Do You Happen To Have A Link To The Text Of Caradoc? I'm Very Intrigued By It.

Griflet-centric Reincarnation AU following Mort Artu canon

Griflet remembers bits and pieces of his past life, mostly from Camlann, so he starts doing surface-level research on Arthuriana. Since he's the one to throw the sword in the lake in Mort Artu but Bedivere is best known for it, he becomes convinced that he's the reincarnation of Sir Bedivere.

There are two outcomes which immediately come to mind. One is that he runs into other Arthurian reincarnations. In this case, he might vastly confuse everyone, particularly if Bedivere shows up too. They might even think he's an imposter. However, they might remember who he actually was and have a laugh about the whole thing.

The other is that he never tells anyone, or only tells the people he's closest to, because he doesn't think anyone will believe him. He goes about the rest of his life secretly thinking he's Bedivere. It impacts nothing substantial, though from time to time he makes references which confuse the people around him and he's always kind of worried something will happen to his hand.

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!

Since I posted this, another of my closest friends came out as aroace.

I’m quickly running out of allo people I know more than tangentially.

I‘ve been wondering about something. Last year, I found out that being asexual was a thing, not just a quirk of mine… then realized that five of my friends already privately or publicly identified as such. Consider that: asexuals are estimated to make up about 1% of the population yet account for about 40% of my friends. Is that just a weird coincidence, are ace people more likely to gravitate toward each other (due to their likely disinterest in certain topics of conversation or general vibes or goodness knows what), did the experts significantly underestimate how many asexuals there are, or some combination of the three? I suspect it’s the third but I’m not sure to what extent each thing is a factor. Any thoughts?

What Agravaine and Dinadan have going on in Book 10 Chapter 25 of Malory is unparalleled— (the world's longest post oh my GOD it didn't look so long while I was writing it)

First off, consider that they are both: known for their witty rudeness, their poeticism and cutting jokes and quick tongues ¹, their perceived unknightly values ², their knowledge of the private business of their fellows (to the point of spying on them in secret) ³, and their conscious use of rumor and reputation to influence how others are seen⁴— only, Agravaine is censured for it, and Dinadan is universally beloved at court, except by Agravaine himself ⁵. The heel-turn that happens in Malory with Agravaine & Mordred being suddenly villains happens in one chapter while they’re interacting with Dinadan specifically. It highlights the extent to which your reputation— how the court perceives you— shapes reality for a knight. A knight is only as good as his reputation. The way people speak of a knight is the only reality about that knight… whether or not it’s true. The series of events here is wild imho. Subtler readings of Malory seem few and far between but listen.

The frame of context here needs to start a couple of chapters before, in Chapter 11— Dinadan is traveling with King Mark (reluctantly).

“Right as they stood thus talking together they saw come riding to them over a plain six knights of the court of King Arthur, well armed at all points. And there by their shields Sir Dinadan knew them well. The first was the good knight Sir Uwaine, the son of King Uriens, the second was the noble knight Sir Brandiles, the third was Ozana le Cure Hardy, the fourth was Uwaine les Aventurous, the fifth was Sir Agravaine, the sixth Sir Mordred, brother to Sir Gawaine. When Sir Dinadan had seen these six knights he thought in himself he would bring King Mark by some wile to joust with one of them.”

He pretends they’re enemies and charges toward them, lance out, so Mark will panic and flee, and then—

“So when Sir Dinadan saw King Mark was gone, he set the spear out of the rest, and threw his shield upon his back, and came, riding to the fellowship of the Table Round. And anon Sir Uwaine knew Sir Dinadan, and welcomed him, and so did all his fellowship.”

Absolutely no beef with Agravaine and Mordred here. In fact, as we roll into Chapter 12:

“Will ye do well? said Sir Dinadan: I have told the Cornish knight that here is Sir Launcelot, and the Cornish knight asked me what shield he bare. Truly, I told him that he bare the same shield that Sir Mordred beareth. Will ye do well? said Sir Mordred; I am hurt and may not well bear my shield nor harness, and therefore put my shield and my harness upon Sir Dagonet, and let him set upon the Cornish knight. That shall be done, said Sir Dagonet, by my faith. Then anon was Dagonet armed him in Mordred’s harness and his shield, and he was set on a great horse, and a spear in his hand. Now, said Dagonet, shew me the knight, and I trow I shall bear him down.”

