English 83

There is a specific passage in the reading in part 7, which caught my attention because of the blatant double standard that Arthur holds with respect to claiming land. Throughout his entire narrative section about Arthur, GM describes the numerous accounts of Arthur going outside of Britain to conquer other lands for the glory of Britain and to augment the wealth of his people. Furthermore, he even seems to enjoy his power over others in a way that does not present him in a very appealing light: “The fact that he was dreaded by all encouraged him to conceive the idea of conquering the whole of Europe” (222). I recognize that this was a different culture, and what we would consider acceptable now is a lot different from then, but he is supposed to represent a good and moral king. Even if GM just left it at that, I would be able to understand his thinking, but then I read the passage that I referred to at the beginning of the post.

The passage reads, “When these men landed with their armed band and conquered our fatherland by force and violence at a time when it was weakened by civil dissensions, they had been encouraged to come here by the disunity of our ancestors. Seeing that they seized the country in this way, it was wrong of them to exact tribute from it. Nothing that is acquired by force and violence can ever be held legally by anyone” (232). I cannot help but wonder that GM would put that in his speech. It is either a severe mental lapse on the part of the author or a serious duplicity in the actions of Arthur. He ravages the known world, subdues the people, and exacts tribute, and then declares that land taken forcefully cannot be rightfully possessed by the invader. I was just struck by the blatant disregard for everything that he did previously when he said that.