Primary sources provide first-hand testimony or direct
evidence concerning a topic under investigation. They are created by witnesses
or recorders who experienced the events of conditions being documented. Primary
sources are original materials and may be artefacts, documents or other sources
of information created at the time under study.
They are characterised by their content, regardless of whether they are
available in original format, in microfilm, in digital format or in published
format.
 |
| Late Roman and "Arthurian" artefacts |
It is through the primary sources that the past
indisputably imposes its reality on the historian. That this imposition is
basic in any understanding of the past is clear from the rules that documents
should not be altered, or that any material damaging to a historian's argument
or purpose should not be left out or suppressed. These rules mean that the
sources or the texts of the past have an integrity and that they do indeed
'speak for themselves', and that they are necessary constraints through which
past reality imposes itself on the historian. [E. Sreedharan (2004) A textbook of Historiography, 500 B.C. to
A.D. 2000 Orient Longman, p.302] [try Google Books for this]
 |
| Celtic myth and Arthurian artefact |
However, there are considerable challenges in the use
of primary sources. They are usually fragmentary and most usually survive
without their original context. They are often ambiguous and notoriously
difficult to interpret. Eyewitnesses may misunderstand events or distort their
reports either deliberately or unconsciously. These effects often increase over
time as others uses these sources and add further distorting filters. It is
usually helpful to interrogate the source and one of the most common methods
uses the following “W” questions : Who, What, When, Where and Why.
 |
| Gildas instructing a pupil |
Analyses of the works of Gildas, Nennius and Bede have been used equally to debunk and support the historicity of Arthur.
The question to answer is this:
What historical question can you answer using the excerpts of Gildas, Nennius and Bede found in the unit reader?
One historical question is “Did Arthur really exist?” Gildas makes no mention of Arthur, but then, the tone of his work is very negative towards the British. He paints a very corrupt picture of Britain’s kings which is at variance with the ledged of King Arthur that is commonly known these days, and thus Arthur could have deliberately been omitted from the account in an attempt by Gildas to write him out of history. But if Arthur was not a king but a “war-leader”, as Nennius suggests, then he would not number among the kings that Gildas vaguely refers to. As for Bede, he makes no reference to Arthur; however, he makes reference to an “Ambrosius Aurelianus”, descended from Roman royalty, who led the British to victory at the siege of Badon-hill – a victory that Nennius attributes to Arthur.
ReplyDeleteIf Arthur did exist he was anything from a war-leader to a man descended from Roman royalty. It is impossible to say whether Arthur existed from the evidence presented in these excerpts; however, we could at least say that the battle that he reputedly led at Badon-hill did indeed happen.
Yes indeed, that is one historical question. I like the framing of your response.
DeleteWe can answer the question of whether Arthur existed. According to these exerts, yes, in some form. The first exert talks about a leader Ambrosius Aurelianus where the people of Briton, while under him, 'regained their strength and challenged the victors to battle' (pg13). The third extract also talks of this leader Ambrosius Aurelianus 'a man of worth' (17). Who also comes from parentage that were part of royalty. This idea is also shown in the first exert where it says 'his parents, who had worn the purple' (13), and side purple was a rare commodity to acquire, it suggests royalty. The second exert is the only one of the three that calls the leader Arthur, and elaborates more on his military conquests than anything else, which would be events possibly more traceable by historians. It links especially to the third extract where invading forces and a leader rising up are explained. However these could all be descriptions of a leader that acts in the manner we associate with Arthur the myth, or even be a form of propaganda for a new leader of the Britons. I which case if it was meant to create a legend of a war hero it succeeded immensely
ReplyDeleteGood work Matt; question posed and answered.
DeleteThe three excerpts answer the historical question 'did Arthur exist?'. Nennius' account is the only primary source of the three to mention “Arthur” (p14 in the reader). However Nennius' description of a king or leader of the Britons during the time of the raids of the Saxons, Picts and Scots is also in the accounts of Gildas and Bede (pp14, 16, 17). Therefore, if Arthur did exist, he may have been one of the kings of the Britons between circa the fifth or sixth centuries. However Nennius' account is limited because it is endowed with myth. Nennius is the only one of three accounts to name Arthur as the royal hero who won the battle at Mount Badon, which is instead attributed by Gildas and Bede to “Ambrosius Aurelianus” (p 14, 17). Therefore Arthur may have his historical origins in the figure of Aurelianus, who was also a royal leader of the Britons during the time of the raids of the Saxons, Picts and Scots, however may not have been a real person himself. A lot is still up to debate over the question of the existence of Arthur. However from these excerpts it can be established who Arthur probably would have been if he had existed or at least suggest another name for Arthur in Ambrosius Aurelianus.
