HERE IS A SAMPLE UPPER-DIVISION ESSAY WHICH I CONSIDERED TO BE A STRONG PIECE OF WRITING. 

CLICK HERE TO SEE MY COMMENTS.

Arthurian Legend

Dr. Gavin Richardson

Due 7-12-04

Biblical Backgrounds and Cultural Allusions in Geoffrey of Monmouth

            The observant student of Arthurian legend will recognize the pervasive presence of biblical allusions throughout Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain at even the most superficial reading. Monmouth, with his background in the clergy, wrote during an era in which a strongly Christian society felt at ease interweaving the religious into all aspects of life. Monmouth quite naturally would have had no difficulty crafting his literature upon the underlying foundation of biblical literature. Students may note that biblical overtones capture the stage in many of the key events of the History. For example, the adulterous union of Uther Pendragan and Ygerna and the conception of Arthur, together with the timely violent death of Ygerna’s husband, all closely parallel the biblical account of David and Bathsheba, the death of Uriah the Hittite, and the eventual birth of Solomon, who would later prove to be Israel’s greatest king. In a separate incident, the execution of the Saxon warlord Hengist is predicated by an appeal to the example of Samuel and the execution of Agag king of the Amalekites from I Sam 15. Some might perhaps understand these and the many other biblical analogies found in the History to be a simple literary tool that the author uses to make his plot-development more accessible to his 12^th century readership. However, a closer reading may suggest that Monmouth did not use biblical allusions simply as a means of developing small independent metaphors throughout his History, but that the entire literary structure is built on a broader biblical metaphor which equates the kingdom and people of Briton with the kingdom and people of God. This paper suggests just such an hypothesis by examining the various biblical allusions present throughout the work and attempting to view them as a coherent whole.

            For the student of Arthuriana to gain a proper perspective on the literary backdrop to Monmouth’s History, one must take careful note of the cultural norms which pervaded the society at the time. Modern research has already established the fact that the Christian worldview had so dominated Europe by the Medieval age 1 that its effects were felt everywhere, and its touch was inescapable. The religious influenced in some way all literature of the time, and for those writing inside the confines of the Church the biblical and the social were interchangeable and inextricable. Metaphors such as Boethius’ Great Chain of Being (168) 2 and the Nation-State or Body-Politic as an allegory of the Church, founded with the king as God’s representative on earth were deeply entrenched in the medieval mind, would continue to dominate through the Reformation era. Because this cultural phenomenon wove 3 many such ideas inextricably into the fabric of society, writers such as Monmouth would not even care to mention them overtly in his writing, for his readership would have understood them most naturally. In his attempt to establish a national unity and preserve a common cultural bond, Monmouth would have used those elements within his cultural paradigm that made such an ideology possible.

            For England at the time of Monmouth, perhaps the single dominant cultural element of the time was the restoration of Britain from the Anglo-Saxon dynasty by means of the Norman Invasion. As a result of hundreds of years of dominance by the invading Saxon culture, the desire to reestablish a national and cultural identity was of high interest. Monmouth established strong ties to France through Brittany, identifying them as brothers and cousins of the Britons, and this allowed him to accept the incoming Norman invasion as a return of the rightful ruling class of a divinely established nation. A natural place to find an appropriate model for such an identity was the biblical nation of Israel, firmly established as God’s chosen people. The practice of identifying a nation with Israel was not a new one, and has been practiced by many nations throughout the centuries. 5 Calvin’s Geneva was based on such a principle, and the common understanding that the community of faith could properly be equated with the nation of Israel was so pervasive that even spiritual conditions could be judged in light of the physical and material prosperity of the individual. Many cultures have attempted to follow suit, such as the early Puritan developments in the New World. Identification with Israel allowed a place for God’s blessing, both in spiritual and political national health and prosperity. Monmouth used just such a tactic to cement a common national identity. When Monmouth relates the tale of the execution of the pagan king Hengist, Eldadus, Bishop of Gloucester bases his judgment decree on the actions of Samuel in I Samuel 15:33, stating that

Even if you were all doing your best to have this man set free, I would hack him in pieces myself. In this I would be following the prophet Samuel, who, when he held in his power Agag, King of Amalek, hewed him in pieces, saying: “As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women.” Do, therefore, the same with this man, who is clearly a second Agag (193).

By making such a statement, Eldadus places an intentional comparison between Israel and Briton, as well as identifying Israel’s enemies with Briton’s enemies. Perhaps what is most interesting in this section is the prophetic role that Eldadus takes. Speaking with power and will authority, he sets the ethical standard for the land of Briton, just as Samuel did for Israel.

            Like the Israelites, because of the connections that the Britons saw to Christianity they considered themselves to be under the protection and fealty to a higher throne. Just as the Israelites could rely on the vigorous assistance of the Lord God, so also do we see in countless instances the Britons relying on the strength of their Lord Jesus Christ. Any victory is accounted to the power of the Almighty. 6

