King Arthur Discoveries
Max Kramer
Thanks to all for your responses to my posting.
Firstly, I must apologise for the double-up when giving the prices of
the books. And as return mail revealed, some of you may have read 'A3'
instead of the sterling pounds sign - apologies for this as well. Would
it help to plead 'newbie'? :-)
************************************
Candide <can...@primenet.com> asks:
>Could anyone explain how this book is different?
The differences in Wilson & Blackett's work from that of other
Arthurian works I've seen (and that was some years ago), are
(i) the legal quality validation & testable reliance on a large body of
Welsh sources hitherto dismissed as forgeries of the last century,
(ii) the resultant 'family history' establishable, and
(iii) the apparent authentic discovery of a burial site, not at
Glastonbury in Somerset but, in Glamorgan, South Wales, where the
authors discovered a memorial stone bearing the inscription "REX
ARTORIVS FILI MAVRICIVS".
Hence my seeking discussion of others who may have, or would care to,
investigate the book(s).
********************************************
Jason Scott <kc...@central.susx.ac.uk> says:
>> Now, after more than ten years of serious research - the King
>> Arthur enigma has been completely resolved.
>All books about Arthur make this claim. Geoffrey of Monmouth probably
>believed it to be true about his History.
Er, I don't see how Monmouth's translating someone *else's* History
figures in this. If I recall correctly, that is all he 'claimed' to do,
and as you say, he no doubt believed what he read about Arthur (as did
his 'adversaries'!).
>> The King Arthur Discoveries are explosive and final, made by
>> careful industrial analysis techniques, skilful planning and
>> superslick organisation. A technique seemingly never used by
>> conventional historians and scholars. By combining a careful study
>> of manuscripts, maps, antiquarian books, documents, inscribed stones
>> and other writings - with personal dedication, persistence and
>> fieldwork throughout the UK and much of Europe, Wilson and Blackett
>> have unravelled the enigmatic mystery - all facts uncanny in their
>> accuracy - backed by overwhelming evidence.
>This sounds like the tecniques used by ALL scholars in the subject
>....(all using overwhelming evidence but getting hugely different
>conclusions).
But your "ALL scholars" are unable to get together on this, so there's
no appeal to credibility there is there? And it could equally be
argued that had ONE good scholar come along, this argument would have
been settled years ago, what? And the days are gone when one can use
a bevy of scholars to subjugate the authority of the truth, look you!
>So you don't really want our opinions atall, you're just advertising a
>book.
Ho, har har! Funny! But not true.... (Yes I know you can see it
that way, but I'm no good at reviews so I just 'lifted' the flyleaf.)
*********************************************
Timothy Watson <tmwa...@umich.edu> comments:
>there's some church that's supposed to have King Arthur's remains in
>England (saw a documentary...
Sounds like one I saw a bit of last year on television featuring
Geoffrey Ashe at Glastonbury.
****************************************
Pete Turner <turn...@eworld.com> says:
>I am not familiar with the...book, but (having written...my own on
>unraveling the...mystery)
May I ask if you've reached a conclusion on the subject? And is your
book available in Australia? Could you post a quick 'synopsis'?
>the exaggerated claims make it sound suspect. Of course, that could simply
>be advertising...that reflects unfairly on the authors' work.
And no doubt you're familiar with the old saying 'never judge a book by its
cover'! Seriously though, I probably wouldn't have given such work(s) a
second thought had it not been for 'fate' or whatever. A friend who knew
how interested I'd been in the subject obtained from another friend a tape
of a lecture in Britain last year. After editing it a little I listened to
what was said quite closely (albeit with old ideas being stirred up by it).
And along common law lines of reasoning at least, it appeared a cogent and
competent model. So the interest was rekindled and here I am! (Actually
some years ago after I'd put a lot of time into the subject, I came to a
dead end because of the dismissal of one so-thought "blackguard", who now
on the evidence appears to have been vindicated. And this certainly
opens a door which had been slammed shut by most if not all.)
On thinking further about it, perhaps I did the work an injustice by 'lifting'
advertising copy, but I'm not a review type writer at all. Point noted.
And thanks for your little insight into Goodrich's work...
*****************************************
Chango Macho <do...@teleport.com> retorts:
>Humph. Well, last month's issue of Smithsonian magazine has a rather
>more sensible account of the "search for Arthur"...
"Humph" ??!
Thanks for referring us to the Smithsonian mag. just the same.
***********************************************
Dave Forth <dfo...@kos.compulink.co.uk> amused:
>OK very funny. Nearly as funny as the message format. Try turning MIME
>encoding OFF or not us MS Editor.:-)
Why not pop over to Cardiff sometime and have a chat with the authors?
Could be you'll have great fun! :-)
Have taken your advice about MIME - thanx. (Hey, could you recommend an
offline news reader/composer?)
****************************************************************************
Cheers!
Max Kramer
Edward J Schoenfeld
<ma...@eagles.bbs.net.au> wrote:
> Jason Scott <kc...@central.susx.ac.uk> says:
>
> >This sounds like the tecniques used by ALL scholars in the subject
> >....(all using overwhelming evidence but getting hugely different
> >conclusions).
>
> But your "ALL scholars" are unable to get together on this, so there's
> no appeal to credibility there is there? And it could equally be
> argued that had ONE good scholar come along, this argument would have
> been settled years ago, what? And the days are gone when one can use
> a bevy of scholars to subjugate the authority of the truth, look you!
>
Just a couple of points here. It seems to me that Jason was trying to say
that Wilson & Blackett seem to have used proper scholarly method which all
serious scholars use. As this is a rarity in "popular press" books about
Arthur, I think you should consider Jason's statement a compliment to the
authors. Since this method is in fact used by all scholars who write
serious academic books about arthur, it does not set Wilson & Blackett
apart from current SCHOLARLY opinion on the subject.
Second point--many scholars (the majority, in fact) HAVE gotten together
on this topic. The majority consensus is that WE DONT KNOW A DAMN THING
about any such putative person as the "historical" Arthur. I know thats
hard to accept if one is an enthusiast for things arthurian (like me,
actually) but the sad fact is that there are a lot of points in history
where the record of reliable evidence is so fragmentary that we cannot
answer questions about that time and place -- unfortunately, the
Romano-british regions of 5th century AD Britain is one of those eras and
places (we can answer lots of questions about the Anglo-Saxons though --
another case of the winners writing the history).
Now Wilson & Blackett may have discovered valuable new evidence (that is
what they claim, at least) BUT it ain't necessarily so. The 'Welsh
legends' were declared forgeries way back when for what were (back then)
good reasons - Wilson & Blackett have to refute all those reasons. The
burial inscription seems (to me at least) a tad too convenient ("Oh we
walked into a welsh graveyard and found arthur's burial inscription where
no one else had looked, in spite of the fact that people have been looking
for arthurian relics lo these past 700 years or so"--yeah, right [heavy
sarcasm]) So Wilson & Blackett need to give a convincing explanation of
how they found the thing and why no one else did (or, if someone else had
previously found and debunked it, why we should believe the inscription
now).
I will grant you that Wilson & Blackett may have done this in their book
(I haven't read it yet, so I can't judge). But even if they do that,
their ideas won't be 'right' (in the view of scholarly historians) until
they convince a large number of serious scholars that their ideas prove
CONCLUSIVELY that king arthur was such and such a person who lived at such
and such a time and is buried in that graveyard in Glamorgan. Alas, both
in the past and today, in all fields of scholarship (and science), the
majority opinion of the trained scholars and scientists rules. If a
majority (or significantly large minority) doesn't accept one's ideas,
they remain simply ideas (hypotheses), they do not graduate to the level
of theory (ideas accepted as correct by a substantial number of trained
scholars or scientists). Leslie Alcock's indentification of Camden as
Camelot is an exellent example of this process -- Alcock advanced a small
amount of evidence and a large amount of argumentation in favor of his
view. Other historians considered the evidence and argment (ie, they read
his book) and the majority decided that they were not convinced --
Alcock's idea was not proven conclusively. So Camden=camelot remains a
neat idea, certainly worth considering as a possibility, but the question
of where camelot actually was has not been definitively answered -- the
field is still wide open for other ideas on the subject.
Third. I would like to suggest (humbly, with no arrogance intended at all)
that people on this list (soc. hist. medieval) and people who deal with
'legendary' topics (like arthur or robin hood) make clear distinctions
between EVIDENCE and EXPLANATION. The EVIDENCE (as accepted by the
majority of historians working on the topic) from the fifth and sixth
century shows that the anglo-saxon advance stopped for about 50 years
after, say, 500 AD. There are also some fragments of historical writing
(Gildas, Nennius, some early welsh poetry accepted as authentic) that
mention someone referred to as 'Arthur' in connection with that event.
The EXPLANATION for the halt in the anglo-saxon advance is that a war
leader named Arthur rallied the Romano-british (or maybe just the British)
side and defeated the anglo-saxons so decisively that they stayed quiet
for a long time (and a whole slew of legends developed about this war
leader). ANY attempt to find out, specifically, who arthur was and where
he had his base of operations is an attempt to modify or refine the
EXPLANATION, either by rearranging the evidence all scholars accept as
valid, or sometimes, as Wilson & Blackett claim to do, by including new
evidence. in other words, Wilson & Blackett are proposing an idea (a
hypothesis). Although their hypothesis may EVENTUALLY become the accepted
explanation (theory) among scholars, it will ALWAYS remain subject to
modification or rejection when other scholars come up with more evidence,
or find a better way to fit the old evidence together. Historical
explanations should NEVER be assigned the quality of being 'absolutely
true' because they are ALWAYS subject to change and refutation.
EJS
Turnerpfj
May I ask if you've reached a conclusion on the subject? And is your
book available in Australia? Could you post a quick 'synopsis'?
Max Kramer
--------
It is available by mail to anywhere. The "vital statistics" on the book
are as follows:
THE REAL KING ARTHUR, A History of Post-Roman Britannia, A.D. 410 - A.D.
593
by P.F.J. Turner, c 1993
ISBN 0-9637434-2-2
460 pages. Two Volumes. 12 Maps. Glossary. Bibliography. Index.
Available from:
SKS Publishing Company
1306 Parkway Court
Houston, Texas 77077
for U.S. $29.95 (includes postage & handling)
Publisher's Cataloging in Publication:
The real King Arthur : a history of post-Roman Britannia, A.D. 410 - A.D.
593 / by P.F.J. Turner
2 v. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-9637434-2-2 (set)
ISBN 0-9637434-0-6 (v. 1)
ISBN 0-9637434-1-4 (v. 2)
1. Arthur, King. 2. Britons--Kings and rulers--Biography. 3. Great
Britain--History--To 1066. 4. Great Britain--Antiquities, Celtic. I.
Title. II. Title: History of post-Roman Britannia.
DA152.5.A7T87 1993 942.01'4
QBI93-1013
Table of Contents:
Volume I
PREFACE: Reconstructing History
Liber Primus - BACKGROUND -
1: Late Roman Period In Britannia
2: Magnus Maximus & Flavius Stilicho
3: Flavius Claudius Constantinus, Imperator
Liber Secundus - THE AGE OF VORTIGERN -
4: The Rise Of Vortigern
5: Vortigern's Wars
6: Coelestius Senex, Dux Britanniarum
7: Ambrosius Aurelianus The Elder
8: Foundation Of Anglo-Saxon Kent
9: Challenges To Vortigern's Rule
10: Vortimer, Regissimus Britanniarum
Liber Tertius - THE AGE OF AMBROSIUS -
11: Return Of Aurelius Ambrosius
12: Aurelius's War Against Kent
13: The Early Reign Of Aurelius
14: Rigotamos Of Britannia Minor
15: Catavia And Anglo-Saxon Uprising
16: The Rebellion Of Dux Gorlois
17: The End Of Aurelius's Reign
Liber Quartus- THE RISE OF ARTHUR -
18: Arthur's Background
19: Arthur's Early Military Career
20: Artorius, Magister Militum
21: The Boar War
22: Artorius, Regissimus Britanniarum
23: The Battle Of Badon Hill
24: The Demetian War
Volume II
Liber Quintus - THE REIGN OF ARTHUR -
25: The Character And Sons Of Arthur
26: Leonora, The First "Guinevere"
27: The Knights Of The Round Table
28: Arthur's Scottish Wars
29: Guinevere Of Luguvalium
30: Dubnovalus Lothicus, King Of The North
31: Threats To Control Of The South
32: The Battle Of Netley Marsh
33: Cerdic, Son Of Elesa Of Gewis
34: Artorius, Imperator
35: Arthur's Roman War
36: Medrautus Lancearius
37: Arthur's Last Campaign
Liber Sextus - AFTERMATH -
38: The Last Romano-Briton Regimes
39: The Anglo-Saxon Resurgence
AFTERWORD: The Real King Arthur
APPENDIX: Geoffrey Of Monmouth
=Pete
Doug Weller
us01...@interramp.com (Edward J Schoenfeld) wrote:
A lot of good stuff -- one comment though:
> after, say, 500 AD. There are also some fragments of historical writing
> (Gildas, Nennius, some early welsh poetry accepted as authentic) that
> mention someone referred to as 'Arthur' in connection with that event.
Sorry, not Gildas, he definitely doesn't mention Arthur.
--
Doug Weller
Barry Eynon
(Turnerpfj) wrote:
>It is available by mail to anywhere. The "vital statistics" on the book
>are as follows:
>
>THE REAL KING ARTHUR, A History of Post-Roman Britannia, A.D. 410 - A.D.
>593
>by P.F.J. Turner, c 1993
>ISBN 0-9637434-2-2
>460 pages. Two Volumes. 12 Maps. Glossary. Bibliography. Index.
>
>Available from:
>SKS Publishing Company
>1306 Parkway Court
>Houston, Texas 77077
>for U.S. $29.95 (includes postage & handling)
I just got my copy, it looks quite interesting, and particularly
refreshing in it's lack of hype about discoveries of secrets leading to
some revealed truth that are all too common in this sort of book. It
appears simply to be an attempt to dig through the historical record and
construct a consistent and reasonable history of Britain in the late 5th
and early 6th centuries and of the Romano-British military leader Lucius
Artorius Castus, and how his story could well have become the story of
King Arthur. I'm finding it quite readable, the book is careful to
document the references it draws on without drowning in footnotes, and it
does a good job of balancing the historical presentation with discussions
of how the stories could later have transmuted into the literary tradition
of Arthur.
I ordered it through Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com), which is a great
place to order books online, you may want to check them out.
(I'm not affiliated with either Avalon.com or with Mr. Turner).
Cheers,
Barry Eynon
--
Barry Eynon
ba...@playfair.stanford.edu
Dave Forth
>and early 6th centuries and of the Romano-British military leader Lucius
>Artorius Castus, and how his story could well have become the story of
>King Arthur. I'm finding it quite readable, the book is careful to
What source material does the book quote for Lucius Artorius Castus?
Thanks,
Dave
St. Ives, England
Dave Forth
>RE:
>Sorry, not Gildas, he definitely doesn't mention Arthur.
>----------
>True, but he does mention and date the Battle of Badon Hill, which is
>elsewhere strongly identified with Arthur.
Sorry no he does not date the Battle of Badon. He says it was the year
of his birth and that he is 43 years old. The dating depends on knowing
when Gildas wrote and that depends on when we think a Welsh king he
mentions died. But since the date of the kings death is contested.......
Dave
St. Ives, England
Howard Wiseman
dfo...@kos.compulink.co.uk writes:
In article <4ikpfv$9...@zinc.compulink.co.uk> Dave Forth,
It is not even sure that this is what Gildas says. I prefer the
interpretation
(which seems to be what Bede thought, and he had a copy of Gildas 100s of
years older than we do) that Gildas was born in the year of the battle of
Badon, and that this was 43 years after the first victory of Ambrosius
against the Saxons. Gildas was probably at least 25 or 30 years old when
he
wrote, but, as you say, since the date of death of Maelgwn is variously
estimated
from c.520 to c.550, this doesn't help very much. Personally, I think
that the
most likely date is found by working forward: from continental sources the
Saxon revolt is dated to about 442, so Ambrosius' victory is likely to be
in
the mid or late 440s, which puts Badon at c. 490. (Bede said 493).
Turnerpfj
Ambrosius' victory is likely to be in the mid or late 440s, which puts
Badon at c. 490. (Bede said 493).
Indeed, except that the victory was not Ambrosius's. Ambrosius began a
Romnao-Briton military resurgence in the A.D. 460's that culminated in
Arthur's victory. After that generation of war, there followed a
generation of (relative) peace. Arthur overlapped the two periods, hence
he came to be remembered as the ruler of a golden age.
-Pete
Lee Gold
identified Gildas the historian with Gildas son of
Caw from the Mabinogion -- and claimed that the
historian had failed to mention Arthur due to his
feud with the man for having killed his brother
Huail (a feud settled by the other brothers agreeing
to say or do nothing against Arthur in the future).
