King Arthur - Fact or Legend?

Post by Immortalist
King Arthur - Official Movie Site
http://kingarthur.movies.go.com/main.html
Many different theories are available as to the 'identity' of Arthur and some
brief methodological notes will be found here regarding the making of such
identifications. While these theories are interesting, they fail to address fully
one important question -- was there a historical post-Roman Arthur? Many books,
articles and web-pages simply make the a priori assumption that there has to be a
historical figure behind the Arthurian legends. Such an assumption is totally
unjustified. As anyone at all familiar with medieval literature in general will
know, the historicisation of non-historical/mythical personages -- often through
association with some important event of the past -- is not in any way an unusual
occurrence.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~tomgreen/arthur.htm
In the years of upheaval after the Roman withdrawal, Britain became an island of
small, squabbling kingdoms. Legends indicate that one Aurelius Ambrosius tried to
unite the small kingdoms against their common enemies-- the Irish, the Picts and
the Saxons. He was followed in his quest by Uther Pendragon, who is commonly held
to be the father of Arthur.
Prior to this, however, was the business of Vortigern. It was he who supposedly
invited the Saxons into Britain, to aid in repelling the invasions of the Picts.
However, when Vortigern's people (and most notably his sons) objected to the
presence of the Saxons, and saw how Vortigern favored them over his own people,
they attempted to expel the Saxons. Hengist and Horsa, the Saxon leaders,
objected. Fighting broke out. Vortigern tried to make a peace, but at a
peace-making meeting, Hengist and his Saxons pulled daggers from their boots and
turned on the unarmed Briton lords and petty kings, and slew them all. At this
point, Vortigern either conceded his lands to Hengist in exchange for his life,
or was allowed to live with the horror of what he had wrought-- either way,
Vortigern was spared and set free and fled to Wales.
"There he assembled stonemasons from different parts of the country and ordered
them to build a tower for him. The masons gathered and began to lay the
foundations of their tower. However much they built one day the earth swallowed
up the next, in such a way that they had no idea where their work had vanished
to." (Geoffrey of Monmouth 166)
Vortigern consulted his magicians, and they told him he should find a boy without
a father, and kill him and incorporate his bones and blood into the foundations
of the castle. Vortigern sent out messengers, who "came to a town which was
afterwards called Kaermerdin and there they saw some lads playing by the town
gate.... a sudden quarrel broke out between the two lads, whose names were Merlin
and Dinabutius. As they argued, Dinabutius said to Merlin: '...How can we two be
equal in skill? I myself am of royal blood on both sides of my family. As for
you, nobody knows who you are, for you never had a father!'" (Geoffrey of
Monmouth 167). Having found what they sought, the messengers dragged the boy back
with them to Vortigern.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~merrie/Arthur/story.html
--------------------------------
Charge Given to the Knights by King Arthur
God make you a good man and fail not of beauty. The Round Table was founded in
patience, humility, and meekness.Thou art never to do outrageousity, nor murder,
and always to flee treason, by no means to be cruel, and always to do ladies,
damosels, and gentle women succour. Also, to take no battles in a wrongful
quarrel for no law nor for no world's goods.
Thous shouldst be for all ladies and fight for their quarrels, and ever be
courteous and never refuse mercy to him that asketh mercy, for a knight that is
courteous and kind and gentle has favor in every place. Thou shouldst never hold
a lady or gentle woman against her will.
Thou must keep thy word to all and not be feeble of good believeth and faith.
Right must be defended against might and distress must be protected. Thou must
know good from evil and the vain glory of the world, because great pride and
bobauce maketh great sorrow. Should anyone require ye of any quest so that it is
not to thy shame, thou shouldst fulfil the desire.
Ever it is a worshipful knights deed to help another worshipful knight when he
seeth him a great danger, for ever a worshipful man should loath to see a
worshipful man shamed, for it is only he that is of no worship and who faireth
with cowardice that shall never show gentelness or no manner of goodness where he
seeth a man in any danger, but always a good man will do another man as he would
have done to himself.
It should never be said that a small brother has injured or slain another
brother. Thou shouldst not fail in these things: charity, abstinence and truth.
No knight shall win worship but if he be of worship himself and of good living
and that loveth God and dreadeth God then else he geteth no worship here be ever
so hardly.
An envious knight shall never win worship for and envious man wants to win
worship he shall be dishonoured twice therefore without any, and for this cause
all men of worship hate an envious man and will show him no favour.
Do not, nor slay not, anything that will in any way dishonour the fair name of
Christian knighthood for only by stainless and honourable lives and not by
prowess and courage shall the final goal be reached. Therefore be a good knight
and so I pray to God so ye may be, and if ye be of prowess and of worthiness then
ye shall be a Knight of the Table Round.
http://www.kingarthursknights.com/
-------------------------------------
The mystery of the Holy Grail is such that it captivates those who hear of it. It
has been a source of mystery down through the ages.Those who would search it out
for its truths will always be touched by the knowlege that the search brings with
it. It remains the most widely accepted myth of all times, and with small wonder
when the mere thought that this vessel was used by Jesus at the Last Supper, and
touched the lips of Christ and all those who shared the cup with him brings the
light of faith rushing into our heart and mind. The pupose of this page will be
to endeavor to make it easier for all those who are looking for material on the
Holy Grail, by bringing some of these myths in a synopsis form, with the source
listed so that any who care to may research further into the mystery. This page
is dedicated to all those who have brought further light on this sacred subject.
Let us remember the material which is discussed here came from times and cultures
which have been separated from us by many year. As was the case of many early
cultures the story teller was responsible for passing on the tales from one
generation to the next and as such those events which were unwritten from those
early times became myths. Some civilizations were more advanced and used the
written word or heiroglyphics and as such the events which were thus recorded
were of historical importance. In tracing the path of the grail Joseph takes the
cup from a society whose written record exists today to a society where if there
was written historical facts on the grail it did not survive to the present. Such
is a myth, the absence of historical proof. Remember then these few points.
Christ was born, crucified, and the grail which he used was given to Joseph of
Arimathea. This is fact which is written. Then Joseph travels to present day
England with the grail, and here the myth begins due to lack of written records.
Here perhaps is where the true faith of the beliver comes into focus. Do you
believe in Christ, Do you believe in life everlasting, you need to answer these
and the other questions symbolically presented to us by the Life and Death of
Christ and the chalice which he directed us to drink from. Your choice !
It is written that after the last supper. the events of history found Christ
being tried, and then crucified. A man known as Joseph of Arimathea received
permission from Pontius Pilate to take the body of Christ to his own tomb for
burial. Joseph of Arimathea was said to have also acquired the sacred cup that
Jesus touched to his lips at the last supper. Joseph is said to have gathered the
blood of the fallen Christ in that same chalice. The cup was taken by Joseph of
Arimathea to what is now Great Britain and it remained in his possesion until he
died, where it was handed down to succeeding generations of his family. One of
Joseph's descendants became theFisher King,one became a hermit. According to how
you read the "myth" There was at least one more generation. Exactly at what point
in time the Knights Templar acquired possession of the Holy Grail and the final
resting place can only be speculative as there are so many paths the grail could
have taken. Some believe it to be in the Chalice Well in Glastonbury put there by
Joseph of Arimathea. Others feel it may have been taken to Nova Scotia in 1398.
Where is it?
"This is the cup of my blood. It shall be shed for you and for all, so that sins
may be forgiven"
http://www.greatdreams.com/arthur.htm
------------------------------------
For centuries most historians believed that King Arthur was only a legend, but
that legend was based on a real hero whose actions changed the face of Britain
and the world forever.
Like his loyal Knights, Arthur (Clive Owen) sees only chaos and devastation will
follow Rome's final pullout of Britain. Although as a dedicated Christian he is
desperate to return to Rome to influence the budding religion, his first loyalty
is to his pagan Knights. Arthur sees his duty is to free them from their
servitude to Rome so they may return to their ancestral homeland in Sarmatia.
However, before he can, he must lead his Knights of the Round Table on one last
mission, deep into enemy territory on a quest of adventure and profound
enlightenment. Here, Arthur, Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), Galahad (Hugh Dancy), Bors
(Ray Winstone), Tristan, Dagonet and Gawain are forced to confront their
traditional enemy: Merlin and his indigenous guerilla armies. Disdainfully called
'Woads' by the Knights for the Woad plant they use to dye their bodies, Arthur
and his Knights will see these guerillas are the soul of Britain, devastated by
generations of Roman rule. Now, with Rome gone, and without the help of Arthur
and his knights, the invading Saxons will roll over the people like an avalanche.
Under the guidance of former enemy Merlin (Stephen Dillane) and the beautiful,
courageous Guinevere (Keira Knightley), Arthur will struggle to find the strength
to forsake his dreams of Rome to 'become a leader in this land,' and to change
the face of history.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349683/

Edward Gibbon wrote, in "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire",
that King Arthur was indeed a real person; being the last Celtic king
of Britain. Many of the legends of Arthur, however are pure mythology.
Gibbon said that many of the stories could not have happened in
Arthur's time. He speculated that later day knights kept adding
contemporary tales to the Arthurian legends until the original story
was obscurred by subsequent additions. This would be consistent with
the way many legends have been cultivated before and since.

Many towns in Europe have one or more Biblical personalities who
allegedly visited the neighborhood. It is, of course possible that
there is some truth in some of these stories; but not all of them.
People didn't get around that much in those days. Okay, you've got St.
Paul, but he was the exception rather than the rule. It is more likely
that, as Europe turned Christian, people wanted to personalize and
localize the Bible. It is also likely that they combined Biblical
personalities with some of their indigenous legendary heroes.

This doesn't refute anything that Immortalist has said; it just puts a
different spin on it, which is what story tellers do.

R.Schenck

2004-07-09 13:25:30 UTC

***@nmo.net (Talks With Beagles) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
removing groups

snip the big post

Post by Talks With Beagles
Edward Gibbon wrote, in "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire",
that King Arthur was indeed a real person; being the last Celtic king
of Britain.

This would make him pre-roman no? Wouldn't Claudius have run into
him? Or does Gibbon say that he was even more remote? Also, is it
Britain, or England?

Post by Talks With Beagles
Many of the legends of Arthur, however are pure mythology.

'strange tarts dispensing swords from lakes is no basis for a system
of governemnt!'

natch. Do i get point for being the first to cite python? Or no
because i have it horribly garbled??

snip

Post by Talks With Beagles
Many towns in Europe have one or more Biblical personalities who
allegedly visited the neighborhood.

snip

There are some german towns that claim to be founded by certain
assyrian princes no?

snip

Inger E Johansson

2004-07-09 16:19:52 UTC

Post by R.Schenck
removing groups
snip the big post

Post by Talks With Beagles
Edward Gibbon wrote, in "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire",
that King Arthur was indeed a real person; being the last Celtic king
of Britain.

This would make him pre-roman no? Wouldn't Claudius have run into
him? Or does Gibbon say that he was even more remote? Also, is it
Britain, or England?

The interesting thing is that also several of the Icelandic Annals have
Arthur's death noted in the annals.

Inger E

Post by Talks With Beagles
Many of the legends of Arthur, however are pure mythology.

'strange tarts dispensing swords from lakes is no basis for a system
of governemnt!'
natch. Do i get point for being the first to cite python? Or no
because i have it horribly garbled??
snip

Post by Talks With Beagles
Many towns in Europe have one or more Biblical personalities who
allegedly visited the neighborhood.

snip
There are some german towns that claim to be founded by certain
assyrian princes no?
snip

Fridrik Skulason

2004-07-12 14:07:04 UTC

Post by Inger E Johansson
The interesting thing is that also several of the Icelandic Annals have
Arthur's death noted in the annals.

Why is that interesting? Most of the non-Icelandic material in the
annals is just copied from foreign sources - in particular Chronicon
Universale, which was brought to Iceland somewhere around 1250. I
don't know if this particular detail is mentioned there, but it would
be worth checking.

Anyhow, by 1250 it was probably difficult to separate the truth about
Arthur from the myths.

-frisk

Inger E Johansson

2004-07-12 14:42:45 UTC

Post by Fridrik Skulason

Post by Inger E Johansson
The interesting thing is that also several of the Icelandic Annals have
Arthur's death noted in the annals.

Well I think it is, because they must have had other Annals then some of the
Swedish Annals(there are such never discussed btw) nor in all the German
annals. That's why I think it's funny because so many other notes are almost
identical.

Post by Fridrik Skulason
Anyhow, by 1250 it was probably difficult to separate the truth about
Arthur from the myths.

The oldest writing about Arthur were many many hundred years at that time.

Inger E

Post by Fridrik Skulason
-frisk

Martin Edwards

2004-07-09 18:43:05 UTC

Post by R.Schenck
removing groups
snip the big post

Post by Talks With Beagles
Edward Gibbon wrote, in "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire",
that King Arthur was indeed a real person; being the last Celtic king
of Britain.

This would make him pre-roman no? Wouldn't Claudius have run into
him? Or does Gibbon say that he was even more remote? Also, is it
Britain, or England?

No, not necessarily. It really means that he was (possibly) the chief
of a Romano-British confederation that resisted the Anglo_Saxon
invasions.

******Martin Edwards.******

Come on! Nobody's going to ride that lousy freeway
when they can take the Red Car for a nickel.

Eddy Valiant.

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955/

Luminaria

2004-07-13 08:22:13 UTC

Post by Talks With Beagles
Many of the legends of Arthur, however are pure mythology.

'strange tarts dispensing swords from lakes is no basis for a system
of governemnt!'

welll.... sort of....

ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, [angels sing] her arm clad in the purest
shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water
signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops] That is why I am your king!

DENNIS: Listen - strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is
no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives
from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

ARTHUR: Be quiet!

DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just
'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

ARTHUR: Shut up!

DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just
because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!

ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up! (Arthur throttles democratic Dennis)

Jim Webster

2004-07-13 16:24:30 UTC

Post by Luminaria

Post by Talks With Beagles
Many of the legends of Arthur, however are pure mythology.

'strange tarts dispensing swords from lakes is no basis for a system
of governemnt!'

help help, I'm being oppressed!

Jim Webster

FerchArthur

2004-07-14 00:49:27 UTC

Post by Luminaria
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, [angels sing] her arm clad in the purest
shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water
signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops] That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen - strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is
no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives
from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

help help, I'm being oppressed!
Jim Webster

Bloody peasant.
Debra A. Kemp
House of Pendragon I: The Firebrand
2003 Dream Realm Award finalist
http://www.telltalepress.com/debrakemp.html

Luminaria

2004-07-14 05:08:56 UTC

Post by Luminaria

Post by Talks With Beagles
Many of the legends of Arthur, however are pure mythology.

'strange tarts dispensing swords from lakes is no basis for a system
of governemnt!'

help help, I'm being oppressed!
Jim Webster

Sorry - not only couldn't resist - didn't want to!

Lisa

Jim Webster

2004-07-14 06:28:00 UTC

Post by Luminaria

Post by Jim Webster
help help, I'm being oppressed!
Jim Webster

Sorry - not only couldn't resist - didn't want to!
Lisa

Don't worry, I hve copied it to file so that I too can quote it correctly in
the future, many thanks

Jim Webster

Jack Linthicum

2004-07-09 13:59:12 UTC

<snipped the background to get to a point>
Edward Gibbon wrote, in "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire",
that King Arthur was indeed a real person; being the last Celtic king
of Britain. Many of the legends of Arthur, however are pure mythology.
Gibbon said that many of the stories could not have happened in
Arthur's time. He speculated that later day knights kept adding
contemporary tales to the Arthurian legends until the original story
was obscurred by subsequent additions. This would be consistent with
the way many legends have been cultivated before and since.
Many towns in Europe have one or more Biblical personalities who
allegedly visited the neighborhood. It is, of course possible that
there is some truth in some of these stories; but not all of them.
People didn't get around that much in those days. Okay, you've got St.
Paul, but he was the exception rather than the rule. It is more likely
that, as Europe turned Christian, people wanted to personalize and
localize the Bible. It is also likely that they combined Biblical
personalities with some of their indigenous legendary heroes.
This doesn't refute anything that Immortalist has said; it just puts a
different spin on it, which is what story tellers do.

Another thread in this NG has discussed the Iliad and the mistreatment
it received in the movie Troy. But one commenter added that this might
be an attempt to get to the historical truth of a siege of Troy. May I
add two facts: One the recurrence of the theme of a siege or campaign
against a city by the sea (Minoan, Mycenaean, and Theran art) and two
the historical mix of costume and customs in the Iliad itself. IIRC
there is a scene of Hector with a full length body shield from the
15th C BCE fighting with weapons of, perhaps, the 8th C BCE. No one
noticed at the time. Arthur and his knights make inroads in France in
the tales that follow Mallory.

Martin Edwards

2004-07-09 18:44:50 UTC

No one

Post by Jack Linthicum
noticed at the time. Arthur and his knights make inroads in France in
the tales that follow Mallory.

No, they precede Malory. Malory did a kind of summation of the whole
Corpus.

******Martin Edwards.******

Come on! Nobody's going to ride that lousy freeway
when they can take the Red Car for a nickel.

Eddy Valiant.

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955/

Immortalist

2004-07-09 16:02:13 UTC

(An Example of reconStructive Legend making)

Frederick Bartlett (1932) supported the idea that all recall involves
reconstruction. In the classic study, he read a story based on a Native American
legend to his participants and then later asked them to retell it from memory.
Bartlett developed a schema theory in his book Remembering (1932).He defined a
schema as an active organisation of past experiences in which the mind abstracts
a general cognitive structure to represent many particular instances of those
experiences. Bartlett's book consists of an elaboration of schema theory and
shows its application to experimental results that he had collected on memory for
figures, pictures, and stories.

A fundamental assumption of Bartlett's schema theory is that all new information
interacts with old information represented in the schema. This interaction was
noticed by Bartlett in the errors people made in recall. The way of altering
information in memory is also called 'memory distortions'.

