Primary sources provide first-hand testimony or direct
evidence concerning a topic under investigation. They are created by witnesses
or recorders who experienced the events of conditions being documented. Primary
sources are original materials and may be artefacts, documents or other sources
of information created at the time under study.
They are characterised by their content, regardless of whether they are
available in original format, in microfilm, in digital format or in published
format.
 |
| Late Roman and "Arthurian" artefacts |
It is through the primary sources that the past
indisputably imposes its reality on the historian. That this imposition is
basic in any understanding of the past is clear from the rules that documents
should not be altered, or that any material damaging to a historian's argument
or purpose should not be left out or suppressed. These rules mean that the
sources or the texts of the past have an integrity and that they do indeed
'speak for themselves', and that they are necessary constraints through which
past reality imposes itself on the historian. [E. Sreedharan (2004) A textbook of Historiography, 500 B.C. to
A.D. 2000 Orient Longman, p.302] [try Google Books for this]
 |
| Celtic myth and Arthurian artefact |
However, there are considerable challenges in the use
of primary sources. They are usually fragmentary and most usually survive
without their original context. They are often ambiguous and notoriously
difficult to interpret. Eyewitnesses may misunderstand events or distort their
reports either deliberately or unconsciously. These effects often increase over
time as others uses these sources and add further distorting filters. It is
usually helpful to interrogate the source and one of the most common methods
uses the following “W” questions : Who, What, When, Where and Why.
 |
| Gildas instructing a pupil |
Analyses of the works of Gildas, Nennius and Bede have been used equally to debunk and support the historicity of Arthur.
The question to answer is this:
What historical question can you answer using the excerpts of Gildas, Nennius and Bede found in the unit reader?
The excerpts for Gildas, Nennius and Bede can be used to answer a number of historical questions from 'Did Arthur exist?' to 'Who was the historical figure of Arthur and what role did he play in the history of the Britons?' These questions can be answered in a number of different ways by interpreting the three primary documents. 'Who was the historical figure of Arthur?' seems to be one of the more difficult to answer when relying on these three sources, my interpretation is that they give three different answers: a king, a war-leader and a Roman leader of the Britons. Any historical question posed can be answered in a number of ways as the sources themselves are open to interpretation.
ReplyDeleteGreat work Caitlin.
DeleteFrom my reading of Gildas, Bede and Nennius, I found that each source presents a different image of the principle ‘Arthurian’ character. The questions we can thus answer are ‘How credible are the early Arthurian sources?’ and ‘How did the image of Arthur change in each century?’The earliest sources, Gildas and Bede, which date from the sixth to the eighth centuries, do not refer to this character as ‘Arthur’ but as Ambrosius Aurelianus. He is credited with leadership of the Britons against the Saxons; however details of his identity are scant. We are left in doubt as to whether Ambrosius Aurelianus and Arthur are one and the same. However, Nennius writing in the ninth century presents a far more developed narrative of Arthur’s battles with the Saxons. Unlike, Gildas and Bede, Nennius also presents a far more fanciful account, through his inclusion of the grossly exaggerated detail of the nine hundred and sixty men slain by Arthur in a single charge, as well the mystical phenomena that concern Arthur’s dog and his son. It is therefore evident that by the ninth century, the image of Arthur expanded and took on many mythic elements. While Nennius may not present a historically accurate account, his writings are important as they demonstrate the manner in which the figure of Arthur grew from fact into legend.
ReplyDeleteThanks Charmaine; questions posed and answered.
DeleteWhile the readings of Gildas, Nennius and Bede do not all refer directly to a King Arthur, all three allude to a historical figure who lead the Britons to victory in battle. Therefore, a historical question that may be posed to each writer could be, "What events led to the peacetime of this period in Britain's history?". Both Gildas and Bede refer to Ambrosius Aurelianus and his royal ties, as well as his skills as a leader in battle. It is outlined that the battles fought under this figure's command led to Britain's victory and independence from the Saxons, and therefore a peace of sorts. Nennius' key figure of Arthur relates most closely to the legends of King Arthur; what is surprising is this version does not tell of Arthur as a King but rather another war-leader. I believe Charmaine's point that Nennius' account may be the origin of the basis for the legend of Arthur is very poignant; the variation from the historically believeable figure of Ambrosius, to a man named Arthur who is surrounded in wonder and marvels, is highly evident in his work.
ReplyDeleteThat is indeed a good question to ask.
DeleteWhile the questions raised regarding Arthur in relation to the works of Gildas, Nennius and Bede can never be accurately asnwered, these portrayals provide for us assumptions and representations of Arthur as a historical figure. They ask, 'was Arthur real?'; if so, 'was he a King?' as Nennius suggests; and 'what part did he play in the history of the Britains?'. This last question is present in all of the authors works, as they illustrate for readers their version of what the truth is. However, each depiction of the history provides a believable presentation of the person Arthur was: a King, a war-leader or the roman leader Ambrosius Aurelianus. Consequently, it is left up to personal interpretation and opinion on deciding who Arthur was.
