King Arthur

King Arthur is an important figure in the mythology of Great Britain, where he appears as the ideal of kingship in both war and peace. He is the central character in the cycle of legends known as the "Matter of Britain." There is disagreement about whether Arthur, or a model for him, ever actually existed: in the earliest mentions and Welsh texts he is never given the title "King." Early texts refer to him as ''dux bellorum'' ("war leader") and High Medieval Welsh texts often call him ''amerauder'' ("emperor"). ==The Arthur of history== :''Main article: Historical basis for King Arthur'' The possible historicity of the King Arthur of legend has long been debated by scholars. One school of thought believes Arthur to have lived sometime in the late 5th century to early 6th century, to have been of Romano-British origin, and to have fought against the pagan Saxons. His power base was probably in either Wales, Cornwall, or the west of what would become England, but controversy over the centre of his power and the extent and kind of power he wielded continues to rage. Some members of this school, most notably Geoffrey Ashe and Leon Fleuriot, have argued for identifying Arthur with a certain Riothamus, "King of the Brettones," who was active during the reign of the Roman Emperor Anthemius. Unfortunately, Riothamus is a shadowy figure of whom we know little, and scholars are not certain whether the "Brettones" he led were Britain or Armorica. Other writers suggest that Arthur should be identified as one Lucius Artorius Castus, a historical Roman of the 2nd century, whose military exploits in Britain may have been remembered for centuries afterward. Yet the obscurity surrounding the historical career of Artorius makes this identification unlikely, as there seems to be little reason for him to have become a major legendary figure. Another school of thought believes that Arthur is a half-forgotten Celtic deity devolved into a personage (citing sometimes a supposed change of the sea-god Lir into Leir of Britain ) or a possibly fictive person like Beowulf (character). Subscribers to this school of thought argue that another Roman Briton of the period, for example Ambrosius Aurelianus, led the forces battling the Saxons at the battle of Mons Badonicus. Further, historical persons may have influenced the later legends, like the Scots king Aedan mac Gabran, who had a son called Artuir and whose life was somewhat similar to Arthur's. ==Earliest traditions of Arthur== Arthur first appears in Welsh literature. In a surviving early Welsh language poem, the ''Gododdin'' (c. 594), the poet Aneirin (c. 535–600) writes of one of his subjects that "he fed black ravens on the ramparts, although he was no Arthur" — but this poem as it currently exists is full of interpolations, and it is not possible to decide if this passage is an interpolation from a later period. The following poems attributed to Taliesin are possibly from a similarly early date: ''The Chair of the Sovereign'', which refers to "Arthur the Blessed"; ''Preiddeu Annwn'' ("The Treasures of Paradise"), mentions "the valour of Arthur" and states "we went with Arthur in his splendid labours"; and the poem "Journey to Deganwy," which contains the passage "as at the battle of Badon with Arthur, chief giver of feasts, with his tall blades red from the battle which all men remember." Another early reference to Arthur is in the ''Historia Britonum'', attributed to the Welsh monk Nennius, who is said to have written this compilation of early Welsh history around the year AD 830. In this work, Arthur is referred to as a "leader of battles" rather than as a king. Two separate sources within this compilation list twelve battles that he fought, culminating in the battle of Mons Badonicus, where he is said to have single-handedly killed 960 men. According to the ''Annales Cambriae'', Arthur was killed at the Battle of Camlann in 537. Arthur makes an appearance in a number of well-known Welsh ''vitae'' ("Lives") of 6th-century saint: for example, in the ''Life of Saint Illtud'', he is said to be a cousin of that churchman. Many of these appearances portray Arthur as a fierce warrior, and not necessarily as morally impeccable as in later Romances. According to the ''Life of Saint Gildas'' (died c. 570), written in the 11th century by Caradoc of Llancarfan, Arthur killed Gildas' brother Hueil, a pirate on the Isle of Man. Lifris writes in his ''Life of Saint Cadoc'' that Arthur was bettered by Cadoc: Cadoc gave protection to a man who killed three of Arthur's soldiers; Arthur was awarded a herd of cattle from Cadoc as wergeld for his men; Cadoc delivered