Mordred, Arthur, and the Dual Roles of Kingship in the Alliterative Morte Arthure

7KH6ZRUGDQGWKH6FHSWHU0RUGUHG$UWKXUDQGWKH 'XDO5ROHVRI.LQJVKLSLQWKH$OOLWHUDWLYH0RUWH$UWKXUH 6WHYHQ3:%UXVR Arthuriana, Volume 25, Number 2, Summer 2015, pp. 44-66 (Article) 3XEOLVKHGE\6FULSWRULXP3UHVV DOI: 10.1353/art.2015.0018 For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/art/summary/v025/25.2.bruso.html Access provided by Brown University (10 Apr 2016 20:38 GMT) 44 arthuriana The Sword and the Scepter: Mordred, Arthur, and the Dual Roles of Kingship in the Alliterative Morte Arthure steven p.w. bruso The poet of the Alliterative Morte Arthure complicates the traditional depiction of Mordred-as-traitor in order to show how both Mordred and Arthur struggle to negotiate the dual roles of kings publicly emblematized on coins, seals, and regalia—king-as-warrior and king-as-governor. (SPWB) n much of Arthurian literature, Mordred is portrayed in a negative Ilight, and he is always figured as a traitor. Scholars like Peter Korrel, and most recently, Judith Weiss, have shown how Mordred’s depiction became progressively and deliberately blackened over time.1 Indeed, his name is frequently prefaced with, or followed by, epithets of treason: in Geoffrey of Monmouth, for instance, Mordred is called ‘sceleratissimus proditor ille Modredus’ [that most foul traitor]; in Wace, we learn ‘Tut sun regne li ot livré / E en guarde tut cumandé . Modred fei ne li portot’ [he wanted to take {the whole realm} all away from {Arthur} and . bore him no loyalty]; in Laæamon, he is ‘forcuthest monnen; / treouthe nefde he nane to nauer nane monne! . .his aeme he dude swikedom’ [the basest of men {who} never kept faith with any man . and committed treason against his uncle!]; and in Malory, he ‘had ever a prevy hate unto the Quene, Dame Gwenyver, and to Sir Launcelot,’ and was a ‘false traytoure.’2 In the late fourteenth-century Alliterative Morte Arthure, however, this blackening is less in evidence. I argue that the poet complicates the traditional depiction of Mordred-as-traitor in order to shine a light on problems surrounding kingship in late fourteenth- and early fifteenth-century England. More specifically, the poet recasts Mordred in a more sympathetic light as a man who struggles, like Arthur, to negotiate the dual roles of kings publicly emblematized on coins, seals, and regalia—king-as-warrior and king-as- governor. But unlike Arthur, who emphasizes his role as king-as-warrior to the exclusion of governance, Mordred is better able to balance these two roles, suggesting that in some ways, Mordred might be a more effective ruler than Arthur. While I do not argue that the poet justifies usurpationper se, he does arthuriana 25.2 (2015) sword and scepter 45 consider how a good ruler and a usurper might coexist in one person; this is a paradox that Henry IV would encounter later. In particular, I argue that the poet of the Alliterative Morte Arthure suggests that kings ought to concern themselves with matters at home in the kingdom, rather than aspiring to accumulate territories abroad to create an empire, which was an endeavor of uncertain outcome and extreme expense.3 Indeed, by the time that Robert Thornton copied the Alliterative Morte Arthure (around 1420–1430), and by the time that the poet had written the original (sometime between 1396 and 1403), England had experienced magnificent gains, and then losses, in its continental acquisitions.4 However glorious the wars had been for the English in the first half of the fourteenth century, those glories would not be lasting. The English victories at Sluys in 1340, Crecy in 1346, Calais in 1347, and Poitiers in 1356—resulting in English control over much of France’s northern territories and coast—were gradually lost by 1396, leaving the English with few net gains, but with considerable debts. Nigel Saul, for instance, has claimed that ‘from 1377–1381, £250,000 had been spent on war. Yet there were no victories at sea or on the field, and no territorial gains to show for it.’5 The treasury of the crown was under heavy strain, and there was heightened tension with parliament as it became increasingly reluctant to accede to royal demands for additional taxation to fund the war effort.6 Before proceeding to an analysis of Mordred’s and Arthur’s respective modes of kingship in the Alliterative Morte Arthure, it will be useful to consider the ways in which the arrangement of the text in the manuscript in which the narrative survives signals a concern about kingship and modes of kingship. As we have it, the Alliterative Morte Arthure is extant in one manuscript: Lincoln Cathedral Library MS 91, a miscellany also known as the Lincoln Thornton Manuscript, compiled by Robert Thornton sometime between 1420 and 1450.7 Within the range of texts included in Thornton’s miscellany, the Alliterative Morte Arthure comes second, after a Prose Alexander (in the portion of the manuscript that scholars have called the romance section); this section also includes Octavian, Sir Ysambrace, The