ReplyDeleteIs your question "what part did Arthur play in the history of the Britons?" because that is a worthy historical question to address.
DeleteThe excerpts from Gildas, Nennius and Bede all strive to answer the questions of "Who is Arthur?" and "What was his role in the victory of Britain over the Saxons?" All the excerpts describe Arthur, or, in the case of Gildas and Bede, Ambrosius Aurelianus, as the figure head who led the victory of Britain. From the earliest sources to the later ones, Arthur is depicted as a worthy man who had the support of the Divine to someone with great skill on the battle field who had mystical associations. These all depict a leader whose perseverance and strength, both internally and externally, led Britain to a period of peace, as pointed out by Rebecca. They further highlight the influence of history and time on the legend of King Arthur and give us pause when considering "Who is the 'real' Arthur?"
ReplyDeleteThe question "What was Arthur's role in the victory of Britain over the Saxons?" assumes that the Britons were victorious. Does history support this assumption?
DeleteThrough my reading of the excerpts of Gildas, Nennius and Bede, some historical questions that can be answered are 'What records are there of an historical figure named Arthur?' and 'How reliable are early sources?'. It is clear from Nennius, who speaks of Arthur directly as a war-leader against the Saxons, that there may indeed have been a figure in history who was a great war-leader, as Arthur is suggested to have been. Bede refers to a commander named Ambrosius Aurelianus who has been interpreted to be Arthur. Gildas also mentions Ambrosius Aurelianus who was said to have 'worn the purple', which refers to the monarchy. Though early sources can give us an indication of the activities of the time, they cannot be thought of as reliable, as stories can be stretched to sound more exciting to the reader, therefore growing from fact to fiction, whilst they can also be interpreted differently by different readers, based on their prior knowledge of 'Arthur'.
ReplyDeleteI have found all of the above comments very thoughtful and useful in the development of my own understanding of the texts. I would like to avoid repeating the ideas too much and so I would like to suggest the question of “What motivations can we draw from the authors of each of the primary texts?” As discussed above, the image presented of an ‘Arthur’ varied in each text and the reliability of the sources was also questioned. I found Gildas’ excerpt interesting in this sense, as his work did not focus on using many historical facts available to him but rather concentrated on condemning the kings of Britain as tyrants. His work reads much more poetically than Bede’s for example, whose piece is easier to follow historically from his description of events. We can also see Nennius bringing another dimension to the texts with the references to the mystical and legendary. This points to clearly different purposes for each text, which we can then use to try and explain why different images of Arthur have emerged. This question is essential in discussing the historicity of Arthur as it adds context and helps answer other questions listed above such as Caitlin’s question “What role did he play in the history of the Britons?”
ReplyDeleteI don't want to be too repeditive, but I have also found that an appropriate question could be, what was the eole of Arthur in the history (in general) of this time. Nennius presents Arthur as a war leader, and strongly associates him with the mythic and divine. This illudes to a possible connection to royalty, especially with the notion of his association with the 'grace of Our Lord Jesus.' From this, we might ask the question, what does the 'legend', or 'figure' of Arthur actually mean to the people at the time of these writings. These primary sources cannot be substanciated without the use of further evidence, however they serve to inform of the common thought of the time, and are vital in examining the evolution of the dicipline of history itself.
ReplyDeleteI find that the accounts here of the 'Arthurian' period are interesting in that the first and third texts refer to the innate weakness of the prevalent Romano-British culture in the face of the invading Anglo-Saxons. Gildas, a 'Romano-British historian' has very little positive opinion of the British leadership. The question I would ask of these texts is "What, to the contemporary Romano-Briton, were the principle reasons for the decline of the status quo in the Isles?". It's quite clear that the first and last sources lay the blame squarely upon a complacent, venal leadership and a population lacking in martial ardour.
ReplyDeleteI have found that the responses above have been very interesting to read, and have undoubtedly influenced my response in some way but I will try to refrain from being too repetitive of what has already been said. I found the question of "To what extent has personal belief impacted the authors representations of Arthur?". Particularly in the Nennius readings, Arthur is presented as being a religious figure akin to that of Jesus himself. Because of Nennius' own overly religious beliefs, it calls to question wether Arthur truly "Bore the image of the Holy Virgin Mary" and to a larger extent, it begs the question of what abilities did he really posses as his actions seem entrenched in fantasy elements that were unbelievable at the time. Extending from this question, the readings bring to arms a second, related, question of "Were Arthurs abilities/actions unbelievable, or simply inconceivable for their time? That is, were a similar hero to emerge today, would they be bestowed such fantastic powers in future literature".
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to read the above comments because I have the feeling that the question has already been answered in the way that I want to answer it, so stuff not being repetitive, it isn't first in best dressed, is it?
