Medievalism in the Future

As we continue on with life and studies, it’s important to think back on what we learned and also what lies ahead. The importance of internationalism and globalization are growing more and more important as ease of communications and travel cause more cross-cultural interactions to occur. Because of these interactions, I think it’s more important than ever to think back on how we viewed medievalism at the start of the class, how our view of medievalism has changed, and how our class remained limited in its scope of discussions of the medieval in our international world.

Class started with a variety of different definitions and viewpoints about what the medieval period really was and vague notions that it had something to do with disease, and knights, and peasants, and kings. The medieval was the Dark Ages, King Arthur, and the Vikings. It was something both real and fictional and completely confused at the beginning.

I would like to think that through the course of our discussions in class, the medieval (or at least our understanding of it) grew and refined itself. The Dark Ages weren’t really as dark as people make them out to be, stories centered around the “medieval” are usually in some way a commentary of the author, and often reflect a strange mix of both the wishes and the critiques of both the past and the present. Eaters of the Dead and How to Train Your Dragon played with ideas of Vikings whilst simultaneously commenting on modern values and views of the medieval past in different ways. Both show Vikings as large, crude smelly guys with horned helmets and a love of battle. They both also comment on intercultural relations, and how uncomfortable or dangerous the Other seems because of the difference in practices. One plays with storytelling narratives and seems to follow many of the traditional values associated with Beowulf and other heroic epics, while the other introduces a character that supports very modern values of inventiveness, cleverness, and teamwork. Because of the contrasts of these works, and the other works we looked at in class, our understanding of the medieval world changed as our view of what is medieval expanded.

However, our view of the medieval is limited by Western perceptions of medievalism. As we are living in an international world, we need to expand our view of medievalism beyond the Euro-centric view and realize that other countries existed and actually flourished after the fall of Rome. We need to realize – both in the present day and looking back at global history – that there are six other continents that Western history does not even consider when writing its narratives. Japan’s Heian period (794-1185) is considered as one of the most culturally rich periods for Japan. Assigning values of barbarism, knighthood, or other strictly Euro-centric ideals in a global context to all history will only create problems and misunderstandings. In order for us to move forward in this international world, we not only have to look back and understand how European medievalism affects the Western past, but also look at how the rest of the world sees their past and how that past affects their present.

 

But Really Though, Does This Make Sense?

Since this is the last week of class, as well as the final round of blog posts, I wanted to sum up our findings and observations we have concluded of the middle ages through this course. Specifically, how far we have come from blindly to stating “the medieval were just dark times” to analyzing the complexity this time period enfolded.

If one were to do a quick google search of the word “medieval today,” the results would generally fall under two categories: an article reporting new/updated research that uncovered something during the middle ages or an article reporting how this modern event or actions relates to the middle ages. The latter part uses a range of elements from the middle ages as a point of reference. These promising articles include headers detailing how we are either in a better or worse state than our former counterparts. Yet, when reading these articles, we no longer can excuse ourselves of agreeing with writers and actors who ignorantly say something is medieval and leave it at that. Instead, I presume that we put our skills we picked up on our class to the test and go through a mental process of sorts:

“Oh this article is trying to connect this [include recent event/action/moment] to this dynamic we talked about in this course. It claims ‘…insert direct quote’ but does this really make sense?”

This is just one variation of how you might begin to analyze, but my focus is the moment where we do not allow ourselves to excuse these writers and instead ask the questions. Is what the author claiming historically accurate or another anachronism, how the majority of the population thought the middle ages went down?  Are they making sense? But, really does it make sense?

Week after week, we watched and read works that at moments seemed so far the realm of possibility, we had to accept it as another’s interpretation of the medieval. Some may point out that these modern-day news articles is another of the writer’s interpretation of the medieval. I come ask myself if this is acceptable continuation of fabrication the medieval of what is not? Moving past the point of how a work is not claiming to be historically accurate, we should definitely cast a broader dialogue of the connections to the complex period we have only just begun to study. The modern day population have some beliefs (medieval = barbaric, unclean, violent) that have been exploited and retold over and over by the media. I leave it open to you of how we could start talking of how misguided we can be when it comes to this period in history.

