Mist of Avalon
Angela Diane Key
Has anyone out there read the book "Mists of Avalon" by Marion Zimmer
Bradley? It is about the Lady of the Lake and King Arthur and Camelot and
the Grail....If you haven't read it yet, now would be a good time...alot
of research went into it and it is an interesting story.... Here's some
background:
It is written from the women behind the throne and their
struggles....not of the blood and gore of battles (although some of that
is mentioned too)
Anyone who has read it, I'd like your opinion/comments...
Mark Wilson
Very original, also try some other Bradley work like
THE FOREST HOUSE, or there are smoe newer ones.
nicki faas
feminist viewpoint, which, could very well be backed by some truth. As
far as Norma Goodrich, yes, I like her and I've read all of her work
including early works of Roman myth. I also like Cornwall, who has two
out...the WinterKing and Enemy something or other which I am ready
now. This for me was really slow reading the first 100 pages, then I
couldn't put it down.
Most Medevil Scholars have said via Arthurnet, that Norma takes too much
liberty with the truth and can't substaniate (sp) her story, but then I
argued with a chap who said that Arthur could not have existed because
Gilas never mentioned him in his history, where as I think that is
garbage, a Monk might not mention a pagan soldier...so what is authenic
anyway? I believe that every book, article or oral story told of Arthur
and his times have truth in them, if only in the mind of the
storyteller, and isn't that what history is based on anyway, many
storytellers telling a story from their political, personal or private
point of view and that's all the evidence they need? As I said, I like
Mist's of Avalon.
Robert Elliot
nicki faas wrote:
> Most Medevil Scholars have said via Arthurnet, that Norma takes too much
> liberty with the truth and can't substaniate (sp) her story, but then I
> argued with a chap who said that Arthur could not have existed because
> Gilas never mentioned him in his history, where as I think that is
> garbage, a Monk might not mention a pagan soldier...so what is authenic
> anyway?
If Arthur existed (whatever that means; I'm not really sure) he
certainly was not a pagan. All the evidence suggests that the upper
classes in Britain during the entire period 400 - 600 were Christian -
and of course what very little evidence we have of Arthur which might be
vaguely contemporary, namely the Annales Cambriae and the Battle List
from the Historia Brittonum, has Arthur explicitly Christian. I posted
an essay on this a while back, with all the necessary references; you
might be able to find it on dejanews. This is the reason I find Mists of
Avalon and all the other pagan v. christian versions, like Cornwell's,
so irritating - it just didn't happen. The only evidence there is of
religious conflict in this period is between Pelagians and Catholics
(both Christian), and of course between Christian Britons and pagan
Saxons. In fact, a reading of Gildas gives the distinct impression that
Christianity had become a matter of confessional identity, setting the
Britons apart from the Saxons in much the same way that Roman
Catholicism sets Republicans apart from Protestant Unionists in Northern
Ireland.
I agree with you that Gildas need not have mentioned Arthur - he
mentions hardly anyone. Anyway, there is surely a strong chance that
Ambrosius IS Arthur - the passsage about Badon could easily be read as
meaning that it was Ambrosius that won at Badon, and I'm sure you all
know that the chances are that "Arthur" was a given name, meaning Bear.
Rob
m...@fti.com
In article <34426F...@dial.pipex.com>,
Robert Elliot <robert...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> nicki faas wrote:
>
> > Most Medevil Scholars have said via Arthurnet, that Norma takes too much
> > liberty with the truth and can't substaniate (sp) her story, but then I
> > argued with a chap who said that Arthur could not have existed because
> > Gilas never mentioned him in his history, where as I think that is
> > garbage, a Monk might not mention a pagan soldier...so what is authenic
> > anyway?
Thank you for the tolerance of Norma. The fact is there is no evidence,
not any that is unbiased, true to history, etc. I heard some while back
that archaeological evidence surfaced that in fact did support Norma.
Norma presented her theories and gets whammied all over the place. Folks
scoff at the Riothamus theory but Ashe hasn't been condemmed to the pits
of literary hell because he voiced his 'guess'.
> If Arthur existed (whatever that means; I'm not really sure) he
> certainly was not a pagan. All the evidence suggests that the upper
> classes in Britain during the entire period 400 - 600 were Christian -
> and of course what very little evidence we have of Arthur which might be
> vaguely contemporary, namely the Annales Cambriae and the Battle List
> from the Historia Brittonum, has Arthur explicitly Christian.
I disagree. Arthur, though his parentage royal, was raised a bastard in
Ector's home. Was he privy to the religious tutelage Kay received -
namely a _possibly_ Christian rearing? Who knows. To claim Arthur
Christian or pagan is a leap of personal faith/opinion. The 'historians'
were Christian clergy which would introduce a bias and Arthur was not
treated with great love by the clergy, the reasons 'why' all a mish-mash
of assumptions and guesswork... as with all things Arthurian.
> It just didn't happen.
Can I have a look at that crystal ball that holds these definite answers?
>
> I agree with you that Gildas need not have mentioned Arthur - he
> mentions hardly anyone. Anyway, there is surely a strong chance that
> Ambrosius IS Arthur - the passsage about Badon could easily be read as
> meaning that it was Ambrosius that won at Badon, and I'm sure you all
> know that the chances are that "Arthur" was a given name, meaning Bear.
This means our infamous Arthur doesn't even have a name! Poor chap.
Personally, I think Arthur was his name. But, ultimately, so what. As
for Gildas, he was particularily testy with the subject of Arthur as
Arthur had Gildas's heroic brother put to death. No male bonding between
these two, I imagine tolerance was also a bit thin.
mah
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Robert Elliot
m...@fti.com wrote:
> > If Arthur existed (whatever that means; I'm not really sure) he
> > certainly was not a pagan. All the evidence suggests that the upper
> > classes in Britain during the entire period 400 - 600 were Christian -
> > and of course what very little evidence we have of Arthur which might be
> > vaguely contemporary, namely the Annales Cambriae and the Battle List
> > from the Historia Brittonum, has Arthur explicitly Christian.
>
> I disagree. Arthur, though his parentage royal, was raised a bastard in
> Ector's home. Was he privy to the religious tutelage Kay received -
> namely a _possibly_ Christian rearing? Who knows. To claim Arthur
> Christian or pagan is a leap of personal faith/opinion. The 'historians'
> were Christian clergy which would introduce a bias and Arthur was not
> treated with great love by the clergy, the reasons 'why' all a mish-mash
> of assumptions and guesswork... as with all things Arthurian.
I'm sorry, I was talking history. Ector is not historical - not even
close. Kay may have been, but is more probably a Celtic god added to the
tradition afterwards. We know nothing of Arthur's rearing, certainly we
cannot say whether he was of royal blood or raised as a bastard. The
only possible information available about his status is that "he fought
against them in those days with the kings of Britain, but he himself was
Duke/leader of battles." The precise phrase is "dux bellorum", and it is
not clear whether "dux" is a title as in the late Roman "Dux Brittaniae"
or simply a description. There were no historians - it is an absolutely
basic error to call Gildas a historian. What do you mean Arthur was not
treated with any great love by the clergy? We have only the Annales
Cambriae and the Battle list which mention him - neither mention any
dislike of him by the clergy, and both are explicit in making him
Christian. If you mean the "Life of St. Gildas", this piece of
hagiography is far too late to constitute evidence, and was written at a
time when Arthur had been hijacked by the English, and was consequently
a good deal less popular in Wales.
>
> > It just didn't happen.
>
> Can I have a look at that crystal ball that holds these definite answers?
No crystal ball, just the sources. First, the life of St. Germanus. He
made two trips to sort out Britain in the first half of the 5th century,
during which he defeated the Saxons in the famous hallelujah victory.
The point is that what needed sorting out in Britain was the extent of
heresy, not paganism. At no point is it mentioned that he encountered
any pagan Britons. As a matter of fact, the earliest traditions about
his trip have him dealing with Vortigern, who was, according to the
Historia Brittonum, a Pelagian. You could claim Christian bias, but it
would be pretty silly: if you know anything about hagiography, you will
know that there is nothing a hagiographer likes more than to get in a
bit of converting pagans. Obvious conclusion: the author was aware that
paganism was no longer an issue in Britain. This is not really
surprising: Christianity had been present in Britain for 200 years, and
the official religion for 100. Let me point you to the nearest
comparable example, that of Ireland. I'm sure you are aware that
Christianity first arrived in Ireland with Patrick in the second half of
the 5th century. By the early seventh century, 150 years later, Ireland
was entirely Christian, and indeed was converting the pagan Angles and
Saxons. This was despite not having the communication systems of late
Roman Britain or a situation when it was the official religion. How do
we know? Well, I could point you to any good history of religion in
Ireland, but I'll just say that there was a distinct culture of
martyrdom in Irish religion. If at all possible they tried to get
martyred by pagans; the fact that they had to leave their beloved
Ireland to do it in the early 7th century suggests strongly that they
were fresh out of pagans in Ireland.