Howard Wiseman
I agree with the latter part of what you say, but I still don't see
why you say that Ambrosius began the resistance in the 460s? Are you
"leaving room" for Vortimer in the 450s? I thought that most historians
view the story of Vortimer's battles from Nennius as being fairly suspect.
I have read no evidence for there being more than one Ambrosius
Aurelianus (which is something which John Morris suggests).
The Easter Annals have Ambrosius fighing Vitalinus
(probably a member of Vortigern's family) in 437. This would fit
better with a Romano-British leader against the Saxons from the
440s onwards than the 460s onwards. Also, (which was my original point),
the best interpretation (in my opinion) of Gildas is that he is saying
that Badon was fought 43 years after Ambrosius' first victory
against the Saxons. Lastly, Ambrosius' parents having "worn the
purple" would fit better with an early date for Ambrosius.
Finally, I have a question to anybody:
the book "Celt and Saxon" by P. Berresford-Ellis has a supposed
quote from Gildas to do with Ambrosius, saying that he was
brave on foot, but even braver on horseback, or something
like that. Nothing like this appears in the translation of Gildas
I have read, and I have never seen it in any other book. Can
anybody enlighten me? Are there "nonstandard" versions of
Gildas, or is B-Ellis getting confused with somebody else?
In any case, what is the source of the quote?
era...@delphi.com
>wrote, but, as you say, since the date of death of Maelgwn is variously
>estimated
>from c.520 to c.550, this doesn't help very much. Personally, I think
Annales Cambriae says, that fits in with the recorded plague that hit
Europe in 543-544 (according to continental historians) and would have
reached Britain slightly later. Or do you think it could have been a
different outbreak? Like I say, just curious.
With Gildas, it's always "too bad he didn't....", like mention anybody
besides Ambrosius Aurelianus, like give dates, like use more traditional
Latin, like actually write a history rather than a diatribe. Of course,
the problem is not what he wrote but that he's the only source we have!
Ome more thing about relative dating...if there were a 31 year difference
between Badon Hill and the death of Maelgwn (I'm guessing that's how the
520 AD figure came up...if Badon WAS 490), then there's as much reason to
believe the 547 for his death and thus, 516 as is written for that battle.
That would make Ambrosius' time around 472....if the interpretation is
44 years SINCE....
I'll stop now. I'm getting tired of typing "if".
- Eric
Stewart Baldwin
>Howard Wiseman <h.wi...@auckland.ac.nz> writes:
>
>>wrote, but, as you say, since the date of death of Maelgwn is variously
>>estimated
>>from c.520 to c.550, this doesn't help very much. Personally, I think
>
>Why is the date disputed? Just curious....if Maelgwn died in 547 as the
>Annales Cambriae says, that fits in with the recorded plague that hit
>Europe in 543-544 (according to continental historians) and would have
>reached Britain slightly later. Or do you think it could have been a
>different outbreak? Like I say, just curious.
>
<snip>
>
>- Eric
The problem with the 547 date is that the annal entry which gives
Maelgwn's death, and the two annal entries which mention Arthur, are
not genuine contemporary annal entries. Just because a chronicle says
that a certain event happened in a certain year, it does not mean that
it was actually written down in that year, or even within living
memory of the event. It was quite common for chronicle writers to go
back and fill in when they _thought_ previous events took place
(sometimes by copying earlier chronicles, but often by hearsay,
guesswork, or even deliberate fabrication), and they might fill in
events for a time period hundreds (or in some cases thousands) of
years in the past. It often requires careful study to determine
whether or not this was done, and to what extent. Based on studies
made by Kathleen Hughes, contemporary annal writing began in Wales in
the eighth century, and the entries in Annales Cambriae which mention
Arthur and Maelgwn are not contemporary, nor are they anywhere close
to being contemporary. They most likely represent an eighth or ninth
century guess as to when the supposed events took place, and have no
good authority whatsoever.
Stewart Baldwin
Howard Wiseman
>Howard Wiseman <h.wi...@auckland.ac.nz> writes:
>
>>wrote, but, as you say, since the date of death of Maelgwn is variously
>>estimated
>>from c.520 to c.550, this doesn't help very much. Personally, I think
>
>Why is the date disputed? Just curious....if Maelgwn died in 547 as the
>Annales Cambriae says, that fits in with the recorded plague that hit
>Europe in 543-544 (according to continental historians) and would have
>reached Britain slightly later. Or do you think it could have been a
>different outbreak? Like I say, just curious.
First, the dates of the AC at this early stage, and even for centuries
later, are notoriously unreliable. There was no generally used dating
system used in Britain at this time so even if the original records
were contemporaneous, they would often be dated from some other
event which the compiler of the annals would not know, so the entries
have to be fitted by guesswork.
Second, the AC do not say that Maelgwn died of plague. They say he died
in the "great death" (mortalis magnus?). The compiler may have assumed
that this meant a plague, and may further assumed that it was the plague
of the 440s, but this is not implied by the entry itself.
Third, independent traditions about Maelgwn say that he died of a
particular disease (yellow fever?) which is definitely not the plague.
According to O'Sullivan, this is a disease which is often prevalent after
a time of famine, so the "great death" could equally as well as been a
famine. And who knows how many famines there were in 6th century Wales.
Fourth, again drawing on O'SUllivan's thesis, the genealogies of the
Welsh kingdoms (which are more consistent than those of the Anglo Saxons
at the same time) seem to indicate an obit for Maelgwn a generation
earlier than the traditional date of 547. However, this is a very rough
estimate really.
>Ome more thing about relative dating...if there were a 31 year difference
>between Badon Hill and the death of Maelgwn (I'm guessing that's how the
>520 AD figure came up...if Badon WAS 490), then there's as much reason to
>believe the 547 for his death and thus, 516 as is written for that
battle.
>That would make Ambrosius' time around 472....if the interpretation is
>44 years SINCE....
As I explained above, the 520 figure comes from other reasonings
altogether. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing whether the three
entries of interest in the AC (516 Badon, 537 Camlann, 547 Maelgwn) are
drawn from the same source (and so the time differences would be
presumably accurate even if the absolute dating is not), or whether they
are independent. The former does not seem unlikely (at least Alcock
argued so), so I would guess that all three events could be backdated
about a quarter of a century.
The main reason for prefering an earlier date for Badon is the archaelogy
suggests that the Saxon advance was halted for a generation or so from
the late 400s to the early 500s (my best guess: c.490-530), and this
seems the only time in which Gildas could write of there being a
generation of peace.
>
>I'll stop now. I'm getting tired of typing "if".
I know the feeling. There are times that I become so frustrated with the
incomplete or ambiguous or downright contradictory literary evidence that
I felt like giving up my interest in the area. But I think that now I
have a reasonable picture of the history of 5th and 6th century Britain.
However, I keep an open mind, and am willing to have my version of events
challenged. With this in mind, I will include my best guess for some key
events. Flame away!
410 Honorius' letter to the citizens of Britain
410s, 420s Angles settled as federates from Suffolk to the Humber.
425 Appeal to Aetius. Vortigern begins reign.
428 Saxons/Jutes invited to Britain - maybe lead by Hengist.
429 Germanus' visit to Britain.
437 Strife between Vitalinus and Ambrosius
440x443 Revolt of Hengist. Kent lost.
440s Thames valley settled by Saxons?
443x450 Ambrosius' Victory
460x470 Aelle founds Sussex. Jutes in Eastern Hampshire.
475x485 Aelle captures Anderida (Pevensy).
Aelle becomes Bretwalda over Kent, Sussex and Thames valley?
486x493 Siege of Badon (Bath?). Arthur victorious over Saxons (under
Aelle?). Gildas born.
507x514 Strife of Camlann (21 years after Badon). Death of Arthur and
Modred.
515x530 Gildas writes de Excidio et Conquestu Brittanniae (from
O'Sullivan's thesis)
517x547 Death of Maelgwn (after Gildas)
533 Cerdic founds Wessex around Portsmouth, ending the "Pax Badonicus".
(from Dumville's 1985 paper)
552 West Saxons under Cynric defeat Britons at Salisbury.
577 West Saxons reach the Severn, capturing Bath etc.
597 Conversion of Kent to Christianity.
Dave Forth
>Ambrosius' victory is likely to be in the mid or late 440s, which puts
>Badon at c. 490. (Bede said 493).
>--------
>
>Indeed, except that the victory was not Ambrosius's. Ambrosius began a
>Romnao-Briton military resurgence in the A.D. 460's that culminated in
>Arthur's victory. After that generation of war, there followed a
>generation of (relative) peace. Arthur overlapped the two periods, hence
>he came to be remembered as the ruler of a golden age.
Care to support the last sentence?
Dave
St. Ives, England
Tiffany Anzalone
>
>In article <4ikpfv$9...@zinc.compulink.co.uk> Dave Forth,
>dfo...@kos.compulink.co.uk writes:
>In article <4ikpfv$9...@zinc.compulink.co.uk> Dave Forth,
>dfo...@kos.compulink.co.uk writes:
>>turn...@eworld.com (Turnerpfj) wrote:
>>
>>>RE:
>>>Sorry, not Gildas, he definitely doesn't mention Arthur.
>>>----------
>>
>>>True, but he does mention and date the Battle of Badon Hill, which is
>>>elsewhere strongly identified with Arthur.
>>
>>Sorry no he does not date the Battle of Badon. He says it was the year
>>of his birth and that he is 43 years old. The dating depends on knowing
>>when Gildas wrote and that depends on when we think a Welsh king he
>>mentions died. But since the date of the kings death is contested.......
>
>It is not even sure that this is what Gildas says. I prefer the
>interpretation
>(which seems to be what Bede thought, and he had a copy of Gildas 100s of
>years older than we do) that Gildas was born in the year of the battle of
>Badon, and that this was 43 years after the first victory of Ambrosius
>against the Saxons. Gildas was probably at least 25 or 30 years old when
>he
>estimated
>from c.520 to c.550, this doesn't help very much. Personally, I think
>most likely date is found by working forward: from continental sources the
>in
>the mid or late 440s, which puts Badon at c. 490. (Bede said 493).
I just discovered this newsgroup and find your conversation very
interesting. Could one of you please tell me who wrote this book and where
I might be able to find it?
Thank you,
Tiffany Anzalone
Curt Symansky
An interesting idea. Caw is a Celtic royal family name however. In "Merlin"
by Norma L. Goodrich, page 65, Gildas is a Celt (Pict) from the British
Highlands belonging to the royal family of Caw Prydyn. Her reference
source for this is P.K. Johnstone's article "Dual Personality of Saint
Gildas", Antiquity 22 (1948). Don't know what else is in this article having
never seen it, and it's probably hard to find since it's so long out of print.
Now just to confuse things more (sorry), the three royal houses of Wales in
Arthurian times were Cuneda, Brychan, and Caw. Geoffrey of Monmouth states
that Merlin is grandson of a Demetian king which makes him a member of one of
the Welsh royal houses, so even Merlin might be a "son of Caw". Anyone else
have any thoughts on the subject of Gildas' origins?
--
Curt Symansky
cu...@castle1.ultranet.com
Eric Flesch
wrote:
>486x493 Siege of Badon (Bath?). Arthur victorious over Saxons (under
>Aelle?). Gildas born.
There's no reason to think of Arthur as anything other than an 11th
century invention, a type of propaganda to raise the spirits of the
English people of the time (who were a bit demoralized under Norman
rule).
There is simply no evidence for Arthur prior to the 11th-12th century
writings.
Ned Ramm
>Finally, I have a question to anybody:
>the book "Celt and Saxon" by P. Berresford-Ellis has a supposed
>quote from Gildas to do with Ambrosius, saying that he was
>brave on foot, but even braver on horseback, or something
>like that. Nothing like this appears in the translation of Gildas
>I have read, and I have never seen it in any other book. Can
>anybody enlighten me? Are there "nonstandard" versions of
>Gildas, or is B-Ellis getting confused with somebody else?
>In any case, what is the source of the quote?
Nor can I find it in my copy of Gildas. The best it says about him is
'duce Ambrosio Aureliano uiro modesto' chapter 25:3 translated by
Winterbottom as 'a gentleman'.
Geoffrey of Monmouth however describes him as 'so brave and hardy' and
'He fought well on foot and even better when mounted' part 6 section
viii.3 in my copy. I suspect this, in an alternative translation, may
be the source of your quote!!
Ned
er...@dial.pipex.com
http:\\dspace.dial.pipex.com\town\square\ae565\
Howard Wiseman
er...@central.co.nz writes:
>
>There's no reason to think of Arthur as anything other than an 11th
>century invention, a type of propaganda to raise the spirits of the
>English people of the time (who were a bit demoralized under Norman
>rule).
Sorry, but I don't think you will find any historian who will agree with
you on this. If Arthur was used by anyone in the 11th century, it was
the Normans who wanted to legitimize their regime by linking it to
a pre-Anglo Saxon kingdom of Britain.
Arthur was never a hero of the English. He was a hero of the British
(i.e. the Welsh and Cornish and Strathclyders etc) and also of the
British of Brittany. It was from the poets of the latter that the Normans
found out about Arthur. Arthur was famous for fighting AGAINST the
English, so he was hardly likely to be an English hero. As Norman
and English cultures gradually fused, he did become, in a way, an
"English" hero because by then he had been removed from his
historical context and had become a part in a chivalrous romance.
>
>There is simply no evidence for Arthur prior to the 11th-12th century
>writings.
Again, this is not true. The Historia Brittonum by Nennius is agreed
by almost all to have been compiled in the 9th century. Of course
this does not prove that what it says about Arthur is history rather
than legend, but it is definitely pre 11th century.
I think the most convincing evidence for Arthur is the two entries
in the Annales Cambriae. All of the characters in these annals are
accepted as histroical. That Arthur and Modred should be the only
exceptions seems doubtful to me.
Turnerpfj
I ran across one source (sorry, I forget who) that
identified Gildas the historian with Gildas son of
Caw from the Mabinogion -- and claimed that the
historian had failed to mention Arthur due to his
feud with the man for having killed his brother
Huail (a feud settled by the other brothers agreeing
to say or do nothing against Arthur in the future).
The source of this fact concerning the parentage of Gildas is the _Life of
Gildas_, the surviving version of which dates to early medieval Wales.
However, the supposition that Gildas refused to mention Arthur out of
spite for Arthur's slaying Gildas's elder brother Hueil is probably not
true. According the the _Life_, Gildas bore Arthur no animosity despite
the "murder." Moreover, with on exception, Gildas mentions only
contemporary rulers, and then only for the purpose of berating them for
their sins. Gildas believed that sins by the rulers of Britannia were
responsible for the decline of his time from the glories of an idealized
Roman period. For example, contemporary rulers (Urien of Rheged,
Ridderich of Strathclyde) who were not notorious sinners were not
mentioned by Gildas.
The exception is Aurelius Ambrosius, a past leader of Britannia who was
both mentioned and praised for his virtue and courage - but this refernce
si included only to provide a pretext for complaining about the ill
behavior (not described) of the Ambrosii descendants (not named - unless
Aurelius Conanus was one).
Gildas was writing a sermon in which he hoped to save the Romano-Briton
people bt reforming the conduct of their rulers, not a history for future
generations, and his historical references are very scanty since his
intended audience was already very familiar with recent events.
The connection of Arthur with the Battle of Badon Hill (mentioned by
Gildas) is established from other sources.
-Pete
Paul J. Gans
Curt Symansky (cu...@castle1.ultranet.com) wrote:
: lg...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Lee Gold) wrote:
:
: >I ran across one source (sorry, I forget who) that
: >Caw from the Mabinogion -- and claimed that the
: >historian had failed to mention Arthur due to his
: >feud with the man for having killed his brother
: >Huail (a feud settled by the other brothers agreeing
: >to say or do nothing against Arthur in the future).
: An interesting idea. Caw is a Celtic royal family name however. In "Merlin"
: by Norma L. Goodrich, page 65, Gildas is a Celt (Pict) from the British
: Highlands belonging to the royal family of Caw Prydyn. Her reference
: source for this is P.K. Johnstone's article "Dual Personality of Saint
: Gildas", Antiquity 22 (1948). Don't know what else is in this article having
: never seen it, and it's probably hard to find since it's so long out of print.
:
: Now just to confuse things more (sorry), the three royal houses of Wales in
: Arthurian times were Cuneda, Brychan, and Caw. Geoffrey of Monmouth states
: that Merlin is grandson of a Demetian king which makes him a member of one of
: the Welsh royal houses, so even Merlin might be a "son of Caw". Anyone else
: have any thoughts on the subject of Gildas' origins?
You folks are a riot. If we are to believe Geoffrey on Merlin's
grandfather, we have to believe him on Merlin's father as well...
Pick and choose. Pick and choose. You can build anything you
want out of the sources if you pick and choose.
I'm sorry, your paper is only worth a "D".
