Tag Archives: Arthurian legend

A to Z Blogging Challenge, Arthurian Legend

M is for Magic: How I Handle it in My Books

, , , 4 Comments

“A Magic Circle” by J. W. Waterhouse

When we get into the realm of historical fantasy, and especially Arthurian legend, magic can mean many different things. So, without spoiling the plot, I wanted to give you a little insight on how I’ve chosen to use magic in my series of books.

I’ve never been a big fan of the really high fantasy sword and sorcery stuff where people conjure blue flame out of thin air and play magical dodgeball, so you won’t be seeing that in my work. I decided to go with a more natural approach, one that felt true to the beliefs of the Celts. We don’t know exactly what magic they used, but we know they believed in it from Roman accounts of the battle of Mona where the priestesses were said to keen and cast spells upon the wind as the Roman army advanced and slaughtered them. We also know that they were very in tune with nature. So, I chose to combine the two and make their magic very elemental.

What you will see (mainly from the Druids and priestesses of Avalon):

  • Use of the Sight and divination to see into the past, present and future
  • Invocation of the goddesses/gods and prophecy
  • Weather magic (calling the rain, fog, clouds, etc.)
  • Rituals based in Celtic religious belief
  • Herbalism and healing/poisonous potions
  • Mentions of nature spirits
  • Use of geasa (taboos) to place restrictions on someone

What you won’t see:

  • Smiting with lightning bolts or fireballs
  • Spell casting
  • Mythical creatures as characters (sorry, no dragons or faeries)
  • Shape-shifting

You’ll notice that I don’t use magic as a form of control (spell casting). That’s because I find it far more intriguing to explore the very human ways we manipulate one another through power (political, familial, religious, etc.), emotion (love, lust, hatred, fear) and our own personal beliefs/biases/bigotry.

Royal Mail’s Magical Realm Stamps

I realize that not everyone is as willing to believe in magic as I am, so I’ve also tried to give you a slight hint at possible rational explanations for some of the magic. For example, mystics the world over have found ways to touch hot coals without being burned or walk on glass without being harmed through sheer mental control. If you want to believe that’s what the priestess’ training really is rather than ascribe it to magical ability, you can. What about making it rain? If you want to believe its sheer coincidence, that’s up to you, but my characters most certainly believe in the power of magic.

My characters have certain natural talents, just like you or I, but none of them could perform their magic without serious training. It’s not something they take lightly or do for fun. For them, magic is a gift to be respected and honored, not abused. And if one does abuse it, the consequences are high.

How do you feel about magic in historical fantasy? Do you prefer more or less? What are some books/movies/etc. that you think handled magic well? Which ones didn’t you like? Do you believe in magic?

A to Z Blogging Challenge, Arthurian Legend, Celtic society

E is for Excalibur

, , , 5 Comments

Who knew the story of Arthur’s famous sword was so complicated? (And this is just a short summary!)

Contradictory accounts have been written over the years, but Excalibur is usually not one in the same with the Sword in the Stone. The sword Arthur drew from the stone was broken in battle. In searching for its replacement, Arthur received Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake. According to John Matthews, the story of the sword in the stone may have come from the Sarmatian custom of worshiping a sword stuck in a stone. (Apparently there was a large Sarmatian contingent in Britain. Matthews states that after they lost a long-standing battle with Rome, 3,000 Sarmatians were banished to Britain by Emperor Marcus Aurelius in the 2nd century.) And if you like a little conspiracy to your legend, check out the story of Galgano Guidotti (later canonized a saint), whose act many believe is the actual origin of the Sword in the Stone stories.

Even though today we automatically think of Excalibur as linked with Avalon and the Lady of the Lake, the earliest Celtic Arthurian legends don’t include that part. Although they could have. It was common in Celtic myth for a young would-be warrior to be given his weaponry by a goddess-like woman.

In the earliest tales, Arthur’s sword is called Caliburn (or Caledfwich in Welsh). According to David Day and Ronan Coghlan, both come from the Irish Caladblog, which means either “flashing sword” (Day) or “hard lightning” (Colghlan). However, John Matthews argues that the name comes from Sarmatian smiths called Kalybes who lived in the Caucasus. He says that Caliburn derives from the words “chalybus” which means “steel” and “eburnus” or “white,” translating as “white steel.”

