This unit has focussed on considering the historicity
of Arthur as well as the historical contexts within which the image of
Arthur has been reconstructed. It has also viewed Arthur through the
lenses of myth, legend, romance and societal expectations.
Arthur in mosaic
Blog Question : Is this history and does it matter?
Yes, I think it is history - the history of a story, of - as this post says - myth, legend, romance and societal expectations, and also of literature. Arthur is painted as a hero, has great and impossible feats attributed to him, is depicted in mosaics and tapestries and all manner of relics from a by-gone age - the fact that he may never have existed at all does not in any way diminish the effect that he has had on history - one that is quite clear given just how many weeks we've spent studying the footprints he's made in the past.
Sure, Monmouth might have made him wildly unbelievable and Malory might have quite obviously nicked a lot of his material from implausible sources and French romances, but the fact of the matter is that the story endured, continues to endure, and dare I say it helped shape the course of British history, regardless of whether or not the story is true.
So yes, it is history, and considering the impact it has had, it does matter. It just isn't, perhaps, entirely truthful.
Answering the broad question of can the entire story of Arthur be deemed 'history', I undoubtedly must answer with 'yes'. We as a world-community will probably never be able to verify some of these so-called 'facts' that some writers of Arthurian 'history' claim are true, but wether or not these stories are true or not is essentially besides the point. These stories - however factual - have shaped the English histories regardless of their verifiably correct contribution.
Without such 'histories' like Monmouth's, large gaps would be placed within our understanding of the times, thus leaving us with an incomplete history. Thus, while Monmouth took many creative liberties when writing 'Historia regum Britanniae', he did contribute in our understanding of British history in a way that we may have otherwise not been privy to.
As mentioned in Jason's comment above, the fact that Arthur may not have existed at all does not diminish the effect his story has had on history. As discussed in last weeks study, his story saw a revival in the Victorian era, and has been referred to time after time as one of the great - if not the greatest - monarch of all time. His presence, however imagined, impacted and influenced all future areas of British history and monarchy and today stands as an example of heroism.
Ultimately, what I'm trying to get across is that we cannot prove wether or not what people have written about Arthur is true or not - it seems (as detailed over the course of this subject) that for every 'sure-fact' there is an equal counterclaim which seems just as reasonable (or unreasonable). But his 'supposed' history should undoubtedly be able to be read as history as it is the only example of that time that we attempt to understand. The Arthurian narrative gives us an insight into the era. Albeit not always in a factual way, but even the embellishments and story-telling techniques assist in our understanding as it details the importance the particular traits of the era.
Regardless of whether or not the original story of Arthur is false or factual, it has spawned around it a rich tale of literature, culture and society we cannot ignore as historians. The information it provides for us on other aspects of the time and the time following its creation is in abundance, and this cannot be written off. The story of Arthur had an enourmous impact on British history, culture, society, politics and monarchy and still proves its influence in todays decade with television shows and movies and books based on its characters. While Arthur's own personal story may not be true, from what we can see surrounding it, even including the embellishments and perhaps lies of his own tale, there are truths that have formed around it and from this we can gain an understanding of eras we would otherwise have no knowledge of. The presence of his story, whether made-up and entirely true, is surely one we should be grateful for and treat with respect.
I suspect there are going to be a few iterations of the same answer, but I'm going to chime in also and say that the veracity of Arthur's existence matters less than the impact of his imagining upon the British and indeed Western consciousness. There will always be speculation over whether or not there was an actual historical figure of Arthur and how important his role in Briton's conquest and consolidation actually was, however I think the historicity of the content is less important than the ways in which the tale has impacted upon history as we have come to understand it.
The varied incarnations of the Arthurian tale, from Geoffrey of Monmouth to Wace and through to Malory and Tennyson, provide us with invaluable insights into function of the myth and its invention through manifold historical contexts. Through the trajectory of Arthur's historical and literary manifestations (however embellished they may be) we can trace the prevailing concerns of British society; we can understand the importance of chivalry and honour and courtly love; we can witness varying responses to the political and religious conflicts of the 12th and 13th centuries; we can gain insight into representations of gender and heroism in literature, and as we follow the tale through the Victorian era and into contemporary representations we can see just how crucial Arthur and his knights have becomes to notions of British identity and modern conceptions of Kingship, courtship, heroism, love, adventure and romance. Regardless of whether or not the real Arthur was a king, a warlord or a fictitious invention, the legend itself surely constitutes a valuable component of British social, political and literary history and, for its enduring impact through the millennium, can undoubtedly be said to matter.
