Okay, this might sound a little bizarre, but do you believe Mordred to be a truly evil character? Do you think he’s justified in his rise to the throne? Though we see him in the beginning of the section side with Agravain to disturb this “blissful ignorance” of Lancelot and Guinevere’s affairs, it seems he believes both the court, and Arthur, are unreasonable in their acceptance of this shameful affair, making a mockery of the court, as he agrees when Agravain says, “I marvel that we all be not ashamed both to see and to know how Sir Lancelot lieth daily and nightly by the queen” (246). He’s participating in something that he believes is morally wrong for the court to accept, and wants to correct it. Then, after the Queen is returned to Arthur and Lancelot is exiled, Arthur leaves the kingdom once again in pursuit of revenge (at Gawain’s counsel), giving full control of England and the Queen to Mordred, who we later find out is both nephew and son to Arthur (gross), making him (Mordred) an heir to the throne (285, 295). Though Mordred lied about Arthur’s death, “they [the people] were better pleased with Sir Mordred than they were with the noble King Arthur” (297). All power of the kingdom, including the Queen, was relinquished to the heir of the throne (Mordred), so is Mordred truly an evil figure as Malory paints him out to be? Or is he trying to do what’s best for England by taking control from Arthur, who’s effectively off on a war for revenge, despite Lancelot’s exile and surrender of the Queen.
King Arthur & His World
ENGL 361 | Spring 2019 | Dr. Myra Seaman
I think Michael’s analysis of Mordred points to an interesting thread in Malory’s text, which is that we repeatedly trust that certain characters are good and others evil because we are told to, when in reality we might see, as modern readers, that some have a lot of opposing character traits (we talked about this a little last class, in terms of Guinevere). However, I do interpret Mordred as a truly evil character. This view of him is supported before the section we read for today, even: he stabs Sir Lamerok in the back, which is something a noble knight would never do, Lancelot makes clear. A significant passage from this final episode is Malory’s commentary on pages 296-297 on the state of affairs in England with Mordred ruling it. We get the sense of the narrator’s extreme dismay and disillusionment at the lack of honor he sees embodied by the people in their trust of Mordred: “Lo ye all Englishmen, see ye not what a mischief here was? For he that was the most king and noblest knight of the world…and yet might not these Englishmen hold them content with him… And so fared the people at that time: they were better pleased with Sir Mordred than they were with the noble King Arthur” (296-97). Other details that highlight Mordred’s depravity are his response to the bishop (p. 296), and, of course, the fact that he commits the unforgivable, depraved sin of killing his father (throughout this scene, by the way, Malory continues to emphasize Arthur/his knights as noble and brave, which contrasts with a complete lack of such descriptions for Mordred, who is called a “traitor” [302]). So, to get back to Michael’s question, I do not think Mordred is trying to do what’s best for England, but rather that his motives are personal, motivated by thirst for power, and are conveniently allowed to be achieved because of Arthur’s lack of foresight.
I also believe that Mordred is a truly evil character. While he may be right about Lancelot and the Queen, he breaks all of the rules to confront the situation by bombarding Lancelot in the first section. Additionally, all of the reader’s opinions of good and evil come from what the characters tell us about each other. For example, Malory portrays Lancelot as good through others claiming that he saved them and he is the greatest. We get little outside information, so in Mordred’s case, we see Guinevere claiming that “she had liefer slay herself than be married with him” (296). He is not only deceiptful towards Arthur, Lancelot, and Gawain, but gets angry with a piest declaring, “I shall strike off thy head” when he is in disagreement (296). This interaction stood out to me the most when considering Mordred’s character because this is such a religious text and he blatantly insults a religious figurehead.
Like we discussed last class, both Mordered and Agravain are villains, not necessarily because they were telling the truth, but because of their intention. The exposed the affair with the intent to negatively impact members of the court. There is no honor in that. In that paragraph that you point out too, Michael, Malory’s voice comes out clearly. The author breaks from his narrative voice to essentially scold “all ye Englishmen” (296). Malory says that the people abandoned one of the greatest kings in the world. Malory only changes his voice when he enters this nostalgia it seems (remember his views about love). “Lo thus was the old custom and usages of this land” that is honoring the king. However Malory regretfully states that nothing can please englishmen for that long, which is a great fault. Perhaps they follow Mordred not because he was a great leader, but he was charismatic. If we look at our history, there are plenty of charismatic baddies. If Mordred knows he is the heir, why rush things along. He”l eventually have the throne in a proper manner with a coronation and everything. I mean Mordred got the bishop cursing him out…I think it would not be wrong to officially declare him the bad guy. Does this mean he is not a multi-faceted character? Is there any glimmer of goodness in that heart? I am not sure that is the point. We probably would find it in his background story. In this story Malory has Mordred I feel for more functional purposes.