(Mordred is half-dead for like 70% of Arthuriana, poor kid) So they’re friends! More or less, anyway. At the least, they have overlapping friend groups, and, knowing who his options are, Mordred is specifically the one Dinadan chooses to bring into the prank— he didn’t know Dagonet was around, and though he might have known Mordred was too injured to do it himself, the prank still relied on Mordred’s willingness to give up his arms to someone else for the express purpose of scaring King Mark shitless.

But by Chapter 25, though— their next appearance on the page— Dinadan wants nothing to do with them. This is, again, the wrestling heel turn wherein Agravaine and Mordred get the minor-key leitmotif etc, etc. They’re theoretically portrayed negatively here and hereafter, where before they were mostly… doing things like pranking King Mark. There’s a reason in the intervening chapters, but we’ll get to that. Here’s how the chapter opens:

“Now leave we of Sir Lamorak, and speak of Sir Gawaine's brethren, and specially of Sir Agravaine and Sir Mordred. As they rode on their adventures they met with a knight fleeing, sore wounded; and they asked him what tidings. Fair knights, said he, here cometh a knight after me that will slay me. With that came Sir Dinadan riding to them by adventure, but he would promise them no help. But Sir Agravaine and Sir Mordred promised him to rescue him.”

Now there’s an inauspicious start, if you want to say Agravaine and Mordred suck— a stranger, badly wounded, fleeing from someone who wants him dead, and Dinadan says it’s none of his business. The honorable, knightly task of protecting a wounded man asking for aid from a murderous pursuer is taken up by Agravaine and Mordred. Unfortunately for them, this is one of those Breuse Saunce Pité stories where he rides across the scene for no reason except to beat the ever-loving hell out of whatever knight of midrange skill happens to be center stage at the time, for no reason beyond devoted and passionate rat bastardry (Thomas Malory, a knight during the War of the Roses: “don’t you just hate it when that one guy shows up to just make everything suck in your entire province as much as possible with no higher motivation other than YORKISTS GO TO HELL? I know I do! Except when I am that guy, of course!” Thanks Tom.). So he yells his own name whilst obliterating Agravaine and Mordred with utterly unnecessary cruelty, to make sure they know who did it (gee, thanks).

Now, we don’t yet have any cause to think Dinadan and Agravaine & Mordred have had a major falling out— Dinadan has been previously established to not fight when the moon isn’t in the right lunar mansion to make him feel like it today, etc, and he’s abandoned people to handle things for him before without it stemming from ill will, but it does seem to take quite a bit to get him to concede to help— it seems like more than would usually be the case—

“And yet he rode over Agravaine five or six times. When Dinadan saw this, he must needs joust with him for shame.”

Agravaine is on the ground, being trampled over five or six times by a loudly gloating Breuse Saunce Pité, before Dinadan determines it will, in fact, reflect badly on him if he doesn’t do SOMETHING. He unseats Breuse successfully (“with pure strength” okay go off Dinadan. You could’ve lead with that tho.), who then grabs his horse again and skips town without pursuit. Breuse, as he leaves, is described as “a great destroyer of all good knights.” Paragraph end.

Now we get into the meat of this episode, starting with the immediate following sentence.

“Then rode Sir Dinadan unto Sir Mordred and unto Sir Agravaine. Sir knight, said they all, well have ye done, and well have ye revenged us, wherefore we pray you tell us your name. Fair sirs, ye ought to know my name, the which is called Sir Dinadan. When they understood that it was Dinadan they were more wroth than they were before, for they hated him out of measure because of Sir Lamorak. For Dinadan had such a custom that he loved all good knights that were valiant, and he hated all those that were destroyers of good knights. And there were none that hated Dinadan but those that ever were called murderers.”

At a glance, it scans as good sense. But then— why is it that Dinadan’s feelings about them aren’t mentioned, just theirs about him? It seems surprising that they hate him more than he hates them— and Breuse was JUST identified as meeting the precise description of what Dinadan hates, but Dinadan didn’t seem overenthused to act against him. And what’s up with the specific framing of “none that hated Dinadan but those that ever were called murderers”? Not ‘only murderers’? And, more importantly, didn’t this chapter start with “Now we leave of Sir Lamorak”??