All of this is confirmed in Gildas. As I said above, he was not a
historian - he was not writing for the benefit of posterity. If you read
the "De Excidio" you will find it is a sermon, written for a very
precise reason. Gildas is afraid that Britain is about to be submerged
by the pagan Saxons. Like any good clergyman who knows his Old
Testament, he knows that God would only allow this to happen to
Christians if they were being bad Christians. Consequently he writes to
the major men of his day, stretching from Cornwall to North Wales,
saying "better get your act together". In the course of this sermon he
gives a potted history to illustrate the point. Basically it is this:
Saxons run wild. Britons repent, get their collective acts together and
beat them. Period of peace and posterity - Britons get sinful and lax
again. So Saxons run riot again, until they are stopped by Ambrosius
(who is definitely a Good Thing) in the campaign leading up to Badon.
Since then we have had peace, but we are now lazy, lax and sinful again.
Moral of the story: if we don't repent and become good Christians again,
we are going to get hammered by the Saxons.
I'm sure that the foolishness of accusing Gildas of historical bias in
this is evident. There is simply no point in writing to the Britons
saying "you are the people of God - repent!" if they aren't Christian.
It makes no sense! If they weren't Christian, Gildas might well be
urging evangelism - but he isn't. He is urging repentance. There is no
mention of pagan Britons - the whole assumption of the work is that
there is no such thing. Unlike Bede, Gildas was not writing for those
who came after - this point cannot be emphasised enough. (Incidentally,
Bede had no problem with writing about pagan Anglo-Saxons, because he
knew there was no disgrace in their existence - they can after all be
converted. On the other hand, bad Christians are a disgrace, and Bede is
quite capable of being discrete about them - yet Gildas wrote virtually
solely about bad Christians!) Gildas had no motive at all to dissemble
about the religion of his fellow countrymen, and to write what he did if
he knew they were pagan would have required him to be half-witted to the
point of imbecility.
As I believe I mentioned before, the tone of Gildas actually suggests a
confessional nature in the conflict. Pagan = Saxon, Christian = Briton.
For a similair situation, see the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle or Asser, where
pagan = Scandinavian and Christian = Anglo-Saxon during the long
struggle with the people who are normally now called Vikings.
>
> >
> > I agree with you that Gildas need not have mentioned Arthur - he
> > mentions hardly anyone. Anyway, there is surely a strong chance that
> > Ambrosius IS Arthur - the passsage about Badon could easily be read as
> > meaning that it was Ambrosius that won at Badon, and I'm sure you all
> > know that the chances are that "Arthur" was a given name, meaning Bear.
>
> This means our infamous Arthur doesn't even have a name! Poor chap.
> Personally, I think Arthur was his name. But, ultimately, so what. As
> for Gildas, he was particularily testy with the subject of Arthur as
> Arthur had Gildas's heroic brother put to death. No male bonding between
> these two, I imagine tolerance was also a bit thin.
I didn't say that he had no name - I said that it is possible he was the
same person as the Aurelius Ambrosius mentioned in Gildas, and that he
was given the Welsh battle name of bear ("Arth" or "Arthur") for his
prowess. For example one of the kings berated by Gildas was called
Aurelius Caninus - Aurelius the Dog. If this is the case, then far from
disapproving of Arthur, Arthur is the only person in the whole of the
"De Excidio" that Gildas whole-heartedly approves of. Of course, I can't
begin to prove that hypothesis. I can't believe you give the legend
about Arthur killing Gildas' brother credence - it is so late it almost
ranks with Monmouth's claim that Arthur conquered all of Europe!
This brings me to an issue which I touched on at the beginning of my
original post - what do we mean by the question "did Arthur exist?" The
only things which the earliest chronicles agree on about him is that he
was of some status (though we don't know how high), that he commanded
the victorious Britons at Badon and that he was called Arthur. Now
people have been happy to suggest that the name Arthur is a later
addition, and some have suggested that he was of minor importance. If we
accept these caveats, we are left with the question "did the victorious
commander at Badon exist?" to which we can answer a resounding "yes" -
but it's a bloody silly question. Since Badon undoubtedly occurred, and
was a British victory, it is patently obvious that the commander there
existed, and saying so gets us no nearer to finding out who he was. I
would suggest that anyone put forward as the "real Arthur" would have to
be of importance throughout sub-Roman Britain and use the name Arthur or
some form of it - otherwise the whole thing descends into farce.
I have stated my case again for a largely Christian Britain throughout
the 5th and 6th centuries. I have probably stated it a little too
forcefully - the religion of the populace in cultural backwaters
probably took a long time to change. However, for that matter Samhain
has continued to be celebrated throughout Britain as Hallowe'en
throughout the last 1500 years, and only a complete fool would claim
Britain was not Christian during all that time. I have given sources
which are contemporary and historical. If you can produce any evidence
for paganism, organised or otherwise, and a conflict between that
paganism and Christianity, I would love to hear it. I am absolutely
clear in my own mind that no-one of the necessary rank to rise to
prominence in Britain in the late 5th century could possibly be of any
other religion than the Christian one, though I am of course ready to be
dissuaded if anyone has any evidence. My assurance about Arthur (if he
existed) is only enhanced by the fact that the only early sources to
mention him do so in an explicitly Christian context. I have
cross-posted this to soc.history.medieval, as it contains a number of
highy knowledgable people, who will give me a rough ride if necessary!
Hope you were interested,
Rob
Terjo
I want to take exception to the idea that history is solely storytelling
from a personal point of view. Certainly with any subject as difficult to
document as the historical
Arthur, stories will be told whether by Bradley or by Lawhead. But history
is, in the final analysis about truth and contrary to the 20th century
zeitgeist, truth is real and objective. When story tellers stray too far
from what we know to be the facts they fail their readers. There is
meaning in the legend of Arthur, but there is also meaning in the accuracy
of presentation.
nicki faas <nn...@tlk.net> wrote in article <343FC8...@tlk.net>...
> Most Medevil Scholars have said via Arthurnet, that Norma takes too much
> liberty with the truth and can't substaniate (sp) her story, but then I
> argued with a chap who said that Arthur could not have existed because
> Gilas never mentioned him in his history, where as I think that is
> garbage, a Monk might not mention a pagan soldier...so what is authenic
Robert Elliot
phil wrote:
>
> You should both stop looking at what is written history as evidence
> and look at the evidence of culture through history.
>
> You would not recognise the religion practiced in Britian in the 5th
> century as christian. It would have a been a blend of local pagan
> religion and what we consider catholic now. This holds true no matter
> where the church goes. Look in Mexico or on the continent of Africa.
>
> For further evidence consider the origin of most major holidays,
> religious and otherwise.
Did you read the end of my post? I said as much. To say we would not have
recognised it as Christianity is wrong - Christianity as practiced in the
age of Bede etc. is clearly and recognisably Christianity - monotheistic,
reliant on the Bible, miraculous, with a high degree of theology. If you
mean that it could easily become popular superstition, then this is true
- but it is still true today. The use of the gospels, appeals to Christ
for aid, symbols like the cross and the fish - these were as prevalent
and recognisable then as they are now, indeed more so.
>
> Anyway, can you really trust what a monk writes? They were known to
> change local histories to include christianity and were not hesitant
> to throw out stories they didn't want or didn't agree with.
Did you not read my post at all? It was all a critical evaluation of how
far Gildas could be trusted. He was not, repeat was not, writing a
history, local or otherwise. He never says that Britain is Christian,
rather his whole argument in his sermon *implies* it, and is
*meaningless* unless it is true. Gildas was extremely well-informed - he
had seen both the Hadrian and Antonine walls, or at least had been given
a very good description of them, and he was also au fait with very recent
events in Cornwall. He was clearly not an imbecile. It is therefore
reasonable to accept his testimony, unless we have other testimony which
disagrees. Do we? No. This is not because we could not - it would be very
likely that a hagiographer would make his saint convert a few Britons if
he could. Yet the only hagiographer writing in the period makes no
mention of pagan Britons, only Christian ones who have gone a little
heretical. To insist that paganism was rife and there was an active power
struggle between the two in these circumstances seems perverse.
Rob
m...@fti.com
....massive snipping throughout....
Talk about enthusiam! Whew, it'll take days to get through this one...
>What do you mean Arthur was not
>treated with any great love by the clergy?
If we give any credance to the 'Lives of Saints' then we have references
to Arthur, who is often the foil to the Saint's superiority. (Carannog,
Cadoc, to mention a couple)
This gives a glimpse into the staus of Arthur in the minds of these folks.
If we take Gildas, Arthur _may_ be one of the nasty wayward kings he
chastised.
>We have only the Annales
>Cambriae and the Battle list which mention him - neither mention any
>dislike of him by the clergy, and both are explicit in making him
>Christian.
The Annales Cambriae is as questionable as any of the other sources,
including Gildas and your battle list, I assume is from Nennius. Nor was
Arthur the Knight in shining armor - he was listed as one of the 'Red
Ravagers'. The sources do not coincide when the dating is perused.
Gildas' statement 'the year I was born' doesn't help either. The point
is, nothing can tie out perfectly.
>If you mean the "Life of St. Gildas", this piece of
>hagiography is far too late to constitute evidence, and was written at a
>time when Arthur had been hijacked by the English, and was consequently
>a good deal less popular in Wales.
How does one determine was is valid evidence and what is not. A friend
once said, believe nothing you hear and half of what you read (thanks, K)
The typical trend appears to be 'use what works for you and claim it is
based on an earlier oral tradition...' For an assumption, to test a
theory, or to just have fun, this is fine. To quote a piece regarding
Gildas, 'Much of his history is grossly distorted'. I have heard every
piece written reagrding the Matter of Britain slammed.....except R.
