Written in 1889, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court is considered by many scholars to be the most important of Arthurian America. Twain strips the Arthurian legend of much of its glory and grandeur, thus allowing his contemporaries to identify with its main character; Hank Morgan. However, in doing so, Twain also deviated somewhat from history. Most, if not all, of the social structure of King Arthur's court is based on Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, which is the first true account of the Arthurian legend. Twain also mentions the quest for the Grail which is central to Malory's work. But Twain also talks about iron-clad knights and the British nation enslaved by a tyrannical absolute monarch. Furthermore, he places the blame for much of the people's suffering on the Catholic Church. Although the Arthurian court and quest for the Grail align with Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, Twain distanced himself from the story regarding armor, slavery, and Catholicism. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay It was not until the 15th century that the legend as we know it appeared in Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur. In Le Morte d'Arthur, Arthur is a fearless leader who has a trusted advisor in the form of Merlin and extremely loyal and virtuous knights at his side. However, towards the end of the 12th century Chretien de Troyes described a different Arthur in Perceval, The Story of the Grail, as did Wolfram von Eschenbach in the early 13th century in an adaptation of Perceval's story: Parzival. Above all, the legend of the Grail is a recurring theme in all these works. The quest for the Grail is the search for the cup from which Jesus supposedly drank at the Last Supper. Only the most virtuous can find it, which is why Arthur sends his best knights on the search. However, in the end only Galahad is worthy enough to enter the room housing the Grail and Lancelot must wait outside. In A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court the knights also go in search of the Grail but Hank Morgan does not see its virtue and importance, as this excerpt clearly shows: All the boys all took a leaflet to the Holy Grail from time to time. It was a cruise of several years. They always spent their long absences snooping around, in the most conscientious way, even though none of them had any idea where the Holy Grail really was, and "I don't think any of them really expected to find it, or would have known" what to do with it. if he had crossed it” (Twain 50). This is the exact opposite of how Malory describes the Grail legend. In Malory, the knights have almost saintly qualities and tirelessly seek the Holy Grail. The kind of thinking Hank Morgan does in this excerpt would be simply unthinkable. Furthermore, Hank wonders why the knights would go in the first place: “Every year expeditions set out for the Holy Grail, and the next year rescue expeditions went to hunt them. There were worlds of reputation, but no money” (50). Hank clearly doesn't think reputation is something worth fighting for, he would only consider joining the quest if there were financial benefits. Alan Lupack argues in his book King Arthur in America that this is what makes the Arthurian legend so appealing to Twain's readers: “Whether purity of heart – rather than wealth needed to purchase horses or weapons, or strength and 'skills needed to actually use those tools – it was the primary requirement of knighthood, so anyone could be a knight” (Lupack xii).By mocking Arthuriana in this way, Twain makes it possible for his nineteenth-century American audience to identify with Hank Morgan. Among the many questionable aspects of Arthurian life described by Hank Morgan, the knights in shining armor appear to be an important and recurring theme. He describes Sir Sagramor as his opponent in a joust: "Out of his tent rode the great Sir Sagramor, a mighty tower of iron, majestic and stiff, his enormous spear standing in its socket and clasped in his strong hand, his face like a great horse and his chest sheathed in steel, his body clothed in rich ornaments that almost dragged the ground: oh, a most noble image. There went up a great cry of welcome and admiration (247 England). the armor was made of steel and was very heavy, but was still only used in tournaments because knights were very limited with it on the battlefield. King Arthur's knights would have worn armor made of cuir bouilli (boiled leather),. which was significantly lighter than steel but also much less effective. Horses were also dressed in cuir bouilli on the battlefield, but during tournaments they wore the knight's colors on their decorated carpets "gearwe" (pronounced ye-ar-wee'), but "gereaf" ('yuth-rea-af'), "gesceorp" ('yuth-skay-orp'), and "gescred" ('yuth-skrud') They are also used for armor or harnesses. This may suggest that there were different types of armour, each with its own purpose and therefore a slightly different term was used to describe it. None of these terms suggest, however, that the armor was made of steel, or more specifically iron, as the term for ironclad is "esengreg" ("ee-sen-grag"). There are many words that begin with “ge” which means war, battle or combat. This makes sense because