One of the two major methods used by Bartlett was serial reproduction (one person
reproduces the original story, a second person has to reproduce the first
reproduction and so on until six or seven reproductions have been made). The
method is meant to duplicate, to some extent, the process by which rumours or
gossip are spread or legends passed from generation to generation. One of the
best known pieces of material used by Bartlett was "The War of the Ghosts", which
is difficult for people from Western culture to reproduce because of its style
and unfamiliar content that reflect other conventions and beliefs.

======================
The War of the Ghosts
======================

One night two young men from Egulac went down to the river to hunt seals and
while they were there it became foggy and calm. Then they heard war cries and
they thought:"Maybe this is a war party". They escaped to the shore and hid
behind a log. Now canoes came up and they heard the noise of paddles and saw one
canoe coming up to them. There were five men in the canoe and they said:" What do
you think? We wish to take you along. We are going up the river to make war on
the people": One of the young men said:" I have no arrows". "Arrows are in the
canoe", they said. "I will not go along. I might be killed. My relatives do not
know where I have gone. But you", he said, turning to the other, "may go with
them". So one of the young men went but the other returned home. And the warriors
went on up the river to a town on the other side of Kalama. The people came down
to the water and they began to fight and many were killed. But presently the
young man heard one of the warriors say:" Quick, let us go home; that Indian has
been hit". Now he thought:"Oh, they are ghosts". He did not feel sick but they
said he had been shot. So the canoes went back to Egulac and the young man went
ashore to his house and made a fire. And he told everybody and said:" Behold I
accompanied the ghosts and we went to fight. Many of our fellows were killed and
many of those who attacked us were killed. They said I was hit and I did not feel
sick". He told it all and then he became quit. When the sun rose he fell down.
Something black came out of his mouth. His face became contorted. The people
jumped up and cried. He was dead.

=============================

Bartlett found characteristic changes in the reproduction of the story, and Ian
Hunter (1964) used the War of the Ghost in a replication of Bartlett's study and
he confirmed Bartlett's finding, including

* The story becomes noticeably shorter, e.g. Bartlett found that after six or
seven reproductions, it shrank from 330 to 180 words.

* Despite becoming shorter, and details being omitted, the story becomes more
coherent; no matter how distorted it might become, it remains a story because the
participants are interpreting the story as a whole, both listening to it and
retelling it.

* The story becomes more conventional, i.e. it retains only those details which
can be easily assimilated to the shared past experience and cultural background
of the participants.

* The story becomes more clichéd, i.e. like a traditional story, and any
individual or peculiar interpretations tend to be dropped.

Bartlett concluded that interpretation plays a large (and rather unrecognised)
role in the remembering of stories and past events. We reconstruct the past by
trying to fit it into our existing schemata and the more difficult this is to do,
the more likely it is that elements are forgotten or distorted so that it fits.
Bartlett refers to efforts after meaning, i.e. trying to make the past more
logical, more coherent and generally more 'sensible', which involves making
inferences or deduction about what could or should have happened. Rather than
human memory being computer-like, with the output matching the input, Bartlett
and Hunter believe that we process information in an active attempt to understand
it. Memory is 'an imaginative reconstruction' of experience. (Bartlett, 1932).

Remembering as a cultural activity

An important implication of Bartlett's work is that memory is a social phenomenon
that cannot be studied as a 'pure' process. Because he emphasised the influence
of previous knowledge and background experience, remembering is integrally
related to the social and cultural contexts in which it is practised. When
members of Western and non-Western cultures are compared on tasks devised in
psychology laboratories, such as free recall of lists of unrelated words, the
people from Western cultures do better, but this is probably due to the
meaninglessness of such tasks for non-Western people.

According to Mistry and Rogoff (1994), culture and memory are enmeshed skills and
'remembering' is an activity with goals whose function is determined by the
social and cultural context in which it takes place. This helps to explain the
phenomenal memory for lines of descent and history of Itamul elders in New
Guinea, needed to resolve disputes over claims to property by conflicting clans.
Bartlett himself described the prodigious ability of Swazi herdsmen to recall
individual characteristics of their cattle. But since Swazi culture revolves
around the possession and care of cattle, this ability is not so surprising. What
these examples show is that remembering is a means of achieving a culturally
important goal, rather than the goal itself.

http://web.isp.cz/jcrane/IB/Memdistort.html
http://www.worc.ac.uk/departs/psycho/UG_Courses/Archive/2001-2002/Psy280/Lecture6.html

Remembering Dangerously

Like the witch-hunt trials of old, people today are being accused and even
imprisoned on 'evidence' provided by memories from dreams and flashbacks --
memories that didn't exist before therapy. What is going on here?
http://www.csicop.org/si/9503/memory.html
http://www.campsych.com/eyewitness.htm

Post by Talks With Beagles
Many towns in Europe have one or more Biblical personalities who
allegedly visited the neighborhood. It is, of course possible that
there is some truth in some of these stories; but not all of them.
People didn't get around that much in those days. Okay, you've got St.
Paul, but he was the exception rather than the rule. It is more likely
that, as Europe turned Christian, people wanted to personalize and
localize the Bible. It is also likely that they combined Biblical
personalities with some of their indigenous legendary heroes.

Well, during the ROman Empire many traders moved around and told stories and
became the stories and drifters hitched rides with them.

It is often said that "all roads lead to Rome," and in fact, they once did. The
road system of the Ancient Romans was one of the greatest engineering
accomplishments of its time, with over 50,000 miles of paved road radiating from
their center at the miliarius aurem in the Forum in the city of Rome. Although
the Roman road system was originally built to facilitate the movement of troops
throughout the empire, it was inevitably used for other purposes by civilians
then and now.

...ROMAN TRADE - As well as they designed their road network, travel on land was
often difficult and dangerous for the Romans. Progress was slow compared to today
's standards and a person traveling on foot would be lucky to travel 35 miles a
day. The more affluent Romans had more choices as to how they could travel.
People who could afford to traveled in litters carried by six to eight men or
several mules. Small groups of travelers, such as families, rode in raedae
(carriages). People in a hurry, such as messengers from the emperor, rode in
cisii, a light carriage like a chariot. However, travel for anybody by any mode
of transportation was not safe, particularly at night. Roadside inns were
strategically located in the countryside at about a days' journey apart. The inns
themselves were not safe. Fights broke out. Murders occurred. Whenever possible,
a traveler stayed with a friend of the family or even a friend of a friends'
family.

http://library.thinkquest.org/13406/rr/
http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/rome-transport.htm
http://ragz-international.com/holy_roman_empire.htm
http://united-states.asinah.net/american-encyclopedia/wikipedia/r/ro/roman_empire.html

Post by Talks With Beagles
This doesn't refute anything that Immortalist has said; it just puts a
different spin on it, which is what story tellers do.

Jack Linthicum

2004-07-09 23:34:44 UTC

fully

Post by Immortalist
one important question -- was there a historical post-Roman Arthur? Many

books,

Post by Immortalist
articles and web-pages simply make the a priori assumption that there has to

be a

Post by Immortalist
historical figure behind the Arthurian legends. Such an assumption is totally
unjustified. As anyone at all familiar with medieval literature in general

will

Post by Immortalist
know, the historicisation of non-historical/mythical personages -- often

through

Post by Immortalist
association with some important event of the past -- is not in any way an

unusual

Post by Immortalist
occurrence.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~tomgreen/arthur.htm
In the years of upheaval after the Roman withdrawal, Britain became an island

Post by Immortalist
small, squabbling kingdoms. Legends indicate that one Aurelius Ambrosius

tried to

Post by Immortalist
unite the small kingdoms against their common enemies-- the Irish, the Picts

and

Post by Immortalist
the Saxons. He was followed in his quest by Uther Pendragon, who is commonly

held

Post by Immortalist
to be the father of Arthur.
Prior to this, however, was the business of Vortigern. It was he who

supposedly

Post by Immortalist
invited the Saxons into Britain, to aid in repelling the invasions of the

Picts.

Post by Immortalist
However, when Vortigern's people (and most notably his sons) objected to the
presence of the Saxons, and saw how Vortigern favored them over his own

people,

Post by Immortalist
they attempted to expel the Saxons. Hengist and Horsa, the Saxon leaders,
objected. Fighting broke out. Vortigern tried to make a peace, but at a
peace-making meeting, Hengist and his Saxons pulled daggers from their boots

and

Post by Immortalist
turned on the unarmed Briton lords and petty kings, and slew them all. At

this

Post by Immortalist
point, Vortigern either conceded his lands to Hengist in exchange for his

life,

Post by Immortalist
or was allowed to live with the horror of what he had wrought-- either way,
Vortigern was spared and set free and fled to Wales.
"There he assembled stonemasons from different parts of the country and

ordered

Post by Immortalist
them to build a tower for him. The masons gathered and began to lay the
foundations of their tower. However much they built one day the earth

swallowed

Post by Immortalist
up the next, in such a way that they had no idea where their work had

vanished

Post by Immortalist
to." (Geoffrey of Monmouth 166)
Vortigern consulted his magicians, and they told him he should find a boy

without

Post by Immortalist
a father, and kill him and incorporate his bones and blood into the

foundations

Post by Immortalist
of the castle. Vortigern sent out messengers, who "came to a town which was
afterwards called Kaermerdin and there they saw some lads playing by the town
gate.... a sudden quarrel broke out between the two lads, whose names were

Merlin

Post by Immortalist
and Dinabutius. As they argued, Dinabutius said to Merlin: '...How can we two

Post by Immortalist
equal in skill? I myself am of royal blood on both sides of my family. As for
you, nobody knows who you are, for you never had a father!'" (Geoffrey of
Monmouth 167). Having found what they sought, the messengers dragged the boy

back

Post by Immortalist
with them to Vortigern.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~merrie/Arthur/story.html
--------------------------------
Charge Given to the Knights by King Arthur
God make you a good man and fail not of beauty. The Round Table was founded

Post by Immortalist
patience, humility, and meekness.Thou art never to do outrageousity, nor

murder,

Post by Immortalist
and always to flee treason, by no means to be cruel, and always to do ladies,
damosels, and gentle women succour. Also, to take no battles in a wrongful
quarrel for no law nor for no world's goods.
Thous shouldst be for all ladies and fight for their quarrels, and ever be
courteous and never refuse mercy to him that asketh mercy, for a knight that

Post by Immortalist
courteous and kind and gentle has favor in every place. Thou shouldst never

hold

Post by Immortalist
a lady or gentle woman against her will.
Thou must keep thy word to all and not be feeble of good believeth and faith.
Right must be defended against might and distress must be protected. Thou

must

Post by Immortalist
know good from evil and the vain glory of the world, because great pride and
bobauce maketh great sorrow. Should anyone require ye of any quest so that it

Post by Immortalist
not to thy shame, thou shouldst fulfil the desire.
Ever it is a worshipful knights deed to help another worshipful knight when

Post by Immortalist
seeth him a great danger, for ever a worshipful man should loath to see a
worshipful man shamed, for it is only he that is of no worship and who

faireth

Post by Immortalist
with cowardice that shall never show gentelness or no manner of goodness

where he

Post by Immortalist
seeth a man in any danger, but always a good man will do another man as he

would

Post by Immortalist
have done to himself.
It should never be said that a small brother has injured or slain another
brother. Thou shouldst not fail in these things: charity, abstinence and

truth.

Post by Immortalist
No knight shall win worship but if he be of worship himself and of good

living

Post by Immortalist
and that loveth God and dreadeth God then else he geteth no worship here be

ever

Post by Immortalist
so hardly.
An envious knight shall never win worship for and envious man wants to win
worship he shall be dishonoured twice therefore without any, and for this

cause

Post by Immortalist
all men of worship hate an envious man and will show him no favour.
Do not, nor slay not, anything that will in any way dishonour the fair name

Post by Immortalist
Christian knighthood for only by stainless and honourable lives and not by
prowess and courage shall the final goal be reached. Therefore be a good

knight

Post by Immortalist
and so I pray to God so ye may be, and if ye be of prowess and of worthiness

then

Post by Immortalist
ye shall be a Knight of the Table Round.
http://www.kingarthursknights.com/
-------------------------------------
The mystery of the Holy Grail is such that it captivates those who hear of

it. It

Post by Immortalist
has been a source of mystery down through the ages.Those who would search it

out

Post by Immortalist
for its truths will always be touched by the knowlege that the search brings

with

Post by Immortalist
it. It remains the most widely accepted myth of all times, and with small

wonder

Post by Immortalist
when the mere thought that this vessel was used by Jesus at the Last Supper,

and

Post by Immortalist
touched the lips of Christ and all those who shared the cup with him brings

the

Post by Immortalist
light of faith rushing into our heart and mind. The pupose of this page will

Post by Immortalist
to endeavor to make it easier for all those who are looking for material on

the

Post by Immortalist
Holy Grail, by bringing some of these myths in a synopsis form, with the

source

Post by Immortalist
listed so that any who care to may research further into the mystery. This

page

Post by Immortalist
is dedicated to all those who have brought further light on this sacred

subject.

Post by Immortalist
Let us remember the material which is discussed here came from times and

cultures

Post by Immortalist
which have been separated from us by many year. As was the case of many early
cultures the story teller was responsible for passing on the tales from one
generation to the next and as such those events which were unwritten from

those

Post by Immortalist
early times became myths. Some civilizations were more advanced and used the
written word or heiroglyphics and as such the events which were thus recorded
were of historical importance. In tracing the path of the grail Joseph takes

the

Post by Immortalist
cup from a society whose written record exists today to a society where if

there

Post by Immortalist
was written historical facts on the grail it did not survive to the present.

Such

Post by Immortalist
is a myth, the absence of historical proof. Remember then these few points.
Christ was born, crucified, and the grail which he used was given to Joseph

Post by Immortalist
Arimathea. This is fact which is written. Then Joseph travels to present day
England with the grail, and here the myth begins due to lack of written

records.

Post by Immortalist
Here perhaps is where the true faith of the beliver comes into focus. Do you
believe in Christ, Do you believe in life everlasting, you need to answer

these

Post by Immortalist
and the other questions symbolically presented to us by the Life and Death of
Christ and the chalice which he directed us to drink from. Your choice !
It is written that after the last supper. the events of history found Christ
being tried, and then crucified. A man known as Joseph of Arimathea received
permission from Pontius Pilate to take the body of Christ to his own tomb for
burial. Joseph of Arimathea was said to have also acquired the sacred cup

that

Post by Immortalist
Jesus touched to his lips at the last supper. Joseph is said to have gathered

the

Post by Immortalist
blood of the fallen Christ in that same chalice. The cup was taken by Joseph

Post by Immortalist
Arimathea to what is now Great Britain and it remained in his possesion until

Post by Immortalist
died, where it was handed down to succeeding generations of his family. One

Post by Immortalist
Joseph's descendants became theFisher King,one became a hermit. According to

how

Post by Immortalist
you read the "myth" There was at least one more generation. Exactly at what

point

Post by Immortalist
in time the Knights Templar acquired possession of the Holy Grail and the

final

Post by Immortalist
resting place can only be speculative as there are so many paths the grail

could

Post by Immortalist
have taken. Some believe it to be in the Chalice Well in Glastonbury put

there by

Post by Immortalist
Joseph of Arimathea. Others feel it may have been taken to Nova Scotia in

1398.

Post by Immortalist
Where is it?
"This is the cup of my blood. It shall be shed for you and for all, so that

sins

Post by Immortalist
may be forgiven"
http://www.greatdreams.com/arthur.htm
------------------------------------
For centuries most historians believed that King Arthur was only a legend,

but

Post by Immortalist
that legend was based on a real hero whose actions changed the face of

Britain

Post by Immortalist
and the world forever.
Like his loyal Knights, Arthur (Clive Owen) sees only chaos and devastation

will

Post by Immortalist
follow Rome's final pullout of Britain. Although as a dedicated Christian he

Post by Immortalist
desperate to return to Rome to influence the budding religion, his first

loyalty

Post by Immortalist
is to his pagan Knights. Arthur sees his duty is to free them from their
servitude to Rome so they may return to their ancestral homeland in Sarmatia.
However, before he can, he must lead his Knights of the Round Table on one

last

Post by Immortalist
mission, deep into enemy territory on a quest of adventure and profound
enlightenment. Here, Arthur, Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), Galahad (Hugh Dancy),

Bors

Post by Immortalist
(Ray Winstone), Tristan, Dagonet and Gawain are forced to confront their
traditional enemy: Merlin and his indigenous guerilla armies. Disdainfully

called

Post by Immortalist
'Woads' by the Knights for the Woad plant they use to dye their bodies,

Arthur

Post by Immortalist
and his Knights will see these guerillas are the soul of Britain, devastated

Post by Immortalist
generations of Roman rule. Now, with Rome gone, and without the help of

Arthur

Post by Immortalist
and his knights, the invading Saxons will roll over the people like an

avalanche.

