How did these two texts challenge or reinforce your previous ideas about life, the world, or society during King Arthur’s reign? Use references to places where the text either surprised you or echoed traditional thinking about the “Dark Ages.”
King Arthur & His World
ENGL 361 | Spring 2019 | Dr. Myra Seaman
I always thought of the “Dark Ages” as a time when the world was not only stagnant, but very unconnected. These two texts reveal that not only was it a time of great change, parts of the world were interacting with each other either through war or trade. I was not surprised to find that that Latin and Celtic writing were found at Tintagel, but I was surprised to learn they found Greek writing as well as glass from the Iberian Peninsula and ceramics from as far away as Turkey. This challenged my previous thinking that the people of Europe were rather self-contained, as they were interacting with Africa and the Middle East. The article states the world associated King Arthur was “constantly in motion,” and Geoffrey of Monmouth’s “Arthur” paints a world that is also constantly in motion. I knew there was frequent war among the Dark Ages, but the story really drove home the chaos of the time period: borders always being redefined, ownership of castles and land transferred among people, rulers changing often as people constantly fought for land, resources, and power. It also stressed just how brutal life and war was in this time period, which later retellings of Arthur’s story have romanticized to paint Arthur’s reign as mostly a peaceful as prosperous time when the common people were protected by knights. For example, when Arthur took Norway, there was “a great loss of blood on both sides,” and his army then “set the cities on fire and dispersed the common people.” In the battle between Arthur and Lucious Tiberius, “The shouts, the slaughter, the quantity of blood spilled, and the agonies of the dying, made a dreadful scene of horror”. There was nothing romantic about this version of the story, where the common people suffered through so much war.
The “dark ages” spark ideas of war and low levels of education/innovation. Overall, it seems pretty negative. Cador, Duke of Cornwall proclaims that “what remains of virtue, honor, courage, and thirst of praise, will be tainted with rust idleness” criticizing the lavish lifestyle that Arthur and his nobility live (27). This moment challenges the rest of the text where Arthur is busy conquering foreign lands and expanding the empire. Arthur demonstrates the ideals of a king who is noble, chivalrous, and a strong conquerer. His actions generally reinforced my ideas about the “dark ages.” However, Arthur himself contradicts many of the other people we see in this text. He is someone who also brings people together. Through his City of Legions, he gathers leaders from around Europe to be at peace together making him “beloved by all people” (25). Geoffry’s characterization of Arthur both reinforces the violence of the middle ages and makes him stand out as a leader in the time.
As someone who has taken previous classes regarding the Middle Ages, I have come to understand that the Middle Ages are not “dark,” or a time where knowledge no longer progressed and countries were cut off from each other. In fact, the Middle Ages were a time of learning and development, like many other periods in history. These texts helped reinforce this idea by pointing the various social structures and dynamic architecture of the ages, as well as it’s functional relationship towards the rest of the world. Merlin’s prophecy at the beginning of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Arthur account at least shows an awareness of other areas of the world, as he pointed to “a German worm” and a “seawolf” from “the woods of Africa.” (5). Eventually Arthur comes to interact with people from various parts of the world, from “Augusel, king of Albania,” to “Guillamurius, king of Ireland” (25) to many more, and it is well-known within history that with the spread of people comes the spread of ideas, traditions, and even culture. The blog post on the “Surprising Finds At King Arthur’s Legendary Castle” by Matthew Gabriele supports this idea. The author points to findings regarding the “the real history of the period in which Arthur supposedly lived,” (paragraph 6) that lead to the inevitable conclusion I stated above, that the Middle Ages was not a time of stagnation in knowledge or in peoples. The castle contains “ceramics from what’s now Turkey” and “writing[s] in 3 different languages” (paragraph 1) that support this claim.
I think there is a stark difference between The Surprising Finds At King Arthur’s Legendary Castle’s Tintagel Castle and chapter XIX and chapter XX OF Geoffrey of Monmouth. It is understandable to see why people view the dark ages as “barbaric” when hearing the stories similar to the one of Arthur’s conception in chapters nineteen and twenty. Uther disguises himself as Gorlois because he must have her. Uther ultimately rapes Igerna because he can not have her and as a result she conceives Arthur. Cornwall soldiers also think that Gorlois is still alive because they think they see him because of Merlin’s magic but it is truly Uther. Both of these scenes struck me as being incredibly cruel and barbaric. Gorlois, a duke that Uther sought advice from in earlier chapters, and is a figure of wisdom and reason is killed.
In Matthew Gabriele’s article shows Tintagel during the Middle Ages as a place with reason, culture, and art. I think the findings of diverse writings are important because it shows a willingness to be openminded. It paints Tintagel as a place that is willing to learn from other cultures, not as a place with a barbaric war-like mentality.