This unit has focussed on considering the historicity
of Arthur as well as the historical contexts within which the image of
Arthur has been reconstructed. It has also viewed Arthur through the
lenses of myth, legend, romance and societal expectations.
Arthur in mosaic
Blog Question : Is this history and does it matter?
To some extent yes this is history. I think matters are further complicated because the idea of what history was appears transitional from the l.5thC. onwards, also the founding histories initially derived from Gildas whose DEB wasn’t really a history proper to begin with? Sometimes it seems a case of form and content being misaligned. (Or authors trying to adhere to technicalities of form, genre whilst complying to a fluctuating notion of what history should relate, content). For instance Bede was preoccupied with presenting a true account of events. Yet he combined this with the established practice of rehashing chunks from prior sources such as Gildas whose pre-existing idea of history was to make the past tangible in the present for readers/listeners, thereby eschewing chronology and precise fact (which in a way resurfaces in romances’ entrelacement). Moreover history was linked to rhetoric so imagination (in this case form), which we tend to associate with fiction, was present from the outset. Add to this the underlying memoria schemata often employed with some numbers being signs, referents and others being actual dates/number of men etc. and we’ve a whole accumulative intertextual code to try to decipher from Gildas to Geoff of Monmouth. (This before personal authorial motives, intentioned or subconscious and specific historical context are accounted for). And then from here and oral folk tales come the romances, operas, poems, paintings, ballets, novels, films, musicals, spoofs and their adaptations/different productions, again all with particular artistic, contextual intent proclaimed or inflected unawares. So yes from its inception this is history and myth though in ways not always overt.
As to whether or not it (if it’s history or myth, Arthur and co. in general?) matters, again yes to an extent. Even if taken as myth notions intrinsic to the Arthur story such as chivalry, fidelity/doing what’s right vs. infidelity/all-consuming love to others’ detriment, the idea of the Holy Grail both literal and metaphoric are so pervasive in Western society that they still influence our ideals and codes of conduct, which we should probably question from time to time. That being said, I guess if it’s not being approached as an historical document then whether it’s history or myth or one is aware if one views it as such is not that important so long as it’s not wielded for unkind means, say as justification for revenge if one has been jilted or warfare motivated by an exclusive idea of religion or some sort of misplaced nationalism. This is probably really naïve, a bit general and not very historical so sorry!
Despite the lack of clarity on the existence of Arthur, it no doubt constitutes as history that most certainly matters. The story of Arthur continued for many centuries since its first introduction, and under different versions, the audience is able to perceive a glimpse of the era from when the tales were written. Even though these stories may not directly state what occurred in those times, assumptions can be drawn based upon the parallels between the Arthurian tales to the events present when the stories were published, as well the intended audience and motivation behind the stories. Therefore, Arthur and other links to him, can be used as a unique historical tool.
Personally, after doing the readings and learning more about the Arthurian legend, I would not count it as definitive history. However, it's role as a foundation myth for England cannot be ignored. It has been crucial in England's development of a national identity, and has been used throughout time as a paragon for the masses to follow and strive to be like. The fact that Arthur was most likely a real historical figure, of, most likely, strikingly less importance in his own time, is usually disregarded. His importance transcends his actual historical place; he, his tale, and the subsequent epic that unfolded, have provided England with a national treasure. As a modern day audience, as Tiffany has stated, his tales give us insight in the societies in which they were re-written and interpreted. Without the works of Malory, Geoffrey of Monmouth or the Vulgate Cycle we would not have had the details about courtly life, and most importantly chivalry, that we do today.
It is easier to answer the second part of this question because even today we can see that King Arthur does matter. He is part of our modern society as there is still interest in him as both a fictional and a historical character. He is relevant to our society, reflecting our contemporary beliefs, for example in film, and revealing ever more information about the real King Arthur through historiography and archaeology. Therefore if we recognize his importance today we will realize that King Arthur does matter. However, it is more difficult to answer the first part of the question about whether or not this is a history. The question of whether or not King Arthur existed may never be answered. Certainly, interest in King Arthur historically does not appear to be diminishing any time soon, and there will always be evidence to say that he did exist. However, at the same time, there is always counter evidence to say that King Arthur did not exist and that there is no history in the legends about him. What can be said for certain though is that the different versions of the legend of King Arthur are important historically as they reveal a lot about the times in which they were written in. Therefore looking at the legends in this way, it can be said that they are history, just not necessary history about King Arthur.