ReplyDeleteGood work Sarah; it's really fascinating to see how many different reflections there are on this one theme.
DeleteThe following historical questions can be answered by the excerpts of Gildas, Nennius, & Bede.
ReplyDelete1.) Who was Arthur? Are Ambrosius and Arthur the same person?
Arthur/Ambrosius was a Romano-British leader who led the British resistance against the Saxons for a period of time following the Roman withdrawal from Britain. Gildas and Bede mention that Ambrosius was of Roman heritage, and that his parents had been either rulers or kings of Britain(whether over all of the former Roman province is uncertain), but had been killed in the chaos of the foreign invasions.
While we may conclude that there was a war leader named Ambrosius or Arthur, it is uncertain whether he was also a king. Gildas, although he states that Ambrosius' parents "had worn the purple", only describes Ambrosius as a noblemen. But his contrast betweern the deficiencies of the behaviour of Ambrosius' descendants with that of Ambrosius himself, coupled with his later denouncement of the evils of Britain's kings, may also suggest that Ambrosius was a king. Nennius clearly describes his Arthur as being a war-leader fighting alongside the kings of Britain, rather than being a king himself. Bede ambiguously describes Ambrosius as a "leader", but his account of Ambrosius and Badon Hill is so similar in content and style to that of Gildas, that is quite likely that he relied upon Gildas' version of events.
2.) Who invaded Britain after the Romans had left? Was this an invasion, or just a migration? Was the invasion opposed? If so, how, by who, and how successful was the resistance?
We know that the main invaders of Britain during the period were groups of Scots, Picts, and Saxons. We can also conclude that there was a period of determined opposition to the raids and invasion by a Romano-British leader, known as Ambrosius/Arthur, who achieved an important victory over the Saxons at a place called Badon Hill.
Great work David; nice forensic thinking.
DeleteAs has been discussed above, whilst the abstracts mention or hint at Arthur, who he was and his role in history are ambiguous. As Melanie and Matthew discuss, the sources suggest that he did exist but was likely to have been a war leader. As Sarah mentions, Nennius's accounts of Arthur are surrounded by myth and uncertainty. As discussed above, if Arthur did exist and furthermore was in fact a King, Gildas suggests that the nature of his ruling was likely disparate to the equality, fairness and peace that legend suggests. Due to the nature of the times, it was more likely that he was "tyrant".
ReplyDeleteThis is a very concise summary of the discussion so far; how about reflecting on a different question?
DeleteThe historical question which arises here is the actual existence of Arthur, which is referred to in all three extracts. It is important to note that of all the historians, Nennius is the only one to mention Arthur by name; the other refer to Ambrosius Aurelianus, who bears a striking historical resemblance to Arthur himself, having parents who “had worn the purple” (i.e. were of royal descent) and being described by Bede as a “leader”. It is unclear whether Arthur and Ambrosius Aurelanius are the same, one descended from the other, or is they are completely different and separate historical figures; however, given that Bede states the victory of Baden-Hill was at the hand of Ambrosius Aurelianius, and Nennius states it was at the hand of Arthur, one can reasonably conclude there is some historical connection between the two.
ReplyDeleteThanks Amaya; another nicely nuanced reflection on the identity question.
DeleteAside from the question ‘Did Arthur really exist?’ (which has been thoroughly and well discussed), another possible question up for debate is: Who are the historians that documented the accounts of the invasion of Britain? Can their background influence the stories that they retell?
ReplyDeleteGildas, who only mentions Ambrosius Aurelianus, is noted to be a Romano-British historian. This suggests possible patriotism as Gildas also highlights how Ambrosius is also of Roman descent and how Ambrosius’ descendants are “inferior to their grandfather’s excellence”. The brief summary before Gildas’ recount also alludes how the passages in ‘Life of Gildas’ implies personal reasons for GIldas’ strong dislike for Arthur. This suggests that even if Arthur was a real person, Gildas would most likely draw attention to Ambrosius as those two have Roman heritage. However, compared to Nennius’ account, Arthur and Ambrosius are somewhat dissimilar.
