
Newell to defy logic to argue that such character in fact existed.
What did exist were traces of the past, important traces to be
sure, but not sufficient to assert that oral tradition or evolution
were at work in the process” (Bell 32). ] [14: Please note, the
countries of what is known now as the United Kingdom will be
referenced individually as England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.
“England” is not an all-encompassing term.]
As the Arthurian legend spread throughout Europe, almost all of
the knights underwent a metamorphosis throughout time and space in
which their characters began to reflect the geographic and temporal
location of, and the cultures producing, the respective narrative.
Over the course of this diffusion, the character of Mordred has
been bastardized. His bastardy is both figurative and literal. It
is the process of the disassociation and reassignment of
characteristics of Mordred from the cultural diffusion of the
Arthurian legend which, in turn, produce the illegitimacy of his
birth, and the villainy of his character. The first mention of
incest connected with Mordred’s birth occurs in Lancelot and Mort
Artu of the Vulgate Cycle, in the thirteenth century, where the
“moral comment is curiously lacking” (Archibald 203). This aspect
continued and mutated in degree of influence on the legend,
however, “the English were quite undeterred in their admiration by
the incest charge” (Archibald 209). In explaning this, Archibald
draws upon the theory of Fanni Bogdanow, author of The Romance of
the Grail, who states, “the theme of Mordred’s incestuous birth
seems to serve mainly to heighten the horror of the final tragedy”
(qtd. in Archibald 217). Malory transcribes Arthur’s fatal flaw,
which was initially presented by French authors, into the mechanism
that makes Arthur the tragic hero. Arthur’s knowledge that he has
both killed and been mortally wounded by his son and that his son
has become the catalyst for the destruction of his kingdom is
comparable to Oedipus’ realization that his marriage to Jocasta has
been incestuous. This is the real tragedy of Camelot, not Lancelot
and Guinevere’s courtly tryst. In fact, Lancelot’s dalliance with
Guinevere could have been permitted, or at least over-looked if not
excused, if Mordred and his faction had not forced Arthur to
recognize it. In medieval romance, the King is the country; the
health of the land is directly a result of the (moral, physical or
psychological) health of the king[footnoteRef:15]. Therefore it is
fitting that Arthur’s personal tragedy involving Mordred destroys
his kingdom and his order of knights. [15: This king and country
relation is best exemplified by the relation of the Fisher king to
his “Wasteland” in the Parcival narratives. ]
Besides fulfilling the role of “villain”, the Mordred-character
acts as a foil for Galahad, as well as more obviously Arthur,
through the nature of their births. The births of Galahad, the
knightly paragon, Arthur, the kingly paragon, and Mordred, the
destroyer of Camelot and, therefore, civilization[footnoteRef:16]
are similar enough to the other that a parallel must be drawn
between these figures. Galahad was begotten by Lancelot who,
believing Elaine to be Guinevere, slept with her. Though the
descriptions vary, in some versions of Mordred’s conception,
Morgause seduces Arthur by bewitchment. Igraine had been beguiled
by Uther Pendragon when he, with the help of Merlin, disguised
himself as her spouse the Duke of Cornwall. This union produced
Arthur. The commonality between these seductions is the use of
magic to beguile for the intents of seduction. The
mothers[footnoteRef:17] of Galahad and Mordred practice magic in
order to entice their desired, while it is the father of Arthur who
uses this method to “woo” Igraine. [16: Traditionally, Camelot, the
geographic location, is viewed as ordered civilization, whereas the
forest settings often represent chaos, and what Shakespeare will
later term “the Green world.” ] [17: Because Mordred and Galahad
are the product of the female beguiling the male, there a
comparison between the two sons is significant. ]
The French Vulgate Cycle is steeped in social commentary on the
chivalric and courtly ideals. The anonymous authors of the Vulgate
Cycle use the tales of Arthur, particularly the quest for the Holy
Grail, to critique how secular chivalry had failed. Each of the
knights who cannot achieve the grail is representative of a secular
trait in which fault was found by the Cistercians[footnoteRef:18].
Lancelot was supposed to be the best knight in the
World[footnoteRef:19], the flower of knighthood, but he failed
because of his earthly desire for Guinevere. Therefore, if the best
knight the World had to offer failed, then the rest of the world,
comprised of lesser men, fails. No one is worthy of the Holy Grail,
of God and of redemption. However, the authors of the Vulgate
Cycle, with their Cistercianism offer a solution: a Christian
Knighthood. This ideal is represented by Galahad. From the best
that the secular world has to offer, Lancelot, is born the only
knight who is skilled in chivalry and spiritually pleasing to God.
Since Mordred is a foil for Galahad, this puts Mordred in a very
unfavorable position. If Galahad redeems humanity by meshing the
best of chivalry with the best of piety, then Mordred becomes, de
facto, his antithesis. The comparison of Mordred to Galahad extends
to their fathers. While Lancelot was the most capable, famous
knight, Arthur was the most capable, famous king (at least in the
beginning of his reign[footnoteRef:20]). Therefore, the births of
their sons are analogous in that they both were fathered by “the
best” humanity had to offer. However, Mordred’s birth is stained by
the incest committed by Arthur and Morgause. The father’s sin mars
the son’s potential, and Mordred become the villain of Camelot.
[18: For more about the progression of the monastic orders, leading
to Cistercianism, see: Lawrence, C.H. Medieval monasticism: forms
of religios life in Western Europe in the Middle Ages. Harlow,
England; New York: Longmand, 2001. ] [19: The uppercase World
indicates the secular society. ] [20: See Appendix I. “Lancelot and
Arthur in French and English Texts”.]
The transformation of Mordred from a figure in the Annales
Cambriae, written in 970 at St. David’s, Wales, documenting the era
from 447 to 533, to a villain and then, though briefly, into a
hero, is exemplary of the correlation between geography and the
effects on narratives. After he was mentioned ambiguously in the
Annales, the character of Mordred became more defined. The Annales
do not state whether Medraut and Arthur fell supporting or opposing
each other. However, in Henry of Huntington’s Historia Anglorum,
written in 1129 (about 150 years after the Welsh Annales), Mordred
is a distinctly evil character. He takes both Arthur’s throne and
his wife. While Mordred may have, since inception, been villainous,
it is not until later narratives, that he is given a motivation. As
with all of the figures in Arthurian legend, as time progresses,
his character becomes more complex.
By the twelfth century, Mordred had been ascribed by Geoffrey of
Monmouth’s histories a a birth place on the Orkney Islands, off the
coast of Scotland. To make a man of the North, that is, one closer
to Scottish than British, the villain, a usurper of thrones and
often incestuous adulterer with Arthur’s queen Guinevere, might be
indicative of a nascent form of racism towards the Scottish tribes
on the part of the inhabitants of the southern parts of Great
Britain[footnoteRef:21]. This tradition of the treachery of
Mordred, as it is typically described in the earlier versions of
the Arthur story, continues until it is diffused to Scotland and is
re-interpreted by Scottish authors in the fourteenth century;
Mordred, in the hands of Scottish authors, was transformed from a
villainous usurper into a wronged hero. In Chronica gentis
Scotorum, attributed to John of Fordun in the mid- to late-
fourteenth century, “Gawain and Modred had a right to the throne”
(“Guide” Lupack 41). The right was based upon the logic that “…
since Arthur was illegitimate, Mordred, as Lot’s son [but still
scion of Arthur], was the rightful heir to the British throne”
(Archibald 203, footnote). In fact, it is proposed that, “the whole
tragedy, from HRB onwards, hinges on the succession” (139, Morris).
While “Mordred’s claim [to the throne] is vindicated by the Scots”,
Morris proposes that this issue becomes more important than the
interpersonal relationship between Mordred and Arthur and the
indeterminate incest sin. The struggle between Mordred and Arthur
becomes an issue of succession and transcends into international
politics. Fordun’s statement is perhaps not surprising, given that
the author and his audience are likely Scottish[footnoteRef:22].