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Eric Flesch
wrote:
>In article <31560e54...@news.iconz.co.nz> Eric Flesch,
>er...@central.co.nz writes:
>>There's no reason to think of Arthur as anything other than an 11th
>>century invention, a type of propaganda to raise the spirits of the
>>English people of the time (who were a bit demoralized under Norman
>>rule).
>
>Sorry, but I don't think you will find any historian who will agree with
>you on this. If Arthur was used by anyone in the 11th century, it was
>the Normans who wanted to legitimize their regime by linking it to
>a pre-Anglo Saxon kingdom of Britain.
Oh yes, that's right, Arthur was said to have grown up in Normandy, as
I remember it. So yes, perhaps the Normans did originate it. A way
of extending their legitimacy into historical times.
>Arthur was never a hero of the English...
>Arthur was famous for fighting AGAINST the
>English, so he was hardly likely to be an English hero.
An interesting point. Could be the Normans used it as a way of tying
themselves to the Britons and so saying to the English "See, we're
just as legitimate as you, if not more so".
>>There is simply no evidence for Arthur prior to the 11th-12th century
>>writings.
>
>Again, this is not true. The Historia Brittonum by Nennius is agreed
>by almost all to have been compiled in the 9th century. Of course
>this does not prove that what it says about Arthur is history rather
>than legend, but it is definitely pre 11th century.
Hmm, OK, I don't know the Historia Brittonum or what it says about
Arthur. I'll have to look that up. Odd I haven't encountered it, if
it's of any significance.
>I think the most convincing evidence for Arthur is the two entries
>in the Annales Cambriae. All of the characters in these annals are
>accepted as histroical. That Arthur and Modred should be the only
>exceptions seems doubtful to me.
Unless of course it was a propaganda exercise in which case you'd
expect exactly that.
Howard Wiseman
er...@dial.pipex.com writes:
>
>Nor can I find it in my copy of Gildas. The best it says about him is
>'duce Ambrosio Aureliano uiro modesto' chapter 25:3 translated by
>Winterbottom as 'a gentleman'.
>
>Geoffrey of Monmouth however describes him as 'so brave and hardy' and
>'He fought well on foot and even better when mounted' part 6 section
>viii.3 in my copy. I suspect this, in an alternative translation, may
>be the source of your quote!!
Thanks for clearing this up for me. "Celt and Saxon" was an interesting
read, but B-Ellis is obviously not to be relied on for accurate reporting.
Geoffrey of Monmouth should really not be brought up when discussing
the history of dark age Britain.
Howard Wiseman
er...@central.co.nz writes:
>>>There is simply no evidence for Arthur prior to the 11th-12th century
>>>writings.
>>
>>Again, this is not true. The Historia Brittonum by Nennius is agreed
>>by almost all to have been compiled in the 9th century. Of course
>>this does not prove that what it says about Arthur is history rather
>>than legend, but it is definitely pre 11th century.
>
>Hmm, OK, I don't know the Historia Brittonum or what it says about
>Arthur. I'll have to look that up. Odd I haven't encountered it, if
>it's of any significance.
It is of great significance to those who believe that there may have
been an historical Arthur. Apart from some silly things it says about
Arthur's grave constantly changing size, the history of Arthur it
gives seems quite plausible. There is none of the nonsense which
Geoffrey of Monmouth introduces, just a list of battles fought
in Britain (many at unidentifiable places, which argues for the
antiquity of the list), probably culled from a Welsh ballad. There is
some poetic license in that it says that he personally slew 960
of the enemy at Badon. But mostly it is fairly down-to-earth.
It even describes Arthur not as king or emporer, but simply as
"dux bellorum" - battle leader.
>
>>I think the most convincing evidence for Arthur is the two entries
>>in the Annales Cambriae. All of the characters in these annals are
>>accepted as histroical. That Arthur and Modred should be the only
>>exceptions seems doubtful to me.
>
>Unless of course it was a propaganda exercise in which case you'd
>expect exactly that.
Well yes there are some people who argue that because they are
Arthur and Modred they must be fictional, but that seems to be
rather unfair to me. Unless there is some other reason for
rejecting these entries as genuine, why not let them be? If there
is no reason why an historical Arthur shouldn't have existed, and
a certain amount of evidence that he did, then why not allow the
possibility that he did exist. Surely it is more likely for legends
to have grown from a historical core than for them to have grown
from nothing?
Paul J. Gans
[deletions]
: Well yes there are some people who argue that because they are
: Arthur and Modred they must be fictional, but that seems to be
: rather unfair to me. Unless there is some other reason for
: rejecting these entries as genuine, why not let them be? If there
: is no reason why an historical Arthur shouldn't have existed, and
: a certain amount of evidence that he did, then why not allow the
: possibility that he did exist. Surely it is more likely for legends
: to have grown from a historical core than for them to have grown
: from nothing?
I'm not sure I understand. The "historical Arthur" has
nothing whatsoever to do with the "romantic Arthur", a
genre that dates essentially to the 12th century.
The point that most of us keep trying to make is that there
is NO CONNECTION between these two folks, other than a name.
The "historical Arthur" was not a King, did not have a round
table, never heard of a Grail, was not married to Guinevere,
knew nobody named Lancelot, did not sponsor quests or tourneys,
etc. Nor did he ride around in shining armor wielding Excalibur.
He was, at best, a war leader in a dirty rotten no-holds-barred
battle with the Saxons.
The "romantic Arthur" is a different person entirely. He
certainly exists on the romantic plane and his exploits
(and those of his followers) continue to this very day.
Indeed, his best exploits quite possibly have not happened
yet.
As a result, the existance or non-existance of the "historical
Arthur" makes not the slightest bit of difference to the
"romantic Arthur".
------- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Howard Wiseman
turn...@eworld.com writes:
>the "murder." Moreover, with on exception, Gildas mentions only
>contemporary rulers, and then only for the purpose of berating them for
>their sins. Gildas believed that sins by the rulers of Britannia were
>responsible for the decline of his time from the glories of an idealized
>Roman period. For example, contemporary rulers (Urien of Rheged,
>Ridderich of Strathclyde) who were not notorious sinners were not
>mentioned by Gildas.
I don't know when you think Gildas was writing, but I don't think many
historians would agree that Urien of Rheged and Riddereich of
Strathclyde were contemporary with Gildas. They ruled in the second half
of the 6th century (c. 560 to 600), wheras the other rulers mentioned by
Gildas almost certainly ruled in the first half, quite possibly even in
the
first quarter.
Dave Forth
>Again, this is not true. The Historia Brittonum by Nennius is agreed
>by almost all to have been compiled in the 9th century. Of course
>this does not prove that what it says about Arthur is history rather
>than legend, but it is definitely pre 11th century.
>
>I think the most convincing evidence for Arthur is the two entries
>in the Annales Cambriae. All of the characters in these annals are
>accepted as histroical. That Arthur and Modred should be the only
>exceptions seems doubtful to me.
The Historia Brittonum or History of the Britons by Nennius is in the
Annales Cambriae also known as Harley 3859 and the British Historical
Miscellany. All the same source.
Dave
St. Ives, England
Dave Forth
>In article <31574c04...@news.iconz.co.nz> Eric Flesch,
>er...@central.co.nz writes:
>>>>There is simply no evidence for Arthur prior to the 11th-12th century
>>>>writings.
>>>
>>>Again, this is not true. The Historia Brittonum by Nennius is agreed
>>>by almost all to have been compiled in the 9th century. Of course
>>>this does not prove that what it says about Arthur is history rather
>>>than legend, but it is definitely pre 11th century.
I seem to recall the earliest surviving copy of Nennius is from
11th-12th century. The brief mentions of Arthur could easily have been
added at this date.
Dave
St. Ives, England
Dave Forth
[snip]
>I just discovered this newsgroup and find your conversation very
>interesting. Could one of you please tell me who wrote this book and where
>I might be able to find it?
Try:
Gildas, The Ruin of Britain ISBN 0 85033 296 6
Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People ISBN 0-14-0445655-X
Dave
St. Ives, England
Stella Nemeth
>Howard Wiseman (h.wi...@auckland.ac.nz) wrote:
>[deletions]
>:......Surely it is more likely for legends
>: to have grown from a historical core than for them to have grown
>: from nothing?
>I'm not sure I understand. The "historical Arthur" has
>nothing whatsoever to do with the "romantic Arthur", a
>genre that dates essentially to the 12th century.
>The point that most of us keep trying to make is that there
>is NO CONNECTION between these two folks, other than a name.
The point that you seem to be missing, that the other half of this
conversation keeps trying to make is that there IS a connection
between a possible historical Arthur and the figure in the romances.
The second point you keep missing is that most people who are
interested in the subject have no problems keeping the two ideas
separate and straight in their heads.
>The "historical Arthur" was not a King, did not have a round
>table, never heard of a Grail, was not married to Guinevere,
>knew nobody named Lancelot, did not sponsor quests or tourneys,
>etc. Nor did he ride around in shining armor wielding Excalibur.
>He was, at best, a war leader in a dirty rotten no-holds-barred
>battle with the Saxons.
This is all quite true, but IF there was a historical Arthur, he
almost certainly was the primary figure responsible for a generation
of peace, after a series of battles. A war leader, quite obviously,
which is part of the romance as well.
The interest is in finding out where the romance and the history
intersect. No one is actually expecting to locate Camelot, but a 5th
Century hill fort is certainly not out of the question.
It is also interesting to try to figure out how one gets from the war
leader in his hill fort to the King of All England at Camelot. What
parts of the story have roots in the truth, and which parts have no
such roots?
This is not an isolated case. The oddest parts of Homer turned out to
be true.
>As a result, the existance or non-existance of the "historical
>Arthur" makes not the slightest bit of difference to the
>"romantic Arthur".
Perhaps we need to agree to disagree on this one? <g>
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Stewart Baldwin
>In article <31574c04...@news.iconz.co.nz> Eric Flesch,
>er...@central.co.nz writes:
>>>>There is simply no evidence for Arthur prior to the 11th-12th century
>>>>writings.
>>>
>>>Again, this is not true. The Historia Brittonum by Nennius is agreed
>>>by almost all to have been compiled in the 9th century. Of course
>>>this does not prove that what it says about Arthur is history rather
>>>than legend, but it is definitely pre 11th century.
>>
>>Hmm, OK, I don't know the Historia Brittonum or what it says about
>>Arthur. I'll have to look that up. Odd I haven't encountered it, if
>>it's of any significance.
>It is of great significance to those who believe that there may have
>been an historical Arthur. Apart from some silly things it says about
>Arthur's grave constantly changing size, the history of Arthur it
>gives seems quite plausible. There is none of the nonsense which
>Geoffrey of Monmouth introduces, just a list of battles fought
>in Britain (many at unidentifiable places, which argues for the
>antiquity of the list), probably culled from a Welsh ballad. There is
>some poetic license in that it says that he personally slew 960
>of the enemy at Badon. But mostly it is fairly down-to-earth.
>It even describes Arthur not as king or emporer, but simply as
>"dux bellorum" - battle leader.
>>
>>>I think the most convincing evidence for Arthur is the two entries
>>>in the Annales Cambriae. All of the characters in these annals are
>>>accepted as histroical. That Arthur and Modred should be the only
>>>exceptions seems doubtful to me.
>>
>>Unless of course it was a propaganda exercise in which case you'd
>>expect exactly that.
>Well yes there are some people who argue that because they are
>Arthur and Modred they must be fictional, but that seems to be
>rather unfair to me. Unless there is some other reason for
>rejecting these entries as genuine, why not let them be? If there
>is no reason why an historical Arthur shouldn't have existed, and
>a certain amount of evidence that he did, then why not allow the
>possibility that he did exist. Surely it is more likely for legends
>to have grown from a historical core than for them to have grown
>from nothing?
The entries in "Annales Cambriae" (AC) which mention Arthur (and the
one mentioning Maelgwn) are almost certainly NOT genuine, as shown by
studies in the origins of annalistic writing in the British Isles
(references below). These studies show that the contemporary entries
in AC begin in the late eighth century. Then, sometime in the tenth
century, almost certainly between 911 and 954 (and probably toward the
latter date), earlier entries were added by using a set of Irish
annals (and possibly a hypothetical set of northern British annals).
The reason that it is known that this was done after 911 is that the
Irish annals used by the compiler of AC came from the "Clonmacnoise
group" of Irish annals, which did not exist prior to 911. Further,
the entry regarding Maelgwn comes from an Irish annal for the year
549, which did not mention Maelgwn, but recorded the death of several
Irish men in the plague of that year. What the author of AC did was
to take the wording of the Irish annal, substituting Maelgwn's name
for the men mentioned in the original annal. (It ended up as the year
547 in AC, but such chronological dislocations were common when one
set of annals was used as a source for another.) What probably
happened is that the author knew of a tradition that Maelgwn had died
of plague, saw the entry in the Irish annal, assumed that it was the
right year, and adapted the annal entry to his own purpose. Thus, the
entry was written in the tenth century.
What about the entries which mention Arthur. Well, of the studies
made to determine the beginning of contemporary annal writing in
Ireland (where such annals began much earlier than in Wales), the
LEAST skeptical studies put the earliest contemporary Irish annals at
ca. 550, and some would put the beginning much later (ca. 670). Given
the results of these studies, there is no reasonable probablilty that
the annal entries mentioning Arthur are genuine contemporary annals,
or even that they were written in the sixth century. Almost
certainly, they were added to the annals by a tenth century author,
who had a genuine set of Welsh annals starting about ca. 790, and
wanted to extend them backwards in time, using whatever miscellaneous
information he had available at the time. The sources used for the
Arthur entries, 400 years after the fact, are unknown, but they were
certainly not contemporary annals.
References:
Kathleen Hughes, "The Welsh Latin chronicles: Annales Cambriae and
related texts", in "Proceedings of the British Academy", vol. 59
(1973), pp. 233-258, reprinted in Celtic Britain in the Early Middle
Ages (Studies in Celtic History, vol. 2, edited by David Dumville).
Gildas: New Approaches (Studies in Celtic History, vol. 5, edited by
Michael Lapidge and David Dumville), especially chapter 4, pp. 51-60:
"Gildas and Maelgwn: problems of dating", by David Dumville.
Stewart Baldwin
Mark S. Fitton
>
> I'm not sure I understand. The "historical Arthur" has
> nothing whatsoever to do with the "romantic Arthur", a
> genre that dates essentially to the 12th century.
>
> The point that most of us keep trying to make is that there
> is NO CONNECTION between these two folks, other than a name.
>
> table, never heard of a Grail, was not married to Guinevere,
> knew nobody named Lancelot, did not sponsor quests or tourneys,
> etc. Nor did he ride around in shining armor wielding Excalibur.
> He was, at best, a war leader in a dirty rotten no-holds-barred
> battle with the Saxons.
>
> certainly exists on the romantic plane and his exploits
> (and those of his followers) continue to this very day.
> Indeed, his best exploits quite possibly have not happened
> yet.
>
> Arthur" makes not the slightest bit of difference to the
> "romantic Arthur".
>
One could argue that, since histories are really the tales of various people
who have recorded them from their perspective, the "romantic Arthur" has
superseded the "historical Arthur" as the way history will be viewed. That
is, if in 200 years, the accepted history of Arthur is the romantic one, we
have to accept the theory that history constantly shifts and changes. We can
never know the facts, we can only surmise based on the given data.
Now, if we operate on the theory that history shifts and changes, we open
up a massive can of worms better left for another group, perhaps of a
philosophical bent:)
Mark S. Fitton
Turnerpfj
There is simply no evidence for Arthur prior to the 11th-12th century
writings.
I should think this statement qualifies as a VAST overstatement of the
arguments against the existence of an historical Arthur.
-Pete
Howard Wiseman
ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu writes:
>
>I'm not sure I understand. The "historical Arthur" has
>nothing whatsoever to do with the "romantic Arthur", a
>genre that dates essentially to the 12th century.
>
>The point that most of us keep trying to make is that there
>is NO CONNECTION between these two folks, other than a name.
I think this is taking things a little too far. The connection
between the two Arthurs if you like is not in the similarity
of what they (supposedly) did, but in the development
of the legends over the centuries. In fact there are many
Arthurs - the Arthur of Welsh legend is quite different
from the Arthur of the later Romances. Along the way, stories
were picked up from completely different sources which
agreed do have no connection with the historical Arthur.
But there is some core, perhaps only slightly bigger than
the name "Arthur" itself which has evolved from the original
records and ballads into the Romances.
>
>The "historical Arthur" was not a King, did not have a round
>table, never heard of a Grail, was not married to Guinevere,
>knew nobody named Lancelot, did not sponsor quests or tourneys,
>etc. Nor did he ride around in shining armor wielding Excalibur.
>He was, at best, a war leader in a dirty rotten no-holds-barred
>battle with the Saxons.
I agree completely with this.