            However, perhaps more telling than the success of the Britons were the occasions when Monmouth highlights defeat or destruction. Whereas political and social success appears to be directly related to a strong reliance on the Almighty, political and military failure also hinges directly on a consistent spiritual condition. Throughout the Bible we see indications that the major reason for the exile and political destruction of the nation of Israel was spiritual impoverishment. The Israelites failed to make themselves pure by removing the remnants of the pagan Canaanites from the land, and instead participated in widespread intermarriage. Closely united with the Canaanite culture was the pagan system of false gods and idols which quickly infiltrated into the Israelite system. The kings and the people soon corrupted themselves to a foreign system of rule and of worship. Once Christian, the people of Briton allowed themselves to be infiltrated with the pagan beliefs of the invading Anglo-Saxons. Instead of being diligent to purge the land from the impurities of the invaders, the story makes clear that these invaders were tolerated, until they finally prevailed and overcame the Britons. Though the time of Arthur allowed for a brief respite, eventually the Anglo-Saxons won the day because of the Britons’ lack of persistence. Monmouth seems to be encouraging the newly established empire to avoid the perilous errors of the former generation, and cling to the essential elements which would make certain their establishment. Monmouth is clearly pro Briton and anti Saxon throughout his work, but many times he indicates strong ambiguity and even criticism of the actions of the Britons. Just as the Israelite king David ushered the kingdom of Israel into an era of peace and greatness, so does Uther Pendragon through his military might bring Briton to a place of potential greatness. Monmouth writes an eerie parallel between the two kings in a tone that is at best ambiguous in nature. Just as king David committed adultery with Bathsheba, and then killed her husband Uriah to cover his sin, so does Uther commit flagrant adultery with the wife of one of his captains, only to see her husband killed in battle. The union between Bathsheba and David produced Solomon, who proved to be perhaps Israel’s greatest and wisest king, though also the last in the unified country of Israel.  7 In a similar manner the union of Uther’s adultery produced Arthur of Briton, who took his country to its greatest social and political greatness but opened the door for final invasion and corruption. Even in their greatness, the taints of a rotten core pervade both kingdoms and doom their fate. Just as David’s son Absalom was a vicious character in one of David’s hardest times and indicated a decline in his power, so also does Arthur’s nephew Mordred prove to be the fatal flaw in Arthur’s dynasty. Wicked and conniving wives are the weakest point in both kingdoms, for Guinevere’s adultery was directly related to Arthur’s death just as the adultery of Solomon’s wives was instrumental in bringing down the golden age of Israel. Monmouth clearly does not take Briton’s greatness for granted, as is seen in several locative sections throughout the History. In part eight, Monmouth outright chastises the people for their incessant infighting:

You foolish people, weighed down by the sheer burden of your own monstrous crimes, never happy but when you are fighting one another, why have you so far weakened yourselves in domestic upsets that you, who need to submit far-distant kingdoms to your own authority, are now like some fruitful vineyard which has gone sour and you cannot protect your own country, wives and children from your enemies? Keep on with your civil squabbling and forget what the Gospel says: “Every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation, and a house divided against itself shall fall.” Because your kingdom was divided against itself,... that is why you see your father land ravaged by the most impious heathens and your homesteads overturned one upon the other (264).

Monmouth recognizes that the unity of the kingdom, joined with a common understanding of purpose and belief, are the only things which can keep a country great. Just as the Israelites, through disobedience, disunity, and idolatry sowed the seeds of their own destruction, so does Monmouth recognize the danger that an disunified Briton faces.  Unless the Britons could somehow regain a sense of political and religious unity, they were doomed to repeat their failures.          

            Perhaps the most recognized of all the biblical metaphors present in Arthurian legend is the promise of a return by the great king and ruler who had instituted and guided the nation to greatness. Persistent elements of the Arthurian legend suggest a renewal or a reappearance of the late great leader with a manifestation of greatness. There is a strong element present in all Arthurian writing of nostalgia for that time of brief greatness, and a hope for a return to the golden age of the kingdom. In Monmouth, Arthur’s permanent demise is left ambiguous, for as he suffers his mortal wound Monmouth recounts only that Arthur sailed to the sacred and mysterious Avalon to recover from his wounds, and does not mention his death. Other Arthurian tales give hope that Arthur will return once again to lead his people onto permanent greatness. A correct understanding of this element of Arthuriana depends on an understanding of the Messianic images in Christianity, especially that of the Davidic covenant, which foretells that a seed of David would return the fallen nation of Israel to greatness and rule forever from the throne of Israel. This Messiah figure was the most important figure in Israelite history, and in Him all the promises to the nation are bound. Therefore, through this singular individual the national unity, political identity, and spiritual health of the nation was promised to be confirmed and established. The Christian religion teaches that the person of Jesus Christ is that Messiah figure in the line of King David, and through him all things are tied together. His work on this earth, though brief, was world-changing and produced incomparable results. Though he has gone for a little while, Christians hope in His return to establish the coming kingdom of God for all eternity. In a similar manner, Arthurian legend ties the national and political hopes of unity for Briton to the person of Arthur. Just as a shining star heralded the appearance of the Jewish Messiah, so did a star illuminate the coming of Arthur (201). 8 Whereas he established greatness for a brief time, the hope is that this Messianic figure would return and establish England as a great power for all time. Monmouth, writing from the perspective of the 12^th century, recognizes that with the Norman invasions and the victory of William the Conqueror the land might once again be restored to the original owners. However, if his people were to have any success they would have to be diligent to continue in the paths of God, or suffer a fate similar to the early Britons.

            Though brief, this paper has examined some of the more important biblical analogies present in Monmouth’s History. The various elements of direct allusion, as well as more opaque metaphors built on a Christian world view, allow for the theory that the History was written on the foundations of broader biblical literature for the purpose of establishing the people of Briton as the people of God. Furthermore, such national identification makes possible both an exaltation of the land of Briton, as well as setting strong negative examples of what happens when the people of God disregard their divine authority and engage in improper conduct. Therefore, we conclude that the History is written both as a model for nationalistic pride, as well as an ethical treatise on the conduct of the Britons, in line with the biblical revelation. 9

Works Cited

Geoffrey of Monmouth. The History of the Kings of Britain. Tran. Lewis Thorpe. London:

            Penguin Books, 1966.