Maybe it's history, maybe it's embellished history to make a king look better (or worse by comparison) or maybe it is completely made up for social or political reasons, I don't believe it matters if it's true or not, in fact I think not knowing makes it far more meaningful. If we were able to say definitively "yes this is history" or "no it isn't" then it would take away many of the important morals; in the case of the former, Arthur would become a regular human being, just as flawed as anyone else and not the epitome of chivalry that we see him as today, if the latter were true then interest in him would likely wane, and he would become a fairy tale character, rather than a hero to be aspired to. The story of Arthur carries far more weight as a tale of morals, bravery and chivalry if it MAY be true then it would if we knew if was definitely true or false.
After doing all the readings and lectures, to me it seems that it is unlikely that the story of Arthur is History. The Histories of Nennius, Bede and Gildas may have had some historical basis and their descriptions could fit an actual historical figure. However the Arthur that was claimed by the English in forming their national identity and regarding him a hero is very different from any historical Arthur that may have existed. Following the influence of Geoffrey I would not consider any Arthurian tales to be grounded in a meaningful history, however having said that I don't think that that is the point and the myth matters just as much as any real history would.
The fact that the story of Arthur was used to form a national identity and justify many of their conflicts during medieval times as they had rightful claim the land suggests that the myth of Arthur is important. The way the literature altered over time and the differences in how the characters were portrayed tells us a lot about the time period and place from which the stories originated. So even though it is not a history, it is a useful historical tool
One thing that has become evident in this course is that there is a history to the legend of Arthur: the story has expanded over time to incorporate such images as the round table, the sword in the stone and the Holy Grail. We can thus read in this history a reflection of the times when these images first appeared in the tale—the incorporation Holy Grail, for instance, demonstrates how Christianity had become an influential power of the time. So to answer the question asked, yes this is a history—not in that the events related in it depict facts about actual events, but that the symbols and morals attributed to the story mirror cultural values throughout the history of Britain and some of its near neighbours. And does it matter? Of course! This story has survived in popular imagination for centuries and, therefore, must be important.
The kernal of the Arthurian story - a British king/warrior emerging in a time of poltical chaos to restore order and defend Britain from pagan invaders - is liekly to have its basis in historical fact. Gildas' account, and that of Bede and Nennius, would tend to support this conclusion. The rest of the stories and imagery that later came to be associated with Arthur,
Whether Arthur's historicity is important, either to the readers of the Middle Ages or to those of today, is much more nuanced question. Even though the tiny account of Ambrosius/Arthur in Gildas and Nennius soon got greatly expanded, emellished, and embroided with other tales and legends, the germ of historical truth still mattered. The plethora of histories written by scholars up until Geoffrey of Monmouth and the attempt to distinguish between "history" and mere stories, demonstrates this. Also, the monks of Glastonbury depended upon Arthur's existence for their prominence amongst the monasteries in Britain. The lengths they went to try to prove that Arthur was buried there demonstrate that they needed something more than more than a legend to substantiate their claim. An interesting question is whether the story of Arthur would have experienced such a great revival in Victorian England if they didn't consider there to have been at least a germ of historicity in it. On the other hand, I don't really think it really mattered as much to those in the Middle Ages as it might to us today. The legend was continually updated to agree with the contemporary audience, and the way writers in the 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries used it to reflect relgious, political, and social concerns of their times shows that the reality of the story was not as important as the framework for delivering their message. On the whole, however, I think it is the fact that at least some part of the Arthurian legend may be originally based on real events is what draws us in, and makes the tales so appealing.
