Extra Credit 4 - Research
Alexander Bowne
The idea of King Arthur as a Seven Year King, while popular, is not an idea supported by the lore and legends. To be fair, the King Arthur mythos has a long and varied history, so the notion fits better with certain iterations of the myths than others. However, taken as a whole, there is one key aspect which is present in most versions of the myths that prevents Arthur from being an acceptable Seven Year King: In most versions, Arthur never dies.
In most Arthurian myths, at the end of Arthur’s life, he is ferried to the Isle of Avalon, to return when the world needed him most. Even were one to consider Avalon some form of the Underworld (when, as addressed in the first lesson of this class and in the myths themselves, Avalon is usually considered the realm of the Fae as a whole), the fact that Arthur is “scheduled” to return indicates that he is either not dead (and therefore an invalid possibility for sacrifice) or coming back to life (indicating either a rejected sacrifice or not being a sacrifice at all). Arthur has also been associated with the King Under the Mountain, rather than a trip to Avalon, which would be closer to a fit with the concept of the Seven Year King simply because he went underground. Even in this much more Underworld-like location, though, he is expected to return, either negating his sacrifice or indicating that he would never be chosen as such.
Setting aside these concerns, either by considering Avalon the Underworld or deciding that Arthur was “dead enough” to count as sacrificed, the issue becomes slightly more complicated. At that point, every iteration of the myth might have enough unique attributes to sway the conclusion one way or the other. Speaking broadly, the evolution of the Arthurian mythos has four main groupings to consider, those being pre-Geoffrey of Monmouth, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Romance, and Modern.
In the myths as they existed before Geoffrey of Monmouth (meaning Arthur as much more a Welsh folkloric hero than the king associated with the Round Table and such), Arthur has the best chance at “qualifying” as a Seven Year King, but even then he falls short. He is undoubtedly the best and brightest, shown by one memorable surviving text by Aneirin referring to another warrior, after he killed 300 men in one battle, by saying that “he was no Arthur.” The main stumbling point here is that Arthur already has strong associations with Annwn, the Underworld. His companions, much more a wandering warband to hunt down the supernatural (and occasionally the Saxons) than the Knights of modern retellings, included such beings as Gwythyr ap Greidawl, himself a god associated with the Underworld. It seems unlikely that someone who could command a group of supernatural beings while hunting down supernatural dangers would ever be in danger of being sacrificed as Seven Year King. Beyond that, most of the stories we have of Arthur during this time period are of his raiding fortresses in Annwn. Someone who can attack fortresses in and rescue people from the Underworld would seem an odd choice for a sacrifice.
The Geoffrey version of Arthur would also be a suitable “candidate” for Seven Year King. He is much more like the modern version, with his Knights fighting off the Picts, Scots, Saxons, etc., and is at that point written in the more recognizable 12th century culture, rather than the 6th or 7th century of the prior mythos. Here the main stumbling block is the manner of Arthur’s death. In Geoffrey’s version, Arthur calls off his march on Rome because he heard of Medraut/Modredus/Mordred (depending on translation/versioning) betraying him, then falls after defeating him at the Battle of Camlann. This notable issue here is, of course, that there is no “sacrifice” to his death (again, assuming Avalon is considered the Underworld). Mordred at this point was Arthur’s legitimate nephew by Morgause, and there was nothing even remotely supernatural about him. The closest Mordred ever gets is in versions where he is Morgan le Fay’s son, but in Geoffrey’s version, Morgan (Morgen at this point) is nothing more than the chief of the nine sisters who take Arthur to Avalon. Arthur would be a prime candidate for Seven Year King, but there was absolutely no indication of faery involvement, so unless they were acting way, way behind the scenes, Arthur’s death would not have been a sacrifice made by them, negating any chance at his being a proper Seven Year King.
The least likely version of Arthur as Seven Year King would be from those stories in the Romance period. They largely ignored Arthur, and in fact frequently made him a weak and ineffective ruler so as to focus on the rest of the members of his court. Here, little more need be said than there would be dozens of better candidates for Seven Year King from those stories.
