‘OF HIS BREAST NOBLE POETS SHALL EAT; OF HIS BLOOD SHALL MEN BE DRUNK’: NATIONALISM, LITERATURE, AND ARTHURIAN ‘THINGS’ IN MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN BRITAIN BY AMY ROWAN SACH DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2015 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor Robert W. Barrett, Chair Professor Charles D. Wright Associate Professor Lori Humphrey Newcomb Professor Andrew Galloway, Cornell University ABSTRACT My dissertation examines the intersection of medieval and Early Modern Arthurian literature, English and British nationalism, and new materialism – specifically thing theory and object-oriented ontology. Arthur was not a true historical figure, yet throughout much of British history his cultural and propagandist value has been immeasurable both to the ruling class and those who would rebel against it. The end result is that Arthurian objects such as his alleged body, the Round Table, and seals and maps were constantly being produced. Because of the doubtful status of such objects, each new era had to come up with a new theoretical lens through which to discuss these ‘things’ in order to have them hold meaning or value in their current cultural climate. Through the course of this dissertation I follow this trend from the twelfth century to the sixteenth century, tracking these material signifiers as they change in dialogue with shifting cultural needs. While the focus on objects remains consistent throughout these eras, the meaning of the Arthurian objects is fluid and multitudinous, as are the types of lenses through which they are discussed. In some cases these objects show the failure of contemporary Britain in comparison to the golden age of Arthur; in other cases these objects demonstrate that the glorious Arthurian past should bolster support for the politics of the present; in others still these objects critique even Arthur himself. In some cases a true belief in a historical Arthur is actually necessary; in other cases he is merely used as a symbol for an emotional or political truth. ii To Margaret Weis and Maigrey Morianna for inspiring me to read Malory for the first time To Carol Kaske for inspiring me to read Malory every time since iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without the support of a great many people, and I am thankful for their help and encouragement. The members of my dissertation committee have all stood by me despite a long distance move, and have all provided continuous advice and feedback. Rob Barrett has offered incalculable hours of comments and has never waivered in his support as my chair. His insights have saved whole chapters when I otherwise felt lost. He has also served as my cheerleader and shrink, always online to offer support, and when my laptop broke with less than a week before my defense, his unusual tactic for cheering me up and encouraging me to keep going worked when nothing else had. I could have never finished this without him, and am extremely grateful that he has never given up on me, even when I thought I might myself. The second chapter is a direct result of an early class taken with Charlie Wright. His insistence on (and enthusiasm for) exhaustive and detailed research methods transformed a vague idea into not just the start of a chapter, but also the genesis of the entire dissertation. Lori Newcomb rekindled my love of the Early Modern period, paleography, and book history, and inspired the wide breadth of this dissertation’s scope. Andrew Galloway was not just a committee member for this dissertation but, as an undergraduate professor from my time at Cornell University, was one of the reasons that I pursued a higher degree in English and specifically medieval literature. Taking my first paleography class from Andy was a turning point in my life in many ways, expanding the ways that I thought about English as a field. I am deeply grateful for his support over the last twelve years. iv I am also profoundly indebted to my other mentors from Cornell, Carol Kaske and Tom Hill. Carol introduced me to Spenser, reintroduced me to Malory, and invited me to travel with her to Oxford and Cambridge in pursuit of Simon Forman. Chapters Three and Five of this dissertation can be traced back to her course on Malory and Spenser and her love of mad alchemists. I would not be where I am today, or who I am today, without Carol’s inspiration and guidance. Similarly, Tom Hill rescued me from being an engineer in my very first semester at Cornell, and reminded me that I was an English nerd instead. I have since tried to base my teaching style on his, and if I am one day half the professor that he was for me, I will consider my future career a success. I would also like to thank my family and friends who have put up with me through this long and arduous process. I am who I am because my parents have surrounded me with