Thus, Mordred is no longer portrayed as a traitor by the Scottish
Fordun, but rather as the party wronged by the usually English
heroic King Arthur. The Mordred figure and his “rebellion” could
thus be seen in this narrative as an assertion of Celtic
nationalism during a time of English hegemony towards the North.
[21: Political and “racial” tensions between England and the
peoples of Wales and Scotland have affected literature greatly. For
a discourse on post-Early Modern Celtic and English relations (the
result of Medieval Celtic and English relations) see: Pittock,
Murray, G.H. Celtic Identity and the British Image. Manchester
& New York: Manchest UP, 1999. ] [22: This assumption is made
based on the nationality of the author as well as the subject on
which the author is writing, the history of the Scottish people
from a very pro-Scottish point of view. Chronica gentis Scotorum
may have found readership in England and France (due to the later
connection through Mary de Guise); however, it is of most interest
to the Scottish people.]
The incestuous birth of Mordred is first described in the French
Vulgate cycle, circa the thirteenth century[footnoteRef:23]. Though
predating the Hundred Years War, the French Anglophobia (and
indeed, the English Francophobia) is apparent through the
literature. Arthur’s incest with his sister, varyingly Morgause or
Morgan, is less a critique on Mordred, as it will later become, but
more a critique of Arthur. Archibald expounds that “the writer [of
Agravain, a section of the Vulgate Cycle, in which Mordred’s birth
is detailed] seems to have several aims in developing this story,
and on the whole they are not favourable to Arthur”. The positions
of Archibald and Morris, though seemingly contradictory to each
other, are in fact, complimentary. Morris continues the argument
that “[t]he incest is not used either to punish Arthur or to
explain Mordred’s wickedness” (107). Furthermore, “[the author]
does not assume that because Mordred is born of incest he is
necessarily wicked. Only Mordred himself can answer for his own
character” (108). King Arthur is, through his Classic sin, elevated
into mythology[footnoteRef:24]. After the element of Arthur’s moral
failing resulting in his tragedy by the hand of his son is added,
the cycles take on more moral weight than earlier, folkloric
Arthurian tales, such as Culhwch ac Olwen. Arthur’s tragedy, via
Mordred and via the betrayal by Lancelot and Guinevere, is more on
par with Greek and Roman deity myths. Though the language in which
it is told shifts into the vernacular, the content of the legend
becomes classical and elevated. In this way, despite his sin,
Arthur is canonized. Though “no French prose author could consider
Arthur any kind of saint, while English chroniclers, in whom, …lies
in the inclination to make him a saint, go on doing so undeterred
by the incest motif, which most ignore” (Morris 107). [23:
“Strikingly enough, the Vulgate Mort, which apparently invents the
incest … emphasiz[es] only the son’s treachery” (139, Morris). ]
[24: See: Archibald, Elizabeth. Incest in the Medieval Imagination.
Oxford: Claredon Press, 2001. Chapter 5 “Siblings and Other
Relatives”. ]
While Mordred’s villainy is still present in the Vulgate Cycle,
it would appear that the text leans towards a more balanced
assessment of blame—Arthur’s offence is recognized, and it is his
“evil” which begets Mordred’s evil. In comparison, the English
Malory, however, redeems Arthur, and condemns Mordred
unequivocally. Merlin predicts Mordred and the sin from where he
came and his later role in Arthur’s kingdom. Arthur’s response is
to gather all of the babies born within a certain period (around
the time of Mordred’s birth) and set them to sea in hope of their
drowning. By murdering both his son and the other children, Arthur
is sacrificing his moral soul for his kingdom’s wellbeing.
Archibald deems that “Malory is harsher [than previous Arthurian
authors] in letting all the other babies drown, which makes
Mordred’s survival all the more miraculous” (212).
II. i. Geographic Effect on Interpretation of Arthurian
Literature
Political and social development in the time before the
Protestant Reformation are suggestive of a very tumultuous period
of time. Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Mort d’Arthur stood on the cusp
between the medieval and early modern period at the time of its
publication circa 1470. In the fourteenth century, the bubonic
plague had effectively reduced the population and created a newly
emerging form of economics, ergo a new way of life, with an
emphasis on the rights of the labor force and the growth in value
of capitol over landholdings (Brandl, Schama)[footnoteRef:25].
England was fighting both with France externally[footnoteRef:26]
and with itself internally[footnoteRef:27]. Essentially, England
was being torn, socially and politically, from two fronts—a fact
fully reflected in the literature[footnoteRef:28]. [25: For more on
the repercussions of the Black Plague on late Medieval society see:
Bowsky, William. The Black Death: A turning point in history?
Malabar, Fl: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, 1971. See also:
Mullet, Charles F. The Bubonic Plague and England. Lexington:
University of Kentucky Press, 1956. See also: Horrox, Rosemary,
ed., trans. The Black Death. Manchester & New York: Manchester
UP, 1994. Part VII “Repercussions”.] [26: The Hundred Years War,
culminating in the Battle of Agincourt, preoccupied England with
France, for instance. ] [27: Meanwhile, the War of the Roses
culminated in the battle at Bosworth Field, which represented
England’s domestic turmoil. ] [28: Sir John Fortescue’s writings
are an example of Pro-Lancastrian propagandist, polemic literature
(though not fictitious) that was appearing (Gill 333). Fortescue
also appears to have anti-French sentiments, as he sugguests that
the French language did not remain the primary language of England
because “the French did not accept accounts of their revenues,
unless in their own idiom, lest they should be deceived therby.
They took no pleasure in hunting, nor in other recreations… So the
English contracted the same habit from frequenting such company, so
that they to this day speak the French language in such games and
accounting” (qtd. in Fisher 1168). ]
In Malory’s version of the Mordred narrative, King Lot of
Lothian and Orkney had married Morguase, “and King Arthur lay by
King Lot’s wife, which was Arthur’s sister, and gat on her
Mordred…”(58); the incest of Mordred’s birth is accentuated even in
the original text. Merlin’s prophesy “that there should be a great
battle beside Salisbury, and Mordred his own son should be against
him” spurs Arthur (60) to issue a decree similar to Pharaoh’s
decree upon determining an influx of Israelites which “charged all
his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the
river, and every daughter ye shall save alive” (Exodus 1:22).
Mordred, like Jesus[footnoteRef:29] and Moses[footnoteRef:30],
survives this holocaust. He becomes a knight, and is generally
disliked, but tolerated because of his heritage and familial ties
to Gawain. He becomes aware of the affair of Lancelot and Guinevere
and begins to plot to destroy, not only Sir Lancelot and Guinevere,
but also Arthur and, thereby, the entirety of Camelot. Mordred is
an “unhappy[footnoteRef:31] knight…”(Matthews 121). Malory first
uses this description to refer to the brothers Balan and Balin.
However, Malory later writes that the “…floure of chivalry of alle
the world was destroyed & slayn / and alle was long upon two
unhappy knyghtes the whiche were named Agravayne and sire
Mordred…[footnoteRef:32]”. [29: Herrod made a similar decree that
all newborn males should be put to death. This decree was oft
portrayed in Medieval mystery plays, such as in the Wakefield
Cycle’s “Herrod the Great”. The theological and societal
implications of a perhaps inadvertent comparison of Mordred to
Jesus and Arthur to Herrod need to be further considered (as does
do the suggestions of Footnote 32 of this paper, comparing Mordred
to Moses). ] [30: This is an interesting possibility. If Mordred
can be equated to Moses, then Arthur’s court becomes comparable to
the subjugating Egyptian royalty. Parallels can further be drawn in
that Mordred, like Moses does in fact pose a legitimate threat to
the respective kingdoms, which leads to destruction. This incident
could also reference the Passover, where the Lord “pass[ed] through
the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in
the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of
Egypt I will execute judgment” (Exodus 12:12). ] [31: “Unhappy”, in
this context and in other usages contemporary to Malory, means
unfortunate, rather than discontented. Archibald explains the
context of this appellation, “[i]n the Agrainvain Mordred and
Lancelot meet a hermit who tells them that they are the two most
unfortunate knights it the world: Mordred is destined to destroy
the Round Tale and to kill his father the best man in the world who
will also kill him” (204). ] [32: Malory, Sir Thomas. Le
Morte d’Arthur, Printed by William Caxton. Ed. Paul
Needham. London: Oxford UP and Pierpont Morgan Library, 1976.