While the historicity of Arthur is important and significant I do think that the fact that Arthur existed or not should play a role in evaluating his significance in British history. I concur with Jason, that the truth (or lack of) of his existence does not diminish the effect he has had on Western culture and literature. I think after surviving for fifteen centuries, the historicity of Arthur simply gets pushed to the corner and the Arthurian legend takes on a new meaning.
From the time of Geoffrey of Monmouth, the Arthurian stories cease to be history and evolve into a highly sophisticated literary genre. Its influence is unequivocal as is demonstrated by the fact the Matter of Britain proved to be an attractive subject for writers from continental Europe, and was renewed in successive generations, from Malory to Tennyson and into the 21st century. As such, the literary Arthur is just as valuable to the historian as the ‘real Arthur’ (whoever he may be). Through a study of the revival of Arthur in each century we can understand what Arthur meant to every generation, and the manner in which he used to reflect the ideals and aspirations of each era.
At the beginning of this unit I would have quite quickly jumped at this question, with an answer along the lines of 'Arthur is both an historical figure and a fictitious character, and as such it doesn't matter whether he is one or the other, as in both forms he has inspired generations of people, and as such is a figure of importance for many.' After completing the first 11 weeks of this subject, although my opinion hasn't changed dramatically, I realise that there is an entirely different way of coming at this question; not through the figure of Arthur but through the multitude of works written about him. If we take the writings about Arthur, from their beginnings in the works of Gildas, Nennius and Bede to modern interpretations from T.H. White, Marion Zimmer Bradley and a multitude of others, the wide expanse of Arthurian literature can, in its self, be considered a history: one that tells of the political, religious and social issues of the centuries in which each version was written, painting a picture of mans constant strive for a golden age of moral perfection. By interpreting the question in this way, the answer to the second part is a resounding yes, it does matter. As such a highly visible figure, whether historical or not, Arthur has inspired children, been a figure to aspire to for medieval audiences, influenced authors, and has furnished the historian with a multitude of issues to debate over, and it is because of this expansive audience that Arthur matters.
The Arthurian legend has inspired an amazing number of (embellished) historical accounts, literature and poetry, given the obscurity and doubts surrounding the original figure in the accounts by early historians. The question of whether or not Arthur really existed is one that casts doubt on the historicity of the literature surrounding him. However, the fact that the Arthurian legend has survived throughout the centuries and continues to remain relevant to the concept of British identity today reveals that the true historical value lies not in the legend itself, but rather in how it has been used and incorporated into British society at various points in time. By reading and comparing the Arthurian literature from different eras it is possible to form a clearer understanding of the views and values held by society. It does not however necessarily reflect the original historical events of the fifth century. Thus the written material surrounding Arthur constitutes a form of “history”- the contents viewed without the contemporary context of the writer do not.
Reflecting back on the literary history of not only England, but of most of Europe, and more recently, nations which have inherited the English ideals (like Australia), it is clear to me that the legend of Arthur has to be understood as a history. We could take one simple example from the story; say, chivalry, and use this as a basis for arguing that Arthur cannot be interpreted as a mere story. Chivalry developed into a strong social and political element of English and European society. This is reflected in the nature of the literature of Arthur and the strong, overwhelming presence of chivalry in these tales. The popularity of Arthur is undeniable, and thus would have had some influence on the society, much like the popular tales of our time do (eg, Harry Potter). Therefore, the legend on Arthur reflects the literary history as well as some aspects of societal history of England and Europe.
On the other hand, if we were to ask if the actual legend itself is based in historical fact, then we would probably have to say not really, due to lack of evidence etc. There most likely would have been some major battle against the Saxons, possibly at a place similar to Mount Badon, and this could be one aspect that has been inspired by an actual event, although it is too hard to determine. This lack of historical truth I don't believe matters much at all. The story is an enduring one, to say the least, and thus remains part of the historical narrative of England and Europe.