Post by Immortalist
Under the guidance of former enemy Merlin (Stephen Dillane) and the

beautiful,

Post by Immortalist
courageous Guinevere (Keira Knightley), Arthur will struggle to find the

strength

Post by Immortalist
to forsake his dreams of Rome to 'become a leader in this land,' and to

change

Post by Immortalist
the face of history.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349683/

(An Example of reconStructive Legend making)
Frederick Bartlett (1932) supported the idea that all recall involves
reconstruction. In the classic study, he read a story based on a Native American
legend to his participants and then later asked them to retell it from memory.
Bartlett developed a schema theory in his book Remembering (1932).He defined a
schema as an active organisation of past experiences in which the mind abstracts
a general cognitive structure to represent many particular instances of those
experiences. Bartlett's book consists of an elaboration of schema theory and
shows its application to experimental results that he had collected on memory for
figures, pictures, and stories.
A fundamental assumption of Bartlett's schema theory is that all new information
interacts with old information represented in the schema. This interaction was
noticed by Bartlett in the errors people made in recall. The way of altering
information in memory is also called 'memory distortions'.
One of the two major methods used by Bartlett was serial reproduction (one person
reproduces the original story, a second person has to reproduce the first
reproduction and so on until six or seven reproductions have been made). The
method is meant to duplicate, to some extent, the process by which rumours or
gossip are spread or legends passed from generation to generation. One of the
best known pieces of material used by Bartlett was "The War of the Ghosts", which
is difficult for people from Western culture to reproduce because of its style
and unfamiliar content that reflect other conventions and beliefs.
======================
The War of the Ghosts
======================
One night two young men from Egulac went down to the river to hunt seals and
while they were there it became foggy and calm. Then they heard war cries and
they thought:"Maybe this is a war party". They escaped to the shore and hid
behind a log. Now canoes came up and they heard the noise of paddles and saw one
canoe coming up to them. There were five men in the canoe and they said:" What do
you think? We wish to take you along. We are going up the river to make war on
the people": One of the young men said:" I have no arrows". "Arrows are in the
canoe", they said. "I will not go along. I might be killed. My relatives do not
know where I have gone. But you", he said, turning to the other, "may go with
them". So one of the young men went but the other returned home. And the warriors
went on up the river to a town on the other side of Kalama. The people came down
to the water and they began to fight and many were killed. But presently the
young man heard one of the warriors say:" Quick, let us go home; that Indian has
been hit". Now he thought:"Oh, they are ghosts". He did not feel sick but they
said he had been shot. So the canoes went back to Egulac and the young man went
ashore to his house and made a fire. And he told everybody and said:" Behold I
accompanied the ghosts and we went to fight. Many of our fellows were killed and
many of those who attacked us were killed. They said I was hit and I did not feel
sick". He told it all and then he became quit. When the sun rose he fell down.
Something black came out of his mouth. His face became contorted. The people
jumped up and cried. He was dead.
=============================
Bartlett found characteristic changes in the reproduction of the story, and Ian
Hunter (1964) used the War of the Ghost in a replication of Bartlett's study and
he confirmed Bartlett's finding, including
* The story becomes noticeably shorter, e.g. Bartlett found that after six or
seven reproductions, it shrank from 330 to 180 words.
* Despite becoming shorter, and details being omitted, the story becomes more
coherent; no matter how distorted it might become, it remains a story because the
participants are interpreting the story as a whole, both listening to it and
retelling it.
* The story becomes more conventional, i.e. it retains only those details which
can be easily assimilated to the shared past experience and cultural background
of the participants.
* The story becomes more clichéd, i.e. like a traditional story, and any
individual or peculiar interpretations tend to be dropped.
Bartlett concluded that interpretation plays a large (and rather unrecognised)
role in the remembering of stories and past events. We reconstruct the past by
trying to fit it into our existing schemata and the more difficult this is to do,
the more likely it is that elements are forgotten or distorted so that it fits.
Bartlett refers to efforts after meaning, i.e. trying to make the past more
logical, more coherent and generally more 'sensible', which involves making
inferences or deduction about what could or should have happened. Rather than
human memory being computer-like, with the output matching the input, Bartlett
and Hunter believe that we process information in an active attempt to understand
it. Memory is 'an imaginative reconstruction' of experience. (Bartlett, 1932).
Remembering as a cultural activity
An important implication of Bartlett's work is that memory is a social phenomenon
that cannot be studied as a 'pure' process. Because he emphasised the influence
of previous knowledge and background experience, remembering is integrally
related to the social and cultural contexts in which it is practised. When
members of Western and non-Western cultures are compared on tasks devised in
psychology laboratories, such as free recall of lists of unrelated words, the
people from Western cultures do better, but this is probably due to the
meaninglessness of such tasks for non-Western people.
According to Mistry and Rogoff (1994), culture and memory are enmeshed skills and
'remembering' is an activity with goals whose function is determined by the
social and cultural context in which it takes place. This helps to explain the
phenomenal memory for lines of descent and history of Itamul elders in New
Guinea, needed to resolve disputes over claims to property by conflicting clans.
Bartlett himself described the prodigious ability of Swazi herdsmen to recall
individual characteristics of their cattle. But since Swazi culture revolves
around the possession and care of cattle, this ability is not so surprising. What
these examples show is that remembering is a means of achieving a culturally
important goal, rather than the goal itself.
http://web.isp.cz/jcrane/IB/Memdistort.html
http://www.worc.ac.uk/departs/psycho/UG_Courses/Archive/2001-2002/Psy280/Lecture6.html
Remembering Dangerously
Like the witch-hunt trials of old, people today are being accused and even
imprisoned on 'evidence' provided by memories from dreams and flashbacks --
memories that didn't exist before therapy. What is going on here?
http://www.csicop.org/si/9503/memory.html
http://www.campsych.com/eyewitness.htm

Well, during the ROman Empire many traders moved around and told stories and
became the stories and drifters hitched rides with them.
It is often said that "all roads lead to Rome," and in fact, they once did. The
road system of the Ancient Romans was one of the greatest engineering
accomplishments of its time, with over 50,000 miles of paved road radiating from
their center at the miliarius aurem in the Forum in the city of Rome. Although
the Roman road system was originally built to facilitate the movement of troops
throughout the empire, it was inevitably used for other purposes by civilians
then and now.
...ROMAN TRADE - As well as they designed their road network, travel on land was
often difficult and dangerous for the Romans. Progress was slow compared to today
's standards and a person traveling on foot would be lucky to travel 35 miles a
day. The more affluent Romans had more choices as to how they could travel.
People who could afford to traveled in litters carried by six to eight men or
several mules. Small groups of travelers, such as families, rode in raedae
(carriages). People in a hurry, such as messengers from the emperor, rode in
cisii, a light carriage like a chariot. However, travel for anybody by any mode
of transportation was not safe, particularly at night. Roadside inns were
strategically located in the countryside at about a days' journey apart. The inns
themselves were not safe. Fights broke out. Murders occurred. Whenever possible,
a traveler stayed with a friend of the family or even a friend of a friends'
family.
http://library.thinkquest.org/13406/rr/
http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/rome-transport.htm
http://ragz-international.com/holy_roman_empire.htm
http://united-states.asinah.net/american-encyclopedia/wikipedia/r/ro/roman_empire.html

Post by Talks With Beagles
This doesn't refute anything that Immortalist has said; it just puts a
different spin on it, which is what story tellers do.

I presume this qualifies as a publication of your thesis. Is there
anything you want to discuss on the subject of the thread?

Immortalist

2004-07-10 02:55:05 UTC

fully

Post by Immortalist
one important question -- was there a historical post-Roman Arthur? Many

books,

Post by Immortalist
articles and web-pages simply make the a priori assumption that there has to

be a

Post by Immortalist
historical figure behind the Arthurian legends. Such an assumption is totally
unjustified. As anyone at all familiar with medieval literature in general

will

Post by Immortalist
know, the historicisation of non-historical/mythical personages -- often

through

Post by Immortalist
association with some important event of the past -- is not in any way an

unusual

Post by Immortalist
occurrence.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~tomgreen/arthur.htm
In the years of upheaval after the Roman withdrawal, Britain became an island

Post by Immortalist
small, squabbling kingdoms. Legends indicate that one Aurelius Ambrosius

tried to

Post by Immortalist
unite the small kingdoms against their common enemies-- the Irish, the

Picts

Post by Immortalist
and

Post by Immortalist
the Saxons. He was followed in his quest by Uther Pendragon, who is commonly

held

Post by Immortalist
to be the father of Arthur.
Prior to this, however, was the business of Vortigern. It was he who

supposedly

Post by Immortalist
invited the Saxons into Britain, to aid in repelling the invasions of the

Picts.

Post by Immortalist
However, when Vortigern's people (and most notably his sons) objected to the
presence of the Saxons, and saw how Vortigern favored them over his own

people,

and

Post by Immortalist
turned on the unarmed Briton lords and petty kings, and slew them all. At

this

Post by Immortalist
point, Vortigern either conceded his lands to Hengist in exchange for his

life,

ordered

Post by Immortalist
them to build a tower for him. The masons gathered and began to lay the
foundations of their tower. However much they built one day the earth

swallowed

Post by Immortalist
up the next, in such a way that they had no idea where their work had

vanished

Post by Immortalist
to." (Geoffrey of Monmouth 166)
Vortigern consulted his magicians, and they told him he should find a boy

without

Post by Immortalist
a father, and kill him and incorporate his bones and blood into the

foundations

Merlin

Post by Immortalist
and Dinabutius. As they argued, Dinabutius said to Merlin: '...How can we two

back

Post by Immortalist
patience, humility, and meekness.Thou art never to do outrageousity, nor

murder,

Post by Immortalist
courteous and kind and gentle has favor in every place. Thou shouldst never

hold

must

Post by Immortalist
know good from evil and the vain glory of the world, because great pride and
bobauce maketh great sorrow. Should anyone require ye of any quest so that it

Post by Immortalist
not to thy shame, thou shouldst fulfil the desire.
Ever it is a worshipful knights deed to help another worshipful knight when

Post by Immortalist
seeth him a great danger, for ever a worshipful man should loath to see a
worshipful man shamed, for it is only he that is of no worship and who

faireth

Post by Immortalist
with cowardice that shall never show gentelness or no manner of goodness

where he

Post by Immortalist
seeth a man in any danger, but always a good man will do another man as he

would

Post by Immortalist
have done to himself.
It should never be said that a small brother has injured or slain another
brother. Thou shouldst not fail in these things: charity, abstinence and

truth.

Post by Immortalist
No knight shall win worship but if he be of worship himself and of good

living

Post by Immortalist
and that loveth God and dreadeth God then else he geteth no worship here be

ever

Post by Immortalist
so hardly.
An envious knight shall never win worship for and envious man wants to win
worship he shall be dishonoured twice therefore without any, and for this

cause

Post by Immortalist
all men of worship hate an envious man and will show him no favour.
Do not, nor slay not, anything that will in any way dishonour the fair name

Post by Immortalist
Christian knighthood for only by stainless and honourable lives and not by
prowess and courage shall the final goal be reached. Therefore be a good

knight

Post by Immortalist
and so I pray to God so ye may be, and if ye be of prowess and of worthiness

then

it. It

Post by Immortalist
has been a source of mystery down through the ages.Those who would search it

out

Post by Immortalist
for its truths will always be touched by the knowlege that the search brings

with

Post by Immortalist
it. It remains the most widely accepted myth of all times, and with small

wonder

Post by Immortalist
when the mere thought that this vessel was used by Jesus at the Last Supper,

and

Post by Immortalist
touched the lips of Christ and all those who shared the cup with him brings

the

Post by Immortalist
light of faith rushing into our heart and mind. The pupose of this page will

Post by Immortalist
to endeavor to make it easier for all those who are looking for material on

the

Post by Immortalist
Holy Grail, by bringing some of these myths in a synopsis form, with the

source

Post by Immortalist
listed so that any who care to may research further into the mystery. This

page

Post by Immortalist
is dedicated to all those who have brought further light on this sacred

subject.

Post by Immortalist
Let us remember the material which is discussed here came from times and

cultures

those

the

Post by Immortalist
cup from a society whose written record exists today to a society where if

there

Post by Immortalist
was written historical facts on the grail it did not survive to the present.

Such

Post by Immortalist
is a myth, the absence of historical proof. Remember then these few points.
Christ was born, crucified, and the grail which he used was given to Joseph

Post by Immortalist
Arimathea. This is fact which is written. Then Joseph travels to present day
England with the grail, and here the myth begins due to lack of written

records.

Post by Immortalist
Here perhaps is where the true faith of the beliver comes into focus. Do you
believe in Christ, Do you believe in life everlasting, you need to answer

these

that

Post by Immortalist
Jesus touched to his lips at the last supper. Joseph is said to have gathered

the

Post by Immortalist
blood of the fallen Christ in that same chalice. The cup was taken by Joseph

Post by Immortalist
Arimathea to what is now Great Britain and it remained in his possesion until

Post by Immortalist
died, where it was handed down to succeeding generations of his family. One

Post by Immortalist
Joseph's descendants became theFisher King,one became a hermit. According to

how

Post by Immortalist
you read the "myth" There was at least one more generation. Exactly at what

point

Post by Immortalist
in time the Knights Templar acquired possession of the Holy Grail and the

final

Post by Immortalist
resting place can only be speculative as there are so many paths the grail

could

Post by Immortalist
have taken. Some believe it to be in the Chalice Well in Glastonbury put

there by

Post by Immortalist
Joseph of Arimathea. Others feel it may have been taken to Nova Scotia in

1398.

Post by Immortalist
Where is it?
"This is the cup of my blood. It shall be shed for you and for all, so that

sins

Post by Immortalist
may be forgiven"
http://www.greatdreams.com/arthur.htm
------------------------------------
For centuries most historians believed that King Arthur was only a legend,

but

Post by Immortalist
that legend was based on a real hero whose actions changed the face of

Britain

Post by Immortalist
and the world forever.
Like his loyal Knights, Arthur (Clive Owen) sees only chaos and devastation

will

Post by Immortalist
follow Rome's final pullout of Britain. Although as a dedicated Christian he

Post by Immortalist
desperate to return to Rome to influence the budding religion, his first

loyalty

last

Post by Immortalist
mission, deep into enemy territory on a quest of adventure and profound
enlightenment. Here, Arthur, Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), Galahad (Hugh Dancy),

Bors

Post by Immortalist
(Ray Winstone), Tristan, Dagonet and Gawain are forced to confront their
traditional enemy: Merlin and his indigenous guerilla armies. Disdainfully

called

Post by Immortalist
'Woads' by the Knights for the Woad plant they use to dye their bodies,

Arthur

Post by Immortalist
and his Knights will see these guerillas are the soul of Britain, devastated

Post by Immortalist
generations of Roman rule. Now, with Rome gone, and without the help of

Arthur

Post by Immortalist
and his knights, the invading Saxons will roll over the people like an

avalanche.

Post by Immortalist
Under the guidance of former enemy Merlin (Stephen Dillane) and the

beautiful,

Post by Immortalist
courageous Guinevere (Keira Knightley), Arthur will struggle to find the

strength

Post by Immortalist
to forsake his dreams of Rome to 'become a leader in this land,' and to

change

Post by Immortalist
the face of history.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349683/

(An Example of reconStructive Legend making)
Frederick Bartlett (1932) supported the idea that all recall involves
reconstruction. In the classic study, he read a story based on a Native American
legend to his participants and then later asked them to retell it from memory.
Bartlett developed a schema theory in his book Remembering (1932).He defined a
schema as an active organisation of past experiences in which the mind abstracts
a general cognitive structure to represent many particular instances of those
experiences. Bartlett's book consists of an elaboration of schema theory and
shows its application to experimental results that he had collected on memory for
figures, pictures, and stories.
A fundamental assumption of Bartlett's schema theory is that all new information
interacts with old information represented in the schema. This interaction was
noticed by Bartlett in the errors people made in recall. The way of altering
information in memory is also called 'memory distortions'.
One of the two major methods used by Bartlett was serial reproduction (one person
reproduces the original story, a second person has to reproduce the first
reproduction and so on until six or seven reproductions have been made). The
method is meant to duplicate, to some extent, the process by which rumours or
gossip are spread or legends passed from generation to generation. One of the
best known pieces of material used by Bartlett was "The War of the Ghosts", which
is difficult for people from Western culture to reproduce because of its style
and unfamiliar content that reflect other conventions and beliefs.
======================
The War of the Ghosts
======================
One night two young men from Egulac went down to the river to hunt seals and
while they were there it became foggy and calm. Then they heard war cries and
they thought:"Maybe this is a war party". They escaped to the shore and hid
behind a log. Now canoes came up and they heard the noise of paddles and saw one
canoe coming up to them. There were five men in the canoe and they said:" What do
you think? We wish to take you along. We are going up the river to make war on
the people": One of the young men said:" I have no arrows". "Arrows are in the
canoe", they said. "I will not go along. I might be killed. My relatives do not
know where I have gone. But you", he said, turning to the other, "may go with
them". So one of the young men went but the other returned home. And the warriors
went on up the river to a town on the other side of Kalama. The people came down
to the water and they began to fight and many were killed. But presently the
young man heard one of the warriors say:" Quick, let us go home; that Indian has
been hit". Now he thought:"Oh, they are ghosts". He did not feel sick but they
said he had been shot. So the canoes went back to Egulac and the young man went
ashore to his house and made a fire. And he told everybody and said:" Behold I
accompanied the ghosts and we went to fight. Many of our fellows were killed and
many of those who attacked us were killed. They said I was hit and I did not feel
sick". He told it all and then he became quit. When the sun rose he fell down.
Something black came out of his mouth. His face became contorted. The people
jumped up and cried. He was dead.
=============================
Bartlett found characteristic changes in the reproduction of the story, and Ian
Hunter (1964) used the War of the Ghost in a replication of Bartlett's study and
he confirmed Bartlett's finding, including
* The story becomes noticeably shorter, e.g. Bartlett found that after six or
seven reproductions, it shrank from 330 to 180 words.
* Despite becoming shorter, and details being omitted, the story becomes more
coherent; no matter how distorted it might become, it remains a story because the
participants are interpreting the story as a whole, both listening to it and
retelling it.
* The story becomes more conventional, i.e. it retains only those details which
can be easily assimilated to the shared past experience and cultural background
of the participants.
* The story becomes more clichéd, i.e. like a traditional story, and any
individual or peculiar interpretations tend to be dropped.
Bartlett concluded that interpretation plays a large (and rather unrecognised)
role in the remembering of stories and past events. We reconstruct the past by
trying to fit it into our existing schemata and the more difficult this is to do,
the more likely it is that elements are forgotten or distorted so that it fits.
Bartlett refers to efforts after meaning, i.e. trying to make the past more
logical, more coherent and generally more 'sensible', which involves making
inferences or deduction about what could or should have happened. Rather than
human memory being computer-like, with the output matching the input, Bartlett
and Hunter believe that we process information in an active attempt to understand
it. Memory is 'an imaginative reconstruction' of experience. (Bartlett, 1932).
Remembering as a cultural activity
An important implication of Bartlett's work is that memory is a social phenomenon
that cannot be studied as a 'pure' process. Because he emphasised the influence
of previous knowledge and background experience, remembering is integrally
related to the social and cultural contexts in which it is practised. When
members of Western and non-Western cultures are compared on tasks devised in
psychology laboratories, such as free recall of lists of unrelated words, the
people from Western cultures do better, but this is probably due to the
meaninglessness of such tasks for non-Western people.
According to Mistry and Rogoff (1994), culture and memory are enmeshed skills and
'remembering' is an activity with goals whose function is determined by the
social and cultural context in which it takes place. This helps to explain the
phenomenal memory for lines of descent and history of Itamul elders in New
Guinea, needed to resolve disputes over claims to property by conflicting clans.
Bartlett himself described the prodigious ability of Swazi herdsmen to recall
individual characteristics of their cattle. But since Swazi culture revolves
around the possession and care of cattle, this ability is not so surprising. What
these examples show is that remembering is a means of achieving a culturally
important goal, rather than the goal itself.
http://web.isp.cz/jcrane/IB/Memdistort.html

http://www.worc.ac.uk/departs/psycho/UG_Courses/Archive/2001-2002/Psy280/Lecture6.html