It is generally believed that the name Excalibur is the Norman French translation of the Celtic Caliburn, and that’s fitting seeing since the French are the ones who give us the story of the Lady of the Lake (and/or the arm that reaches up out of the lake, which might belong to the Lady or not, depending on the tale).  This sword was very powerful, forged by an elf smith of Avalon. It’s blade could not be broken, yet it could cut through steel and stone without being dulled. It’s jeweled scabbard was magic and protected the person who wore it from wounds involving blood loss. In many traditions, Morgan steals both the sword and the scabbard, replacing them with fakes. Excalibur is eventually recovered, but the scabbard is not, leaving Arthur vulnerable for the fateful battle of Camlann.

John Duncan – The Taking Of Excalibur

Interestingly, the Sword in the Stone and the idea of magical swords is common across the world. In the Norse Volsunga stories, the hero Sigmund pulls a sword from a tree. It is broken in battle. His son Sigurd gets a replacement called Gram, given to him by the mother of the god Odin. The hero Charlemagne had his sword Joyeuse. El Cid had Tizona. And according to Day, all were made by the mythic Wayland the Smith, who in turn traces his origin to the Roman god Vulcan and the Greek god Hephaestus.

What about the end of the story? Bedivere’s role of returning Excalibur to the lake comes into the myth at the 13th century, but it was probably based on the ancient Celtic custom of throwing offerings into sacred pools of water as part of a ritual honoring the deity of the lake or spring.

And if all this isn’t complicated enough, Excalibur isn’t necessarily Arthur’s alone. In some versions Accalon (also spelled Accolon) holds the sword for a time, while in Chretien de Troyes’s Perceval, Gawain is its owner.

What have you heard about the famous Excalibur? What part of the myth do you believe? What other famous swords do you know about? What other “E” topics do you want to read about when I do the A to Z Challenge again?

—-

Sources: The Quest for King Arthur by David Day, King Arthur: Dark Age Warrior and Mythic Hero by John Matthews, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Arthurian Legend by Ronan Coghlan, and King Arthur and the Goddess of the Land by Caitlin Matthews.

A to Z Blogging Challenge, Arthurian Legend

A to Z Blogging Challenge: A is for Aggrivane

, , , ,

A to Z bookends by Katie Wong NYC

So, I’ve decided to take on the A to Z Blogging Challenge. (I was inspired by Jenny Hansen over at More Cowbell.)

Technically, it was supposed to take place in April, but I couldn’t do it then, so I’m doing it now, but with my own twist to the rules. The official rules say you blog every day except Sundays for 26 days, with each day’s topic starting with a different letter (A, B, C, etc.). My life doesn’t allow that kind of aggressive blogging schedule, but I’m going aim for twice a week, Thursdays and Sundays, until I’ve made it through the alphabet. (I reserve the right to interrupt the challenge for the Through the Mists of Time blogiversary next month.)

The idea is that these posts are supposed to be shorter than the ones I typically do, and that’s probably going to be the hardest part. And since I’m not going to confine myself to Arthurian/Celtic themes, so you might just learn a little more about me or maybe read something that interests you more than my boring old posts about bygone days. But my first topic is Arthurian.

A is for Aggrivane

More properly spelled Agravain or Agravaine, this Arthurian character is the second son of King Lot and Arthur’s sister (Morgause or Anna, depending on who the story), which makes him Arthur’s nephew. He is said to be somewhat of a villain. Aggrivane knew about Lancelot and Guinevere’s affair and worked with Mordred to arrange the lovers being caught in the act. Traditionally, he is killed by Lancelot, either at the time of their discovery or when Lancelot rescues Guinevere from her death sentence.

I’ve always seen this character used as a secondary player, but when I plotted my story, he became a natural main character. If I told you how or why, it would ruin one of the biggest plot points of my first book, but I can tell you this: in my world, he is still the son of Lot, but he is a much kinder person who has a talent for reading the stars and dreams of a life very different than the one legend has put him in to date. I fell in love with him, and I hope you will, too.

So, why do I spell his name Aggrivane? Well, that’s the way it came out of my fingers the first time I typed it and since I’ve never been able to get myself to spell it any other way, that’s the way it’s staying. (In my head, he wants it that way.) And if you need help picturing him, think of Orlando Bloom. I wrote the character with him in mind.

