Jessie just brought this to my attention: Darkon. Apparently, this group of Washington/Baltimore area knights meets every other Sunday to do battle. Let me know if anyone's interested.
Turns out that a Darkon documentary exists and can be found for free on Hulu. I haven't watched it, but I have watched the trailer. Though I didn't notice any mention of Arthur, the trailer does talk about border disputes and the need to protect imagined national boundaries. Plus, they wear chain mail!
Monday, November 30, 2009
Children and Arthur: more...
There are a number of wonderful/rich/interesting texts that I had to leave out of my presentation this evening on Arthur in children's literature (has anyone read Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court? Totally NOT a book for children, but a "children's book" that even includes illustrations, and though I'm not an avid Twain reader, I find it an insightful and funny novel. Or Thomas Berger's Arthur Rex, which is not entirely a children's book either, but which my parents nonetheless read to me when I was young, I suspect because my dad is such a great fan of Little Big Man); but the most fascinating information my research yielded is not quite literary in nature. I read an essay on the Arthurian-themed American youth group, first founded at the turn of the 20th century, which served as a model for the Boy Scouts (which was founded by an Englishman, something new to me). I tried to find more about these groups, which were actually fairly popular (claiming 130,000 members in 1922), but more eluded me. However, I thought I'd share what I did learn, because I'd never heard of these groups before, and because reading about them (even so briefly) raised so many questions regarding American (quite specifically!) psychology, history, politics, and religion, all nestled in the cradle of the seemingly incompatible concepts and values of Medieval knighthood.
The American minister William Byron Forbush wrote a book called The Boy Problem in 1901, suggesting that the behavioral difficulties so commonly experienced by adolescent boys might be caused by social pressure for male youths to rush into adulthood unprepared and thus keenly vulnerable to the moral dangers encountered during this stage of life . His solution to this problem was to found the Knights of King Arthur, a youth group capturing the spirit of chivalry and knightliness of the Arthurian legends (Forbush was greatly influenced by Tennyson's version of Malory, go figure). These groups were organized into castles, sponsored by local churches, with adult leader "Merlins" to advise them. The boys progressed through stages of knighthood: page to squire to knight. They went on quests (the performances of good deeds), and took Arthurian names (or, later, American heroes' names). There were groups for girls as well, the Queens of Avalon.
Anyhow, the essay I read focused on the "Americanization of knighthood" represented by these groups, on the subversion of Arthurian values for celebrated American ones-- meritocracy, namely. We talked briefly in one class about the relationship between nobility and ability in Malory, about the fact that in the proof of knightliness, highbornliness (new word?) is simultaneously revealed. For Forbush to turn this concept on its head, and not even in a consciously revolutionary way, is pretty radical to me. And yet another incarnation for the well-heeled legend.
P.s. Let's pretend this isn't my first post, though I imagine most of you have not failed to notice this is so?
The American minister William Byron Forbush wrote a book called The Boy Problem in 1901, suggesting that the behavioral difficulties so commonly experienced by adolescent boys might be caused by social pressure for male youths to rush into adulthood unprepared and thus keenly vulnerable to the moral dangers encountered during this stage of life . His solution to this problem was to found the Knights of King Arthur, a youth group capturing the spirit of chivalry and knightliness of the Arthurian legends (Forbush was greatly influenced by Tennyson's version of Malory, go figure). These groups were organized into castles, sponsored by local churches, with adult leader "Merlins" to advise them. The boys progressed through stages of knighthood: page to squire to knight. They went on quests (the performances of good deeds), and took Arthurian names (or, later, American heroes' names). There were groups for girls as well, the Queens of Avalon.
Anyhow, the essay I read focused on the "Americanization of knighthood" represented by these groups, on the subversion of Arthurian values for celebrated American ones-- meritocracy, namely. We talked briefly in one class about the relationship between nobility and ability in Malory, about the fact that in the proof of knightliness, highbornliness (new word?) is simultaneously revealed. For Forbush to turn this concept on its head, and not even in a consciously revolutionary way, is pretty radical to me. And yet another incarnation for the well-heeled legend.
