It would, perhaps, be giving previous conceptions of Uther Pendragon too much credit to say that his primary function in the Arthurian narrative is to be Arthur’s father, simply because the term “father” would imply some paternal influence over the child. The truth is that Uther Pendragon is painted with an unforgiving brush as a king ruled by his passions and his bloodlust whose only contribution to Britain was conceiving Arthur, an act tainted by deception and Myrddin’s manipulations. In Merlin, Stephen Lawhead portrays Uther in a more forgiving light through his relationship with Aurelius – whom Gildas and Bede both present as an Arthur-like figure himself. Lawhead takes great liberties in fictionalizing Aurelius, most notably making him Uther’s brother, in order to present the two men as foils. Through Myrddin’s first-person narration of a fraught dynamic between Uther, Aurelius and Myrddin, and through Lawhead’s depiction of Uther and Ygerna, Uther Pendragon emerges as a passionate, loyal and deeply insecure character, a good man who would not be a good king.
Myrddin views the two brothers, Aurelius and Uther, with equal amounts of affection and frustration but realizes
…show more content…
This creative choice further underscores the characterization of Uther that he has established. Uther wants his own heir with Ygerna, untainted by his brother’s all but sainted legacy, and briefly flirts with the idea of simply killing the child once it is born. In the end, Uther’s love for his brother and for his wife lead him to reject that plan, but his insecurity leads him to quickly accept Myrddin’s offer to take the child to be raised by another. Uther’s passionate nature is both his deepest flaw and his most redeeming characteristic in Lawhead’s portrayal, and in that way, the character becomes achingly human and
He desperately wants to be a hero, that he follows Grendel back to his cave in an attempt to attack him. But when he gets there, he is exhausted and cannot attack Grendel so he encourages Grendel to kill him so he will be remembered as a hero. “‘It will be sung year on year and age on age that Unferth went down through the burning lake-’ he paused to pant ‘-and gave his life in battle with the world-rim monster,” (87). This is in Grendel’s cave and Unferth is monologuing about his own heroic philosophies. This shows Unferth’s burning desire to be known as a hero in the present and in the future. “Except in the life of a hero, the whole world’s meaningless,” (89). This shows Unferth’s existentialist side as he creates his own meaning in the world by attempting to be a hero. He so desperately wants to be a hero that he is willing to die as the man who fought against Grendel, the monster. He is blinded by the want of fame, that he does not really know what it means to truly be a hero and this provokes Grendel to mock him. “So much for heroism. So much for the harvest-virgin,” (90). This when Grendel silently mocks Unferth as he carries Unferth back to his home. He calls Unferth a “harvest-virgin” because his heroic views on life have been destroyed by Grendel’s refusal to kill
...e. Ugo is shown to be a strong character who seems to be happy to be his ‘own man’. The strength of Agatina’s character is conveyed through words such as ‘rules’ which imply power. This insight is needed for the reader to understand both the characters and the way of life to which they belong, therefore giving the reader the sense of belonging to the lives of Agatina and Ugo.
When the Wart pulled the sword from the stone and became king, he is now known as King Arthur. During his many transformations he learns many lessons that will benefit him and the people he will rule. He learns that absolute power is not good. He can be understanding and open-minded. The power of being king should not control you so much that you forget that you have a responsibility. You have freedoms that should help him to make ethical, wise decisions as a king. His responsibility as a king is not to overpower the people but to lead them successfully.
King Arthur, a courageous man, who was able to pull out a sword from a rock as simple as possible. As for everyone else who tired, it was almost impossible. This was just the beginning stage of Arthur becoming a king. The thing that Merlin didn’...
I brought the story of my grandmother’s death to the text and it completely changed how I analyzed this text and ultimately came to relate to it. I drew connections I would have never drawn from simply reading this story once. It is clear, especially at the beginning of the story, that there was a lot of distance between the two brothers. When the narrator visits his dying brother, he “remembers the time when he was jealous,” (Lassell 480) and also the narrator tells himself to “forgive him out loud, even if he can’t understand you.” (Lassell 480)
...s an Vortigern, probably the same one who exists in Geoffrey of Monmouth's account of Britain. According to Alcock, Vortigern "ruled with a group of consiliarii like a Roman -- or for that matter, a Visigothic -- provincial governor" (357). If there was a Vortigern, it is possible to imagine that there may be a chance that Arthur was a king --- after all, he was related to Vortigern, and Vortigern was, by Alcock's definition, royalty.
The world of Arthurian literature is filled with magic and adventure that enchants readers of all ages. T.H. White has done a fantastic job of turning the childhood adventures of Arthur by turning his narrative into spellbinding, cartoon like interpretation of the sword in the stone legend. Moral values are apparent from the beginning of White’s novel. White has cleverly connected all the educational adventures of Arthur, along with the people and animals encountered to the pulling the sword out of the stone. This marvelous amalgamation of key elements not only ties the loose ends of Arthur’s adventures together, they also solidify the reasoning behind Arthurs’ predetermined path to becoming the king of England.
