Thoughts on the two people who worked for John Uskglass

[pretty_plant]

There are not many mentions of people served John Uskglass. Clarke only mentioned Thomas of Dundale, William of Lanchester and the servant who might or might not hear a year and a day.

Thomas of Dundale kept being referred as Uskglass's first human servant while Lanchester kept being referred as Uskglass's favorite one. Clarke specifically used "favorite servant" when referring to Lanchester, not one of his favorites, which made me think that Dundale was less favoured as a servant than William of Lanchester. In two footnotes that involved something concerning the governing of the country, Lanchester was the one mentioned. Dundale only got mentioned in the part when Uskglass invaded England and had a poem written about him by Chretien de Troyes.

I remember there were three parts that Dundale and Lanchester were written together. They shew up together in The Gentleman's story. They shew up together in the footnote telling how Uskglass tortured Barbatus (note how Lanchester was the one who got mad for a long time and had a bitter argument with Uskglass). They also shew up in the story about the Charcoal Burner. In that story, they had the same role in making Uskglass stop talking but Lanchester was the one who asked Uskglass about where he had gone to and why that pig suddenly gave a sermon. Lanchester was also the one who asked in that footnote about how Uskglass went off for a year and a day. From these examples, it is pretty obvious that Lanchester was the one who found Uskglass's actions surprising or strange while Dundale seemed to get along well with Uskglass's strange actions better (he spent 14 years in Faerie, after all). This is why I believe that Dundale pretty much never got surprised by any bullshits that Uskglass did even when Dundale held many human values.

I have no doubt that Dundale got an important position in the court but Lanchester was no doubt the more trusted one. I think it was his humanity that made Uskglass assigned him many responsibilities and trusted his judgements when Uskglass was not around. Thomas might get his position because he was Uskglass's first servant (and you reward your first servants well most of the times) or he might get it because he was genuinely a good adviser. But he definitely had a good story to himself. It took me some time but I finally notice that Chretien de Troyes was that famous French poet who wrote on Arthurian subjects. He also lived in the 12th century. I think that the fact this author wrote something about Thomas very early after the invasion of Northern England meant that Dundale was so popular for his knightly prowess and maybe some romance with women that a French knew about it. Also, Lanchester kept being mentioned as Chancellor, Seneschal and as an Earl while Thomas never got put together with a position of administrative or political connection. He got mentioned as a knight and knights were not that powerful and rich. That did not say he was inconsequential; it just means that most sources about him were more concerned with his one image.

This is so insanely long. It is almost 1 a.m and I think I am speaking nonsense. I wonder why all fanfictions paint Dundale and Lanchester as magicians when they were never mentioned that way.

Comments

[regshoe]

Fascinating stuff, thanks for sharing!

I think they both, in different ways, form a sort of connection between Uskglass's mystical Faerie background and existence and the 'mundane' political reality of medieval Northern England. Dundale, with his experience of living in both Faerie and England, must have been very important to Uskglass in his early years in helping him adjust to such a different world. It's interesting how he's described so much as a knight of romance, poem by Chretien de Troyes and all—a somewhat otherworldly figure, but also one with a definite place in the Christian imagination, which the young Uskglass decidedly wouldn't have been. Lanchester is, as you say, much more of a politician, and was clearly important to Uskglass in the actual business of governing his kingdom.

(And yeah, it's easy to fall into the assumption that they must have been magicians, but there's no evidence that they were. IMO that's interesting too, in its way—John Uskglass, the magician, originator and king of English magic, still greatly values and has a place for people who aren't themselves magicians).

[pretty_plant]

I think it is Dundale's own connection to the fairies that made his story better worth retelling. Many knights' stories, after all, had the knights came from or related to an otherwordldy place.

I actually thing that fact the poem existed seemed to form a connection, a correlation between Arthur and John Uskglass. Chretien de Troyes wrote about knights who served King Arthur and Dundale was a knight who served John Uskglass.

It is also possible that Dundale was typecasted by the sources as being a knight instead of doing anything else. The sources are scarce and maybe the narrator might get her impression of Dundale from legends and fairy tales, which made her write the footnotes that way. So the footnotes are more what people think of Dundale than what he was actually like. Unless Dundale decides to make a cameo, we will never know (I am still waiting for that sequel). And Lanchester being a favorite servant might just also be conjecture on everyone's part when they thought about Uskglass because Lanchester ran the country in Uskglass's place. If we manage to interview Uskglass, he might say otherwise. I also wonder whether Dundale was Uskglass's first human servant in the strictest sense. Maybe there were other people and Dundale just got to be known as one because he was popular.

It is like I think it would be extremely hard for Uskglass not to value people without magic. There were only a limited number of magicians and many of them were of low birth (definitely not an Earl like Lanchester and a son of a powerful magnate like Dundale) and many of them were probably more interested in magical scholarship or just were very bad at governing. Uskglass probably wanted a seneschal focused on his job than one who spent all his time magicking.