Because, of course, Lamorak isn’t dead. He’s fine. The intervening chapters involved Gaheris’s killing of their mother in bed with Lamorak, Gaheris admitting that he and Gawain (specifically and exclusively— where was Agravaine, while we’re at it?) killed Pellinore to avenge their father, and telling Lamorak that it wouldn’t be right to kill him like this so just watch out but he’s not going to touch him right then but like watch out!! Gaheris has issues but that’s okay. Lamorak also threatened him right back with blood feuding, for his part, saying his own father’s death was as yet unavenged on the Orkney clan. (Never 4get that Malory’s Lamorak is offered a blood price by Arthur to mediate the feud and refuses it, saying he’s not done feuding yet. Play stupid games, my guy—)

But this leaves a big ol’ gap in the logic here. Agravaine and Mordred have never murdered anyone. Agravaine and Mordred have never destroyed any good knights. Why do they hate Dinadan so intensely on Lamorak’s account? They hated Lamorak the whole time, and Dinadan was clearly never on their side about it. Why does—

I would say again, “And there were none that hated Dinadan but those that ever were called murderers.” He’s known to be close only with good knights, and he’s befriended Lamorak. He’s known to hate people that act against good knights. And if you dislike him, it reflects badly on your reputation— maybe inherently (if you came into my house and said “hey I hate your cat” I would not like you ever, which is probably how Tristan at least feels) but this is also the guy who wrote that mean song about King Mark to ruin his reputation and humiliate him and had it taught to a bunch of people who were then sent out to perform it across Mark’s lands. With Arthur’s explicit approval, too— which makes it a political act of lowkey espionage, which is wild and very sexy of him (also one of the foundational elements of my ‘Geralt of Rivia is a purposeful adaptation Tristan’ rant but we don’t have time for that right now). He doesn’t have a reputation for gossip, but he’s very clearly not unaware of how influencing people’s reputations works. Everyone loves him, and anyone who hates him is publicly maligned in image as a murderer. Or do people only hate him if he’s maligned them that way? Is that something he does? It would explain why it doesn’t seem to apply to Agravaine and Mordred on a practical level, in spite of their explicit hatred of him.

But he was friends with them! Recently! And they haven’t killed anyone or been implicated in any deaths (Gaheris, as I mentioned, confessed that he and Gawain killed Pellinore to Lamorak, but Agravaine isn’t part of that, and Mordred was like 12 and per Malory in a fishing village in BFE presumably at the time). However— Gaheris certainly has. Lamorak has been telling everyone about Gaheris killing Morgause. Everyone is explicitly talking about it at court.

If Dinadan is prone to that sort of thing— leveraging his influence and significant skill with public opinion against those he thinks have done serious wrong— he’s likely been smearing Gaheris publicly in solidarity with Lamorak.

And, quite frankly, going after Agravaine and Mordred’s brother is the only thing that would make them madder than going after them.

But we left off mid-paragraph there, in fact:

“Then spake the hurt knight that Breuse Saunce Pité had chased, his name was Dalan, and said: If thou be Dinadan thou slewest my father. It may well be so, said Dinadan, but then it was in my defence and at his request. By my head, said Dalan, thou shalt die therefore, and therewith he dressed his spear and his shield. And to make the shorter tale, Sir Dinadan smote him down off his horse, that his neck was nigh broken. And in the same wise he smote Sir Mordred and Sir Agravaine. And after, in the quest of the Sangreal, cowardly and feloniously they slew Dinadan, the which was great damage, for he was a great bourder and a passing good knight.”

Holy shit. What the hell. For one thing that escalated extremely quickly. For another thing all three of these people are half-dead already Jesus Christ everyone chill. But also— The entire idea of Agravaine and Mordred being murderers ties into their blood feud to avenge their father. Malory doesn’t touch on Dinadan’s adjacency to it, but we know his brother Brunor (that Knight of the Hideously Cut Jacket, who I briefly imagine as David Byrne in a great helm whenever I think of him) for his sartorially-signified revenge quest— Dinadan’s father was murdered, which probably has something to do with his hatred of destroyers of good knights/murderers. So it’s wrongfully-slain fathers all the way down, and then this wounded knight— that Dinadan initially refused to aid in escaping being murdered by Breuse— suddenly interjects to accuse Dinadan himself of wrongfully slaying HIS father! We’ve never seen Dalan before and we never see him again, but I think this specific interjection can be read as doing some absolutely insane heavy-lifting for this scene.