So what do you know about this character? How have you seen him portrayed? What do you want to know? I’ll probably do the A to Z Challenge again in the future, so please let me know if you have any other “A” suggestions.

Arthurian Legend, Books

Arthurian Legend: Historical Fiction or Fantasy?

, , , , 17 Comments

When I first started to seriously consider getting my work published, I posted to an online message board asking whether agents/publishers consider Arthurian legend historical fiction or fantasy. I received only one reply (rather snarky), “Oh that stuff gets passed off as historical fiction all the time.”

That was when I realized not everyone thinks Arthurian legend is a serious topic (or sub-genre, if you will) for historical fiction. Where it should be classified really depends on your definition of “historical.” If by that word you mean something firmly grounded in evidence and fact (especially written), then you won’t ever be able to accept Arthurian legend as historical. But if you accept a looser definition that includes anything that takes place in another time period and attempts to recreate the history, culture, politics, religion, etc. of that time, then you open yourself up to including Arthurian legend.

I’m happy to say that the Historical Novel Society (HNS) counts it as historical fiction. As stated in their Guide to King Arthur:

From the point of view of historical fiction, the Arthur mythos has always pin-pointed the fault-line between history and story. The historians pull in the direction of a realistic, Celtic post-Roman world. Their Arthur is without magic, without high-Catholic symbolism, and without chivalry. The fantasy authors pull the other way, setting the stories in a time outside time, often depicting a battle between Christian ‘magic’ and pagan ‘magic’, plundering the myths for narrative and atmosphere. Literary authors tend to stand one foot in both camps, enchanted by the magic realism and epic poetry at the heart of the stories, but wanting to give emotional consistency and humanity (usually historical humanity) to the protagonists.”

Personally, I believe that Arthurian legend can be either historical fiction or fantasy, depending on if the author chooses to ground his/her story in history. As I’ve said before, there is very little historical evidence for Dark Ages Britain and King Arthur. Really all we know for sure is that the tribes of Britain fought against each other after Rome left their shores in 410 AD. They united (presumably under a single leader) to face the Saxons in battle at a place traditionally known as Mount Badon, somewhere around the year 500 AD (some argue as much as 30 years earlier or later on the date). They roundly defeated the Saxons, who then left them alone for decades. Their leader is traditionally called Arthur, which may be a title or a name. Around him grew the stories we know as Arthurian legend (see parts 1, 2, and 3 of my series on the evolution of Arthurian legend to learn more).

Because we have so few reliable records, those of us interested in Arthur and Celtic Britain must rely heavily on myth and tradition. This opens up a lot of room for interpretation and invention. (Hence, the “fiction” part of “historical fiction.”) But it can also lead into the realms of fantasy when we make up things to fill in the historical gaps, especially if those things involve the supernatural. But does magic always mean fantasy? Again, the answer depends on your point of view. The Celts certainly had a belief in magic. And there are people in our world today who will swear psychic abilities, the manipulation of energy and Otherworldly beings are very real, while others say they are pure make-believe or wishful thinking.

In short, until the day someone can definitively prove one way or the other that Arthur did or did not exist and we find records of his culture, there will be the possibility for both historical accuracy and fantasy in fiction that deals with him and his world.

And my books? I never thought I’d say this, but according to the HNS definition, I think I fall in the literary category. My Arthur and Guinevere live in post-Roman Britain (approximately 491-530 AD) and I’ve tried very hard to make the culture/politics true to the time period, but I also couldn’t imagine an Arthurian world without magic. Because of the tensions of the time, I carry on the fantasy tradition of emphasizing the clash between pagan and Christian, but not only in theology, also in politics and power.

Do you think Arthurian legend can be considered historical fiction? Or would you define it as fantasy? Why? Does how it’s classified or shelved at a bookstore even matter to you as a reader?

Arthurian Legend, Other Voices, Travel

Tyler R. Tichelaar: Searching for King Arthur in Turkey

, , , , , , , 11 Comments

Note from Nicole: Today’s post comes from Arthurian scholar and historical fiction author, Tyler R. Tichelaar, Ph.D. You may remember his name from a review of his book, “King Arthur’s Children,” that I did a few months ago. I’m thrilled to have him with us because he can always be counted on for thought-provoking insight into Arthurian legend. I will be in Ireland when this post runs, but Tyler is ready to respond to any comments/questions you may have.