>The "romantic Arthur" is a different person entirely. He
>certainly exists on the romantic plane and his exploits
>(and those of his followers) continue to this very day.
>Indeed, his best exploits quite possibly have not happened
>yet.
>
>As a result, the existance or non-existance of the "historical
>Arthur" makes not the slightest bit of difference to the
>"romantic Arthur".
But here I disagree. The historical Arthur (if there was one)
was the Briton remembered most for the war with the saxons.
If Arthur the warrior had not existed then Arthur the
wise and benevolent king of Western Europe would probably not
have been invented. That is all I am saying: that it seems more
likely that the legends developed from a historical core
(however unrelated it is to the later romances) than that
they developed from nothing.
Howard Wiseman
dfo...@kos.compulink.co.uk writes:
>
>I seem to recall the earliest surviving copy of Nennius is from
>11th-12th century.
You might be right here.
>The brief mentions of Arthur could easily have been
>added at this date.
I don't know if "brief mention" is an entirely accurate description
of the place of Arthur in Nennius. There is a whole section describing
twelve battles of Arthur, plus a few snippets elsewhere.
I suppose it is possible that they were interpolated in the 11th
century into a 9th century document, but there would have to be
some very good reason for suggesting this. The fact that most
of the place names in the battle list are unidentifiable suggests
that the list is old, pre 9th century even.
coomar
Dave Forth
>The source of this fact concerning the parentage of Gildas is the _Life of
>Gildas_,
Sorry it is "De exicdio et conquesta Britanniae" 'Concerning the Ruin
and conquest of Britain'
>the surviving version of which dates to early medieval Wales.
The earliest copy we have is 11th cent.
[snip]
>true. According the the _Life_, Gildas bore Arthur no animosity despite
>the "murder."
Perhaps you could tell were? I do not recall anything remotely similar.
[snip]
>The connection of Arthur with the Battle of Badon Hill (mentioned by
>Gildas) is established from other sources.
Not mentioned by Gildas!
Anybody what to do a FAQ? :-)
Dave
St. Ives, England
Dave Forth
>>The brief mentions of Arthur could easily have been
>>added at this date.
Howard Wiseman <h.wi...@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>I don't know if "brief mention" is an entirely accurate description
>of the place of Arthur in Nennius. There is a whole section describing
>twelve battles of Arthur, plus a few snippets elsewhere.
I still don't have a copy since the Phillimore version is out of print.
Do you happen know of version that is available? I did think Arthur was
only mentioned in two Easter tables and the battle list.
Dave
St. Ives, England
Lee Gold
>>table, never heard of a Grail, was not married to Guinevere,
>>knew nobody named Lancelot, did not sponsor quests or tourneys,
>>etc. Nor did he ride around in shining armor wielding Excalibur.
>>He was, at best, a war leader in a dirty rotten no-holds-barred
>>battle with the Saxons.
Arthur's reign coincided with a long period of peace (after
those ten battles), I'd say that the historical Arthur was
at best someone capable of arranging mutually agreeable borders,
a peacemaker, perhaps a hostage taker (which might explain that
Drustanus grave in Cornwall -- if it belonged to a Pictish
hostage.
--Lee Gold
Paul J. Gans
: ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
:
: >Howard Wiseman (h.wi...@auckland.ac.nz) wrote:
:
: >[deletions]
:
: >:......Surely it is more likely for legends
: >: to have grown from a historical core than for them to have grown
: >: from nothing?
:
: >I'm not sure I understand. The "historical Arthur" has
: >nothing whatsoever to do with the "romantic Arthur", a
: >genre that dates essentially to the 12th century.
:
: >The point that most of us keep trying to make is that there
: >is NO CONNECTION between these two folks, other than a name.
:
: The point that you seem to be missing, that the other half of this
: conversation keeps trying to make is that there IS a connection
: between a possible historical Arthur and the figure in the romances.
: The second point you keep missing is that most people who are
: interested in the subject have no problems keeping the two ideas
: separate and straight in their heads.
I doubt it quite sincerely. Most Arthurians are looking for the
historical Arthur so that they can find a precursor for the folks
in the legend. If they can get Arthur they feel that they can
get Merlin as well (see the Merlin subthread for examples). Given
Arthur can the Holy Grail be far behind (see the Grail subthread
for example).
Or are you denying that these subthreads exist?
No, I'm afraid that many folks DO have trouble keeping the
two ideas apart.
: >The "historical Arthur" was not a King, did not have a round
: >table, never heard of a Grail, was not married to Guinevere,
: >knew nobody named Lancelot, did not sponsor quests or tourneys,
: >etc. Nor did he ride around in shining armor wielding Excalibur.
: >He was, at best, a war leader in a dirty rotten no-holds-barred
: >battle with the Saxons.
:
: This is all quite true, but IF there was a historical Arthur, he
: almost certainly was the primary figure responsible for a generation
: of peace, after a series of battles. A war leader, quite obviously,
: which is part of the romance as well.
Hardly enough. There were only two types of "heros" in the
early and high middle ages. Fighting men and saints. Arthur
wasn't a saint....
So this is the connection you are looking for. An early war
leader named Arthur. Ok, I'll give you an early war leader
named Arthur. Now what? Do we get to the Round Table from
that?
: The interest is in finding out where the romance and the history
: intersect. No one is actually expecting to locate Camelot, but a 5th
: Century hill fort is certainly not out of the question.
But Stella, I thought YOU could keep the romance and the
history separate. They *don't intersect*. Get that? There
is NOTHING in common between a 5th century war leader and
a 12th century king.
: It is also interesting to try to figure out how one gets from the war
: leader in his hill fort to the King of All England at Camelot. What
: parts of the story have roots in the truth, and which parts have no
: such roots?
You don't. Don't you understand? You don't. You are once
again conflating 5th century possible history with 12th century
romance. There are NO roots. The whole Camelot, King of All
England thing was made up. The Saxons were not driven from
England in the 5th century. They stayed.
: This is not an isolated case. The oddest parts of Homer turned out to
: be true.
Have you read his latest poem, the "Non-sequitur?"
: >As a result, the existance or non-existance of the "historical
: >Arthur" makes not the slightest bit of difference to the
: >"romantic Arthur".
:
: Perhaps we need to agree to disagree on this one? <g>
Sure. I'll just put you down as one of those who can't separate
history and romance. See above for evidence.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Paul J. Gans
: RE:
It is an overstatement, but not vast. Would you care to
list the pre-11th century written evidence for Arthur. I
*strongly* suspect it would fit into one internet post...
Paul J. Gans
: Paul J. Gans wrote:
: >
: > I'm not sure I understand. The "historical Arthur" has
: > nothing whatsoever to do with the "romantic Arthur", a
: > genre that dates essentially to the 12th century.
: >
: > The point that most of us keep trying to make is that there
: > is NO CONNECTION between these two folks, other than a name.
: >
: > The "historical Arthur" was not a King, did not have a round
: > table, never heard of a Grail, was not married to Guinevere,
: > knew nobody named Lancelot, did not sponsor quests or tourneys,
: > etc. Nor did he ride around in shining armor wielding Excalibur.
: > He was, at best, a war leader in a dirty rotten no-holds-barred
: > battle with the Saxons.
: >
: > The "romantic Arthur" is a different person entirely. He
: > certainly exists on the romantic plane and his exploits
: > (and those of his followers) continue to this very day.
: > Indeed, his best exploits quite possibly have not happened
: > yet.
: >
: > As a result, the existance or non-existance of the "historical
: > Arthur" makes not the slightest bit of difference to the
: > "romantic Arthur".
: >
: > ------- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
:
: One could argue that, since histories are really the tales of various people
: who have recorded them from their perspective, the "romantic Arthur" has
: superseded the "historical Arthur" as the way history will be viewed. That
: is, if in 200 years, the accepted history of Arthur is the romantic one, we
: have to accept the theory that history constantly shifts and changes. We can
: never know the facts, we can only surmise based on the given data.
: Now, if we operate on the theory that history shifts and changes, we open
: up a massive can of worms better left for another group, perhaps of a
: philosophical bent:)
I can't agree. I *will* agree that the name may well be borrowed,
but that's it. The romances have nothing to do with history. To
say otherwise is to claim that the various World War II novels that
have appeared in the last 50 years are a historical "shift".
Folks in the 12th century had no trouble keeping history and romance
separate.
The given data is unambiguous. The historical Arthur, if he
existed, has no resemblence whatsoever to the romantic one.
There *IS* no history of Arthur that has come down to us.
The 12th century histories are so obviously manufactured. There
is essentially nothing in them that corresponds to anything that
happened in the 5th or 6th century.
Paul J. Gans
: In article <4j9ikl$k...@news.nyu.edu> Paul J. Gans,
: ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu writes:
: >
: >I'm not sure I understand. The "historical Arthur" has
: >nothing whatsoever to do with the "romantic Arthur", a
: >genre that dates essentially to the 12th century.
: >
: >The point that most of us keep trying to make is that there
: >is NO CONNECTION between these two folks, other than a name.
:
: between the two Arthurs if you like is not in the similarity
: of what they (supposedly) did, but in the development
: of the legends over the centuries. In fact there are many
: Arthurs - the Arthur of Welsh legend is quite different
: from the Arthur of the later Romances. Along the way, stories
: were picked up from completely different sources which
: agreed do have no connection with the historical Arthur.
: But there is some core, perhaps only slightly bigger than
: the name "Arthur" itself which has evolved from the original
: records and ballads into the Romances.
: >The "historical Arthur" was not a King, did not have a round
: >table, never heard of a Grail, was not married to Guinevere,
: >knew nobody named Lancelot, did not sponsor quests or tourneys,
: >etc. Nor did he ride around in shining armor wielding Excalibur.
: >He was, at best, a war leader in a dirty rotten no-holds-barred
: >battle with the Saxons.
:
:
: >The "romantic Arthur" is a different person entirely. He
: >certainly exists on the romantic plane and his exploits
: >(and those of his followers) continue to this very day.
: >Indeed, his best exploits quite possibly have not happened
: >yet.
: >
: >As a result, the existance or non-existance of the "historical
: >Arthur" makes not the slightest bit of difference to the
: >"romantic Arthur".
:
: was the Briton remembered most for the war with the saxons.
: If Arthur the warrior had not existed then Arthur the
: wise and benevolent king of Western Europe would probably not
: have been invented. That is all I am saying: that it seems more
: likely that the legends developed from a historical core
: (however unrelated it is to the later romances) than that
: they developed from nothing.
I agree, mostly. My point was, and is, that the "historical
core" is so small that it cannot at all bear the weight of
the later romances. And, they are all *later*, even the
Welsh ones.
Yes, there are a great variety of King Arthur legends. The
variety is still growing. Arthur is, after all, a great
stage on whom to project the romance of your choice. You
have noted, I'm sure, the salient fact about most of the
Arthurian stories: Arthur isn't really in them, except as
backdrop.
era...@delphi.com
>I doubt it quite sincerely. Most Arthurians are looking for the
>historical Arthur so that they can find a precursor for the folks
>in the legend. If they can get Arthur they feel that they can
>get Merlin as well (see the Merlin subthread for examples). Given
>Arthur can the Holy Grail be far behind (see the Grail subthread
>for example).
I am in the Arthurian Romances, which are basically 12th century Norman stories.
>No, I'm afraid that many folks DO have trouble keeping the
>two ideas apart.
>So this is the connection you are looking for. An early war
>leader named Arthur. Ok, I'll give you an early war leader
>named Arthur. Now what? Do we get to the Round Table from
>that?
from Ambrosius Aurelianus to Urien of Rheged.
- Eric
Turnerpfj
The "historical Arthur" was not a King . . .
-----------
I know this is picky, but
Arthur may not have been a "king" (in the medieval or modern sense), but
he could have been a "rex" (in a vague, late Roman sense). E.g., Aegidius
and Syragrius were awarded the title of "Rex Romanorum" when they ruled
northern Gaul in the late Fifth Century, and Gildas reports on the use of
the title "rex' in his day in Britannia (circa A.D. 540).
-----------
ALSO RE:
history constantly shifts and changes . . .
-----------
History does not shift and change; people's willingness to pursue and/or
accept history is what shifts and changes. There is a truth, and the truth
is out there.
-Pete
Stewart L Baldwin
: Given that Nennius and Gildas seem to agree that the historical
: Arthur's reign coincided with a long period of peace (after
<snip>
Gildas and Nennius agree on no such thing.
Arthur is not mentioned by Gildas.
Stewart Baldwin
Jeff Davies
>History does not shift and change; people's willingness to pursue and/or
>accept history is what shifts and changes. There is a truth, and the truth
>is out there.
>
Sorry in this case like many others the problem is that the truth is
not out there.
This is not to say that there 547AD or any other date did not happen
but there is just not enough evidence around from any source
(archaelogical; contemporary documentation etc etc) to prove whether
or not: Arthur ever existed; whether Arthur was a name or a title;
never mind what he looked liked or which battles he may or may not
have fought. Nor will there ever be.
This is a source of some personal sadness. Having a family tree that
proudly claims descent from his sister ( through Maelgwyn, Owain
Gwynedd, Rodri Mawr and his descendants), I'd be only too pleased if
someone dug up some C5 welsh hill fort and found a brooch bearing his
name. It ain't going to happen.
Jeff
Lee Gold
is in Irish myth, in the references to a spear that had to be
kept inside a cauldron or it would burst into flame. The
cauldron was full of poison and blood. (It occurred to me
awhile ago that perhaps the references to the Grail as
something that "-no man could drink from and go away hungry-"
might not refer to it as a cornucopia but be savage irony.)
Dave Nalle
Gans) wrote:
Someone remind me. What's the date of origin for the story Cylhwch and
Olwen from the Mabinogian? It seems like the only relatively early source
which presents an Arthur who is anything like what you find in later
romances.
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I write both as an individual and as a company representative
Quest for the Grail Website: http://www.ccsi.com/~graball/quest
Scriptorium Website: http://www.ccsi.com/~graball/scriptorium
Mark S. Fitton
>
> RE:
> The "historical Arthur" was not a King . . .
> -----------
>
> I know this is picky, but
> Arthur may not have been a "king" (in the medieval or modern sense), but
> he could have been a "rex" (in a vague, late Roman sense). E.g., Aegidius
> and Syragrius were awarded the title of "Rex Romanorum" when they ruled
> northern Gaul in the late Fifth Century, and Gildas reports on the use of
> the title "rex' in his day in Britannia (circa A.D. 540).
>
> -----------
> ALSO RE:
> history constantly shifts and changes . . .
> -----------
>
> accept history is what shifts and changes. There is a truth, and the truth
> is out there.
>
Pete, I assume you mean my comment that history shifts and changes. i,
of course meant that it shifts and changes depending on perspectives of
the time in which history is viewed. Certainly I didnt mean that actual
history changed. That would mean that I believed in time travel:)
Mark S. Fitton
> : > nothing whatsoever to do with the "romantic Arthur", a
> : > genre that dates essentially to the 12th century.
> : One could argue that, since histories are really the tales of various people
> : who have recorded them from their perspective, the "romantic Arthur" has
> : superseded the "historical Arthur" as the way history will be viewed. That
> : is, if in 200 years, the accepted history of Arthur is the romantic one, we
> : have to accept the theory that history constantly shifts and changes. We can
> : never know the facts, we can only surmise based on the given data.
> : Now, if we operate on the theory that history shifts and changes, we open
> : up a massive can of worms better left for another group, perhaps of a
> : philosophical bent:)
>
> I can't agree. I *will* agree that the name may well be borrowed,
> but that's it. The romances have nothing to do with history. To
> say otherwise is to claim that the various World War II novels that
> have appeared in the last 50 years are a historical "shift".
>
> Folks in the 12th century had no trouble keeping history and romance
> separate.
>
> The given data is unambiguous. The historical Arthur, if he
> existed, has no resemblence whatsoever to the romantic one.
> There *IS* no history of Arthur that has come down to us.
> The 12th century histories are so obviously manufactured. There
> is essentially nothing in them that corresponds to anything that
> happened in the 5th or 6th century.
>
> ------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
I guess the point I am making is that in several hundred years WW 2 may
well be viewed in a different mode. Similarly, who is to say that
incorrect history wont be taken for fact in the future. My entire theory
depends on the belief that history, as it is initially recorded is
subjective at best, and therefore always subject to wide
interpretations. So, depending on the mores or beliefs of any time,
history may be viewed differently, or it may appear to shift and change.
I do not argue your point about the "real" differences between the
historical and romantic Arthurs, in fact, I lament the fact that so few
of us even care about the subject matter.
Mark
"chivalry is not an option, rather it is a duty"
Paul J. Gans
: >>The "historical Arthur" was not a King, did not have a round
: >>table, never heard of a Grail, was not married to Guinevere,
: >>knew nobody named Lancelot, did not sponsor quests or tourneys,
: >>etc. Nor did he ride around in shining armor wielding Excalibur.
