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.