The story of Arthur is of great importance and definitely does matter. While we will never truly know whether there was a man named Arthur who sat at a round table with his knights, the great deal of literature surrounding the myth is very useful to historians. While what has been put forward by people such as Monmouth and Malory, may not be factually true, the insight such works give us into the eras in which they were written is invaluable. In seeing they way they portray Arthur and the story surrounding him, we see the way societies functioned and the values they possessed.
Furthermore, the Arthurian story is of great importance as it served as a foundation story for the British Empire. It encompasses many aspects vital to a great foundation myth; heroes, challenges, romance etc. While the majority may not be true it has still been important to British development as a major empire in the world for hundred of years.
Looking back on the semester and all that we have read, learnt and discussed, I would have to conclude that yes, this is history and yes, it does matter. The Arthurian stories, their adaptations and translations into various literary genres, undoubtedly, at least in my mind, illustrate historical aspects that are indeed useful to our own construction of history. The Arthurian stories may not be history in and of itself, but I do firmly believe that they provide useful insights into the hisotry of the culture in which they were written. Geoffrey of Monmouth's HRB, for example, highlights the importance amongst rival contemporaries of writing a work that is superior to the rest, the best way to do this is by referencing an 'ancient book' that is now 'lost' as a source for the almost, if not quite, outlandish statements about the history as articulated by the author. Wace's adaptation of this in his Brut highlights the political structure of his time through the symbolism of the introduction of the Round Table to the Arthurian stories. In introducing this new facet to the legend/myth, Wace uses it as a symbol for the ideal of his society, a society which endured much political instability and which desired unity and equality, as shown through the image of the Round Table. In Chrétien de Troyes' adaptation of the Arthurian stories, one can see the turn that the stories have taken, with a more deeper emphasis on courtly love and the chivalric code, as opposed to the adventures and the glory of battles as depicted in previous works. This further demonstrates the differences in societies between the English and French. The previous valuing more one's loyalty to the kingdom and nation as seen through the great desire of the knights to fight and defend their king and country, and the latter perhaps valuing more love, whether it be found within marriage or outside of it. The varying genres in which these stories are written further enable us to detect the type of society that existed at that time through the specific genres of writing that one used to express these Arthurian tales. Overall, the stories of Arthur do matter. Initially because they helped to form an idea of national identity and pride and furthermore because they allow us to glimpse the aspirations of each different society through their writings.
I would definitely agree that the study of King Arthur is history, and it matters regardless of his historicity. By studying Arthur we are able to gain cultural and societal knowledge of a broad range of time, depending on which textual source or archaeological site we examine. Each retelling of Arthur’s story may hold less truth about his actual identity, but we are able to learn more about the values and anxieties of readers and this is an important contribution to the study of history. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Arthur’s veracity is irrelevant – there is still so much academic interest in attempting to link Arthur to a historical figure, however ultimately I feel we get more out of Arthur by looking at his story in terms of mythology, legend, romance and society.
To be answered effectively, the question must be clarified. "Is this history?" is extremely broad. In regards to whether the actual story of Arthur, as presented in a variety of forms by countless sources over 1500 years, is history, the answer must almost certainly be no. He has been rendered in a multitude of ways, with only a few crucial elements tending to endure, and thus, obviously, not everything that has been said about him is truthful 'history'.
However, if considering whether the broadly enduring presence of Arthur throughout the centuries is history, then the answer is certainly yes. The very fact that generation after generation has taken great interest in Arthur, and rendered him in ways reflecting the dominant social and political interests of their time, serves to exhibit the history of those generations.
Full details about the man at the heart of the legend will probably never be known. Arguably Gildas and Bede are the closest we have to the actual 'history' of Arthur, however the potential existence of other 'indiscoverable' sources (which may or may not have ever existed) can likely never be verified. As outlined by Hanning in his analysis of Geoffrey Ashe, the archaeological evidence at Tintagel and Glastonbury give us a tantalising insight into the 'historical' Arthur, but on the whole too many of the theories of Arthur's existence are speculative and controversial.