Published also on: Malory, Thomas. Malory: A Comparison of
Winchester and Caxton Texts. Mark Adderly ed., 2008. Web. 16 June,
2010. <
http://www.markadderley.net/arthur/malory/malory-text.html>]
Mordred’s motivation for his betrayal and subsequent destruction
of Camelot turns out to be even more varied and complex. The
English and Scottish versions of the fifteenth century have been
imbued with historical and political allegory. However, it is the
historical interpretation that is most solidly defined. The
political interpretation of the text lends itself to a very
conservative reading. The king is equated with, and reflects, the
health of land. Arthur is “king, born of all England” (28). By
allowing a perpetuation of incestuous origins of Mordred, Malory
has written, without subtly, that the Northern people are
“bastards”. The bastard son, as a representation of a country and
as a political character, will try not only to gain sovereignty but
also to usurp the throne. This is both a strangely prophetic and a
very astute anticipation of future Anglo-Scottish politics purposed
by Malory. In the late sixteenth century, after Malory’s era, the
tensions between England and Scotland developed into the struggle
for succession to the English throne. Having gained independence
from England in 1328, several centuries later, in the early sixteen
hundreds, the Scottish king James laid claim to the English throne.
Despite previous attempts by Elizabeth the First to prevent
continuation of Catholicism through the ascension of Mary of Guise,
the French Queen of Scotland, Mary’s son, James, inherited the
throne after Elizabeth’s death. Like Mordred and Arthur essentially
cancelling each other out in battle, the rule of James the First
annulled Scottish independence[footnoteRef:33], while also
extinguishing the British Tudorroyal line. The English Tudor line,
descended from the house Lancaster, had ended because of Scottish
rule; however, Scotland lost the sovereignty that was, and
continued to be, so desperately sought by the Scots. [33: In 1603,
James united the thrones of Scotland and England; a century later,
Scotland became part of the Kingdom of Great Britain.]
Furthermore, the destruction of Camelot parallels the outcome of
the War of the Roses, though allegorically. Arthur and his faction
represent the Yorkist House, and Mordred and his faction suggest
the House of Lancaster. The Houses of Lancaster and York, like
Mordred and Arthur, are related by kinship. Eventually, at the
Battle of Bosworth Field, the Lancastrians killed the Yorkist king,
Richard the Third, and won the right to succession. After Mordred’s
warmongering and the smallish scuffles between Arthur and Sir
Lancelot, there is a culminating battle that parallels the battle
at Bosworth Field. However, Arthur’s battle ends more bleakly than
Bosworth though, despite the seeming stalemate resulting from the
slaying of father and son, even this battle has a victor. Mordred
does achieve his goal, and while it ultimately costs him his life,
he has brought to political light the affair of Lancelot and
Guinevere which resulted in the destruction of Camelot.
For Malory, Mordred represents what would in modernity be termed
as politically liberal, progressive ideology. His battle techniques
are modern; “in the most unknightly fashion, [Mordred] uses cannon
on his enemies, even on Guinevere’s fortress”
(Ogden-Korus[footnoteRef:34]). It is the introduction of gunpowder,
both in Le Morte d’Arthur and in Malory’s reality, that primarily
renders the knightly orders antiquated. Mordred’s use of gunpowder
to destroy the ideal that Camelot represented was mirrored in the
society of the late fifteen and early sixteenth century. Firearms
destroyed chivalry. Furthermore, his political strategies have an
underlying modernity. Mordred anticipates the Machiavellian Prince.
Instead of relying on his heredity and aristocracy to win him
support, as a monarch with divine right would, he uses the art of
rhetoric causing “much people [who] drew unto him. For then he was
the common voice among them that King Arthur was never other life
but war and strife, and with Sir Mordred was great joy and bliss”
(Malory 707). Mordred is a manifestation of these progressive
politics, while Arthur remains arch-conservative. The modern terms
“progressive” and “conservative” when applied to medieval politics
are anachronistic, however, the political philosophies demonstrate
the conflict between Mordred and his faction and King Arthur and
his Knights. Mordred, as shown by his proto-Machiavellian
tendencies and his use of gun powder, represents a new way of
ruling. Whereas King Arthur, and the court of Camelot, is an
archaic remnant of an antiquated ideal of knights in shining armor,
doing good deeds, saving maidens and going on grail quests. In a
way, Malory may have been writing an early version of the modern
dystopian novel, showing how progress is destructive. The golden
age of Chivalry and Camelot, could not be sustained in the world,
neither according to literature nor shown in reality. Camelot falls
to modernity, but modernity destroys itself with its lack of
respect for history, but eventually, even modernity will fall into
the past and be destroyed like its forefathers. [34: Ogden- Korus,
Erin. University of Idaho. The Quest: An Arthurian Resource: Sir
Mordred. 1999. April 2009. ]
III. Temporal Diffusion:
To facilitate a complete understanding of diffusion of Arthurian
legend, in addition to viewing the legend through a spatial lens,
the temporal influence must be considered. This legend, conceived
in the sixth century, has undergone as many mutations due to the
differences in eras as it has the distance between hearth, the
point of origin and author.
Authors are free to interpret and re-interpret preexisting
material to perpetuate their ideologies—political or otherwise.
This difference in interpretations is exemplified by the difference
between Malory’s and Fordun’s portrayals of Mordred. The effect of
the centuries’ worth of diffusion is seen, clearly, as Malory cites
the source of his work as the French Book. The Vulgate Cycle takes
many sources, but primarily Geoffrey of Monmouth’s
HRB[footnoteRef:35]. Thus, Malory’s work is the culmination of a
literary diffusion traceable from Wales to the continent of Europe,
through various routes. The mutations of this diffusion were
re-routed back to the British Isles and were recapitulated as a
nationalistic tale with elements of both the ancient and
contemporaneous. [35: A more complete dissection of the sources
from which the Vulgate Cycle draws appears on page 5 of this paper.
]
The route of diffusion of literature in the middle ages is
traceable through comparison of national literatures. By following
the chronological references to specific events, a spatial flow can
be detected.
I will demonstrate this theory of spatial flow and temporal
diffusion using a relatively condensed, but particularly prolific,
period from Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum brittaniae,
composed in 1135 to Gervase of Tilbury’s Otia Imperialia, composed
in 1211. I will begin with an overview of Geoffery of Monmouth, the
audience for which he was writing and the importance of his work. I
will then, briefly, catalogue and comment on the immense amount of
material being produced in the early twelfth century to the early
thirteenth century, highlighting the pattern of diffusion from
Wales to England to France to Germany and Italy. The reason for the
Sicilian setting of the Avalonesque resting place of Arthur in
Gervase of Tilbury’s Otia imperialia will be examined. Avalon’s
fluid setting will be used to contrast the stagnant final action of
Mordred, the slaying of Arthur. As in the previous sections, I will
note the societal values that were embedded in the national
literatures. This will culminate in a final conclusion on Mordred’s
significance, in both Arthurian legend and in culture across space
and time.
III. i. Historia Regum Britanniae, A Starting Point
The medieval concept of history and historical fact is almost
incompatible with the modern philosophies of perception.