Post by Immortalist
Remembering Dangerously
Like the witch-hunt trials of old, people today are being accused and even
imprisoned on 'evidence' provided by memories from dreams and flashbacks --
memories that didn't exist before therapy. What is going on here?
http://www.csicop.org/si/9503/memory.html
http://www.campsych.com/eyewitness.htm

Well, during the ROman Empire many traders moved around and told stories and
became the stories and drifters hitched rides with them.
It is often said that "all roads lead to Rome," and in fact, they once did. The
road system of the Ancient Romans was one of the greatest engineering
accomplishments of its time, with over 50,000 miles of paved road radiating from
their center at the miliarius aurem in the Forum in the city of Rome. Although
the Roman road system was originally built to facilitate the movement of troops
throughout the empire, it was inevitably used for other purposes by civilians
then and now.
...ROMAN TRADE - As well as they designed their road network, travel on land was
often difficult and dangerous for the Romans. Progress was slow compared to today
's standards and a person traveling on foot would be lucky to travel 35 miles a
day. The more affluent Romans had more choices as to how they could travel.
People who could afford to traveled in litters carried by six to eight men or
several mules. Small groups of travelers, such as families, rode in raedae
(carriages). People in a hurry, such as messengers from the emperor, rode in
cisii, a light carriage like a chariot. However, travel for anybody by any mode
of transportation was not safe, particularly at night. Roadside inns were
strategically located in the countryside at about a days' journey apart. The inns
themselves were not safe. Fights broke out. Murders occurred. Whenever possible,
a traveler stayed with a friend of the family or even a friend of a friends'
family.
http://library.thinkquest.org/13406/rr/
http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/rome-transport.htm
http://ragz-international.com/holy_roman_empire.htm

http://united-states.asinah.net/american-encyclopedia/wikipedia/r/ro/roman_empire.html

Post by Talks With Beagles
This doesn't refute anything that Immortalist has said; it just puts a
different spin on it, which is what story tellers do.

I presume this qualifies as a publication of your thesis. Is there
anything you want to discuss on the subject of the thread?

I am trying to put out some information that would help form a criterien of
judgment about how well the movies version lives up to not only the legend but
the sociology of legend making. So far.

Jim Webster

2004-07-10 05:43:09 UTC

Post by Jack Linthicum
I presume this qualifies as a publication of your thesis. Is there
anything you want to discuss on the subject of the thread?

how about learning how to snip, to resend 4700 words just to add another
score is just ignorant

Jim Webster

Jack Linthicum

2004-07-10 10:40:22 UTC

Post by Jack Linthicum
I presume this qualifies as a publication of your thesis. Is there
anything you want to discuss on the subject of the thread?

how about learning how to snip, to resend 4700 words just to add another
score is just ignorant

Then you either missed the point of my post or can tolerate one event
but not another.

PAUL GADZIKOWSKI

2004-07-10 14:28:28 UTC

In alt.legend.king-arthur Jack Linthicum <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
: "Jim Webster" <***@zerospam.ok.net> wrote in message news:<cco06l$5pd$***@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
:> "Jack Linthicum" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:> > I presume this qualifies as a publication of your thesis. Is there
:> > anything you want to discuss on the subject of the thread?
:> how about learning how to snip, to resend 4700 words just to add another
:> score is just ignorant
: Then you either missed the point of my post or can tolerate one event
: but not another.

I agree with Mr. Webster. In fact your bandwidth misuse is the greater. In
the post you followed up from "Immortalist", there are 4700 out of 4700
words that the poster felt (appropriately or not) were worth saying, but
in yours there were 20 out of 4720. What kind of ratio is that?

Paul Gadzikowski, ***@iglou.com since 1995
http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com New cartoons daily.

"MEASLES and BUTTERED TOAST"

Jack Linthicum

2004-07-10 17:56:56 UTC

Post by PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
:> > I presume this qualifies as a publication of your thesis. Is there
:> > anything you want to discuss on the subject of the thread?
:>

I must believe this is someone's idea of a triple blind.. Immoralist
wrote how ever many thousands words essentially saying he was very
smart and had a lot of words to use up. All this without making any
reference to concept of whether King Arthur is a fact or a legend.
That is wasting bandwidth. Perhaps, you and Webster are trying to be
excessively cute with the smiley face 'previous quote' marks. I will
acknowledge that you are both cute, now go dance together and let
those who want to discuss the subject put forward in the intial thread
get on with it.

Immortalist

2004-07-10 21:35:31 UTC

Post by PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
:> > I presume this qualifies as a publication of your thesis. Is there
:> > anything you want to discuss on the subject of the thread?
:>

With all the hacked programs and mp3s in the alt.binaries hierarchies and
counteless other humungous files floating here and there, how is a little tiny
bit of text wasting bandwidth? One average image takes up as much text as one
bible and one MP3 takes up about three bibles of text. In order for us
conversation news groups to even compete equally we would have to each post a meg
of text per post and then other hierarchies would be hogging the most bandwidth.

Jim Webster

2004-07-10 21:52:07 UTC

Post by Immortalist
With all the hacked programs and mp3s in the alt.binaries hierarchies and
counteless other humungous files floating here and there, how is a little tiny
bit of text wasting bandwidth? One average image takes up as much text as one
bible and one MP3 takes up about three bibles of text. In order for us
conversation news groups to even compete equally we would have to each post a meg
of text per post and then other hierarchies would be hogging the most bandwidth.

because a lot of us cannot get broadband and therefore do not download mp 3s
etc
But actually the real annoyance is scrolling down an endless message to find
that some clown has left several hundred lines of text, just to put a two
line answer at the bottom.

Jim Webster

Immortalist

2004-07-10 22:22:37 UTC

Post by Immortalist
With all the hacked programs and mp3s in the alt.binaries hierarchies and
counteless other humungous files floating here and there, how is a little

tiny

Post by Immortalist
bit of text wasting bandwidth? One average image takes up as much text as

one

Post by Immortalist
bible and one MP3 takes up about three bibles of text. In order for us
conversation news groups to even compete equally we would have to each

post a meg

Post by Immortalist
of text per post and then other hierarchies would be hogging the most

bandwidth.
because a lot of us cannot get broadband and therefore do not download mp 3s
etc
But actually the real annoyance is scrolling down an endless message to find
that some clown has left several hundred lines of text, just to put a two
line answer at the bottom.
Jim Webster

Those monster files were in the other hierarchies long before there was such a
thing as broadband. The lord creators of the internet created the ability for new
reader programmers to make each post an entire argument with a complete history.
I agree that it is very annoying but hey, we aren't the ones that can pull that
spear out of the rock are we?

Jim Webster

2004-07-11 05:52:43 UTC

Post by Immortalist
Those monster files were in the other hierarchies long before there was such a
thing as broadband. The lord creators of the internet created the ability for new
reader programmers to make each post an entire argument with a complete history.
I agree that it is very annoying but hey, we aren't the ones that can pull that
spear out of the rock are we?

why not?

Jim Webster

Immortalist

2004-07-11 15:16:13 UTC

Post by Immortalist
Those monster files were in the other hierarchies long before there was

such a

Post by Immortalist
thing as broadband. The lord creators of the internet created the ability

for new

Post by Immortalist
reader programmers to make each post an entire argument with a complete

history.

Post by Immortalist
I agree that it is very annoying but hey, we aren't the ones that can pull

that

Post by Immortalist
spear out of the rock are we?

why not?
Jim Webster

True, you could create a movement and there could be massive agreement and there
could be a commision that would convince all servers to go by new protocals and
limits I guess. But an individuals couldn't pull the spear out it would have to
be a very large group.

Jim Webster

2004-07-11 15:25:48 UTC

Post by Immortalist
True, you could create a movement and there could be massive agreement and there
could be a commision that would convince all servers to go by new protocals and
limits I guess. But an individuals couldn't pull the spear out it would have to
be a very large group.

you don't even have to do that, just snip, it is amazing how eventually
people get to copy,

monkey see, monkey do :-))

Jim Webster

Immortalist

2004-07-11 15:55:09 UTC

Post by Immortalist
True, you could create a movement and there could be massive agreement and

there

Post by Immortalist
could be a commision that would convince all servers to go by new

protocals and

Post by Immortalist
limits I guess. But an individuals couldn't pull the spear out it would

have to

Post by Immortalist
be a very large group.

you don't even have to do that, just snip, it is amazing how eventually
people get to copy,
monkey see, monkey do :-))

I suppose that would cover the spear with a mound of moss but like crossposting
and how it was "invented" by the lords of the internet and implemented by
protocals this length of messeages and what is contained in the reply windows
could have various default package settings instead of none. But Micrsoft can't
even agree to fix how those sentences which are broken above so who gives a fuck
when Gates is a Wanker anyway?

Post by Immortalist
Jim Webster

Matt Giwer

2004-07-10 08:39:23 UTC

Post by Talks With Beagles
Edward Gibbon wrote, in "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire",
that King Arthur was indeed a real person; being the last Celtic king
of Britain. Many of the legends of Arthur, however are pure mythology.
Gibbon said that many of the stories could not have happened in
Arthur's time. He speculated that later day knights kept adding
contemporary tales to the Arthurian legends until the original story
was obscurred by subsequent additions. This would be consistent with
the way many legends have been cultivated before and since.

All of which is saying he held the concept that legends of a kernal
of fact. That is an unsupported idea and without basis in fact by his
own words. The people added to story are considered as real and
contemporary as Arthur himself. What he discounts is the possibility
of good creators of fiction.

I have not read Gibbon but did he similarly speculate the Greek gods
were originally real people? And if not there is a clear example
refuting his speculation. How far are the Arthur stories from the
stories of the gods?

--
With Moore's movie now showing even a surrender and public
apology by bin Laden couldn't get Bush re-elected.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3209

Jim Webster

2004-07-10 15:32:49 UTC

All of which is saying he held the concept that legends of a kernal
of fact. That is an unsupported idea and without basis in fact by his
own words. The people added to story are considered as real and
contemporary as Arthur himself. What he discounts is the possibility
of good creators of fiction.
I have not read Gibbon but did he similarly speculate the Greek gods
were originally real people? And if not there is a clear example
refuting his speculation. How far are the Arthur stories from the
stories of the gods?

Interesting some of the early Arthur stories show him as being opposed to
churchmen and having run ins with them. Some of them may have survived
because they were anti-religious and got included in early saints lives etc
to show the sort of things your workaday saint had to put up with

Jim Webster

Matt Giwer

2004-07-11 05:48:00 UTC

All of which is saying he held the concept that legends of a kernal
of fact. That is an unsupported idea and without basis in fact by his
own words. The people added to story are considered as real and
contemporary as Arthur himself. What he discounts is the possibility
of good creators of fiction.
I have not read Gibbon but did he similarly speculate the Greek gods
were originally real people? And if not there is a clear example
refuting his speculation. How far are the Arthur stories from the
stories of the gods?

Of course the search for the grail is there but it is absent a cleric
as a prominent character. It strikes as an anticlerical set of
stories. Arthur isn't cheered by the peasants but he makes a great
kingdom for everyone. But even the greatest king and his nobility are
human so it is anti-royalty also. And again it does mirror the
stories of the gods from the old days.

The entire issue of fact or legend is bogus. The only issue is if we
could discover a biography of the "fact" would he in any manner match
the stories. And if not then it doesn't matter in the least. The
stories are clearly stories and people do not live stories. The oldest
rule, if it tells a story it is not history. The same goes for people.
Biographies are dull and boring just like real life as far as events go.

Can anyone really strip away all the stories and define the person
that is being sought?

And when there are people who are famous from day one, like Geo.
Washington, artifacts of that person are all over the landscape. Local
tradition just does not forget where he was when events happened.
People can trace the lives of Charlemagne, Napolean, Mussolini, Hitler
from day one.

If Arthur had been famous from the beginning there would be places
claiming to have been the location of each major event in his life. At
least one place named Camelot on the earliest maps and descriptions.
More than one place where he first met Guinevere. Her birthplace.
Families claiming their ancestor build the Round Table. But there is
nothing like it. Clearly at some later date people got the idea he was
real and started looking for him. No one until that time bothered to
claim to be connected with the myth.

Consider it Schliemann Syndrome. He found Troy. A myth might be real
and fame and fortune follows the one who reprises the accomplishment.
The best antidote is Schliemann's son spent his career searching for
Atlantis.

--
The question on the Patriot Act is not what it permits.
The question is if anything remains prohibited.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3187

Jim Webster

2004-07-11 06:06:05 UTC

Post by Matt Giwer
If Arthur had been famous from the beginning there would be places
claiming to have been the location of each major event in his life.

indeed scattered around Britain there are many places which have been called
'Arthurs seat' or Arthuret for as long as we have had the maps

At

Post by Matt Giwer
least one place named Camelot on the earliest maps and descriptions.

It was always winchester, which we know to be wrong

Post by Matt Giwer
More than one place where he first met Guinevere. Her birthplace.
Families claiming their ancestor build the Round Table. But there is
nothing like it. Clearly at some later date people got the idea he was
real and started looking for him. No one until that time bothered to
claim to be connected with the myth.

Yes, but remember if the Arthur shown by People like Morris is correct, then
the people who could have made the claims were killed, scattered or fled and
their culture was virtually totally destroyed, especially by the English and
especially between 1100 and 1600

Jim Webster

Matt Giwer

2004-07-13 09:37:49 UTC

Post by Matt Giwer
If Arthur had been famous from the beginning there would be places
claiming to have been the location of each major event in his life.

indeed scattered around Britain there are many places which have been called
'Arthurs seat' or Arthuret for as long as we have had the maps

And because the root word is a title rather than a name that fails to
have meaning of interest. Arth-Atrhrut-birth-place as a name would be
of interest. Simple names do not work. It does require an additional
tradition of the THEE himself was was here not simply a warlord or
local protector was based here.

Post by Matt Giwer
At least one place named Camelot on the earliest maps and descriptions.

It was always winchester, which we know to be wrong

If there is only one and known wrong that should be the end of the
speculation.

The easier it is to destroy the less it was in fact. The idea of
wiping out previous tradition is a gloss. The victor never EVER says
the conquered were weak and wimpy. They are always powerful, usually
more powerful, than the victor who won by some great virtue. Certainly
a real Arthur could never have been greater than Rome and the was no
effort to wipe out the memory of Rome.

William never portray 1066 as a cakewalk even though it might have been.

The ancient world is notably lacking in propaganda aimed at the
peasants as peasants could not vote. They kept their stories among
themselves back then. And the peasants were not educated after a
couple generations the nobles' tales became the only history. And as
they had both the only scribes and the only funds to preserve old
written accounts they also controlled what survives to us today. The
most interesting things are found rotting away in some out of the way
place because no one duplicated it to keep it current.

--
As of May 2004, the US has convicted only three domestic
terrorists. All three are Jews. A fourth, Irving Rubin,
committed suicide rather than stand trial. To date the
only Al Qaeda cell captured intact was operated by Israel.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3198

Jim Webster

2004-07-13 16:36:26 UTC

Post by Matt Giwer
If Arthur had been famous from the beginning there would be places
claiming to have been the location of each major event in his life.

indeed scattered around Britain there are many places which have been called
'Arthurs seat' or Arthuret for as long as we have had the maps

But most historians assume that Arthur was just a local warlord, certainly
he was pretty certainly not some sort of recognised king of the roman
province as we actually know a lot of the kings from the time Arthur is
assumed to be active

Post by Matt Giwer
At least one place named Camelot on the earliest maps and descriptions.

It was always winchester, which we know to be wrong

If there is only one and known wrong that should be the end of the
speculation.

No, because Camelot is almost certainly a later tradition that has little to
do with Arthur but has been added to his legend

The easier it is to destroy the less it was in fact. The idea of
wiping out previous tradition is a gloss. The victor never EVER says
the conquered were weak and wimpy.

Not necessarily, you can also justify conquest because the other lot were
weak and depraved

They are always powerful, usually

Post by Matt Giwer
more powerful, than the victor who won by some great virtue. Certainly
a real Arthur could never have been greater than Rome and the was no
effort to wipe out the memory of Rome.
William never portray 1066 as a cakewalk even though it might have been.
The ancient world is notably lacking in propaganda aimed at the
peasants as peasants could not vote.

I suggest you read up on Ancient coinage. The legends on coins were most
carefully chosen to ensure the recipient got the political message.

They kept their stories among

Post by Matt Giwer
themselves back then. And the peasants were not educated after a
couple generations the nobles' tales became the only history. And as
they had both the only scribes and the only funds to preserve old
written accounts they also controlled what survives to us today. The
most interesting things are found rotting away in some out of the way
place because no one duplicated it to keep it current.

