Pseudohistory

[Marcus Caelius]

In fact, the chroniclers of the time either ignore Arthur or condemn him, whereas his competitors simply don't have Arthurs presence in dark age britain.

 

Er, what "chroniclers of the time"? Is there a source older than Geoffrey?

 

ETA: OK, just read your OP in that thread. I admit I'm in over my head, but in moving so "confidently" beyond Geoffrey, you seem to be making some rather shakey leaps of faith. Just my impression.

Edited April 10, 2007 by Marcus Caelius

[Kosmo]

A nice explanation of the Atlantis myth was made by Pierre Vidal Naquet.

It's about a comparison of old pre-Marathon Athens with a land based society, army and economy and a post-Salamina Athens based on sea trade and sea power under the name of Atlantis. The faith of Atlantis reflects Platon's view of his contemporary society and his bad feelings about it. One of the first distopia's of literature. The article it's very well written and absolutly convincing and it's written by someone who actually had read Plato. Of course, it's borish compared to the fantastic theories that are fed to the general public by sensational books and Discovery channel programs.

[caldrail]

In fact, the chroniclers of the time either ignore Arthur or condemn him, whereas his competitors simply don't have Arthurs presence in dark age britain.

 

Er, what "chroniclers of the time"? Is there a source older than Geoffrey?

 

ETA: OK, just read your OP in that thread. I admit I'm in over my head, but in moving so "confidently" beyond Geoffrey, you seem to be making some rather shakey leaps of faith. Just my impression.

 

I'm relying on expert analysis by people who know the subject far more than I. Regarding Arthurs character, and those comments are my own, I wouldn't say that was a leap of faith. The man was real - he existed - its more a matter of trying to figure out where the truth is. Those chroniclers were writing on the basis of poor information and for that reason there are too many inconsistencies for those sources to be judged reliable. Nonetheless, we have a man who leads an army to victory twelve times, whose legend survives to this day, but whose person and history is otherwise forgotten.

[Marcus Caelius]

I'm relying on expert analysis by people who know the subject far more than I...The man was real - he existed...

 

I'm not saying you're wrong (lord knows, I have no credentials in the area), but I have a habitual skepticism whenever someone sounds as definite as you do (as do you?), despite doubts and contrary opinions by established authorities. Last I knew, the "official" position refused to go further back than Geoffrey.

[caldrail]

Geoffery made a lot of it up. The reality is hidden in the comments of people who wrote in the 6th century such as Gildas, Nennius, and Taliesin.

[Marcus Caelius]

Geoffery made a lot of it up. The reality is hidden in the comments of people who wrote in the 6th century such as Gildas, Nennius, and Taliesin.

 

I can buy that Geoffrey made a lot up. I can also buy that so did the others you mention. In fact, I've been told that Taliesin is about as historical as Arthur is. The question appears to be whether Aurthur was as real as Davy Crockett, or as Old Stormalong.

[caldrail]

I can buy that Geoffrey made a lot up. I can also buy that so did the others you mention. In fact, I've been told that Taliesin is about as historical as Arthur is. The question appears to be whether Aurthur was as real as Davy Crockett, or as Old Stormalong.

 

It depends what you mean. For instance we read the tales of Robin Hood and enjoy films about him. The theme is pretty well known - dispossessed nobleman who very nobley fights back by becoming a bandit who steals from wealthy people and provides charity to the downtrodden poor of Nottingham Forest.

 

But its balderdash. A victorian wet dream. Yes, there was a Robin Hood and a band of men, but they weren't so merry (unless they'd stolen enough to visit a tavern) and in all probability were a right bunch of cut-throats. Thats doesn't make for a very good story though does it? So lets make them noble of spirit and fighting oppression of the evil sheriff....

 

Arthur has been treated the same way. A real person existed back at the turn of the 6th century whose name refuses to be wiped away from history. Why? Because someone was remembering him. Passing on his story and eventually that story is embellished. By the ninth century his name was such that he was used as the hero of traditional celtic swords & sorcery adventures. The next century saw him popularly assigned as a former king of england and from there Geoffery established the myth.

 

All myths grow from something. people don;t say these things for nothing. Like Nero, fiddling while Rome burned. No, he didn't. He did what he could to assist the relief efforts. Its possible that for a few moments he stood there on a high balcony staring helplessly at the conflagration and might even have been moved to singing at the sight of it, but he wasn't blind to the suffering of the populace. When he redesigned Rome, he required wide boulevards to stop fires like this and even introduced anti-fire building regulations.

 

The truth has been forgotten. Perhaps important historical documents have been lost through accident or decay that would have told us so much. All we have are a few tantalising clues. The fact that these stories begin at the time Arthur is meant to live and that they evolve shows that he made an impression. A deep one. As anyone who researches this subject can tell you, the original sources are unreliable. Not untrue.

[Marcus Caelius]

Yes, there was a Robin Hood and a band of men, but...

 

Just how firmly has this been established?

 

All myths grow from something. people don;t say these things for nothing.

 

True, but there are many more motives possible than just relating a history, profit and entertainment spring to mind: the bard who told the best story, usually with the most colorful embellishments, made the best living. As for there being a kernel of truth at the bottom, why do you believe this is necessary? Isn't it at least equally possible that Arthur was merely the protagonist in a really good story? Maybe the times called for a folk hero; Superman first saw "life" while fighting the Nazis.

 

The fact that these stories begin at the time Arthur is meant to live...

 

So? The earliest Paul Bunyon and Pecos Bill stories are contemporary with their "lives."

 

...and that they evolve shows that he made an impression.

 

I agree, it was and is a really good story. If, however, you want to persuade me that there's more to it than that, I really must insist on more than speculation founded on legend. Speculation is fun, of course, but it's not scholarship.

[DecimusCaesar]

Here's a strange argument concerning Arthur that could probably fit nicely into pseudohistory: Arturius - Quest for King Arthur

 

The site's creator argues that Arthur wasn't a Briton and that he was Scottish. He then dismisses all "Contempory Evidence" as being 'Worthless' and bases all of his information on one document which says that Arthur was the son of King Aidan, a Scottish leader. Considering that we can't be sure if Arthur even existed, it seems strange that this man claims that Arthur was definately a Scotsman. It seems most people can't agree if he was a Romano-British Warlord or a Dark Age King let alone a Scottish Warrior.

 

As for the

[Northern Neil]

It is possible he may have come from an area which is now in Scotland, but it does not make him Scottish; Britons inhabited the southern uplands up to the forth - Clyde line. They werent displaced until the 'Scots' settled en masse about 200 years after the time of Arthur. At the time of Bannockburn Galwegians, nominally Scottish but descended from Strathclyde Britons, were part of Robert the Bruce's force.

[caldrail]

If arthur was scottish, then he must have been a traitor too. A large percentage of his enemies were picts or irish scots. The scottish connection is nationalist wishful thinking in my view, although its likely that some of the battle sites were in scottish territory. The Battle of River Bassus is thought to be Cambuslang by some experts.