Bromwich - and darn! that work is out of print!
First, the life of St. Germanus. He
made two trips to sort out Britain in the first half of the 5th century,
during which he defeated the Saxons in the famous hallelujah victory.
The point is that what needed sorting out in Britain was the extent of
heresy, not paganism.
That's right, but the Pelagian heresy offered a serious threat to the
Church and needed to be addressed. They were looking to their own on that
trip and his mission was specific - stamp out this heresy. When faced
with the internal 'corruption' the Church got a move on.
>At no point is it mentioned that he encountered
>any pagan Britons. As a matter of fact, the earliest traditions about
>his trip have him dealing with Vortigern, who was, according to the
>Historia Brittonum, a Pelagian.
Vortigern was? That is news to me. Interesting. But, why did it take
sooo long for the Church to attempt the Saxon conversion?
>Obvious conclusion: the author was aware that
>paganism was no longer an issue in Britain.
Obvious conclusion: the Pelagian threat frightened Rome to such an extent
that Germanus and Lupus were sent to clean house. Not only once but
twice. When faced with the collapse of the Celtic Church and the
corruption of sacred theology, hey, look to ourselves, we'll catch the
pagans later.
>Christianity had been present in Britain for 200 years, and
>the official religion for 100. Let me point you to the nearest
>comparable example, that of Ireland. I'm sure you are aware that
>Christianity first arrived in Ireland with Patrick in the second half of
>the 5th century.
In 432, with Germanus' backing, Patrick went to Ireland.
Since he knew the country and the language, he was the
best candidate for the job. He made a good impression,
and converted many people for about 30 years. 30 years! Pleanty of work
to do there. It has been far longer than 200 years and this world is not
wholly Christian. Pagans existed. Rollo, first duke of Normandy, was
baptized in 912, according to Ordericus Vitalis' history of Normandy, and
at his burial sacrifices were still to be made to the old gods.
>By the early seventh century, 150 years later, Ireland
>was entirely Christian, and indeed was converting the pagan Angles and
>Saxons.
I have to get going for now but will continue later. I am stunned that
you can say 'Ireland was entirely Christian'. It is quite impossible to
be fresh out of pagans. These are blanket statements that
have no bearing on people/human nature, nor the fiery zeal by which this
humanity
will defend its religious beliefs. This is the 20th C. and there are
_still_ pagans even today.
Belief can not be dictated. If you want to suggest that the culture was
predominently
Christian in the upper classes, that would warrent discussion/debate.
567 - the Council of Tours = Pastors to expell from Church those persons
found performing pagan rites before stones. Obviously, there must have
been a sufficient number of pagans and paganism must have still been in
practice, in some form or another, else there would be no need for this
dictate.
>Well, I could point you to any good history of religion in
>Ireland,
Good solid resouces are always welcome.
>As I said above, he was not a
>historian - he was not writing for the benefit of posterity. If you read
>the "De Excidio" you will find it is a sermon, written for a very
>precise reason. Gildas is afraid that Britain is about to be submerged
>by the pagan Saxons.
Gildas is disgusted by the ethics and behavior of the 5 kings and the
state of the clergy. This _was_ a sermon and must be viewed as such.
This was pointed at the wayward flock. I will collect 'sermons' from the
Buddhists, Mormons, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, etc....bury them, and the
one that is found in our future will, by your premise, be the pervading
religion of our day.
>So Saxons run riot again, until they are stopped by Ambrosius
>(who is definitely a Good Thing) in the campaign leading up to Badon.
Yes, Ambrosius is a good thing. But, Gildas never mentions Arthur.
Gildas does not name the commander at Badon. If your discourse is one to
convince us regular folk that Arthur was really Ambrosius, there are
plenty of the 'Arthur was really so-and-so' to go around.
>I'm sure that the foolishness of accusing Gildas of historical bias in
>this is evident. There is simply no point in writing to the Britons
>saying "you are the people of God - repent!" if they aren't Christian.
I would venture the accusation that all of the clergy were biased....to a
certain extent. It seems to me that your premise is that Gildas would not
have written this piece unless the populace were Christians. Nope. Can't
agree. Gildas is sitting in his ivory tower endulging in a verbal rampage
against all the sinfullness that has offended his delicate moral outlook.
BUT, his tirade is not enough to base the statement that _all_ of Britain
was Christian, nor even Arthur, if there was a Arthur, only that there
_were_ practicing Christians. If the Net were to implode, and the only
web site that survived was one of the Wiccan/pagan sites, then, using your
assumptions, our Century is exculsively inhabited by pagans. That is all
we would have....and it is not enough, nor the full truth, just as Gildas
is not enough. We simply do not have enough to make any solid statements
on the Dark Ages.
The other point is that was his job! Monitoring the ethics of the
nobility, policing the corruption of his fellow clergy seems to have been
his self appointed task. Sounds like a power trip to me. I will say
that I have read that his message helped to inspire a large-scale monastic
movement. So, hey, cool.
Later...
phil
You should both stop looking at what is written history as evidence
and look at the evidence of culture through history.
You would not recognise the religion practiced in Britian in the 5th
century as christian. It would have a been a blend of local pagan
religion and what we consider catholic now. This holds true no matter
where the church goes. Look in Mexico or on the continent of Africa.
For further evidence consider the origin of most major holidays,
religious and otherwise.
Anyway, can you really trust what a monk writes? They were known to
change local histories to include christianity and were not hesitant
to throw out stories they didn't want or didn't agree with.
There may never be enough REAL evidence for a diffinative answer to
these question.
----------------------- DO NOT SEND JUNK E-MAIL:----------------------------
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets
the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is
unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By
Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500,
whichever is greater, for each violation.
John C. Dechon
28....@dial.pipex.com>
Organization: The Rio Grande Free-Net, El Paso Community College, El Paso, TX
Distribution:
Robert Elliot (robert...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
> phil wrote:
> >
> > You should both stop looking at what is written history as evidence
> > and look at the evidence of culture through history.
> >
> > You would not recognise the religion practiced in Britian in the 5th
> > century as christian. It would have a been a blend of local pagan
> > religion and what we consider catholic now. This holds true no matter
> > where the church goes. Look in Mexico or on the continent of Africa.
> >
> > For further evidence consider the origin of most major holidays,
> > religious and otherwise.
> Did you read the end of my post? I said as much. To say we would not have
> recognised it as Christianity is wrong - Christianity as practiced in the
> age of Bede etc. is clearly and recognisably Christianity - monotheistic,
> reliant on the Bible, miraculous, with a high degree of theology. If you
> mean that it could easily become popular superstition, then this is true
> - but it is still true today. The use of the gospels, appeals to Christ
> for aid, symbols like the cross and the fish - these were as prevalent
> and recognisable then as they are now, indeed more so.
> >
> > Anyway, can you really trust what a monk writes? They were known to
> > change local histories to include christianity and were not hesitant
> > to throw out stories they didn't want or didn't agree with.
> Did you not read my post at all? It was all a critical evaluation of how
> far Gildas could be trusted. He was not, repeat was not, writing a
> history, local or otherwise. He never says that Britain is Christian,
> rather his whole argument in his sermon *implies* it, and is
> *meaningless* unless it is true. Gildas was extremely well-informed - he
> had seen both the Hadrian and Antonine walls, or at least had been given
> a very good description of them, and he was also au fait with very recent
> events in Cornwall. He was clearly not an imbecile. It is therefore
> reasonable to accept his testimony, unless we have other testimony which
> disagrees. Do we? No. This is not because we could not - it would be very
> likely that a hagiographer would make his saint convert a few Britons if
> he could. Yet the only hagiographer writing in the period makes no
> mention of pagan Britons, only Christian ones who have gone a little
> heretical. To insist that paganism was rife and there was an active power
> struggle between the two in these circumstances seems perverse.
> Rob
What he was saying re: "Christians" (as understood in this time period, in
this case "Catholics," if you will, since Protestants did not apppear as a
group until 1517) "accommodating" pagan practices is true. Not
officially, but de facto. The pattern is that the Catholic Church did not
"try" very hard to stop pagan converts including some of their pagan
practices in "Christianity." It is STILL seen today in many Catholic
countries...all the idol worship, feast days of the saints,
day of the dead, etc.. That is why so many pagans, with their
multiple gods and such, were able to understand and accept the idea of a
Trinity, saints, feast days, miraculous "holy" sites, and the blood
sscacrifice (the crucifiction of Jesus...they sacrificed humans all the
time)...it was not, on the face of it, that much different than their old
ways. Of course, they WERE expected to drop homage to their old gods, but
many did not...check out Mexico, especially the "Christian" Mayans...they
still set up altars to their old Mayan gods...so much for Mexico being
Catholic or even Christian...what a joke. But that's only one
country...there are others showing the contamination of Christianity with
pagan practices. Again, I'm talking about Catholic countries.
Protestants, also Christians, do not include any such ancient pagan rites
or practices. One should remember that most "Christians" in Europe, up to
1517, were more believers in magic, superstition, miracles of holy relics,
and local traditions such as the expelling evil spirits
(such as sending the winter spirits packing so spring would come, and
other such nonsense which a true Christian has no business even considering)
than down-to-earth Bible-believing Christians.
John Dechon
El Paso, TX
Peter Guy
I think this needs prefixing with "IMHO" !