I am honored to be a guest on Nicole Evelina’s blog. When I told her I was going to Turkey and it had Arthurian connections, she was surprised and asked me whether I would blog about my trip and those connections when I got home.

While I did not find any legitimate evidence that King Arthur ever visited Turkey, Turkey has many connections to the Arthurian legend, including being home to King Arthur’s ancestors and to many stories and relics that later figure in the Arthurian legends. In fact, I could fill many blog posts with the connections between Arthur and Turkey, but I will just briefly hit some of the highlights here and include a few photographs from my trip.

King Arthur’s Ancestors in Turkey

The ruins of Troy (Photo by Tyler R. Tichelaar)

Who were King Arthur’s ancestors? According to Geoffrey of Monmouth, Arthur was descended from Brutus, for whom Britain was named. Brutus came to Britain from Italy where he was a descendant of Aeneas, founder of Rome. Aeneas was a survivor who escaped from Troy after the city fell. Aeneas’ tale is told in The Aeneid by Virgil, and he is also mentioned in Homer’s Iliad. Aeneas was part of the Trojan royal family. Therefore, we can say that King Arthur was a Trojan. Today, it is difficult to imagine what the city of Troy must have looked like since the ruins of Troy are hardly more than small remnants of walls that remain, but even so, I found it spine-tingling to visit those ruins and imagine what it would have been like to live in Troy. Had there been no Trojan War, perhaps there would have been no King Arthur.

King Arthur’s bloodline is also often linked to the Emperor Constantine, best known for having made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire. Some sources claim that Constantine was father to Ambrosius Aurelianus, and some scholars think Ambrosius was the real source for King Arthur, while more typically he is depicted as King Arthur’s uncle, brother to Uther Pendragon. Since the Emperor Constantine died in 337 and Arthur traditionally is believed to have died at the Battle of Camlann circa 539, it seems unlikely that the Emperor Constantine was his grandfather, but other traditions link Arthur to Magnus Maximus who vied for the throne of Rome, and Arthur might have also been related to Constantine when it’s considered that many traditions claim Constantine’s mother, Helen, was a British noblewoman and also that Constantine was himself born in Britain. Notably, Arthur’s successor as King of Britain is also named Constantine.

Chapel built on Virgin Mary’s House near Ephesus (Photo by Tyler R. Tichelaar)

The British chroniclers of the Middle Ages linked Constantine as a descendant from Joseph of Arimathea; Joseph prominently figures in the Grail Legends and reputedly was Jesus’ uncle and may have brought Jesus to Britain where he spent his “missing” years of childhood that are not documented in the Bible.

If King Arthur were related to Constantine, and therefore, also to Joseph of Arimathea, he may have also been related to the Virgin Mary since Joseph of Arimathea is often believed to have been Mary’s uncle (so technically Jesus’ great-uncle). Mary traveled to Turkey with the apostle John some time after the Crucifixion. She made her home near Ephesus, one of the seven churches of Revelation. Today a chapel is built upon the place where once her house is believed to have stood.

The Grail Legend
What would the Arthurian legend be without the quest for the Holy Grail? One candidate for the true Holy Grail is a chalice in Spain at the monastery of San Juan de la Peña. According to Wikipedia, archaeologists say the artifact is a 1st century Middle Eastern stone vessel, possibly from Antioch in present day Turkey.

Another holy relic associated with the Grail legends is the Lance of Longinus, which pierced Christ’s side during the Crucifixion. It is often featured with the Holy Grail in the Grail legends and is one of the items carried in a procession that Percival witnesses. This spear was brought from the Holy Land to Constantinople (modern day Istanbul, Turkey) in the seventh century. It was housed in Hagia Sophia. Later it was moved to the Church of the Virgin of the Pharos. The point of the lance, which was now set in an icon, was acquired by the Latin Emperor, Baldwin II of Constantinople, who later sold it to Louis IX of France.