In regard to whether 'it matter[s]', I would have to say yes. The story, whatever degree of truth it contains, has remained important to countless generations in the British Isles and beyond. It remains an element of popular culture around the world in 2012, almost 1500 years after Arthur purportedly existed. It is contended that whether or not Arthur actually existed, and is thus history in that sense, is irrelevant, as the way in which we have responded to the story throughout the centuries is just as historical as the stories are myth.
As far as whether Arthur existed or not, I don't think this is history. We have no idea whether he was real or what he actually did as it varies so much from source to source. The stories claim to have gotten their information from some unnamed but reliable source, yet they include fantastical events, sorcery and magical creatures which are obviously not historically accurate.
But the stories themselves have become history in a way. We can trace the legend of Arthur through time and it almost becomes a history of literature. The literature also does have historical value not pertaining to Arthur. It gives us a glimpse into what was like in the 12th Century, 15th Century, Victorian era and so on. By examining the literature in the context of when it was written we can see what was important to people, what they believed in, and the political, social and religious climate.
I don't think it matters whether Arthur really existed or not because these stories are still relevant today and I think will continue to be relevant for many years to come. I think the history we take from it in regards to culture and society is more important and this is the kind of history that really matters.
I feel that the importance of Arthur as a historical figure, rather than myth, can only be determined in terms of what you seek from him. For those seeking a great and powerful King as the founder of Britain in the way that it came to be known, it is understandable that they would desire Arthur to be regarded as a historical figure. it is also very possible that an individual of his nature was king at this time, and served to bring together and heal his land during his reign. Whether or not his name was Arthur, and he had a loyal service of knights and a round table, is less important. However, after reading the various sources relating to Arthur and the great works of literature that have been dedicated to his life, I have concluded that it does not matter if this is a true history or not. There are any number of conflicting accounts, but what is difficult is that they were written in times that were not so reliable for documented histories, so when contesting various historians, it becomes a matter of defending or supporting the account that you wish to believe. What is important is that these legends and stories have lasted many centuries, and continue to be renewed and retold even today. While the fantastical and mythic elements of Arthur's Camelot and knights are emphasised, there are many who do not doubt that Arthur was real. Although King Arthur may not have existed, the retelling of his stories are made so relevant and frequent that there are generations of people who are aware of his person, and have no doubt that he existed.
Yes, I think it is history - the history of a story, of - as this post says - myth, legend, romance and societal expectations, and also of literature. Arthur is painted as a hero, has great and impossible feats attributed to him, is depicted in mosaics and tapestries and all manner of relics from a by-gone age - the fact that he may never have existed at all does not in any way diminish the effect that he has had on history - one that is quite clear given just how many weeks we've spent studying the footprints he's made in the past.
ReplyDeleteSure, Monmouth might have made him wildly unbelievable and Malory might have quite obviously nicked a lot of his material from implausible sources and French romances, but the fact of the matter is that the story endured, continues to endure, and dare I say it helped shape the course of British history, regardless of whether or not the story is true.
So yes, it is history, and considering the impact it has had, it does matter. It just isn't, perhaps, entirely truthful.
Answering the broad question of can the entire story of Arthur be deemed 'history', I undoubtedly must answer with 'yes'. We as a world-community will probably never be able to verify some of these so-called 'facts' that some writers of Arthurian 'history' claim are true, but wether or not these stories are true or not is essentially besides the point. These stories - however factual - have shaped the English histories regardless of their verifiably correct contribution.
ReplyDeleteWithout such 'histories' like Monmouth's, large gaps would be placed within our understanding of the times, thus leaving us with an incomplete history. Thus, while Monmouth took many creative liberties when writing 'Historia regum Britanniae', he did contribute in our understanding of British history in a way that we may have otherwise not been privy to.
As mentioned in Jason's comment above, the fact that Arthur may not have existed at all does not diminish the effect his story has had on history. As discussed in last weeks study, his story saw a revival in the Victorian era, and has been referred to time after time as one of the great - if not the greatest - monarch of all time. His presence, however imagined, impacted and influenced all future areas of British history and monarchy and today stands as an example of heroism.
Ultimately, what I'm trying to get across is that we cannot prove wether or not what people have written about Arthur is true or not - it seems (as detailed over the course of this subject) that for every 'sure-fact' there is an equal counterclaim which seems just as reasonable (or unreasonable). But his 'supposed' history should undoubtedly be able to be read as history as it is the only example of that time that we attempt to understand. The Arthurian narrative gives us an insight into the era. Albeit not always in a factual way, but even the embellishments and story-telling techniques assist in our understanding as it details the importance the particular traits of the era.