P.s. Let's pretend this isn't my first post, though I imagine most of you have not failed to notice this is so?
She's A Lady... (woa woa woa)...
Lady Merlin
A question for my fellow(ship of) Arthurians: is Lady Brusen just a female Merlin? And if so, is she negative or positive?
My initial reaction to her was negative. Deeply negative. She tricks Lancelot? This equated her with Morgan Le Fay and caused me to cast a doubtful eye over everything she did for the remainder of our reading. On a second look, however, I was forced to admit that she holds the same space in our story as Merlin. As an operator she gives people agency that they otherwise would be denied. She knows, via prophesy (prophesy people!), that Elaine and Lancelot’s child will be the greatest knight ever and immediately enacts a plan to bring that child into the world. More telling is the way she goes about it. Disguising one lover to appear as the real heart’s desire of another is emotionally disturbing, rationally insulting, and leads to all sorts of trouble… we’ve also seen it before. Amazingly enough, our beloved King Arthur was created in this very way.
Is Lady Brusen to Galahad as Merlin is to Arthur? Is she a testament for female agency (tricking the knight instead of the dame is fairly impressive) or is this just a bitchy woman who operates in the narrative as a tool to move the plot along? Ultimately, I find her to have a wisdom of magic and a sense of destiny that most characters seem to be missing. She is certainly “a smooth operator” if nothing else.
What do we make of this mysterious lady my fellows?
Thoughts on Blood
While trying to make sense of all the armor changes and incognito in Le Morte Darthur, one thing came to mind: Gang Gawain rarely conceals their identities. Sure Gawain plays around early on in order to get access to a castle and lady therein, but overall he and his teammates do not play with disguise.
On the otherhand, Team Launcelot (including Trystram, Paloymides, and Lamerok) goes incognito for a variety of reasons. They hesitate to give their names and even fabricate names on occasion. However, when Trystram asks Gawain and bros for their names, they boast, " Wyte thou welle, Sir Knyght...we feare nat much to tell our namys...we be nevewys unto Kynge Arthure" (411).
Ironically, Gang Gawain is more villainous than Team Launcelot and if anybody should hide themselves it should be those four brethryn. And yet they have no need to hide themselves because they're blood relatives of Arthur. They break the knightly code freely and their blood (their identity) serves as armor and shield. Nobody dares avenge them for their crimes, but Team Launcelot cannot be so relaxed.
I suspect Malory is commenting on nepotism and the hypocrisy of who is and isn't punished for their crimes. In this narrative we must question Arthur's ability to uphold justice in his court.
On the otherhand, Team Launcelot (including Trystram, Paloymides, and Lamerok) goes incognito for a variety of reasons. They hesitate to give their names and even fabricate names on occasion. However, when Trystram asks Gawain and bros for their names, they boast, " Wyte thou welle, Sir Knyght...we feare nat much to tell our namys...we be nevewys unto Kynge Arthure" (411).
Ironically, Gang Gawain is more villainous than Team Launcelot and if anybody should hide themselves it should be those four brethryn. And yet they have no need to hide themselves because they're blood relatives of Arthur. They break the knightly code freely and their blood (their identity) serves as armor and shield. Nobody dares avenge them for their crimes, but Team Launcelot cannot be so relaxed.
I suspect Malory is commenting on nepotism and the hypocrisy of who is and isn't punished for their crimes. In this narrative we must question Arthur's ability to uphold justice in his court.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Trystram and Palomydes' Love/Hate Relationship
Although so much of Me Morte D'Arthur revolves around ideals of knighthood and romantic love, I have been really struck by several instances of unexpected sympathy and compassion between knights, especially Trystram and Palomides, who seem to alternately be kind to each other and try to kill each other. I had a hard time understanding their relationship: the feud between them seems genuine and times and like a joke at others. But I'm wondering how the instances of sympathy, despite the hatred, fit into the ideal of knighthood, or don't fit. Are Trystram and Palomydes upholding the ideal, contradicting it, or are these instances simply outside the realm of its power?
