Agreed. This Is Fantastic. The Mention Of Camlann Rather Than Badon Was A Bad Oversight. I’m Confused

Wait a minute...

Edward the Third was an Arthuriana nerd who named his son after Sir Lionel, and...

...made up a title for him, which....

...had previously existed in Arthuriana and didn't refer to a place. Coincidence?

Probably.

Well, darn. That would've been very interesting. Then again, maybe the knowledge that Edward III was such a nerd he named his son after Sir Lionel is enough to ask.

Wikipedia, most definitely.

For several years, nearly all of my Arthurian knowledge came from Wikipedia, because I (rather oddly) decided to try to get a comprehensive idea of Arthuriana as a whole before actually diving into medieval literature. This was probably because, despite having absorbed my very eccentric great-grandfather's belief that we were descendants of Merlin, I wasn't really into Arthuriana before I was given a prompt to write an alliterative paragraph featuring the letter G, started writing about Gawain, never came to a conclusion, decided to make it a novel, decided I needed to do research to write a novel, etc. This led my seventh grade self to a lot of bad takes, particularly about Lancelot, and very random headcanons. On the other hand, the assumptions I made about Agravaine, while based purely on his name, were mostly accurate.

I can spot at least four possible morals to this story and there are probably more, but I'll leave them to the reader.

Anyway enough King Arthur flour asks time to talk about Ragnelle.

hi! i apologize if this is outside your ballpark. i recently came across a post about how religion appears in bbc's merlin and it got me thinking about religion in arthurian legend in general. i was wondering if you have any thoughts on the topic? what religions do the characters follow and how does it impact their lives? i know most of the 'cast' is christian but even then medieval christianity is different enough from modern christianity that i constantly feel like i'm missing some nuance/context when i read arthuriana. do other religions feature (such as judaism, islam, pagan spirituality) and are there any essays on it or books where that's explored? thank you for all you do and have a great day!

Hello!

So I’m definitely no religious scholar of any kind. Yet I somehow managed to write an obscenely long post in reply. I've provided copious amounts of literature on everything I'm discussing here, so I encourage anyone who sees this to read what's provided and form their own opinion. Although my reply is based on the Medieval stories I've read and quoted as well as the essays and books of people far more qualified than I am, it's still my own interpretation, and shouldn't be taken as the final word on this highly complex subject. If anyone finds something here I've gotten wrong, please don't hesitate to educate me otherwise and point me in a direction to learn more!

Without further ado...

The first thing anyone looking into this needs to understand is [most of] the Arthurian stories we have were drafted or documented by Christians, oftentimes monks (ie, people very devoted to their religion). Even the texts like the Mabinogion or The Welsh Triads, which contains no Christianity, wasn’t written down until the 12th century after the oral tradition had passed through the Christianizing of Britain. Not to mention translation bias, an oft overlooked factor. For example, French characters Lancelot and Galahad were retroactively added to The Welsh Triads to bring the Triads more in line with the widely popular French narrative. Translator Rachael Bromwich has excellent footnotes regarding this in the file I shared above. So just keep that in mind while reading/researching this subject.

More generally speaking, while some characters themselves aren’t Christian, such as Muslim Palomides or the occasional Jewish character, the texts are [mostly] from an overtly Islamphobic and antisemitic viewpoint. The depictions of religion in Medieval Arthuriana should never be taken as an indication of how things “really were,” either in the time it’s meant to take place (ie, the 5th-6th centuries when the Saxons were colonizing Britain) or the time/place it was written in (ie Chrétien de Troyes wrote from his own 12th century Breton perspective). Point being, it’s all very biased. Perception heavily depends on the place and year things were written and translated. If you're ever unsure which translation of a text will best suit your needs, whether that means accuracy, readability, or containing more robust footnotes, don't hesitate to ask.