Regardless of whether or not the original story of Arthur is false or factual, it has spawned around it a rich tale of literature, culture and society we cannot ignore as historians. The information it provides for us on other aspects of the time and the time following its creation is in abundance, and this cannot be written off. The story of Arthur had an enourmous impact on British history, culture, society, politics and monarchy and still proves its influence in todays decade with television shows and movies and books based on its characters. While Arthur's own personal story may not be true, from what we can see surrounding it, even including the embellishments and perhaps lies of his own tale, there are truths that have formed around it and from this we can gain an understanding of eras we would otherwise have no knowledge of. The presence of his story, whether made-up and entirely true, is surely one we should be grateful for and treat with respect.
ReplyDeleteI suspect there are going to be a few iterations of the same answer, but I'm going to chime in also and say that the veracity of Arthur's existence matters less than the impact of his imagining upon the British and indeed Western consciousness. There will always be speculation over whether or not there was an actual historical figure of Arthur and how important his role in Briton's conquest and consolidation actually was, however I think the historicity of the content is less important than the ways in which the tale has impacted upon history as we have come to understand it.
ReplyDeleteThe varied incarnations of the Arthurian tale, from Geoffrey of Monmouth to Wace and through to Malory and Tennyson, provide us with invaluable insights into function of the myth and its invention through manifold historical contexts. Through the trajectory of Arthur's historical and literary manifestations (however embellished they may be) we can trace the prevailing concerns of British society; we can understand the importance of chivalry and honour and courtly love; we can witness varying responses to the political and religious conflicts of the 12th and 13th centuries; we can gain insight into representations of gender and heroism in literature, and as we follow the tale through the Victorian era and into contemporary representations we can see just how crucial Arthur and his knights have becomes to notions of British identity and modern conceptions of Kingship, courtship, heroism, love, adventure and romance. Regardless of whether or not the real Arthur was a king, a warlord or a fictitious invention, the legend itself surely constitutes a valuable component of British social, political and literary history and, for its enduring impact through the millennium, can undoubtedly be said to matter.
While the historicity of Arthur is important and significant I do think that the fact that Arthur existed or not should play a role in evaluating his significance in British history. I concur with Jason, that the truth (or lack of) of his existence does not diminish the effect he has had on Western culture and literature. I think after surviving for fifteen centuries, the historicity of Arthur simply gets pushed to the corner and the Arthurian legend takes on a new meaning.
ReplyDeleteFrom the time of Geoffrey of Monmouth, the Arthurian stories cease to be history and evolve into a highly sophisticated literary genre. Its influence is unequivocal as is demonstrated by the fact the Matter of Britain proved to be an attractive subject for writers from continental Europe, and was renewed in successive generations, from Malory to Tennyson and into the 21st century. As such, the literary Arthur is just as valuable to the historian as the ‘real Arthur’ (whoever he may be). Through a study of the revival of Arthur in each century we can understand what Arthur meant to every generation, and the manner in which he used to reflect the ideals and aspirations of each era.
At the beginning of this unit I would have quite quickly jumped at this question, with an answer along the lines of 'Arthur is both an historical figure and a fictitious character, and as such it doesn't matter whether he is one or the other, as in both forms he has inspired generations of people, and as such is a figure of importance for many.' After completing the first 11 weeks of this subject, although my opinion hasn't changed dramatically, I realise that there is an entirely different way of coming at this question; not through the figure of Arthur but through the multitude of works written about him. If we take the writings about Arthur, from their beginnings in the works of Gildas, Nennius and Bede to modern interpretations from T.H. White, Marion Zimmer Bradley and a multitude of others, the wide expanse of Arthurian literature can, in its self, be considered a history: one that tells of the political, religious and social issues of the centuries in which each version was written, painting a picture of mans constant strive for a golden age of moral perfection. By interpreting the question in this way, the answer to the second part is a resounding yes, it does matter. As such a highly visible figure, whether historical or not, Arthur has inspired children, been a figure to aspire to for medieval audiences, influenced authors, and has furnished the historian with a multitude of issues to debate over, and it is because of this expansive audience that Arthur matters.