The first such instance that I noticed occurs in the first part of the Book of Sir Trystram: "And every day Sir Palomydes wolde repreve Sir Trystram of olde hate betwyxt them; and ever Sir Trystram spake fayre and seyde lytyll. But whan Sir Palomydes se that Sir Trystram was falle in syknes, than was he hevy for hym and comforted hym in all the best wyse he coude" (327, ll. 20-25). Whatever anger Palomydes feels towards Trystram evaporated when he sees that Trystram is unwell.
Later, after the Tournament at Lonezep, Trystram finds out that Palomydes is going to be executed, Trystram wants to save him: "Whan Sir Trystram knew how Sir Palomydes wente to his deathward, he was hevy to hyre thereof, and sayde, 'Howbehit that I am wrothe wyth him, yet I woll nat suffir hym to dye so shamefull a dethe, for he ys a full noble knyght.' And anone Sir Trystram asked his armys; and whan he was armed he toke his horse and two squyars wyth hym, and rode a grete pace thorow a foreyste aftir Sir Palomydes, the nexte way unto the castell Pelownes where Sir Palomydes was jowged to his dethe" (456, ll. 29-36). Soon after saving him, Trystram comes upon Palomydes singing about La Beal Isode in the woods and again tries to kill him!
Are they bound to be kind to each other because they are both good knights? Or are they bound to hate each other because of the wrongs they each believe the other to have done? Is Trystram supposed to avenge Isolde's, um, purity, when Palomydes declares his love for her, or is this a moot point since she is having an affair with Trsytram?
Confused though I am, I really enjoyed this storyline.
The first such instance that I noticed occurs in the first part of the Book of Sir Trystram: "And every day Sir Palomydes wolde repreve Sir Trystram of olde hate betwyxt them; and ever Sir Trystram spake fayre and seyde lytyll. But whan Sir Palomydes se that Sir Trystram was falle in syknes, than was he hevy for hym and comforted hym in all the best wyse he coude" (327, ll. 20-25). Whatever anger Palomydes feels towards Trystram evaporated when he sees that Trystram is unwell.
Later, after the Tournament at Lonezep, Trystram finds out that Palomydes is going to be executed, Trystram wants to save him: "Whan Sir Trystram knew how Sir Palomydes wente to his deathward, he was hevy to hyre thereof, and sayde, 'Howbehit that I am wrothe wyth him, yet I woll nat suffir hym to dye so shamefull a dethe, for he ys a full noble knyght.' And anone Sir Trystram asked his armys; and whan he was armed he toke his horse and two squyars wyth hym, and rode a grete pace thorow a foreyste aftir Sir Palomydes, the nexte way unto the castell Pelownes where Sir Palomydes was jowged to his dethe" (456, ll. 29-36). Soon after saving him, Trystram comes upon Palomydes singing about La Beal Isode in the woods and again tries to kill him!
Are they bound to be kind to each other because they are both good knights? Or are they bound to hate each other because of the wrongs they each believe the other to have done? Is Trystram supposed to avenge Isolde's, um, purity, when Palomydes declares his love for her, or is this a moot point since she is having an affair with Trsytram?
Confused though I am, I really enjoyed this storyline.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Trystram for this week
What an interesting read! However, I have a million questions. It is wonderful how Malory makes us despise Mark despite Trystram’s guilt. After all Isode is his uncle’s wife. Am I the only one who has noticed the change in Trystram? How Isode bows down to him and his rules. On page 490, it appears that Trystram has been away two years from Isode (the span of Launcelot’s madness). It is a wonder that Mark or any other enemy does not try to spirit Isode away. It appears also in this text that all except Arthur are aware of Gwenyver’s adultery, and the two queens openly exchange letters and messages regarding their knights.