Contemporary historians refer to history almost exclusively
linearly—as shown by the labeling methods Before Christ, and Before
Common Era. In the Middle Ages, however, the past was not defined
in eras, but rather merely as a conglomeration of events which
comprised “the past”. The acceptance of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s HRB
as “a source by Latin chroniclers in England during the later
Middle Ages…[HRB] was regarded unquestioningly as authentic history
by chroniclers” (Keeler 24). Modern academics have since proclaimed
the work as that of “an ingenious romancer” (Keeler 24). While
modern scholarship cannot make any factual claims based solely on
the historical accuracy alleged in HRB[footnoteRef:36], the work
still stands as an important piece of Arthurian literature, to be
interpreted as a proto-Romance that became the basis for most of
the subsequent literature. Since there is a distinct difference in
the level of creativity and detail put into works such as Geoffrey
of Monmouth’s and, to a lesser degree, Nennius’, these works cannot
be classified as annals, or merely chronicles. Later works such as
Wolfram Von Eschenbach’s Parzival may be the first “modern”
literature, enhancing a previous tale with the author’s own
embellishments, as well as the author’s own opinion and
personality[footnoteRef:37]. An appropriate term for this genre is
“proto-Romance”. [36: To take the HRB as historical fact for
Medieval Britain would be fanciful at best. In this chronicle,
Brutus is claimed to have founded London, then Trinovatum. This
fallacy does not stand alone in HRB. ] [37: This is exemplified by
Wolfram’s Apology. Breaking the narrative of the story and heritage
of Parzival, Wolfram’s personal excursus not only provides his
supposed sources, but he explains that he “[hasn’t] a letter to
[his] name!” (680). Wolfram’s self and audience aware writing style
is similar to the modernity found in Chaucer’s works. Both are
praised as being very “modern” medieval writers. ]
Before Malory and Fordun used Arthur and Mordred as politically
malleable figures, King Arthur stood as a figurehead for “ ‘the
Briton hope’ that supremacy in the island [of England] would be
restored to the Welsh” (Keeler 24). Despite his later attachment to
England and promise to rise and defend England, Arthur was a
Welsh[footnoteRef:38],[footnoteRef:39] figure. [38: For more about
Welsh and English relations in the Middle Ages see Wayne Parson’s
essay “Being Born Lost? The Cultural and Institutional Dimensions
of Welsh Identity” [Kershen, Anne J., ed. A Question of Identity.
Brookfield, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company, 1998. 25- 59.]]
[39: This fact has been brought to prominence even in modern
literature, such as Anthony Burgess’ Any Old Iron.]
HRB “...provided... the treachery of Mordred and the infidelity
of Guinevere” (“Guide” Lupack 28), and with this liberal
interpretation of previous annals, Monmouth began Mordred’s
transition from a name on a list to a Judas-like traitor, as well
as, the transition of the legend from potential historical fact
into material for an enduring, multinational Romance. Elements of
the multinationality of the epic are already inherent in Monmouth’s
version, lending itself to diffusion; however, the racism, that
will later be turned into political propaganda in the sixteenth
century, is also inherent in the text. In chapter six of HRB,
“Arthur grants a pardon to the Scots and Picts” (Monmouth 183).
Later, they will be named among those who fought on Mordred’s side
in the battle in which both Mordred and Arthur were slain. This
xenophobia will escalate through the centuries to climax in an
oppression of Scotland and subjugation of the Irish. Mordred, of
the Orkney Isles, even farther removed than Scotland, is made to
embody the villainy of the man of the North. Since HRB can be
considered a proto-Romance (because of the author’s self-awareness
and artistic interpolations), a more modern literary interpretation
can be applied. This cannot be the case when reading “Annals
Cambriae”, since there is little material, and the material is
highly condensed and is stated factually with no author
interpretation.
As Alan Lupack has suggested in The Oxford Guide to Arthurian
Literature and Legend, Mordred’s deceit, specifically betraying
Arthur by claiming his kingdom and marrying his wife, originates in
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s adaptation of the legend. What Mordred takes
from Arthur, his land, his wife and his life, constitute the very
means by which Arthur established and retained his social status.
The land provides the means to nobility; the wife provides the
means to succeed the land and continue the familial nobility; and
of course, without the life, these factors are moot. Mordred, and
other “barbarous” peoples (Picts, Scots, Irish), have been set up
as what will be known in nineteenth and twentieth century literary
criticism as The Other. This xenophobia shows the usurpation of
Arthur’s throne and the biblically incestuous marriage of Guinevere
to her husband’s nephew to be deeply imbued with the social fears
of the medieval collective conscious. Thus, Mordred represents the
primal archetype of fear that the familiar is, in actuality, being
alien and dangerous. Mordred’s role in Arthurian legend reflects
the social anxieties that plagued medieval society and politics. If
even a close familial member could betray, usurp, and kill, then
certainly the true Other (such as the indigenous peoples of a land,
the Turk, the Vikings, or any other number of outside threats
facing a nation) would constitute an even greater threat.
III. ii. Diffusion Between Geoffrey of Monmouth and Gervase of
Tilbury
Having established a hearth, a point of diffusion, in Monmouth,
Wales (approximate coordinates of 51 North, 2 West[footnoteRef:40])
in the years between 1134 and 1139, Geoffrey’s HRB can be
considered the starting point for Arthurian legend[footnoteRef:41].
One of the next appearances of Arthurian legend occurs not in a
piece of literature, but a personal letter of a twelfth century
archdeacon to an otherwise unknown man named
Warinus.[footnoteRef:42] The significance of Henry of Huntingdon’s
role in the diffusion is more important for what it indicates about
the diffusion of Arthurian legend, rather than as an implication of
the importance of Henry of Huntingdon’s role. Huntingdon does
little more than paraphrase HRB to varying degrees of accuracy,
“saying that Arthur with a few men came upon Modred with
many[footnoteRef:43]. [This is quite contrary to Geoffrey’s
account.]” (Fletcher 120). This begins the process of literary
diffusion and mutation of the original, but more important is that
Huntingdon “on a journey to Rome, found a copy of Geoffrey’s
History at the Monastery of Bec in Normandy [49 N, 43 E]” (Fletcter
120). Due to the proximity of this abbey to Le Havre, it is
probable that Henry of Huntingdon (52 N, 0 W) came by this route.
Thus, the first steps towards European diffusion are discerned.
According to Fletcher, chronologically, the next text of Arthurian
import is an anonymously composed De Constructione Aliquorum
Oppidorum seu Castrorum Turonicae Regionis, which was composed in
France. Not much is known about the origins of this text, except
that it was composed by a “French author” (Fletcher 19). What is
noteworthy about this text, besides the indication that Arthurian
legend had taken root in France, is that the author claims that,
“in Arthur’s time Clodius was king of northern Germany, and he, it
is added, ‘gladly became very friendly with Arthur’” (Fletcher
122). The first German author to interpret Arthurian material is
Hartmann Von Aue (53 N, 8 W) who wrote Erek and Iwein in the decade
beginning in the last five years of the twelfth century. [40:
Henceforth, longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates will be
denoted as N, E/W. These coordinates will be correlated to a map,
to appear in an appendix to this paper. ] [41: Gardner, “Arthurian
Legend in Italian Literature”, 2.] [42: Fletcher. Arthurian
materials in the Chronicles… pg. 120.] [43: Huntingdon’s recounting
of Arthur’s final battle with Modred [sic] is quoted in translation
from Latin by Fletcher. It is the following: “When Arthur saw that
he could not retreat, he said, “Friends let us avenge our dead. I
will not smite off the of that traitor my nephew; after which,
death will be welcome.” So saying… [he] seized Modred… and severed
his armored neck… In the act he himself received so many wounds
that he fell…” (Fletcher 120). ]
The extent to which Arthurian legend became ingrained in the
national literature of France is apparent through the increase in
predominantly French adaptations in a span of less than fifty
years, beginning with the Roman de Brut by the Jersey (49 N, 2 W)
born Robert Wace, who was “educated partly at Paris, but chiefly at
Caen” (Fletcher 129). Marie de France (1160-80[footnoteRef:44]),
Beroul (1170), Layamon (1190), and, arguably most importantly,
Chrétien de Troyes (1160-90, 48 N, 4 E) are among the French,
romance producing writers of this relatively short period. [44:
Dates attributed to: Brittania Staff Article. Timeline of Arthurian
History and Legend. Britannia.com, 2007. Web. 23 Dec. 2009. <
http://www.britannia.com/history/arthur/timeart2.html> ]
The latter years of the twelfth century saw a return of this
Welsh tale to Wales, but by the early years of the thirteenth
century, no one specific country predominating the amount of
Arthurian literature. The French Vulgate Cycle was composed
contemporaneously with Gottfried Von Straßbourg (48N, 7 E). Also
salient during this time are “[t]he earliest literary allusions to
the Arthurian legend in Italy… [which] are naturally in Latin”
(Gardner 6). Gardner cites Godfrey of Viterbo, “who had been one of
the secretaries of Frederick Barbarossa” (6), as having written a
version of Nennius’ Arthurian history between 1186 and 1191.