King Arthur and the Roman Emperor

Hagia Sophia (Photo by Tyler R. Tichelaar)

Several versions of the Arthurian legend cite Arthur’s conflict with the Roman emperor as reason for his journey to the Continent, leaving the kingdom of Britain in Mordred’s hands. Of course, Rome fell in 476 and usually Arthur is seen as living after this date. Therefore, it is more likely that it is the Byzantine Emperor who demands fealty from Arthur. The Byzantine Empire was also in decline in the 5th century but reached its greatest extent during the reign of the Emperor Justinian (527-565), placing him as emperor toward the end of Arthur’s reign, so I suspect Justinian’s increasing power may have been reason for him demanding fealty from a former Roman province such as Britain; therefore, I suspect he is the emperor with whom Arthur has a conflict. The term Byzantine was not applied until recent times by historians, while the medieval chroniclers would have thought of the Byzantine Emperor as the Roman Emperor—especially since there would have been no Holy Roman Emperor until Charlemagne in 800 A.D.

Emperor Justinian

In addition, Parke Godwin in his novel Beloved Exile (1984) about Guinevere’s life after the Battle of Camlann has her end up at the Court of the Emperor Justinian in Constantinople. Constantinople at that time would have been the most resplendent and important city in Christendom.

Anachronistic King Arthur Tales in Turkey
Believe it or not, there is a legend that claims that King Arthur piloted an ark (just like Noah did) during the Deluge (see http://stevequayle.com/Giants/articles/giants.of.Earth.html). Noah’s ark reputedly ended up on top of Mt. Ararat in modern day Turkey. There’s no word where Arthur’s ark ended up. Perhaps Arthur was a time traveler, since the Great Flood would have taken place about 6,000 years before Arthur lived.

Another interesting anachronism is the tale of “The Turke and Sir Gawain” which can be read at: http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/teams/turkfrm.htm. The Turks were not known to Western Europeans really until five centuries after Arthur’s time when they entered modern day Turkey and defeated the Byzantine Emperor in 1071. They continued as an increasing threat to Christendom and Europe through their conquest of Constantinople in 1453. This poem was composed about 1500 when the Ottoman Empire ruled by the Turks was at its height and a severe threat to Christendom, so the modern day Turkish threat was cast upon the Arthurian legend.

Therefore, a good case can be made for the significant relationship between the land of Turkey and its people and their influence on the Arthurian legend. Finally, if my Turkey-King Arthur connections are not convincing enough, perhaps you would prefer some good cooking. A quick search on the Internet will find plenty of recipes for using King Arthur Flour to make various turkey dishes including turkey and dumplings: http://www.kingarthurflour.com/blog/2008/11/29/a-deft-recipe-for-dumplings-a-quest-fulfilled/

Tyler R. Tichelaar

Tyler R. Tichelaar, Ph.D. is a scholar and novelist on the Arthurian legend. You can visit him at his blog http://childrenofarthur.wordpress.com/ and his website www.ChildrenofArthur.com.

Arthurian Legend

Literary Sources of Arthurian Legend (Part 2)

, , , , , , , , , , 3 Comments

When last we met, Geoffrey of Monmouth had set many of our traditional ideas about King Arthur and his court in place, and Wace introduced us to the Round Table. But there were still plenty of changes in store to the legends. Without further ado, here’s a look at some of the later medieval sources that shaped Arthurian legend.

Chertien de Troyes – Ah, yes, where would the great romance of Arthurian legend be without the French? Chertien was a 12th century poet who gave the legends a softer side that would have the ladies swooning for centuries by adding in the love affair between Guinevere and Lancelot. He also gave us the Grail Quest (what would Monty Python do without him?) and the stories of many of the knights’ adventures.

Layamon –  His Brut, based on the similarly named work by Wace (remember him from last week?), introduced the Lady of the Lake, who was an elf named Argante.

The Vulgate Cycle – This 13th century collection was written down by Cistercian monks. Given that, its likely not a surprise that it was in this cycle when Morgan falls from grace, going from the benevolent healer/priestess of earlier legend to Arthur’s evil, incestuous sister. These monks also gave us Lancelot’s life story and adventures, details of the Grail Quest, the characters of Nimue and/or Viviane (they are sometimes interchangeable, sometimes different people, depending on the author), and the theme of the maimed Fisher King and the Wasteland that must be restored.