Except that peasants and nobles lived in the same country and had the same
history. Saxon invaders were hardly a class war thing, Vikings stole anyones
daughter on an equal opportunities basis. For much of the history of England
the gap between the landowner in his hall and the peasant in his hut was not
so large that they weren't working side by side to catch harvest before the
rain came. One cannot imagine Warwick the kingmaker stacking sheaves, but
many of his men at arms would keep an eye on the grain locally so that they
knew when it was time to go off and harvest their own

Jim Webster

Matt Giwer

2004-07-14 10:05:46 UTC

Post by Matt Giwer
If Arthur had been famous from the beginning there would be places
claiming to have been the location of each major event in his life.

indeed scattered around Britain there are many places which have been called
'Arthurs seat' or Arthuret for as long as we have had the maps

We find that same thing in bible "history" and for the same reason,
they want to believe. Solomon was likely just a local warlord BUT he
really, really, really did exist. Instead of dropping the whole thing
as myth and fiction as is reasonable in both cases they hold out for
the magical kernal of truth. In both cases if the kernal is true
everything else is false. And as nothing distinguishes this person
then it could be any local warlord. And if you have a professorship or
paying following based upon holding to the kernal of truth idea it
beats unemployment.

Post by Matt Giwer
At least one place named Camelot on the earliest maps and descriptions.

It was always winchester, which we know to be wrong

If there is only one and known wrong that should be the end of the
speculation.

No, because Camelot is almost certainly a later tradition that has little to
do with Arthur but has been added to his legend

And after all the later additions are removed and after it is
accepted we don't have the person's real name then pick a warlord as
any warlord will do. OR simply accept the additions are the story and
do not need any particular individual for the story to exist.

The easier it is to destroy the less it was in fact. The idea of
wiping out previous tradition is a gloss. The victor never EVER says
the conquered were weak and wimpy.

Not necessarily, you can also justify conquest because the other lot were
weak and depraved.

That sort of thing did not become a justification for war until after
WWII that I am aware of. War is for valor and heroics and bragging. In
fact are there any such stories about Arthur? Claims perhaps but any
actual "exciting" tales of doing it? Sort of like expecting tales of
heroism to arise from the Iraq war.

Post by Matt Giwer
They are always powerful, usually
more powerful, than the victor who won by some great virtue. Certainly
a real Arthur could never have been greater than Rome and the was no
effort to wipe out the memory of Rome.
William never portray 1066 as a cakewalk even though it might have been.
The ancient world is notably lacking in propaganda aimed at the
peasants as peasants could not vote.

I suggest you read up on Ancient coinage. The legends on coins were most
carefully chosen to ensure the recipient got the political message.

For the educated, literate peasant? And with a vocabulary of six
(ten?) words they could read all the messages if they ever saw more
than the two lowest demoninations of coinage.

Post by Matt Giwer
They kept their stories among
themselves back then. And the peasants were not educated after a
couple generations the nobles' tales became the only history. And as
they had both the only scribes and the only funds to preserve old
written accounts they also controlled what survives to us today. The
most interesting things are found rotting away in some out of the way
place because no one duplicated it to keep it current.

No argument but how many hours did peasant children spend in school
studying the history of their country? As they had no schooling at all
save many Sunday school what would they have other than stories? And
stories from traveling storytellers, balladeers and such.

--
Decades of alcohol abuse is harmless.
See Dubya for proof.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3186

Jim Webster

2004-07-14 12:45:20 UTC

Post by Jim Webster
But most historians assume that Arthur was just a local warlord, certainly
he was pretty certainly not some sort of recognised king of the roman
province as we actually know a lot of the kings from the time Arthur is
assumed to be active

Me, I just look at the evidence and read round the subject with no money
resting on it either way. I would say that the evidence for Arthur, coming
from several different literary sources, is actually better than Solomon on
that count. As what is wrong with being a local warlord? The whole Illiad
can be seen as an account of the actions of local warlords

Post by Matt Giwer
At least one place named Camelot on the earliest maps and

descriptions.

Post by Jim Webster
It was always winchester, which we know to be wrong

If there is only one and known wrong that should be the end of the
speculation.

No, because Camelot is almost certainly a later tradition that has little to
do with Arthur but has been added to his legend

And after all the later additions are removed and after it is
accepted we don't have the person's real name then pick a warlord as
any warlord will do.

No, because we know the names of many of them already.

OR simply accept the additions are the story and

Post by Matt Giwer
do not need any particular individual for the story to exist.

That doesn't make a lot of sense, just because someone tells a story doesn't
mean the reality is invalid. Wallace has not spontaneously ceased to exist
because they created the film braveheart

The easier it is to destroy the less it was in fact. The idea of
wiping out previous tradition is a gloss. The victor never EVER says
the conquered were weak and wimpy.

Not necessarily, you can also justify conquest because the other lot were
weak and depraved.

That sort of thing did not become a justification for war until after
WWII that I am aware of. War is for valor and heroics and bragging. In
fact are there any such stories about Arthur?

No, some of the stories with a clerical bias portray him as a glorified
cattle thief and extortioner.

Claims perhaps but any

Post by Matt Giwer
actual "exciting" tales of doing it? Sort of like expecting tales of
heroism to arise from the Iraq war.

I suggest you read up on Ancient coinage. The legends on coins were most
carefully chosen to ensure the recipient got the political message.

For the educated, literate peasant? And with a vocabulary of six
(ten?) words they could read all the messages if they ever saw more
than the two lowest demoninations of coinage.

You don't need to be literate to read the motifs on coinage, that is why
they used them. And remember coinage was minted regularly so the message
could be changed and refined every time you minted a new batch, as this
years dies would be different to last years.

No argument but how many hours did peasant children spend in school
studying the history of their country?

As much as the sons of the knightly class. Many of whom were also illiterate
in the early middle ages. You seem trapped in a class war attitude that has
little place before the 19th century

As they had no schooling at all

Post by Matt Giwer
save many Sunday school what would they have other than stories? And
stories from traveling storytellers, balladeers and such.

Yes, these would normally perform at the lords hall.

Jim Webster

Matt Giwer

2004-07-15 07:40:30 UTC

Post by Matt Giwer
We find that same thing in bible "history" and for the same reason,
they want to believe. Solomon was likely just a local warlord BUT he
really, really, really did exist. Instead of dropping the whole thing
as myth and fiction as is reasonable in both cases they hold out for
the magical kernal of truth. In both cases if the kernal is true
everything else is false. And as nothing distinguishes this person
then it could be any local warlord. And if you have a professorship or
paying following based upon holding to the kernal of truth idea it
beats unemployment.

Me, I just look at the evidence and read round the subject with no money
resting on it either way.

But those folks have an audience which likes their material.
Storytellers with PhDs, the modern version of balladeers suitably
dressed in academic robes for modern times.

Post by Jim Webster
I would say that the evidence for Arthur, coming
from several different literary sources, is actually better than Solomon on
that count. As what is wrong with being a local warlord? The whole Illiad
can be seen as an account of the actions of local warlords

But we all have a bit of the romantic in us and wouldn't it be neat
(cool, kewl, whatever) if there really were some truth to these
fables. They are created to inspire good feelings, stimulate some
brain chemical to flowing. The Illiad is a rousing adventure tale.
Even if the people existed they were certainly normal and did not do
anything more adventurous than in any other war.

Believing the basis was an actual person causes more of those
chemicals to flow. It does not validate any of the stories, the
person's character or the nature of the conflict or his deeds. But a
"real person" makes the stories more real and more chemicals.

Post by Matt Giwer
And after all the later additions are removed and after it is
accepted we don't have the person's real name then pick a warlord as
any warlord will do.

No, because we know the names of many of them already.

Once arth or some such is equally likely a title or generic term
their actual names become meaningless.

Post by Matt Giwer
OR simply accept the additions are the story and
do not need any particular individual for the story to exist.

That doesn't make a lot of sense, just because someone tells a story doesn't
mean the reality is invalid. Wallace has not spontaneously ceased to exist
because they created the film braveheart

But there are so very few facts known about William OF Wallace beyond
the stories that the stories and the movie are meaningless. From the
facts we know William survived a couple battles and organized some
part of the resistance. There are three other characters in the movie
whom that can describe. So what was his character like and what did he
really do to survive? Was he really trying to keep Scotland free or
was he trying to gain lands in York? Any normal one in his position at
the time would have been trying for the latter. Not quite the same
person as the stories have it.

Post by Matt Giwer
That sort of thing did not become a justification for war until after
WWII that I am aware of. War is for valor and heroics and bragging. In
fact are there any such stories about Arthur?

No, some of the stories with a clerical bias portray him as a glorified
cattle thief and extortioner.

Which would only tell us the clerics didn't like him if their stories
can be trusted.

--
Decades of alcohol abuse is harmless.
See Dubya for proof.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3186

Jim Webster

2004-07-15 14:31:28 UTC

Me, I just look at the evidence and read round the subject with no money
resting on it either way.

But those folks have an audience which likes their material.
Storytellers with PhDs, the modern version of balladeers suitably
dressed in academic robes for modern times.

sure, both both sides of the argument make money out of selling their story

that is your opinion certainly, and as valid as anyone elses opinion without
evidence to support it

Post by Matt Giwer
Believing the basis was an actual person causes more of those
chemicals to flow. It does not validate any of the stories, the
person's character or the nature of the conflict or his deeds. But a
"real person" makes the stories more real and more chemicals.

Post by Matt Giwer
And after all the later additions are removed and after it is
accepted we don't have the person's real name then pick a warlord as
any warlord will do.

No, because we know the names of many of them already.

Once arth or some such is equally likely a title or generic term
their actual names become meaningless.

actually no, if you look at Gildas he names them and we can trace many of
them and their descendants

Post by Matt Giwer
OR simply accept the additions are the story and
do not need any particular individual for the story to exist.

That doesn't make a lot of sense, just because someone tells a story doesn't
mean the reality is invalid. Wallace has not spontaneously ceased to exist
because they created the film braveheart

No, some of the stories with a clerical bias portray him as a glorified
cattle thief and extortioner.

Which would only tell us the clerics didn't like him if their stories
can be trusted.

but it kicks firmly into touch your comment about the nature of the stories

Jim Webster

FerchArthur

2004-07-18 06:35:53 UTC

Post by Jim Webster
sure, both both sides of the argument make money out of selling their story

Not necessarily so, my friend. The story teller always tends to get
short-changed. Especially now in the days of bottom dollar big business
publishing.
Debra A. Kemp
House of Pendragon I: The Firebrand
2003 Dream Realm Award finalist
http://www.telltalepress.com/debrakemp.html

Michael Price

2004-07-18 20:51:45 UTC

Post by Matt Giwer
If Arthur had been famous from the beginning there would be places
claiming to have been the location of each major event in his life.

indeed scattered around Britain there are many places which have been called
'Arthurs seat' or Arthuret for as long as we have had the maps

Post by Matt Giwer
At least one place named Camelot on the earliest maps and descriptions.

It was always winchester, which we know to be wrong

If there is only one and known wrong that should be the end of the
speculation.

The easier it is to destroy the less it was in fact. The idea of
wiping out previous tradition is a gloss. The victor never EVER says
the conquered were weak and wimpy. They are always powerful, usually
more powerful, than the victor who won by some great virtue. Certainly
a real Arthur could never have been greater than Rome and the was no
effort to wipe out the memory of Rome.
William never portray 1066 as a cakewalk even though it might have been.
The ancient world is notably lacking in propaganda aimed at the
peasants as peasants could not vote. They kept their stories among
themselves back then. And the peasants were not educated after a
couple generations the nobles' tales became the only history.

Well the only tales thought of as history. The peasants tales could
last longer than the historical account.

Post by Matt Giwer
And as they had both the only scribes and the only funds to preserve old
written accounts they also controlled what survives to us today. The
most interesting things are found rotting away in some out of the way
place because no one duplicated it to keep it current.
--
As of May 2004, the US has convicted only three domestic
terrorists. All three are Jews. A fourth, Irving Rubin,
committed suicide rather than stand trial. To date the
only Al Qaeda cell captured intact was operated by Israel.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3198

Talks With Beagles

2004-07-13 01:53:20 UTC

All of which is saying he held the concept that legends of a kernal
of fact. That is an unsupported idea and without basis in fact by his
own words. The people added to story are considered as real and
contemporary as Arthur himself. What he discounts is the possibility
of good creators of fiction.
I have not read Gibbon but did he similarly speculate the Greek gods
were originally real people? And if not there is a clear example
refuting his speculation. How far are the Arthur stories from the
stories of the gods?

Even works of fiction usually have some kind of historical or
geographical basis to them. To make a story sound authentic, you have
to put it in a context of time and place. This may be something quite
specific, or it may be vague like "once upon a time, in a land far
away". The vague ones tend to be dismissed as fairy tales, while the
more specific ones have the ring of credibility to them. Of course,
this doesn't guarantee that they are true.

So how do you determine if a story is true or not? Even contemporary
tales that are related by our friends frequently have some errors in
them. Just being "documented" doesn't help, because writing something
down instead of transmitting it orally doesn't guarantee accuracy
either. The only advantage a written story has over an oral one is
that it won't change from one day to the next. A book will say the
same thing tomorrow that it says today, which is more than I can say
for most of the people I know, including myself.

We can be reasonably certain that Davy Crockett existed because he was
a member of congress. The government wouldn't lie about a thing like
that, would it? His alleged ability to "grin" a bear down from a tree,
however, is probably ficticious. The bear most likely was coming down
anyway for reasons of his own, and old Davy just took credit for it.
Now that's something a politician might do!

Paul Bunyan, on the other hand was probably a composite character. You
never know, though. Several American states and Canadian provinces
claim to be his birth place, and there is a good possibility that at
least one of them is telling the truth.

I'm working from memory myslf here, but I don't think that Gibbon said
much about Greek gods. He did, however mention the Nordic god, Odin
(Wotan if you're German). Odin lived about the time of Jesus, but he
was a mere mortal at the time. When he was on his death bed, he told
his people that he was going to create a home for them where they
could be reunited with him when they died. ("Valhalla", "Wallhalle",
or something like that). Odin's descendents were documented until
about the year 1000 A.D., when many records were lost due to the Y-1K
problem.

Years later, Richard Wagner wrote a pretty good opera about it. In
Wagner's version, Valhalla is ultimately destroyed when Brunhilde, who
is pissed about the murder of her boyfriend throws herself into a
fire, triggering a thermonuclear reaction which incinerates the
heavens and the Earth. For a slightly different spin on this story,
see: members.nmo.net/talkswithbeagles/story2.html

Of course, I cannot prove that my story, Gibbon's story, or any other
story is totally true; but you can't prove that it's totally false
either. I give Gibbon a lot of credibility because he included some
rather extensive footnotes. He researched this stuff in Latin, Greek,
and French, and then gave you all three versions so you could make up
your own mind. I remember a little French from high school, and was
able to figure out some of the Latin because many of their words are
derived from English. The Greek, however was "all Greek to me". Since
everything else Gibbon wrote made sense to me, I decided to take his
word on the Greek stuff.

Matt Giwer

2004-07-13 10:14:12 UTC

Post by Matt Giwer
I have not read Gibbon but did he similarly speculate the Greek gods
were originally real people? And if not there is a clear example
refuting his speculation. How far are the Arthur stories from the
stories of the gods?

Even works of fiction usually have some kind of historical or
geographical basis to them.

As to Vaterland and Man in the High Castle. Usually is an operative
word that means very little.

Post by Talks With Beagles
To make a story sound authentic, you have
to put it in a context of time and place. This may be something quite
specific, or it may be vague like "once upon a time, in a land far
away". The vague ones tend to be dismissed as fairy tales, while the
more specific ones have the ring of credibility to them. Of course,
this doesn't guarantee that they are true.
So how do you determine if a story is true or not?

That is very simple. As with the bible, pretend you never heard of
it. And you have only ancient mentions and archaeological finds to
work with and you can't make much sense of them. Suddenly someone
finds the Old Testament and it illuminates what has been found.
Suddenly it all makes sense.

As with the bible, there is nothing in the objective history of
England that Arthur explains.

Post by Talks With Beagles
Even contemporary
tales that are related by our friends frequently have some errors in
them. Just being "documented" doesn't help, because writing something
down instead of transmitting it orally doesn't guarantee accuracy
either. The only advantage a written story has over an oral one is
that it won't change from one day to the next. A book will say the
same thing tomorrow that it says today, which is more than I can say
for most of the people I know, including myself.

You appear to be arguing like a biblist. There is no evidence of any
contemporary written source nor claim of same for Arthur. Even if
written it changes with every translation. One thing certain from the
"date" of Arthur, Beowulf would be positively modern in comparison.

There is nothing contemporary on Arthur to translate.

Post by Talks With Beagles
Of course, I cannot prove that my story, Gibbon's story, or any other
story is totally true; but you can't prove that it's totally false
either. I give Gibbon a lot of credibility because he included some
rather extensive footnotes. He researched this stuff in Latin, Greek,
and French, and then gave you all three versions so you could make up
your own mind. I remember a little French from high school, and was
able to figure out some of the Latin because many of their words are
derived from English. The Greek, however was "all Greek to me". Since
everything else Gibbon wrote made sense to me, I decided to take his
word on the Greek stuff.

When it comes to the kernal of truth hope beyond hope it has a
credible basis and an incredible one. For example we ask why gods are
so human and we assume the tradition was of god kings when human
settled down to farming and moved away from animism. That is entirely
different from searching for a particular king who might was the
origin of a particular god or goddess.

It is a significant difference in the nature of the kernals we are
looking for. Was there someone who tried to hold Roman England
together after the empire collapsed? Almost certainly. Was he
successful in the short term? Almost certainly as that is a common
pattern. Was his life anything like Arthur beyond the common pattern?
Absolutely not corroborative evidence.

And there are other models such as restoring former glory which are
common, consider restoring the Holy Roman Empire. Even Hitler claimed
that. Short term success is common. Local heros are quite common and
when adopted much later by a successful nation they gain an appearance
of credibility. If the nation had not developed the local story would
never gain people on a quest to find his reality.

As English speakers we don't pay much attention to similar stories
around the world but elevate Arthur to something special.