III. iii. Otia imperialia
Arthurian references appear in the Otia imerialia, composed in
the early thirteenth century by Gervase of Tilbury. The exact date
of completion is unknown, and it is unknown whether Book II or Book
III was composed in 1211, however “a computation to the year 1211
in Book II suggests that [Gervase] was writing in that year. But
the words: ‘It happened in the year of our Lord 1211’ in Book III
were presumably written later” (Blair, Reuter xxxix). In Book II,
Gervase, in order to explicate the numerical discrepancies in the
calendar years, uses “uerbi gratia.mccxi[footnoteRef:45]” (360).
This example may indicate the year in which Gervase was writing
this Book. The preface in Book III, states “Erat anno Domini
.mccxi, mense Iulii…”(Gervase, 760). Therefore, the most probable
date of composition for Book II, in which Arthur and Mordred are
mentioned, is around, if not in the year, 1211. [45: Trans: “It was
the year of Our Lord 1211, in the month of July.”]
While there are references to Arthur after Geoffrey of Monmouth
and before Gervase of Tilbury’s version, it is the connection
between Gervase of Tilbury and Italy that is significant. The date
of composition, thereby, becomes significant.
The presence of Arthurian legend in an Italian setting is
significant, to be sure, however, what is equally significant is
that Gervase of Tilbury moves Arthur’s burial place from Avalon to
Sicily. According to Fletcher, “[a]s early as Gervase of Tilbury
[(57 N, 0 W)]”, adapts “the story of Arthur’s immortality which
locates his resting place in the recesses of Mount Etna” (188).
This, of course, is quite different from the “original” HRB which
states that “Arthur himself…was mortally wounded and was carried
off to the Isle of Avalon, so that his wounds might be attended to”
(261).
While the location of Avalon, to this day, remains unknown,
there is a distinction to be made between Geoffrey’s “Avalon”, and
Gervase’s “resting place”. Geoffrey Ashe explains
“ Geoffrey [of Monmouth] says he [Arthur] went to the Isle of
Avalon, Insula Avallonis. This was a Celtic Otherworld. In Welsh
the name is Avallach or Afallach. Geoffrey has adopted an oddly
changed spelling which is thought to have been influenced by the
place-name Avallon in Burgundy. “Avallon” is Gaulish and means
“place of apples,” as its counterpart in Britain supposedly does”
(315-316).
Geoffrey’s allusion to a French place name using a Welsh word,
almost sixty years after the Norman invasion of England, may
indicate the Welsh acknowledgement of this new mixing of cultures
and an attempt, on Geoffrey’s part to show approval for this, or at
least an acceptance. Arthur, king of the Britons, is taken away to
a land named with an amalgamation of French and Welsh. This shows,
via literature, the transition from the pre-existing culture of the
island to the Normanized culture.
Avalon is an indicator of how freely this legend changed over
time. The evolution of Avalon, in this simplified example,
compounded with the static action of Mordred slaying Arthur, makes
obvious what was culturally important to the authors and to the
societies for which they wrote. If Avalon can be viewed as a
variable and Mordred’s action of slaying Arthur is a control, in a
hypothetical “experiment” to show what societies consistently
viewed as significant, then Mordred becomes one of the most, if not
the most important figure in Arthurian legend. Within seventy-five
years, from Geoffrey’s to Gervase’s chronicles, the setting of
where Arthur was taken after he is slain proves to be
inconsequential—the basic plot is still the same. What remains “the
same” through all of Arthurian legend from the very first mention
in the Annales Cambriae is that Mordred will always kill Arthur, in
perpetuum. He may be a nephew, or he may be a son conceived through
incest, but Mordred’s ultimate action remains the same. This seems
to be one, if not the only, event that has remained constant from
the very first mention of Arthur. Even Arthur’s kingship has had a
dynamic journey. The portrayal of Mordred’s nature, as shown in
previous sections of this thesis, relies on social values. In
French legend, the English Arthur is a cuckolded king, and the
French Lancelot is the premier knight. But, Mordred is Arthur’s
downfall. In England, Lancelot, while still involved in an affair
with Guinevere, is secondary to King Arthur who becomes a national
saint. But, Mordred is still Arthur’s downfall. No matter how the
tales of Arthur mutate over time and space, Mordred will always
kill Arthur.
IV. Conclusion: Redemption of Mordred
Despite an argument by Guerin in The Fall of Kings and Princes,
which states that Geoffrey of Monmouth “deliberately suppressed
such a major flaw [as incest] in his hero” (qtd. in Archibald 210),
most scholars believe the Vulgate Cycle to be the first work in
which Mordred is conceived by a incestuous liaison between Arthur
and his sister. It is also during this period, around the end of
the twelfth and beginning of the thirteenth centuries, that
Arthurian legend has become established as a narrative romance form
as opposed to the chronicle, which was the predecessor during the
mid-twelfth century and before. Therefore, as a modern scholar, in
order to make a modern remark on the “redemption of Mordred”, one
must consider material composed post-Vulgate, after which more of
Mordred’s story is formed and taken beyond chronicle form. While
great strides in Arthurian legend are made, bringing it from
chronicle material into the more “substantial” Romance, few of
these Romances mention Mordred. Authors such as Chrétien de Troyes,
Hartmann Von Aue, and Beroul remain silent on the matter of
Mordred.
While it is difficult to establish sweeping statements about any
figure in Arthurian legend due to the multiple versions and the
differences between the rendering of each individual within space
and time, as the previous sections of this thesis have labored to
demonstrate, in most cases, to simplify and reduce Mordred to a
merely malevolent villain is uninformed. He is, in many ways, a
tragic hero much as Arthur is. The tragic hero, in classical
literature, is one whose own actions bring about his downfall.
Usually the tragedy, and subsequent catharsis, is brought by an
epiphany that the hero is in fact responsible for his own
“undoing.” Arthur’s epiphany of his sin and his son is more subtle
than that of Oedipus. Arthur does not pluck his eyes out and curse
the day he saw his sister. He “indentifies Mordred as his son, and
swears to kill him” (Archibald 205). The tragedy does not come from
the moment of epiphany, as in the classic myth, but rather it comes
because of the moment of epiphany. Nevertheless, Arthur is allowed
the luxury of ascension to the status of tragic hero. Despite his
transgression, Arthur is still the idolized Arthur, King of the
Britons, about whom songs are still sung and poems still composed,
even in modern days. Mordred does not get this opportunity. The
dual patricide and filicide, coupled with the destruction of the
kingdom and order which he built, is Arthur’s tragedy. Mordred’s
tragedy is that “[a]lthough Mordred starts life with a birth-story
so often associated with heroes, he is destined from birth (indeed,
from conception) to be the villain” (Archibald 212).