them as demanded; but when Arthur took possession of the animals, they were transformed into bundles of ferns. The likely original purpose of this story would be to promote popular acceptance of the new Christianity by "demonstrating" that Cadoc, the Christian leader, had magical powers traditionally ascribed to Druids and of sufficient intensity to outsmart the temporal ruler, Arthur. Similar incidents are described in the late medieval biographies of Carannog, Padern, and Goeznovius. Arthur also appears in the Welsh tale ''Culhwch and Olwen'', a narrative that is usually associated with the Mabinogion. In that work, Culhwch visits his court to seek his help in winning the hand of Olwen. Arthur, who is described as his kinsman, agrees to the request, and fulfills the demands of Olwen's giant father Ysbaddaden, which includes his hunt for the great boar Twrch Trwth, described at length by the author. This may be related to legends where Arthur is depicted as the leader of the Wild Hunt, a folk motif that is also recorded in Brittany, France, and Germany; Roger S. Loomis has listed a number of these instances (Loomis 1972). Gervase of Tilbury in the 13th century and two 15th century writers assign this role to Arthur: Gervase tells that Arthur and his knights regularly hunt an ancient trackway between Cadbury Castle and Glastonbury (which is still known as King Arthur's Causeway [http://www.prairienet.org/~almahu/hunt.htm]), and that he with his company of riders may be seen by moonlight in the forests of Britain or Brittany or Savoy. Loomis alludes to a Scottish mention in the 16th century, and that many of these beliefs were still current in the 19th century at Cadbury Castle, and in several parts of France. Later parts of the ''Trioedd Ynys Prydein'', or Welsh Triads, mention Arthur and locate his court in Celliwig, which is located in Cornwall. Celliwig was identified by older Cornish antiquaries with Callington, but Rachel Bromwich, the latest editor of the Welsh Triads, matched it to Kelly Rounds, a hill fort in the Cornish parish of Egloshayle. ==The Arthurian romance== In AD 1133, Geoffrey of Monmouth produced a work, ''Historia Regum Britanniae'', that was the medieval equivalent of a best seller and helped draw the attention of other writers, such as Robert Wace and Layamon— who then expanded on the tales of Arthur. One theory as to why this happened is that after the Norman Conquest of Britain in 1066 there was renewed interest in the Arthurian Legend as described by Edward Gibbon in ''The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'':

During a period of five hundred years the tradition of his exploits was preserved, and rudely embellished, by the obscure bards of Wales and Armorica, who were odious to the Saxons, and unknown to the rest of mankind. The pride and curiosity of the Norman people prompted them to inquire into the ancient history of Britain; they listened with fond credulity to the tale of Arthur, and eagerly applauded the merit of a prince who had triumphed over the Saxons, their common enemies. [Chapter 38, Footnote 138]

Thus, according to Gibbon, the once obscure 500-year-old Welsh legend went mainstream (through the works of Anglo-Norman poet Wace and others), creating a unified cultural icon under which the Norman rulers and the native Welsh could rally against their common enemy: the Saxons. While many scholars believe that Geoffrey of Monmouth is the source for medieval interest in Arthur, at least one scholar, Roger S. Loomis, has argued that many of the tales surrounding Arthur were independently adapted from Breton oral traditions, spread through the royal and noble courts of Europe by professional storytellers known as ''Jongleur''. The French medieval writer, Chr�tien de Troyes, recounted tales from the mythos during the mid-12th century, as did Marie de France in her narrative poems called ''Breton lai''. In any case, the later stories told by these two writers and by many others appear to be independent of what Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote. In these Arthurian romances, which gained popularity beginning in the 12th century, Arthur gathered the Knights of the Round Table (Lancelot, Gawain, Galahad, and others). At his court, most often held at Camelot in the later prose romances, could sometimes be found the wizard Merlin (wizard). Arthur's knights engaged in fabulous quests, the one for the Holy Grail being perhaps the best known. Other stories from the Celtic world came to be associated with Arthur, such as the tale of Tristan and Isolde. In the late prose romances the love affair between Arthur's champion, Lancelot, and