more books than I can ever hope to read from before I knew how. To my father – thank you for long phone chats in the car about history, literature, and the state of academia. To my mother - thank you for reading to me from day one, knowing that I would catch up, and totally understanding my request to overnight me a copy of Malory as a college freshman. My thanks also go to Stefanie Engstrom who found it totally reasonable to fly across the country to help me copy edit, because commas are confusing. She continues to be the best roommate ever, even from a different time zone. Thanks also to all those in the fencing community for their friendship and support, and for allowing me to hit them with a blunt object multiple times a week throughout this whole process. It has been therapeutic. Finally, to my husband, David: I love you with all my heart. Thank you for always supporting me, but never actually caring if I finished this thing or not. That has v meant everything along the way, and always will. I could not do this without you. I’m sorry that Arthur (probably) was not actually real. But thank you for making me English and Welsh by marriage. Hopefully that will lend some credibility to everything else that is about to follow. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE.…………………..………………...………………………......viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION……..…………..………………………...1 CHAPTER 2: BODIES, RELICS, AND MIRACULOUS ARTHURIAN THINGS…....................................................................................................19 CHAPTER 3: THE FAILURE OF CHIVALRIC OBJECTS IN MALORY’S LE MORTE DARTHUR…….…….……………………………………….76 CHAPTER 4: ANTIQUARIAN REIMAGINING OF ARTHURIAN ARTIFACTS AND THE (NON-) SACRED ENGLISH LANDSCAPE…121 CHAPTER 5: DEE, SPENSER, AND THE LIMITS OF ARTHURIAN IMPERIALISM..………………………………………………………….170 BIBLIOGRAPHY……...…………………………………………………224 vii PREFACE In July 2010 newspapers across England and the world excitedly reported that King Arthur’s Round Table had been found and that it was actually a Roman amphitheater in Chester that was large enough to seat the entire Arthurian court. Historians, according to these newspapers, claimed that because there was a shrine dedicated to Christian martyrs within the amphitheater it matched Gildas’ description of Arthur’s location, a place that Gildas refers to as the “urbs legionum.”1 The newspapers ignored the fact that the city was merely one near which Arthur fought a single battle, rather than anything connected to Camelot itself, nor was there any mention that the Round Table did not come into the Arthurian legend until approximately six hundred years after Gildas wrote his De excidio Britanniae.2 Further P. J. C. Field has convincingly proven that this unnamed city that contained a martyr’s shrine was most likely York, rather than Chester.3 If this find was not already then clearly dubious at best, the fact that The History Channel was eagerly preparing a special on the discovery should 1 The Round Table first is mentioned by Wace in his mid-twelfth century “Roman de Brut.” See Wace, Le Roman de Brut, trans. Arthur Wayne Glowka (Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2005). 2 Gildas, De excidio Britanniae, in Arthurian Period Sources 7: Gildas: the Ruin of Britain and Other Documents, ed. and trans. Michael Winterbottom (Chichester: Phillimore, 1980). 3 P. J. C. Field, “Gildas and the City of Legions,” The Heroic Age 1 (Spring/Summer 1999). viii be enough to make most true historians doubt the claim. Yet dozens of newspapers and websites around the world reported on the find. 4 All of this probably made it even more shocking to the general public when just a year later in August of 2011 newspapers began reporting that King Arthur’s Round Table had been found again. This time the table was found in Stirling, Scotland, the newspapers claimed, and was really just a well known site called the King’s Knot, a “geographical earthwork in the former royal gardens below Stirling Castle.”5 In this case the historians from Glasgow University were prudently hesitant to connect the mound to an actual historical figure but instead said that the shape of the mound could “explain the stories and beliefs that people held.”6 However, their reasonable argument did nothing to dissuade the wider media from reporting as if the actual table had been found with links to a true historical person. A current online search still finds dozens of archived articles all describing the find itself but with most of these articles removing or downplaying any logical explanation from the archaeologists. While it would be easy to assume that either of these claims were then quickly forgotten, over the last five years it has struck me how often one or the other was mentioned to me as evidence of Arthur’s historical existence, primarily by those of English or Welsh nationality.