It’s not uncommon in medieval writing for a sort of moral predestination to hang over everyone— saying that Agravaine and Mordred hate Dinadan, only murderers hate Dinadan, and then that they go on to murder Dinadan could all be viewed as a fulfillment of the middle statement— they ARE murderers, even if they hadn’t killed anyone yet, so the statement is true! Except for Dalan’s outburst. This guy was badly injured and fleeing from Breuse, knowing he wasn’t strong enough to face him. Dinadan unseated Breuse in front of Dalan, and the guy isn’t getting any less injured— and yet Dalan hates Dinadan so much and holds him so accountable for the same wrongdoing Dinadan himself hates that he challenges him anyway, in spite of being injured, in spite of Dinadan having defeated in a joust someone who had been strong enough to defeat Dalan in the first place. And avenging a wrongful death, as an act, isn’t inherently censured in Malory— Dinadan’s brother does so offscreen, but it’s acknowledged as a noble thing that he succeeds in his quest to avenge his father’s murder. If you challenge someone honestly, even being incorrect about your accusations towards them doesn’t make it dishonorable of you (that’s how half of these idiots make friends, after all). So whether or not he’s wrong in blaming Dinadan for it, he is HARDLY implied to be a murderer— which means that right in between ‘Only people who get called murderers hate Dinadan’ and ‘Agravaine and Mordred DO murder Dinadan later btw’— there’s a brief exchange that establishes that what the narration has presented as a fact— only people who are called murderers hate Dinadan— is NOT TRUE. Dalan hates Dinadan, and isn’t a murderer— in fact, he may think Dinadan is one. What’s been said about Agravaine and Mordred isn’t true— even if it becomes so, it didn’t have to. What does that mean for the rest of— well, the entire narrative? For one thing, we can to some degree tie this disproving back to the lead-in of Dinadan having this particular ‘custom’— it’s not an actual fact, it’s just something presented as fact, believed to be fact— something that affects the realities of a knight’s life and knighthood as if it were fact, even though it isn’t.

Whether or not you take it as authorial intention doesn’t really matter— Malory is SO interesting if you take your cue from this series of escalating sentence-by-sentence underminings (Dinadan won’t help a stranger but Agravaine & Mordred will— but they’re morally corrupt and he isn’t; Breuse is a renowned destroyer of good knights and was announcing his presence like a Pokémon— that’s the exact thing that Dinadan hates most which is the cause of his beef with Agravaine & Mordred, but he didn’t want to get involved in fighting the guy; everyone who hates Dinadan is a morally bad person— except this other guy who’s right here currently too). The narration is NOT objectively giving you the truth— the narration is giving you what is ACCEPTED AS TRUTH by the court, by society at large, what will be remembered, because a knight is only as good, only as strong, only as virtuous, only as accomplished, as the stories told of him— only guilty of the crimes people gossip on, but guilty of the ones believed, whether or not they’re true. The narrative is influenced by what is and isn’t known, by what’s hidden and revealed to the world. It makes for an incredibly fun and good reading of Malory throughout!

And there’s a lot of room to say, too, that it makes Agravaine and Dinadan insane narrative foils, because any which way you think to develop and expand on Agravaine’s motivations and desires in Malory, Dinadan is doing something similar to great affection, approval, and acclaim— where Agravaine receives disapproval, approbation, and… nothing else. Agravaine is “ever open-mouthed”, waiting “every night and day” to root out Lancelot’s secrets— when he succeeds, Arthur blames him after his death for what comes to pass, even though he was right and what he uncovered was true. It’s Dinadan’s “manner to be privy with all good knights”, so he reads Lancelot’s mail while he’s sleeping, and Lancelot is glad of it, and lets him help. Agravaine is manipulative, Dinadan has influence with his friends. Agravaine, who values his honor greatly, is dishonored for it as vengeful and jealous. Dinadan, who is careless of his own honor, never bruises it with anything he does. Agravaine is considered resentful and ungracious to others, Dinadan is a beloved jokester who harangues his friends with affectionate invective to cheer them up.ᵃ Dinadan is what Agravaine isn’t allowed to be— and yet he’s a version of it that Agravaine has no desire to be, someone who doesn’t fit in the knightly mold, who isn’t respected the way he wants to be respected, someone reliant on the aid and influence of friends, someone who laughs first at himself, at his own lack of honor. To be envied and yet also to be disdained, to Agravaine’s sensibilities, and to Dinadan’s there’s nothing that Agravaine would criticize he cares about.