But verily, the complexities of Mordred, in post-Vulgate
literature, make him more than a wicked antagonist. With the
background that the Vulgate Cycle provides, he is a product of his
circumstances. From the time of his birth, due to the nature of his
birth, “Mordred is presented as an innocent victim, even though he
is destined to destroy the Arthurian world” (Archibald 212). The
French Vulgate Cycle, by allowing fault to be found in Arthur,
begins the process, which would be completed by T. H. White almost
eight centuries later—the redemption of Mordred.
The Arthurian literature produced between the lengthy stretch
between the compositions of the Vulgate Cycle and Malory’s work to
publication of T.H. White’s Once and Future King is certainly
significant—among these works are Alfred Lord Tennyson’s Idylls of
the King and Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s
Court. However, the focus of this paper is on medieval texts and
contexts, and the Arthurian legends produced in Victorian England
and, even farther afield, America, are products of entirely
different societal circumstances, and would entail an entirely
different lens of examination. However, what White’s contribution
to the legend a viable text for comparison to the Medieval
Arthurian legends is, in fact, its modernity. White not only makes
a modern attempt to psychologically explain Mordred, but, in
addition, he blatantly uses Arthurian legend as a template for
social critique of political[footnoteRef:46] issues. [46: Arguably,
Marion Zimmer Bradley makes equal strides to analyze Mordred from a
modern, psychological perspective. However, her work seems to be
more focused on the balance of masculine versus feminine, and the
Christian versus pagan aspects of Arthurian legend. Moreover,
Mordred is an outstanding character in The Once and Future King; he
is central to the final book “Candle in the Wind”, and the care and
complexity with which White writes the character of Mordred finds a
precedence perhaps only in the fourteenth century Alliterative
Morte. In the Alliterative Morte, not only does Mordred “beseke
[Arthur] as my sybbe lorde, Þat ȝe will for charyté cheese ȝow
anoþer, For if ȝe putte me in þis plytte ȝower pople es dyssauyde;
To presente a prynce astate, my powere es simple” (681-4), but he
acknowledges his part in the fall of Camelot and weeps for having
slain Gawaine. The text which provides Mordred’s remission is as
follows: “Ȝit þat traytour alls tite teris lete he fall, Turnes hym
furthe tite and talkes no more; Went wepand awaye and weries the
stowndys þat euer his werdes ware wroghte siche wanderthe to wyrke.
...When þat renayede renke remembired hym seluen of þe reuerence
and ryotes of þe Rownde Table, He remyd and repent hym of all his
rewthe werkes” (3885-95). ]
The representation of Mordred changes, not Mordred’s final,
devastating action. In fourteenth century Scotland, John of Fordun
justified Mordred’s usurpation and regicide because of his right to
the throne. Centuries later, from 1939 to 1958, T.H. White, through
The Once and Future King which is based loosely on Malory,
approaches Mordred from a Freudian psychological perspective. T.H.
White makes the analogy that “Desdemona robbed of life, or honor is
nothing to a Mordred, robbed of himself – his soul stolen… while
the mother-character lives in triumph” (611). In T.H. White’s
adaptation, Morgause, Mordred’s mother and Arthur’s half-sister, is
presented as more of a villain than Mordred. Mordred becomes merely
“…her grave. She existed in like a vampire” (612). Morgause has
instilled in her sons, Mordred, Agravaine, Gareth, Gaheris and even
Gawaine, a sense of necessary revenge against Arthur because of the
wrong their father did to his mother, Igraine, who was the
grandmother of these knights. As did Medieval authors of Arthurian
legend, the modern author, White, has enhanced certain aspects of
the story to mirror contemporary societal concerns. The subtle
difference between good and evil, a theme that many twentieth
century authors and politicians try to reconcile, is extenuated by
Mordred’s character. White’s Mordred is very much conscious of his
genesis, and of Arthur’s attempt to rid himself of the potential
embarrassment and bellicose confrontations promised by Merlin.
Like Malory’s reiteration of a seemingly obsolete, “quaint” tale
of knights and quests in order to make a political statement, White
uses Arthur’s Round Table, though an anachronism by many centuries,
to remark on various political ideologies—chiefly, fascism and
communism, which, of course, were eminent concerns at this time.
John of Fordun wrote on behalf of the Scottish people, a people who
had become subjugated by British rule. In the fourteenth century,
Fordun makes Mordred and the Orkney faction Scottish heroes. In the
twentieth century, White will reprise this role, equating the
Orkney brothers to a “race, now represented by the Irish Republican
Army… flayed defenders of a broken heritage. They were the race
whose barbarous, cunning, valiant defiance had been enslaved… by
the foreign people whom Arthur represented” (519). In this way, as
well as many others, White continues the tradition of mutating
Mordred and this myth to exhibit contemporary social anxieties into
modernity. The tales of Arthur and Mordred are timeless, yielding
parables which can be drawn from timelessly.
Arthurian legend is more than an antiquated story of Good
triumphing over Evil. As in reality, there is no clear line between
these two forces. Even the Good have committed sins such as
adultery (Lancelot and Guinevere), incest (Arthur) and murder (the
Orkney brothers). Mordred’s evil, the cause of the destruction of
Camelot and the end of King Arthur, is perpetrated, had it been
done by any other man, by what would have been the moral action. By
exposing the adulterous affair of Guinevere and Lancelot, who are
protagonists, Mordred becomes the villain. The catalyst for
Mordred’s evil, the cause of the destruction of Camelot and the end
of King Arthur, is perpetrated by what would have been the moral
action had it been done by any other man.
Moreover, in the consideration of what is good and what is evil
in Arthurian legend, if Arthur is Good and Mordred is Evil, then
the fact that Arthur is Mordred’s progenitor throws both of these
figures even more into ambiguity. Mordred is symbolic of the
“father’s sins” coming home to roost. Through the transition from
annals to romance Arthur and Mordred become “a discussion of the
human condition” (Morris, 107).
APPENDIX :
LANCELOT AND ARTHUR IN FRENCH AND ENGLISH TEXTS
In Ricardian England, two versions of Arthurian legend had
become predominant. One depicts Arthur as still the virile king and
the exploits of Lancelot “[are] absent or [have] only a minor role
quite unconnected with Guinevere” (Morris 60). The other tradition,
which diffused primarily from France, is centered around the
infidelity of Lancelot and Guinevere. King Arthur is represented
not as an omnipotent dux bellorum[footnoteRef:47], but rather as
“an ineffectual roi fainéant, a mere husband” (Morris 60). [47:
“Leader of war” was the title originally attributed to Arthur by
Nennius. In contrast to “lazy king”, his Latin appellation is
indicative of Arthur’s masculine, traditionally strong role. ]
Though the infidelity subplot was already present in previous
Arthurian lore, “Chrétien’s seminally important introduction of the
Lancelot theme ensures that he [Lancelot] and Guinevere will
eventually become the key to the whole Arthurian world and its
tragedy” (Morris 98). By the late fourteenth century, it was
Lancelot and Guinevere, not Arthur, controlling the fate of
Camelot. While the waning patriarchal figure, Arthur, remains
important “Guinevere can easily survive without Arthur (but not
vice versa)” (Morris 101).