I would suggest that the figure that is presented in the histories of Bede, Gildas, and Nennius is, as others have suggested, based on an actual person or persons. As history in the contemporary sense of the word I would argue for the negative, but I do not think that this diminishes the importance of the Arthurian tales. This is evident by the way that the stories still appeal to a modern audience, which suggests that they still hold some value. Their use throughout history as a device that could be altered to reflect different values and such again speaks to the importance of the tales. This is further seen by the way that the tales have informed the English national identity. I think that the 'history' of Arthur does not matter as much as the myth of the man and how it was (and is) used.
I would say that Arthur is history, even if he never did exist, simply because of the history that surrounds him, as a person, a king, and a mythical figure. The different retellings of Arthur's tale, how it was shaped by society and how it impacted it are all forms of history. This is also why it's important. How society has reacted to him throughout the ages, our interest and waning of interest all helps for us, today, to understand better what we as a society valued during those periods.
The idea of Arthur as history is a convoluted idea. I would suggest that Arthur has become history. The idea of an Arthurian figure may have started as moral figure. However the relevance and familiarity of the figure through the ages has brought the name Arthur out of the mist of myth and into the idea of a history. Arthur, or the idea of Arthur, has also made history. The very first so called Arthur may have been fanciful; however over time that image of Arthur has shaped and moulded Kings, Knights and entire periods of history. Thus making history, and in this sense Arthur is History. Does Arthur matter? This is an interesting concept as, in my view; we have lost some of the essential chivalric traits that should not have been lost. I am not saying we should all jump on a horse and win a tournament, but in this age it seems like some values have been lost and these values are shown in the model of Arthur. In this sense Arthur does matter. Whether it is history or not mattering, well that I don’t think matters because if it’s not history then its legend and the story of Arthur is just as powerful in both.
Yes it is history and yes it does matter. To disclude Arthur, I think, requires the assertion of an extremely narrow notion of what history is, or that history must exclusively result in concrete 'answers' about its subject, in this case Arthur himself. I think of Arthur as being not so much the point of the historical exercise, and not even the frame, but rather a kind of prism through which to view the situations and historical contexts in which he is adopted.
If Arthur is not part of history then I think we have to seriously evaluate whether anything at all can be termed 'history'.
To some extent yes this is history. I think matters are further complicated because the idea of what history was appears transitional from the l.5thC. onwards, also the founding histories initially derived from Gildas whose DEB wasn’t really a history proper to begin with? Sometimes it seems a case of form and content being misaligned. (Or authors trying to adhere to technicalities of form, genre whilst complying to a fluctuating notion of what history should relate, content). For instance Bede was preoccupied with presenting a true account of events. Yet he combined this with the established practice of rehashing chunks from prior sources such as Gildas whose pre-existing idea of history was to make the past tangible in the present for readers/listeners, thereby eschewing chronology and precise fact (which in a way resurfaces in romances’ entrelacement). Moreover history was linked to rhetoric so imagination (in this case form), which we tend to associate with fiction, was present from the outset. Add to this the underlying memoria schemata often employed with some numbers being signs, referents and others being actual dates/number of men etc. and we’ve a whole accumulative intertextual code to try to decipher from Gildas to Geoff of Monmouth. (This before personal authorial motives, intentioned or subconscious and specific historical context are accounted for). And then from here and oral folk tales come the romances, operas, poems, paintings, ballets, novels, films, musicals, spoofs and their adaptations/different productions, again all with particular artistic, contextual intent proclaimed or inflected unawares. So yes from its inception this is history and myth though in ways not always overt.
ReplyDeleteAs to whether or not it (if it’s history or myth, Arthur and co. in general?) matters, again yes to an extent. Even if taken as myth notions intrinsic to the Arthur story such as chivalry, fidelity/doing what’s right vs. infidelity/all-consuming love to others’ detriment, the idea of the Holy Grail both literal and metaphoric are so pervasive in Western society that they still influence our ideals and codes of conduct, which we should probably question from time to time. That being said, I guess if it’s not being approached as an historical document then whether it’s history or myth or one is aware if one views it as such is not that important so long as it’s not wielded for unkind means, say as justification for revenge if one has been jilted or warfare motivated by an exclusive idea of religion or some sort of misplaced nationalism. This is probably really naïve, a bit general and not very historical so sorry!