And yet— they were friends, too. And what ruined that friendship may well have been the same desire that killed Agravaine in the end— the desire to see that a position of privilege at court didn’t protect a knight who’d done wrong from the truth being known, or from facing the repercussions of his guilt and shame— only it was Dinadan who was repeating the gossip, Dinadan exposing the wrong, and Dinadan died for it, too, just as much as Agravaine would later. And in both their cases, their claims were never fully proven, except in the acts of their own deaths.

But can you IMAGINE the incredible amount of dirt they must’ve dug up between the two of them, before they both got killed by their shared streak of weird, stubborn justice, one by the other’s hand? Can you imagine how utterly fatally they’d be capable of roasting you into a charcoal brick by their powers combined? Can you imagine how terminally nasty they’d be if they were fighting, and how annoying they’d be if they weren’t and they got in your business? What an insane combination, what a silhouette of deeper characterization in the negative space that isn’t addressed!!ᵇ It has so many potential implications for the narrative overall and their significance in it as arbiters of social thought and public opinion.

¹ ² ³ ⁴ ⁵

1.“no good qualities except his beauty, his chivalry, and his quick tongue”, as the Vulgate describes Agravaine (quotes that made my wife say out loud, “what else is there?!”), plus that one translator’s note about the idiomatic and metaphorical way he speaks— Dinadan is constantly described that way— “Right so came Dinadan, and mocked and japed with King Bagdemagus that all knights laughed at him, for he was a fine japer, and well loving all good knights.” etc etc. he’s a fucking bard who wrote the hardest diss track of all time (see footnote 4). Also sends his gay friend group™️ (Lancelot, Galehault, Dinadan, and Guinevere) into hysterics with his potshots at Lancelot and Galehault at a tournament dinner. More on that later.

2. Agravaine is known for being extremely jealous, petty, a bad sport and a gossip, dishonorable and vengeable— Dinadan ONLY fights when he feels like it… '

“And at the first recounter, said Sir Kay, he smote me down from my horse and hurt me passing sore; and when my fellow, Sir Dinadan, saw me smitten down and hurt he would not revenge me, but fled from me; and thus he departed.” (He’s literally present while Kay is saying this like 🤷‍♂️ ya)

“So on the morn Sir Dinadan rode unto the court of King Arthur; and by the way as he rode he saw where stood an errant knight, and made him ready for to joust. Not so, said Dinadan, for I have no will to joust. With me shall ye joust, said the knight, or that ye pass this way. Whether ask ye jousts, by love or by hate? The knight answered: Wit ye well I ask it for love, and not for hate. It may well be so, said Sir Dinadan, but ye proffer me hard love when ye will joust with me with a sharp spear. But, fair knight, said Sir Dinadan, sith ye will joust with me, meet with me in the court of King Arthur, and there shall I joust with you. Well, said the knight, sith ye will not joust with me, I pray you tell me your name. Sir knight, said he, my name is Sir Dinadan. Ah, said the knight, full well know I you for a good knight and a gentle, and wit you well I love you heartily. Then shall there be no jousts, said Dinadan, betwixt us.” (I just fucking love this exchange. He really said ‘is your challenge from love or from hate? Oh from LOVE? Wow okay well that’s some kinda love coming at me with a LANCE :(‘ like babygirl why are you a knight.)

Also openly refuses to fight or runs away from combat when traveling with Tristan, when traveling with Mark, when traveling alone (the chapter in question, at first) when traveling with Tristan again, etc, and never denies this

Hates when knights fight for women and thinks it’s stupid. “For such a foolish knight as ye are, said Sir Dinadan, I saw but late this day lying by a well, and he fared as he slept; and there he lay like a fool grinning, and would not speak, and his shield lay by him, and his horse stood by him; and well I wot he was a lover. Ah, fair sir, said Sir Tristram are ye not a lover? Mary, fie on that craft! said Sir Dinadan. That is evil said, said Sir Tristram, for a knight may never be of prowess but if he be a lover. It is well said, said Sir Dinadan; now tell me your name, sith ye be a lover, or else I shall do battle with you.” Tristan promptly tells Isolde about this later and she gives him endless shit for it.