According to Propp’s theory of folklore, every tale has a
certain set of events that must be included in the narrative. The
main catalyst for the destruction of order[footnoteRef:48] in
Arthurian legend, and other medieval Romances is the
“inappropriate” marriage. Guinevere, while intrinsically linked
with Arthur, shows that her marriage to him was inappropriate for
her because the adultery she committed with Lancelot, as portrayed
by Chrétien onward, was out of love for Lancelot. Furthermore,
Guinevere is, as Lancelot makes knights that he conquers confess,
the fairest in the land, whereas, in Mort Artu, Arthur is “now a
subordinate figure” (Pearsall 47). Thus, there is a disparity
between Guinevere, the fair queen, and Arthur, not as worthy as his
knight, making theirs a union of non-equals. Morris, author of The
Character of King Arthur in Medieval Literature, contends that
Arthur “contrast[s] so sharply with Lancelot’s success … that he
does not ‘deserve’ Guinevere’s love” (100). [48: The maintenance of
Order, the reconstruction of Order and where “Order” occurs as
opposed to where it is absent are reccurring concerns in Medieval
literature, particularly Arthurian literature. ]
The multiple authors of the Vulgate Cycle allow for an excuse of
the adultery committed by their “heroine”. In the courtly society,
“a husband was not required to ‘deserve’ as a lover was” (100
Morris). Guinevere[footnoteRef:49], is granted justification for
her love with Lancelot. Lancelot and Guinevere consummate their
love on the same night that Arthur is seduced by Camille. Since
“Arthur’s behaviour justifies Lancelot and Guinevere; on the other
side, Guinevere’s sin excuses Arthur” (Morris 101), both spouses,
under some moral code, would be excused from their infidelities.
However, in the Vulgate Cycle, written with a distinctly Cistercian
influence, these infidelities are supposed to demonstrate how
secular knighthood has failed, and the creation of a Christian
Knighthood would be the only way to save the corrupt, secular,
chivalric society. The authors of the Vulgate Cycle were laboring
towards a social commentary. The Cistercians sought the salvation
and revolution of chivalry, because secular knighthood had failed.
[49: At least in the Vulgate Cycle, Guinevere is “throughout…
melancholy and decorous [in] resignation. Her whole life is
weeping” (74 Pearsall). ]
The ideal of the beloved ennobling the lover as the result of
her divine perfection or goodness was taken from the troubadouric
tradition of fin amours. The courtly love “must be directed towards
a beloved who is superior, usually in rank but always in worth, so
that love of so exalted an object may lift the beloved [knight]
up…” (Denomy 44). Denomy further elucidates that medieval
Christianity considered courtly love to be “spiritual in that it
sought a union of hearts and minds rather than bodies” (44). So,
though the desire was extramarital, which is distinctly against
Church decrees, the dissuasion from attainment so as to perpetuate
a “yearning that is unappeased” negated the potential sin. As long
as the knight did not act upon his lust, the Church sanctioned
courtly love, which would thereby keep the knight chaste and
constantly striving for spiritual perfection. Since Arthur is not
an “accomplished courtly lover” (Morris 105), he cannot fulfill the
ascension of the soul through love, and therefore, cannot save his
kingdoms from the destruction caused by consummated courtly love.
In Arthuriana, when interpreted in the Cistercian perspective
imposed on it by the authors of the Vulgate Cycle, the destruction
of the court shows the failure of secular chivalry. The failure of
the Grail Quest[footnoteRef:50] is linked to the failure of the
Court. The Cistercian interpretation allows for hope that man
could, if as perfect as Galahad, reach the Graal and transcend this
mortal plane. [50: Lancelot, though he may be the most perfect
secular knight, is not worthy of finding the San Graal. If he is
the best the world has to offer, then what the authors of the
Vulgate Cycle are suggesting is that, the world fails spiritually.
]
Bibliography
Ab Ithel, John W., ed. Annales Cambriae. London: Eyre and
Spottiswoode, Her Majesty’s Printers, 1860.
Amtower, Laurel & Vanhoutte, Jacqueline. A Companion to
Chaucer and his Contemporaries: Texts and Contexts. Peterborough:
Broadview Press, 2009.
Archibald, Elizabeth. Incest and the medieval imagination.
Oxford; New York: Oxford UP, 2001.
Ashe, Geoffrey. “‘A Certain Very Ancient Book’: Traces of an
Arthurian Source in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History.” Speculum. 56.2
(Apr. 1981): 301-323. Online.
Bagliani, Agostino Paravicini; Santi, Francesco, ed. The
regulation of evil: social and cultural attitudes to epidemics in
the late Middle Ages. Firenze: Sismel, 1998.
Barber, Richard, ed. King Arthur in Music. Cambridge; D.S.
Brewer, 2002.
Bartlett, Robert & MacKay, Angus, ed. Medieval frontier
societies. Oxford [England]: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford UP,
1989.
Bell, Michael J. “The Relation of Mentality to Race William
Wells Newell and the Celtic Hypothesis”. The Journal of American
Folklore. 92.363 (Jan.-Mar., 1979): 25-43. Online.
Beson, Larry ed. “Stanzaic Morte Arthur and Alliterative Morte
Arthure: Introduction”. King Arthur’s Death The Middle English
Stanzaic Morte Arthur and Alliterative Morte Arthure. Kalamazoo
Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications, 1994.
Bowers, Richard H, ed. Seven studies in medieval English history
and other historical essays: presented to Harold S. Snellgrove.
Jackson, MS: UP of Mississippi, 1963.
Bowsky, William M, ed. The Black Death: a turning point in
history?. Huntington, NY: R. E. Krieger Pub. Co., 1978.
Bromwich, Rachel; Jarman, A.O.H.; Roberts, Brynley F. The Arthur
of the Welsh: the Arthurian legend in medieval Welsh literature.
Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1991.
Bronislaw, Geremek. The Common Roots of Europe. Cambridge, UK:
Polity Press; Cambridge, Mass.: Backwell, 1996.
Bruce, Christoper W. The Arthurian name dictionary. New York:
Garland Publishing, 1999.
Burgess, Glyn S. Arthur of the French: the Arthurian legend in
medieval French and Occitan literature. Cardiff: University of
Wales Press, 2005.
Cable, Carole. Architecture, landscape and the legend of King
Arthur. Monticello, III: Vance Bibliographies, 1987.
Campbell, Bruce M.S, ed. Before the black death: studies in the
‘crisis’ of the early fourteenth century. Manchester; New York:
Manchester UP; New York: Distributed exclusively in USA and Canada,
1991.
Claassens, Geert H.M.; Johnson, David F., ed. King Arthur in the
medieval Low Countries. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven UP, 2000.
Carr, A.D. Medieval Wales. Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire:
Macmillian Press; New York: St Martin’s Press, 1995.
Davies, Wendy; Halsall, Guy; Reynolds, Andrew, ed. People and
space in the Middle Ages, 300-1300. Turnhout: Brepols, 2005.
Denomy, Alexander J. “Courtly Love and Courtliness.” Speculum.
28.1 (Jan., 1953): 44-63.
Doel, Fran. Worlds of Arthur: King Arthur in history, legend
& culture. Stroud: Tempus, 1998.
Dunn, Marilyn. The emergence of monasticism: from the Desert
Fathers to the early Middle Ages. Oxford, UK; Malden, Mass:
Blackwell Pub., 2000.
Dunning, R.W. Arthur: the King in the West. New York: St.
Martin’s Press, 1995.
Edel, Doris. The Celtic West and Europe: studies in Celtic
literature and the early Irish Church. Dublin; Portland, Ore: Four
Courts Press, 2001.
Entwistle, William J. The Arthurian legend in the literatures of
the Spanish Peninsula. London, & Toronto, J.M. Dent & sons
ltd. 1925.
Fagan, Brian. The Little Ice Age: how climate made history 1300-
1850. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000.
Field, P. J. C. Malory: text and sources. Cambridge [England];
Rochester, NY: D.S. Brewer, 1998.
Fisher, John H. “A Language Policy for Lancastrian England.”
PMLA. 107.5 (Oct., 1992): 1168-1180. Online.
Fletcher, Robert Huntington. “Two Notes on the Historia Regum
Britanniea of Geoffrey of Mon Mouth”. PMLA 16, no. 4 (1901)
188.
French, Roger, ed. Medicine from the Black Death to the French
disease. Brookfield, Vt.: Ashgate Pub., 1998.
Gardner, Edmund Garratt. The Arthurian legend in Italian
literature. London J.M. Dent & sons ltd.; 1930
Gill, Paul. “Politics and Propaganda in Fifteenth-Century
England: The Polemical Writings of Sir John Fortescue.” Speculum.