Nennius does not mention Ambrosius, but instead portrays “war-leader Arthur” as a figure with mythical elements. Nennius’ tale is written in Latin, despite being a Welshman, and is apparently one of the first to mention Arthur at all. Due to the extreme mystical events that Arthur encounters, Nennius seems more like a storyteller than a historian. Furthermore, Nennius’ work is written a couple of centuries after Gildas’ recount, so it is possible that Nennius manipulated those events to tell a far greater story, and create a legend that will always be discussed.
There is not a brief summary on Bede, but his account seemed to favour Ambrosius as he mentions how the “Britons revived” under his leadership after the brutal invasion, which he goes into explicit detail beforehand.
The three extracts can give us an image of the time in which Arthur lived, if he was in fact a historical figure. The question: what was Britain like during the 5th and 6th Centuries? In all three extracts the authors convey a war time situation, in which battles were frequent, invasions were almost constant and instability reigned. Gildas, Bede and Nennius all mention specific battles that occurred during the time of Arthur. From this we can establish a picture of Britain which, although unstable and dangerous, could provide opportunities for a successful warrior to prove himself in battle and consequently become quite powerful.
ReplyDeleteWhat can be taken from the writings of Gildas, Bede and Nennius is that there was a hero who assisted the Britons in the battles against the Saxons. Gildas and Bede make reference to a Roman by name of Ambrosius Aurelianus so Nennius is the only writer to mention the hero by the name we know today, Arthur. This poses the question of whether Ambrosius and Arthur are one and the same. If they are, why had the name been changed? As Nennius is writing much later, could it be that by his time the history of this great hero had already passed into legend? Certainly Nennius' work is grossly exaggerated (960 men slain by Arthur in a single charge and then the story of his dog, Cabal) so perhaps the mythological elements that riddle the story we recognise today had already begun to be worked in.
ReplyDeleteGiven the context of the writings, it is likely that there is a link between Ambrosius and Arthur but, again, all that we can really answer is that there was a hero. Who was he really? A war-leader or a king? A Roman or someone else?
I was personally more interested in the authors themselves than the specifics of their writings this week. What has always fascinated and frustrated me when reading historical sources is the obvious bias that all writers have (less true of contemporary writers since there is a conscious effort to remain impartial although a bias necessarily remains) and the effect it has on their writing. For example, Gildas obviously has a strong dislike for what he perceives to be the immoral ways of the Britains and attributes every misfortune to be the natural consequence for this chaotic and barbaric behaviour. Here his Church education and upbringing is very evident. I suppose the question that intrigued me (though fairly left field) was how practical would the application of psychoanalysis on these three writers be and what would it uncover? And what could a careful study of these very different writings on a very similar subject reveal about the authors themselves and the changing values of the society in which they lived? I know it's not really a historical question, but that's what I kept thinking about through the readings and this morning's lecture.
ReplyDeleteI was personally more interested in the authors themselves than the specifics of their writings this week. What has always fascinated and frustrated me when reading historical sources is the obvious bias that all writers have (less true of contemporary writers since there is a conscious effort to remain impartial although a bias necessarily remains) and the effect it has on their writing. For example, Gildas obviously has a strong dislike for what he perceives to be the immoral ways of the Britains and attributes every misfortune to be the natural consequence for this chaotic and barbaric behaviour. Here his Church education and upbringing is very evident. I suppose the question that intrigued me (though fairly left field) was how practical would the application of psychoanalysis on these three writers be and what would it uncover? And what could a careful study of these very different writings on a very similar subject reveal about the authors themselves and the changing values of the society in which they lived? I know it's not really a historical question, but that's what I kept thinking about through the readings and this morning's lecture.
ReplyDeleteOne historical question which arises from these accounts is what is the importance that these writers attribute to war stories of heroism and myth? This could in turn held explain the development of the legend of Arthur. Gildas refers to Ambrosius Aurelianus, who he credits with leading the Britons to victory. The importance of this figure is evident as Gildas attributes Aurelianus' role to being given by God. Similarly, Nennius attributes Arthur with mythical qualities and tells miraculous stories of him defeating 960 men in one charge by himself. Like Gildas, Nennius aligns Arthur’s victories with Jesus and the Virgin Mary. By indicating that certain figures such as Aurelianus and Arthur are spiritually favoured, it not only aligns the British cause with the will of God but also serves to lift public morale during the constant warfare that plagued Britain during Gildas’ and Nennius’ lifetimes. This demonstrates how figures such as Arthur can come into being as the writers of history hold in high esteem the telling of such stories that link the miracles of God with the victories of the Britons.