knights had a very violent lifestyle, both on the battlefield and in jousting for their honor. This lifestyle is also evident in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, but unlike the book the knights of 6th century England did not wear iron armour. Then there is the issue of slavery in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Hank Morgan is clearly against slavery and there are some interesting passages in which he talks about it: “It is enough to make a body of his race ashamed to think of that sort of foam which has always occupied its thrones without a shadow of right or reason, and the seventh-rate people who have always represented its aristocracies: a company of monarchs and nobles who, as a rule, would have achieved only poverty and obscurity if left, like their superiors, to their own efforts” (42). Hank is ashamed of his race, but it's unclear whether he means race literally or symbolically. If he means this literally it makes no sense because there were no large quantities of slaves from a racial background other than Morgan's in 6th century England. There may have been some Moorish slaves accompanying their Roman masters, but they were few and far between. Assuming that Hank is talking about black slaves, which would be logical given his origin in post-war America, the fact that he calls sixth-century Britons "seventh-rate people" is significant. In early 19th century America, a person with at least 1/8 African ancestry (i.e., a great-grandfather) was classified as black and therefore "abrogated the rights of citizens, prohibiting them from voting, owning property, testifying against whites in court , or marrying whites” (Barr 2). They were classified as separate from the rest of society and in fact seen as sub-standard citizens it could be argued that Hank sees all British citizens assecond-class citizens (although he emphasizes this by calling them “seventh-rate”) in the same way that African Americans were discriminated against where he came from. Hank also claims that the rich achieve their prosperity by repressing others, as slave owners and especially plantation owners did in America. When he is offered a title he doesn't want it, on the contrary, he wants to distance himself from the aristocracy as much as he can. But he is willing to make an exception when push comes to shove: “This title, translated into modern language, would be THE BOSS. Elected by the nation. It suited me fine. Aside from the fact that Hank is suddenly an expert in Old English, he accepts the title because he was chosen “by the nation.” Only that kind of title suits him, being an American who just lived through the Civil War. He wants to impose democracy on a people who are not at all ready for it. They don't understand the appeal, in fact, an old man would gladly become Hanks' slave if it meant he would learn to read and write: ““Me? I would give my heart's blood to know that art. Why, I will be your slave, your…” “No, you will not, you will not be anyone's slave” (72). Hank truly sees King Arthur's subjects as slaves: “The greater part of King Arthur's British nation were slaves, pure and simple, and bore that name, and wore the iron collar about their necks; and the others were slaves in fact, but without names; they imagined themselves men and freemen, and called themselves so” (Twain 42). However, there are some problems with Hank's conclusion. First, there were no coherent people in England at the time who could be the "British nation of King Arthur." Instead, many rival tribes inhabited the land we now know as England and enslaved each other after the battle. The north, an area that included Scotland and much of northern England, was home to the Picts, a brutal and savage tribe who mostly sat aloof and were largely left alone by the Anglo-Saxons who were not interested in their lesser interests. what fertile lands. Secondly, and more importantly, slavery as an institution did not exist in 6th century England. Other tribes or foreigners who became prisoners of war were often enslaved by British tribes, but slaves were neither bought nor sold. The Old English word for slave is "beow" (pronounced "the-ow"). The Anglo-Saxons often referred to a slave as “wealh” (“hwealg”), meaning “stranger, foreigner, slave; British, Welsh; shameless person." These slaves had more rights than American cotton plantation slaves as they were able to earn money and eventually even purchase their own freedom. No such rights existed for black American slaves. In 6th century England there were also slaves called “wetheow” (“wee-tuh-the-ow”), which meant that people were enslaved by law. These criminals were enslaved as punishment for their crimes and often worked the land. The British had a word for slavery, namely "needheernes" ("nee-ed-ghee-er-nes"). This term is radically different etymologically than other terms for slaves, which may suggest that the practice of slavery was foreign to the British. The Romans were obviously much more familiar with slavery and as they conquered more and more of England, the Britons would have been more and more in touch with them and their customs. Another term related to slavery is a bought servant, who was called "capcniht", which literally meant "house boy". Old English also had a term for one.