Excalibur: Arthur’s Phallic Show of Force and Post-Castrative Sexual Dominance

Let me open by stating that, while the implications surrounding the readings of medieval literary texts including swords can easily be swayed to assume all swords are extensions of their wielder’s masculinities, this post is not concerned with that generalization. Here I am concerned with one sword and some of the most explicit underpinnings of a scene in Morte Arthure. Excalibur, Arthur’s lynchpin for the kingdom of Britain and a sign of his dominance, is used in a duel to successful effect, but in a way that can be read as an assertion of masculine force if interpreted under certain linguistic contexts. In the final climactic duel between the king and the treasonous Mordred, Arthur drives his sword into a gap in Mordred’s armor, effectively killing the usurper only after being mortally wounded himself (Sutton 280).
        Previous scholarly debated has centered around the poem and its approach to wounds as having a tradable quality, echoing the adage “an eye for an eye” (Sutton 282). Arthur’s wound is often translated to have occurred on the loins, and in this stands the common reading of Mordred’s treason as castrating Arthur’s sense of leadership and “virtus,” here meaning masculine virility. To keep with the sense of trade, an equal or more damaging wound would thereby need to be inflicted. To keep with this, Sutton argues about the location of the blow delivered by Arthur to Mordred’s fente, or armor flap.
Usual translations site this armor to be a part of a helmet or breastplate, but Sutton contends that fente in previous translations misses the clear comparison to another Middle English word of etymological relation: vent. This word, while possibly meaning gap or open space, also has a more bodily connotation. Given the way the term is used, and the nature of the description of Mordred’s death, Sutton contends that the flap described here covers the buttocks, and the final mortal blow delivered by Arthur impales Mordred through the anus (284).
This would not be the first instance of such a wound in medieval literature. In fact, Sutton contends that for a British audience, the wound would call to mind the demise of Edward II, who is likewise described as being pierced in his final moments.  The parallel then stands to accentuate the ideas that failure in war is tantamount to ultimate disgrace, even to the point of regal, physical evisceration. In this reading, Arthur’s slaying of Mordred is as much a show of masculine dominance as it is an act of combative aggression. In many ways, these functions are perhaps more synonymous in Medieval literature than in modern retellings.
One point still remains after Mordred is slain. Arthur’s wounds are fatal, and the symbolism stands twofold. Mordred removed any means for Arthur to continue his line, eliminating the patriarchal power from Arthur’s sense of authority. Genealogically speaking, Arthur is already dead. There’s something Oedipal in the underpinnings, but more importantly, this notes how fragile the sense of masculine strength present in a king truly is. In the end, the wounds signify a loss of something that Arthur was likely destined to lose anyway, and the returning of his blade to the Lady in the Lake in other tales seems to echo the destined returning of power. In the end, all power, whether usurped or absorbed, must be returned.