Thomas Malory – Come on, admit it – you’ve been waiting for me to cover him. Thanks to his 1470 work Le Morte D’Arthur (The Death of Arthur), we have a popular notion of King Arthur as the greatest Christian King to ever rule England. (How many of you had to read Le Mort in school? Raise your hand. Mine is raised.) Malory firmly cemented Arthur in the Middle Ages, which is one reason why a lot of people have a hard time thinking of him as a historical Celt. He is also responsible for popularizing Guinevere’s kidnapping by Maleagant, making Morgan a shape-shifter and….drumroll, please…giving us the hope that Arthur may come again when Britain most needs him. The musical Camelot, and frankly the rest of us who dabble in the legends, owe him and his forebears a lot.

With Malory’s seminal work, the legends as we know them today were pretty much in place. Interest in them waned after the 1500s until Lord Alfred Tennyson wrote his famous Idylls of the King and The Lady of Shallot (among others) in the mid-1800s. These words rekindled an interest in Arthur and his court that lasts even to this day.

So, having been through the historical and literary sources behind the legend, tell me your reaction.  What have you learned? Personally, I find it fascinating to watch the legends evolve. Which parts do you like the best? Where do you think they’re going in the future?

Arthurian Legend

Historical Sources of Arthurian Legend

, , , , , , 9 Comments

Ven. Bede

Have you ever wondered where Arthurian legend comes from? No? Don’t worry, you’re not alone. I didn’t either I until I started working on this series. There are actually both historical and literary sources for the legends we know today. We’ll explore them both over the next few weeks. Since this subject can get dry really quickly if you take it too seriously, forgive me if I get a little irreverent at times.

First up: the historical sources, in chronological order. This isn’t meant to be an exhaustive list, just to cover the highlights. Keep in mind that history to these guys didn’t mean the fact-based linear events we think of today. For them, historical fact was equally valid whether it came from true events, myths, tradition, or out of their own imaginations.

St. Gildas – Born around the year 500, this monk was a possible contemporary to Arthur, depending on when exactly you think Arthur lived. His famous work “On the Destruction of Britain” (or “On the Fall and Conquest of Britain,” depending on who translates the title), was written around the year 540. It’s mostly a diatribe against the tyrannical rulers of the time. Arthur isn’t mentioned by name, but Gildas does mention Vortigern and the Battle of Mount Badon, a victory which was the turning point in the British battles against the Saxons. Gildas’ omission of Arthur is used by some to show he never actually existed, while others say it just means he wasn’t a tyrant (and therefore not on Gildas’ evildoer list.)

Nennius – A Welsh monk, (are you seeing a pattern here?) Nennius lived around the end of the seventh century and is credited with writing the “Historia Brittonum,” (History of the Britons) which covers time from the legendary founding of Britain after the Trojan War through the seventh century. Nennius is known to have liberally mixed together oral history, legends and traditions, and his dates frequently contradict each other, so I like to call him “the dude who made stuff up.” But he is the first to chronicle Arthur’s military career, going so far as to list out Arthur’s 12 famous battles, including Badon (a list which has been hotly debated ever since.) He calls Arthur by the title, “dux bellorum,” which can be translated something like “Duke or Lord of Battles.”

Ven. Bede – Some people call him a saint (even a Doctor of the Church), others just note he was a monk. However you see him, Bede was one important dude. Bede is best known for his work “The Ecclesiastical History of the English People,” (written around the year 731) in which he traces the spread of Christianity through the kingdoms of the Angles and Saxons. He’s known as Britain’s first historian, but he focuses more on miraculous things that supposedly happened than on pure history – yet he’s considered by many as the most reliable source for his time period. It’s from him we get the story that Vortigern invited the Saxons as allies. We can’t know for sure what his sources were, but it’s likely he had Nennius’, and maybe even Gildas’, works to reference. Fun trivia: Bede is credited with introducing the AD dating system to England.

Annales Cambriae – (or in English, Annals of Wales) These stories were translated around 977. They give us the image of Arthur bearing the cross of Christ at Badon, which ensures his victory. This is also the source of the story of Arthur and Mordred falling together at Camlann, although it doesn’t state if they were on the same or opposing sides.

Many authors note that these sources were written to serve a particular interest – especially that of the Catholic Church and the powerful rulers of Wessex and Gwynedd (modern day northern Wales), so they likely were biased.

What are we to make of all of this “history”? It tells us that there may have been a king or military leader named Arthur who fought battles against the Saxons – who likely were at one time allies of the Britons, thanks to a ruler named Vortigern –  and turned them back after a battle that took place at Mount Badon (wherever that was – that’s a completely separate debate). This Arthur also likely died in battle at a place called Camlann.