His exchange with Isolde abt it is very funny. He’s a fruitcake. “Now I pray you, said La Beale Isoud, tell me will you fight for my love with three knights that do me great wrong? and insomuch as ye be a knight of King Arthur's I require you to do battle for me. Then Sir Dinadan said: I shall say you ye be as fair a lady as ever I saw any, and much fairer than is my lady Queen Guenever, but wit ye well at one word, I will not fight for you with three knights, Jesu defend me. Then Isoud laughed, and had good game at him.” Y’know that song in the Oliver Twist musical where they’re trying to teach Oliver the concept of chivalry? That never happened for Dinadan and now he’s like this.

Lies all the time for no reason? Presumably it’s for The Bit™️ most times bc he LOVES jokes and pranks. Tristan ropes him into lying to Palamedes uhh hang on let me count in my head. Four? At least four times.

Basically Dinadan took a knightly oath the way other people agree to Terms & Conditions. He knows this abt himself. (See footnote 5)

3. Okay we know about Agravaine but UH “And so privily she sent the letter unto Sir Launcelot. And when he wist the intent of the letter he was so wroth that he laid him down on his bed to sleep, whereof Sir Dinadan was ware, for it was his manner to be privy with all good knights. And as Sir Launcelot slept he stole the letter out of his hand, and read it word by word.” DINADAN WHAT THE HELL? Agravaine and Dinadan were out here bumping into each other surveilling Lancelot’s fuckjgn bedroom I GUESS no wonder Agravaine killed Dinadan later awkwarddd

4. Agravaine is “ever open-mouthed” repeating gossip and spreading rumors to put pressure on Lancelot and Guinevere at court before he resorts to telling his uncle; Dinadan is imho implied by this chapter to be part of the reason Agravaine’s reputation fully tanks (also a gossip) but there’s also the lay he writes to humiliate King Mark and teaches to people to perform throughout Cornwall to ruin him: “And when Dinadan understood all, he said: This is my counsel: set you right nought by these threats, for King Mark is so villainous, that by fair speech shall never man get of him. But ye shall see what I shall do; I will make a lay for him, and when it is made I shall make an harper to sing it afore him. So anon he went and made it, and taught it an harper that hight Eliot. And when he could it, he taught it to many harpers. And so by the will of Sir Launcelot, and of Arthur, the harpers went straight into Wales, and into Cornwall, to sing the lay that Sir Dinadan made by King Mark, the which was the worst lay that ever harper sang with harp or with any other instruments.” (“And when Sir Tristram heard it, he said: O Lord Jesu, that Dinadan can make wonderly well and ill, thereas it shall be.”So true man. What a track.)

Also Dinadan once manipulatively provokes, mocks, belittles, and sneers at Tristan to get him really angry, because he’s letting someone else win a tournament and running support, basically— so Dinadan takes it upon himself to talk incredibly mad shit at him until he gets angry enough to stop being helpful and start fighting properly.

5. This is the chapter where we start to hear about the extent of Agravaine’s censure for his perceived dishonorable traits. As for Dinadan:

“and all the court was glad of Sir Dinadan, for he was gentle, wise, and courteous, and a good knight.”

“Sir, said Dinadan, wherefore be ye angry? discover your heart to me: forsooth ye wot well I owe you good will, howbeit I am a poor knight and a servitor unto you and to all good knights. For though I be not of worship myself I love all those that be of worship. It is truth, said Sir Launcelot, ye are a trusty knight, and for great trust I will shew you my counsel.” <— also this is when Lancelot just woke up from his angry nap and Dinadan is just. There. Having read his private secret letter from the Queen. But it’s fine for some reason I fucking guess!! Idk!! Starfucker extraordinaire Sir “Personal Key to Lancelot’s Bedroom” “Doesn’t Fight His Own Battles But His Friends Will For Him <3” Dinadan like. Agravaine experiencing heretofore unknown levels of gay homophobia. And he’s right.