That being said, the differences you’re touching on regarding Medieval versus Modern Christianity sometimes stems from Christian Mysticism, which was a prevalent theology in the Middle Ages and still exists today (albeit to a lesser degree). Some contemporary sources on this would be:

The Confessions by Saint Augustine of Hippo

The City of God by Saint Augustine of Hippo

The Book of Divine Works by Saint Hildegard von Bingen

The Letters of Hildegard von Bingen Volume I by Saint Hildegard von Bingen

The Letters of Hildegard von Bingen Volume II by Saint Hildegard von Bingen

The Book of Margery Kempe by Margery Kempe.

Now the thing with Christianity in history and Arthuriana is that the lines between orthodox practice and the mystical was blurred. On an episode about charms, the Medieval Podcast (also available on any podcasting platform like Spotify) explains how people bought and used charms all the time, even within their Christian practice. To them, it was a part of their worship. They may have chanted some words over a sick friend while anointing certain parts of the body in the hopes it would aid in healing. Depending on the time and place, this may or may not have been openly discussed for fear of repercussions or accusations of blasphemy, but it was common enough for historians to have gathered a multitude of examples preserved in spell books. To a desperate Medieval Christian, one of these charms occupied a similar place to Pray the Rosary or Hail Marys in hopes of boosting the success of their endeavor.

So in a similar vein, that concept is sometimes stretched for the sake of an Arthurian story. What you end up with are characters like Merlin, supposedly half-demon, but baptized, therefore his purified magic and prophesizing is considered "Christian;" Morgan le Fay, raised in a nunnery, yet learned necromancy from the holy sisters; and Gawain, who obtained his sun powers, as well as his name, from the hermit that baptized him. At least, so it goes in the Vulgate.

In a way, these people are not magical through their own power, but channeling the divine with the help of their Christian education in order to bestow those benefits, often health, strength, or prosperity related, onto others. (You'll see a lot of real life examples in the contemporary sources I linked above.) Vulgate editor Norris J. Lacy and his translation team left a footnote on the Gawain passage explaining the history of the Gawain/Gwalchmai character that lead me to theorize that this passage might be an attempt by Anonymous to maintain those heightened magical powers while offering a palatable Christian explanation for it.

A similar phenomenon can be seen in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the characters are staunchly Christian, and yet the presence of a green-skinned knight astride a green horse who can survive a beheading is seen as marvelous, even miraculous, rather than monstrous. As Larissa Tracy explains in the essay Shifting Skin Passing as Human Passing as Fay, although the Green Knight is Othered by the court, he's not so Othered as to be held entirely apart. He's "tallest of men" and "half a giant." He is still one of the "in" crowd at least a little bit. So while his green coloring shocks the court, and calls to mind Otherworldly fay, in a way similar to the Lady of the Lake or other such beings, the Green Knight isn't viewed as an enemy of the crown so much as a chance for the court to prove its virtue. In the end, this Green Knight was indeed a man, Sir Bertilak, transformed by Morgan le Fay to take on the monstrous visage, and was indeed "one of them" all along. In this way, concepts which seem magical (read: Pagan) to the modern reader remain steeped in Christian ideals. This extends to Gawain's pentacle shield as well, sometimes misconstrued with a similar Pagan symbol, which the poem outright states represents the five virtues of knighthood or even the five wounds of Jesus Christ. Then again, Rhonda Knight's essay All Dressed Up With Someplace to Go: Regional Identity argues the opposite point, that there is indeed a divide. Knight asserts that the poet has intentionally heightened the dichotomy of insider/outsider, particularly as it relates to the Anglo-Welsh border between Sir Bertilak's Wirral and King Arthur's London Camelot. It's quite plain from the moment the Green Knight enters the scene there's a stark split between the two cultures, whether that be interpreted as the people of Wales and the people of England, or the Otherworld associated with Wales and the dominance of Christianity.

But anyway enough about Christians. Let's talk about my friend Sir Palomides and Islam.

