The legend of King Arthur - The Mother of all Fantasy Stories
Admittedly including this in a nerd blog seems like quite stretch but medieval literature being another of my passions I couldn't ignore the parallels. I believe that the gerne of fantasy is deeply linked to this the old legends, not just King Arthur but also Beowulf & Grendel and many others.
First of all there is not "THE" King Arthur Story but rather a collection of stories. It seems likely that many occurances were simply linked to him or made up by people hearing stories about King Arthur and just wishing to continue it. Doesn't this sound awefully familiar? I guess you could consider this sort of storytelling the first fanfictions. People were adding to stories they loved and found inspirational.
Scholars are still debating wether King Arthur has existed in one or another way or if he is just this a legend. Assuming he was a real ruler, he has most likey lived sometime during the 5th and 6th century, despite the most popular stories putting him sometime during the 9th or 10th century. Yet other theories assume he was a roman soldier that fought at Hadrian's wall.
Anyhow it is safe to assume, that if he lived, he lived during the 5th and 6th century and was a leader (clan chief?) fighting off the Saxons. Everything else is questionable.
Most people assume that the first written forms of the story came from Geoffrey of Monmout around 1136, in his "History of the Kings of Britain", but that it not entirely accurate as there is a much earlier account "Historia Britonum" by Nennius a welsh monk, which is dated in the 9th or 10th century. It might be that the book Monmouth claimed to have translated from Latin might actually be at least in part the "Historia Britonum" or maybe one of its sources. But since the origins of Nennius and his sources are also questionable, we are going to continue to use Geoffrey of Monmout as a reference.
While "History of the Kings of Britain" is of very doubtful historical accuracy it descibes the founding of Britain by Brutus the Trojan and the life of King Arthur.
Merlin's intruction by Geoffrey of Monmouth is certainly the most significant aspect, when it comes to attributing this legend to the Fantasy genre. The story then moves clearly aways from a historical account towards something more mythical.
As the battles mentioned by Geoffrey of Monmouth there were supposedly fought by Arthur were set very far apart geographically and chronologically it seems unlike that one person could have been a part of all those. One hypothesis archeologists consider is that Geoffrey of Monmouth simply created a Celtic "superhero" by taking various accounts of in fact several leaders and attributed those to one single man, namely Arthur.
The name Arthur could be an indication of this as well, as the name might derive from Latin and mean noble or courageous, which indicate the bearer to be the personanification of a hero. It could also be derived from the celtic word for "bear" which also indicated strength. In any case it would make a proper warrior's name.
This is however contradicted by the fact the Arthur and his twelve battles was already mentioned by Nennius roughly 200 years earlier. Maybe therefore Monmouth is guilty of extending the story but not of making it up entirely.
Camelot, the legendary city from which King Arthur ruled, was most likely invented by the 12th century french poet Chrétien de Troyes, who is also attributed with the creation of the character of Lancelot, one of the most famous knights of the round table. This further evidences to what extend the truth has been thinned out in this legend, as Lancelot is easily the most famous character apart from Arthur and Merlin. As this point the story was already blown up beyond recognition.
It appears clear what would have to be done to figure out the truth, one needs to move from today's known legend and peel of the layers of the extensions that all the writers that came before added to the story.
Maybe in the end he was a Clan Chief, that fought a few battles and won. Many people would be disappointed to know this but they should reconsider. Because however deep the truth was buried (Personally I believe that there was an Arthur) he was a man, that must have inspired people to tell his story. They told the story over and over again and maybe memorized all the details and when there were no more details to be known, they started to add them. What could be more human?
I lost my mother 18 months ago and continously ask myself: What would mom do? Isn't that the same thing these people did? The loved and admired their leader so much that they continued to imagine how he would have acted. In the end Arthur must have been an amazing man, because he continues to inspirate people 1500 years after his death.
Anyhow it is safe to assume, that if he lived, he lived during the 5th and 6th century and was a leader (clan chief?) fighting off the Saxons. Everything else is questionable.
Most people assume that the first written forms of the story came from Geoffrey of Monmout around 1136, in his "History of the Kings of Britain", but that it not entirely accurate as there is a much earlier account "Historia Britonum" by Nennius a welsh monk, which is dated in the 9th or 10th century. It might be that the book Monmouth claimed to have translated from Latin might actually be at least in part the "Historia Britonum" or maybe one of its sources. But since the origins of Nennius and his sources are also questionable, we are going to continue to use Geoffrey of Monmout as a reference.
While "History of the Kings of Britain" is of very doubtful historical accuracy it descibes the founding of Britain by Brutus the Trojan and the life of King Arthur.
Merlin's intruction by Geoffrey of Monmouth is certainly the most significant aspect, when it comes to attributing this legend to the Fantasy genre. The story then moves clearly aways from a historical account towards something more mythical.
As the battles mentioned by Geoffrey of Monmouth there were supposedly fought by Arthur were set very far apart geographically and chronologically it seems unlike that one person could have been a part of all those. One hypothesis archeologists consider is that Geoffrey of Monmouth simply created a Celtic "superhero" by taking various accounts of in fact several leaders and attributed those to one single man, namely Arthur.
The name Arthur could be an indication of this as well, as the name might derive from Latin and mean noble or courageous, which indicate the bearer to be the personanification of a hero. It could also be derived from the celtic word for "bear" which also indicated strength. In any case it would make a proper warrior's name.
This is however contradicted by the fact the Arthur and his twelve battles was already mentioned by Nennius roughly 200 years earlier. Maybe therefore Monmouth is guilty of extending the story but not of making it up entirely.
Camelot, the legendary city from which King Arthur ruled, was most likely invented by the 12th century french poet Chrétien de Troyes, who is also attributed with the creation of the character of Lancelot, one of the most famous knights of the round table. This further evidences to what extend the truth has been thinned out in this legend, as Lancelot is easily the most famous character apart from Arthur and Merlin. As this point the story was already blown up beyond recognition.
It appears clear what would have to be done to figure out the truth, one needs to move from today's known legend and peel of the layers of the extensions that all the writers that came before added to the story.
Maybe in the end he was a Clan Chief, that fought a few battles and won. Many people would be disappointed to know this but they should reconsider. Because however deep the truth was buried (Personally I believe that there was an Arthur) he was a man, that must have inspired people to tell his story. They told the story over and over again and maybe memorized all the details and when there were no more details to be known, they started to add them. What could be more human?
I lost my mother 18 months ago and continously ask myself: What would mom do? Isn't that the same thing these people did? The loved and admired their leader so much that they continued to imagine how he would have acted. In the end Arthur must have been an amazing man, because he continues to inspirate people 1500 years after his death.
Comments
Post a Comment