a. Even adaptations love to make Agravaine Experience Homophobia™️ but rarely Dinadan, who habitually “lies with”, and “makes great joy of” in their beds overnight, his personal ranking of the top three strongest knights of the Round Table at any given time (“at any given time” meaning that he promptly does that to Palamedes as he takes spot #3 when Lamorak kicks it— presumably the secret reason he dies on the Grail Quest is bc he needs to get dick on the reg from the strongest knights in the world to survive and Galahad categorically does not fuck. RIP to a legend), loudly disdains romantic relationships with women, and is pranked on the page by Galehault and Lancelot for being unmanly or effete and afraid of women— by being knocked off his horse on the tourney field by Lancelot in a dress, carried off into the woods, stripped to his underoos, tussled into a dress himself, and paraded through the tourney field and then the hall at dinner in it (Always Sunny title card Lancelot Commits a Hate Crime. Wildass anecdote. Bet a night out on the town with Tom Malory was a HOOT. Guinevere canonically laughs so hard at this she falls over.)

b. Anyway this is why they’re an insane and compelling ship also. I rest my case. This is actually also the introductory post to a piece of fanfiction I’ll put somewhere later in which I used a shortened ballade form taking inspiration and structure from The Flyting of Dunbar and Kennedie to write Agravaine and Dinadan having a flyting competition. Y’know, real normal shit.

Arthuriana ask game!!

bc why not

♘ Favourite Knight/King

🫅Favorite Lady/Damsol/Queen

💚 Favorite Quest/Story Arc

✒A Medieval Text You Like

📚A Retelling/Modern Work You Like

📽Recommend a book/movie/tv show etc

💛A Sibling Group/Dynamic That IS NOT The Orkneys

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Okay Now You Can Talk About Orkneys

😤Your Most Specific Nitpick About Your Fave (anything from "Gareth would not have a beard" to "this is basically a different guy")

🥰An Arthuriana Headcanon

😏Gawain?

🥖Favorite French/du lac (Lancelot, Hector de Maris, Bors, Lionel, Galahad, ect)

👨‍👦Favorite Parent

🗡️Who Are You Betting On In This Month's Tournament?

🙏Pick A Grail Knight

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿Pick A Pelli Spawn (Percival, Aglovale, Tor, Lamorak, Aylane, Dindrane, Donar, ect)

💏Crack Ship (s)

🫂Platonic Ship(s)

#SOMEONE PLEASE DROP THE SOURCE FOR THE HECTOR ONE THAT SOUNDS AWESOME

@sanddef

It's from Cantare di Astore e Morgana (the Cantare of Hector and Morgan).

Here’s a link to a translation originally posted by lazerbem on Reddit, courtesy of Redpanda from the Arthurian Theater Discord server:

Google Docs

Cantare of Hector and Morgan

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. 

TUMBLRINAS I NEED YOUR HELP!! I’m writing an essay about expectations surrounding romance through the lens of aspec identities for my creative nonfiction class. I have several short interview type questions and I’m trying to collect as many responses as possible.

If you identify as asexual, aromantic, or anywhere on the spectrum pls consider taking a look at this google form:

Google Docs

Aspec Interview

Hi there! I’m an asexual college student somewhere on the aro spectrum. I’m writing a paper on aspec identities and societal expectations su

Crop-Eared Dog makes the overzealous descriptions in the Vulgate look tame

This is a quote about the villain, the Knight of the Lantern, who should consider getting a job at Vogue if being his brother’s seneschal doesn’t work out:

“And when they were in a pleasant state, drinking and pleasuring, the king arose standing, and he looks to the four broad-bordered quarters on each side of him all around ; and he saw one young champion, armed, accoutred, and equipped, approaching him; and a tunic of fine silk around his white skin; a wonderful gold-threaded mantle above his fair tunic; and a firm, close, well-woven breastplate about his slender, brightly beautiful, well-curved body; a handsome gold-hemmed scapular above that breastplate; and a goldenhilted, ingenious, broad-grooved sword on his left thigh. A beautiful, very firm, jewelled diadem of manifold art about his head; a shapely, studded, flesh-coloured shield on the ridge of his back, and lines of golden letters in the edges of that royal shield, to announce and proclaim that there was not at the back of shield or sword in the world a warrior or champion better than that mighty soldier. Two angled spears in his white right hand; he had a long, narrow, radiant face, and a grey, clear-glorious, fresh, brilliant, joyous eye in his head ; and he had a slender, shapely, handsome mouth, a smoothslow, quiet, kingly raising in his eyelids, springs of love in each of his royal cheeks; and the people of the world were inferior to him. And in this wise was he; a glistening, full-lighted lantern was in his left hand, and the king was watching him till he came to his presence; and King Arthur asks news of him.”