Despite the lack of clarity on the existence of Arthur, it no doubt constitutes as history that most certainly matters. The story of Arthur continued for many centuries since its first introduction, and under different versions, the audience is able to perceive a glimpse of the era from when the tales were written. Even though these stories may not directly state what occurred in those times, assumptions can be drawn based upon the parallels between the Arthurian tales to the events present when the stories were published, as well the intended audience and motivation behind the stories. Therefore, Arthur and other links to him, can be used as a unique historical tool.
ReplyDeletePersonally, after doing the readings and learning more about the Arthurian legend, I would not count it as definitive history.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it's role as a foundation myth for England cannot be ignored. It has been crucial in England's development of a national identity, and has been used throughout time as a paragon for the masses to follow and strive to be like.
The fact that Arthur was most likely a real historical figure, of, most likely, strikingly less importance in his own time, is usually disregarded. His importance transcends his actual historical place; he, his tale, and the subsequent epic that unfolded, have provided England with a national treasure.
As a modern day audience, as Tiffany has stated, his tales give us insight in the societies in which they were re-written and interpreted. Without the works of Malory, Geoffrey of Monmouth or the Vulgate Cycle we would not have had the details about courtly life, and most importantly chivalry, that we do today.
It is easier to answer the second part of this question because even today we can see that King Arthur does matter. He is part of our modern society as there is still interest in him as both a fictional and a historical character. He is relevant to our society, reflecting our contemporary beliefs, for example in film, and revealing ever more information about the real King Arthur through historiography and archaeology. Therefore if we recognize his importance today we will realize that King Arthur does matter. However, it is more difficult to answer the first part of the question about whether or not this is a history. The question of whether or not King Arthur existed may never be answered. Certainly, interest in King Arthur historically does not appear to be diminishing any time soon, and there will always be evidence to say that he did exist. However, at the same time, there is always counter evidence to say that King Arthur did not exist and that there is no history in the legends about him. What can be said for certain though is that the different versions of the legend of King Arthur are important historically as they reveal a lot about the times in which they were written in. Therefore looking at the legends in this way, it can be said that they are history, just not necessary history about King Arthur.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's history, maybe it's embellished history to make a king look better (or worse by comparison) or maybe it is completely made up for social or political reasons, I don't believe it matters if it's true or not, in fact I think not knowing makes it far more meaningful. If we were able to say definitively "yes this is history" or "no it isn't" then it would take away many of the important morals; in the case of the former, Arthur would become a regular human being, just as flawed as anyone else and not the epitome of chivalry that we see him as today, if the latter were true then interest in him would likely wane, and he would become a fairy tale character, rather than a hero to be aspired to. The story of Arthur carries far more weight as a tale of morals, bravery and chivalry if it MAY be true then it would if we knew if was definitely true or false.
ReplyDeleteAfter doing all the readings and lectures, to me it seems that it is unlikely that the story of Arthur is History. The Histories of Nennius, Bede and Gildas may have had some historical basis and their descriptions could fit an actual historical figure. However the Arthur that was claimed by the English in forming their national identity and regarding him a hero is very different from any historical Arthur that may have existed. Following the influence of Geoffrey I would not consider any Arthurian tales to be grounded in a meaningful history, however having said that I don't think that that is the point and the myth matters just as much as any real history would.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the story of Arthur was used to form a national identity and justify many of their conflicts during medieval times as they had rightful claim the land suggests that the myth of Arthur is important. The way the literature altered over time and the differences in how the characters were portrayed tells us a lot about the time period and place from which the stories originated. So even though it is not a history, it is a useful historical tool
One thing that has become evident in this course is that there is a history to the legend of Arthur: the story has expanded over time to incorporate such images as the round table, the sword in the stone and the Holy Grail. We can thus read in this history a reflection of the times when these images first appeared in the tale—the incorporation Holy Grail, for instance, demonstrates how Christianity had become an influential power of the time. So to answer the question asked, yes this is a history—not in that the events related in it depict facts about actual events, but that the symbols and morals attributed to the story mirror cultural values throughout the history of Britain and some of its near neighbours. And does it matter? Of course! This story has survived in popular imagination for centuries and, therefore, must be important.