A brief recap for anyone who's unfamiliar with Sir Palomides, he's a Muslim knight, referred to in the Medieval Christian tongue as a "Saracen," who vows to convert to Christianity for the sake of marrying Isolde, but curiously hasn't yet. His father, Esclabor, and both of his younger brothers, Segwarides and Safir, have already converted. Palomides is continuously ostracized for his religion/appearance throughout the narrative and considered lesser than Tristan. This is pretty much always the roles they play. Sometimes Palomides is treated with extreme cruelty, such as in the Post-Vulgate, where Galahad forces him to convert to Christianity at sword point, only for Palomides to be murdered shortly afterward by Gawain once his narrative purpose, ie successful conversion, has been fulfilled.

For this break down, I'm ignoring that portrayal of Palomides as well as the Prose Tristan because they suffer from the issues I already outlined regarding Medieval Christian's malicious depiction of non-Christians. And I hate them</3 We'll be turning our attention to Le Morte d'Arthur by Sir Thomas Malory instead as Palomides is slightly more nuanced there. (Very slightly. "The Good Saracen Sir Palomides" is a loaded sentiment, but Malory was a Medieval Englishman imprisoned for his crimes and writing through his madness. We work with what we have.) The copy I linked is translated by Dr. Dorsey Armstrong, not only because it's very good, but because she authored one of the essays I'll be sharing on the subject. She also has a 24 part lecture series on Arthuriana that I highly recommend.

In Le Morte d'Arthur, and the earlier published La Tavola Ritonda as well as Byelorussian Tristan, Palomides is treated a teensy bit better. In most versions of the story, Palomides misses an appointment to duel with Tristan out of cowardice or dishonor. But Malory has written a scenario in which Palomides missed the appointment not out of subservience to Tristan, but because he was jailed elsewhere and couldn't physically make it. He still gets his ass kicked by Tristan, but Malory's change shifts implicational blame of Palomides to circumstantial blame of his situation which serves to create a more sympathetic character. So while Tristan's perception of events remains the same, Palomides is given a narrative excuse which maintains his honor and integrity in the mind of the reader. Yet as Dr. Dorsey Armstrong points out in her essay, Postcolonial Palomides, after Tristan discovers Palomides suffering a bout of grief-induced madness, Palomides's ability to communicate breaks down, and Tristan is unable to understand him. Palomides occupies a space that his fellow "Saracen" knights, such as Priamus of Tuscany, don't. He's Othered by everyone in the narrative yet gains renown among the Christian knights in part because of his extreme desire to join the Round Table, while resisting the necessity to conform to a religious order and community which does not otherwise accept him. Unlike his father and brothers, Palomides seems more aware of, and resistant to, the predatory systems which dictate their conditional acceptance.

Race as a concept did not exist in the Medieval world, rather it was intrinsically tied to religion. That said, colorism was always present. "Saracen" is a term used to refer to Arab people, but according to Hamed Suliman Abuthawabeh, the etymology of the word itself stems from the color brown, ie referential of skin tone. As it relates to fiction... Ever wonder why the Holy Land of the Middle East in Arthurian Legend, where Galahad, Perceval, and Bors seek the grail, is called "Sarras?" Now you know. This concept is not limited to Middle Eastern characters either. Black people in Medieval stories are referred to as "Moorish," ie from the "Moorlands." To that end, ever wonder why Aglovale's half-Black son is named "Morien?" Or how about Parzival's half-Black brother Feirefiz, who's described as having a mixture of "white and black skin," half his father's "fair country Anjou," half his mother's "heathen land Zassamank" with a face two-toned "as a magpie." (Author Wolfram von Eschenbach and translator Jessie Weston's words, not mine).

The fact is non-white, non-Christian characters are often reduced to their skin color, not only in what labels are applied to them as people, but their religions and falsified homelands as well. The cost of a modicum of respect is total assimilation. It's all or nothing for these characters, and even then, it's not a guarantee. Aside from the especially harrowing treatment of Palomides in the Post-Vulgate, this concept appears yet again in the poem The Turk and Sir Gawain, in which Gawain continuously oscillates between foe and friend with an unnamed Turkish knight, only to conclude the story by violently converting this individual through beheading. The Turkish knight is reborn, now Christian, and at last gains a name and identity, Sir Gromer. The expectation put on Pagan knights is so great they must submit to their white comrades and allow them to, literally, kill their former selves to be worthy of personhood in Christendom.