On continental Europe similar character of several varieties of Goth
made it to Rome and didn't need stories as they succeeded.

--
Were the US to cease support, Israel would
become a tail in search of a dog.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3201

Lyn David Thomas

2004-07-13 11:27:16 UTC

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:14:12 GMT

Post by Matt Giwer
As with the bible, there is nothing in the objective history of
England that Arthur explains.

Umm Arthur doesn't feature in the History of England, England didn't
exist and the people that Arthur fought against would later become the
English..... That is if Arthur existed at all.

Matt Giwer

2004-07-14 10:14:26 UTC

Post by Lyn David Thomas
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:14:12 GMT

Post by Matt Giwer
As with the bible, there is nothing in the objective history of
England that Arthur explains.

Umm Arthur doesn't feature in the History of England, England didn't
exist

Of course not but what convoluted terminology should I use? Tin
Islands comes to mind.

Post by Lyn David Thomas
and the people that Arthur fought against would later become the
English..... That is if Arthur existed at all.

That being the whole point. Absent evidence of existance there is no
reason to assume he did exist. Those who want to find a real Arthur
are true believers like "bible" archaeologists.

--
Iraq embrace western values? We can't even get our
fundies to embrace the American value of freedom
from religion in our government.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3192

Roger Pearse

2004-07-13 12:50:51 UTC

Post by Talks With Beagles
We can be reasonably certain that Davy Crockett existed because he was
a member of congress.

I would hope that our trust in his life and activity did not rely
solely on such evidence.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Inger E Johansson

2004-07-13 13:43:19 UTC

Post by Roger Pearse

Post by Talks With Beagles
We can be reasonably certain that Davy Crockett existed because he was
a member of congress.

I would hope that our trust in his life and activity did not rely
solely on such evidence.

I second that hope. A person proven to have existed wearing the name isn't
necessarily the person of the myths...... :-)

Inger E

Post by Roger Pearse
All the best,
Roger Pearse

Jim Webster

2004-07-13 16:38:35 UTC

Post by Roger Pearse

Post by Talks With Beagles
We can be reasonably certain that Davy Crockett existed because he was
a member of congress.

I would hope that our trust in his life and activity did not rely
solely on such evidence.

yes, the idea of believing everything a politician puts in his or her CV
worries me

Jim Webster

Talks With Beagles

2004-07-14 01:08:55 UTC

Post by Roger Pearse

Post by Talks With Beagles
We can be reasonably certain that Davy Crockett existed because he was
a member of congress.

I would hope that our trust in his life and activity did not rely
solely on such evidence.

yes, the idea of believing everything a politician puts in his or her CV
worries me
Jim Webster

You guys appear to know a lot more about Arthurian legends than I do,
but I think you missed the point that I was trying to make about
stories in general. I used Davy Crockett and Paul Bunyan as examples
of two different types of legendary characters.

Paul Bunyan is generally regarded as a composite character. This is
similar to the way fiction writers create new characters out of bits
and pieces of people that they have known or read about. These
fictional characters may remind you of certain people that you have
known yourself, but it is unlikely that they will be identical to any
single person that you have known.

Davy Crockett is a historical character, but it is unlikely that he
really did all the things that the legends about him describe. In
Crockett's time, creative story telling was a popular form of
entertainment, and he was known to be pretty good at it himself.
Nowadays a person like that would be called "a bull shit artist",
which can be an insult or a term of admiration depending on your tone
of voice.

One of you referred to me as a "biblicist". I'm not sure if that is an
insult or a compliment, but it doesn't matter. The Bible is full of
mythological stories that were drawn from Jewish and Chaldean
tradition. You can find some of these same stories in the Koran,
albeit with a different spin on them. Stories like that tell you more
about the people who told them than they do about historical events.
The mythology of any culture reflects the mores and values of that
culture. The older a story is, the more likely that it reflects the
values of the culture at a later time than the time in which the story
is set. This is because, every time the story is retold, the teller
puts his own spin on it. Written stories are probably more "true" than
oral ones if they were written closer to the time of the alleged
events. Nevertheless, just because something is written doesn't
guaratee that it's true. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but
some people can lie in writing just as well as they can lie in oral
speech.

Jack Linthicum

2004-07-13 14:09:12 UTC

All of which is saying he held the concept that legends of a kernal
of fact. That is an unsupported idea and without basis in fact by his
own words. The people added to story are considered as real and
contemporary as Arthur himself. What he discounts is the possibility
of good creators of fiction.
I have not read Gibbon but did he similarly speculate the Greek gods
were originally real people? And if not there is a clear example
refuting his speculation. How far are the Arthur stories from the
stories of the gods?

Even works of fiction usually have some kind of historical or
geographical basis to them. To make a story sound authentic, you have
to put it in a context of time and place. This may be something quite
specific, or it may be vague like "once upon a time, in a land far
away". The vague ones tend to be dismissed as fairy tales, while the
more specific ones have the ring of credibility to them. Of course,
this doesn't guarantee that they are true.
So how do you determine if a story is true or not? Even contemporary
tales that are related by our friends frequently have some errors in
them. Just being "documented" doesn't help, because writing something
down instead of transmitting it orally doesn't guarantee accuracy
either. The only advantage a written story has over an oral one is
that it won't change from one day to the next. A book will say the
same thing tomorrow that it says today, which is more than I can say
for most of the people I know, including myself.
We can be reasonably certain that Davy Crockett existed because he was
a member of congress. The government wouldn't lie about a thing like
that, would it? His alleged ability to "grin" a bear down from a tree,
however, is probably ficticious. The bear most likely was coming down
anyway for reasons of his own, and old Davy just took credit for it.
Now that's something a politician might do!
Paul Bunyan, on the other hand was probably a composite character. You
never know, though. Several American states and Canadian provinces
claim to be his birth place, and there is a good possibility that at
least one of them is telling the truth.
I'm working from memory myslf here, but I don't think that Gibbon said
much about Greek gods. He did, however mention the Nordic god, Odin
(Wotan if you're German). Odin lived about the time of Jesus, but he
was a mere mortal at the time. When he was on his death bed, he told
his people that he was going to create a home for them where they
could be reunited with him when they died. ("Valhalla", "Wallhalle",
or something like that). Odin's descendents were documented until
about the year 1000 A.D., when many records were lost due to the Y-1K
problem.
Years later, Richard Wagner wrote a pretty good opera about it. In
Wagner's version, Valhalla is ultimately destroyed when Brunhilde, who
is pissed about the murder of her boyfriend throws herself into a
fire, triggering a thermonuclear reaction which incinerates the
heavens and the Earth. For a slightly different spin on this story,
see: members.nmo.net/talkswithbeagles/story2.html
Of course, I cannot prove that my story, Gibbon's story, or any other
story is totally true; but you can't prove that it's totally false
either. I give Gibbon a lot of credibility because he included some
rather extensive footnotes. He researched this stuff in Latin, Greek,
and French, and then gave you all three versions so you could make up
your own mind. I remember a little French from high school, and was
able to figure out some of the Latin because many of their words are
derived from English. The Greek, however was "all Greek to me". Since
everything else Gibbon wrote made sense to me, I decided to take his
word on the Greek stuff.

Do a google on 'urban legends' sometime and see where some stuff
starts and why it never dies.

Robert J. Gill

2004-07-14 01:09:32 UTC

Post by Talks With Beagles
Paul Bunyan, on the other hand was probably

a composite character. You never know, though.
Several American states and Canadian provinces
claim to be his birth place, and there is a good
possibility that at least one of them is telling
the truth.

I doubt it. Check this out piece about his origins
as a work of corporate "fakelore."

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020510.html

Talks With Beagles

2004-07-15 01:41:23 UTC

Post by Robert J. Gill

Post by Talks With Beagles
Paul Bunyan, on the other hand was probably

a composite character. You never know, though.
Several American states and Canadian provinces
claim to be his birth place, and there is a good
possibility that at least one of them is telling
the truth.
I doubt it. Check this out piece about his origins
as a work of corporate "fakelore."
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020510.html

I just read your source, and it doesn't exactly say that. It says that
the stories were introduced to the general public by corporate writers
during the early 20th Century, but that they were told around lumber
camps as early as 1880. The later day writers certainly embelished the
stories to the point that the old timers would barely recognize them,
but they did not just make them up.

This is pretty much what I was trying to say about Arthurian and
Biblical mythology. The origins of the Biblical stories trace back to
a time when writing was not even invented yet. Latin and Greek were
written languages in the time of Arthur, but English certainly wasn't.
These stories were circulated orally for centuries before they were
ever written down. I know more about the Bible than I do about Arthur,
so I'll talk about that; but I believe that the Arthurian trail would
follow a similar, if not identical path.

The Bible, as we know it, was put together by a committee in the third
or fourth Century A.D. I believe it was called the Council of Hippo,
which is probably a story unto itself. Before that, there were a lot
of scriptures floating around that claimed to be holy writ. The
council culled out whatever it decided was irrelevent or fraudulent
and bound the remainder into the Bible. They probably acted in good
faith, but we'll never know if something important ended up on the
cutting room floor. These guys were working from Hebrew and Greek
texts, and I believe the first Bible was published in Latin. (I'm
working from memory here.) John Wycliffe (1330-1384) began translating
the Bible into English, but was burned at the stake before he could
get it published. William Tyndale (1494-1536) is credited with getting
the first English version into printed circulation. (I looked those
dates up, but now I'm going to wing it some more.)

So even a written story is subject to error and misrepresentation,
especially if it has been translated from another language. Before the
age of photocopying, every time a story was rewritten or even
reprinted it passed through human hands. In the oral tradition, there
was even more likelihood that, each time a story was told, it was
changed at least a little. It is therefore unlikely that any story of
ancient origin is 100% accurate. This doesn't mean, however, that they
are all 100% bull shit. It has been my experience that most stories
have a certain amount of truth in them, but not as much as people
think.

Jack Linthicum

2004-07-15 10:49:25 UTC

Post by Robert J. Gill

Post by Talks With Beagles
Paul Bunyan, on the other hand was probably

a composite character. You never know, though.
Several American states and Canadian provinces
claim to be his birth place, and there is a good
possibility that at least one of them is telling
the truth.
I doubt it. Check this out piece about his origins
as a work of corporate "fakelore."
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020510.html

I just read your source, and it doesn't exactly say that. It says that
the stories were introduced to the general public by corporate writers
during the early 20th Century, but that they were told around lumber
camps as early as 1880. The later day writers certainly embelished the
stories to the point that the old timers would barely recognize them,
but they did not just make them up.
This is pretty much what I was trying to say about Arthurian and
Biblical mythology. The origins of the Biblical stories trace back to
a time when writing was not even invented yet. Latin and Greek were
written languages in the time of Arthur, but English certainly wasn't.
These stories were circulated orally for centuries before they were
ever written down. I know more about the Bible than I do about Arthur,
so I'll talk about that; but I believe that the Arthurian trail would
follow a similar, if not identical path.
The Bible, as we know it, was put together by a committee in the third
or fourth Century A.D. I believe it was called the Council of Hippo,
which is probably a story unto itself. Before that, there were a lot
of scriptures floating around that claimed to be holy writ. The
council culled out whatever it decided was irrelevent or fraudulent
and bound the remainder into the Bible. They probably acted in good
faith, but we'll never know if something important ended up on the
cutting room floor. These guys were working from Hebrew and Greek
texts, and I believe the first Bible was published in Latin. (I'm
working from memory here.) John Wycliffe (1330-1384) began translating
the Bible into English, but was burned at the stake before he could
get it published. William Tyndale (1494-1536) is credited with getting
the first English version into printed circulation. (I looked those
dates up, but now I'm going to wing it some more.)
So even a written story is subject to error and misrepresentation,
especially if it has been translated from another language. Before the
age of photocopying, every time a story was rewritten or even
reprinted it passed through human hands. In the oral tradition, there
was even more likelihood that, each time a story was told, it was
changed at least a little. It is therefore unlikely that any story of
ancient origin is 100% accurate. This doesn't mean, however, that they
are all 100% bull shit. It has been my experience that most stories
have a certain amount of truth in them, but not as much as people
think.

Here's a way to verify this if you want to take the time: go to the
site cited, it is the front page from 335 newspapers in 45 countries
for that day, take the headline story and compare, maybe 20 examples,
for correlation. The news story itself will probably be from one of up
to a dozen news services, but the headline is written locally at the
paper. Watch the subtle slant of one paper against another: "man bites
dog", "Dog victim of crazed maniac", "Humanitarian saves (name it)
from dog", etc. http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/

Hrothgar

2004-07-09 08:55:55 UTC

Post by Immortalist
Many different theories are available as to the 'identity' of Arthur and some
brief methodological notes will be found here regarding the making of such
identifications. While these theories are interesting, they fail to

address > fully one important question -- was there a historical
post-Roman Arthur? > Many books, articles and web-pages simply make
the a priori assumption that > there has to be a historical figure
behind the Arthurian legends. Such an > assumption is totally
unjustified. As anyone at all familiar with medieval > literature in
general will know, the historicisation of non-historical / >
mythical personages -- often through association with some important
event of > the past --is not in any way an unusual occurrence.

Post by Immortalist
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~tomgreen/arthur.htm

This is an old version of this website and is no longer updated (since
2001) -- the latest version of this essay and several new articles can
be found at <http://www.arthuriana.co.uk> Please update any links!

Tom Green

david hughes

2004-07-13 13:09:23 UTC

The historical evidence for proofs of Arthur's existence rests upon
the following sources:
(a) The earliest mention of Arthur by name appears in the "Annales
Cambriae" ["Welsh Annals"], which is a chronicle of early British
History written in Latin by medieval Welsh monks as an on-going record
of events from the 5th-century to the 10th-century. The text begins in
Year 445 and ends in Year 977, however, the text is back-dated to Year
425 and the last entry in the chronicle was made in 954. There are two
entries in the chronicle that refer to Arthur by name: the first is
for Year 72 of the Easter Cycle, which may be reckoned to be Year 517
(New Style) (516 Old Style), and reads that Arthur won the Battle of
Mount Badon [or Badon Hill, which temporarily halted the Anglo-Saxon
advance]; and, the second entry is for Year 93, that is, Year 538 (NS)
(537 OS), and reads that Arthur and Medraut (Mordred) fell in the
Battle of Camlan. The entry Year 72 (Year 517) refers to the "2nd"
Battle of Mount Badon, or Badon Hill, between Arthur and Osla
"Big-Knife", the Angle king; Cissa, the Saxon king; and Aesc, the Jute
King of Kent, who had joined forces with Arthur's arch-nemesis Cerdic
of Wessex, who considered himself the "rightful king". The "1st"
Battle of Mt. Badon had taken place in 493 between Aella of Sussex and
Theodoric and Marcellus, the co-commanders of the Visi-Gothic Biscay
Bay Fleet and Army; and, the "3rd" Battle of Mt. Badon, according to
the "Annales Cambriae" took place in Year 664 [not 665, off a year
here] between Cadwaladr II of Gwynedd and Wulfhere of Mercia. The
point here is that the "Annales Cambriae" mentions other people who
are known to have been historical persons, so that the view that
Arthur was a fictitious figure would be contrary with the character of
the "Annales Cambriae", hence Arthur must have been a real-life
person.
(b) Arthur is referred to in the Welsh "Triads". The "Triads" is not
early Welsh literature strictly speaking, but is a compilation of
ancient British trivia of what were originally more detailed sagas
passed down through the centuries by Celtic bards that preserve the
knowledge of notable historical events, themes, and persons, in early
British literature, which are written in groupings of threes, hence
the title. The triple groupings acts as a mnemonic device to produce a
pattern of versification which gives order to oral tradition. The
"Triads" give somewhat of a record of early British history derived
from ancient legends which were compiled and committed to writing
during the 9th century and preserved in manuscripts dating from the
12th, 13th, and 14th centuries. The "Triads", however, do not give a
totally authentic account of events, themes, or persons, they record,
for modern scholarship has found in the "Triads" an embroidery of
fable spun around hard kernels of some known historical facts. Triad #
21 says that Medrawd (Mordred) revolted against King Arthur while he
was on an expedition against the Roman/Byzantine Empire, and it is
well authenticated in history that the Franks, over whom Arthur
reigned at this time, and their allies, which included Britons, did
invade Italy against the Byzantines and besieged Rome a whole year
from March 537 to March 538, with Arthur their un-named leader.
(c) Gildas, who was Arthur's contemporary, in his "De Excidio et
Conquestu Britanniae" (539), eludes to Arthur, however, does not
mention Arthur by name. He mentions the British victory at Mount Badon
but does not give the names of the combatants, very likely because
those details would already be known to his readers, for most of the
events which he described in his "De Excidio" were still within the
living-memory of his readers when he wrote.
(d) The "Myvyrian Archaiology", a collection of ancient Welsh texts,
compiled from medieval materials by Owain Jones (1801-7), includes
various writings of early Welsh bards, e.g., Taliesin, Myrddin Wyllt,
Aneirin, Llywarch Hen, Golyddan, and others, who were either Arthur's
contemporaries or lived in the next generation or the following one,
who mention Arthur by name. For example, Aneirin, in his "Gododdin"
(593), which he wrote to commemorate the Battle of Catraeth
[Catterick], makes an off-handed reference to Arthur in passing when
he says that a certain warrior, Gwawrddur, was valiant in battle but
"was no Arthur" [verse 1234]. For the comparison he made to hold any
weight the fame of Arthur in his time must have been considerable!
There is reference made by later writers to the now lost works of
Aneirin which included his "Life of Arthur".
(e) Nennius, a Welsh cleric, commissioned by Rhodri Mawr to write his
dynasty's story, in his "Historia Brittonum" (858), using now lost
materials as his sources, such as "The Annals of the Romans", "The
British Chronicles", the various writings of early British saints,
etc., says that Arthur was the victor of the Battle of Mount Badon,
which Gildas had earlier referred to without mentioning the leaders of
the opposing armies.
(f) In the "Mirabilia", which is attached to the Harleian Text of
Nennius' "HB" [# 73], there are references to Arthur.
(g) The Welsh poem, "The Stanzas of The Graves" (900), mentions
Arthur, saying, "the world's wonder a grave for Arthur", that is, he
was buried in an un-marked grave whose site was unknown.
(h) The "Saints' Lives", that is, the biographies of various saints
written by numerous authors [many unknown] between the 600s and the
1100s; such as the "Vita Gildae" ["Life of St. Gildas"], by Caradoc of
Llancarfan (1140); mention Arthur by name. Many of these biographies
have been collected together under one cover and are found in the
medieval manuscript marked "Vespasian", A. XIV., in the British
Museum.
(i) The "Mabinogion" (1050), a collection of early Welsh tales,
recorded in writing but told orally for centuries, contain five
stories with Arthur in them.
(j) William of Malmesbury, considered a usually reliable historian, in
his "De Rebus Gestis Regum Anglorum" (1125), made reference to Arthur
and to all of the legends that had developed around Arthur by his
time.
(k) Henry of Huntingdon, in his "Historia Anglorum" (1129), comments
on Arthur's battles.
(l) Geoffrey of Monmouth, whose "Historia Regum Britanniae" (1136) is
generally considered today not to be historical but based on
historical facts. He gives an account of Arthur's life, which was not
denied by William of Newburgh, the sharpest controversialist of his
time.
(m) Geoffrey Gaimar published "Estoire des Angles" (1145) [now lost],
the French version of the Arthurian story, which was quoted by later
writers.
(n) Mention of Arthur is made in other medieval documents, such as
"The Black Book of Carmarthen" (1150), the "Armorican Chronicle" of
Mont. St. Michael (1150); and, the "Caledonian Chronicles" (1150).
(o) Robert Wace wrote "Roman de Brut" (1155) which gives more
Arthurian information.
(p) Chretien de Troyes, one of the greatest medieval romance writers,
wrote (1160-90) five important works: "Perceval"; "Ywaine"; "Erbic et
Enide", "Cliges", and "Lancelot". His "Perceval" (1160) was later
expanded by Wolfram von Eschenbach in his "Parzival" (1210), which
centuries later was the inspiration for Wagner's opera "Parsifal"
(1882).
(q) Layamon published "Brut" (1190), which was the English translation
of either the French "Roman de Brut", by Wace; or the earlier French
work "Brut" [now lost], by Geoffrey Gaimar.
(r) the "English Chronicle" (1225), by Ralph of Coggeshall, mentions
the discovery of Arthur's grave in 1190 and the two accounts of the
exhumation of the body by Gerald of Wales in his "Liber de Principis
Instructione" (1193) and his "Speculum Ecclesiae" (1215).
(s) Jacob van Maerlant (1250) wrote a book, title [?], now in the
library of The Hague, which mentions "the British king Utherius
Pendraco" and his son "King Arthurus" that gives details of Arthur's
life which are unknown in surviving British literature.
(t) the "Cronica sive Antiquitates Glastoniensis Ecclesiae" (1300), by
John Seen, a monk at Glastonbury Abbey, gives much Arthurian
materials.
(u) the "Polychronicon" (1350), nine volumes on world history by
Ranulf Higden, a Benedictine monk, says that Arthur gave Wessex to
Cerdic as his kingdom in Year 519; the year Arthur restored the old
British aristocracy to their ancestral estates.
(v) the "Morte d'Arthur" (1485), by Thomas Malory, includes many
early French and British traditions.