ReplyDeleteI think by looking at all three texts we gather that answering the question of 'Who was Arthur' is going to be impossibly difficult, as all three texts give a different impression and place him in a radically different context. Something that the texts all place significance on (well, they all mention it, at least) is the importance of the battle at (modern-day Bath)that resulted in the Britons winning a victory over the Saxons. So I think the question I can answer using these sources is not 'Who was Arthur?' or 'How did the Britons defeat the Saxons', but rather 'What significant event occurred in the wars against the Saxons?'
Although each source varies wildly on historical positioning and purpose (as we discussed in the tutorial), they all seem to agree that there WAS a battle on the site (I can't find my textbook so the name of the site itself eludes me) and that it was important in the fight against the Saxons. That's probably the only question I think I could confidently answer based on the fragmented nature of the primary sources.
The readings of Gildas, Nennius and Bede can answer the question surrounding the contention of whether or not an Arthur-like figure did in fact exist in these times of severe chaos. The writings of these three men do all describe an era of extreme turmoil with Saxon invasion and Briton counter-invasion dragging the lands into demise. This is an era and a tale ripe for the emergence of a hero and into this void is inserted the Arthur-like figure. In my opinion this character is an amalgam of men be they the real Arthur, Ambrosius A. or another man all together. Therefore from the readings i suggest that yes we can say that "Arthur" did in nfact exist but that this "Arthur" may will be the product of the intertwined tales of more than one hero of the British resistance.
ReplyDeleteThe Arthurian legend has been subjected to many renderings across the passage of time, each of these with their own agendas and authorial influences. Looking at the Gildas extract, it becomes clear that his work is undergirded by a didactic agenda, as he appropriates the function of a prophet and criticises contemporary leadership. He refers only to the figure of Ambrosius Aurelianus - not 'Arthur' as we have come to perceive him - who is ostensibly descended from a royal line and is a valiant warlord. His work is rather more sermon-esque than Bede's, for example, whose work forms an account much clearer in its description of the history of the Britons and the figure of Ambrosius Aurelianus. As an account of the ecclesiastical history of Briton, the extract from Bede is scattered with allusions to the providence of God in affecting military success. Nennius, on the other hand, imbues his work with mythological overtones, fantastically inflating Arthur's military prowess with supernatural overtones. His work provides a clear link to the development of an Arthurian 'legend' across the centuries. The above excerpts from Gildas, Bede and Nennius are subsequently incredibly useful when answering the questions "Who was the historical Arthur?" and "How have the agendas of those recording history from the fifth century onwards impacted contemporary perceptions of the Arthurian myth?"
ReplyDeleteWhile the excerpts of Gildas, Nennius and Bede can be used to respond to historical questions, they do not necessarily provide the same answers. Nonetheless, they do all touch on common elements. Perhaps the greatest question that these sources can be used to answer for our purposes is "who exactly was the war leader of the Britons?" Both Gildas and Bede refer to the Roman Ambrosius Aurelianus, who led the Britons to "regain... their strength" and gain victories over the plundering Saxons. Both are written within roughly two centuries of the actual events. Nennius, on the other hand, writing in the early 9th Century, describes an almost mythical Christian war-leader named Arthur who single-handedly slayed "nine hundred and sixty men ... in a single charge". This account of Nennius corresponds more closely to the mythical accounts of later centuries, suggesting that the earlier sources may be more accurate in depicting the real man that inspired "King Arthur". The sources are united, on the other hand, in their description of general events and answer to the question "what was the outcome of the final battle this leader fought with the invaders?" All reference the Battle of Badon Hill as the decisive battle when large numbers of invaders where slaughtered by the Britons.
ReplyDeleteThe writings of Gildas, Nennius and Bede can be used to ask the questions as to whether 'Arthur' or a man of such character did exist in the period discussed. All authors discuss the period as one of hardship and chaos for the Britons at the hands of the occupying Saxon forces. It is impossible to ascertain whether Arthur did in fact exist, but it is quite possible that the myth of 'Arthur' is in reference to a similar man or a number of men of such character at the time. Heroic men who rose up and united the Britons in order to counter-attack the Saxons who had come and taken their lands. The readings to not enable us to answer the question as to Arthurs actual existence but they do answer the question: "did a man, or multiple men of Arthurian character exist among the Britons in times of Saxon invasion?"
ReplyDeleteBecause written records in Britain at that period were so rare, many questions which can be raised in other debates become meaningless in this particular case. The question "Did Arthur exist?" can be given a positive answer because of Nennius' account but it simply mentioned this name as a name of a soldier. In this source Arthur was not a king. The answer to questions such as "Where did later romance of King Arthur come from?" can be the deeds done by Ambrosius Aurelianus. It is clear that many stories about Arthur were legends made up by various writers, some merged the two characters. But to ask whether "Arthur is a made-up figure after all" is meaningless, because what we can call as "real history" about Arthur tells us little more than his name. Apart from that there is no historical context in which we can judge the existence and role of Arthur.
ReplyDelete