the Queen, Guinevere, becomes the central reason for the fall of the Arthurian world. [[Image:KingArthurTombsite.jpg|thumb|right|250px|King Arthur's tombsite at Glastonbury Abbey]] Arthur was killed in his last battle, the Battle of Camlann, which he fought against the forces of Mordred. The ''Prose Lancelot'' and the later prose cyclic romances state that Mordred was also a Knight of the Round Table and the child of an incest union between Arthur and his sister Morgause. In almost all accounts Arthur was said to be mortally wounded, but after the battle he was taken away to Avalon (sometimes identified with Glastonbury in Somerset, England), where his wounds were healed or his body was buried in a chapel. Some texts refer to a return of Arthur in the future. The Arthurian mythos spread far across the continent. An image of Arthur and his Knights attacking a castle was carved into an archivolt over the north doorway of Modena Cathedral in Italy sometime between 1099 and 1120. The surprising fact that these Italian images seem to have been carved more than decade before the appearance of Geoffrey's "Historia" indicates how limited is our knowledge of the spread of Arthurian legend in the early Middle Ages. Also in Italy, a mosaic pavement in the cathedral of Otranto, near [[Bari] was made in 1165 with the unexplained depiction of ''Arturus Rex'' bearing a sceptre and riding a goat. 15th century merchants set up an Arthurian hall in his honour in Gdansk, Poland. Retellings of the Arthurian cycle include the works of Gottfried von Strassburg, Wolfram von Eschenbach, ''Sir Gawain and the Green Knight'', and Thomas Malory's ''Le Morte d'Arthur''. In 1191, monks of Glastonbury Abbey announced that they had found the burial site of Arthur and Guinevere. Their grave was shown to many people, and the reputed remains were moved to a new tomb in 1278. The tomb was destroyed during the Reformation, and the bones lost. The antiquary John Leland reports that he saw the cross found with the remains, and transcribed its inscription as :Hic iacet sepvltvs inclytvs rex artvrivs in insvla avalonia — "Here is buried the famous king Arthur in the Island of Avalon". If Leland accurately reproduced the script of this inscription, then it can be dated to the 10th century. At least one scholar has suggested that the cross was added when Arthur's remains were transferred to the Abbey. ==Arthur's swords== :''Main entry: Excalibur''. In Robert de Boron's ''Merlin'', later followed by Thomas Malory, Arthur obtained the throne by pulling a sword from a stone and anvil. In this account, this act could not be performed except by "the true king," meaning the divinely appointed king or true heir of Uther Pendragon. This sword was presumably the famous Excalibur and the identity is made explicit in the later so-called ''Vulgate Merlin Continuation''. However, in what is sometimes called the ''Post-Vulgate Merlin'', Excalibur was taken from a hand rising from a lake and given to Arthur sometime after he began to reign by a sorcerous damsel (confused by post-medieval writers with The Lady of the Lake). In this Post-Vulgate version, the sword's blade could slice through anything and its sheath made the wearer invincible. Some stories say that Arthur did indeed pull the sword from the stone (Excalibur), giving him the right to be king, but accidentally killed a fellow knight with it and cast it away. Merlin told him to undertake a quest to find another blade, and it was then that Arthur received his sword from the hand in the water, and named it Excalibur, after his original sword. The first appearance of the sword named ''Caliburn'' is in Geoffrey of Monmouth who asserted that in battle against Arthur "nought might armour avail, but that Caliburn would carve their sould from out them with their blood." ([http://www.bartleby.com/211/1206.html]). ==Arthur in modern literature, film, and television== There are many number of books written about King Arthur and the court of Camelot. * John Steinbeck's ''The Acts of King Arthur and His Noble Knights'' is a traditional take in modern language. * T.H. White's ''The Once and Future King'' cycle * Alfred Tennyson's ''Idylls of the King'' * Mark Twain's ''A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court'' * Monty Python's ''Monty Python and the Holy Grail'', a hilarious parody of the traditional King Arthur legend. * Sidney Lanier's ''The Boy's King Arthur'' is a work based on Thomas Malory's, written in such a way to appeal to the boys of the 19th century. * Marion Zimmer Bradley's ''The Mists of Avalon'' * Bryher set her historical novel ''Ruan'' in Britain immediately after Arthur's death. * Catherine Christian, ''The Pendragon'' tells the story from a 5th century Sir Bedivere. * J.H. Brennan's ''GrailQuest'' gamebooks center around the kingdom of King Arthur. * Susan Cooper's five volume saga, ''The Dark is Rising''. * Kevin Crossley-Holland's ''The Seeing-Stone'', ''At the Crossing-Places'' and ''King of the Middle-March.''