In the modern tales, the idea of Arthur as Seven Year King suffers in largely the same way it did for Geoffrey’s tales: his death was at Mordred’s hands. However, in some of the modern retellings, Morgan le Fay is now Mordred’s mother, indicating a more direct faery involvement. I still would not be willing to call being mortally wounded in a heated battle being “sacrificed,” however, so this Arthur too would not be a proper Seven Year King.
Interestingly, as we move into the very, very modern versions, we are seeing a split between those who completely remove any supernatural elements from the tales to determine a historical context for Arthur and those who, arguably, add more supernatural elements than we have seen since before Geoffrey of Monmouth. In those that side with the supernatural, we could be getting closer to a version where Arthur would not only fit the requirements for a Seven Year King, but also meet the end of one. That has not happened yet, though.
For now, Arthur, while undoubtedly the type of person the faeries would like to sacrifice as their Seven Year King (noble, brave, talented, and beautiful other than in the Romance period), simply has never actually been sacrificed in a way that would make him properly fill that role. There is too little supernatural influence in his death, and even that death is invalidated by nearly every incarnation of the myth referencing the fact that Arthur will one day return. King Arthur is rightfully known as the Once and Future King, and that title leaves no room for Seven Year King.
Sources: A lifetime of reading, wikipedia to check spelling of names (Gwythyr ap Greidawl? Come on, there was no way I was going to remember how to spell that without checking. Fun fact, though: he was the father of one of three Gwenhwyfars Arthur was married to in the pre-Geoffrey times, so she was also already Underworld-related too.)
In most Arthurian myths, at the end of Arthur’s life, he is ferried to the Isle of Avalon, to return when the world needed him most. Even were one to consider Avalon some form of the Underworld (when, as addressed in the first lesson of this class and in the myths themselves, Avalon is usually considered the realm of the Fae as a whole), the fact that Arthur is “scheduled” to return indicates that he is either not dead (and therefore an invalid possibility for sacrifice) or coming back to life (indicating either a rejected sacrifice or not being a sacrifice at all). Arthur has also been associated with the King Under the Mountain, rather than a trip to Avalon, which would be closer to a fit with the concept of the Seven Year King simply because he went underground. Even in this much more Underworld-like location, though, he is expected to return, either negating his sacrifice or indicating that he would never be chosen as such.
Setting aside these concerns, either by considering Avalon the Underworld or deciding that Arthur was “dead enough” to count as sacrificed, the issue becomes slightly more complicated. At that point, every iteration of the myth might have enough unique attributes to sway the conclusion one way or the other. Speaking broadly, the evolution of the Arthurian mythos has four main groupings to consider, those being pre-Geoffrey of Monmouth, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Romance, and Modern.
In the myths as they existed before Geoffrey of Monmouth (meaning Arthur as much more a Welsh folkloric hero than the king associated with the Round Table and such), Arthur has the best chance at “qualifying” as a Seven Year King, but even then he falls short. He is undoubtedly the best and brightest, shown by one memorable surviving text by Aneirin referring to another warrior, after he killed 300 men in one battle, by saying that “he was no Arthur.” The main stumbling point here is that Arthur already has strong associations with Annwn, the Underworld. His companions, much more a wandering warband to hunt down the supernatural (and occasionally the Saxons) than the Knights of modern retellings, included such beings as Gwythyr ap Greidawl, himself a god associated with the Underworld. It seems unlikely that someone who could command a group of supernatural beings while hunting down supernatural dangers would ever be in danger of being sacrificed as Seven Year King. Beyond that, most of the stories we have of Arthur during this time period are of his raiding fortresses in Annwn. Someone who can attack fortresses in and rescue people from the Underworld would seem an odd choice for a sacrifice.