Canadian Gothic: Political Medievalism at Ottawa’s Parliament Hill

For Americans, the politics of the Middle Ages tends to concern one form of government: monarchy. But Canada, composed of the British colonies of North America which did not reject monarchy in the late eighteenth century, seems to have historically held a strikingly different view of how the Middle Ages fall in the narrative of political progress. In the British tradition of constitutional monarchy, after all, the origins of the parliamentary system lie in the Magna Carta of 1215. Over the following centuries, this early-established constitutional monarchy gradually evolved into the recognizably republican system that Canada was subject to by the mid-19th century.

Construction of Parliament Hill’s Centre Block in 1863.

Parliament Hill (the collective name for the Canada’s capitol buildings in Ottawa), built between 1859 and 1876, was designed as the visual antithesis to the United States Capitol building. Rejecting the Capitol’s neoclassical architectural precedent for seats of legislative government, Parliament Hill was constructed in a decidedly Gothic Revival style, following the lead of the UK’s still-under-construction Palace of Westminster. The bold architecture of Parliament Hill gave the medieval parliamentary tradition a seat of administration for North America. The buildings of Parliament Hill are even situated on a dramatic mount that rises high above the Ottawa River, as if a European castle. Among the most prominent structures in this complex is the Library of Parliament, in the form of a fantastical Gothic rotunda. This building presents medievalism as not just compatible with, but consistent with intellectualism. The architecture of Parliament Hill places Canada’s seat of republican government within a vestibule of medievalist sensibility.

The fanciful Gothic interior of the Library of Parliament.

The use of medieval imagery in the buildings of Parliament Hill expresses just how maneuverable referencing the Middle Ages can be in modern political discourse (even visually). In the United States, the medieval is frequently viewed as politically reactionary. In Canada, the medieval can connote a tradition of political reform that finds its origins in 13th century England. In both, the medieval has a history of snaking its way into contemporary political rhetoric.

Does Magic Halt Progress?

I’d like to start this by suggesting that you watch a short YouTube video called Game of Thrones: Why Dragons Halt Progress. (Bear with me, this is relevant!) It’s not necessary to understand this blog post, but it is part of what sparked my thoughts on this subject. I’ll link it here (be warned, there are some mild spoilers for later events in GoT): https://youtu.be/PDdKmx0PW7s

If you did not watch the video, here’s a summary. Gunpowder/cannons –> need for larger armies –> need for money to pay for those armies –> more efficient taxation to get more money –> more centralized government to more efficiently collect taxes –> nation-state and end of the Middle Ages. However, in GoT, this process is stopped by the presence of dragons, who cannot be beaten by a larger army. Instead, the lords of Westeros pledged allegiance to the people controlling the dragons, meaning there was no incentive for larger armies, etc. etc., and no creation of the nation-state. Thus, GoT is stuck in the Middle Ages perpetually. At least, that’s what the guy in the video says.

So, how is this relevant to Harry Potter? Well, we discussed in class the question of why the magical world in these books is represented as a medieval-esque world. Many of the ideas we discussed are, I believe, completely valid, but most of them hinge on it being Rowling’s decision as the world’s creator in order to further her intended themes and enhance the reader’s experience.

I’d like to propose another theory. As the dragons do in Game of Thrones, I think that magic itself has halted the progress of the wizarding world. Who needs electricity, or modern transportation, or even bombs and guns, when you have magic to do it for you? Vacuums are rendered irrelevant in the face of cleaning spells like Scourgify, and even looms are probably unnecessary–Hermione learns to knit using magic, so I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say that one could weave magically as well. Magic is quicker, cleaner, and easier than the muggle way. Plus, it’s clear that many wizards, though they may not all have nefarious intentions toward muggles, believe that muggles are somewhat ridiculous and inferior due to their lack of magic. This, combined with the Statute of Secrecy (the law that keeps wizards from revealing magic to muggles and led to a distinct separation between their societies) which a Harry Potter wiki tells me was signed in 1692, combined with the comparative ease of magic, leads to the practical conclusion that the wizarding community just never saw the point in modernizing along with the muggle world.