Where did the “good stuff,” the rest of the legends come in? For that we have to switch gears and look at the literary sources, which we’ll do over the next two weeks. Stick with me. This stuff actually is interesting if you give it a chance.

Arthurian Legend, Book reviews, Books

Book Review: King Arthur’s Children

, , , , , , , 10 Comments

I met the author of King Arthur’s Children: A Study in Fiction and Tradition, Tyler R. Tichelaar, Ph.D., while searching online for other Arthurian enthusiasts. When he asked me if I would review his new book, I jumped at the chance.

The book’s title would certainly make me pick it up off a shelf, but it doesn’t do the work justice. This interesting, impeccably researched book profiles several possible sons of Arthur, but also discusses the circumstances in various traditions influencing the actions of Guinevere, Lancelot and Constantine, as well as possible reasons for and outcomes of the battle of Camlann. Interesting twists to the legends explained in this book include:

  • Lancelot and Mordred may have been twins.
  • In some traditions, King Arthur, like the Biblical King Herod, has all the children born around the same time as Mordred drowned.
  • Mordred was not always evil; he was revered in Welsh and some Scottish tales.
  • Guinevere took many other lovers besides Lancelot, including several Knights of the Round, depending on the source.
  • The battle of Camlann may have been written as a tragedy to make the legends more interesting and memorable.
  • Mordred may have lived after Camlann or had sons who did.

King Arthur’s Children is broken up into three sections. The first discusses three possible sons of Arthur in various stories that make up the Welsh collection known as The Mabinogion. These are the likely illegitimate Gwydre; Amr, the child of Arthur’s first wife or mistress/concubine; and Llacheu, who is also mentioned the 10th century poem “Black Book of Carmarthen.” Tichelaar posits that if a historical King Arthur ever existed and had sons, these three are the most likely and were probably later combined to turn history into legend.

Part two of the book is devoted to Arthur’s most famous son, Mordred, who actually  first appeared in Arthurian legend without reference to his relationship to Arthur and then as Arthur’s nephew. Only later did he become the son spawned by incest we know today. (Tichelaar’s section on incest in the legends is uncomfortable to read, but clearly illustrates the reasons why it was once a less taboo subject.) Tichelaar does a remarkable job of showing the dizzying number of ways in which Mordred may have been influenced by or have influenced his Welsh counterparts from part 1. This is also the section where he goes into other Arthurian characters and how they may or may not have been related to Mordred. He then studies the honorable Mordred in Welsh legend, his vacillating virtue among the Scots, and the more sympathetic treatment given him by modern writers.

The conclusion to this section is the one weak spot in the book. Here, Tichelaar’s fascination with genealogy draws him away from his main subject into two chapters on how the English Royal Family and the Scottish clan Campbell both have tried to claim succession from King Arthur. I can see why Tichelaar included this – because by claiming to be descendants, these groups could arguably be King Arthur’s children – but I feel like the discussion of their forced (and possibly faked) lineage distracts from the overall point and flow of the book. However, if you’re a genealogy buff, you’ll probably like this section.

The final part of the book details how King Arthur’s children were handled by medieval, Renaissance and modern writers. Here, Tichelaar does a great job of summarizing works most people probably haven’t read or even had access to, and explaining how each successive generation of writers has added to the legend. Interestingly, he points out that the most recent writers are more likely to invent new children, especially daughters. He also gives a small preview of his own forthcoming work of fiction, King Arthur’s Legacy.

All in all, I really enjoyed this book and am proud to be able to include it on my list of resources for my contribution to the legends. King Arthur’s Children is of great value mainly because it expertly explores an area of Arthurian legend that has not (at least to my knowledge) been widely researched before. I would recommend it to anyone who already has solid knowledge of Arthurian legend. To get the most out of it you need a fairly strong background in the legends and at least a cursory knowledge of Welsh legend. My studies of Welsh legend are rudimentary, so some of his comparisons between these and Arthurian legends went over my head. But I’m sure others will be able to better appreciate them.

While Tichelaar plays with (and yearns for) the idea that King Arthur’s bloodline may still exist today, he makes one of his most moving points in reference to the always changing nature of the legends, stating: “Anyone who would be a descendant of King Arthur need not have a fifteen hundred-year-old pedigree to prove it; we need to tell the tales about Arthur, and when people hear these stories, he will then live on in their hearts and his line and descendants will continue to grow” (vi). I, for one, am proud to call myself a daughter of King Arthur in that capacity.

