I want to talk about time as it works in the Arthurian Legends we have read, how it may come to work in the Legends we will read, and what we may hope to make of that, if anything. I think there’s something seemingly circuitous at work in regard to time, or, at least, I get a sense of it in Monmouth. In the introduction we are told that Merlin’s prophecies were so intriguing to Geoffrey’s Medieval readers because they “first and foremost, imply the idea that the future is, in some sense, pre-existent, and that its patterns are knowable by human beings” (25). I’d argue interest in the future as pre-existent and understandable to human beings is something that still rings rather true today a la Madame Marie in Springsteen’s ‘Sandy.’ Where the present and the future starts to become part of something that isn’t linear so much as cyclical, is when Arthur, the Boar of Cornwall is referenced in the same prophecy as “the House of Romulus” (131). The House of Romulus meaning Rome. Arthur, as a Briton, is a descendent of the first proclaimed Briton and leader of the Britons who was a Roman in exile. By referencing Arthur and then the House of Romulus, which Arthur is however diluted, somehow a part of, there begins to be a sense of things folding back into themselves in the “snake eating its own tail” sort of way. The prophecies continue with reference to renewal with women turning “continually into serpents” and the “campus of Venus” being “renewed” (135).
Several important events in Uther, and then Arthur’s, lives happen around Christian holidays that highlight renewal. Uther’s coronation is at Easter. Arthur’s is near Pentecost. Uther, Aurelius Ambrosias and Constantine are all buried within the Ring of the Giants, a pagan symbol that is a circle—okay, renewal theme might be a stretch there, but I’m just trying to open it up for discussion. Is this where the seeds are planted that later become the theme of Arthur being the “Once and Future” King? The Britons lose the land, but are told they will “regain the island […] after the predestined time had passed” (216), suggesting a return to the glory they once held that has not so much ended with the death of Arthur as it has gone into slumber with him. This is perhaps more in line with what was discussed in the intro to Marie de France, where the death of the nightingale is mentioned as symbolizing in the poem not “the end of love, only of the idyll.” There is no end to Arthur, or what he symbolizes, only an end to that moment in time of his rule, and from there is born the hope of the Britons regaining control of their lands and their former glory with the return of Arthur.
And okay, this second thing doesn’t fit with my theme of time, but it had me wondering what we make of the moment of the lake with the weird fish in Geoffrey’s Kings of Britain when compared to the treatment of Marie de France’s lovers and society as described in the intro?
The weird square lake is an interesting moment; one I don’t completely know what to do with. “No one knew whether” the lake had “been shaped by nature of by the craft of men” and in the lake there are “four different kinds of fish in its four corners, and the fish from one corner never mingled with the fish from the others” (169). The knee-jerk reading is to look at this as a statement discouraging racial intermingling amongst what I assume would be the Britons, the Pics, the Scots and the Saxons. Which, upon consideration, becomes insane. When you consider the history of the collective peoples in the History of the Kings of Britain, and the number of times one conquered another only to invade another and be invaded by yet another, you realize the purity of any given collection of people was compromised years ago. Should this moment of the lake, with the four different fish, be read in the obvious way? Or as some kind of weird throw away by Geoffrey? What do you make of it? What do you make of it, too, when considering Marie, who concentrated “on the individuality of her characters” and as such was “not very concerned with their integration into society.” The major appeal to the Arthurian Legend, to me at least, always seemed to be Arthur’s ability to draw his people to him, to create unity. Then again, Arthur is himself such an amazing character that complete unity is impossible, he will always stand out from his people and even the smaller circle of his knights.
I think the circuitous nature of time is the nature of Arthurian characters as well. Arthur, after all, is the once and future king. I haven’t read enough Arthuriana to know if he ever returned from Avalon, or if there was ever a “second coming” of sorts, but I know he continues (even to this day) to infiltrate our culture in various forms; he’s been “returning” for hundreds of years, and not just in artwork. In the 1960’s, he showed up in the White House (A.K.A. the Kennedys’ Camelot). Years later, the Obama family was compared to the Kennedys... The legend’s always rebooting. (By the way, it was Toni who directed my thoughts to the American fascination with Arthur, so maybe she can elaborate on the subject.)
ReplyDeleteThe narratives of individual Arthurian legends are sometimes blatantly repetitive, such as the lists of names in Culwch and Olwen, or the descriptions of color in The Dream of Rhonabwy. The stories move like songs, even though Rhonabwy is clearly intended to be read, not sung. This seems to be a way of integrating the tales into peoples’ collective memories, giving us a sort of chorus to memorize and repeat.
Marie’s Lais work the same way. Her writing is consciously circuitous, retelling known stories as a nod to the past while sending them to the future in new forms. Though she claims to be invested in “individuality,” she’s obviously very aware of how her work will fit into society -- both in the past and in the future. Burges and Busby write, “She was immersed in the classical and vernacular literature circulating during her lifetime, and she is part of the mainstream of medieval culture, not a quaint oddity, however unique her work may be” (23).
Leaping now to the subject of the square pool of water, I think this is an acknowledgment of the inherently circuitous nature of the British monarchy. The same characters are involved in every war (the king, the knights/soldiers, the victims, the instigators, etc.), many of whom are fighting for (or because of) familial relationships. Like the throne, which tends to remain in the family, Arthurian legends appear to be quite incestuous, borrowing characters and places from each other for centuries. All of these characters believe themselves to be of distinct nationalities, but they have actually intermingled so much, it grows increasingly difficult to justify their self-imposed divisions. They’d like to think of themselves as fish in separate corners, but in fact, the pool isn’t very big. It’s only “twenty feet long, and five feet deep” (169). The fish are bound to meet, and when they do, they’ll either kill each other or procreate. Until then, they’ll remain in their corners, swimming in circles because they’re stuck.
Really interesting ideas from both of you about the mysterious pool in Scotland. What I especially like is the way that you have both found ways to interpret the marvel in a context that is specific to the society and politics at issue throughout the Historia. What makes this most gratifying is that this passage is mostly lifted from one of Geoffrey's earlier sources, yet its meaning is unquestionably changed by its new, Galfridian context.
ReplyDeleteI also appreciate the reflections on time in Arthuriana. We'll certainly see more explicitly circuitous chronology with Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and arguably there's lots more to be had elsewhere, too.
I also think that Arthur's greatest trait is his ability to create a unity between unexpected allies. From the earliest stories this is the case. In Culhwch and Olwen we are introduced to some superhuman warriors with fantastic powers. Cai alone had abilities most comic-book superheros would describe as a bit over the top. Despite this, Arthur is not described as having any super human capabilities. From what we see, while he is a skilled warrior, he could probably not be commanding all of these men because he was the strongest or biggest. Yet all of these kings and superheroes do follow him, because they respect him.
ReplyDeleteThis is why it is important that Arthur's downfall usually comes about when he can no longer maintain the fracturing alliances under his rule. When he is betrayed, sometimes by Lancelot and basically always by Mordred, this is the breaking of his power. When he can no longer hold together all of these different men who are each powerful and respected in their own right, he ceases to be "Arthur," and his reign ends.
Still, the story ends with the hope that he might return. This is a hope not just for Arthur, but for England as well. With the ability to bring unity, a restored Arthur would be a real symbol of hope, no matter the time period.