. * The several books by Norma Lorre Goodrich are very popular, but are based on a poorly received analysis of Arthurian legend and medieval history. She asserts he was a borderlands king whose activity centered around the roman walls and wall forts. This is so at odds with entrenched beliefs that she is dismissed by many "scholars" despite some well founded conclusions. * Helen Hollick * The Merlin books of Mary Stewart: ''The Crystal Cave'' sets up the background for the Arthurian legend. ''The Hollow Hills'' encompasses most of Arthur's lifespan, including his childhood with Merlin as his tutor. * Persia Woolley * A. A. Attanasio: The Dragon and the Unicorn, The Eagle and the Sword, The Wolf and the Crown. * Guy Gavriel Kay: Part of the story of The Fionavar Tapestry is the continuation of the Camelot story in the framework of a wider epic. * Stephen Lawhead's The Pendragon Cycle * Jack Whyte's ''The Camulod Chronicles'', a series of books based more in historical fiction than fantasy beginning with Roman Britain and leading through Arthur's reign. * Gillian Bradshaw's series ''Hawk of May'', ''Kingdom of Summer'' and ''In Winter's Shadow'' is an extremely inventive reinterpretation of the legend. * Christopher Gidlow's ''The Reign of Arthur: From History to Legend'' * Nancy Springer's ''I am Mordred'' and ''I am Morgan le Fay'' * ''First Knight'', a movie based on the legend, featuring Sean Connery as Arthur, Richard Gere as Lancelot, and Julia Ormond as Lady Guinevere. * ''King Arthur (movie)'', a motion picture released on July 7, 2004, claiming to be more historically accurate about the legend with respect to new Archaeology findings; similar in story line to Jack Whyte's books. * Bernard Cornwell's ''Warlord Chronicles'' consist of three novels, Winter King, Enemy of God, and Excalibur and reintroduce many old characters back into the tale. Told by Derfel after Arthurs Death they are very realistic in nature even though they do have Merlin and Lancelot and magic. Well worth a read and the Authors notes at the end are enlightening. "There is a sword and there is a stone, but one is not in the other", is Cornwell's own summary. * Rosalind Miles' ''Guenevere Trilogy'' is a fictional trilogy that follows Guenevere and King Arthur through their reign as High King & Queen ''See also:'' List of books about King Arthur and List of movies based on Arthurian legend. The late 1960s Australian animated cartoon series ''Arthur! and the Square Knights of the Round Table'' was a typically wacky take on Arthurian legend. The 1970s British television series, ''Arthur of the Britons'', starring Oliver Tobias, sought to create a more "realistic" portrait of the period and to explain the origins of some of the myths about the Celtic leader. In 1937, a newspaper comic strip by Hal Foster, ''Prince Valiant'' was first published, with the byline "''In the Days of King Arthur''". Since the death of Foster in 1982, John Cullen Murphy has continued producing this comic strip. The role-playing game Pendragon RPG details how to run adventure games set in the time of the Round Table. The movie ''Merlin'' showing a tale of Arthur and his knights. The cartoon television series ''Gargoyles (animated series)'' featuring numerous tales of Arthur, who was prematurely awakened in a time of need, and the magic and fairies of Avalon. The cartoon television series ''Justice League'' and ''Justice League Unlimited'' featuring related characters Morgan Le Fay, Mordred, and Merlin. The concept album ''The Myths and Legends of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table'' (1975) by Rick Wakeman. ==See also== * List of Arthurian characters * Mythical British Kings * Nine Worthies, of which Arthur was one * Sites and places associated with Arthurian legend * Asteroids 2597 Arthur and 2598 Merlin, named after the Arthurian figures * Arthur Tudor, named after Arthur with a hope that he would restore English greatness ==Bibliography== *Leslie Alcock. ''Arthur's Britain: History and Archaeology AD 367 - 634''. Allen Lane, The Penguin Press. London. 1971. ISBN 0713902450 *Rachel Bromwich, "Concepts of Arthur", ''Studia Celtica'', 9/10 (1976), pp.163-81. *David N. Dumville, "Sub-Roman Britain: History and Legend", ''History'' 62 (1977), pp. 173-92. *Roger S. Loomis, "The Arthurian Legend before 1139", ''The Romantic Review'', 32 (1941), 3-38. *Roger S. Loomis, editor. ''Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages''. Clarendon Press: Oxford University. 