I mean, really. Describing Lancelot’s eyebrows is weird enough, but glowing descriptions of eyelid raising are on another level.

If this were the Book of Jonah, it might make more sense, but I guess someone just wanted to make a fish case for their favorite scroll, and I can respect that.

Esther scroll in fish-like case, Eastern Europe, 19th century, The Jewish Museum, London

🧙, but also what's gringolet 👀

What's Merlin's deal, in your own words?

Merlin’s deal varies. He’s the result of mashing a few different characters into one, and he does a lot of dubious things in the texts which became most influential but does them on the side of the good guys so people want to like him and water him down into a less sinister figure. 

It’s the Historia Regum Britanniae which lays the groundwork for the character as we know him today. First a wunderkind, whose father is thought to have been an incubus, Merlin is nearly used as a human sacrifice as a child but talks his way out of it by explaining the real reason why King Vortigern’s tower keeps falling down. He’s later responsible for the construction of Stonehenge and for disguising Uther Pendragon as Gorlois so that Uther can sleep with Gorlois’ wife Igerna. She doesn’t know it’s Uther at the time, so Merlin is an accomplice to rape by deception. Later on, Merlin is the magical advisor to Uther’s son Arthur, and Arthur is considered a righteous king (even if he does some very dubious things from time to time). That puts Merlin on “the right side” most of the time going forward but also doesn’t make everything Merlin does morally justifiable. There are some texts where he’s downright antagonistic—the big example being Eachtra Mhelóra agus Orlando, where Arthur nearly has him burned at the stake for his crimes but Arthur’s daughter Melora says they should show him mercy—and some where he’s just very, very morally gray. There are exceptions. Myrddin Wyllt, the possibly-historical Welsh bard who appears in The Black Book of Carmarthen, is more sympathetic, almost Lancelotlike in personality: after inadvertently killing his own nephew in battle, he goes insane and wanders forlornly in the forest, talking to a piglet because his sister won’t forgive him. Then again, “didn’t want to kill a relative (but did anyway)” is a very low bar, and that’s not the Merlin iteration who’s in the public consciousness. 

The Merlin we see most in modern media is the archetypal wizard, the friendlier Gandalf figure who guides the righteous king, with his fouler deeds omitted or justified or glossed over, and that’s…fine. I guess. It takes away a lot of nuance, but if you want a wise, magical grandfather figure for your plucky young king, then Merlin is the closest option at hand and has a cultural resonance. I understand it, and I enjoy a good Merlin from time to time, but that’s not who he is, or at least not who he always is. I would appreciate more questionable Merlins—and they do exist. I would appreciate more meant-well-did-badly, non-Arthur-affiliated, bardic Myrddins, too. 

(P.S. At least in the BBoC translation I read, Myrddin himself says that he is “second only to Taliesin”. Mull on that a bit. Given Taliesin’s own questionable moments, I’m not sure whether it’s really a compliment or an insult).

What’s Gringolet?

Gringolet, my friend, is a horse. Not just any horse, however. Gringolet (also known as Ceincaled) is Gawain’s horse, and he is a force of nature, one of the Three Spirited Horses in the Triads. Gawain is a notorious horsegirl, so naturally he requires a horse as awesome and bloodthirsty as he is, and Gringolet is at least as well-regarded as his usual rider by members of the Arthuriana fandom (I’ve seen tier lists which ranked him higher than Gawain). In short, Gringolet is a phenomenon, and one I’m sure a Beri stan like yourself would appreciate, though I admit my enthusiasm for Gringolet is not as great as a lot of people’s because there are other awesome Arthurian horses (Guinevere’s gray palfrey who can go on water or land, Kay’s horse Gwineu Goddwf Hir, etc.) who remain overlooked while he hogs the limelight. That’s not Gringolet's fault, though. 

He also has his own Wikipedia page. Who among us can say that?

Thank you for the ask!