ReplyDeleteThe Arthurian legend has inspired an amazing number of (embellished) historical accounts, literature and poetry, given the obscurity and doubts surrounding the original figure in the accounts by early historians. The question of whether or not Arthur really existed is one that casts doubt on the historicity of the literature surrounding him. However, the fact that the Arthurian legend has survived throughout the centuries and continues to remain relevant to the concept of British identity today reveals that the true historical value lies not in the legend itself, but rather in how it has been used and incorporated into British society at various points in time. By reading and comparing the Arthurian literature from different eras it is possible to form a clearer understanding of the views and values held by society. It does not however necessarily reflect the original historical events of the fifth century. Thus the written material surrounding Arthur constitutes a form of “history”- the contents viewed without the contemporary context of the writer do not.
ReplyDeleteReflecting back on the literary history of not only England, but of most of Europe, and more recently, nations which have inherited the English ideals (like Australia), it is clear to me that the legend of Arthur has to be understood as a history. We could take one simple example from the story; say, chivalry, and use this as a basis for arguing that Arthur cannot be interpreted as a mere story. Chivalry developed into a strong social and political element of English and European society. This is reflected in the nature of the literature of Arthur and the strong, overwhelming presence of chivalry in these tales. The popularity of Arthur is undeniable, and thus would have had some influence on the society, much like the popular tales of our time do (eg, Harry Potter). Therefore, the legend on Arthur reflects the literary history as well as some aspects of societal history of England and Europe.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if we were to ask if the actual legend itself is based in historical fact, then we would probably have to say not really, due to lack of evidence etc. There most likely would have been some major battle against the Saxons, possibly at a place similar to Mount Badon, and this could be one aspect that has been inspired by an actual event, although it is too hard to determine. This lack of historical truth I don't believe matters much at all. The story is an enduring one, to say the least, and thus remains part of the historical narrative of England and Europe.
The story of Arthur is of great importance and definitely does matter. While we will never truly know whether there was a man named Arthur who sat at a round table with his knights, the great deal of literature surrounding the myth is very useful to historians. While what has been put forward by people such as Monmouth and Malory, may not be factually true, the insight such works give us into the eras in which they were written is invaluable. In seeing they way they portray Arthur and the story surrounding him, we see the way societies functioned and the values they possessed.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the Arthurian story is of great importance as it served as a foundation story for the British Empire. It encompasses many aspects vital to a great foundation myth; heroes, challenges, romance etc. While the majority may not be true it has still been important to British development as a major empire in the world for hundred of years.
Looking back on the semester and all that we have read, learnt and discussed, I would have to conclude that yes, this is history and yes, it does matter. The Arthurian stories, their adaptations and translations into various literary genres, undoubtedly, at least in my mind, illustrate historical aspects that are indeed useful to our own construction of history. The Arthurian stories may not be history in and of itself, but I do firmly believe that they provide useful insights into the hisotry of the culture in which they were written. Geoffrey of Monmouth's HRB, for example, highlights the importance amongst rival contemporaries of writing a work that is superior to the rest, the best way to do this is by referencing an 'ancient book' that is now 'lost' as a source for the almost, if not quite, outlandish statements about the history as articulated by the author. Wace's adaptation of this in his Brut highlights the political structure of his time through the symbolism of the introduction of the Round Table to the Arthurian stories. In introducing this new facet to the legend/myth, Wace uses it as a symbol for the ideal of his society, a society which endured much political instability and which desired unity and equality, as shown through the image of the Round Table. In Chrétien de Troyes' adaptation of the Arthurian stories, one can see the turn that the stories have taken, with a more deeper emphasis on courtly love and the chivalric code, as opposed to the adventures and the glory of battles as depicted in previous works. This further demonstrates the differences in societies between the English and French. The previous valuing more one's loyalty to the kingdom and nation as seen through the great desire of the knights to fight and defend their king and country, and the latter perhaps valuing more love, whether it be found within marriage or outside of it. The varying genres in which these stories are written further enable us to detect the type of society that existed at that time through the specific genres of writing that one used to express these Arthurian tales.