: >>He was, at best, a war leader in a dirty rotten no-holds-barred
: >>battle with the Saxons.
:
: Arthur's reign coincided with a long period of peace (after
: a peacemaker, perhaps a hostage taker (which might explain that
: Drustanus grave in Cornwall -- if it belonged to a Pictish
: hostage.
Sorry, neither Nennius nor Gildas refer to "Arthur" as having
a "reign". And there is nothing in them that indicates a "long
period of peace" after those ten battles. Indeed, most of the
famous ten battles cannot be identified, either as to site or
as to participants.
Thus it is not possible to conclude, with any certainty, that
Arthur was a peacemaker, a hostage taker, or an arranger of
mutually agreeable borders.
One must separate the desire to believe from the facts at hand.
Paul J. Gans
: RE:
: The "historical Arthur" was not a King . . .
: -----------
:
: I know this is picky, but
: Arthur may not have been a "king" (in the medieval or modern sense), but
: he could have been a "rex" (in a vague, late Roman sense). E.g., Aegidius
: and Syragrius were awarded the title of "Rex Romanorum" when they ruled
: northern Gaul in the late Fifth Century, and Gildas reports on the use of
: the title "rex' in his day in Britannia (circa A.D. 540).
He could have been a Chinese expatriot, too. Wishing won't
make it so. The pre-11th century information about Arthur
is VERY limited. We can't extend it by wishful thinking.
:
: -----------
: ALSO RE:
: history constantly shifts and changes . . .
: -----------
:
: History does not shift and change; people's willingness to pursue and/or
: accept history is what shifts and changes. There is a truth, and the truth
: is out there.
I agree with the general sentiment, but am doubtful about Truth
with a capital T (which you did not use, I hasten to add.)
Turnerpfj
>History does not shift and change; people's willingness to pursue and/or
>accept history is what shifts and changes. There is a truth, and the
truth
>is out there.
>
not out there.
I think you missed the point. But even so, you certainly will not find
the truth if you do not look.
Paul J. Gans
: I think the best place to look for early versions of the Grail
Which explains why the first reference to the Grail in
Arthurian literature makes it clear that the Grail is a
stone.
Paul J. Gans
: In article <4jeq2q$b...@news.nyu.edu>, ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu (Paul J.
: Gans) wrote:
:
: > Turnerpfj (turn...@eworld.com) wrote:
: > : RE:
: > : There is simply no evidence for Arthur prior to the 11th-12th century
: > : writings.
: > : ------------
: > :
: > : I should think this statement qualifies as a VAST overstatement of the
: > : arguments against the existence of an historical Arthur.
: >
: > It is an overstatement, but not vast. Would you care to
: > list the pre-11th century written evidence for Arthur. I
: > *strongly* suspect it would fit into one internet post...
:
: Someone remind me. What's the date of origin for the story Cylhwch and
: Olwen from the Mabinogian? It seems like the only relatively early source
: which presents an Arthur who is anything like what you find in later
: romances.
Unfortunately, it only exists in late versions. Its antiquity
is up for grabs. But we'd need a specialist to give us details.
Heather Rose Jones
: In article <4jeq2q$b...@news.nyu.edu>, ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu (Paul J.
: Gans) wrote:
: > It is an overstatement, but not vast. Would you care to
: > list the pre-11th century written evidence for Arthur. I
: > *strongly* suspect it would fit into one internet post...
: Someone remind me. What's the date of origin for the story Cylhwch and
: Olwen from the Mabinogian? It seems like the only relatively early source
: which presents an Arthur who is anything like what you find in later
: romances.
This is not an entirely useful question. The earliest extant manuscript
in which it appears is ca. 1300. On linguistic evidence, that version
appears to have been fixed perhaps around the late 10th century. Beyond
that, all is speculation. I would argue, however, that the Arthur you
find in the purely Welsh sources (Culhwch & Olwen; The Dream of Rhonabwy)
is a very different figure than that of the romances (including the Welsh
versions of the romances, such as Peredur, Gereint, Owein). And we're
still dealing here with a literary figure who has obviously accreted a
great deal of extraneous material to him. The Irish influences on certain
motifs and characters in Culhwch & Olwen can be clearly traced.
Untangling any clear historic "fact" from the tale would be about as
difficult as with the later romances. Different, but just as difficult.
(For a fuller discussion of the dating synopsis given above, the most
accessible source is probably the introduction to the Jones & Jones
translation of the Mabinogi.)
Heather Rose Jones
Paul J. Gans
: ------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
I blew this one big-time, folks. Major error.
The first reference, (in Chretien de Troyes) is to the Grail
as a plate. The next reference (in Wolfram von Eschenbach's
_Parsifal_), some years later, has it a stone.
Paul J. Gans
You are an exception. And I do apologize for my pedanticism,
but my experience (even on this group) indicates otherwise.
The Great Arthurian Debate goes on all over the internet. Two major
groups that have seen it are this one and sci.archaeology.
Some of us are "in it" in both groups, but we've resisted
cross-posting. There's enough of that as is.
Paul J. Gans
I've been thinking of it. But I'm not the local expert.
But I'd be glad to help.
Doug Weller
ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
> Lee Gold (lg...@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
[SNIP]
> :
> : Given that Nennius and Gildas seem to agree that the historical
> : Arthur's reign coincided with a long period of peace (after
> : those ten battles), I'd say that the historical Arthur was
> : at best someone capable of arranging mutually agreeable borders,
> : a peacemaker, perhaps a hostage taker (which might explain that
> : Drustanus grave in Cornwall -- if it belonged to a Pictish
> : hostage.
>
> Sorry, neither Nennius nor Gildas refer to "Arthur" as having
> a "reign". And there is nothing in them that indicates a "long
> period of peace" after those ten battles. Indeed, most of the
> famous ten battles cannot be identified, either as to site or
> as to participants.
>
Agreed except Paul has slipped here, he knows that Gildas
never mentions Arthur -- I've decided one common source of this
misconception must be John Morris, whose writings might easily
make someone think Gildas does mention Arthur.
--
Doug Weller
Doug Weller
ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
> Dave Forth (dfo...@kos.compulink.co.uk) wrote:
> : turn...@eworld.com (Turnerpfj) wrote:
> :
> :
> : Anybody what to do a FAQ? :-)
>
> I've been thinking of it. But I'm not the local expert.
> But I'd be glad to help.
>
> ------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
>
I'm not sure what the arthur newsgroups/mailing lists have,
if I have time I'll scan some web pages.
--
Doug Weller
James Ingram
ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) writes:
> Stella Nemeth (S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM) wrote:
[big snip]
> So this is the connection you are looking for. An early war
> leader named Arthur. Ok, I'll give you an early war leader
> named Arthur. Now what? Do we get to the Round Table from
> that?
I think that's what Stella is interested in if you read on a bit
further. The very next paragraph you quote, in fact.
> : The interest is in finding out where the romance and the history
> : intersect. No one is actually expecting to locate Camelot, but a 5th
> : Century hill fort is certainly not out of the question.
> But Stella, I thought YOU could keep the romance and the
> history separate. They *don't intersect*. Get that? There
> is NOTHING in common between a 5th century war leader and
> a 12th century king.
Except perhaps that the 5th centuary war leader might have existed
and had stories told of him right up to the 12th centuary? Now
that's an ineresction if ever I saw one.
> : It is also interesting to try to figure out how one gets from the war
> : leader in his hill fort to the King of All England at Camelot. What
> : parts of the story have roots in the truth, and which parts have no
> : such roots?
> You don't. Don't you understand? You don't. You are once
> again conflating 5th century possible history with 12th century
> romance. There are NO roots. The whole Camelot, King of All
> England thing was made up. The Saxons were not driven from
> England in the 5th century. They stayed.
I think that what Stella is trying to say here (and she may correct
me if I am wrong), is that King Arthur seems to be based on a living
person. And the interest is in trying to work out how all these
myths grew up around him. Why was he such an important figure in the
first place?
If Arthur did indeed live at one time, whether it was as a
war-leader, a king, or anything else, what we do know is that there
are lots of stories about him. This is indisputable. So *where* did
the stories come from, and *what* were their roots?
Even if somebody just sat down and made the whole thing up, that's a
*root*; and the question begs to be answered - why did they do it?
It is ridiculous to claim that the Arthurian legends have NO roots.
You cannot claim that with any more confidence than you could claim
that they were literal truth. The simple fact is that we *don't
know*, which isn't the same as knowing that there are no roots.
And if the roots exist, then so do intersections between fact and legend.
> : This is not an isolated case. The oddest parts of Homer turned out to
> : be true.
> Have you read his latest poem, the "Non-sequitur?"
Have *you* ever read any of his poems, Paul? They give some quite
colourful descriptions of places visited on Odysseus' voyage home.
And the text was probably mixed and matched and swapped around to
help the flow of the story, and to keep drama in the correct places
etc. Add to that the fact that Homer wrote down a story which had
been oral history for many hundreds of years....
Can we spot the parallel yet?
And yet Homer was writing about real events and possibly real people
(in the Illiad at least). If the siege of Troy was a real event (as
archeologists suggest) then it isn't too far-fetched to say that
Odysseus and Agammenom were real people too - who knows? Although
I'm not suggesting for a minute that Achilles was invunerable except
for his ankles, but I'm, pretty sure Eric Van Daniken (sp?) could
make something of it.
Again, the fascination with Homer is to work out how much is true,
and how much is poetic-license on the part of Homer and Homer's
forebears (damn, can't say "he", because nobody knows who *Homer* was).
Did Odysseus take 10 years to get home (7 with those nymphs), and
kill a cyclops and listen to the Sirens?
Most probably not.
But it is interesting to note that a party of sailors landed in North
Africa during the last centuary. They got all excited when they
found the skull of a one-eyed giant human. The Cyclops exists,
surely! Well, it existed right up until somebody turned it over and
found it was an elephant's skull at an odd angle. But to an ancient
Greek who had maybe never seen an elephant....
.... and who had a good hand at telling stories.... you never know.
Don't be too quick to write off legends as pure fantasy! Let us not
forget that Herodotus and others poured scorn onto some poor Greek
chappies for over 2 millenia, simply because they claimed to have
sailed so far north that "the sun never set and there was a great
wall of ice". Everyone knows - the sea is warm! (I'll look up the
passages if you're interested)
> : >As a result, the existance or non-existance of the "historical
> : >Arthur" makes not the slightest bit of difference to the
> : >"romantic Arthur".
> :
> : Perhaps we need to agree to disagree on this one? <g>
> Sure. I'll just put you down as one of those who can't separate
> history and romance. See above for evidence.
> ----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
I think she's perfectly capable of doing so, based on the evidence I've seen.
James
Joe Bernstein
(Turnerpfj) wrote:
[snip]
> Moreover, with on exception, Gildas mentions only
> contemporary rulers, and then only for the purpose of berating them for
> their sins. Gildas believed that sins by the rulers of Britannia were
> responsible for the decline of his time from the glories of an idealized
> Roman period. For example, contemporary rulers (Urien of Rheged,
> Ridderich of Strathclyde) who were not notorious sinners were not
> mentioned by Gildas.
>
> The exception is Aurelius Ambrosius, a past leader of Britannia who was
Two days ago I rather quickly reviewed the translation of Gildas in SIX
OLD ENGLISH CHRONICLES or whatever it's called. Therein, there were
references to Vortigern and Boadicea, along with a host of Roman
emperors. In fact, Arthur seems to be about the only name that *doesn't*
crop up.
So is that translation wildly erroneous, or is your statement? Assuming
that the "on exception" means "one exception" as I assume it does, and
assuming that "only contemporary rulers" does NOT mean "only
non-contemporary rulers", as your reference to Aurelius Ambrosius implies.
Genuinely curious. The translation has of course been superseded, but
it's the only one readily accessible to me, so I'd like to know if it's
that unreliable.
Joe Bernstein
PS Apologies for the extreme cross-posting. Can't this thread pick a
home? I'm seeing it in sci.archaeology, and although I'm mildly
intrigued, there doesn't seem to be much archaeology involved here.
--
Joe Bernstein, free-lance writer, bank clerk and bookstore worker
speaking for himself and nobody else j...@sfbooks.com
Joe Bernstein
it? I'm refraining from trimming the list of groups only because I've
just started tracking this thread and would feel too intrusive doing so
yet.
In article <4jenf1$b...@news.nyu.edu>, ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu (Paul J.
Gans) wrote, rather intemperately, in reply to what
> Stella Nemeth (S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM) wrote:
>
> : ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
> :
> : >Howard Wiseman (h.wi...@auckland.ac.nz) wrote:
> :
> : >[deletions]
> :
> : >:......Surely it is more likely for legends
> : >: to have grown from a historical core than for them to have grown
> : >: from nothing?
> :
> : >I'm not sure I understand. The "historical Arthur" has
> : >nothing whatsoever to do with the "romantic Arthur", a
> : >genre that dates essentially to the 12th century.
> :
> : >The point that most of us keep trying to make is that there
> : >is NO CONNECTION between these two folks, other than a name.
> :
> : The point that you seem to be missing, that the other half of this
> : conversation keeps trying to make is that there IS a connection
> : between a possible historical Arthur and the figure in the romances.
> : The second point you keep missing is that most people who are
> : interested in the subject have no problems keeping the two ideas
> : separate and straight in their heads.
>
> I doubt it quite sincerely. Most Arthurians are looking for the
> historical Arthur so that they can find a precursor for the folks
> in the legend. If they can get Arthur they feel that they can
> get Merlin as well (see the Merlin subthread for examples). Given
> Arthur can the Holy Grail be far behind (see the Grail subthread
> for example).
>
> Or are you denying that these subthreads exist?
>
> No, I'm afraid that many folks DO have trouble keeping the
> two ideas apart.
Sorry for all the quoting, but I wanted to leave this much to retain
context for what I found unreasonable in your post.
> : >The "historical Arthur" was not a King, [etc.]
> :
> : This is all quite true, but IF there was a historical Arthur, he
> : almost certainly was the primary figure responsible for a generation
> : of peace, after a series of battles. A war leader, quite obviously,
> : which is part of the romance as well.
>
> Hardly enough. There were only two types of "heros" in the
> early and high middle ages. Fighting men and saints. Arthur
> wasn't a saint....
(Oh, just trivially here. In the "high middle ages", surely that's not
so? What about Merlin, star of Geoffrey's VITA MERLINI? Which is he?)
> So this is the connection you are looking for. An early war
> leader named Arthur. Ok, I'll give you an early war leader
> named Arthur. Now what? Do we get to the Round Table from
> that?
>
> : The interest is in finding out where the romance and the history
> : intersect. No one is actually expecting to locate Camelot, but a 5th
> : Century hill fort is certainly not out of the question.
>
> But Stella, I thought YOU could keep the romance and the
> history separate. They *don't intersect*. Get that? There
> is NOTHING in common between a 5th century war leader and
> a 12th century king.
She just said what they had in common. A generation of peace. According
to a monk who says he lived through that generation, and who is known to
have lived before Bede because Bede quotes him. Maybe.
Look. I've missed most of this thread, for lack of interest as compared
with other stuff, as well as out of a sense that since there are no new
data, it'll just be another endless debate like the Atlantis ones. I'm
certainly not a Merlin cultist or something.
I am, on the other hand, acutely interested in the process by which
history becomes legend. Obviously to get any handle on that process, you
*have to* establish what the history is first. Your efforts to insist
that the history either doesn't exist, or is utterly unrelated to the
legend, amount to a declaration that the process is purely fantasy.
However, the accounts of Gildas and Nennius go a long way toward disputing
that; nor does it seem probable from random examples actually relevant to
sci.archaeology such as Mycenae, Omri, Asoka, the Shang dynasty, or that
Sumerian king whose name I forget who's supposed to be contemporary with
Gilgamesh. I mean to say: legends, by and large, seem *quite often* to
have historical basis. Whole legend cycles, in particular, don't
necesssarily spring up from thin air, and aren't necessarily pure
fantasy. (It's worth noting that Atlantis did *not* become a legend cycle
for centuries after Plato made it up. Even though, by the 3rd century AD,
there were plenty of folks out there who saw Plato's writings as Holy
Scriptures.)
Let's go back to that generation of peace, though. Certainly, the Arthur
romances of this century have returned to that central fact as much as any
other. Even a fantastical farrago like THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING could be
centrally built around trying to imagine a generation of peace,
simultaneously in a modern, a romantic-high mediaeval, and a Dark Ages
context. What that generation took, what it meant, things like that. In
that case, let alone quite a lot of more accurate though lesser books, the
central problems of the legend come directly from confronting it with
history.
I'm not crazy about the presence of neverending threads about unresolvable
pseudo-archaeological topics on sci.archaeology, and this certainly looks
like an example. But I don't see what we gain by pre-emptively saying
they're utterly useless topics.
They just aren't particularly useful in sci.archaeology.