In this sense, the wizarding world being medieval could be seen as less of an artistic choice and more of an inevitability. Do I think that Rowling had this in mind when she created the world for her book series? Not really, no. But it’s interesting to think about.

Why Does the Magical World of Harry Potter Reject Modern Amenities?

The wizarding community in the Harry Potter universe lives, in many cases, alongside the muggle community. Despite the close proximity to these two worlds they seem to be completely unaware of the happenings of each other. While there is a small amount of crossover between these communities, through muggle borns and some squibs, the wizarding community actively tries to hide from the muggle community, out of fear that they would be taken advantage of or attacked for their abilities. Even with this separation one would expect that at some point wizards would have come around to modern inventions like electricity and radio. Why does the community reject most modern inventions and what does it do for the story to have the wizards live in a more medieval world?

Historically speaking it makes sense that wizards would have separate from the rest of human society sometime during the late medieval period. During the late medieval period there were cases of people being prosecuted for practicing witch craft. In fact, King James I of England even wrote a book on how to correctly identify and prosecute witches in 1597 called Daemonologie. While witches and wizards were already trying to separate from the muggle community, Hogwarts was founded in 990ad and had charms put on it to turn away muggles, the events of the late 16th century would have of course caused them even more fear of the muggle community.

The idea of a wizarding community purposefully separating themselves from the muggle one makes sense, but why does J.K. Rowling have them reject most muggle advancements of modern times. By placing it in the medieval period Rowling is allowing the reader, primarily children for the first few books, to escape their everyday lives. This relies on the idea that the middle ages were somehow and easier time and that the invention of modern utilities has complicated our lives. It also allows the reader to use their imagination and pretend to be in a world outside their own, escapism. Putting the medieval period into the modern world is perfect for the escapism because it allows the author to pick and choose which parts they want to bring, which in this case was almost exclusively the positives while leaving the negatives.

Media Significance Through the Film: How to Train Your Dragon

In the modern age, television and film has been widely accepted as a tool to educate children. In most children’s programming, there includes underlying messages or morals through the childlike humor it integrates. Towards the end of the Chapter 4 of Medievalisms: Making the Past in the Present, it mentions how it is through adaptations of medieval works that young boys learn what it takes to be a man. They learn by examples of an alpha male who goes through trial proves his masculinity through his actions, courage, strength, and chivalry.

Historically, telling a story has been an effective tactic for teaching a lesson. From Jesus Christ teaching the word of God by storytelling to fables teaching young children, all have an underlying message. However, what makes storytelling the most effective tool when it comes to teaching children a lesson? What stops creators from directly telling younger audience members, “It’s okay to be different; we all do things our unique way?” Which elements does a story create that attracts a child first while unconsciously educating them?

In How to Train Your Dragon, Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III, the young male lead of the film, desperately wants to be like everyone, proving his masculinity and pride as a Viking by slashing dragons. It is an identity that he desperately wants to claim but like the older blacksmith said, Hiccup is not destined to be. This element of wanting to be in a community has been iterated through multiple storylines, within and beyond the medieval period. There are numerous works, adaptions, and inspirations of men wanting to prove their masculinity by going off to battle, saving something, someone, or someplace, by either killing, fighting, or dueling with someone. It’s a default idea that has been replicated in Arthurian tales, Beowulf, and other readings we have read so far. Yet, Hiccup is a complex character with a modern conscious appealing children today.

Younger generations are taught to adopt a modern conscious of being sympathetic, creative, and diligent of working with others through characters like Hiccup. This goes against of the ideas of how to be more charismatic, manly, and honorable in medieval works. Nevertheless, How to Train Your Dragon combines both worlds to create a film that appeals to audiences old and young. This combination off-balances a delicate relationship of either being medieval or historically accurate, but this is not the intention of the film. One of the aims was to send these modern messages and the media in this case a film. How it shifts this relationship is a discussion that is up for debate.

Shield-Maidens: Fact or Fiction?