david hughes

Inger E Johansson

2004-07-13 13:48:22 UTC

Sorry but while the information mostly is correct there are other sources
which definitely is older than 900's. The earliest two I know of, wrote to
soc.history.medieval about it in 1997/98, are both Eastern tables. One of
them I found in a book where Fathers of the Church were discussed and an
Eastern Table up to 600's were shown. I then happened to notice the 429 AD
line. The other is one discussed here and there over the years in
soc.history.medieval as well as in LMB over the years.

Inger E

Post by david hughes
There are two
entries in the chronicle that refer to Arthur by name: the first is
for Year 72 of the Easter Cycle, which may be reckoned to be Year 517
(New Style) (516 Old Style), and reads that Arthur won the Battle of
Mount Badon [or Badon Hill, which temporarily halted the Anglo-Saxon
advance]; and, the second entry is for Year 93, that is, Year 538 (NS)
(537 OS), and reads that Arthur and Medraut (Mordred) fell in the
Battle of Camlan. The entry Year 72 (Year 517) refers to the "2nd"
Battle of Mount Badon, or Badon Hill, between Arthur and Osla
"Big-Knife", the Angle king; Cissa, the Saxon king; and Aesc, the Jute
King of Kent, who had joined forces with Arthur's arch-nemesis Cerdic
of Wessex, who considered himself the "rightful king". The "1st"
Battle of Mt. Badon had taken place in 493 between Aella of Sussex and
Theodoric and Marcellus, the co-commanders of the Visi-Gothic Biscay
Bay Fleet and Army; and, the "3rd" Battle of Mt. Badon, according to
the "Annales Cambriae" took place in Year 664 [not 665, off a year
here] between Cadwaladr II of Gwynedd and Wulfhere of Mercia. The
point here is that the "Annales Cambriae" mentions other people who
are known to have been historical persons, so that the view that
Arthur was a fictitious figure would be contrary with the character of
the "Annales Cambriae", hence Arthur must have been a real-life
person.
(b) Arthur is referred to in the Welsh "Triads". The "Triads" is not
early Welsh literature strictly speaking, but is a compilation of
ancient British trivia of what were originally more detailed sagas
passed down through the centuries by Celtic bards that preserve the
knowledge of notable historical events, themes, and persons, in early
British literature, which are written in groupings of threes, hence
the title. The triple groupings acts as a mnemonic device to produce a
pattern of versification which gives order to oral tradition. The
"Triads" give somewhat of a record of early British history derived
from ancient legends which were compiled and committed to writing
during the 9th century and preserved in manuscripts dating from the
12th, 13th, and 14th centuries. The "Triads", however, do not give a
totally authentic account of events, themes, or persons, they record,
for modern scholarship has found in the "Triads" an embroidery of
fable spun around hard kernels of some known historical facts. Triad #
21 says that Medrawd (Mordred) revolted against King Arthur while he
was on an expedition against the Roman/Byzantine Empire, and it is
well authenticated in history that the Franks, over whom Arthur
reigned at this time, and their allies, which included Britons, did
invade Italy against the Byzantines and besieged Rome a whole year
from March 537 to March 538, with Arthur their un-named leader.
(c) Gildas, who was Arthur's contemporary, in his "De Excidio et
Conquestu Britanniae" (539), eludes to Arthur, however, does not
mention Arthur by name. He mentions the British victory at Mount Badon
but does not give the names of the combatants, very likely because
those details would already be known to his readers, for most of the
events which he described in his "De Excidio" were still within the
living-memory of his readers when he wrote.
(d) The "Myvyrian Archaiology", a collection of ancient Welsh texts,
compiled from medieval materials by Owain Jones (1801-7), includes
various writings of early Welsh bards, e.g., Taliesin, Myrddin Wyllt,
Aneirin, Llywarch Hen, Golyddan, and others, who were either Arthur's
contemporaries or lived in the next generation or the following one,
who mention Arthur by name. For example, Aneirin, in his "Gododdin"
(593), which he wrote to commemorate the Battle of Catraeth
[Catterick], makes an off-handed reference to Arthur in passing when
he says that a certain warrior, Gwawrddur, was valiant in battle but
"was no Arthur" [verse 1234]. For the comparison he made to hold any
weight the fame of Arthur in his time must have been considerable!
There is reference made by later writers to the now lost works of
Aneirin which included his "Life of Arthur".
(e) Nennius, a Welsh cleric, commissioned by Rhodri Mawr to write his
dynasty's story, in his "Historia Brittonum" (858), using now lost
materials as his sources, such as "The Annals of the Romans", "The
British Chronicles", the various writings of early British saints,
etc., says that Arthur was the victor of the Battle of Mount Badon,
which Gildas had earlier referred to without mentioning the leaders of
the opposing armies.
(f) In the "Mirabilia", which is attached to the Harleian Text of
Nennius' "HB" [# 73], there are references to Arthur.
(g) The Welsh poem, "The Stanzas of The Graves" (900), mentions
Arthur, saying, "the world's wonder a grave for Arthur", that is, he
was buried in an un-marked grave whose site was unknown.
(h) The "Saints' Lives", that is, the biographies of various saints
written by numerous authors [many unknown] between the 600s and the
1100s; such as the "Vita Gildae" ["Life of St. Gildas"], by Caradoc of
Llancarfan (1140); mention Arthur by name. Many of these biographies
have been collected together under one cover and are found in the
medieval manuscript marked "Vespasian", A. XIV., in the British
Museum.
(i) The "Mabinogion" (1050), a collection of early Welsh tales,
recorded in writing but told orally for centuries, contain five
stories with Arthur in them.
(j) William of Malmesbury, considered a usually reliable historian, in
his "De Rebus Gestis Regum Anglorum" (1125), made reference to Arthur
and to all of the legends that had developed around Arthur by his
time.
(k) Henry of Huntingdon, in his "Historia Anglorum" (1129), comments
on Arthur's battles.
(l) Geoffrey of Monmouth, whose "Historia Regum Britanniae" (1136) is
generally considered today not to be historical but based on
historical facts. He gives an account of Arthur's life, which was not
denied by William of Newburgh, the sharpest controversialist of his
time.
(m) Geoffrey Gaimar published "Estoire des Angles" (1145) [now lost],
the French version of the Arthurian story, which was quoted by later
writers.
(n) Mention of Arthur is made in other medieval documents, such as
"The Black Book of Carmarthen" (1150), the "Armorican Chronicle" of
Mont. St. Michael (1150); and, the "Caledonian Chronicles" (1150).
(o) Robert Wace wrote "Roman de Brut" (1155) which gives more
Arthurian information.
(p) Chretien de Troyes, one of the greatest medieval romance writers,
wrote (1160-90) five important works: "Perceval"; "Ywaine"; "Erbic et
Enide", "Cliges", and "Lancelot". His "Perceval" (1160) was later
expanded by Wolfram von Eschenbach in his "Parzival" (1210), which
centuries later was the inspiration for Wagner's opera "Parsifal"
(1882).
(q) Layamon published "Brut" (1190), which was the English translation
of either the French "Roman de Brut", by Wace; or the earlier French
work "Brut" [now lost], by Geoffrey Gaimar.
(r) the "English Chronicle" (1225), by Ralph of Coggeshall, mentions
the discovery of Arthur's grave in 1190 and the two accounts of the
exhumation of the body by Gerald of Wales in his "Liber de Principis
Instructione" (1193) and his "Speculum Ecclesiae" (1215).
(s) Jacob van Maerlant (1250) wrote a book, title [?], now in the
library of The Hague, which mentions "the British king Utherius
Pendraco" and his son "King Arthurus" that gives details of Arthur's
life which are unknown in surviving British literature.
(t) the "Cronica sive Antiquitates Glastoniensis Ecclesiae" (1300), by
John Seen, a monk at Glastonbury Abbey, gives much Arthurian
materials.
(u) the "Polychronicon" (1350), nine volumes on world history by
Ranulf Higden, a Benedictine monk, says that Arthur gave Wessex to
Cerdic as his kingdom in Year 519; the year Arthur restored the old
British aristocracy to their ancestral estates.
(v) the "Morte d'Arthur" (1485), by Thomas Malory, includes many
early French and British traditions.
david hughes

Malcolm Martin

2004-07-13 18:00:43 UTC

On 13 Jul 2004 06:09:23 -0700, ***@Aol.com (david hughes) wrote the
following words:

David

Is this off your web site? We had this posted (by someone else) on alk-a
some time back. At the risk of offending those who have seen it before
(and assuming that that which was previously posted is as your last post),
my reply is:

There is just so much here that is either wrong, exaggerated, or of no
value in establishing historical accuracy, that it is difficult to know
where to start.

which leaves it open to serious question as to when the Arthur entries were
inserted, and in particular whether they were comtemporaneous with the
year, or back-inserted.

Almost, but not quite - that Arthur carried the cross of Jesus Christ on
his shoulder for three days and three nights and the Britons were
victorious

Post by david hughes
and, the second entry is for Year 93, that is, Year 538 (NS)
(537 OS), and reads that Arthur and Medraut (Mordred) fell in the
Battle of Camlan.

Yes

Post by david hughes
The entry Year 72 (Year 517) refers to the "2nd"
Battle of Mount Badon, or Badon Hill,

No. That is that is the first Battle of Badon in the Annals -see below

Post by david hughes
between Arthur and Osla
"Big-Knife", the Angle king; Cissa, the Saxon king; and Aesc, the Jute
King of Kent, who had joined forces with Arthur's arch-nemesis Cerdic
of Wessex, who considered himself the "rightful king".

???

Post by david hughes
The "1st"
Battle of Mt. Badon had taken place in 493 between Aella of Sussex and
Theodoric and Marcellus, the co-commanders of the Visi-Gothic Biscay
Bay Fleet and Army;

????

Post by david hughes
and, the "3rd" Battle of Mt. Badon, according to
the "Annales Cambriae" took place in Year 664 [not 665, off a year
here]

The relevant part of this entry reads "Bellum Badonis secundo" or Second
Battle of Badon

Post by david hughes
between Cadwaladr II of Gwynedd and Wulfhere of Mercia. The
point here is that the "Annales Cambriae" mentions other people who
are known to have been historical persons, so that the view that
Arthur was a fictitious figure would be contrary with the character of
the "Annales Cambriae", hence Arthur must have been a real-life
person.

Not necessarily. He could equally have been a non-historical person who
was thought to have been historical by the compiler who inserted him.

Post by david hughes
(b) Arthur is referred to in the Welsh "Triads". The "Triads" is not
early Welsh literature strictly speaking, but is a compilation of
ancient British trivia of what were originally more detailed sagas
passed down through the centuries by Celtic bards that preserve the
knowledge of notable historical events, themes, and persons, in early
British literature, which are written in groupings of threes, hence
the title. The triple groupings acts as a mnemonic device to produce a
pattern of versification which gives order to oral tradition. The
"Triads" give somewhat of a record of early British history derived
from ancient legends which were compiled and committed to writing
during the 9th century and preserved in manuscripts dating from the
12th, 13th, and 14th centuries. The "Triads", however, do not give a
totally authentic account of events, themes, or persons, they record,
for modern scholarship has found in the "Triads" an embroidery of
fable spun around hard kernels of some known historical facts.

Which begs the question as to how to separate fable from historical fact,
and as to which vein Arthur of the Triads belongs

Post by david hughes
Triad #
21 says that Medrawd (Mordred) revolted against King Arthur while he
was on an expedition against the Roman/Byzantine Empire,

Should that be Triad 51?

Post by david hughes
and it is
well authenticated in history that the Franks, over whom Arthur
reigned at this time,

Clovis to 511, and thereafter his sons and grandsons.......

Post by david hughes
and their allies, which included Britons, did
invade Italy against the Byzantines and besieged Rome a whole year
from March 537 to March 538, with Arthur their un-named leader.

Alternatively, Theudebert I (534-548) [grandson of Clovis] in 539 launched
his incursion into Italy where, by shifting alliiances and teachery to both
Byzantines and Ostrogoths, he managed to bring upper Italy under his
control.

Post by david hughes
(c) Gildas, who was Arthur's contemporary, in his "De Excidio et
Conquestu Britanniae" (539), eludes to Arthur, however, does not
mention Arthur by name.

Certainly there is the allusion, but because it is only an allusion, it
cannot be certain that it is an allusion to a historical Arthur

Post by david hughes
He mentions the British victory at Mount Badon
but does not give the names of the combatants, very likely because
those details would already be known to his readers, for most of the
events which he described in his "De Excidio" were still within the
living-memory of his readers when he wrote.

If absence of evidence is not proof of absence, it is also certainly not
proof of presence! The fact he does not name Arthur with regard to Badon
does not make it a " historical evidence for proofs of Arthur's existence"
or prove that Arthur was there and so well known!

Post by david hughes
(d) The "Myvyrian Archaiology", a collection of ancient Welsh texts,
compiled from medieval materials by Owain Jones (1801-7), includes
various writings of early Welsh bards, e.g., Taliesin, Myrddin Wyllt,
Aneirin, Llywarch Hen, Golyddan, and others, who were either Arthur's
contemporaries or lived in the next generation or the following one,
who mention Arthur by name. For example, Aneirin, in his "Gododdin"
(593), which he wrote to commemorate the Battle of Catraeth
[Catterick], makes an off-handed reference to Arthur in passing when
he says that a certain warrior, Gwawrddur, was valiant in battle but
"was no Arthur" [verse 1234]. For the comparison he made to hold any
weight the fame of Arthur in his time must have been considerable!

Or legendary. But that is the best argument thus far, although not for the
reasons stated.

Post by david hughes
There is reference made by later writers to the now lost works of
Aneirin which included his "Life of Arthur".

I have not come across any reference to this by Aneirin - Anybody else?

There is a reference to discarded works of Gildas in Gerald of Wales. Is
this what is meant?

Post by david hughes
(e) Nennius, a Welsh cleric, commissioned by Rhodri Mawr to write his
dynasty's story, in his "Historia Brittonum" (858), using now lost
materials as his sources, such as "The Annals of the Romans", "The
British Chronicles", the various writings of early British saints,
etc., says that Arthur was the victor of the Battle of Mount Badon,
which Gildas had earlier referred to without mentioning the leaders of
the opposing armies.

And that he killed 960 people in the battle, all by himself. Which does
lead some to question the historical accuracy of the account

Post by david hughes
(f) In the "Mirabilia", which is attached to the Harleian Text of
Nennius' "HB" [# 73], there are references to Arthur.

Yes, which give strength to the suggestion that Arthur is fantastical and
non historical.