Arthurian Legend

Arthurian Legend 201

, , , , , , , 4 Comments

Miss Evelina has her chalk board (do they even still make those?)  and textbook ready to go, so your course in the basics of Arthurian legend is back in session. Is everyone present and accounted for? Amberr, Tyler, Daya, Courtney, Chris, I know you’re here. Bueller? Bueller? (Come on, you know I had to say it.) Good. Before we take a look at some of those crazy kids who populate Arthurian legend in secondary roles, why don’t you take a minute to refresh yourself on the main characters, so we’re all on the same page.

So now that you know the basics, here are five characters you may not know as much about:

1. Mordred – If you know anything about Arthurian legend, chances are good just the mention of his name makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up. Mordred is sometimes Arthur’s nephew (via his sister Anna and King Lot), but usually his son, most commonly by his sister Morgan (those medieval writers really did like incest). Usually, Mordred grows up ignorant of his paternity, only to be acknowledged by Arthur around the time he becomes a man. Mordred is the ultimate traitor, being one of two responsible for exposing Guinevere and Lancelot’s affair (the other being Agravain). Once they are shamed and Arthur is distracted, Mordred makes his own bid for the throne (sometimes kidnapping/marrying Guinevere and allying with the Saxons in the process), bringing on the battle of Camlann, where he and Arthur are both fatally wounded.

2. Elaine – There are actually several Elaines in Arthurian legend, but two seem to be the most common. One is the daughter of Pelles, who is sometimes represented as the Fisher King. She used magic to trick Lancelot into thinking he was sleeping with Guinevere, instead of her, and thus conceived Galahad. The other is the daughter of Bernard of Astolat. She fell in love with Lancelot, who wore her token during a joust. She died for love of him and was found in a boat on the river near Camelot. She is Tennyson’s famous Lady of Shalott. For simplicity’s sake (and because its WAY more fun), I’ve combined the two in my books. She’s a character I love to hate. You’ll see why.

3. Viviane/Nimue – This character, by whatever name she is called, is usually identified with the Lady of the Lake. She is a powerful sorceress who catches the eye of Merlin, who, in his obsessive love for her, teaches her everything he knows. She then betrays him by using his magic against him to kill or imprison him (in a tower, cave, oak tree, depending on the source) where she can visit him, but from which he cannot escape. I have treated these two as separate characters in my books, with very different personalities and ambitions.

4. and 5. Isolde and Tristan – It’s difficult to tell the story of one without the other, so I’m going to tell them together.  Isolde (also called Iseult) is the daughter of the king (or queen) of Ireland. King Mark of Cornwall falls in love with her and sends his nephew, Tristan, to bring her back for their wedding. On the journey back to England, Tristan and Isolde unwittingly drink a love potion meant for Isolde and Mark, and become lovers. In some versions, she marries Mark anyway, but in others, her maid stands in for her at the wedding so that she and Mark are never truly wed. Isolde and Tristan carry on an affair for years until Mark finally finds out. He tries to kill Isolde in a number of preposterous ways (beheading her, drowning her, throwing her into a leper colony) but each time, Tristan saves her. Eventually, Tristan goes into exile in Brittany (sometimes voluntarily) and weds another woman named Isolde (of the White Hands). Tristan is fatally wounded and the Irish Isolde is sent for (because of her skill in healing) under the agreement that if she is aboard, the ship will have white sails, if not, black. The Breton Isolde, jealous of her Irish counterpart, tells Tristan the ship has black sails and he dies of a broken heart. When the Irish Isolde arrives and finds him dead, she either dies of a broken heart or commits suicide. (Romeo and Juliet, anyone?) The plot involves more, but that’s the short version.

Some say the legend of Tristan and Isolde was tacked on to Arthurian stories late in the game, but I treat them as interwoven for a reason. You’ll meet Isolde in books 1 and 2 and she’ll get a chance to tell her side of the story in book 4.

Someday we’ll look at the Knights of the Round Table as well, but this is enough for one day. Class dismissed!  If you have any questions, feel free to leave them in the comments.  If you want to know more, I recommend The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Arthurian Legend by Ronan Coghlan.