I found the following in the MED as I was translating for my final:
baratur (n.) Also bar(r)etour, bariter.
1. One who incites to, or engages in, contention or riot; malefactor, brawler, wrangler;
2. Fighter, warrior, champion;
3. Deceiver, cheat;
4. As surname,
Well, well, well, the Tolkien references never cease, do they? "Baratur" sounds awfully familiar, like "Barad-Dur," the Dark Tower of Sauron. Definition one here fits Sauron well, with respect to the cosmogony of Middle Earth. Definition matches the description of Sauron seen on film in the opening scenes of The Fellowship of the Ring (which I recognize is not the book, but the coincidence here elevates the quality of the film a bit, I'd say). Definitions three and four work together, as he is at least once referred to as "Sauron the Deceiver."
On an oblique course, we need to revive this word. It's still useful, I'd say, and the students over in SIS could put it to good use on some of the people the discuss.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Friday, December 5, 2008
A Question of Motive
Yesterday we were talking about Arthur’s motivations for acting the way he does in Mort d’ Arthur. While the other characters are equipped with motivation, Arthur seems bizarrely passive. Why does he ignore the signs of affair? Why does he go along with the trap of Lancelot and Guinevere? Why does he immediately set upon burning Guinevere? Arthur’s actions, including that of the ensuing war, make sense from a legal perspective, so it could be speculated that he is doing everything in the name of justice. However, the text itself does not provide a reason, and does not dwell on personal internal conflicts, which makes him appear as if he were an automaton of justice.
The story that I have heard before about the fall of Camelot take on a different perspective and highlight Arthur’s emotions regarding what he should do. In the version that I knew, Arthur is still bent on complete justice, but he is given visible reasons. He ignores the signs because he puts country before himself and to make a fuss would lead to the death sentences of Lancelot and Guinevere. He goes along with the trap because any claim as big as treason should be investigated. He is set on burning Guinevere because it is required by the law. But the story I’ve known is that Arthur has always loved Guinevere, and he has been hoping that Lancelot would come rescue her, as he knows he would. When Lancelot rescues her, he has mixed feelings of happiness, jealousy, and apprehension. He is happy because his love gets to live. He is jealous because he does not have her love. He is apprehensive because now the war is unavoidable, and has to fight the two people that he loves.
My question is regarding the time period when Arthur’s character sketch came into being. Malory’s version of the story is already more story-oriented than Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account. The psychoanalytic approach to Arthur seems to fit onto this spectrum that ranges from a removed, public account, to an intimate, private story. I wonder why this story in particular seems to have experienced a general shift toward the intimate, private story.
The story that I have heard before about the fall of Camelot take on a different perspective and highlight Arthur’s emotions regarding what he should do. In the version that I knew, Arthur is still bent on complete justice, but he is given visible reasons. He ignores the signs because he puts country before himself and to make a fuss would lead to the death sentences of Lancelot and Guinevere. He goes along with the trap because any claim as big as treason should be investigated. He is set on burning Guinevere because it is required by the law. But the story I’ve known is that Arthur has always loved Guinevere, and he has been hoping that Lancelot would come rescue her, as he knows he would. When Lancelot rescues her, he has mixed feelings of happiness, jealousy, and apprehension. He is happy because his love gets to live. He is jealous because he does not have her love. He is apprehensive because now the war is unavoidable, and has to fight the two people that he loves.
My question is regarding the time period when Arthur’s character sketch came into being. Malory’s version of the story is already more story-oriented than Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account. The psychoanalytic approach to Arthur seems to fit onto this spectrum that ranges from a removed, public account, to an intimate, private story. I wonder why this story in particular seems to have experienced a general shift toward the intimate, private story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)