Peter
though I think this
>has more to do with the fact that Christianity is the ultimate pagan myth
>Rob
Thomas Green
> John C. Dechon wrote:
>
The pattern is that the Catholic Church did not
> > "try" very hard to stop pagan converts including some of their pagan
> > practices in "Christianity." It is STILL seen today in many Catholic
> > countries...all the idol worship, feast days of the saints,
> > day of the dead, etc..
I believe it is not now generally accepted that the origins of the cults of
the saints were pagan - the cult of the saints was a christian invention
that many pagans did not approve of due to its association with dead bodies
etc. - any pagan elements were later additions. See P. Brown's _The Cult
of the Saints_ .
T. Green
Kimberly C. Stinson
>Yet the only hagiographer writing in the period makes no
>mention of pagan Britons, only Christian ones who have gone a little
>heretical. To insist that paganism was rife and there was an active power
>struggle between the two in these circumstances seems perverse.
And Rebublicans STILL insist that the American population backs them
and ignores the fact that the White House is Democrat. In 1000 years,
with all the commentary that has been written, if only one shred of
paper remains about the Rebulicans of the late 20th century it will
most probably be assumed that they were the ONLY ones in power.
I know you're getting hit from all sides on this subject but your
article does seem a little "bent" on proclaiming 5th century Britian
Christian.
Sorry for the politics.
Phil
Robert Elliot
John C. Dechon wrote:
> What he was saying re: "Christians" (as understood in this time period, in
> this case "Catholics," if you will, since Protestants did not apppear as a
> group until 1517) "accommodating" pagan practices is true. Not
> officially, but de facto. The pattern is that the Catholic Church did not
> "try" very hard to stop pagan converts including some of their pagan
> practices in "Christianity." It is STILL seen today in many Catholic
> countries...all the idol worship, feast days of the saints,
> day of the dead, etc.. That is why so many pagans, with their
> multiple gods and such, were able to understand and accept the idea of a
> Trinity, saints, feast days, miraculous "holy" sites, and the blood
> sscacrifice (the crucifiction of Jesus...they sacrificed humans all the
> time)...it was not, on the face of it, that much different than their old
> ways. Of course, they WERE expected to drop homage to their old gods, but
> many did not...check out Mexico, especially the "Christian" Mayans...they
> still set up altars to their old Mayan gods...so much for Mexico being
> Catholic or even Christian...what a joke. But that's only one
> country...there are others showing the contamination of Christianity with
> pagan practices. Again, I'm talking about Catholic countries.
>
> Protestants, also Christians, do not include any such ancient pagan rites
> or practices. One should remember that most "Christians" in Europe, up to
> 1517, were more believers in magic, superstition, miracles of holy relics,
> and local traditions such as the expelling evil spirits
> (such as sending the winter spirits packing so spring would come, and
> other such nonsense which a true Christian has no business even considering)
> than down-to-earth Bible-believing Christians.
>
> John Dechon
> El Paso, TX
I fully agree about the way paganism is accomodated, though I think this
has more to do with the fact that Christianity is the ultimate pagan myth
(see C. S. Lewis on this). If you'll forgive my saying so, I think
you're letting your protestant prejudices get in your way. I come from a
very evangelical, protestant background, but I've come to find that
Catholicism has a very great deal of Christianity in it, and its rituals
and superstitions can actually be graphic ways of bringing the Christian
message home. I can't comment on Mexico, though the same thing can be
found in Britain in the way old Celtic deities become Saints.
Nevertheless, I have studied British Christianity through many periods of
British history, including the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons and the
immediate pre-reformation period, and I would still say that Christianity
was entirely recognisable as such. Ironically, if you read the history of
the Anglo-Saxon conversion, you will find that the Irish, Celtic
Christians are the most like modern evangelicals. You will also find that
the difference between a converted and an unconverted Anglo-Saxon kingdom
is very apparent, and matters a lot in inter-kingdom affairs.
Rob
Robert Elliot
Kimberly C. Stinson wrote:
>
> >Yet the only hagiographer writing in the period makes no
> >mention of pagan Britons, only Christian ones who have gone a little
> >heretical. To insist that paganism was rife and there was an active power
> >struggle between the two in these circumstances seems perverse.
>
> And Rebublicans STILL insist that the American population backs them
> and ignores the fact that the White House is Democrat. In 1000 years,
> with all the commentary that has been written, if only one shred of
> paper remains about the Rebulicans of the late 20th century it will
> most probably be assumed that they were the ONLY ones in power.
I can't see the revelance of this. Gildas is proposing a remedy to a problem
- the problem is that Christians are being smashed by pagans. Alfred was
faced with the same problem. God shouldn't be allowing it to happen - he
should be on THEIR side. The only theological explanation is that they are
not being good enough Christians. Of course, if Britain wasn't largely
Christian the problem wouldn't exist - instead Gildas would be advocating
conversion. I'm sure you are aware that early evangelists often used the "Our
God is strong and will help you beat your enemies" argument to persuade
pagans to convert - see Bede, for instance. As I said, there is no vested
interest for Gildas and St. Germanus' hagiographer to claim Britain is
Christian if it isn't - indeed, as I said, they never did claim this, because
it didn't need claiming. Let me put it this way - would a Republican write to
a Democrat saying "the problem with America today is that Republicans
like you are not being good enough Republicans"? Only if he was imbecilic.
Yet this is what you are accusing Gildas of doing. He was making an
impassioned plea to Christians to become better Christians, and he was
addressing it to all of Britain. He would have known if substantial portions
of Britain were not Christian, particularly if there was a power struggle in
progress between pagans and Christians. So if this was the case, his sermon
was the most inappropriate, brain dead and generally silly thing ever
written. Not impossible, but unlikely - he seems fairly compos mentis in his
writings.
I spent some time trying to think up a suitable analogy, and here it
is. Imagine we have only two sources left from 20th century America. One is a
letter, from a Mr. Gildas. It is arguing forcefully that the problem which is
ruining America and causing her defeat by Communism is that the quality of
schooling is bad. During it he demonstrates a wide knowledge of America. We
also have an article about the education minister, Mr. Germanus, and how he
also feels that the quality of education needs improving, so he is going
around the schools sorting them out. Now you will notice that the implication
of this in both cases is that America already has schooling, and that the
majority of people are going to school. Indeed, neither piece of evidence
makes any sense if there are large portions of America without schools; if
this were the case, they should be arguing the case for an extension of
schooling, not a reform of what already exists. It makes even less sense if
there is a large anti-school party actively arguing for no schools - surely
an attempt to convince them otherwise would be made, or at least their
success would be blamed for the decline of education, rather than blaming it
on the schooling that does exist!
No genuine aspersions being cast on communism, capitalism, America's
education or indeed on paganism or Christianity. (Incidentally, should
paganism have a capital "P"?) This is just to try and show where Gildas is
coming from, and what we can legitimately draw from his statements without in
any way compromising by accepting his prejudices and his agenda. Who can say
if Mr. Gildas is correct to say America's education is substandard? Certainly
we would be crazy to accept it as evidence either that America is being
ruined by Communism or that the cause of this is poor education. However, we
can certainly deduce from it that America has education, and has it
nation-wide; otherwise Mr. Gildas' words simply make no sense. When we find
this deduction confirmed by the other evidence, and when we have no articles
or letters saying "it's all the fault of the anti-educationalists; we need to
beat them", it is reasonable to accept the deduction.
>
> I know you're getting hit from all sides on this subject but your
> article does seem a little "bent" on proclaiming 5th century Britian
> Christian.
>
> Sorry for the politics.
>
> Phil
I don't in the slightest mind the politics - I'm British, and thoroughly
uninterested in Republicans, Democrats et al. (No offence! Are you fascinated
by Our Lord Tony Blair, the slimy Hague and all the rest of our lot?) I hope
you don't mind my analogy - it really is not meant to truly reflect
contemporary America. What I am slightly disappointed about is that no-one
has really answered my points, and told me why Gildas would be writing to
pagan Britons saying "Be better Christians!" rather than trying to convert
them, and indeed why he clearly has a theological problem with pagan Saxons
beating Christian Britons if lots of the Britons are actually pagan. Also, I
don't think a single response has mentioned a genuine source of the 5th/6th
centuries to back up their arguments. I've just had the "you can't trust
monks" argument, which I've dealt with at leeeeenngggtthhh.
Rob
Thomas Green
> I agree with you that Gildas need not have mentioned Arthur - he
> mentions hardly anyone. Anyway, there is surely a strong chance that
> Ambrosius IS Arthur - the passsage about Badon could easily be read as
> meaning that it was Ambrosius that won at Badon, and I'm sure you all
> know that the chances are that "Arthur" was a given name, meaning Bear.
>
>
What about the possibility that Arthur is many people, not just one, as
proposed in various articles (e.g. O.J. Padel "The nature of Arthur" _CMCS_
1994)?
T. Green
Paul J. Gans
Robert Elliot (robert...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
Elliot's excellent posting deleted to get to this:
>What I am slightly disappointed about is that no-one
>has really answered my points, and told me why Gildas would be writing to
>pagan Britons saying "Be better Christians!" rather than trying to convert
>them, and indeed why he clearly has a theological problem with pagan Saxons
>beating Christian Britons if lots of the Britons are actually pagan. Also, I
>don't think a single response has mentioned a genuine source of the 5th/6th
>centuries to back up their arguments. I've just had the "you can't trust
>monks" argument, which I've dealt with at leeeeenngggtthhh.