Post by david hughes
(g) The Welsh poem, "The Stanzas of The Graves" (900), mentions
Arthur, saying, "the world's wonder a grave for Arthur", that is, he
was buried in an un-marked grave whose site was unknown.

Yes, which again leads to the suggestion that Arthur is fantastical and non
historical.

Post by david hughes
(h) The "Saints' Lives", that is, the biographies of various saints
written by numerous authors [many unknown] between the 600s and the
1100s; such as the "Vita Gildae" ["Life of St. Gildas"], by Caradoc of
Llancarfan (1140); mention Arthur by name. Many of these biographies
have been collected together under one cover and are found in the
medieval manuscript marked "Vespasian", A. XIV., in the British
Museum.

But the issue of dating of the earlier of these may be questioned, and
those of late date may be said to have little value as to evidence of
historicity. The best that can be said of these is that their writers
believed Arthur to have been historical. It still leaves the question open
as to whether they were right in that belief.

Post by david hughes
(i) The "Mabinogion" (1050), a collection of early Welsh tales,
recorded in writing but told orally for centuries, contain five
stories with Arthur in them.

along with a whole bunch of other fantastical people

Post by david hughes
(j) William of Malmesbury, considered a usually reliable historian, in
his "De Rebus Gestis Regum Anglorum" (1125), made reference to Arthur
and to all of the legends that had developed around Arthur by his
time.

Bit late to be proof of historicity.....

Post by david hughes
(k) Henry of Huntingdon, in his "Historia Anglorum" (1129), comments
on Arthur's battles.

Bit late to be proof of historicity.....

Post by david hughes
(l) Geoffrey of Monmouth, whose "Historia Regum Britanniae" (1136) is
generally considered today not to be historical but based on
historical facts. He gives an account of Arthur's life, which was not
denied by William of Newburgh, the sharpest controversialist of his
time.

Bit late to be proof of historicity.....and the existence of Walter's book
is open to question.....

Post by david hughes
(m) Geoffrey Gaimar published "Estoire des Angles" (1145) [now lost],
the French version of the Arthurian story, which was quoted by later
writers.

But did he get it from Geoffrey?

Post by david hughes
(n) Mention of Arthur is made in other medieval documents, such as
"The Black Book of Carmarthen" (1150), the "Armorican Chronicle" of
Mont. St. Michael (1150); and, the "Caledonian Chronicles" (1150).
(o) Robert Wace wrote "Roman de Brut" (1155) which gives more
Arthurian information
(p) Chretien de Troyes, one of the greatest medieval romance writers,
wrote (1160-90) five important works: "Perceval"; "Ywaine"; "Erbic et
Enide", "Cliges", and "Lancelot". His "Perceval" (1160) was later
expanded by Wolfram von Eschenbach in his "Parzival" (1210), which
centuries later was the inspiration for Wagner's opera "Parsifal"
(1882).
(q) Layamon published "Brut" (1190), which was the English translation
of either the French "Roman de Brut", by Wace; or the earlier French
work "Brut" [now lost], by Geoffrey Gaimar.

None of which prove the historicity of Arthur around 500-538

Post by david hughes
(r) the "English Chronicle" (1225), by Ralph of Coggeshall, mentions
the discovery of Arthur's grave in 1190 and the two accounts of the
exhumation of the body by Gerald of Wales in his "Liber de Principis
Instructione" (1193) and his "Speculum Ecclesiae" (1215).

At the risk of being controversial (!), one of the stronger points - (there
is no suggestion that the monks made anything of this to raise funds etc)

Post by david hughes
(s) Jacob van Maerlant (1250) wrote a book, title [?], now in the
library of The Hague, which mentions "the British king Utherius
Pendraco" and his son "King Arthurus" that gives details of Arthur's
life which are unknown in surviving British literature.
(t) the "Cronica sive Antiquitates Glastoniensis Ecclesiae" (1300), by
John Seen, a monk at Glastonbury Abbey, gives much Arthurian
materials.
(u) the "Polychronicon" (1350), nine volumes on world history by
Ranulf Higden, a Benedictine monk, says that Arthur gave Wessex to
Cerdic as his kingdom in Year 519; the year Arthur restored the old
British aristocracy to their ancestral estates.
(v) the "Morte d'Arthur" (1485), by Thomas Malory, includes many
early French and British traditions.

Bit late to be proof of historicity of Arthur around 500-5

For good measure I follow with your last post, in case any of that has
changed the wording of that which I replied to:

Kind regards

Malcolm Martin
London UK

Post by david hughes
The historical evidence for proofs of Arthur's existence rests upon
(a) The earliest mention of Arthur by name appears in the "Annales
Cambriae" ["Welsh Annals"], which is a chronicle of early British
History written in Latin by medieval Welsh monks as an on-going record
of events from the 5th-century to the 10th-century. The text begins in
Year 445 and ends in Year 977, however, the text is back-dated to Year
425 and the last entry in the chronicle was made in 954. There are two
entries in the chronicle that refer to Arthur by name: the first is
for Year 72 of the Easter Cycle, which may be reckoned to be Year 517
(New Style) (516 Old Style), and reads that Arthur won the Battle of
Mount Badon [or Badon Hill, which temporarily halted the Anglo-Saxon
advance]; and, the second entry is for Year 93, that is, Year 538 (NS)
(537 OS), and reads that Arthur and Medraut (Mordred) fell in the
Battle of Camlan. The entry Year 72 (Year 517) refers to the "2nd"
Battle of Mount Badon, or Badon Hill, between Arthur and Osla
"Big-Knife", the Angle king; Cissa, the Saxon king; and Aesc, the Jute
King of Kent, who had joined forces with Arthur's arch-nemesis Cerdic
of Wessex, who considered himself the "rightful king". The "1st"
Battle of Mt. Badon had taken place in 493 between Aella of Sussex and
Theodoric and Marcellus, the co-commanders of the Visi-Gothic Biscay
Bay Fleet and Army; and, the "3rd" Battle of Mt. Badon, according to
the "Annales Cambriae" took place in Year 664 [not 665, off a year
here] between Cadwaladr II of Gwynedd and Wulfhere of Mercia. The
point here is that the "Annales Cambriae" mentions other people who
are known to have been historical persons, so that the view that
Arthur was a fictitious figure would be contrary with the character of
the "Annales Cambriae", hence Arthur must have been a real-life
person.
(b) Arthur is referred to in the Welsh "Triads". The "Triads" is not
early Welsh literature strictly speaking, but is a compilation of
ancient British trivia of what were originally more detailed sagas
passed down through the centuries by Celtic bards that preserve the
knowledge of notable historical events, themes, and persons, in early
British literature, which are written in groupings of threes, hence
the title. The triple groupings acts as a mnemonic device to produce a
pattern of versification which gives order to oral tradition. The
"Triads" give somewhat of a record of early British history derived
from ancient legends which were compiled and committed to writing
during the 9th century and preserved in manuscripts dating from the
12th, 13th, and 14th centuries. The "Triads", however, do not give a
totally authentic account of events, themes, or persons, they record,
for modern scholarship has found in the "Triads" an embroidery of
fable spun around hard kernels of some known historical facts. Triad #
21 says that Medrawd (Mordred) revolted against King Arthur while he
was on an expedition against the Roman/Byzantine Empire, and it is
well authenticated in history that the Franks, over whom Arthur
reigned at this time, and their allies, which included Britons, did
invade Italy against the Byzantines and besieged Rome a whole year
from March 537 to March 538, with Arthur their un-named leader.
(c) Gildas, who was Arthur's contemporary, in his "De Excidio et
Conquestu Britanniae" (539), eludes to Arthur, however, does not
mention Arthur by name. He mentions the British victory at Mount Badon
but does not give the names of the combatants, very likely because
those details would already be known to his readers, for most of the
events which he described in his "De Excidio" were still within the
living-memory of his readers when he wrote.
(d) The "Myvyrian Archaiology", a collection of ancient Welsh texts,
compiled from medieval materials by Owain Jones (1801-7), includes
various writings of early Welsh bards, e.g., Taliesin, Myrddin Wyllt,
Aneirin, Llywarch Hen, Golyddan, and others, who were either Arthur's
contemporaries or lived in the next generation or the following one,
who mention Arthur by name. For example, Aneirin, in his "Gododdin"
(593), which he wrote to commemorate the Battle of Catraeth
[Catterick], makes an off-handed reference to Arthur in passing when
he says that a certain warrior, Gwawrddur, was valiant in battle but
"was no Arthur" [verse 1234]. For the comparison he made to hold any
weight the fame of Arthur in his time must have been considerable!
There is reference made by later writers to the now lost works of
Aneirin which included his "Life of Arthur".
(e) Nennius, a Welsh cleric, commissioned by Rhodri Mawr to write his
dynasty's story, in his "Historia Brittonum" (858), using now lost
materials as his sources, such as "The Annals of the Romans", "The
British Chronicles", the various writings of early British saints,
etc., says that Arthur was the victor of the Battle of Mount Badon,
which Gildas had earlier referred to without mentioning the leaders of
the opposing armies.
(f) In the "Mirabilia", which is attached to the Harleian Text of
Nennius' "HB" [# 73], there are references to Arthur.
(g) The Welsh poem, "The Stanzas of The Graves" (900), mentions
Arthur, saying, "the world's wonder a grave for Arthur", that is, he
was buried in an un-marked grave whose site was unknown.
(h) The "Saints' Lives", that is, the biographies of various saints
written by numerous authors [many unknown] between the 600s and the
1100s; such as the "Vita Gildae" ["Life of St. Gildas"], by Caradoc of
Llancarfan (1140); mention Arthur by name. Many of these biographies
have been collected together under one cover and are found in the
medieval manuscript marked "Vespasian", A. XIV., in the British
Museum.
(i) The "Mabinogion" (1050), a collection of early Welsh tales,
recorded in writing but told orally for centuries, contain five
stories with Arthur in them.
(j) William of Malmesbury, considered a usually reliable historian, in
his "De Rebus Gestis Regum Anglorum" (1125), made reference to Arthur
and to all of the legends that had developed around Arthur by his
time.
(k) Henry of Huntingdon, in his "Historia Anglorum" (1129), comments
on Arthur's battles.
(l) Geoffrey of Monmouth, whose "Historia Regum Britanniae" (1136) is
generally considered today not to be historical but based on
historical facts. He gives an account of Arthur's life, which was not
denied by William of Newburgh, the sharpest controversialist of his
time.
(m) Geoffrey Gaimar published "Estoire des Angles" (1145) [now lost],
the French version of the Arthurian story, which was quoted by later
writers.
(n) Mention of Arthur is made in other medieval documents, such as
"The Black Book of Carmarthen" (1150), the "Armorican Chronicle" of
Mont. St. Michael (1150); and, the "Caledonian Chronicles" (1150).
(o) Robert Wace wrote "Roman de Brut" (1155) which gives more
Arthurian information.
(p) Chretien de Troyes, one of the greatest medieval romance writers,
wrote (1160-90) five important works: "Perceval"; "Ywaine"; "Erbic et
Enide", "Cliges", and "Lancelot". His "Perceval" (1160) was later
expanded by Wolfram von Eschenbach in his "Parzival" (1210), which
centuries later was the inspiration for Wagner's opera "Parsifal"
(1882).
(q) Layamon published "Brut" (1190), which was the English translation
of either the French "Roman de Brut", by Wace; or the earlier French
work "Brut" [now lost], by Geoffrey Gaimar.
(r) the "English Chronicle" (1225), by Ralph of Coggeshall, mentions
the discovery of Arthur's grave in 1190 and the two accounts of the
exhumation of the body by Gerald of Wales in his "Liber de Principis
Instructione" (1193) and his "Speculum Ecclesiae" (1215).
(s) Jacob van Maerlant (1250) wrote a book, title [?], now in the
library of The Hague, which mentions "the British king Utherius
Pendraco" and his son "King Arthurus" that gives details of Arthur's
life which are unknown in surviving British literature.
(t) the "Cronica sive Antiquitates Glastoniensis Ecclesiae" (1300), by
John Seen, a monk at Glastonbury Abbey, gives much Arthurian
materials.
(u) the "Polychronicon" (1350), nine volumes on world history by
Ranulf Higden, a Benedictine monk, says that Arthur gave Wessex to
Cerdic as his kingdom in Year 519; the year Arthur restored the old
British aristocracy to their ancestral estates.
(v) the "Morte d'Arthur" (1485), by Thomas Malory, includes many
early French and British traditions.
david hughes

Kind regards

Malcolm Martin
London, UK

Inger E Johansson

2004-07-13 23:07:18 UTC

Post by Malcolm Martin
David
Is this off your web site? We had this posted (by someone else) on alk-a
some time back. At the risk of offending those who have seen it before
(and assuming that that which was previously posted is as your last post),
There is just so much here that is either wrong, exaggerated, or of no
value in establishing historical accuracy, that it is difficult to know
where to start.

Post by Malcolm Martin
If absence of evidence is not proof of absence, it is also certainly not
proof of presence! The fact he does not name Arthur with regard to Badon
does not make it a " historical evidence for proofs of Arthur's existence"
or prove that Arthur was there and so well known!

Correct.

Or legendary. But that is the best argument thus far, although not for the
reasons stated.

????

Post by david hughes
There is reference made by later writers to the now lost works of
Aneirin which included his "Life of Arthur".

I have not come across any reference to this by Aneirin - Anybody else?

Yes, I have. Don't have it around anymore but I used it(and referred to it)
in one of my messages in 1997/98 when discussing King Arthur. [Please be
aware that I didn't have telia as my supplier then and that my mailaddress
thus wasn't the same as today]. What I do remember is that the King Arthur I
had found hints to via the ref to Aneirin was same King Arthur who as
co-King to his father and his older brother living in the Lowland of
Scotland on the southern border.

Post by Malcolm Martin
There is a reference to discarded works of Gildas in Gerald of Wales. Is
this what is meant?

No.

correct re. the Battle, we can discuss the Chronicles an other time. Part of
the British chronicles is delivered to us in a Saxon Chronicle which
according to the information Linköping's University's Library got for me in
1995 exists(?) in one example which isn't the same Saxon Chronicle as we
normally call by that name. That example they tracked to a handwritten copy
said to be owned by 'Berliner Stadt's Museum's Library' I never managed to
get hold of it. I once got the information that I would have to go to Berlin
to find out for myself. Then I/we asked if they could confirm that it was
available to be studied. Never had an answer on that one, that's why I have
had other libraries looking for that copy. I can't say much more about it
than I have above. Still have the paper, and the now in-actuall/non-valid
address and phonenr I used then. Had that paper from Linköping's
University's Library after they searched for the Annal.

Post by david hughes
which Gildas had earlier referred to without mentioning the leaders of
the opposing armies.

And that he killed 960 people in the battle, all by himself. Which does
lead some to question the historical accuracy of the account

According to what I found out that figure might have been added later.

Post by david hughes
(f) In the "Mirabilia", which is attached to the Harleian Text of
Nennius' "HB" [# 73], there are references to Arthur.

Yes, which give strength to the suggestion that Arthur is fantastical and
non historical.

I don't agree.

Yes, which again leads to the suggestion that Arthur is fantastical and non
historical.

- Do you believe Horsa to be mythic person as well? He and Arthur both
occured in one early poem.

But the issue of dating of the earlier of these may be questioned,

definitively before 9th century in some cases.

Post by Malcolm Martin
and
those of late date may be said to have little value as to evidence of
historicity. The best that can be said of these is that their writers
believed Arthur to have been historical. It still leaves the question open
as to whether they were right in that belief.

Your opinion. Not necessarily true.

Post by david hughes
(i) The "Mabinogion" (1050), a collection of early Welsh tales,
recorded in writing but told orally for centuries, contain five
stories with Arthur in them.

along with a whole bunch of other fantastical people

Added in later documents, lacking in early.....

<snip the rest since it's more of personal opinions of validity of the
sources mentioned then contra-arguments presented against the indexed list.>

Inger E

Hrothgar

2004-07-14 09:36:47 UTC

<snip>

Malcolm, you have far more patience than I. I was just going to post
:sigh: and a link :-)

Not necessarily. He could equally have been a non-historical person who
was thought to have been historical by the compiler who inserted him.

You know, I always find it shocking just how many people don't get
this...

Cheers,

Tom Green
http://www.arthuriana.co.uk

Malcolm Martin

2004-07-15 17:51:58 UTC

Post by Hrothgar

Post by Malcolm Martin
Not necessarily. He could equally have been a non-historical person who
was thought to have been historical by the compiler who inserted him.

You know, I always find it shocking just how many people don't get
this...

Almost as shocking as how many people think that, just because there is
insufficient written evidence of a historic Arthur, so he can be disposed
of quite briefly, or thught of primarily as apan-Brittonic figure of local
wonder-tales???!!! :-/) :-/) :-/)

Very kind regards

Malcolm Martin
London, UK

Jack Linthicum

2004-07-15 22:28:10 UTC

Post by Hrothgar

Post by Malcolm Martin
Not necessarily. He could equally have been a non-historical person who
was thought to have been historical by the compiler who inserted him.

You know, I always find it shocking just how many people don't get
this...

Spend a few moments with the Robin Hood legend and see how happy you
are the closer you get to scholarship.

Malcolm Martin

2004-07-16 08:59:19 UTC

Post by Jack Linthicum
Spend a few moments with the Robin Hood legend

I did once......

Post by Jack Linthicum
and see how happy you
are the closer you get to scholarship.

.......and decided that there was more than enough in Arthur to keep me
happy

But then, what does it mean to be happy?

Kind regards

Malcolm Martin
London, UK

Hrothgar

2004-07-16 08:20:18 UTC

Post by Hrothgar

Post by Malcolm Martin
Not necessarily. He could equally have been a non-historical person who
was thought to have been historical by the compiler who inserted him.

You know, I always find it shocking just how many people don't get
this...

Yes indeed -- only a fool would think that! :-)

All the best,

Tom Green
http://www.arthuriana.co.uk

Daniel

2004-07-12 12:10:26 UTC