1959. ISBN 0198115881 *Daniel Mersey. ''Arthur King of the Britons: From Celtic Hero To Cinema Icon''. Summersdale. Chichester. 2004. ISBN 1840244038 *Thomas Jones, "The Early Evolution of the Legend of Arthur", ''Nottingham Medieval Studies'', 8 (1964), pp. 3-21. ==External links== *[http://www.timelessmyths.com/arthurian/arthur.html Timeless Myths - King Arthur] *[http://www.britannia.com/history/artbios.html A Collection on Britannia.com of brief sketches of personages and writers associated with the legend of King Arthur] *A Guide to King Arthur's Forgotten Realm http://panther.bsc.edu/~arthur A detailed but digestable site containing the research materials and expriences of two college students' experiences while traveling Britain's sites associated with the Aurthurian legend. *[http://britannia.com/history/timelines.html Timelines of British history on Britannia.com] *[http://www.kingarthursknights.com/default.asp A site devoted to the history and legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table] *[http://www-personal.umich.edu/~merrie/Arthur/index.html Merrie Haskell's King Arthur Website] Has a number of interesting scanned images. *The h2g2 encyclopedia article on [http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A533350 The Medieval Development of Arthurian Literature] *Camelot in Four Colors : A Survey of the Arthurian Legend in Comics [http://camelot4colors.com/] *The Taliesin Foundation: Understanding Celtic tradition in relation to today, in particular the Anglo-Celtic Inheritance of what Winston Churchill called "The English Speaking Peoples", inspired and informed by the mythos of King Arthur, the Round Table, the Quest for the Holy Grail.[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/taliesinfoundation] *[http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix2/arthurpendragon.htm A profile of the Marvel Comics version of him] ==References== *Loomis, Roger R. 1972. "Arthur" in ''Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend'' (edited by Maria Leach) Funk and Wagnalls. New York. 5th century births 6th century deaths Arthurian legend British cultural icons Celtic Britain Fictional kings People with asteroids named after them Welsh mythology Nine Worthies kw:Myghtern Arthur

King Arthur

==British Spelling== Sjc -- What is this change of center --> centre? Does this mean for this article we will be following the norms for spelling observed on Arthur's native island? :-) More seriously, it looks like it's time to give this article some better structure. What I propose to do is slice & dice this article into the following topics: * The Arthur of History * Early Traditions about Arthur (e.g., Welsh, Cornish, Breton traditions, the Wild Hunt). * The Romance of Arthur (e.g. Geoffrey of Monmouth, the Grail Quest, etc.) * Arthur in Modern Literature Any objections? User:Llywrch 03:03 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC) :Hi, only just found this talk. Given that there will probably be quotes from (primarily) British sources, I would have thought to ''centre'' on a standard British English orthographical standard would make sense in this respect, much as I would defer to say describing Washington as the center of US political process. :But this does need a lot of work. I will try and find some time for it in the days to come. Nice start by the way. user:sjc I think this is a great idea. It does need more structure. Right now it seems to be somewhat of a mish-mash. More info on when Lancelot and other characters krept into the legend would be great. Also I don't see any mention of the Holy Grail -- isn't that a central theme of the legend? I notice the book section is formatted as a list. Shouldn't the movie section be the same? I thought about changing it myself, but couldn't decide on how to do it and retain the info that some of the movie entries contain. E.g. The Sword in the Stone. User:Frecklefoot 17:21 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC) :Well, I went ahead & did it. I probably left my usual number of typos. Have fun fixing my mistakes. User:Llywrch 22:51 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC) ---- ==Arthur vs. King Arthur== Okay, so should this guy be at "Arthur"...? -- User:Oliver Pereira 15:17 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC) :Another one for us to puzzle over. On balance, I think I favour "King Arthur", because he's a semi-legendary figure (ie. not