Ah yes, you have a problem. The problem is complex.
It goes like this: (a) you write well. (b) your argument
is correct. (c) folks who agree with you have little to
say other than "you are right".
So that's why you only see postings from those who disagree
with you.
But, just for the record I will say it: You are right. :-)
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
PS: Keep it up. You are a treasure.
Betsy Fields
"Terjo" <te...@fred.net> wrote:
>I want to take exception to the idea that history is solely storytelling
>from a personal point of view. Certainly with any subject as difficult to
>document as the historical
>Arthur, stories will be told whether by Bradley or by Lawhead. But history
>is, in the final analysis about truth and contrary to the 20th century
>zeitgeist, truth is real and objective. When story tellers stray too far
>from what we know to be the facts they fail their readers. There is
>meaning in the legend of Arthur, but there is also meaning in the accuracy
>of presentation.
Gosh, I hate to shatter your illusions, but the vast majority of
history has been storytelling from a personal point of view. Today,
yes, historians struggle with the concept of objectivity, but that has
been the case for perhaps only the last 100 years (approximately as
long as history has been recognized as a true profession, with certain
professional standards and ethics). If this were not the case, why
would history continue to be reinterpreted, rewritten and revised??
History is not a science, like physics, where theories are proved by
multiple experiments producing the same result. Each historian, no
matter how hard they try to be objective, will interprete events
differently, based upon their personal beliefs and experiences.
Consider also the fact that much historical evidence (written or
material) is conflicting.
The bottom line is, we will never know the truth of Arthur's
existence. The beauty and wonder lies in realizing all of the
possibilities of his existence, which is what each writer does when he
or she reinterpretes the Arthurian legend in his or her own vision.
If you don't like the more "far-fetched" interpretations of the
Arthurian legend, don't read them. But don't tell everyone else what
to think about them.
Betsy
be...@airmail.net
Sigurd Towrie
On Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:35:06 GMT, be...@airmail.net (Betsy Fields)
wrote:
>The bottom line is, we will never know the truth of Arthur's
>existence. The beauty and wonder lies in realizing all of the
>possibilities of his existence
Hear Hear!! Exquisitely and perfectly said.
___
Sigurd Towrie
Blackhall - Kirbister - Stromness - Orkney Islands
e-mail * sig...@stowrie.demon.co.uk
Orkney Website: www.stowrie.demon.co.uk
Howard Wiseman
In article <344323...@dial.pipex.com> Robert Elliot,
robert...@dial.pipex.com writes:
lots of ggod things about the lack of paganism among the Britons in the
"Arhturian" period. But I just wanted to clear up a few points:
>his trip have him dealing with Vortigern, who was, according to the
>Historia Brittonum, a Pelagian. You could claim Christian bias, but it
Actually the HB does not say Vortigern was a Pelagian. The confrontation
with St Germanus is regarding incest. It is the Life of St Germanus
which says he went to Britain to combat pelagianism.
>gives a potted history to illustrate the point. Basically it is this:
>Saxons run wild.
No, the saxons haven't enetered Gildas' story at this point. It is
the Picts and Scots who run wild.
Britons repent, get their collective acts together and
>beat them. Period of peace and posterity - Britons get sinful and lax
>again. So Saxons run riot again, until they are stopped by Ambrosius
>(who is definitely a Good Thing) in the campaign leading up to Badon.
>Since then we have had peace, but we are now lazy, lax and sinful again.
>Moral of the story: if we don't repent and become good Christians again,
>we are going to get hammered by the Saxons.
>I didn't say that he had no name - I said that it is possible he was the
>same person as the Aurelius Ambrosius mentioned in Gildas, and that he
>was given the Welsh battle name of bear ("Arth" or "Arthur") for his
>prowess. For example one of the kings berated by Gildas was called
>Aurelius Caninus - Aurelius the Dog. If this is the case, then far from
>disapproving of Arthur, Arthur is the only person in the whole of the
>"De Excidio" that Gildas whole-heartedly approves of. Of course, I can't
This hypothesis is possible, but on the other hand there is no reason
to disbelieve in an Arthur distinct from Ambrosius just because Gildas
doesn't mention him. After all Gildas starts by saying he is going to
write about "the dangers run, not by brave soldiers in the stress of war,
but by the lazy", that is the sinners.
>This brings me to an issue which I touched on at the beginning of my
>original post - what do we mean by the question "did Arthur exist?" The
>only things which the earliest chronicles agree on about him is that he
>was of some status (though we don't know how high), that he commanded
>the victorious Britons at Badon and that he was called Arthur. Now
>people have been happy to suggest that the name Arthur is a later
>addition, and some have suggested that he was of minor importance. If we
>accept these caveats, we are left with the question "did the victorious
>commander at Badon exist?" to which we can answer a resounding "yes" -
>but it's a bloody silly question. Since Badon undoubtedly occurred, and
>was a British victory, it is patently obvious that the commander there
>existed, and saying so gets us no nearer to finding out who he was. I
>would suggest that anyone put forward as the "real Arthur" would have to
>be of importance throughout sub-Roman Britain and use the name Arthur or
>some form of it - otherwise the whole thing descends into farce.
Well stated. Except that I would add that we do have a quite early list
of 11 other
battles fought and won by Arthur, which may well be authentic. And then
there is also the final battle of Camlan, where Arthur and Medrawd
perished.
But that is the sum of our reliable knowledge.
To overcome spam-blocker, remove initial "h" from "hwiseman" in email
address.
Robert Elliot
John C. Dechon wrote:
>
> Rob,
>
> Yes, I obviously DO have a Protestant bias, but I don't feel it changes
> the facts of determining whether a group, especially one such as the
> early Britons calling themselves Christians, really IS Christian or not.
>
> First, I did not mean to suggest that I believe Catholics were/are not
> Christians...of course they are. Both Protestants and Catholics base
> their beliefs on the teachings of the same person: Jesus Christ, and
> both the Old and New testament. They differ, of course, in a number of
> areas. Foremost, as Martin Luther pointed out, salvation is
> by grace, not by works. Up to the Reformation, the Catholic Church
> stressed works (I have heard the reason was to control the nobility and
> the masses, to make them "behave" rather than go out and wreak havoc, and
> the pain of excommunication, which essentially damned the person to hell,
> backed the Church up), among other things like indulgences, etc.. Still,
> I do consider both groups Christian. I couldn't name very many of the 95
> points (theses) against the Church that Luther posted on the
> cathedral doors in 1517, but I was thinking of some of them in my original
> response.
>
> Second, re: the early Britons being Christian or not, I would simply
> inquire whether or not they preached and followed the gospel of Jesus Christ.
> THAT is the rock, the core, of Chritianity. If they had other "extraneous
> additives," then that's unfortunate, but the nucleus of their faith would
> be correct. But even if they were superstitious, believed in magic,
> prayed to the dead, whatever, as I mentioned in my original post, that
> was pretty much the whole of Christian Europe anyway, so the Britons
> don't seem to be that much different. Even Byzantium Christians, for
> example, associated miraculous powers to the numerous icons, and they were
> only images, maybe great art, but still only images. In short, if
> someone was a "Christian" prior to the Reformation, he/she was a "Catholic,"
> because there was no distinction before the Reformation.
>
> John Dechon
> El Paso, TX
It doesn't sound as though we disagree on any of this. Thanks for the input,
Rob
Robert Elliot
Howard Wiseman wrote:
>
> In article <344323...@dial.pipex.com> Robert Elliot,
> robert...@dial.pipex.com writes:
>
> "Arhturian" period. But I just wanted to clear up a few points:
>
> >his trip have him dealing with Vortigern, who was, according to the
> >Historia Brittonum, a Pelagian. You could claim Christian bias, but it
>
> Actually the HB does not say Vortigern was a Pelagian. The confrontation
> with St Germanus is regarding incest. It is the Life of St Germanus
> which says he went to Britain to combat pelagianism.
Sorry, I was evidently misremembering; perhaps some historian has suggested
that the confrontation over icest shows Vortigern was one of the pelagians?
That could be where I got it from.
>
> >gives a potted history to illustrate the point. Basically it is this:
> >Saxons run wild.
>
> No, the saxons haven't enetered Gildas' story at this point. It is
> the Picts and Scots who run wild.
Of course - sorry. That'll teach me to write without the book in front of
me!
>
> >Britons repent, get their collective acts together and
> >beat them. Period of peace and posterity - Britons get sinful and lax
> >again. So Saxons run riot again, until they are stopped by Ambrosius
> >(who is definitely a Good Thing) in the campaign leading up to Badon.
> >Since then we have had peace, but we are now lazy, lax and sinful again.
> >Moral of the story: if we don't repent and become good Christians again,
> >we are going to get hammered by the Saxons.
>
> >I didn't say that he had no name - I said that it is possible he was the
> >same person as the Aurelius Ambrosius mentioned in Gildas, and that he
> >was given the Welsh battle name of bear ("Arth" or "Arthur") for his
> >prowess. For example one of the kings berated by Gildas was called
> >Aurelius Caninus - Aurelius the Dog. If this is the case, then far from
> >disapproving of Arthur, Arthur is the only person in the whole of the
> >"De Excidio" that Gildas whole-heartedly approves of. Of course, I can't
>
> This hypothesis is possible, but on the other hand there is no reason
> to disbelieve in an Arthur distinct from Ambrosius just because Gildas
> doesn't mention him. After all Gildas starts by saying he is going to
> write about "the dangers run, not by brave soldiers in the stress of war,
> but by the lazy", that is the sinners.