[regshoe]

Yeah, that's a good point about the historical perspective in the footnotes—everything that far back is very speculative, even from the omniscient narrator (and it's interesting that the one chapter that goes into the most detail on Uskglass's arrival and early years in England is written in-universe by Strange, making its accuracy even more doubtful than the footnotes!)

Ooh, Arthur and John Uskglass is another very good angle for speculation!

[ohveda]

This is a really interesting post. I had also assumed that Dundale and Lanchester were magicians (although nowhere near as powerful as Uskglass) but I don't know why I thought that.

I have realised that I had assumed that both were very long-lived (as is the way with magicians). Do we actually know how long either of them lived? We know that Dundale came out of Faerie with Uskglass, but do we know when Lanchester was born? Do we know when either of them died? Did they die at all?

[pretty_plant]

I think that is just because we associate the Golden age of magic with magicians. Dundale and Lanchester were never mentioned in the lists of powerful magicians. If they were really magicians, they were probably average at it or they rarely did it in public or their achievements in other matters were much greater than the ones in magic. The fact they were never mentioned as magicians doesn't necessarily mean they did not do any magic, though. Maybe they did but history never defined them as such. And history is pretty selective in what it chooses to represent, a person tends to be known as what they do best or are most famous about. When the Gentleman talked about them "William of Lanchester was here and Tom Dundell and many other lords and knights", considering the order of the sentence (William then Dundale and lords then knights), Lanchester was grouped with the lords and Dundale was grouped with the knights. They were definitely not grouped with the magicians, which were talked about later. Also, think about how work Lanchester had to do; a magician in the king's position is bad enough in neglecting his job. If his seneschal also neglected his work in governing to study magic, it would have been bad for the country.

Not all magicians live a long time though. John Uskglass lived a long time, obviously. So did Maria Absalom, who was 149 years old when she died. However, Catherine of Winchester (1209-67) only lived 58 years. Thomas Godbless (1105?-82) lived for 77 years if his date of birth was correct. Martin Pale (1485-1567) lived for 82 years. And it seems like magicians don't live long based on how much power they have because Winchester and Godbless lived a shorter lives than Absalom and Pale. (I assume that Aureate's greatest magicians were powerful than the other two Argentine's magicians.)

I don't think any footnote mentioned Lanchester before the 13th century. He certainly got mentioned a lot when it came to the 13th century. He governed the kingdom for most of the 13th century in Uskglass's stead; he argued with the King in the 13th century about Barbatus and he also was the one who asked the servant in that footnote about John Uskglass's disappearance for one year and a day. (Am I wrong? Is there any mention of Lanchester before the 13th century). Because of this, I atually think that Lanchester had to be born at late 12th century or early 13th century. Dundale and Lanchester are pretty important parts of Uskglass's mythos so I always assume that they went with him when he left England along with his fairies. Or maybe Lanchester decided to die because he was pretty human compared to Uskglass's entourage.

(This is such a confusing comment. Some stuffs in it were thought of while I was writing this so I just dumped it in mid paragraph. Thanks goodness for wiki and ebook- ebooks make everything easier to search. I cannot understand how people manage to find anything in paper books. This comment turned out longer than I thought).

[ohveda]

Good point about the magicians who didn't live for a long time. It seems like long life is something that might be open to magicians, but only if they choose it.

I like the thought of Lanchester and Dundale leaving England with Uskglass. It makes me think: Lanchester and Dundale don't necessarily have to be magicians themselves to have a long life. If Uskglass liked them and found them useful, who's to say that Uskglass didn't extend their lives so they could continue to serve him? (Whether they were happy about this or not, I don't know.)

[pretty_plant]

Can the whole immortality and long life thing only related to John Uskglass? I think that there are four cases of immortality and long lives in the book. John Uskglass, Dundale, Lanchester and Maria Absalom. The first three cases are obvious but the reason for Absalom's long life can be due to John Uskglass? She did let her building go ruinous so that it would belong to John Uskglass.

[ohveda]

It might just be something that Uskglass does on a whim! It makes you wonder if Uskglass has any long-life plans for "Modern" magicians like Childermass or Vinculus.

[pretty_plant]

Maybe for Vinculus? Vinculus was his book, after all. Unless Vinculus had a kid someday (he had a lot of wives but no kid was mentioned), I don't think of any way for the book to be passed on. And if someday Vinculus died, it would be extremely difficult to preserve the writing. Literally the best way to preserve the text in its original form without losing any meaning would be to skin the dead body of Vinculus and that sounds quite brutal and creepy though Uskglass might think otherwise, Vinculus probably would be okay with it because of his loyalty and all other magicians were just too enthusiastic about magic to care about the gory details (and they might accidentally destroy a few marks or cut off a paragraph by doing so).

Also, Vinculus did say he was hard to killed and Uskglass came himself to resurrect him.