46.2 (Apr., 1971): 333-347. Online.
Guerin, M. Victoria. The fall of kings and princes: structure
and destruction in Arthurian tragedy. Stanford, Ca: Stanford UP,
1995.
Gottfried, Robert S. The black death: natural and human disaster
in medieval Europe. New York: Free Press; London: Collier
Macmilian, 1983.
Hamel, Mary ed. Morte Arthure: A Critical Edition. New York
& London: Garland Publishing, Inc. 1984.
Haug, Walter. Vernacular literary theory in the Middle Ages: the
German tradition, 800- 1300, in its European context. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1997.
Hays, J.N. The burdens of disease epidemics and human response
in western history. NewBrunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 1998.
Hasty, Will. “Tales of Arthur”. University of Florida,
Gainesville. Spring 2007.
Herlihy, David. The black death and the transformation of the
west. Cambridge, Mass.; London, England: Harvard UP, 1997.
Howes, Laura L, ed. Place, space and landscape in medieval
narrative. Knoxville: U of Tennessee Press, 2007.
Ingram, James, trans. “Annales Cambriae”. The Anglo-Saxson
Chronicle. London: Everyman Press, 1912. Medieval Sourcebook. Web.
19 Dec. 2009.
Howe, John; Michael Wolfe. Inventing medieval landscapes: senses
of place in Western Europe. Gainesville, Fla.: University Press of
Florida, 2002.
Jackson, W.H.; S.A. Ranawake, ed Arthur of the Germans: the
Arthurian legend in medieval German and Dutch literature. Cardiff:
University of Wales Press, 2000.
Jones, Gwyn; Thomas Jones, trans. The Mabinogion. New York:
Knopf, 2000.
Jordan, William Chester. Europe in the High Middle Ages. London:
Allen Lane, 2001.
---. The great famine: northern Europe in the early fourteenth
century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1996.
Kalinke, Marianne E, ed. Norse Romance. Woodbridge, Suffolk;
Rochester, N.Y.: D.S. Brewer, 1999.
Keeler, Laura. “The Historia Regum Britanniae and Four Medieval
Chroniclers”. Speculum. 21.1 (Jan., 1946): 24-37. Online.
Kennedy, Elspeth. Lancelot and the Grail: a study of the Prose
Lancelot. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford UP, 1986.
Keys, David. Catastrophe: an investigation into the origins of
the modern world. New York: Ballantine Pub., 2000.
Kipel, Zora, trans. The Byelorussian Tristan. New York: Garland
Publishing, 1988.
Knight, Stephen. Arthurian literature and society. London:
Macmillian, 1983.
Korrel, Peter. An Arthurian triangle: a study of the origin,
development, and characterization of Arthur, Guinevere, and
Mordred. Leden: E. J. Brill: 1984.
Lacy, Norris J, ed. Lancelot-Grail: the Old French Arthurian
Vulgate and post-Vulgate in translation. New York: Garland
Publishing, 1993-1996.
Lacy, Norris J.; Ashe, Geoffrey. The Arthurian Handbook. New
York; Garland, 1988.
Lamb, H. H. Climate: present, past and future. London: Methuen,
1972-77.
---. Climate, history, and the modern world. London; New York:
Routledge, 1995.
Landau, Leo. Hebrew-German romances and tales and their relation
to the romantic literature of the middle ages. Leipzig: In
Kommission bei E. Avenarius, 1912.
Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel. Times of feast, times of famine: a
history of climate since the year 1000. Trans. Bray, Barbara.
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1971
Levine, David. At the dawn of modernity: biology, culture and
material life in Europe after the year 1000. Berkley: University of
California Press, 2001.
Loomis, Rodger Sherman. Wales and the Arthurian legend. Cardiff,
University of Wales Press, 1956.
Lupack, Alan. The Oxford Guide to Arthurian Literature and
Legend. Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2005.
Print.
---. New directions in Arthurian studies. Cambridge [England];
Rochester, N.Y.: D.S. Brewer, 2002
MacKillop, James. Dictionary of Celtic mythology. Oxford; New
York: Oxford UP, 1998.
Malory, Thomas. Morte d’Arthur. London: Macmillan & co.,
1868.
Malory, Thomas. Le Morte d’Arthur. New York: Modern Library,
1999.
Matthew, Doland. Medieval Europe. Alexandria, Va: Stonehenge
Press, 1992, 1983.
Matthews, William. The Tragedy of Arthur: A study of the
alliterative Morte Arthu. Berkley & Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 1960; London: Cambridge UP, 1971.
Monmouth, Geoffrey of. The History of the Kings of Britain.
Trans.Thorpe, Lewis. London: Penguin Press, 1966. Online.
Monmouth, Geoffrey of. Historia regum britanniae. Trans. A.
Thompson; ed. J. A. Giles. London: William Stevens Printer,
1842.
Morris, Rosemary. The character of King Arthur in medieval
literature. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1982. Print.
Nennius. Historia brittonum. Britiannia: Arthurian Sources.
Britannia: British History and Travel. 2007. Web. December,
2009.
Nicholas, David. The later medieval city, 1300-1500. London; New
York: Longman, 1997.
Paine, Richard R, ed. Integrating archeological demography:
multidisciplinary approaches to prehistoric population. Center for
Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at
Carbondale, 1997.
Pearsall, Derek. Arthurian Romance: a short introduction.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003. Print.
Phillips, J.R.S. The medieval expansion of Europe. Oxford
[Oxfordshire]; New York: Oxford UP, 1986.
Propp, Vladimir. Morphology of the Folktale. Trans. Laurence
Scott, Intro. Svatana Pirkova-Jakobson. Austin, TX & London:
University of Texas Press, 1968.
Ried, Margaret; Cornfute, Jane. The Arthurian legend. Edinburgh:
Oliver and Boyd, 1938.
Reno, Frank D. Historic Figures of the Arthurian era:
authenticating the enemies and allies of Britain’s post- Roman
King. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co., 2000.
Roach, William, ed. The Continuations of the Old French Parceval
of Chrétien de Troyes. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1955.
Rotberg, Robert . Population history and the family: a Journal
of interdisciplinary history reader. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,
2001.
Sheard, Sally and Power, Helen, ed. Body and city: histories or
urban public health. Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate,
2000.
Snyder, Christoper. The world of King Arthur. London: Thomas
& Hudson, 2000.
Stiennon, Jacques. Chrétien de Troyes et le Graal: colloque
arthurian belge de Bruges. Paris: A-G.Nizet, 1984.
Thomas, Robert; Lambdin, Laura Cooner, ed. Encyclopedia of
medieval literature. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2000.
Tilbury, Gervase of. Otia imperialia: recreation for an emperor.
Banks, S.E and Binns, J.W. trans. & ed. Oxford : Clarendon
Press, 2002. Print.
Von Eschenbach, Wolfram. Parzival. Trans. A.T. Hatto. New York:
Penguin Books, 1980.
Watts, Sheldon. Epidemics and history: disease, power, and
imperialism. New Haven: Yale UP, 1997.
Webb, Diana. Medieval European pilgrimage, c. 700- c. 1500.
Houndmills, Basingbroke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave, 2002.
White, Richard, ed. King Arthur in legend and history. London:
J.M. Dent, 1997.
White, T.H. The Once and Future King. New York: Ace Books,
1987.
Wienraub, Eugene J. Chrétien’s Jewish grail: a new investigation
of the imagery and significance of Chrétien de Troyes’ grail
episode based upon medieval Hebraic sources. Chapel Hill: U.N.C.
Dept. of Romance Languages: distributed by U.N.C
Press, 1976.
Wilhelm, James J. The Romance of Arthur: an anthology of
medieval texts in translation. New York: Garland, 1994.
Williamson, Tom. Shaping medieval landscapes: settlement,
society, environment. Macclesfield: Windgather Press, 2003.