The same can be said of Jewish characters in Arthurian Legend. They're not often the focal point, but they do pop up from time to time. In La Tavola Ritonda, there's Dialantes the Jewish giant, as well as the beautiful Hebrew damsel of Aigua della Spina, who's curiously married to a Christian knight. Then of course there's the rampant antisemitism in Chrétien de Troyes's Perceval, as well as the continuations, which blame "the treacherous Jews" for killing Christ, while also casting Joseph of Arimathea as a Christian knight who brought the Holy Grail to Britain. Furthermore in The History of the Grail portion of the Vulgate, Joe is said to have "converted to the faith of Jesus Christ" while keeping it secret for fear that "the Jews would have killed him." Tons of revisionism happening. The bulk of the Vulgate makes little to no mention of Jewish people, good or bad, as it's mostly tied to the grail story. That said, when it does come up again in The Death of Arthur, it's a slippery slope into every other prejudice, as the term has become synonymous with evil, particularly as it relates to women.

I couldn't possibly outline the entirety of Medieval Christianity's relationship with other religions in a single tumblr post. Here's a link to my huge folder about Race & Religion in the Middle Ages. The essays and books there discuss this subject in a general sense but there's a sub-folder with Arthurian specific essays to learn more about Palomides, Priamus, Gromer, Morien, Feirefiz, and other characters or texts that touch on race/religion.

Despite all of the above, it's not all bad. Sometimes an author was anti-racist toward the non-Christian characters, yet limited by their time. (Think how Herman Melville portrayed Polynesian Queequeg in Moby Dick, positively, but used phrenology to compliment the shape of his skull by comparing him to that of white people. Not up to modern standards, but an attempt at progressive for its time nonetheless.) Looking at Dutch Arthuriana, while Morien's name is an insensitive indication of his unnamed "Moorish" mother, the only characters in the story who treat Morien poorly, such as the boatmen who refuse to ferry him, are openly condemned, even threatened, by the Knights of the Round Table, including Gareth.

I don't know what to call this writing technique, but it's used (and sometimes underutilized...) today. Essentially, as a means to indicate to the reader that the views of the antagonistic (in this case, xenophobic and anti-Black) character isn't shared by the author, they include another character who refutes and combats the negative behavior and who accepts the oppressed party as they are. However rare, it does happen in Medieval texts.

Last but not least, I'd be remiss to omit the Hebrew King Artus from this discussion. It's an incomplete story, but sets out to retell the Arthurian Legend from a Jewish standpoint. All the characters are Jewish and all religious allusions that were once Christian have been rewritten as Jewish. It has a thorough analysis by the translator and tons of footnotes to indicate the Jewish references throughout the text.

Regarding religion in modern Arthuriana like BBC Merlin, Druids aren't actually present in the Legends, with the one and only exception being The Adventure of Melóra and Orlando, which does refer to Merlin as a Druid! There's also the connection made between Merlin and Stonehenge in The History of the King's of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth; the word "Druid" is not used, but Merlin describes his own ability to manipulate the stones as "mystical." One has to remember that Druids didn't write down their own history, as it was their way to memorize religious practices and not document anything. All we know about them comes from outside sources, such as Greeks and Romans as well as Christian missionaries come to convert them. As Christianity took hold and figures like Saint Patrick "drove the snakes [Druids] out of Ireland," much of that history was either lost or purposefully maligned. Did the Druids actually participate in human sacrifice? Who knows! Bearing that in mind, we must acknowledge the influence of the several revivals of Druidism and recent boom in Neopaganism; a lot of popular interpretations of Arthurian Legend are just that, the creator's interpretation, and not necessarily indicative of what the historical people would have been doing. To learn more about that, there's Druids: A Very Short Introduction by Barry Cunliffe which I found helpful.