ReplyDeleteOverall, the stories of Arthur do matter. Initially because they helped to form an idea of national identity and pride and furthermore because they allow us to glimpse the aspirations of each different society through their writings.
I would definitely agree that the study of King Arthur is history, and it matters regardless of his historicity. By studying Arthur we are able to gain cultural and societal knowledge of a broad range of time, depending on which textual source or archaeological site we examine. Each retelling of Arthur’s story may hold less truth about his actual identity, but we are able to learn more about the values and anxieties of readers and this is an important contribution to the study of history. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Arthur’s veracity is irrelevant – there is still so much academic interest in attempting to link Arthur to a historical figure, however ultimately I feel we get more out of Arthur by looking at his story in terms of mythology, legend, romance and society.
ReplyDeleteTo be answered effectively, the question must be clarified. "Is this history?" is extremely broad. In regards to whether the actual story of Arthur, as presented in a variety of forms by countless sources over 1500 years, is history, the answer must almost certainly be no. He has been rendered in a multitude of ways, with only a few crucial elements tending to endure, and thus, obviously, not everything that has been said about him is truthful 'history'.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if considering whether the broadly enduring presence of Arthur throughout the centuries is history, then the answer is certainly yes. The very fact that generation after generation has taken great interest in Arthur, and rendered him in ways reflecting the dominant social and political interests of their time, serves to exhibit the history of those generations.
Full details about the man at the heart of the legend will probably never be known. Arguably Gildas and Bede are the closest we have to the actual 'history' of Arthur, however the potential existence of other 'indiscoverable' sources (which may or may not have ever existed) can likely never be verified. As outlined by Hanning in his analysis of Geoffrey Ashe, the archaeological evidence at Tintagel and Glastonbury give us a tantalising insight into the 'historical' Arthur, but on the whole too many of the theories of Arthur's existence are speculative and controversial.
In regard to whether 'it matter[s]', I would have to say yes. The story, whatever degree of truth it contains, has remained important to countless generations in the British Isles and beyond. It remains an element of popular culture around the world in 2012, almost 1500 years after Arthur purportedly existed. It is contended that whether or not Arthur actually existed, and is thus history in that sense, is irrelevant, as the way in which we have responded to the story throughout the centuries is just as historical as the stories are myth.
As far as whether Arthur existed or not, I don't think this is history. We have no idea whether he was real or what he actually did as it varies so much from source to source. The stories claim to have gotten their information from some unnamed but reliable source, yet they include fantastical events, sorcery and magical creatures which are obviously not historically accurate.
ReplyDeleteBut the stories themselves have become history in a way. We can trace the legend of Arthur through time and it almost becomes a history of literature. The literature also does have historical value not pertaining to Arthur. It gives us a glimpse into what was like in the 12th Century, 15th Century, Victorian era and so on. By examining the literature in the context of when it was written we can see what was important to people, what they believed in, and the political, social and religious climate.
I don't think it matters whether Arthur really existed or not because these stories are still relevant today and I think will continue to be relevant for many years to come. I think the history we take from it in regards to culture and society is more important and this is the kind of history that really matters.
I feel that the importance of Arthur as a historical figure, rather than myth, can only be determined in terms of what you seek from him. For those seeking a great and powerful King as the founder of Britain in the way that it came to be known, it is understandable that they would desire Arthur to be regarded as a historical figure. it is also very possible that an individual of his nature was king at this time, and served to bring together and heal his land during his reign. Whether or not his name was Arthur, and he had a loyal service of knights and a round table, is less important. However, after reading the various sources relating to Arthur and the great works of literature that have been dedicated to his life, I have concluded that it does not matter if this is a true history or not. There are any number of conflicting accounts, but what is difficult is that they were written in times that were not so reliable for documented histories, so when contesting various historians, it becomes a matter of defending or supporting the account that you wish to believe. What is important is that these legends and stories have lasted many centuries, and continue to be renewed and retold even today. While the fantastical and mythic elements of Arthur's Camelot and knights are emphasised, there are many who do not doubt that Arthur was real. Although King Arthur may not have existed, the retelling of his stories are made so relevant and frequent that there are generations of people who are aware of his person, and have no doubt that he existed.
ReplyDelete