The Arthurian cycle shows a sporadic awareness of the impossibility of mere humans fulfilling all the ideals that Arthur and his court represent. The story of Lancelot and Guenevere, Merlin's imprisonment by Nimu‘, and numerous other instances testify to the recognition of this tension between the real and the unrealistic.
T. H. White's The Once and Future King is one of the most complete and unique portrayals of the immortal legend of King Arthur. Though it has been in print for less than half a century, it has already been declared a classic by many, and is often referred to as the "bible" of Arthurian legend. White recreates the epic saga of King Arthur, from his childhood education and experiences until his very death, in a truly insightful and new way. This is not, however, the first complete novel of Arthur's life. In the fifteenth century, Sir Thomas Malory wrote Morte d'Arthur, the first complete tale of Arthur's life. Since then, a countless number of books have been written on the subject, yet none can compare to The Once and Future King. It has easily become the most popular of all the Arthurian novels as it is loved by both children and adults. Though similar in many ways to other works of the same subject, such as Malory's, White gives new details, meanings, and insightful modernization to the story, giving it an earthy quality, which the reader can identify with. White's rendering of the Arthurian legend differs from the traditional versions in that he includes contemporary knowledge and concepts, adds new stories and characters to the legend, and provides new perspectives by probing deeper into the existing tales.
Sir Gawain is, undoubtably, the most varied of the Arthurian characters: from his first minor appearance as Gwalchmei in the Welsh tales to his usually side-line participation in the modern retelling of the tales, no other character has gone from such exalted heights (being regarded as a paragon of virtue) to such dismal depths (being reduced to a borderline rapist, murderer, and uncouth bore), as he. This degree of metamorphosis in character, however, has allowed for a staggering number of different approaches and studies in Gawain.
The Legend of King Arthur is in comparison to The Epic of Gilgamesh because Arthur's closest companion was Merlin, and Gilgamesh's closest companion was Enkidu and neither Gilgamesh nor Arthur forgot their friends. Enkidu only came in contact with Gilgamesh after becoming a man. Enkidu released the animals from the hunter's traps when they ere caught, so to make him a man the prostitute slept with him so that the animals would be ashamed of him and reject him. King Arthur became aware of Merlin when he was a young man. When Arthur was born Merlin placed him in the care of Sir Ector, throughout his boyhood Arthur learned the ways of chivalry, knighthood and how to become a gentleman. At the tournament one day Arthur pulled Excalibur from the stone and this is what brought upon Arthur meeting Merlin once again. In The Legend of King Arthur, Merlin exclaimed, "it is the doom of men if they forget." Gilgamesh along with Enkidu together fought and killed Humbaba, protector of the Cedar forest, and the Bull of Heaven, sent as punishment to Gilgamesh for killing Humbaba. King Arthur nor Gilgamesh forgot their faithful friends.
All of these elements, love, time and stream of consciences give us, as Brooks states, “the brothers status as human beings. ”4 Through each character we see the stream of consciences marking memories with each person. With this stream of consciences comes the complex kind of love each one has towards another.
Meeting with the grief-stricken Dorigen, Aurelius exclaims that, “Madam, tell your lord that because I see his courtesy to you is so great that he rather endure shame… then have you break your promise to me… I prefer to suffer eternal sorrow rather than come between you two” (Chaucer, 302). Having witnessed Arveragus’s generosity and steadfastness in making sure his wife sticks to her word, Aurelius can do no less than reciprocate. Portraying two themes at once, this tale notes the importance, and potential gain from keeping promises, while also depicting the nearly infectious nature of generosity. In fact, upon learning of Arveragus’s and Aurelius’s decisions, the cleric absolves Aurelius of his debt, further signifying the multiplicative force of generosity and of giving one’s word (Chaucer,
It tainted his familial bonds and gave him a sense of determination to escape society’s value of him. The notion of bastardy drives this aspect of the plot and is the single most important idea when looking into the phenomenon of cruelty between Edmund and Gloucester in King Lear. Edmund’s story is tragic because there is no resolution for his biggest grievance apart from a larger paradigm shift, marking a change in society’s value of the bastard. It is safe to say that Edmund and Gloucester’s relationship was plagued by powers greater than themselves. Shakespeare elevates their relationship to start a dialogue about family and societal values—creating a deeply layered and tragic
King Arthur Arthurian legends are well known in today's society. However, very few people know of the "real" Arthur -- who he was and what his accomplishments were. This paper will establish the difference between legend and truth, show evidence to support and explain who the real Arthur was, and shed some light on the sometimes confusing Arthurian legends. To establish any sort of idea that there was, in fact, a "real" Arthur, it is imperative to look at the legendary Arthur and his impact on different cultures. Arthur's beginnings are shrouded in mystery, though it is generally accepted that he is the bastard child of Uther Pendragon and Ygerna.