The Geoffrey version of Arthur would also be a suitable “candidate” for Seven Year King. He is much more like the modern version, with his Knights fighting off the Picts, Scots, Saxons, etc., and is at that point written in the more recognizable 12th century culture, rather than the 6th or 7th century of the prior mythos. Here the main stumbling block is the manner of Arthur’s death. In Geoffrey’s version, Arthur calls off his march on Rome because he heard of Medraut/Modredus/Mordred (depending on translation/versioning) betraying him, then falls after defeating him at the Battle of Camlann. This notable issue here is, of course, that there is no “sacrifice” to his death (again, assuming Avalon is considered the Underworld). Mordred at this point was Arthur’s legitimate nephew by Morgause, and there was nothing even remotely supernatural about him. The closest Mordred ever gets is in versions where he is Morgan le Fay’s son, but in Geoffrey’s version, Morgan (Morgen at this point) is nothing more than the chief of the nine sisters who take Arthur to Avalon. Arthur would be a prime candidate for Seven Year King, but there was absolutely no indication of faery involvement, so unless they were acting way, way behind the scenes, Arthur’s death would not have been a sacrifice made by them, negating any chance at his being a proper Seven Year King.
The least likely version of Arthur as Seven Year King would be from those stories in the Romance period. They largely ignored Arthur, and in fact frequently made him a weak and ineffective ruler so as to focus on the rest of the members of his court. Here, little more need be said than there would be dozens of better candidates for Seven Year King from those stories.
In the modern tales, the idea of Arthur as Seven Year King suffers in largely the same way it did for Geoffrey’s tales: his death was at Mordred’s hands. However, in some of the modern retellings, Morgan le Fay is now Mordred’s mother, indicating a more direct faery involvement. I still would not be willing to call being mortally wounded in a heated battle being “sacrificed,” however, so this Arthur too would not be a proper Seven Year King.
Interestingly, as we move into the very, very modern versions, we are seeing a split between those who completely remove any supernatural elements from the tales to determine a historical context for Arthur and those who, arguably, add more supernatural elements than we have seen since before Geoffrey of Monmouth. In those that side with the supernatural, we could be getting closer to a version where Arthur would not only fit the requirements for a Seven Year King, but also meet the end of one. That has not happened yet, though.
For now, Arthur, while undoubtedly the type of person the faeries would like to sacrifice as their Seven Year King (noble, brave, talented, and beautiful other than in the Romance period), simply has never actually been sacrificed in a way that would make him properly fill that role. There is too little supernatural influence in his death, and even that death is invalidated by nearly every incarnation of the myth referencing the fact that Arthur will one day return. King Arthur is rightfully known as the Once and Future King, and that title leaves no room for Seven Year King.
Sources: A lifetime of reading, wikipedia to check spelling of names (Gwythyr ap Greidawl? Come on, there was no way I was going to remember how to spell that without checking. Fun fact, though: he was the father of one of three Gwenhwyfars Arthur was married to in the pre-Geoffrey times, so she was also already Underworld-related too.)
Ariella McManus
At first glance, the answer to this question is quite obvious. Of course, King Arthur is not only a proper Seven Year King, he is the PERFECT Seven Year King. Why, do you ask? He's King Arthur, for goodness sake! You know, esteemed ruler of Camelot, righter of all wrongs, the man who united all of the clans into a peaceful kingdom, the 'forever king'. Enough said. And in a way, you would be completely correct.
As it turns out, the tithe demanded of the fae folk by the denizens of Hell can be satisfied in a number of ways. It seems that while certainly, Hell would be much more pleased with the choicest of specimens (almost in direct parallel to the Biblical story of Abel's offering to God ironically enough), they weren't always 'that' picky. Human children, young men, women, what have you..all were fair game. And woe to the fairy world if there was no human 'sacrifice' available..one of them would do quite nicely too. So if you go with the 'anyone will do' theory, then yes, Arthur would do just fine!
However, as this is an opinion question, I shall go against the norm here. Even going with the theory of 'the best and brightest' for the tithe, and the noble and oft-told legend of King Arthur, I would argue that he is NOT a worthy sacrifice for the Tiend. It is mentioned in the lesson that the sacrifice is often the 'most beautiful, the most heroic, the most talented'. And while there is no doubt that Arthur had his merits, he had some very major flaws as well. It is these that I wish to focus on today.
There is no concrete evidence whether Arthur was overtly handsome or not, so this becomes a rather moot point in the whole 'qualification' process. In fact, in most Arthurian stories concerning the ever-familiar 'adultery' theme, it is Sir Lancelot who is endowed with the description of being fair of face and form. Even though it is a more modern retelling, one cannot ignore "First Knight"; in that version of the story, Arthur was an old man, Lancelot the handsome young knight that ends up sweeping the Queen off her feet (despite her very real love for Arthur). Percival (or Galahad, depending on the story you read) is also often described as youthful and fair. in all honesty, in my experience, it is those two whose physical 'beauty' has always been played up much more than that of Arthur himself.