In the HTTYD franchise, female characters Astrid Hofferson, Ruffnut Thorston, and Heather from the TV series are all very reminiscent of the Viking shield-maidens of legend. Each character is a formidable warrior within her own right and is able to demonstrate more military prowess than much of the male cast. Astrid’s combat skills in particular surpass that of almost all the other characters in the movies/TV series. Compared to the inventive yet physically weak Hiccup, nerdy gamer Fishlegs, dimwitted Snotlout, and exasperating Tuffnut, the girls are presented as the backbone of the group and as some of their best riders. The use of the shield-maiden in fiction is common and the legend is well-known. However, the question of whether or not these warrior women did, in fact, live and fight in the Middle Ages is still contested by historians.

Astrid threatening Hiccup with her axe after he screws up during dragon training.

While some Viking sagas tell tales of women who could wield a weapon, such as Brynhildr Buðladóttir, Freydís Eiríksdóttir (Leif Erikson’s sister), and Lagertha (the first wife of the legendary Ragnar Lodbrok), the reality of the existence of shield-maidens is much harder to ascertain. The majority of the sources that describe these warrior women are questionable as to their accuracy, as oftentimes they are written very long after the supposed events of the narrative and do not concern themselves with documenting accurate history as opposed to a fantastical account of events that elevates a person or family’s societal standing. The shield-maidens’ further connection with folkloric literature can be gathered from their likeness to the Valkyries, or the handmaidens of Odin who choose which fallen warriors to bring to Valhalla. Because of the difficulties in determining which parts of the sagas are historically accurate and which are falsified, it is hard to make a definite case for the existence or nonexistence of the shield-maiden.

A painting by Peter Nicolai Arbo depicting the death of shield-maiden Hervor in the Hervarar saga

While the usage of shield-maidens in modern literature and media may not be the most historically accurate in terms of events that occurred in the past, it does do justice to the concept of shield-maiden that appears in the literature of the Middle Ages. Astrid of HTTYD may not have been a woman of the Viking age in reality, but she bears a striking resemblance to Saxo Grammaticus’s Viking shield-maiden Lagertha and her courage and valor in battle. In this sense, the shield-maiden is an easily well-utilized aspect of medieval literature that is taken advantage of by the creators of today’s media.

Grit, Realism, and the Message of Game of Thrones

The Song of Ice and Fire franchise (both books and TV show) has a definite appeal. It creates a rich fantastic pseudo-medieval world. While Martin has claimed it strives for “gritty realism” and rampant misogyny, violence, and sexual assault have been justified by “realism,” it is an inescapable truth that the franchise is not realistic. Both the books and the TV show opens with spirits of winter murdering wildlings, and then members of the night’s watch (as then reanimating the corpses). Dragons were used to conquer and unite Westeros. Summer and winter are much longer and more variable in length than the seasons of Earth, and can go on for years and years. People return from the dead, and yet, misogyny, sexual assault, and gratuitous violence are included for the sake of “realism.” While I disagree that the “grit” of Game of Thrones needs to be so sensationalized to be “realistic,” and have some doubts as to the “realism” in the first place, I believe there is a reason for Game of Throne’s grit.

Martin said that he wants fantasy with more “grit,” as he admits that it is fantasy, an argument for “realism” would hardly apply. However, the work is cynical and explores human depravity, especially as it ascertains to power. People who seek power much sacrifice morality, if they are to be successful, and even then, power is unfulfilling, and perilous to maintain. To me, the fantastic backdrop to a tale of political intrigue, posits that even if you can change everything else, you can’t change human nature, and human nature is far from unambiguously good. In the books at least (having only seen the one episode of the show, I can’t speak for it), most characters have clear motivations that drive them, sometimes to do terrible things. The book narrates from all sides of the conflict, and makes it clear that there isn’t an unambiguously good side, and even good sides that could easily be natural allies fail to make peace or find common ground. People stick to principles even when in the wrong, or abandon them when in the right. I believe it’s a commentary on humanity and is very much applicable to the present. In our modern world-view, violence is thought to be a more accepted method of resolving political disputes in the Middle Ages than today, allowing the dark and violent aspect of humanity George Martin wants to portray to be more easily accessible.