a "British monarch"). More importantly, "Arthur" can refer to so many different people - it would have to be disambiguated in any case, and you'd end up disambiguating to - guess what? User:212.159.41.163 15:41 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC) :: "Arthur (legendary figure)"? ;) I've redirected "Arthur" to here anyway, and put a disambiguation note at the top of this page telling people about other Arthurs. Was this the wrong thing to do? I think "King Arthur" might be misleading, because if he did exist, he probably wasn't a king as we understand the term. And most people when you say "Arthur" to them out of context would probably think of this chap anyway, wouldn't they? Argh, I shouldn't be thinking about this. I should be doing work... -- User:Oliver Pereira 15:46 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC) It ''had'' to happen! Eventually some problem would arise over some 'royal' that wouldn't fit the naming conventions. I suppose as we are dealing with a figure who is a blurred mix of legend and myth, we can't really call him [Arthur of {wherever}]. And [Arthur] is ambiguous, so [King Arthur] is probably the best option, or least worst. I was going to say he is unique case, but that would be tempting fate!!! There are similar 'mythical' figures possibly based on real ones in Irish folklore, like Conor MacNeasa. User:Jtdirl 15:53 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC) :::When I say "Arthur" out of context, I usually mean the bloke from my old chess club. He would be under "Arthur (chess)", of course. Anyway, I think this is definitely the right place for this article - he wasn't a King, probably, but that doesn't matter; Count Basie wasn't really a count, but it's another case of following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). The disambiguation block at the top of this page is probably OK, though I would've probably made Arthur a disambiguation page instead. I might do that later. --User:Camembert The problem with this Arthur -- as opposed to the one who plays chess, the one in the movie, et cetera -- is that some evidence suggests that he was not a king, either by birth or force of arms. The ''Historia Britonum'', one of our earliest sources for the Arthur of History, never calls him a king & actually states that he was a ''dux bellorum'' or "leader of battles". However, he is called a king because everyone from Geoffrey of Monmouth onwards calls him one; Western Civilization has assumed he was always of royal blood, & so does everyone who is not a pedant on the topic. My vote is to follow the example of the discussion concerning "Pennsylvania Dutch" vs. "Pennsylvania German", & let that guide us. I, for one, am happy to keep calling him (although it is technically erroneously) ''King'' Arthur; I know who we're talking about. And as far as I know, there has never been a king named Arthur -- although a few designated heirs had that name. -- User:Llywrch 23:17 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC) ---- ==Removal of Mythical Arthur== Why was the "The Life of the Mythical Arthur" section removed? The comment says "removal of duplicate material," but I found that section much more readable and a tidy summary of the mythical Author. Why can't we leave it in? If the reader wants more detail, they can dig through the rest of the article. —User:Frecklefoot 17:36, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC) :Maybe because it duplicated material already in the article? :I went over that addition very carefully, afraid that something in it had been left out of the article as it stood -- but everything was already there, including an allusion (with working links) to the Round Table (Camelot). As the article now stands, it explains the personage of King Arthur from a historical perspective: first there is the matter whether Arthur was a historical person or entirely fictional, then the early traditions about him (''circa'' 11th century), then the later ones (12th & 13th centuries), & then post-Renaissance versions of the Arthur mythos. If this approach doesn't explain who/what Arthur is, then feel free to rewrite the article. :However, please include the information that the Arthur of ''Culhwch and Olwen'' is not the Arthur of Geoffrey of Monmouth's ''Historiae Regum Britanniae'', nor is the Arthur of Thomas Malory, nor is the Arthur of Mary Stewart. And I'm aware that the reasons why this is so needs to be added to this article. -- User:Llywrch 02:10, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC) ::I don't contend that it had duplicate material—it did. But what I liked about it (and I didn't