When it comes to Merlin, or Myrddin Wyllt, his character is potentially based on a few different people who really existed, but there isn't a name given to whatever religion they practiced in anything I've read. While the time period did have clearly delineated religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism (and then Islam), Mithraism, Druidism, etc, there were just as many people who prayed to Jesus Christ while simultaneously leaving out offerings for the local spirits. Most religions come with regional differences, various sects, or shift gradually over time. Saint Patrick himself is said to have had a "fluid identity," as his autobiographical work The Confessions paints him in a fairly positive light as a peaceful missionary, while Dr. Janina Ramirez indicates in her book The Private Life of Saints that other sources characterize Saint Patrick as an aggressor. Some scholars even believe Saint Patrick may have been two different people, combined over the centuries, similarly to Myrddin Wyllt. Modern Arthurian books and shows really lean into a dichotomy between Christianity and the "Old Religion" for the sake of entertainment. But bouts of unrest weren't as fantastical nor made up of two wholly separate, well-defined teams.

Wow this got long. I think we'll leave it at that. I hope that answers your questions! Take care!

I'm a big fan of Madoc ap Uther, although I haven't written much about him yet. Here are some of my thoughts on him, not all of which are characterization-related but hopefully will be helpful:

He's described as "protector of happiness" (in "Madawc Drut", Marged Haycock's translation), which I find really interesting, as well as "a citadel of prowess/through feat and jest". Protector of happiness could be referring to his humor entertaining people, to his martial prowess keeping them safe, or both. (The same goes for the title itself: "drut" could mean bravery or foolhardiness but could be related to "drúth", Old Irish for jester).

Either way, it sounds like a sort of a duty, like this is something he feels obligated to do, which is obvious if he's a warrior but says a lot about his personality if he feels obligated to make jokes and keep others happy. Maybe there are some citadel walls around his inner nature and emotions; that might be a stretch in terms of literary interpretation, but potentially interesting in terms of characterization.

He seems to be very well-liked and seen as a merry fellow, but he definitely has a serious side: "before {he} was slain / he pledged himself by his hand", which is rather cryptic and suggests a sense of duty as well as a dire circumstance.

He was the son of Uther but didn't become king, so he could be Arthur's older brother who was killed before Uther died or a younger brother who didn't succeed Uther because Arthur was the eldest son (which would suggest that Arthur was raised by his biological parents). He could also be a younger brother who was the heir but was killed before Uther died (if Arthur was raised by Ector/Cynyr), but he is Eliwlod's father, so he was old enough to have children at the time of his death, which makes the last option seem less likely.

Skene's translation of "Marwnad Madawg"/"Madawc Drut" is much longer and says that he was killed by "Erof", but Haycock claims that that's the result of multiple poetic fragments which were on the same page being mashed together and that that bit is actually part of a lost poem about King Erof, AKA Herod, being dragged down to Hell. I think her translation is generally considered more reliable (and seriously doubt that Madoc was killed by King Herod, though that would be interesting).

He might be referred to as "{t}ransgressing" and "a famous leader" in a poem along with other heroes like Bran, Arthur, and Alexander the Great, but Madawg/Madog/Madoc is not a rare name. There are at least two different Madawgs mentioned in the Black Book of Carmarthen (ap Maredudd and ap Gwyn) who definitely aren't him and one who might be him but might not. As it is, the only pretty-certain references to him are "Madawc Drut" and a brief mention in Arthur's dialogue with the eagle. This is just about all the information we have to go off of, so my fondness for him comes entirely from "Madawc Drut", which is, unsurprisingly, from The Book of Taliesin.

Do we have any Madoc ap Uther/Madawg ap Uther fans out there? I'm trying to combine him with the more "continental" legends bc I think it'd be interesting but I'm wondering if anyone's written him before or has some characterization thoughts?

This is a crime.

lament for sir kay by me. thinking about him always. i can't imagine having my younger brother become king and. like. just. what the fuck. i love him. no one understands him like i do.

