To: Just mythoughts
Okay, I think I've confused you, a bit..I apologize.
King Arthur and his knights (as we know them) are litterary inventions. There is no Round Table, no Court of Camelot,and if I have to point this out, some of the characters in those tales (particularly Lancelot) are French and obviously later inventions slipped into the tales.
In ancient history, evidence exists that indicates that sometime in the 4-5th century AD, there was a Welsh warlord named Arthur (Arturus in Latin)and that his main claim to fame is that he kept the invading Saxons at bay for at least a generation or two. This evidence, however, is flimsy, and is mostly based on the fact that there seems to be an explosion of young boys named Arthur in the later stages of this time frame (from village rolls, church records, etc). And from a few scattered bits of poetry and such proclaiming him King of the Britons.
The basis for all of the King Arthur tales is Celtic in origin, and very ancient. The idea of lake spirits handing out weapons, Merlin, and even the Holy Grail, have their roots in Celtic myth (the Grail Quest may have been a retelling in more modern times of the story of Cu'Chullain's (sp?)magic cauldron).
By the 12th century, these tales had been romanticized and told in European couts all over the continent. The Sword in the Stone tale never appears in the ancient myths about Arthur. In the original tales, Arthur receives his sword from the Lady of the Lake.
The name Excalibur is Latin, whereas in the Welsh, the sword if known as Caledfwlch. The names od the Round Table knights, such as Kay (Cei), Gawain, Owain, Derfel, and other caharacters, such as Igraine, Guinevere, etc. are all Welsh. Galahad, depending on which version of the story you hear, is the purest knight, while in others, it is Percival.
Percival, by the way, is a Fanco-German invention.
The sword in the stone tale is an older invention, and the point of it was that Arthur, by pulling the sword from it, was to be the future king of the Britons. It is symbolic, and a powerful symbol at that. It would not surprise me that other European rulers would not try to use similar sybolism to validate their own claims to power.
posted on 03/03/2004 11:43:25 AM PST
(Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
Thanks for the clarification.
Could be using different names hunting for that sword little David took from that Giant ISamuel 17:51
The most obvious use of Arthurian symbolism that comes to mind is that of the Nazis. There is a famous painting of Hitler as Percival in full armor, and Himmler maintained a Round Table for his SS lieutenants in some castle somewhere (I've forgotten the name!).
British monarchs used to sit on a throne under which was the Stone of Scone, symbolising that Scotland was firmly within the British Empire. The stone was the platform upon which Scots kings were coronated.
It's not unusual for people to reach into the past for the ancient symbols of legitimacy in order to justify their own claims to power.
posted on 03/03/2004 12:02:52 PM PST
(Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
Got a reading list??
Same for number 40.
posted on 03/03/2004 7:07:10 PM PST
The tales of chivalry embodied in King Arthur's legend were part of the courtly love poems regaled through France in the 12th century and promoted by the troubadours. Maria de France, of "Le Fresne," and Marie de Pisan of "The City of Ladies" did quite a bit to perpetuate these myths. However, the belief in Arthur and his Knights was solidified in Briton before being promoted by the troubadours throughout Europe.
The last documented date I could find on Excalibur was a brief mention that on March 7, 1193, King Richard reportedly gifted the sword to King Tacred of Lecce. This was part of a peace negotiation between the two Kings. Tancred had kidnapped Richard's sister, Joanna, when her husband died and Tancred assumed the throne.
This rumor actually caused a major uproar amongst the lesser classes, who had heard of the legends and myths (born anew through the courtly love poets).
Please note, the controversy was unnecessary. The gift was part of a dowry that would to go Lecce's daughter, who was betrothed to Richard's 4-year old nephew, Arthur of Brittany. Since Richard didn't have any children at the time of negotiations, he planned to make Arthur his heir and the dowry would be returned to Briton at the time of their marriage.
In short, it was supposed to be a "temporary gift."
However, King Tancred died in 1194, and his son, William III, was dethroned by Henry VI von Hohenstaufen of Germany. Whether the sword actually made it there, no one knows.
posted on 03/03/2004 9:04:15 PM PST
(With God's Grace, All Things Are Possible)
I guess you can pick and choose what you want to beleive based o certain limited parameters at this point.
Personally, I believe Arthur was a real person, that he was a Romano-Celtic Warlord who fought against the invading pagan Anglo-Saxons.
Can I prove it beyond any question of a doubt? No. But the smattering of evidence and what we know of the historical background certainly doesn't rule it out.
Its a lot harder to prove that someone never existed than to prove he did, not that that is easy.
posted on 03/04/2004 10:03:59 AM PST
(God Bless Senator Joe McCarthy!!!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson