The Reign of King Athur

[Malcolm Martin]

Dear All

Christmas has come once again, and with it the time of feasting, jousts and
presents.

Some of my friends, knowing of my prediliction with the king (no, this is
not an alt.elvis.group!!!) present me with another small tome each year.
This year it was:

Christopher Gidlow "The Reign of Arthur" Sutton Publishing 2004
ISBN 0-7509-3418-2

Most enjoyable - well, for me, and for those of you interested in the
reality question, probably a book worth reading or even having.

Gidlow argues that A was the historical Victor of Badon, into whose
(originally historical) ambit were subsequently drawn additional weird and
wonderful companions (amongst whom he would count Kei and Bedwyr). In
other words he argues against the current prevailing trend that A is
originally a mythological being who was then been historically located.

He does so by a reconsideration of the primary sources in that which he
considers to be their chronological sequence, together with a consideration
of their possible sources. There are aspects of this reconsideration where
he has some useful insights/suggestions that I have not seen elsewhere [eg
Gildas uses 'purple' as the colour of dried martyr's blood, not imperial or
senatorial rank - with the suggestion that Ambrosius's parents were killed
rather than high ranking Romans; that the monks found the grave of A but
sought to bolster their claims by the [false] cross and so destroyed those
claims; that Geoffrey's description of Camlan is such that it comes from
"an earlier stratum of historical material" which is otherwise unknown to
us; amongst others]

He also has an interesting reconsideration of Dark "From Civitas to
Kingdom", looking at sub-Roman Britain, and querying as to whether the old
provincial boundaries were still, in some ways being observed - ie, a
higher form of government than just the civites was still in operation
after 410.

From his considertaion of the sources he concludes the historicity of A is
in the earliest documents, and it is only after those that the mythological
starts to makes its appearance, being attached to an otherwise historical
A.

This is not a book arguing that "King Arthur shared my postcode"
[his expression, not mine - but I wish I had thought of it!],
as he eventually comes to a wide ranging Arthur acting as a Magister
Militum figure for the British Kings, before becoming the Over-Ruler, but
one primarily arguing for: historicity -> myth
instead of myth ->historicity

I do not necessarily accept all of his conclusions or, even, his arguments,
and his writing in places is complex - but a number (if not all) of those
arguments are thought through and well made; and, as such, worth reading
and thinking through, or inter-acting with, especially if you are
interested in this aspect of the legend.

Happy Christmas and a Good and Peaceful New Year to you all

Kind regards

Malcolm Martin
London, UK

[Sollers]

Sounds interesting. I'm inclined to go along with a lot of what Dark says
(though not necessarily all his interpretations). I tend to take a lot of
Culhwch ac Olwen and the Triads as a jumping off pklace, though not all of
the apparently mythological stuff necessarily is; at least some of it looks
to me like typically Welsh "shaggy dog story" humour. The distgance in time
doesn't necessarily mean it ain't so - the typically English "I can't help
your dirty little mind, I meant something completgely different" line of
humour is, after all, there all ready and correct in the Exeter Riddle Book.

I also view the quasi triumvirate of Arthur, Kei and Bedwyr as important
(my own interpretation is Artur as Dux, Cei as Comes, Bedwyr as architectus.

Purple: some of the stories say Arthur was proclaimed Emperor after a
victory over the Picts, and the Welsh tales all call him emperoro, not
King..

In that context, there is something very peculiar about Clovis (exact
contemporoary): Gregory of Tours says the Eastern emperor (Anastasius, I
think) made him Consul., but the procedure is all wrong for consul. It is
very much all right for making someone emperor, though, so there is the
possibility that Anastgasius made Clovis Emperoro of the Western Part. It's
quite possible that Arthur wasn't proclaimed Empeoror until after Clovis
death.


Just speculating, but interesting, isn't it?

Post by Malcolm Martin
Dear All
Christmas has come once again, and with it the time of feasting, jousts and
presents.
Some of my friends, knowing of my prediliction with the king (no, this is
not an alt.elvis.group!!!) present me with another small tome each year.
Christopher Gidlow "The Reign of Arthur" Sutton Publishing 2004
ISBN 0-7509-3418-2
Most enjoyable - well, for me, and for those of you interested in the
reality question, probably a book worth reading or even having.
Gidlow argues that A was the historical Victor of Badon, into whose
(originally historical) ambit were subsequently drawn additional weird and
wonderful companions (amongst whom he would count Kei and Bedwyr). In
other words he argues against the current prevailing trend that A is
originally a mythological being who was then been historically located.
He does so by a reconsideration of the primary sources in that which he
considers to be their chronological sequence, together with a

