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?
Is King Arthur history or is he simply a myth? This is a complicated question that you could study for years and probably still not know. Yes there are elements that we can see in historical documents that can support claims that Arthur is a historical figure. There are also many arguments and facts that can be used to support that he is not. But does this really matter? Will it really change anything if there is a definite answer. Sure many scholars will care about the answer but to be fair it is probably the mythical Arthur that has had the deeper impact on society. The Arthur that we have adapted into our everyday lives is not seen by people to be a historical hero but a famous literary figure. If academics were to discover that Arthur was in fact a real person, it would not change the impact that he has had through the ages and it would not change the way he is perceived today.
I believe through doing this course and reading this weeks reading that Arthur was a figure in time, but he's role as an all conquering leader may be some what exaggerated. However with that in mind I also believe that it doesn't really matter whether the story of Arthur was 100% factual or 100% fiction the story behind the character is more important than the character itself. The story provided the people of the time and even people in the modern world with "profound cultural truths" in the sense that it teaches people about love, friendship and values that are worth up holding. As there are many Arthurian references in today's world it's clear that the elements of the story have shone through instead of the factual evidence about the 'King Arthur'. This idea that a story that old can still have an effect on people I believe is a better question that should be asked and debated among historians and people alike.
The story or legend of King Arthur has become history since the lines of reality have or maybe always were blurred by whoever wrote about or documented his life (whether it be reality or fantasy). The fact remains that to many people in society, Arthur remains a very real character in a historical setting. Many people who have not experienced the depth of analysis we have done know no better that most likely Thomas Malory's version. This version however exaggerated has formed what we consider today to be historical notions of male behaviour, with regards to how to behave around women and be just in their dealings with other men. The question is does history have to be 100% factual? I would answer "no", as an example from an even earlier age, the age of dinosoars, how do we know they were reptilian and were covered in hide, much like crocodiles, someone somewhere made the decision to say that based on these elements then it is pretty certain that dinosoars were not fluffy. In the absence of fact, we elaborate on common stories of the day to suit the market, as evidenced in Thomas Malory's translation of Morte D'Arthur.
Agreeing with the posts before mine, I think the question regarding the degree of Arthur's historicity is not necessarily the most important one. While some historical events probably lie at the root of this myth, it seems far more interesting to look at how later generations have adapted the story according to their own time and needs. As historians we'll likely get to know more about life in certain eras by analysing how and why Bede in the early Middle Ages, Geoffrey of Monmouth in the 12th century, Thomas Malory at the end of the Middle Ages, Alfred Tennyson in Victorian times, authors and playwrights in our own time, etc. viewed one the longest prevailing and essential legends/stories/myths of humanity, thus getting an insight in both the Arthurian matter itself and the political realities of many centuries.
Is Arthur a historic figure? Not completely if at all. For me, the most important part of the history that surrounds him is that he can be traced to a specific time and specific events. Though he may not have actually existed at all, he is traced to a time in which a warrior hero potentially existed, and this ambiguity gives weight to the construction of the Mythic Arthur. I would definitely propose that the mythic Arthur has been a far more important and pervasive figure than the historic Arthur. There are a number of reasons for this: a. The function of Arthur in society today and in the Victorian period is as an ideal. The historical reality here (if indeed there is one) would be almost completely contrary to how we imagine him. And the pursuit of Arthur and Camelot is far more relevant to us that the pursuit of a 5th century warrior. b. Arthur is a tragic hero, signalling the decline of a period, As such there isn't a civilisation built on his historicity (like for example how the French perceive their beginning at Charlemagne). He is instead a mythic umbrella under which the Cornish, Welsh and Angles could eventually unite. A defined historical figure would be incapable of this accomplishment. c. Arthur fills a similar role to Grecian local heroes in that he could have potentially been based off a real human who had greater feats projected onto them after their death. The possibility of his existence affords those who live on the British isles an amount of ownership onto which, throughout the centuries they projected their ideals as a mirror of and ideal for their society.
Arthur combines the malleability of a myth with the possibility of fact, and though I think he is overwhelmingly a mythic figure, the historic precedent for his existence is what has made the myth so pervasive in society.