Let us turn our attention to 'heroic'. Surely one cannot argue that King Arthur was anything but 'heroic'. Ah, how wrong you are! Yes, it is true, militarily speaking, Arthur was 'successful', and a good tactician. He also had a contingent of very wise advisers (Merlin chiefly among them) to aid him in his 'heroic' battle wins. He was a soldier, and I will grant you, a very good leader, but he was no more heroic than any of the men that followed him into battle. The fact that he fought many battles (and not all of them won, mind you) does not grant him automatic brownie points, in my book.
And where was this 'heroic and noble' side of Arthur when he is duped by his half-sister (or aunt, depending on the version) into an incestuous night of passion that led to the conceiving of Mordred? And it certainly was not the smartest move to take the word of this 'son' of his (who had been raised by a woman who took very little pains to hide her dislike of Arthur) against his chief knight (Lancelot) and his own Queen, with very little physical evidence to back up the claim of adultery. Also in reference to Guinevere, as seen in the tale as told by Chretien de Troyes, it is Lancelot, not her husband, Arthur, who goes to rescue the Queen when she is kidnapped by Meleagant. Another 'black mark' on the heroic scale for ol' Arthur, in my opinion.
Arthur's weaknesses are plenty, one only has to look past all of the 'hoopla' surrounding him to find them. Even the infamous pulling of the sword from the stone can be seen as a liability. It certainly does not bear testimony to his winning the kingship by a show of prowess or merit; it was a test outside of his control; a mere pawn to fulfill a prophecy. Not to mention, he is a mere boy at the time, so he is certainly not the one 'running the show'. No, my dears, that would have been his regents (most likely his Uncle Ector) and Merlin. So "King Arthur" was more like "the boy who pulled the sword out of the stone now move out of the way while we run the kingdom' Arthur for at least the first few years.
There are many incidences where Arthur's weak, indecisive nature cost the Kingdom dearly. His poor handling of the 'affair' (presuming their was one) between Lancelot and Guinevere caused a deep divide between the Knights of the Round Table, for example. In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, there are several stories where Arthur manages to get himself into a jam and has to be bailed out by Gawain time and again. Arthur, it seemed, was not as 'battle savvy' as all of the stories would have us believe.
In "The Case of Sir Mordred" by Tyagi Mordred Nagasive, he presents a convincing argument as to why Mordred was perfectly justified in his desire to overthrow Arthur and take over the running of Camelot. He suggests that without Merlin's magic, Arthur was ineffective and unable to do anything at all, and his inability to balance the role of 'husband' and 'king' (or 'justice' and 'love') would lead to the ultimate downfall of Camelot. Sadly, he was not far off the mark. And as for talents...well, I just finished reading "The Pendragon" by Catherine Christian and Bedivere was a very skilled harp player but alas, poor Arthur couldn't play a lick. So, there is no evidence that he had any special talents. Bummer.
I do not mean to make it sound like the man had no good qualities; he had many. But when all was said and done, he was just that..a mere man and nothing more. No more worthy to be the Seven Year King than you or I. In fact, if I had to pick..my money would be on Guinevere. But that's another topic altogether.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur
http://www.arthurian-legend.com/more-about/more-about-arthur-9.php
http://csis.pace.edu/grendel/projs2a/art001.html
As it turns out, the tithe demanded of the fae folk by the denizens of Hell can be satisfied in a number of ways. It seems that while certainly, Hell would be much more pleased with the choicest of specimens (almost in direct parallel to the Biblical story of Abel's offering to God ironically enough), they weren't always 'that' picky. Human children, young men, women, what have you..all were fair game. And woe to the fairy world if there was no human 'sacrifice' available..one of them would do quite nicely too. So if you go with the 'anyone will do' theory, then yes, Arthur would do just fine!