Absolutely. Just mentioned it as a possibility.
>
> >This brings me to an issue which I touched on at the beginning of my
> >original post - what do we mean by the question "did Arthur exist?" The
> >only things which the earliest chronicles agree on about him is that he
> >was of some status (though we don't know how high), that he commanded
> >the victorious Britons at Badon and that he was called Arthur. Now
> >people have been happy to suggest that the name Arthur is a later
> >addition, and some have suggested that he was of minor importance. If we
> >accept these caveats, we are left with the question "did the victorious
> >commander at Badon exist?" to which we can answer a resounding "yes" -
> >but it's a bloody silly question. Since Badon undoubtedly occurred, and
> >was a British victory, it is patently obvious that the commander there
> >existed, and saying so gets us no nearer to finding out who he was. I
> >would suggest that anyone put forward as the "real Arthur" would have to
> >be of importance throughout sub-Roman Britain and use the name Arthur or
> >some form of it - otherwise the whole thing descends into farce.
>
> Well stated. Except that I would add that we do have a quite early list
> of 11 other
> battles fought and won by Arthur, which may well be authentic. And then
> there is also the final battle of Camlan, where Arthur and Medrawd
> perished.
> But that is the sum of our reliable knowledge.
I only included Badon because it is the only feature where the A. C. and the
Battle List corroborate each other - the other eleven battles, and Camlann,
are each in only one of the sources. I was trying to establish the absolute
bare minimum criteria by which a historical person would be recognisable as
the "real Arthur", and I don't think these are necessary, though they may
well have happened.
Robert Elliot
I was talking about the existence of a genuine historical person recognisable
as the origin of the Arthurian legend. You are quite right to say that
traditions about any number of heroes could have been conflated to create
Arthur - but in that case Arthur would never have been a real historical
person. I think he probably was - i.e. I think the man who won at Badon used
the name Arthur, or a close variant of it, and was of high status throughout
sub-Roman Britain. I'm sure no end of other tradition has been added to him,
some purely fictional, some belonging to other heroes - but under it all, a
rela historical person probably does exist.
Rob
Robert Elliot
Peter Guy wrote:
>
> I think this needs prefixing with "IMHO" !
>
> Peter
>
> >has more to do with the fact that Christianity is the ultimate pagan myth
>
Not at all; it isn't mine, it's Lewis's, I feel no need to be humble on
his behalf, as he was a philosopher by training, got a triple first at
Oxford, was an expert in pagan literature, and was both more intelligent
and more widely read than you, I, or indeed anyone else reading this (in
all probability, though that does need an IMHO). Also, to juxtapose the
words "fact" and "opinion" is just plain silly. :-)
This isn't the place to justify my/his statement, and anyway he did it
much better than I ever could. See "God in the Dock", "Mere
Christianity", "Miracles" or his "Letters" if you are interested; the
argument is certainly in one of those.
Rob
Thomas Green
>
> I was talking about the existence of a genuine historical person
recognisable
> as the origin of the Arthurian legend. You are quite right to say that
> traditions about any number of heroes could have been conflated to create
> Arthur - but in that case Arthur would never have been a real historical
> person. I think he probably was - i.e. I think the man who won at Badon
used
> the name Arthur, or a close variant of it, and was of high status
throughout
> sub-Roman Britain. I'm sure no end of other tradition has been added to
him,
> some purely fictional, some belonging to other heroes - but under it all,
a
> rela historical person probably does exist.
>
> Rob
>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but our earliest evidence for Arthur dates 829/30
and there is no way to show that this used any earlier source (David
Dumville's approach to the HB as synthetic history makes this posibility
even more remote if we accept it). If we have nothing earlier than the the
mid-9th century which names Arthur, then do we have any evidence for the
existence of a real, single historical Arthur, given the above? We have
evidence from c. 600 for Hengist and from c. 725 for his historical role in
the migrations but research still indicates that he probably never actually
existed and may well have been a protective horse-god of the Kentish royal
family, with his "historical" actions being borrowed from someone else.
Chp. 56 of HB also seems to damage the case for a single Arthur as it shows
him in action all over the country - someone of that importance would
surely have appeared in earlier historical sources and, in the case of his
association with Lindsey, there is good reason to suspect that there _was_
a local leader who successfully held out against the Angles in that area
for a period of time - he could easily be one of the "proto-Arthurs"
mentioned previously (similarly, could not the Aurelius Ambrosius of Gildas
also act as a "proto-Arthur" in the case of Badon?).
Regards,
T. Green
--
"The mountain sheep are sweeter,/ But the valley sheep are fatter;/ We
therefore deemed it meeter,/ To carry off the latter." The War-Song of
Dinas Vawr
Robert Elliot
Thomas Green wrote:
This is going across to soc.history.medieval, too.....
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but our earliest evidence for Arthur dates 829/30
> and there is no way to show that this used any earlier source (David
> Dumville's approach to the HB as synthetic history makes this posibility
> even more remote if we accept it). If we have nothing earlier than the the
> mid-9th century which names Arthur, then do we have any evidence for the
> existence of a real, single historical Arthur, given the above?
I think you are wrong. Leslie Alcock suggested that there was no reason
not to think that the Arthurian entries in the Annales Cambriae, at
least in the case of the Camlann entry, are contemporary. This was
accepted as possible by the acknowledged expert on the Annales, Kathleen
Hughes(?), but she suggested that it was vastly more probable that they
were inserted by a 7th or 8th century reviser; still, a date of 650 -
750 is a lot closer than 830. I think I can suggest tentativeley that
the Annales entries actually form a terminus ad quem for the battle list
in the HB, which is generally accepted as a battle poem inserted by
Nennius - I think even by Dumville. I've posted the argument before, but
I'll bung it up again at some point - basically it suggest that a
significant period of time passed between the two. This would give us
mutually agreeing sources, not dependent on each other, for an event
that occurred perhaps 100 - 150 years before the forst appeared; not
certain, but suggestive.
> We have
> evidence from c. 600 for Hengist and from c. 725 for his historical role in
> the migrations but research still indicates that he probably never actually
> existed and may well have been a protective horse-god of the Kentish royal
> family, with his "historical" actions being borrowed from someone else.
What's the evidence from 600? Bede mentions him, but isn't certain -
"their first leaders are said to have been two brothers, Hengist and
Horsa" is his carefully worded statement. The A.S.C. mentions him, of
course - but that dates from late 9th century, later than the HB. I
would be very interested to know how we can conclude that the unknown
person leading the Saxons was not called Hengist - the names of gods
have been given to people before.
>
> Chp. 56 of HB also seems to damage the case for a single Arthur as it shows
> him in action all over the country - someone of that importance would
> surely have appeared in earlier historical sources and, in the case of his
> association with Lindsey, there is good reason to suspect that there _was_
> a local leader who successfully held out against the Angles in that area
> for a period of time - he could easily be one of the "proto-Arthurs"
> mentioned previously (similarly, could not the Aurelius Ambrosius of Gildas
> also act as a "proto-Arthur" in the case of Badon?).
What earlier historical sources are there for him to be mentioned in?
Only Gildas, to my knowledge, and the reasons for Gildas possibly not
mentioning him have been discussed ad nauseam. Even Ambrosius, who
clearly had wide ranging activities in Britain, is only mentioned in
Gildas as far as certain sources go; but for that mention, he would be
more shadowy than Arthur. Again, what do you mean by Arthur existing? If
Ambrosius led the Britons at Badon (and it is an if), he could easily
have the Welsh given name "Arthur" - in which case he would fulfill all
my criteria for a "real Arthur".
Rob
Kim Headlee
In article <620bjv$f...@rgfn3.epcc.edu>, ah...@rgfn.epcc.edu (John C.
Dechon) wrote:
[much snippage]
> What he was saying re: "Christians" (as understood in this time period, in
> this case "Catholics," if you will, since Protestants did not apppear as a
> group until 1517) "accommodating" pagan practices is true. Not
> officially, but de facto. The pattern is that the Catholic Church did not
> "try" very hard to stop pagan converts including some of their pagan
> practices in "Christianity." It is STILL seen today in many Catholic
> countries...all the idol worship, feast days of the saints,
> day of the dead, etc.. That is why so many pagans, with their
> multiple gods and such, were able to understand and accept the idea of a
> Trinity, saints, feast days, miraculous "holy" sites, and the blood
> sscacrifice (the crucifiction of Jesus...they sacrificed humans all the
> time)...it was not, on the face of it, that much different than their old
> ways. Of course, they WERE expected to drop homage to their old gods, but
> many did not...check out Mexico, especially the "Christian" Mayans...they
> still set up altars to their old Mayan gods...so much for Mexico being
> Catholic or even Christian...what a joke. But that's only one
> country...there are others showing the contamination of Christianity with
> pagan practices. Again, I'm talking about Catholic countries.
>
> Protestants, also Christians, do not include any such ancient pagan rites
> or practices.
Oops. Couldn't let this one slip by.
Most Christians of whatever ilk DO perform "ancient pagan rights [and]
practices," most of the time without realizing it.