ReplyDeleteThe kernal of the Arthurian story - a British king/warrior emerging in a time of poltical chaos to restore order and defend Britain from pagan invaders - is liekly to have its basis in historical fact. Gildas' account, and that of Bede and Nennius, would tend to support this conclusion. The rest of the stories and imagery that later came to be associated with Arthur,
ReplyDeleteWhether Arthur's historicity is important, either to the readers of the Middle Ages or to those of today, is much more nuanced question. Even though the tiny account of Ambrosius/Arthur in Gildas and Nennius soon got greatly expanded, emellished, and embroided with other tales and legends, the germ of historical truth still mattered. The plethora of histories written by scholars up until Geoffrey of Monmouth and the attempt to distinguish between "history" and mere stories, demonstrates this. Also, the monks of Glastonbury depended upon Arthur's existence for their prominence amongst the monasteries in Britain. The lengths they went to try to prove that Arthur was buried there demonstrate that they needed something more than more than a legend to substantiate their claim. An interesting question is whether the story of Arthur would have experienced such a great revival in Victorian England if they didn't consider there to have been at least a germ of historicity in it. On the other hand, I don't really think it really mattered as much to those in the Middle Ages as it might to us today. The legend was continually updated to agree with the contemporary audience, and the way writers in the 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries used it to reflect relgious, political, and social concerns of their times shows that the reality of the story was not as important as the framework for delivering their message. On the whole, however, I think it is the fact that at least some part of the Arthurian legend may be originally based on real events is what draws us in, and makes the tales so appealing.
I would suggest that the figure that is presented in the histories of Bede, Gildas, and Nennius is, as others have suggested, based on an actual person or persons. As history in the contemporary sense of the word I would argue for the negative, but I do not think that this diminishes the importance of the Arthurian tales. This is evident by the way that the stories still appeal to a modern audience, which suggests that they still hold some value. Their use throughout history as a device that could be altered to reflect different values and such again speaks to the importance of the tales. This is further seen by the way that the tales have informed the English national identity. I think that the 'history' of Arthur does not matter as much as the myth of the man and how it was (and is) used.
ReplyDeleteI would say that Arthur is history, even if he never did exist, simply because of the history that surrounds him, as a person, a king, and a mythical figure. The different retellings of Arthur's tale, how it was shaped by society and how it impacted it are all forms of history. This is also why it's important. How society has reacted to him throughout the ages, our interest and waning of interest all helps for us, today, to understand better what we as a society valued during those periods.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of Arthur as history is a convoluted idea. I would suggest that Arthur has become history. The idea of an Arthurian figure may have started as moral figure. However the relevance and familiarity of the figure through the ages has brought the name Arthur out of the mist of myth and into the idea of a history.
ReplyDeleteArthur, or the idea of Arthur, has also made history. The very first so called Arthur may have been fanciful; however over time that image of Arthur has shaped and moulded Kings, Knights and entire periods of history. Thus making history, and in this sense Arthur is History.
Does Arthur matter? This is an interesting concept as, in my view; we have lost some of the essential chivalric traits that should not have been lost. I am not saying we should all jump on a horse and win a tournament, but in this age it seems like some values have been lost and these values are shown in the model of Arthur. In this sense Arthur does matter.
Whether it is history or not mattering, well that I don’t think matters because if it’s not history then its legend and the story of Arthur is just as powerful in both.
Yes it is history and yes it does matter.
ReplyDeleteTo disclude Arthur, I think, requires the assertion of an extremely narrow notion of what history is, or that history must exclusively result in concrete 'answers' about its subject, in this case Arthur himself.
I think of Arthur as being not so much the point of the historical exercise, and not even the frame, but rather a kind of prism through which to view the situations and historical contexts in which he is adopted.
If Arthur is not part of history then I think we have to seriously evaluate whether anything at all can be termed 'history'.