Kristina Mesaros
Professor Hayton
LTWR 310
25 September 2001

Civilization versus Barbarism in the Arthurian Myth

            Myths use binary systems to convey morals. Claude Levi-Strauss defines a myth as the mediator of opposites—binary systems—through a structure underlying the narrative. Such opposites include the specific hero and villain as well as the broader category of civilization and savagery. Authors using myths to address a moral or social value represent binaries in the form of the hero and his enemy. The hero represents the preferred value, while the enemy embodies the opposite of that value. This narrative tradition fits within the Arthurian myths as told by Geoffrey of Monmouth, Layamon, and Alfred, Lord Tennyson. Geoffrey, Layamon, and Tennyson use barbaric monsters as Arthur’s enemies to show that the civilization created by Arthur embodies the binary opposite to barbarism. Based on the texts by these three authors, the myth of Arthur serves to reinforce the necessity of civilization over barbarism.

         In his discussion of King Arthur in “Arthur in Geoffrey of Monmouth,” Geoffrey introduces barbarism as an actual monster that plagues a small town. In the following passage, Geoffrey describes Arthur’s battle with the monster as the good against an evil:

The beast was there by the fire, his lips stained with the gore of half-eaten swine  [. . . ] The king drew his sword and, with shied extended, lunged as fast as he could to reach him [monster] before he got his club. But the giant, accustomed to evil calculation, had already seized it. He struck the king upon the raised shield   [. . . ] Like a wild boar passing the spear of a hunter, he [the monster] rushed past the sword toward the king [. . . ] He [Arthur] thrashed the beast with his sword and did not rest till a death-wound was struck. (81)

Arthur represents civilization because he uses a sword and shield as opposed to the monster’s club. The monster embodies savageness as he is described as a beast and a wild boar. Through his clear distinction between the vile character and the noble character, Geoffrey prepares the reader to associate barbarism and civilization as polar opposites. Also by using the dichotomy of good and evil, Geoffrey shows that only Arthur, representing good, deserves sympathy, while the monster, representing evil, deserves reproach. This correlation leaves the reader unsympathetic towards the character exhibiting savagery, while supporting the character representing civilization Therefore, by setting up such a dichotomy, Geoffrey gains the reader’s desire for civilization over barbarism.
         The clear distinction between barbarism and civilization also controls Layamon’s text “Brut.” In Layamon’s text, however, Arthur’s enemy takes a different form from the monster in Geoffrey’s version. Layamon uses Arthur’s nephew, Mordred, to symbolize the polar opposite of civilization as shown in his attack on Arthur in Arthur’s dream:

In his [Mordred’s] hand he brandished a strong battle-ax,
With which he made swipes very sharp and swift,
Hewing down the posts that propped up the hall [. . . ]
The building started floundering; I [Arthur] fell to the ground. (lines 13,989-13,993)

In this passage, Arthur’s hall represents civilization, and because Mordred destroys the hall, he represents barbarism. As with Geoffrey, Layamon uses a crude weapon as the instrument of choice among the monsters. In Mordred’s case, Layamon uses the battle-ax to represent a different rendition of the club. In both stories, a brute weapon tries to bring down the symbols of civilization that Arthur represents. As in Geoffrey’s narration, Layamon establishes a dichotomy consisting of the civilized Arthur and the barbarous Mordred. Layamon leads the reader towards an attachment with Arthur and a desire for revenge upon Mordred. By choosing such drastic sides, the reader rallies for civilization and hopes it will destroy barbarism. 
         Tennyson brings back the desire for civilization as opposed to barbarism in his Victorian poem The Coming of Arthur. Like Geoffrey and Layamon before him, Tennyson clearly identifies Arthur’s enemy as the binary opposite of civilization. His description of Arthur’s first test of authority shows the clear distinction between the beasts and men:

And thus the land of Cameliard was waste,
Thick with wet woods, and many a beast therein [. . . ]
So that wild dog, and wolf and boar and bear
Came night and day, and rooted in the fields [. . . ]
Then he [Arthur] drave
The heathen; after, slew the beast, and felled
The forest, letting in the sun, and made
Broad pathways for the hunter and the knight. (lines 20-61)

In this passage, Tennyson associates wild animals with the knights and lords of the kingdom to show that without civilization, men become beasts. By Arthur slaying the beasts and destroying the forest, he brings civilization back to the kingdom. Tennyson also emphasizes civilization through Arthur’s creation of roads for knights and hunters. Knights and hunters represent the enforcing agents of civilization, so Arthur is revitalizing all aspects of civilization for the kingdom that had lost its civilization. Tennyson uses a different technique than Geoffrey and Layamon use for urging that civilization take the place of barbarism. Instead of forcing the reader to identify and support the civilized Arthur, Tennyson proves that civilization keeps men from reverting to beasts. Civilization accomplishes more than keeping the beasts away; it controls the bestial nature within each man. Therefore, for Tennyson, Arthur’s greatest enemy is not just barbarism, but the barbaric nature within men.
         In each telling of the Arthurian myth, monsters and self-interested lords represent the enemy of the heroic King Arthur. In Geoffrey’s narrative, Arthur must defeat a true monster, which represents defeat of barbarism by civilization. Layamon mimics this binary system of hero and villain to show Arthur’s trouble with his corrupt nephew. By having Arthur confront his enemy in the form of a self-interested lord, Layamon instills the value of barbarism in the form of a man as being the enemy of civilization. Both of these authors use a dichotomy to establish the good versus the bad forces within man. This dichotomy allows the reader to understand more easily the desired good values as opposed to the undesirable lack of values. Tennyson takes this dichotomy further by asserting that bad forces may resurface after they have been conquered. So the only way to prevent them from returning is for individuals to actively maintain civilization through the reinforcement of social values and morals present in these myths.