For example:
-- The phrase "knock on wood" is derived from the Druidic practice of
"checking" a tree to see if it's inhabited by a spirit, before the priest
either cut the tree down or hacked off some mistletoe (mistletoe clings so
tightly to the tree they didn't realize in those days it was actually a
separate plant).
-- The "unity candle" of a modern wedding ceremony, where the bride & groom
light a single candle from two matches, hearkens back to pagan Pictish
custom.
-- Pick a Christmas "tradition," almost any Christmas tradition. Yule logs
(pagan Anglo-Saxons), kissing under the mistletoe (Druids, again), etc.
You get the idea.
-- "Easter" . . . that's a good one. Named after the Caananite fertility
goddess Astarte (or "Eostre," though I can't remember her nationality
offhand); hence, all the related fertility symbols that make their way into
modern usage such as eggs, rabbits and chicks. In recent years my own
(Presbyterian) church has started calling that day simply "Resurrection
Sunday." Short, simple, to the point -- and non-pagan.
> One should remember that most "Christians" in Europe, up to
> 1517, were more believers in magic, superstition, miracles of holy relics,
> and local traditions such as the expelling evil spirits
> (such as sending the winter spirits packing so spring would come, and
> other such nonsense which a true Christian has no business even considering)
> than down-to-earth Bible-believing Christians.
As if people are any different today?
I cannot comment on anyone else's spiritual health or state of salvation --
that's God's job, not mine -- but I have known (for example) some very
kind, thoughtful, bright individuals who call themselves both "Christian"
and "white witch" in the same breath. <shrug>
Kim D. Headlee, headlee@bdc$mail.nrl.navy.mil - please remove "$" to reply
Author of DAWNFLIGHT, forthcoming from Pocket Books
"The difference between reality and fiction? Fiction has to make sense."
-- Tom Clancy, "Larry King Live," CNN
John C. Dechon
28....@dial.pipex.com> <62270t$t...@camel21.mindspring.com>
<344534...@dial.pipex.com>:
Distribution:
> contemporary America. What I am slightly disappointed about is that no-one
> has really answered my points, and told me why Gildas would be writing to
> pagan Britons saying "Be better Christians!" rather than trying to convert
> them, and indeed why he clearly has a theological problem with pagan Saxons
> beating Christian Britons if lots of the Britons are actually pagan. Also, I
> don't think a single response has mentioned a genuine source of the 5th/6th
> centuries to back up their arguments. I've just had the "you can't trust
> monks" argument, which I've dealt with at leeeeenngggtthhh.
> Rob
Gareth
On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, Robert Elliot wrote:
> Thomas Green wrote:
>
> This is going across to soc.history.medieval, too.....
>
> >
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but our earliest evidence for Arthur dates 829/30
> > and there is no way to show that this used any earlier source (David
> > Dumville's approach to the HB as synthetic history makes this posibility
> > even more remote if we accept it). If we have nothing earlier than the the
> > mid-9th century which names Arthur, then do we have any evidence for the
> > existence of a real, single historical Arthur, given the above?
>
> I think you are wrong. Leslie Alcock suggested that there was no reason
> not to think that the Arthurian entries in the Annales Cambriae, at
> least in the case of the Camlann entry, are contemporary. This was
> accepted as possible by the acknowledged expert on the Annales, Kathleen
> Hughes(?),
Having looked into this period for part of my dissertation (due in five
months, four days, and counting....) I'll say this. David Dumville is
the most depressing historian in the world to read, because he doesn't
seem to believe in the reliability of any sources, which makes it hard to
work out how we can know anything about the period in question. Alcock,
on the other hand, seems to believe anything is valid (well that's an
exageration, but close enough.), and has also, in my opinion produced one
of the most badly written books on this period (Arthur's Britain).....
Somwhere between the two, I think, whatever there is which is closest to
the truth could be found.
> What earlier historical sources are there for him to be mentioned in?
Good point. More precisely, there could have been earlier historical
sources, but, as far as we know, they haven't survived...
____ ____
{ }------------------------------------------------{ }
{ }Gareth Marklew, { }
{ } G.J.M...@durham.ac.uk { }
{ }University of Durham. { }
{____}------------------------------------------------{____}
Tony Jebson
Robert Elliot wrote:
[snip of much good stuff]
> What's the evidence from 600? Bede mentions him, but isn't certain -
> "their first leaders are said to have been two brothers, Hengist and
> Horsa" is his carefully worded statement. The A.S.C. mentions him, of
> course - but that dates from late 9th century, later than the HB. I
> would be very interested to know how we can conclude that the unknown
> person leading the Saxons was not called Hengist - the names of gods
> have been given to people before.
I distrust the historicity of Hengist ond Horsa, partly because their
names fit a very common pattern of Indo-European foundation
myth -- by pairs of alliterative brothers. Consider:
Hengist ond Horsa
Cerdic ond Cynric
Romulus and Remus
All the A-S foundation myths in the ASC are suspect: e.g. Porta
appears to be named after Portesmutha rather than the other
way around.
I'll try to develop this further, but unfortunately some of the
references I need are at work. I used to have a web page that
examined this but I lost it when I moved to the US :-(
--- Tony Jebson
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
Howard Wiseman <hwis...@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
>To overcome spam-blocker, remove initial "h" from "hwiseman" in email
>address.
Hi,
A totally off-topic bit of information I just recently ran into.
When the spamblocker is in the name portion of the address the any spam
(or legitmate email) will reach your machine before being rejected.
This /can/ result in significant traffic of rejects.
By putting it in the domain, the routers will handle it.
No criticism intended, I hadn't thought about it either until I read
a complaint from a system manager who had to deal with this.
Robert
Mor...@physics.niu.edu
Real Women change tires ab...@uu.net postm...@uu.net
Real Men change diapers secu...@uu.net
Thomas Green
>>Having looked into this period for part of my dissertation (due in five
>>months, four days, and counting....) I'll say this. David Dumville is
>>the most depressing historian in the world to read, because he doesn't
>>seem to believe in the reliability of any sources, which makes it hard to
>>work out how we can know anything about the period in question.
>
To counteract some of David's harsh criticism (of the HB in paticular) see
Thomas Charles-Edwards in Bromwich et al _The Arthur of the Welsh_ (Cardiff
1991). David Dumville is very good at destroying things but not so great at
creating them - most of his work involves the refution of previously held
ideas; however, his criticism of the sources does largely stand - there is
no source that mentions Arthur previous to the HB and the information
contained in this text should probably be treated with extreme care.
While historians probably cannot say anything of value concerning Arthur, we
do have sources for this period (e.g. Gildas) which can be used - we may
though just have to accept that this is not a well documented period and be
glad of anything we do have e.g. the archaeology of the Eastern areas in
this period is paticularly plentiful. The sources that purport to derive
from this period should not escape the kind of rigorous analysis that David
Dumville and others provide merely because we desire more evidence than that
which is available.
Best wishes,
T. Green
Ralph Jones
In article <headlee-16...@bdcm40.nrl.navy.mil>,
headlee@bdc$mail.nrl.navy.mil says...
Not to mention the fact that there were many other religions from the Near
East which featured a mother goddess and a son, who died and came to life
again, often (I am told) on the third day. Eg. Isis and Horus, Ashtarte and
Tammuz(?). Something to do with Spring fertility cults I believe.
Ralph Jones
nicki faas
> > 1517, were more believers in magic, superstition, miracles of holy relics,
> > and local traditions such as the expelling evil spirits
> > (such as sending the winter spirits packing so spring would come, and
> > other such nonsense which a true Christian has no business even considering)
> > than down-to-earth Bible-believing Christians.
>
> As if people are any different today?
>
> I cannot comment on anyone else's spiritual health or state of salvation --
> that's God's job, not mine -- but I have known (for example) some very
> kind, thoughtful, bright individuals who call themselves both "Christian"
> and "white witch" in the same breath. <shrug>
>
> Kim D. Headlee, headlee@bdc$mail.nrl.navy.mil - please remove "$" to reply
> Author of DAWNFLIGHT, forthcoming from Pocket Books
> "The difference between reality and fiction? Fiction has to make sense."
> -- Tom Clancy, "Larry King Live," CNN
Gareth
On Fri, 17 Oct 1997, Thomas Green wrote:
> there is
> no source that mentions Arthur previous to the HB
Well, I wouldn't say that. Asfar as I know, there's still quite some
debate as to the date of the "Arthur verse" in Y Gododdin.
> and be
> glad of anything we do have e.g. the archaeology of the Eastern areas in
> this period is paticularly plentiful.
True. Still it's a pity because my dissertation's on the kingdom of
Rheged in the North West.... Oh well, there wouldn't be any fun if it was
all easy...
Tim Smith
Tony Jebson wrote:
>
> I distrust the historicity of Hengist ond Horsa, partly because their
> names fit a very common pattern of Indo-European foundation
> myth -- by pairs of alliterative brothers. Consider:
>
> Hengist ond Horsa
> Cerdic ond Cynric
> Romulus and Remus
Cerdic was said to be Cynric's father (or grandfather). Alliterating
nomencalture within families is so common in this period that I don't see
it as being significant in itself. More suggestive is that Hengist's &
Horsa's names mean, respectively,"stallion" & "horse". I am not sold on
the horse god theory though. There was a fashion at one time to try and
interpret just about all the more shadowy figures in history as lapsed
dieties, but in most cases hard evidence to support the thesis was
distinctly lacking. It is far easier to find examples of historical
characters who have entered into myth than it is to identify mythological
characters who have found their way into history.