However, as this is an opinion question, I shall go against the norm here. Even going with the theory of 'the best and brightest' for the tithe, and the noble and oft-told legend of King Arthur, I would argue that he is NOT a worthy sacrifice for the Tiend. It is mentioned in the lesson that the sacrifice is often the 'most beautiful, the most heroic, the most talented'. And while there is no doubt that Arthur had his merits, he had some very major flaws as well. It is these that I wish to focus on today.
There is no concrete evidence whether Arthur was overtly handsome or not, so this becomes a rather moot point in the whole 'qualification' process. In fact, in most Arthurian stories concerning the ever-familiar 'adultery' theme, it is Sir Lancelot who is endowed with the description of being fair of face and form. Even though it is a more modern retelling, one cannot ignore "First Knight"; in that version of the story, Arthur was an old man, Lancelot the handsome young knight that ends up sweeping the Queen off her feet (despite her very real love for Arthur). Percival (or Galahad, depending on the story you read) is also often described as youthful and fair. in all honesty, in my experience, it is those two whose physical 'beauty' has always been played up much more than that of Arthur himself.
Let us turn our attention to 'heroic'. Surely one cannot argue that King Arthur was anything but 'heroic'. Ah, how wrong you are! Yes, it is true, militarily speaking, Arthur was 'successful', and a good tactician. He also had a contingent of very wise advisers (Merlin chiefly among them) to aid him in his 'heroic' battle wins. He was a soldier, and I will grant you, a very good leader, but he was no more heroic than any of the men that followed him into battle. The fact that he fought many battles (and not all of them won, mind you) does not grant him automatic brownie points, in my book.
And where was this 'heroic and noble' side of Arthur when he is duped by his half-sister (or aunt, depending on the version) into an incestuous night of passion that led to the conceiving of Mordred? And it certainly was not the smartest move to take the word of this 'son' of his (who had been raised by a woman who took very little pains to hide her dislike of Arthur) against his chief knight (Lancelot) and his own Queen, with very little physical evidence to back up the claim of adultery. Also in reference to Guinevere, as seen in the tale as told by Chretien de Troyes, it is Lancelot, not her husband, Arthur, who goes to rescue the Queen when she is kidnapped by Meleagant. Another 'black mark' on the heroic scale for ol' Arthur, in my opinion.
Arthur's weaknesses are plenty, one only has to look past all of the 'hoopla' surrounding him to find them. Even the infamous pulling of the sword from the stone can be seen as a liability. It certainly does not bear testimony to his winning the kingship by a show of prowess or merit; it was a test outside of his control; a mere pawn to fulfill a prophecy. Not to mention, he is a mere boy at the time, so he is certainly not the one 'running the show'. No, my dears, that would have been his regents (most likely his Uncle Ector) and Merlin. So "King Arthur" was more like "the boy who pulled the sword out of the stone now move out of the way while we run the kingdom' Arthur for at least the first few years.
There are many incidences where Arthur's weak, indecisive nature cost the Kingdom dearly. His poor handling of the 'affair' (presuming their was one) between Lancelot and Guinevere caused a deep divide between the Knights of the Round Table, for example. In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, there are several stories where Arthur manages to get himself into a jam and has to be bailed out by Gawain time and again. Arthur, it seemed, was not as 'battle savvy' as all of the stories would have us believe.
In "The Case of Sir Mordred" by Tyagi Mordred Nagasive, he presents a convincing argument as to why Mordred was perfectly justified in his desire to overthrow Arthur and take over the running of Camelot. He suggests that without Merlin's magic, Arthur was ineffective and unable to do anything at all, and his inability to balance the role of 'husband' and 'king' (or 'justice' and 'love') would lead to the ultimate downfall of Camelot. Sadly, he was not far off the mark. And as for talents...well, I just finished reading "The Pendragon" by Catherine Christian and Bedivere was a very skilled harp player but alas, poor Arthur couldn't play a lick. So, there is no evidence that he had any special talents. Bummer.
I do not mean to make it sound like the man had no good qualities; he had many. But when all was said and done, he was just that..a mere man and nothing more. No more worthy to be the Seven Year King than you or I. In fact, if I had to pick..my money would be on Guinevere. But that's another topic altogether.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur
http://www.arthurian-legend.com/more-about/more-about-arthur-9.php
http://csis.pace.edu/grendel/projs2a/art001.html