Back up top I called your post rather intemperate. I find I've already
answered the statements you make in the following, but I'm leaving it in,
partly because Stella's comments (in the following) were entirely to the
point, but mainly to justify my word "intemperate". Please tone it down.
I've read 32 posts in this thread anyway, and have yet to see anyone
remotely at the intellectual level of the creationists you've been so
diligently and properly combating. These folks deserve rather more
respect.
Joe Bernstein
> : It is also interesting to try to figure out how one gets from the war
> : leader in his hill fort to the King of All England at Camelot. What
> : parts of the story have roots in the truth, and which parts have no
> : such roots?
>
> You don't. Don't you understand? You don't. You are once
> again conflating 5th century possible history with 12th century
> romance. There are NO roots. The whole Camelot, King of All
> England thing was made up. The Saxons were not driven from
> England in the 5th century. They stayed.
>
> : This is not an isolated case. The oddest parts of Homer turned out to
> : be true.
>
> Have you read his latest poem, the "Non-sequitur?"
>
> : >As a result, the existance or non-existance of the "historical
> : >Arthur" makes not the slightest bit of difference to the
> : >"romantic Arthur".
> :
> : Perhaps we need to agree to disagree on this one? <g>
>
> Sure. I'll just put you down as one of those who can't separate
> history and romance. See above for evidence.
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Heather Rose Jones
: >
: > Folks in the 12th century had no trouble keeping history and romance
: > separate.
(I believe I have that attribution straight -- please forgive me if I do
not.)
I think there is a fair amount of evidence that 12th century folks _did_
have trouble keeping history and romance straight. I did a paper recently
on the linguistic commentaries of Giraldus Cambrensis (late 12th century)
who concludes an astoundingly ahead-of-his-time discussion of the
distribution of "h" and "s" in various Indo-european cognate words for
"salt" by explaining that the reason Welsh, like Greek, begins the word
with "h" while everyone else begins it with "s" has to do with the time
the Britons (led by Brutus) spent in Greece on their flight from Troy.
Giraldus had a very mixed attitude toward Geoffrey of Monmouth's writings
in print; sometimes quoting him directly and accepting his claims as
truth, elsewhere scorning him for his fanciful claims. Giraldus could be
astoundingly skeptical at times, if his personal experience contradicted
"received authority", but in matters where personal experience had no
bearing, he was quite willing to believe romanticized history.
Giraldus is only one example, but the evidence suggests that he _did_
confuse history and romance, and if anything, I'd say he was more
skeptical than most.
Heather Rose Jones
John Chapman
<gra...@infinity.ccsi.com> writes
>
>Someone remind me. What's the date of origin for the story Cylhwch and
>Olwen from the Mabinogian? It seems like the only relatively early
source
>which presents an Arthur who is anything like what you find in later
>romances.
--
John Chapman
jo...@purley.demon.co.uk
John Chapman
<ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> writes
>
>: It is also interesting to try to figure out how one gets from the war
>: leader in his hill fort to the King of All England at Camelot. What
>: parts of the story have roots in the truth, and which parts have no
>: such roots?
>
>You don't. Don't you understand? You don't. You are once
>again conflating 5th century possible history with 12th century
>romance. There are NO roots. The whole Camelot, King of All
>England thing was made up. The Saxons were not driven from
>England in the 5th century. They stayed.
>
Most romances started and have their roots in folk-history. The idea
that someone sat down and just made them up is to my way of thinking
quite unreasonable. This is not to say that the romances were not
embroidered and different people attributed to the same deed.
What is equally definitive is that what happened over the 5th to 7th
centuries was not the conquest of a Celtic people by a Teutonic people.
Rather it was an invasion of a Romano-British culture by a Germanic
culture whereby the language of the invaders supplanted the mixed Latin
and Welsh of the inhabitants and a reversion to a more agrarian and
simpler society which did not need the technology upon which the Romano-
British society had been built.
Genetic studies have demonstrated that by the 8th century almost all the
genes of the Saxons had disappeared or rather had been diluted by Celtic
genes. When such a transformation took place you would naturally expect
heroic figures to have been transmitted through oral and written means.
In actual fact we have almost no surviving literary material other than
a few charters, ecclesiastical and legal documents. Almost everything we
have is a copy made much later than the 11th century and there are
plenty of references to books now lost.
As Stella has said - searching out the roots of the romances is where
the fun is. To deny the existence of roots is unsustainable.
>
--
John Chapman
jo...@purley.demon.co.uk
Turnerpfj
It is of this Arthur
that the Britons fondly tell so many fables,
even to the present day -
a man worthy to be celebrated not by idle fictions,
but by authentic history.
William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Regum Anglorum
circa A.D. 1125
-Pete
Dave Forth
>Two days ago I rather quickly reviewed the translation of Gildas in SIX
>OLD ENGLISH CHRONICLES or whatever it's called. Therein, there were
>references to Vortigern and Boadicea, along with a host of Roman
>emperors. In fact, Arthur seems to be about the only name that *doesn't*
>crop up.
>
>So is that translation wildly erroneous, or is your statement?
>Genuinely curious. The translation has of course been superseded, but
>it's the only one readily accessible to me, so I'd like to know if it's
>that unreliable.
It sound exceedingly dubious. Gilda does not mention Boadicea by name
but of a teacherous lioness which is assumed to be her. A quick scan of
the index show about six Roman Emperors. The general frustration with
Gildas is the fact he did not identify many people of the times he wrote
about.
Dave
St. Ives, England
Curt Symansky
>Howard Wiseman <h.wi...@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>>In article <31574c04...@news.iconz.co.nz> Eric Flesch,
>>er...@central.co.nz writes:
>>>>>There is simply no evidence for Arthur prior to the 11th-12th century
>>>>>writings.
>>>>
>>>>Again, this is not true. The Historia Brittonum by Nennius is agreed
>>>>by almost all to have been compiled in the 9th century. Of course
>>>>this does not prove that what it says about Arthur is history rather
>>>>than legend, but it is definitely pre 11th century.
>I seem to recall the earliest surviving copy of Nennius is from
>11th-12th century. The brief mentions of Arthur could easily have been
>added at this date.
>Dave
>St. Ives, England
In some books on Arthur I've come across mention of a poem called "Gododdin"
which some people date at c. 600. Supposedly this Scottish poem mentions
(very very briefly) the great warrior Arthur and his great heroism. Now if
this date is correct, and I have no idea if it is or isn't, then it means that
at least the legend of Arthur was begining to form well before the 11th
century. Anyone know of the accuracy of this alleged date, or is this just
another medieval romantic fiction? One book I recall talks briefly about it
as the "Gododdin" poem from the Canu Aneiren (The Book of Aneirien). This
book also claims that Gododdin takes its name from the latin appelation of the
Votadini tribe of the Edinburgh area of Scotland.
--
Curt Symansky
cu...@castle1.ultranet.com
Curt Symansky
>Apologies for all the cross-posting. Is there any particular reason for
>it? I'm refraining from trimming the list of groups only because I've
>just started tracking this thread and would feel too intrusive doing so
>yet.
>[snip]
About cross posting. My ISP doesn't carry the alt.legend.king.arthur news
group (and some others) because they say that it wasn't created according to
the proper rules of newsgroup creation (?). This is odd because they do get
most of the other alt groups. They also won't tell you which groups are
missing (yes maybe I should find a new ISP). In any case, I do get
soc.history.medieval, so any cross posts from alt.legend.king.arthur are
welcome by me.
--
Curt Symansky
cu...@castle1.ultranet.com
Heather Rose Jones
: In some books on Arthur I've come across mention of a poem called "Gododdin"
: which some people date at c. 600. Supposedly this Scottish poem mentions
: (very very briefly) the great warrior Arthur and his great heroism. Now if
: this date is correct, and I have no idea if it is or isn't, then it means that
: at least the legend of Arthur was begining to form well before the 11th
: century. Anyone know of the accuracy of this alleged date, or is this just
: another medieval romantic fiction? One book I recall talks briefly about it
: as the "Gododdin" poem from the Canu Aneiren (The Book of Aneirien). This
The poem in question refers to events of the 6th century, but the
earliest surviving manuscript we have of it dates to the 13th century.
That isn't the whole story -- on linguistic evidence, this version
appears to have been fixed in its current form around the 9th century.
Many debates rage as to the date of original composition and how
drastically it may have been changed in various stages of transmission.
The one (count 'em, one) reference to Arthur in the text is unlikely to
have been a late addition, as the name carries the main rhyme of the
stanza, however one prominent theory on the poem is that it contains some
very old core material and a certain amount of later
"works-in-the-style-of" additions.
The reference to Arthur itself isn't enough to hang much weight on. It is:
gochore brein du ar uur caer ceni bei ef arthur
"he fed black ravens on the castle wall, although he was not arthur"
Heather Rose Jones
Heather Rose Jones
: John Chapman <jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: [bits missed out]
: >Genetic studies have demonstrated that by the 8th century almost all the
: >genes of the Saxons had disappeared or rather had been diluted by Celtic
: >genes.
: can you give me the references to this ?
: it confirms my own suspicions from linguistic grounds: some core words
: in English such as 'dad', 'mam/mom', 'brat'=brother come from Welsh;
It isn't quite that straight forward. Most Indo-European languages have
parallel sets of mother/father words -- one the "formal" word
(represented in English by "mother" and "father") and one a reduplicated
"baby-talk" (to use an unscientific term) version, with the "mother" word
using a nasal (most often "m" as in "mama", but also sometimes "n" as in
"nana/nanny") and the "father" word using either the initial letter of
the formal word (e.g. "papa" < "pater" et al.) or an apical stop ("tata"
in various slavic languages, "dad(a)" in English). What is interesting in
the case of Welsh, is that the "formal" cognates dropped out of use,
leaving only the "baby-talk" versions: "tad" and "mam". (Although the
root of the "mother" cognate can be seen in "modryb" (aunt) and the
"formal" cognates are in active use in the Goidelic languages.) In the
case of "brat", the jury still seems to be out. The OED suggests a Welsh
origin, but not from the "brother" word, rather from "brat" meaning "a
cloth, a covering" by some unknown train of logic.
: the preponderance of place names ending in 'ton' and use of the word
: 'town' reflect British/protoWelsh usage (preponderance of preconquest
: names ending in 'dun') rather than continental Low Saxon usage;
Except that the clear examples we have of Anglo-Saxon borrowing of Brythonic
place names using "dun" clearly keep the voiced nature of the initial
consonant (e.g. Dunchideock, Dinwiddie, Dinmore, Dinedor) or reduce the
element entirely (e.g. "Camulodunum" > "Colne"+ceastr) or replace the
element with something entirely different (e.g. "Sorviodunum" >
"Searo"+byrg) while the early examples of "-ton" place names clearly have
the unvoiced consonant.
It's an interesting theory, but it doesn't really hold up linguistically.
Heather Rose Jones
John Chapman
<er...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>John Chapman <jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[bits missed out]
>>Genetic studies have demonstrated that by the 8th century almost all the
>>genes of the Saxons had disappeared or rather had been diluted by Celtic
>>genes.
>[bits missed out]
>
>can you give me the references to this ?
Initially look up 'British Archaeology' of December 1995. The article
was by Dr Heinrich Härke of Reading University. What he has been doing
is examining genetic remains from graves of the period and tracing the
genetic patterns.
>it confirms my own suspicions from linguistic grounds: some core words
>in English such as 'dad', 'mam/mom', 'brat'=brother come from Welsh;
>the preponderance of place names ending in 'ton' and use of the word
>'town' reflect British/protoWelsh usage (preponderance of preconquest
>names ending in 'dun') rather than continental Low Saxon usage; Middle
>English (the successor to the unwritten language of Dark Age peasants
>and not to the written language of Anglo-saxon ltterati) appears to
>share grammatical elements with Welsh rather than Anglo-saxon or
>continental german dialects)
One can actually go much further with this. There is a popular study of
English place names which attempts to ascribe 'meaning' to place names
based upon Saxon linguistic characteristics. You can often get a much
better sense if you adopt the premise that in Celtic times place names
were on the whole topgraphic descriptions. Then when the Saxons arrived
they transliterated these words into Saxon-sounding names, in much the
same way as the British troops in the first world war translitered Ypres
into Wipers. Thus for example instead of Reading being the ingas of
Readas people one gets Rhyddau yn Glyn The fords joined together which
neatly describes the double crossing of the Kennet and Thames Rivers.
>
>On the other hand how does it square with the obvious fact that people
>in Eastern England are blonder than those in other parts of England?
>
Have you forgotten Danelaw? Eastern England was where the Danes settled
in vast numbers from the 9th to 10th centuries.
>
>ps I've continued the cross-posting in the thread even though I
>dislike it lest there are some people posting in this thread who do
>not subscribe to alt.legend.king-arthur.
>Ned
Sorry I do not subscribe to any alt. newsgroups.
--
John Chapman
jo...@purley.demon.co.uk
WBCassidy
>>the genes of the Saxons had disappeared or rather had been diluted by
>>Celtic genes.
:can you give me the references to this ?
>Initially look up 'British Archaeology' of December 1995. The article
>was by Dr Heinrich Hrke of Reading University. What he has been doing
>is examining genetic remains from graves of the period and tracing the
>genetic patterns.
Very interesting ... if it's scientifically plausible that genetic remains
can be collected and examined from 4th to 8th century graves. Even so,
would one be able to collect a large enough sample of genetic material
from various types of graves to sustain such a sweeping conclusion?
I'd be glad to learn more about this (It's certainly not my area of
expertise), but I admit that I'm suspicious of so-called "genetic"
evidence (mainly because of the term has been misused and abused so much
... )
We can always turn to the linguistic and historical evidence that still
exists -- there is enough to indicate that in many parts of eastern
Britain the early English conquered and absorbed a large
Romano-British/Celtic population, which was gradually assimilated.
-- Liam O Caiside (WBCa...@aol.com)
William B. Cassidy <WBCa...@aol.com>
Dick Wisan
james....@zetnet.co.uk (James Ingram) writes:
>In message <4jenf1$b...@news.nyu.edu>
> ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) writes:
>
>> Stella Nemeth (S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM) wrote:
>
>[big snip]
>
>> So this is the connection you are looking for. An early war
>> leader named Arthur. Ok, I'll give you an early war leader
>> named Arthur. Now what? Do we get to the Round Table from
>> that?
>
>I think that's what Stella is interested in if you read on a bit
>further. The very next paragraph you quote, in fact.
>
>> : The interest is in finding out where the romance and the history
>> : intersect. No one is actually expecting to locate Camelot, but a 5th
>> : Century hill fort is certainly not out of the question.
>
>> But Stella, I thought YOU could keep the romance and the
>> history separate. They *don't intersect*. Get that? There
>> is NOTHING in common between a 5th century war leader and
>> a 12th century king.
>
>Except perhaps that the 5th centuary war leader might have existed
>and had stories told of him right up to the 12th centuary? Now
>that's an ineresction if ever I saw one...
The trouble is, the more elaborated and mixed with other material
the stories get, the less clear it is that they're "really" _about_
him at all. You wouldn't want to say, for example, that what's
important about Malory is what he tells us about Arthur, the war
leader in the hill fort. Suppose, for instance, it turns out that
the original Arthur was actually a real, historical bear? Would
that change the nature and meaning of the stories?
Is it fair, perhaps, to compare the stories about Arthur with the
similar stories about Charlemagne? Charlemagne is not a murky figure
out of a dimly known period, and the poets had much less time to mix
and match him. May I ask now, in honest ignorance, how much of the
Chanson de Roland is true? Is there a real, historical Roland --and
the other 11 peers? Is Roland the same (real historical) person as
Orlando Furioso?
The relation ought to be less murky here. To what extent is it
reasonable to say these stories are about "the historical Charlemagne"?
And, of course, how much does our knowledge of Charlemagne explain
what's important in the stories?
Now, does this help clarify what the issues are or am I only making
it worse?
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: internet WIS...@hartwick.edu
- Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
- Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
Pat Zalewski
Italy where a sword is embeded in stone since 1100 AD. It concerned a Knight
named Galgano Guidotti who was shown the error of his ways by the archangel
Michael. He told the archangel that he could no easier change his ways than to
place his sword in a large stone. He demonstrated this and to his astonishment
the sword slid easily into the stone, or so the legend says. The Knight
eventually became a saint -by the Pope Lucius III. I often wondered with such
a treasure why there are no scientific papers (to the best of my knowledge) on
the subject. The sword is still there today near the Galgano Abbey and is kept
as a sort of shrine.
Peter C-B
hrj...@uclink.berkeley.edu (Heather Rose Jones) wrote:
> [...]
> : Someone remind me. What's the date of origin for the story Cylhwch and
> : Olwen from the Mabinogian? It seems like the only relatively early source
> This is not an entirely useful question. The earliest extant manuscript
> appears to have been fixed perhaps around the late 10th century. Beyond
> versions of the romances, such as Peredur, Gereint, Owein). And we're
> still dealing here with a literary figure who has obviously accreted a
> great deal of extraneous material to him. The Irish influences on certain
> motifs and characters in Culhwch & Olwen can be clearly traced.
