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?
The examination of the Arthurian figure in literature, legend and myth, is in itself not history. This study of the literature can be used as a lens into the study of the history and people who created and listened to these stories. The romance tales of Arthur do not retroactively change what an historical Arthur may or may not have been, but their content and popularity is a clear window into the medieval mind, what it wanted form its literature, how it wished to see itself and its history. Understanding the stories that a culture tells itself, how they change them and what they see as significant are critical elements of historical study.
Perhaps Arthur didn't wield a magical sword, or was aided by "the" Merlin, but we cannot rule out the possibility that an influential person during the 5-6 century inspired through their military prowess and valour halted the Saxon's for a small period. I find it incredibly narrow minded that David Dunville, could be so harsh with the judgment on the subject. All legends have some influence of truth, so why not Arthur, did Christ turn water to wine, and walk on water, and did Moses truly, make the sea split apart. Certainly not, but we still believe that they existed. the bible, accounts form the old and new testament are epic stories, derived form simple truths. So, we cannot rule-out the possible existence of Arthur, we have sources that state his presence and his achievements. They all may not be truth, but the authors have certainly be inspired to incorporate him into their historical accounts. I do agree that his true nature may have been clouded by Romance Literature, he was warped, changed, and made greater than he was. Immortalised through time, into our modern conceptions of the man. We will never know that he lived since we were not there....and since we can only use the sources we have. It was very common to burn the documents of a sacked city. Now does it even matter if he lived, well no, he has shaped our history to such as point that he has become symbol of honour and of chivalry and is now a prototypical hero.
Personally, I don't think it really matters whether this is history or not. Whilst we can learn a great deal about societies past from their interpretation of the arthurian legend and thus find the story historical in that sense, there is no doubt that it is the romance and the legend that has persevered to the present day. What is important, I think is that the relationship between the history and the myth is not a linear one. Whilst the history (or what we know of it) continues to influence the present day understandings and interpretations of Arthur, I would argue that there would be little incentive to discover the true source of each myth such as the 'true' Arthur or even the origins of Lancelot, without the romance and legend we have become accustomed with.
While study of the literature, legend and myths surrounding Arthur is not precisely history, there is still much we can learn from these areas of study. Examining and analysing the Arthurian literature and tales allow us to better understand the prominent ideals, values and beliefs of the era they were written in. Using the Arthurian literature and myths to understand the context they were written in can help us better understand the past history of the countries that identify themselves with Arthur. While there may in fact be very little historical value, something that can have such a profound influence on many different people and nations over such a long period of time is certainly worth studying.
Whether or not King Arthur actually ever existed as a person cannot be historically proven given the limited amount of primary sources recording his existence. Nonetheless, the way the Arthurian legend has been interpreted, recreated and used since the emergence of Gildas' text sheds light on the history of different periods in time. Dismissing its relevance it history at large, as David Dumville has done, is debilitating on our ability to understand the social, political and literary contexts post 600 AD. Whether it is examining why nations needed an 'Arthur' during time of warfare and instability throughout history, examining Biblical parallels in the stories of King Arthur over the years or simply understanding and appreciating the legends contribution to the development romantic literature, King Arthur has shaped and will continue to shape society for years to come.
The examination of the Arthurian figure in literature, legend and myth, is in itself not history. This study of the literature can be used as a lens into the study of the history and people who created and listened to these stories. The romance tales of Arthur do not retroactively change what an historical Arthur may or may not have been, but their content and popularity is a clear window into the medieval mind, what it wanted form its literature, how it wished to see itself and its history. Understanding the stories that a culture tells itself, how they change them and what they see as significant are critical elements of historical study.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Arthur didn't wield a magical sword, or was aided by "the" Merlin, but we cannot rule out the possibility that an influential person during the 5-6 century inspired through their military prowess and valour halted the Saxon's for a small period. I find it incredibly narrow minded that David Dunville, could be so harsh with the judgment on the subject. All legends have some influence of truth, so why not Arthur, did Christ turn water to wine, and walk on water, and did Moses truly, make the sea split apart. Certainly not, but we still believe that they existed. the bible, accounts form the old and new testament are epic stories, derived form simple truths. So, we cannot rule-out the possible existence of Arthur, we have sources that state his presence and his achievements. They all may not be truth, but the authors have certainly be inspired to incorporate him into their historical accounts. I do agree that his true nature may have been clouded by Romance Literature, he was warped, changed, and made greater than he was. Immortalised through time, into our modern conceptions of the man. We will never know that he lived since we were not there....and since we can only use the sources we have. It was very common to burn the documents of a sacked city. Now does it even matter if he lived, well no, he has shaped our history to such as point that he has become symbol of honour and of chivalry and is now a prototypical hero.
ReplyDeleteGood comments.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't think it really matters whether this is history or not. Whilst we can learn a great deal about societies past from their interpretation of the arthurian legend and thus find the story historical in that sense, there is no doubt that it is the romance and the legend that has persevered to the present day. What is important, I think is that the relationship between the history and the myth is not a linear one. Whilst the history (or what we know of it) continues to influence the present day understandings and interpretations of Arthur, I would argue that there would be little incentive to discover the true source of each myth such as the 'true' Arthur or even the origins of Lancelot, without the romance and legend we have become accustomed with.
ReplyDeleteWhile study of the literature, legend and myths surrounding Arthur is not precisely history, there is still much we can learn from these areas of study. Examining and analysing the Arthurian literature and tales allow us to better understand the prominent ideals, values and beliefs of the era they were written in. Using the Arthurian literature and myths to understand the context they were written in can help us better understand the past history of the countries that identify themselves with Arthur. While there may in fact be very little historical value, something that can have such a profound influence on many different people and nations over such a long period of time is certainly worth studying.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not King Arthur actually ever existed as a person cannot be historically proven given the limited amount of primary sources recording his existence.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, the way the Arthurian legend has been interpreted, recreated and used since the emergence of Gildas' text sheds light on the history of different periods in time. Dismissing its relevance it history at large, as David Dumville has done, is debilitating on our ability to understand the social, political and literary contexts post 600 AD. Whether it is examining why nations needed an 'Arthur' during time of warfare and instability throughout history, examining Biblical parallels in the stories of King Arthur over the years or simply understanding and appreciating the legends contribution to the development romantic literature, King Arthur has shaped and will continue to shape society for years to come.