That would indeed be awesome. My first thought was that Melora would be the most competent of the siblings because of her better track record, but unless I’m mistaken, Amr and Loholt were pretty young when they died and never got much of a chance to prove themselves. It would be especially great and chaotic if instead of just having Bhalbhuaidh visit occasionally, they had a full-on exchange program with Alastrann’s court and, if you warp the timeline to its utmost, the Paladins. I would enjoy Bhalbhuaidh and Medoro confronting Bors and Roland and telling them off for being bigoted.

All the Canons, All at once

I am always thinking about the vast Arthurian Mythos and its various traditions and canons. All of them being mutually exclusive to each other...

...Aaaand I can't help but want to smash them together like playdough. Its my favorite past-time as of late.

Like, don't tell me no-one has ever amused themselves of the fact that the Celtic Gods like Gwyn ap Nudd and Manawydan just hanging out in Arthur's court with Palamedes, Dubricius, Galahad and Nasciens.

Or my very favorite concept of Guinevere being a giantess AND a sorceress while also being Morgan the fairy's ex-girlfriend Best-friend-turned-Arch-nemesis. Nevermind what this means for Lancelot, Arthur, Galehaut, Meleagant and the other abductors.

Or the various children that's been given to every character, including Palamedes, Merlin and Tristan. Even Freaking Lancelot and Guinevere have children together. They even have a grandson in Gargantua.

You could literally have your own next-gen version of the Round Table, led by Amr, Loholt and Melora. Staffed by: Guingalain, Ysaye, Lohengrin, Brisan, Bronsidel, Melehan, Munsolinos, Amren, Garanwyn, Kelemon, Andronia, Florismarte, Pantagruel, Vanoc, etc.

And then Dragon Knight Branor, (From Uther's Generation of Round Table Knights) shows up and kicks their asses.

The difference between old Welsh literature and old Irish literature is very simple. In old Welsh literature, there are five page runs of names. In old Irish literature, there are five page runs of adjectives.

Ghosts can take the form of large fuzzy animals. One lived at Merlin’s for a while.

Galahad has mugged a senior citizen.

King Alastrann of India might technically have usurped the post from a dog whose parents were previously human and his brothers.

Ector de Maris has hooked up with everyone in Morgan le Fay’s friend group (separately) at least once.

Once, Tristan killed a dragon, stuck its tongue down his pants, and was severely burned.

A war involving Arthur’s warriors destroyed a third of Ireland.

Gawain became the Emperor of China.

Arthur is in fact king of the entire world.

Lancelot got married four times, once while still married (he ended up going back to his third wife and they died old and happy).

When Lancelot first met Gawain, he mistook Gawain for God.

A few things which are “canon” somewhere for people who are worried they’re stretching it too far

Arthur was killed by a giant cat. 

Arthur killed the cat.

Arthur didn’t fight the cat. Kay did.

Kay and Bedivere use salmon as taxis. 

Lucan is half giant, half lion. (This Lucan, Lucano in the original Italian, is evil and not related to Bedivere). 

King Arthur raided the land of the dead.

The human knight Caradoc Briefbras has three half siblings: a dog, a horse, and a pig.

A large portion of Arthur’s troops was killed a while before Camlann by his nephew’s attack ravens in self-defense. Arthur and said nephew were playing chess at the time and neither did much to stop it.

Merlin retired peacefully and went to live in the countryside with Taliesin.

Wherever Arthur walks, plants die. They don’t grow back for years.

Arthur had a spunky (half?) brother who died in battle after making a mysterious oath.

Dagonet is more or less able to run the kingdom when Arthur is gone. His biggest error is overspending on mercenaries.

Guinevere has an evil almost identical twin half-sister.

Hector beat up all the best knights except for Galahad while possessed by a demon.

Gawain plays tennis.

Gawain has used a chessboard as a weapon.

Near the start of his reign, Arthur left Lot in charge of the kingdom and went on a quest with a sassy parrot.

Gawain or Galahad succeeded Arthur as king.