ISTM that the above contribution comes closer to the origin of the
legends than any previous ones in this thread. In spite of the lateness
of most Arthurian material, the basic motifs are evidently ancient and
archetypal, and appear to originate in Celtic mythology. The story of
Culhwch and Olwen is a case in point. Regardless of the date of earliest
documentation, or even of the 10th century version, the story bears
hallmarks of a much earlier origin. The same can be said of such stories
as that of Gawain and the Green `Knight', which has its origin in
fertility myth, medieval embellishments having been affixed later.
Peter C-B
Bill Bedford
hrj...@uclink.berkeley.edu (Heather Rose Jones) wrote:
~ Ned Ramm (er...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
~ : John Chapman <jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
~ : [bits missed out]
~ : >Genetic studies have demonstrated that by the 8th century almost all
the
~ : >genes of the Saxons had disappeared or rather had been diluted by
Celtic
~ : >genes.
~ : [bits missed out]
~
~ : can you give me the references to this ?
~ : it confirms my own suspicions from linguistic grounds: some core words
~ : in English such as 'dad', 'mam/mom', 'brat'=brother come from Welsh;
~
~ It isn't quite that straight forward. Most Indo-European languages have
~ parallel sets of mother/father words -- one the "formal" word
~ (represented in English by "mother" and "father") and one a reduplicated
~ "baby-talk" (to use an unscientific term) version, with the "mother" word
~ using a nasal (most often "m" as in "mama", but also sometimes "n" as in
~ "nana/nanny") and the "father" word using either the initial letter of
~ the formal word (e.g. "papa" < "pater" et al.) or an apical stop ("tata"
~ in various slavic languages, "dad(a)" in English).
My understanding is that the use of 'dad', especially in the East of
England, only became common after the Industrial Revolution. Before then
'pop' or 'pa' was more usual
Harry Flashman
:
: Very interesting ... if it's scientifically plausible that genetic remains
: can be collected and examined from 4th to 8th century graves. Even so,
: would one be able to collect a large enough sample of genetic material
: from various types of graves to sustain such a sweeping conclusion?
:
: I'd be glad to learn more about this (It's certainly not my area of
: expertise), but I admit that I'm suspicious of so-called "genetic"
: evidence (mainly because of the term has been misused and abused so much
: ... )
As a biochemist and molecular biologist, I can say that it is indeed
plausible. There are several technigues for ampliphing small quantities of
DNA through the Polymerase Chain Reaction. It's complicated, but
essentially you can re-create large quantities of a specific genes
through a relatively simple enzymatic reaction. This technique is not
rare, not hard to do, and is recognised as in courts as evidence (it is
used as a step in the same DNA testing technique for murder trials). The
only thing to be aware of is comtamination of the original sample. I
should point out that the oldest DNA samples proven as such, is millions
of years old, and from fossilized lotus leaf.
It should be possible to isolate a specific gene shared by both
populations and then compare them to each other. For instance, it is
possible to indentify a person's racial heritage by looking at certain
DNA sequences that have evolved slightly differently between populations.
The FBI currently has a database of these "polymorphic" regions of DNA for
typing suspects.
By examining the same gene in a population of Saxons, and a Population of
Celts, and then examining any changes over time in this gene's sequence
you could determine if the gene became predominately from one race or
another.
I should point out that both fingerprinting and Carbon dating, which both
have their own inherent chances for error, where considered suspicious
when they were first revealed. And that in examining all three techniques
DNA testing in general has the smallest margin of error.
Scott
David Byrden
>In article <4jmj1h$7...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>hrj...@uclink.berkeley.edu (Heather Rose Jones) wrote:
>
>~ Ned Ramm (er...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
>~ : John Chapman <jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>~ : >Genetic studies have demonstrated that by the 8th century almost all
>the
>~ : >genes of the Saxons had disappeared or rather had been diluted by
>Celtic
>~ : >genes.
Sounds very unlikely to me. Linguistic studies show that the
English language (before William and his bunch came over to become the
Upper Classes) had extremely few Welsh (Bretonnic) words in it, and these
were mostly place names; this is characteristic of a people who have
severely defeated and destroyed another, not interbred with them. Further
evidence for this scenario comes from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles from
which I quote "never was there so much blood spilt in this island" as it
reels off the names of districts "taken from" the Welsh. Furthermore,
Welsh people LOOK different.
David
Lee Gold
>: is in Irish myth, in the references to a spear that had to be
>: kept inside a cauldron or it would burst into flame. The
>: cauldron was full of poison and blood. (It occurred to me
>: awhile ago that perhaps the references to the Grail as
>: something that "-no man could drink from and go away hungry-"
>: might not refer to it as a cornucopia but be savage irony.)
>
>Which explains why the first reference to the Grail in
>Arthurian literature makes it clear that the Grail is a
>stone.
to the Grail in Arthurian literature"?
>
Paul J. Gans
: In message <4jenf1$b...@news.nyu.edu>
: ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) writes:
:
: > Stella Nemeth (S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM) wrote:
:
: [big snip]
:
: > So this is the connection you are looking for. An early war
: > leader named Arthur. Ok, I'll give you an early war leader
: > named Arthur. Now what? Do we get to the Round Table from
: > that?
:
: I think that's what Stella is interested in if you read on a bit
: further. The very next paragraph you quote, in fact.
Ok, I'll wait.
: > : The interest is in finding out where the romance and the history
: > : intersect. No one is actually expecting to locate Camelot, but a 5th
: > : Century hill fort is certainly not out of the question.
:
: > But Stella, I thought YOU could keep the romance and the
: > history separate. They *don't intersect*. Get that? There
: > is NOTHING in common between a 5th century war leader and
: > a 12th century king.
:
: Except perhaps that the 5th centuary war leader might have existed
: and had stories told of him right up to the 12th centuary? Now
: that's an ineresction if ever I saw one.
How so? IF those stories came down to the 12th century, they sure
got lost there. And that would be strange, if your hypothesis is
correct. If the "true" stories existed in 1100, they almost certainly
would be available today.
So it remains a reach, not an intersection.
: > : It is also interesting to try to figure out how one gets from the war
: > : leader in his hill fort to the King of All England at Camelot. What
: > : parts of the story have roots in the truth, and which parts have no
: > : such roots?
:
: > You don't. Don't you understand? You don't. You are once
: > again conflating 5th century possible history with 12th century
: > romance. There are NO roots. The whole Camelot, King of All
: > England thing was made up. The Saxons were not driven from
: > England in the 5th century. They stayed.
:
: I think that what Stella is trying to say here (and she may correct
: me if I am wrong), is that King Arthur seems to be based on a living
: person. And the interest is in trying to work out how all these
: myths grew up around him. Why was he such an important figure in the
: first place?
Yes, but she says that WITHOUT any evidence and in spite of
her claim that we can keep the "historical" Arthur and the
"romance" Arthur separate. You seem to be arguing that the
one is based on the other. But you too have given no evidence.
: If Arthur did indeed live at one time, whether it was as a
: war-leader, a king, or anything else, what we do know is that there
: are lots of stories about him. This is indisputable. So *where* did
: the stories come from, and *what* were their roots?
There are almost NO stories about him. As a challenge, name one
story (other than the bald recitals given by the pre-Geoffrey
folks).
The stories I think you are talking about were all written in the
12th century or later. And they sprang from the minds of literarily
fertile folks.
: Even if somebody just sat down and made the whole thing up, that's a
: *root*; and the question begs to be answered - why did they do it?
:
: It is ridiculous to claim that the Arthurian legends have NO roots.
: You cannot claim that with any more confidence than you could claim
: that they were literal truth. The simple fact is that we *don't
: know*, which isn't the same as knowing that there are no roots.
:
: And if the roots exist, then so do intersections between fact and legend.
The stories were made up because they were great yarns. Still are,
for that matter. I have it on inside information that they were
recited one night at the Count's Castle in Champagne, on a dark and
stormy night when MTV was off the air. They were so well received
that the Countess asked that they be written down. And they were.
As to roots, my best serious guess is the Newt Gingrich factor. You
see, knighthood had fallen on tough times back there in 1150 or so.
No quests, little honor, mostly work for pay. Oh, the women still
flirted with you (and sometimes more) but your chances of fame and
fortune were small. Now back in the Good-Old-Days when knightly
values were still in the world, knights could be knights and men
could be men. In fact, it reminds me of a story. It came to pass
that good Sir Rilbard, slowly heading toward Camelot and the feast,
happened upon a maiden in distress...
Oh yeah, my story had roots too.
: > : This is not an isolated case. The oddest parts of Homer turned out to
: > : be true.
:
: > Have you read his latest poem, the "Non-sequitur?"
:
: Have *you* ever read any of his poems, Paul? They give some quite
: colourful descriptions of places visited on Odysseus' voyage home.
: And the text was probably mixed and matched and swapped around to
: help the flow of the story, and to keep drama in the correct places
: etc. Add to that the fact that Homer wrote down a story which had
: been oral history for many hundreds of years....
:
: Can we spot the parallel yet?
:
: And yet Homer was writing about real events and possibly real people
: (in the Illiad at least). If the siege of Troy was a real event (as
: archeologists suggest) then it isn't too far-fetched to say that
: Odysseus and Agammenom were real people too - who knows? Although
: I'm not suggesting for a minute that Achilles was invunerable except
: for his ankles, but I'm, pretty sure Eric Van Daniken (sp?) could
: make something of it.
:
: Again, the fascination with Homer is to work out how much is true,
: and how much is poetic-license on the part of Homer and Homer's
: forebears (damn, can't say "he", because nobody knows who *Homer* was).
I'll save you the trouble. NONE of the Arthurian opus happened in
the fifth century. Everything about it is wrong. Everything.
The landscape of the Arthurian stories is medieval, not late
Briton.
By the way, have you tried the Aneaid on for historical accuracy?
How about Geoffrey. He's got giants too.
: Did Odysseus take 10 years to get home (7 with those nymphs), and
: kill a cyclops and listen to the Sirens?
: Most probably not.
:
: But it is interesting to note that a party of sailors landed in North
: Africa during the last centuary. They got all excited when they
: found the skull of a one-eyed giant human. The Cyclops exists,
: surely! Well, it existed right up until somebody turned it over and
: found it was an elephant's skull at an odd angle. But to an ancient
: Greek who had maybe never seen an elephant....
: .... and who had a good hand at telling stories.... you never know.
:
: Don't be too quick to write off legends as pure fantasy! Let us not
: forget that Herodotus and others poured scorn onto some poor Greek
: chappies for over 2 millenia, simply because they claimed to have
: sailed so far north that "the sun never set and there was a great
: wall of ice". Everyone knows - the sea is warm! (I'll look up the
: passages if you're interested)
I'm aware of this. But none of this has any bearing on the
matter at hand.
: > : >As a result, the existance or non-existance of the "historical
: > : >Arthur" makes not the slightest bit of difference to the
: > : >"romantic Arthur".
: > :
: > : Perhaps we need to agree to disagree on this one? <g>
:
: > Sure. I'll just put you down as one of those who can't separate
: > history and romance. See above for evidence.
:
: > ----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
:
: I think she's perfectly capable of doing so, based on the evidence I've seen.
: James
What? After writing a very long post proving that you feel the
two are interconnected?
And you're one of the saner Arthurians I've run into.
Paul J. Gans
: Apologies for all the cross-posting. Is there any particular reason for
: it? I'm refraining from trimming the list of groups only because I've
: just started tracking this thread and would feel too intrusive doing so
: yet.
Agreed.
[massive deletions]
: Look. I've missed most of this thread, for lack of interest as compared
: with other stuff, as well as out of a sense that since there are no new
: data, it'll just be another endless debate like the Atlantis ones. I'm
: certainly not a Merlin cultist or something.
: I am, on the other hand, acutely interested in the process by which
: history becomes legend. Obviously to get any handle on that process, you
: *have to* establish what the history is first. Your efforts to insist
: that the history either doesn't exist, or is utterly unrelated to the
: legend, amount to a declaration that the process is purely fantasy.
: However, the accounts of Gildas and Nennius go a long way toward disputing
: that;
No they don't. That's exactly the point. Gildas never mentions Arthur.
Nennius gives a few attributes (fighting leader) and lists twelve
(or is it 10, it's late here folks and the brain is mostly asleep)
battles that "Arthur" fought.
This is hardly evidence.
Then there is essentially nothing for about 500 years.
There is some tantalizing Welsh evidence in poetry which,
unfortunately, seems to have been written down around 1000 or
later. The contents of the poems seem to be earlier, but not
*much* earlier.
How is this going "a long way toward disputing that;"?
: nor does it seem probable from random examples actually relevant to
: sci.archaeology such as Mycenae, Omri, Asoka, the Shang dynasty, or that
: Sumerian king whose name I forget who's supposed to be contemporary with
: Gilgamesh. I mean to say: legends, by and large, seem *quite often* to
: have historical basis. Whole legend cycles, in particular, don't
: necesssarily spring up from thin air, and aren't necessarily pure
: fantasy.
I agree. I even agree that it is likely that there was a
"historical" Arthur. I've never denied it. What I have been
insisting on is that there is no connection between the "historical"
Arthur and the "romantic" Arthur of the 12th century tales.
The little we have that can be attributed to the "historical"
Arthur shows him as a fighting man (not a king) in a world
torn by continuous strife. In the romances Arthur *almost*
disappears. He is present at the start and at the end. Beyond
that, he's a stage prop. We essentially never see him on a
quest, we never see him as the belegared leader of a people,
indeed, we almost never see him in a fight at all. He could
be Father Christmas for 90% of the Arthurian tales and it
wouldn't make a heap of difference.
: (It's worth noting that Atlantis did *not* become a legend cycle
: for centuries after Plato made it up. Even though, by the 3rd century AD,
: there were plenty of folks out there who saw Plato's writings as Holy
: Scriptures.)
:
: Let's go back to that generation of peace, though. Certainly, the Arthur
: romances of this century have returned to that central fact as much as any
: other. Even a fantastical farrago like THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING could be
: centrally built around trying to imagine a generation of peace,
: simultaneously in a modern, a romantic-high mediaeval, and a Dark Ages
: context. What that generation took, what it meant, things like that. In
: that case, let alone quite a lot of more accurate though lesser books, the
: central problems of the legend come directly from confronting it with
: history.
:
: I'm not crazy about the presence of neverending threads about unresolvable
: pseudo-archaeological topics on sci.archaeology, and this certainly looks
: like an example. But I don't see what we gain by pre-emptively saying
: they're utterly useless topics.
:
: They just aren't particularly useful in sci.archaeology.
I agree.
By the way, the majority of Arthurian scholars take my view. Or,
more accurately, I take their view. The romances are separate from
the history. That's been my point. And nobody has found any real
evidence to the contrary.
I'm not against looking for the historical Arthur, just so long as
folks realize that finding him will throw NO light on the romances.
: Back up top I called your post rather intemperate. I find I've already
: answered the statements you make in the following, but I'm leaving it in,
: partly because Stella's comments (in the following) were entirely to the
: point, but mainly to justify my word "intemperate". Please tone it down.
: I've read 32 posts in this thread anyway, and have yet to see anyone
: remotely at the intellectual level of the creationists you've been so
: diligently and properly combating. These folks deserve rather more
: respect.
You are right. I *do* get a bit hot about this topic. It
comes up ALL THE TIME. It is going on right now in another
newsgroup and in a mailing list. It does, in fact, never end.
[even more deletions]
Paul J. Gans
: In article <4jenf1$b...@news.nyu.edu>, "Paul J. Gans"
: <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> writes
:
: >
: >: It is also interesting to try to figure out how one gets from the war
: >: leader in his hill fort to the King of All England at Camelot. What
: >: parts of the story have roots in the truth, and which parts have no
: >: such roots?
: >
: >You don't. Don't you understand? You don't. You are once
: >again conflating 5th century possible history with 12th century
: >romance. There are NO roots. The whole Camelot, King of All
: >England thing was made up. The Saxons were not driven from
: >England in the 5th century. They stayed.
: >
:
: Most romances started and have their roots in folk-history. The idea
: that someone sat down and just made them up is to my way of thinking
: quite unreasonable. This is not to say that the romances were not
: embroidered and different people attributed to the same deed.
:
: What is equally definitive is that what happened over the 5th to 7th
: centuries was not the conquest of a Celtic people by a Teutonic people.
: Rather it was an invasion of a Romano-British culture by a Germanic
: culture whereby the language of the invaders supplanted the mixed Latin
: and Welsh of the inhabitants and a reversion to a more agrarian and
: simpler society which did not need the technology upon which the Romano-
: British society had been built.
: heroic figures to have been transmitted through oral and written means.