consideration

Post by Malcolm Martin
of their possible sources. There are aspects of this reconsideration where
he has some useful insights/suggestions that I have not seen elsewhere [eg
Gildas uses 'purple' as the colour of dried martyr's blood, not imperial or
senatorial rank - with the suggestion that Ambrosius's parents were killed
rather than high ranking Romans; that the monks found the grave of A but
sought to bolster their claims by the [false] cross and so destroyed those
claims; that Geoffrey's description of Camlan is such that it comes from
"an earlier stratum of historical material" which is otherwise unknown to
us; amongst others]
He also has an interesting reconsideration of Dark "From Civitas to
Kingdom", looking at sub-Roman Britain, and querying as to whether the old
provincial boundaries were still, in some ways being observed - ie, a
higher form of government than just the civites was still in operation
after 410.
From his considertaion of the sources he concludes the historicity of A is
in the earliest documents, and it is only after those that the

mythological

Post by Malcolm Martin
starts to makes its appearance, being attached to an otherwise historical
A.
This is not a book arguing that "King Arthur shared my postcode"
[his expression, not mine - but I wish I had thought of it!],
as he eventually comes to a wide ranging Arthur acting as a Magister
Militum figure for the British Kings, before becoming the Over-Ruler, but
one primarily arguing for: historicity -> myth
instead of myth ->historicity
I do not necessarily accept all of his conclusions or, even, his arguments,
and his writing in places is complex - but a number (if not all) of those
arguments are thought through and well made; and, as such, worth reading
and thinking through, or inter-acting with, especially if you are
interested in this aspect of the legend.
Happy Christmas and a Good and Peaceful New Year to you all
Kind regards
Malcolm Martin
London, UK

[Rick Boyd]

Post by Malcolm Martin
Dear All
Christmas has come once again, and with it the time of feasting, jousts and
presents.
Some of my friends, knowing of my prediliction with the king (no, this is
not an alt.elvis.group!!!) present me with another small tome each year.
Christopher Gidlow "The Reign of Arthur" Sutton Publishing 2004
ISBN 0-7509-3418-2
Most enjoyable - well, for me, and for those of you interested in the
reality question, probably a book worth reading or even having.
Gidlow argues that A was the historical Victor of Badon, into whose
(originally historical) ambit were subsequently drawn additional weird and
wonderful companions (amongst whom he would count Kei and Bedwyr). In
other words he argues against the current prevailing trend that A is
originally a mythological being who was then been historically located.

Sounds like Gidlow is an Arthur devotee hell bent of supporting his
existence as a real person.

Post by Malcolm Martin
He does so by a reconsideration of the primary sources in that which he
considers to be their chronological sequence, together with a consideration
of their possible sources. There are aspects of this reconsideration where
he has some useful insights/suggestions that I have not seen elsewhere [eg
Gildas uses 'purple' as the colour of dried martyr's blood, not imperial or
senatorial rank - with the suggestion that Ambrosius's parents were killed
rather than high ranking Romans;

"who for their merit were adorned with the purple,"? He's really going
out on a limb with that interpretation.

Post by Malcolm Martin
that the monks found the grave of A but
sought to bolster their claims by the [false] cross and so destroyed those
claims;

Because...?

Post by Malcolm Martin
that Geoffrey's description of Camlan is such that it comes from
"an earlier stratum of historical material" which is otherwise unknown to
us; amongst others]

Nothing Geoffrey said can be taken seriously.

Post by Malcolm Martin
He also has an interesting reconsideration of Dark "From Civitas to
Kingdom", looking at sub-Roman Britain, and querying as to whether the old
provincial boundaries were still, in some ways being observed - ie, a
higher form of government than just the civites was still in operation
after 410.

This is quite possible. Although towns shrunk, there is considerable
archaelogical evidence that they continued operating through the 5th and
even 6th centuries.

Post by Malcolm Martin
From his considertaion of the sources he concludes the historicity of A is
in the earliest documents, and it is only after those that the mythological
starts to makes its appearance, being attached to an otherwise historical
A.

On what evidence? There are no contemporary references to Arthur,
particulalrly if you want him involved in the big business of Badon
Hill. The only references come from sources two hundred years after
Arthur's supposed life, and they could quite easily be confused by the
fictional Arthur being historicised, rather than the historical Arthur
being fictionalised.

Post by Malcolm Martin
This is not a book arguing that "King Arthur shared my postcode"
[his expression, not mine - but I wish I had thought of it!],
as he eventually comes to a wide ranging Arthur acting as a Magister
Militum figure for the British Kings, before becoming the Over-Ruler, but
one primarily arguing for: historicity -> myth
instead of myth ->historicity

That is certainly a proposition that mnay would delight in sharing. But
on what evidence?

Post by Malcolm Martin
I do not necessarily accept all of his conclusions or, even, his arguments,
and his writing in places is complex - but a number (if not all) of those
arguments are thought through and well made; and, as such, worth reading
and thinking through, or inter-acting with, especially if you are
interested in this aspect of the legend.

Maybe they'll dig up Gildas's lost book one day. Until then, Arthur
remains a dodgy proposition.

-- rick boyd