Prostitution in Game of Thrones

Although George R.R. Martin didn’t get most of medieval prostitution right, there are several areas where his work has accurately depicted medieval prostitution. Prostitution, for the most part, is legal in all of Westeros and it is common to find brothels both, in major cities, and small towns. Each brothel usually has an owner, who greatly profits of the prostitutes and who is also taxed by the city. In fact, a very influential character of the series, Littlefinger or Petyr Baelish, rises to power due to his massive income from prostitution and the King often looks to him for sponsorship. This is similar to the article we read that stated brothels were huge sources of wealth in the medieval times.

Lord Petyr Baelish, aka Littlefinger. Owner of the largest brothel in Westeros.

Another striking similarity between Game Of Thrones and actual Medieval prostitution is the social aspect of prostitution. While prostitutes themselves are incorrectly portrayed as “happy”, the people who use these prostitutes aren’t necessarily looked down upon. This resonates with the reading in that prostitution is considered the lesser of two evils. Throughout the series we see men of all classes use these brothels including kings, knights, princes, priests, septons, squires, sell-swords, high lords and even one lady. These people were never really looked down upon but sometimes we come across characters who were morally against prostitution. We see this when Littlefinger brings Catelyn Stark to his brothel and she is ashamed and in Tywin Lannister, who despised his son, Tyrion, for using prostitutes (although most of his anger stemmed from Tyrion being a “half-man”).

The brothels themselves seemed to be embellished and we see, that as the economic status of a particular city decreases so does the state of the brothel. When we compare the brothel in King’s Landing to that of Mole’s Town (A town close to The Wall), this is made obvious. While this wasn’t discussed in depth in the reading, it seems obvious that this would have been the case in medieval times. Brothels that needed to cater to higher born and richer individuals would be more embellished than those brothels that needed to cater to the common man. Furthermore, richer brothels would have more money for customer satisfaction than the poorer ones.

Brothel in King’s Landing

Brothel in Braavos

GRRM also seems to have captured aspects such as the desire for foreign women. Prostitutes in brothels around Westeros are seldom from the city itself and usually from a foreign land. These foreign prostitutes are viewed as exquisite and hence cost more money and are usually reserved for those high-born. Furthermore, people seemed to value the different sexual practices of these foreign women highly, and these prostitutes would garner a reputation for their skills. While this certainly may have not been true in the middle ages, the aspect of foreign superiority in brothels goes hand in hand with what we read.

 

LOTR: Taking the Glory out of War?

One of the most iconic scenes in the Lord of the Rings: the Two Towers is the final war scene. Given the technology of its time, the scene is visually brilliant. It symbolizes a march towards a new world and paints a picture of a faceless army that so perfectly captures how technological advancements like the invention of war machines, guns and explosive devices have made war and violence so impersonal today. The scene uses vivid imagery such as the sobbing faces of women and children as well as auditory tools such as the screams of the Nazgûl that echo the shrill noises of artillery shells that filled the air during World War I, to evoke a number of emotions among the audience. Although this scene fails to depart from the problems that plague duel and war scenes from several other medieval depictions by continuing to glorify chivalry and traditional ideals of masculinity, there is a significant difference in the message this scene sends about attitudes toward war. In class, we discussed discussed the question “Is medievalism necessarily nostalgic?” Personally, I think not.  

To me, this scene speaks volumes about the horrors associated with war. I couldn’t help but draw a parallel with a famous line from Wilfred Owen’s famous poem Anthem for Doomed Youth, “What passing-bells for these who die as cattle?/ Only the monstrous anger of the guns..” (1-2). While some people feel that the repeated cuts to the women and children seemed to add salience to the stakes of the war, making it seem more important, to me it illustrated the senseless pain and tragedy that is inherent in war and violence by highlighting the suffering of countless innocent victims, thus moralizing an end to violence by evoking shocks of sympathy. I think that this message is particularly important to keep in mind given what current political events have shown about the prevalence of hatred and intolerance in the U.S today.