The study and story of Arthur is History and it does matter. It is history not because Arthur may or may not have existed as a real person, but because of the renown that his name achieved over a great period of time. As highlighted by previous comments, it does not matter whether Arthur did or didn't exist, what matters is the affect the name Arthur has had on many people for hundreds of years. The prevalence of the myth in todays culture stands testament to the lasting influence Arthur has had. From the study of Arthur, we gain inside into the workings of the medieval mind, as well as how myths develop through cultures over time. The study of Arthurian legend is in itself the study of history, real people who the myth of Arthur affected, such as medieval English and French royalty and ruling classes. It also allows us as historians to challenge written works and not to take what is written as factual, but instead work harder with other fields such as archaeologists to try and dig deeper to the truth. What can be learned from the study of Arthur is how cultures idealise and build up mythic heroes to strengthen their own bond to their own history and place in the world.
I too believe that it does not matter whether Arthur was real or not. If evidence does eventually come to light that he was a real person, it won't change the legend behind the name. There have been many representations of Arthur in different cultures, and many have adopted him as their own. As a symbol and the legend that goes with the name, I believe that each culture adopted Arthur's values to use as part of their own, and that each culture had their own version of Arthur or somebody who embodied all the quailites of the mythical Arthur. Athur's legacy continues today and I believe that it comes from and is a mixture of the best parts of each version of Arthur.
There are a few considerations to make. I think immediately one cannot recognize many sources as historical in proving Arthur. That is to say that many of the paintings, artworks, books, etc that refer to Arthur are not history and that they cannot be used. However, this does not mean that the fore-mentioned sources are not history. Whilst they do not endorse the concept of whether Arthur existed or not, they do provide reflections of their contemporary sociological values and ideals. The sheer mention of Arthur throughout history is representative of a number of historical facts. Thus, through an abstract sense, I would argue the fore-mentioned sources are in fact history. Wilson Hill.
Is King Arthur history or is he simply a myth? This is a complicated question that you could study for years and probably still not know. Yes there are elements that we can see in historical documents that can support claims that Arthur is a historical figure. There are also many arguments and facts that can be used to support that he is not. But does this really matter? Will it really change anything if there is a definite answer. Sure many scholars will care about the answer but to be fair it is probably the mythical Arthur that has had the deeper impact on society. The Arthur that we have adapted into our everyday lives is not seen by people to be a historical hero but a famous literary figure. If academics were to discover that Arthur was in fact a real person, it would not change the impact that he has had through the ages and it would not change the way he is perceived today.
ReplyDeleteI believe through doing this course and reading this weeks reading that Arthur was a figure in time, but he's role as an all conquering leader may be some what exaggerated. However with that in mind I also believe that it doesn't really matter whether the story of Arthur was 100% factual or 100% fiction the story behind the character is more important than the character itself. The story provided the people of the time and even people in the modern world with "profound cultural truths" in the sense that it teaches people about love, friendship and values that are worth up holding. As there are many Arthurian references in today's world it's clear that the elements of the story have shone through instead of the factual evidence about the 'King Arthur'. This idea that a story that old can still have an effect on people I believe is a better question that should be asked and debated among historians and people alike.
ReplyDeleteOllie
The story or legend of King Arthur has become history since the lines of reality have or maybe always were blurred by whoever wrote about or documented his life (whether it be reality or fantasy). The fact remains that to many people in society, Arthur remains a very real character in a historical setting. Many people who have not experienced the depth of analysis we have done know no better that most likely Thomas Malory's version. This version however exaggerated has formed what we consider today to be historical notions of male behaviour, with regards to how to behave around women and be just in their dealings with other men. The question is does history have to be 100% factual? I would answer "no", as an example from an even earlier age, the age of dinosoars, how do we know they were reptilian and were covered in hide, much like crocodiles, someone somewhere made the decision to say that based on these elements then it is pretty certain that dinosoars were not fluffy. In the absence of fact, we elaborate on common stories of the day to suit the market, as evidenced in Thomas Malory's translation of Morte D'Arthur.