:
: In actual fact we have almost no surviving literary material other than
: a few charters, ecclesiastical and legal documents. Almost everything we
: have is a copy made much later than the 11th century and there are
: plenty of references to books now lost.
:
: As Stella has said - searching out the roots of the romances is where
: the fun is. To deny the existence of roots is unsustainable.
You miss my point. I am not denying the historical Arthur
the right to exist. What I am saying is that the romances
of the 12th century have nothing realistic to do with that
Arthur.
I suspect that you'd agree with that.
How did this come about? My opinion is that the name was
kept alive as the name of a strong fighting man. Stories
accrued to that name. This often happens.
By the 12th century knighthood was in trouble. Knights
worked for pay. Folks longed for the good old days. I'm
sure that some people began telling stories about the good
old days when men were men and a strong hero could win a
barony. And to frame these stories there was, well, Arthur.
If one examines the actual stories, one finds that they deal
with 12th century concerns and 12th century mores, not those
of the 5th century. If there had been any detailed survivals
of ancient poems, bits and pieces would have shown through.
Paul J. Gans
: >make it so. The pre-11th century information about Arthur
: >is VERY limited. We can't extend it by wishful thinking.
:
: We can extend it by digging in the ground.
Agreed. I'm not at all against archaeology.
Paul J. Gans
Yes, I overstated that. But we're dealing with a different
situation here. Did Chretien de Troyes have any trouble when
he was writing down Yvain? I strongly suspect he did not think
he was writing history.
That's what I meant.
Paul J. Gans
: Perhaps this can be the last word (for now) on this subject:
Pete: Yes, but this is not a pre-11th century reference to
Arthur. Nor does it give us any evidence about that Arthur.
As I've posted previously, I've got no objection to a historical
Arthur. What I'm objecting to is looking for historical roots
for the 12th century (and later) Arthurian stories. I stress
*historical roots*, not legendary ones.
Turnerpfj
William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Regum Anglorum
Yes, obviously he wrote in the
Turnerpfj
William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Regum Anglorum
---------
older sources, and (2) in this, and elsewhere, he (like Venerable Bede)
was quite able to (and skilled at) separating history from fable.
It is very important when dealing with sources to consider their provence,
but very few original sources survive from ancient times. We get copies
of copies - hopefully with a minimum of in tranmsit editting. To apply th
standard that nothing genuinely original will be considered as evidence
would make it hard to prove the historicity of Julius Caesar, let alone
Hannibaal.
I would trust William or Bede before I would the network news! (Only
half-joking!)
-Pete
Stella Nemeth
>>> Stella Nemeth (S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM) wrote:
>>Except perhaps that the 5th centuary war leader might have existed
>>and had stories told of him right up to the 12th centuary? Now
>>that's an ineresction if ever I saw one...
>
>The trouble is, the more elaborated and mixed with other material
>the stories get, the less clear it is that they're "really" _about_
>him at all. You wouldn't want to say, for example, that what's
>important about Malory is what he tells us about Arthur, the war
>leader in the hill fort.
Arthur is the subject of Malory's book, but it isn't what is important
about Malory or even Malory's book. There are three things going on
here. There is the archaeological search for facts about the 5th
Century, which includes a search for the real persons who lived in
that time and place. There is the interest in how folk tales, oral
traditions and early literary traditions turned into the Matter of
Britain. And there is the literary interest in the French poets,
Malory and the people after them who used the Arthur cycle to create
literature.
>Suppose, for instance, it turns out that
>the original Arthur was actually a real, historical bear? Would
>that change the nature and meaning of the stories?
Only the very early ones. <g>
>Is it fair, perhaps, to compare the stories about Arthur with the
>similar stories about Charlemagne? Charlemagne is not a murky figure
>out of a dimly known period, and the poets had much less time to mix
>and match him. May I ask now, in honest ignorance, how much of the
>Chanson de Roland is true? Is there a real, historical Roland --and
>the other 11 peers? Is Roland the same (real historical) person as
>Orlando Furioso?
One of the things these two subjects have in common is that they were
two of the three traditional subjects for poetry in the middle ages.
You could discuss Britain, or France or Troy. The reality was that
they talked about other things too.
As for your questions, I don't have the answers. Considering the
cross postings on this thread, I would expect someone who does have
them to be along shortly.
>The relation ought to be less murky here. To what extent is it
>reasonable to say these stories are about "the historical Charlemagne"?
>And, of course, how much does our knowledge of Charlemagne explain
>what's important in the stories?
I don't think they are about the historical Charlemagne. I think the
stories stand on their own as does the history. I think figuring out
how we got from point A to point B is interesting.
There is one other thing. I don't think anyone is writing in the
traditions of the Charlemagne story or of the Troy story today, but we
still get new versions of the Arthur cycle almost every decade, some
good, some very forgettable. That's interesting too, don't you think?
>
>Now, does this help clarify what the issues are or am I only making
>it worse?
Oh worse. Much much worse. <g>
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Doug Weller
Go...@iol.ie (David Byrden) wrote:
> bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk (Bill Bedford) wrote:
>
> >In article <4jmj1h$7...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
> >hrj...@uclink.berkeley.edu (Heather Rose Jones) wrote:
> >
> >~ Ned Ramm (er...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
> >~ : John Chapman <jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >~ : >Genetic studies have demonstrated that by the 8th century almost all
> >the
> >~ : >genes of the Saxons had disappeared or rather had been diluted by
> >Celtic
> >~ : >genes.
>
>
> Sounds very unlikely to me. Linguistic studies show that the
> English language (before William and his bunch came over to become the
> Upper Classes) had extremely few Welsh (Bretonnic) words in it, and these
> were mostly place names; this is characteristic of a people who have
> severely defeated and destroyed another, not interbred with them.
[SNIP]
Not necessarily. This is deal with in Nich Higham's Rome, Britain
and the Anglo-Saxons, pages 189-208. A quick and nasty summary --
I really recommend you read the book anyway as it deals with
the whole question -- gives several points:
1. A basically bi-lingual society probably found assimilation
of a 3rd language easier than a monolingual society would have.
2. Drastic social and cultural changes and declining literacy
helped make it possible for a new language to drive out an old one.
3. "The signfificant incidence of Latin loan-words in Anglo-Saxon
creates futher problems for those who support the theory of a mass
migration..."
4. Latin replaced Celtic in other parts of Europe where there
is no question of mass extinction.
"In such circumstances English was not imposed on the indigenese but
embraced by them as one element in a process of cultural integration
which they believed offered advantages to themselves. It is not the
superior but the inferior community which is motivated to destroy
apartheid."
He also deals quite a bit with place-name issues. It's a good
read and I'd recomment the book to anyone interested in this
period.
--
Doug Weller
Peter Hullah
>
> It is also interesting to try to figure out how one gets from the war
> leader in his hill fort to the King of All England at Camelot. What
> parts of the story have roots in the truth, and which parts have no
> such roots?
Will someone please explain how all this relates to the fact that the French
also have their own legend of "Le Roi Arthur" (who was French) and where
Avalon (a French town) comes into it all. Was it all just wandering
minstrels who brought the story over from England/Wales/Cornwall?
Was it, perhaps, the other way round?
Pete
--
Peter H.C. Hullah Technical Services
e-mail: Peter....@eurocontrol.fr EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre
Phone: +33 1 69 88 75 49 BP 15, Rue des Bordes,
Fax: +33 1 60 85 15 04 91222 BRETIGNY SUR ORGE CEDEX
France
Paul J. Gans
: ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
[deletions]
: >I doubt it quite sincerely. Most Arthurians are looking for the
: >historical Arthur so that they can find a precursor for the folks
: >in the legend. If they can get Arthur they feel that they can
: >get Merlin as well (see the Merlin subthread for examples). Given
: >Arthur can the Holy Grail be far behind (see the Grail subthread
: >for example).
:
: You are probably right about a portion of "Arthurians", but I doubt if
: it qualifies as "most". It is a continuum like most things in the
: world.
It is very hard sometimes to know our own prejudices. I'm not
aware (as others keep reminding me :-) of all of mine. I see it
as most. But please, this is *not* a bone of contention here.
: You are obviously not as likely to find a Merlin as an Arthur, and if
: you do, you are not likely to find them connected to one another. You
: are even less likely to locate a Holy Grail in the real world, but
: that shouldn't come as a surprise, since even in the romance, the Holy
: Grail wasn't part of the material world.
One prejudice is illustrated here. There is no reason whatsoever
to believe in any historicity for the Grail. There is no reason
whatsoever to link it to any historical Arthur. We *know* when
the Grail was invented and by whom. Looking into legend for
similar items will always turn up a few. But when one realizes
that the nature of the "grail" keeps changing in the early 12th
century Arthurian stories, it becomes easy to see that it is
pure invention.
: By the way, am I missing posts. What Merlin subthread? What Grail
: subthread?
Better you shouldn't know. They were prominent in sci.archaeology
(where I'm reading this thread) a few months ago.
: >Or are you denying that these subthreads exist?
:
: Errr... I haven't seen them. I don't deny that the concepts exist.
: Will that do?
: >No, I'm afraid that many folks DO have trouble keeping the
: >two ideas apart.
:
: "Many" is not "most." Most of the posts on this (current) thread that
: I've read are from people who have no problem telling the difference
: between the historical basis for the stories from the stories
: themselves.
I don't fully agree. The historical basis is simply a name and
a list of battles. There isn't anything else. These seem to have
no relation to the usual Arturian stories. Or am I missing
something. Can anyone tell me where, in the Arthurian romances
(this does NOT include the pseudo-chronicles) these battles occur?
I had written:
: >: >The "historical Arthur" was not a King, did not have a round
: >: >table, never heard of a Grail, was not married to Guinevere,
: >: >knew nobody named Lancelot, did not sponsor quests or tourneys,
: >: >etc. Nor did he ride around in shining armor wielding Excalibur.
: >: >He was, at best, a war leader in a dirty rotten no-holds-barred
: >: >battle with the Saxons.
:
: Ah, I am glad that this paragraph is still here. One of the things
: that tickels me about your objection to people discussing the
: possibility of a historical Arthur is your insistance that the eternal
: triangle could not possibly be part of the historical Arthur's
: reality. Yet I would be willing to bet that that triangle is very,
: very old part of the story and was present in whatever oral tradition
: got turned into the romance.
But Stella, here you go confusing the romances with the history.
You keep assuring me that you can keep them separate, and then
you show that you can't.
While it is certain that "eternal triangles" have a long and
venerable history, far predating Arthur, there is NOTHING in
the history to even suggest one. Or are you counting Geoffrey
as history?
So the idea of the triangle is an element from the romances
that you are projecting back on the history. That's precisely
what I'm complaining about.
: >: This is all quite true, but IF there was a historical Arthur, he
: >: almost certainly was the primary figure responsible for a generation
: >: of peace, after a series of battles. A war leader, quite obviously,
: >: which is part of the romance as well.
:
: >Hardly enough. There were only two types of "heros" in the
: >early and high middle ages. Fighting men and saints. Arthur
: >wasn't a saint....
:
: >So this is the connection you are looking for. An early war
: >leader named Arthur. Ok, I'll give you an early war leader
: >named Arthur. Now what? Do we get to the Round Table from
: >that?
:
: No. I would very much doubt that the Round Table is part of the
: history. Do you really need a Round Table to have an Arthur? I don't
: think so myself.
No, we don't. Not to have a historical Arthur. We also don't need
a Guinevere, a Lancelot, a Kay, a Galahad, a Gawain, an Avalon,
a Lady of the Lake, etc., etc., etc.
: >: The interest is in finding out where the romance and the history
: >: intersect. No one is actually expecting to locate Camelot, but a 5th
: >: Century hill fort is certainly not out of the question.
:
: >But Stella, I thought YOU could keep the romance and the
: >history separate. They *don't intersect*. Get that? There
: >is NOTHING in common between a 5th century war leader and
: >a 12th century king.
:
: They intersect in that there is almost certainly a historical basis to
: the oral tradition that became the romance story. You may not find
: that an intersection, but I do.
How do you know that there is "almost certainly a historical basis
to the oral tradition that became the romance story"?
First: we don't have the history.
Second: we don't have the oral tradition.
Third: there is no romance story. There are romance stories.
Stories by the dozens, perhaps by the hundreds. Many have never
been readily available in English. The Vulgate is even now only
4/5's available in a modern edition (Norris Lacy's five volume
edition with the fifth volume yet to come) and that's so expensive
that you'll probably need a research library to find it. It is
also so turgid that I doubt anyone will read it for fun.
: >: It is also interesting to try to figure out how one gets from the war
: >: leader in his hill fort to the King of All England at Camelot. What
: >: parts of the story have roots in the truth, and which parts have no
: >: such roots?
:
: >You don't. Don't you understand? You don't. You are once
: >again conflating 5th century possible history with 12th century
: >romance. There are NO roots. The whole Camelot, King of All
: >England thing was made up. The Saxons were not driven from
: >England in the 5th century. They stayed.
:
: We really do need to agree to disagree on this whole issue, you know.
: I find it interesting and you don't. That's OK with me.
:
: Of course the Saxon weren't driven out of England. Of course they
: stayed. I said peace, I didn't say victory. Even the romance doesn't
: say victory. Remember? <g>
Geoffrey, who claims to have some of these famous missing sources, says
that Arthur pacified England, established rulership and then went on to
conquer France. This is all perfectly historic, of course...
[all sorts of references to Homer deleted.]
Paul J. Gans
: >: I think the best place to look for early versions of the Grail
The (uncited) quote was mine. It was also in error (I posted
a correction at the time). The stone was the second reference.
The first reference to the Grail is in a story by Chretien
de Troyes. In that story it is a plate. The story dates to
the mid-12th century.
The second reference is in Wolfram von Eschenbach's _Parzifal_.
There the Grail is a stone. The story is somewhat later than
Chretian's story.
Neither mentions Galahad. He's a later addition.
Paul J. Gans
: Paul J. Gans (ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu) wrote:
:
: : Thus it is not possible to conclude, with any certainty, that
: : Arthur was a peacemaker, a hostage taker, or an arranger of
: : mutually agreeable borders.
:
: : One must separate the desire to believe from the facts at hand.
:
: Paul, one must also separate the desire to disbelieve from the facts at
: hand.
I keep asking for someone to list the "facts at hand". Nobody has.
The pre-11th century facts at hand would not make for a large posting.
: I've been reading this discussion and find it quite irritating when you
: keep telling people "You want find Lancelot or the Holy Grail!" And they
: respond, "We know but we're looking the historical Arthur who all this
: later fantasy was hung on." And then it seems you just repeat your intial
: comments. I'm not sure how other perceive it, but I always get the
: feeling you're saying "If Paul J. Gans says it is this way, it is!"
I'm sorry that I've come across so intensely, but this has been
a very long-running debate in the newsgroups I frequent.
My point was that folks keep confusing the historical and romantic
Arthurs. I have no problem with people looking for history. That's
fine.
But the place to find Lancelot and the Grail is in the 12th century
in the literary genius of those who invented them. Why do folks
seek to rob them of their work by claiming that they were simply
repeating folk tales?
: Paul, I've read your posts. You're very informed. You're very educated.
: And you can express your opinion well. But please to try listen to what
: others are saying.
:
: I view the relationship between a historical Arthur and the mythical
: one as the result of a centuries-long game of telephone with some
: propaganda and creative distortion thrown in for good measure. (I'm not
: sure if you've played the game of telephone. That's where someone
: whispers a message to a person in class. They whisper it to the next
: person. ANd the next. And the next. And when the final person stands up
: and says what he or she was told, it's quite different from the original
: message.)
But of course, he said with a sly grin, you've doomed yourself. Let
us assume that this is true. Do you really expect to be able to
discover the intermediate stages of the game? And if you expect
that this is true, then it doesn't much matter what the original
message was at all, does it?
: We're not going to find Lancelot or Merlin or the holy grail or the
: Round Table or Excalibur. But we might discover what the original Arthur
: was like. And with luck, be able to see how that inspired the more
: mythical legend or later years.
: To me, that's something worth studying.
Gerry Palo
>
>Given that Nennius and Gildas seem to agree that the historical
>Arthur's reign coincided with a long period of peace (after
>those ten battles), I'd say that the historical Arthur was
>at best someone capable of arranging mutually agreeable borders,
>a peacemaker, perhaps a hostage taker (which might explain that
>Drustanus grave in Cornwall -- if it belonged to a Pictish
>hostage.
People do not commemorate diplomats as mighty heros who will one day
return to rule their people again.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Gerry Palo Denver, Colorado
pa...@netcom.com
Lee Gold
Easter Annals notes --
year 72 (= 518?) "Battle of Badon in which Arthur
carried the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ on his shoulders
for three days and three nights and the Britons were victors."
and,
year 93 (= 539?) "The strife of Camlann in which
Arthur and Medraut perished. And there was plague in Britain
and Ireland."
Are they authentic? Alcock seems satisfied they are, but he
also seems somewhat biased.