Once source for Hengist which has not been mentioned is the Finnsburgh
fragment, a scrap of alliterative poetry probably dating from the
mid-seventh century, in which a character of this name appears. There is
no indication of whether this is the same Hengest, but if he is then the
range of his hero myth is increased and he is to be found in the company
of other apparently historical characters, indicating that he is more
than just another pre-christain diety who has become inserted into a
genealogical table. If on the other hand the Finnsburg hero is another
person altogether, then we have at least established that Hengist was not
unknown as a personal name in this period, adding force to the sugestion
that a hero so called could be an historical personage.
Tim
exeter.ox.ac.uk
Robert Elliot wrote:
> > >his trip have him dealing with Vortigern, who was, according to the
> > >Historia Brittonum, a Pelagian. You could claim Christian bias, but it
> >
> > Actually the HB does not say Vortigern was a Pelagian. The confrontation
> > with St Germanus is regarding incest. It is the Life of St Germanus
> > which says he went to Britain to combat pelagianism.
>
> Sorry, I was evidently misremembering; perhaps some historian has suggested
> that the confrontation over icest shows Vortigern was one of the pelagians?
> That could be where I got it from.
>
I believe J.N.L. Myres promoted this viewpoint.
Thomas Green
There is indeed plenty of discussion of the Gododdin and its date but the
part relating specifically to Arthur (ceni bei ef arthur) is only contained
in the B version which makes it perfectly concievable that this was not in
the "original" and that it is no older than the 9th or 10th century. The
concequence of this is that all the Gododdin can tell us is of the
development of Arthur in the centuries after the HB.
Regards,
T. Green
Thomas Green
I
>> would be very interested to know how we can conclude that the unknown
>> person leading the Saxons was not called Hengist - the names of gods
>> have been given to people before.
>
>names fit a very common pattern of Indo-European foundation
>myth -- by pairs of alliterative brothers. Consider:
The main gist of the argument for H&H being regarded as IE dioscuric gods
can be got from J. E. Turville-Petre "Hengist and Horsa" _Saga Book of the
Viking Society_ XIV pp.271-290, though the case does go much further than
this.
> Hengist ond Horsa
> Cerdic ond Cynric
> Romulus and Remus
Cerdic and Cynric probably aren't dioscuric totemic gods as they are not
brothers. Examples of these gods include the dioscuroi, Castor and
polydeuces (the "original"), the 2 divine brothers worshipped by the
Naharvali ~(Tacitus, Germania XLIII) and the Vandal's Raos and Raptos.
>All the A-S foundation myths in the ASC are suspect: e.g. Porta
>appears to be named after Portesmutha rather than the other
>way around.
Much has been written on the suspect nature of many of the leaders mentioned
in early sources e.g. B. A. E. Yorke "Fact or fiction? The written evidence
for the fifth and sixth centuries AD" _ASSAH_ 6 (1993)pp. 45-50; P.
Sims-Williams "The settlement of England in Bede and the Chronicle" _ASE_ 12
(1983) pp.1-41.
>I'll try to develop this further, but unfortunately some of the
>references I need are at work. I used to have a web page that
>examined this but I lost it when I moved to the US :-(
>
>--- Tony Jebson
All the best,
Thomas Green
Gareth
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Thomas Green wrote:
> There is indeed plenty of discussion of the Gododdin and its date but the
> part relating specifically to Arthur (ceni bei ef arthur) is only contained
> in the B version which makes it perfectly concievable that this was not in
> the "original"
>
Of course, the fun comes in, when we mention that "perfectly conceivable"
is far from being definate...
____ ____
Bart or Jennifer Repcik
Hello-
I am new to this group, but I am very impressed with what I have seen
so far.
I was wondering if anyone would be so kind as to repost the origin of
this thread which, apparently, was about the book "The Mists of
Avalon". I am a great fan of the book and would like to see what was
said about it.
Thank you,
Jennifer Bamber-Repcik
exeter.ox.ac.uk
Tim Smith <xj...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> I distrust the historicity of Hengist ond Horsa, partly because their
>> names fit a very common pattern of Indo-European foundation
>> myth -- by pairs of alliterative brothers. Consider:
>>
>> Cerdic ond Cynric
>> Romulus and Remus
>
>nomencalture within families is so common in this period that I don't
>see it as being significant in itself.
As said before, Cerdic and Cynric are not examples of dioscuric gods. It
is also worth noting that dioscuric gods do not have to have alliterating
names e.g. Castor and Polydeuces.
>More suggestive is that Hengist's & Horsa's names mean, respectively,
>"stallion" & "horse". I am not sold on the horse god theory though.
>There was a fashion at one time to try and interpret just about all the
>more shadowy figures in history as lapsed dieties, but in most cases
>hard evidence to support the thesis was distinctly lacking. It is far
>easier to find examples of historical characters who have entered into
>myth than it is to identify mythological characters who have found
>their way into history.
>
I have to disagree - Hengest and Horsa are still viewed as mythological
by many present day scholars, for example Barbara Yorke and Nicholas
Brooks (the matter was discussed some time ago on Ansax-l and the
re3levent messages can be found on Ansaxdat).
>Once source for Hengist which has not been mentioned is the Finnsburgh
>fragment, a scrap of alliterative poetry probably dating from the
>mid-seventh century, in which a character of this name appears. There
is
>no indication of whether this is the same Hengest, but if he is then
the
>range of his hero myth is increased and he is to be found in the
company
>of other apparently historical characters, indicating that he is more
>than just another pre-christain diety who has become inserted into a
>genealogical table. If on the other hand the Finnsburg hero is another
>person altogether, then we have at least established that Hengist was
not
>unknown as a personal name in this period, adding force to the
sugestion
>that a hero so called could be an historical personage.
>
Perhaps but you forget that there is evidence not only from Kent but also
from the continent for a pair of dioscuric, totemic gods named Hengest
and Horsa.
>Tim
nicki faas
Robert Elliot wrote:
> (http:\\www.dejanews.com) put the search engine on old and have a look.
> The thread included someone suggesting that it was not unreasonable for
> Gildas not to mention Arthur as Arthur was a pagan - which set me off! I
> have to confess to never having read the book; "Sword at Sunset" by
> Rosemary Sutcliff and Mary Stewart's Merlin trilogy are the best
> Arthurian fiction by my estimate; both are genuine writers, if you see
> what I mean, rather than blockbuster producers like Cornwell or fantasy
> writers like Lawhead. Not that I didn't like Cornwell's earlier stuff -
> I loved the early Sharpes, but even by the end of that series I thought
> he was going down hill, and I didn't enjoy the Starbuck chronicles at
> all. I must try "Mists", though, even if the pagan slant is going to
> irritate me intensely as a historian.
>
> Rob
Rob, yes I did start you off, as I did a year ago too. You know, I
have a master's in psychology and 3 credits shy of one in SpEducation
and a BS in history and was a very sucessful sales manager of an
electronics firm for over 12 years in my first career. I have studied
Arthurian History, Lit, Legend, and in depth psychology for over 20
years and I am still not ready to say that there was no Arthur.
The point of this, as I don't normally blow my own horn of the
educaytional accomplishments I have made, is why do you feel it
necessary to state over and over that YOU ARE A HISTORIAN? Do you think
that the evidence YOU think have found is the only evidence? Or are we
suppose to follow you and your word as law, simply because you have
attended history classes and earned a degree. I can call my self a
historian, a psychologist, a teacher or a therapist by my schooling, but
I don't think that entitles me to flaunt those names as a weapon in my
personal discussions.
I like Cornwall, Gidas, Malroy, Bradley, Sutticliff, Morrison, and think
they are all worth discussing, if for no other reason, than to be aware
of what they are writing and how it agrees or differs with my own
personal opinion. That is why I belong to this newsgroup, to hear
others OPINIONS. I am a grown up and can decide myself what makes sense
to me. And it has nothing to do with you saying what education you have
attained. nicki
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
: Angela Diane Key wrote:
: >
: > Has anyone out there read the book "Mists of Avalon" by Marion Zimmer
: > Bradley? It is about the Lady of the Lake and King Arthur and Camelot and
: > the Grail....If you haven't read it yet, now would be a good time...alot
: > of research went into it and it is an interesting story.... Here's some
: > background:
: > It is written from the women behind the throne and their
: > struggles....not of the blood and gore of battles (although some of that
: > is mentioned too)
: > Anyone who has read it, I'd like your opinion/comments...
I've just read it for the second or third time. I find it unsettling in
its likely accuracy. Judeo-Christianity has had a long history of
intolerance of other faiths, and something very like this scenario must
have been what actually happened in Britain about this time. But I like to
see Arthur as a hero, and in this piece he's almost the villain. Though
all the characters are painted as whole people; even Bradley's Morgaine,
for all her differences with Arthur, recognizes that all he ever wanted
was for everyone to be happy; that line harkens to the Arthur I know and
love from "The Once and Future King".
Paul Gadzikowski * scar...@iglou.com * DrWho on LambdaMOO-DownMOO-MOOchine *
* http://members.iglou.com/scarfman = Cartoons - Archy the Cockroach -
- DOCTOR WHO and STAR TREK fiction - Something new every week! *
"No interplanetary federation is an island."