Earl of Toulouse, Sir Degreaunt, and Sir Eglamour.8 In following the Prose Alexander, the Alliterative Morte Arthure’s placement allows it to highlight similar themes: both narratives are interested in kingship and the tragic fall of a ruler whose dual role as governor and fighting-man seem to clash. This tension between the seemingly conflicted roles embedded in kingship is indicated by a corresponding discord between the illustrations present in the Prose Alexander and the Alliterative Morte Arthure and the outcomes of the narratives. Philippa Hardman has argued that much of the imagery around the Alexander, for instance, recalls the imagery associated with English kings, such as that on the Great Seal and English coins.9 Such images suggest an interest in royal power and encapsulate the dual roles of kings: showing, on 46 arthuriana the one hand, the military role of the king by depicting him as a knightly figure mounted on horseback, while on the other hand, showing the king as a governor, enthroned and with scepter in hand.10 It is notable, though, that while the illustrations and areas marked for pictorial representation in the manuscript suggest a strong interest in kingship and royal authority, as Hardman and Fredell suggest, the narratives themselves signal the ruptures that arise when a ruler moves too far into one mode of kingship. Both Alexander and Arthur fall, in part because however fantastic and noble their military successes are, they fundamentally overextend themselves in this pursuit, and in doing so, they neglect important managerial responsibilities for their holdings. In this vein, I submit that the poet of the Alliterative Morte Arthure shows us that while military leadership and knightly prowess are important attributes, kings must also be good governors and maintain a strong presence at home in order to effectively rule their kingdoms. mordred as ruler: loosening links to treachery In many medieval Arthurian narratives, Mordred features prominently as a malevolent villain and a traitor. Given this long history, it is notable that the poet of the Alliterative Morte Arthure departs from this tradition in order to complicate this perspective. Indeed, while other poets like Geoffrey of Monmouth, Wace, Laæmon, and Malory explicitly describe Mordred through the lens of treachery and villainy, often figuring him as a malicious traitor from the start, the poet of the Alliterative Morte only links Mordred with treachery much later in the narrative. I argue that this notable change calls into question the extent to which we should decide, a priori, to read all of Mordred’s actions as being informed by treachery and wickedness. In fact, the first time the poet names Mordred as a traitor occurs toward the end of the Morte, when Mordred stands on the English beach-head, opposing Arthur’s amphibious assault: ‘Yitt es the traytoure one londe with tryede knyghttes, / And all trompede they trippe one trappede stedys’ (ll. 3712-3713).11 This first moment where the poet identifies Mordred as ‘traytoure’ appears only after the audience has consumed something like eighty-five percent of the text—a stark contrast to other medieval writers like Monmouth, for instance, who hardly finishes introducing Mordred before branding him a traitor.12 Likewise, I suggest that we must carefully consider the poet’s unique contribution to Arthurian tradition in Mordred’s response to his appointment as ‘soueraynge,’ where he displays none of his traditional characteristics of treachery or opportunism that we see from Geoffrey of Monmouth through Malory and beyond.13 After Arthur surprises the council and Mordred with his choice and names him sovereign, Mordred immediately kneels before him and says, sword and scepter 47 I beseke yow, sir, as my sybbe lorde that ye will for charyte cheese yow another, For if ye putte me in this plytte yowre pople es dyssauyde; to present a prynce astate my power es symple (ll. 681–684). Here, Mordred makes it clear that he does not want to rule Britain and begs Arthur ‘for charyte’ to choose someone else, for he is not princely enough to warrant this position. Mordred, then, appears keenly aware that his royal and princely qualifications are lacking, and that others are better suited and better qualified, perhaps, to receive this appointment. In considering the lordly requirements for the position and claiming his own lack of princely estate, Mordred displays an awareness that members of English government ought to have certain qualities and talents to govern effectively, and he humbly confesses that he does not think he is the best qualified person for the job. Although it was indeed customary for recipients of honors to demur and reject their own worthiness to receive such accolades, the poet of the Alliterative Morte Arthure complicates the notion that Mordred has kingly aspirations and actively covets Arthur’s power because there is no such mention—as there is in much of the earlier Arthurian tradition—that Mordred actually wants to rule.

Load more