ReplyDeleteA question that we cannot answer is whether a king named Arthur did exist. Nor can we establish the existence of ‘war leader’ Arthur given that Nennius’s account is written at least three centuries after the conflict which he references.
ReplyDeleteWe can ask and answer one question in the affirmative, that of there being a circa late-fifth-century conflict between the Roman/British residents and invaders from across the sea, based on the dating of Gildas’s account. We can also say that this conflict was still very much in the minds of the chroniclers of the seventh-ninth centuries, and can safely assume that this conflict was an important part of the establishment of a Briton (Welsh?) identity during those centuries. Furthermore we can say that Arthur legends were a part of that identity.
However neither can we disclude the existence of an historical Arthur based on Gildas’s account. That a Roman, Gildas, privileges the role of an ‘Aurelianus’ in the conflict is not surprising. This 'Aurelianus' is a man with a not-just-latinized but very Latin name who was also very likely Roman as Bede suggests. That privileging gives us some of the many possible reasons for the omission of ‘an Arthur’ by Gildas, including possibly a non-Roman British identity or non-Christian identity on Arthur’s part.
The three excerpts can be used to argue that each author believed that there was an individual performing significant deeds during a period of significant violence in Britain. Indeed, they state that this individual was responsible for the victory of the Britons. Gildas and Bede name this figure as Ambrosius Aurelianus but only Nennius directly connects the figure with Arthur. Given that Nennius writes in the 9th Century he is considerably removed from both the events he describes and the individual. In regard to Bede, as has been said by others here, his writing does bear a resemblance to that of Gildas particularly in his description of Ambrosius in Chapter 26 (p. 17 reader). The excerpts can also be used to answer questions related to the authors themselves, such as their bias or agenda (as discussed in class). They further raise some questions as to their accuracy, and they seem to raise more questions than they answer. Nevertheless, they do appear to give us an insight into the events of the period and illustrate that the writers at least believed in some person of renown, and that the Arthurian legend was well established.
ReplyDeleteHopefully I’m not too late for this week’s response given the armistice. My question that arises from the excerpts is “Are we being anachronistic when we consider whether or not Gildas, Nennius and Bede are unbiased in their accounts?” I guess this relates to Erin’s comments on impartiality and has more to do with historical approach when compared to other disciplines – as the issue of author’s intention vs. audience reception raised yesterday which pervades literary criticism and operatic studies can equally apply to historiography yet is framed in different terms (I think). My answer is yes we are guilty of anachronism, which in this instance is applying modern ideals to another time which leads to misapprehended conclusions (as demonstrated by Monty Python’s Holy Grail). Perhpas we sometimes impose our understanding of History (supposedly a comprehensive, unbiased consideration of facts) onto Gildas, Nennius and Bede without properly recognising their notion of history and their intentions as authors may not have been impartiality to begin with. So I suppose in History “author’s intention” can translate as context, and “audience reception” equates to how historians have interpreted or distorted this. I suppose underpinning all this is the connection between the past and the present which is another possible understanding of History, and why Carol’s example of historical performance as a mode of medievalism is interesting. For in historical performance practice the emphasis is always on the author’s (composer’s) intention, the aim being to faithfully recreate the musical past (or in historical terms to avoid anachronism). However people opposed to this kind of practice condemn purists for being regressive and disconnected from the listening public, which in a way also relates to History.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the late response!
ReplyDeleteMy question is whether or not the religious mark is what the authors believe made the victory occur and not the hero?
While Gildas and Bede both refer to the leader as Ambrosius Aurelianus we can see immediately the importance that they both place on the importance of the religious mark he was carrying. This makes me think that they see this leader as a victor and hero only because of the faith he had in God. Would he have still won the battle if he hadn't been wearing the cross? Would they be retelling his story if he hadn't?
Nennius states the leader as Arthur, the only one of the three that mentions him. He is not mentioned as king but as the war leader. Nennius also remarks on the religious mark that Arthur carries, also suggesting to us that without it, he would not have won. Nennius states "The year of the battle of Badon, in which Arthur carried the cross of our Lord Jesus Chris for three days and three nights on his shoulders and the Britons were victorious" This immediately suggests that without Arthur having done that, the britons would not have been victorious.