ReplyDeleteAgreeing with the posts before mine, I think the question regarding the degree of Arthur's historicity is not necessarily the most important one. While some historical events probably lie at the root of this myth, it seems far more interesting to look at how later generations have adapted the story according to their own time and needs. As historians we'll likely get to know more about life in certain eras by analysing how and why Bede in the early Middle Ages, Geoffrey of Monmouth in the 12th century, Thomas Malory at the end of the Middle Ages, Alfred Tennyson in Victorian times, authors and playwrights in our own time, etc. viewed one the longest prevailing and essential legends/stories/myths of humanity, thus getting an insight in both the Arthurian matter itself and the political realities of many centuries.
ReplyDeleteIs Arthur a historic figure? Not completely if at all. For me, the most important part of the history that surrounds him is that he can be traced to a specific time and specific events. Though he may not have actually existed at all, he is traced to a time in which a warrior hero potentially existed, and this ambiguity gives weight to the construction of the Mythic Arthur. I would definitely propose that the mythic Arthur has been a far more important and pervasive figure than the historic Arthur. There are a number of reasons for this:
ReplyDeletea. The function of Arthur in society today and in the Victorian period is as an ideal. The historical reality here (if indeed there is one) would be almost completely contrary to how we imagine him. And the pursuit of Arthur and Camelot is far more relevant to us that the pursuit of a 5th century warrior.
b. Arthur is a tragic hero, signalling the decline of a period, As such there isn't a civilisation built on his historicity (like for example how the French perceive their beginning at Charlemagne). He is instead a mythic umbrella under which the Cornish, Welsh and Angles could eventually unite. A defined historical figure would be incapable of this accomplishment.
c. Arthur fills a similar role to Grecian local heroes in that he could have potentially been based off a real human who had greater feats projected onto them after their death. The possibility of his existence affords those who live on the British isles an amount of ownership onto which, throughout the centuries they projected their ideals as a mirror of and ideal for their society.
Arthur combines the malleability of a myth with the possibility of fact, and though I think he is overwhelmingly a mythic figure, the historic precedent for his existence is what has made the myth so pervasive in society.
rachael
The study and story of Arthur is History and it does matter. It is history not because Arthur may or may not have existed as a real person, but because of the renown that his name achieved over a great period of time. As highlighted by previous comments, it does not matter whether Arthur did or didn't exist, what matters is the affect the name Arthur has had on many people for hundreds of years. The prevalence of the myth in todays culture stands testament to the lasting influence Arthur has had. From the study of Arthur, we gain inside into the workings of the medieval mind, as well as how myths develop through cultures over time. The study of Arthurian legend is in itself the study of history, real people who the myth of Arthur affected, such as medieval English and French royalty and ruling classes. It also allows us as historians to challenge written works and not to take what is written as factual, but instead work harder with other fields such as archaeologists to try and dig deeper to the truth. What can be learned from the study of Arthur is how cultures idealise and build up mythic heroes to strengthen their own bond to their own history and place in the world.
ReplyDeleteI too believe that it does not matter whether Arthur was real or not. If evidence does eventually come to light that he was a real person, it won't change the legend behind the name. There have been many representations of Arthur in different cultures, and many have adopted him as their own. As a symbol and the legend that goes with the name, I believe that each culture adopted Arthur's values to use as part of their own, and that each culture had their own version of Arthur or somebody who embodied all the quailites of the mythical Arthur. Athur's legacy continues today and I believe that it comes from and is a mixture of the best parts of each version of Arthur.
ReplyDeleteThere are a few considerations to make. I think immediately one cannot recognize many sources as historical in proving Arthur. That is to say that many of the paintings, artworks, books, etc that refer to Arthur are not history and that they cannot be used. However, this does not mean that the fore-mentioned sources are not history. Whilst they do not endorse the concept of whether Arthur existed or not, they do provide reflections of their contemporary sociological values and ideals. The sheer mention of Arthur throughout history is representative of a number of historical facts. Thus, through an abstract sense, I would argue the fore-mentioned sources are in fact history.
ReplyDeleteWilson Hill.