As for the Gawayne brothers, it is awfully shocking what they are up to. How could Gaherys behead his mother and later gang up and kill Lamerok after he had saved the brothers from Palomydes. Later what is more confusing is when Gawayne and his brothers volunteer to look for Launcelot. In this version Sir Bors seems to have Gawayne’s adventures. Why does Malory do this? A hatred of the Scots since he is so taken with Inglonde?
As for Mark, I was surprised to learn about his brother and his nephew who not mentioned in the earlier book. And that’s not the only surprise. Percival has a different background here. He is Lamerok’s brother. In Chretien, he his dead father and brothers are knights but he is a brought up all wrong by his mother. Another question is that if Palomydes is a pagan, how come his mother is Christian. Has she converted along with her other sons?
Finally, I do like Arthur. He actually fights and takes a beating and has to be rescued. He is contrasted with Mark and obviously is above board and trusts to the honor of knights which include his nephews and Mark (and maybe Launcelot too who seems to hang around the king as though they are best buddies).
As for the Gawayne brothers, it is awfully shocking what they are up to. How could Gaherys behead his mother and later gang up and kill Lamerok after he had saved the brothers from Palomydes. Later what is more confusing is when Gawayne and his brothers volunteer to look for Launcelot. In this version Sir Bors seems to have Gawayne’s adventures. Why does Malory do this? A hatred of the Scots since he is so taken with Inglonde?
As for Mark, I was surprised to learn about his brother and his nephew who not mentioned in the earlier book. And that’s not the only surprise. Percival has a different background here. He is Lamerok’s brother. In Chretien, he his dead father and brothers are knights but he is a brought up all wrong by his mother. Another question is that if Palomydes is a pagan, how come his mother is Christian. Has she converted along with her other sons?
Finally, I do like Arthur. He actually fights and takes a beating and has to be rescued. He is contrasted with Mark and obviously is above board and trusts to the honor of knights which include his nephews and Mark (and maybe Launcelot too who seems to hang around the king as though they are best buddies).
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Parry's Fisher King Story
Hello again. For those of you who didn't get a handout, or perhaps would like a digital copy, I've decided to post Parry's version of the Fisher King tale as told in Terry Gilliam's Fisher King (1991). It's interesting to note how this one contrasts from the other Fisher King tales we've read. It's also interesting to note that Jeff Bridges' character wears a bandage on his right hand throughout the film. Pretty overt symbolism, but I like it nonetheless.
Chivalrically yours,
The Boar of Battelle
PS
After this, I'll cut it out. No more Fisher King posts--unless I'm forced.
Parry’s tale of the Fisher King:
It begins with the king as a boy having to spend the night alone in the forest to prove his courage so he can become king. And while he’s spending the night alone, he’s visited by a sacred vision: out of the fire appears the Holy Grail, the symbol of God’s divine grace, and a voice said to the boy: “You shall be keeper of the grail so that it may heal the hearts of men.” But the boy was blinded by greater visions of a life filled with power and glory and beauty, and in this state of radical amazement, he felt, for a brief moment, not like a boy, but invincible, like God. So he reached in the fire to take the grail and the grail vanished, leaving him with his hand in the fire, to be terribly wounded. Now, as this boy grew older, his wound grew deeper, until one day, life for him lost its reason. He had no faith in any man, not even himself; he couldn’t love or feel loved; he was sick with experience—he began to die. One day a fool wandered in tot the castle and found the king alone. Now, being a fool, he was simple-minded. He didn’t see a king, “what ails you, friend?” The king replied, “I’m thirsty. I need some water to cool my throat.” So the fool took a cup from beside his bed, filled it with water and handed it to the king. As the king began to drink he realized that his wound was healed. He looked in his hands and there was the Holy Grail—that which he had sought all of his life. He turned to the fool and said with amazement, “How could you find that which my brightest and bravest could not?” The fool replied, “I don’t know. I only knew that you were thirsty.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)