write it) was that it was a tidy summary. Perhaps we could put it back in (even in an altered format) and call it Summary? —User:Frecklefoot 15:29, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC) :My first response, Frecklefoot, is to ask of which part is this a summary? :My second response is to point out that I don't own this article, although I make it a point to monitor changes to it. If you think that this summary could be fitted harmoniously into the Romance of Athur section, then do it. (One of my objections to this paragraph was that it had the section header The Life of the Mythical Arthur: except for the section The Arthur of History, all of this article is about the Mythical or Fictional Arthur. This myth has evolved over the centuries; the wording of the contribution I reverted suggested that there is/was only one correct version.) -- User:Llywrch 20:36, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC) ::# I know you don't own this article, but when there is a dispute over contents, we generally hash it out over here on the Talk pages instead of getting into an edit war and/or polluting the article with numerous changes. That's why I'm discussing this here in the first place. ::# From your last response above ''This myth has evolved over the centuries; the wording of the contribution I reverted suggested that there is/was only one correct version.'' Point well taken. Since there is no one cannonized version of his life/the myth, it doesn't make sense to include the section, since it presents the story as if there is just one authoritative version. ::# Having said that, it would be nice to have a timeline of some sort that shows what the various versions say what happened when. I understand that it could get quite loopy since many versions of the myth have different things happening and contradict each other. However, it would still be nice to see it documented all in one place. I am not suggesting that one person add it ''now'', it's just a thought for future a improvement. :-) ::—User:Frecklefoot 20:55, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC) :It's beginning to sound as if our disagreement is analogous to one of us saying "This piece of paper is white" & the other then replying "No, it's not black." :The submission under discussion, IMHO, just didn't fit in, so I removed it. You feel that something as readable as it was should be substituted into the article, while (I'm assuming) that duplicate material should be pruned out. I feel that this article should be as readable as possible. If that is a fair restatement of where you are coming from, Frecklefoot, then there's not much to discuss; just an invitation to someone (not necessarily you) to make the proper edits. -- User:Llywrch 00:03, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC) == Arthur, & the Welsh Traditions == There are some problems in this article that keep coming back, which I feel I have to correct & keep out. These are my reasons: #The Date of Arthur Despite centuries of research & scholarship, no decisive & undeniable evidence for the precise dates of Arthur's life have been found. There are a number of respectible scholars (with whom I do not agree, FWIW), who plausibly argue that he never even existed -- a point of view (POV) that is mentioned in this article. Because Arthur's existence is a POV, & Wikipedia is dedicated to being NPOV on these topics, it erodes Wikipedia's credibility if we include specific dates for his existence, dates I doubt even the majority of those who argue for Arthur's existence would endorse. For the purpose of NPOV, I feel it is best to supply an approximate date, & not to insist on specifics that depend on whether one agrees with a particular argument. #Arthur in Welsh Saint Lives These writings date from the 11th century or later -- obviously too far removed from the time Arthur may have lived to contain reliable historical material. As a comparison, it would be the same as accepting Homer's epic poem the ''Illiad'' as factually accurate evidence for the history of Mycenaean Greece, or the ''Song of Roland'' for Carolingian France. They are evidence for the fact that the Welsh had traditions independent of the writings of Geoffrey of Monmouth, & prove that Geoffrey did not just rely on his imagination for the narrative of his work. #The Spelling of the Name of Saint Illtud I have never seen this name spelled "Illtyd"; that is how, for example, Wendy Davies spells his name in her scholarly history ''Wales in the Early Middle Ages'' (Leicester, 1982). She is knowledgable in Old Welsh, & would hardly have misspelled the churchman's name. -- User:Llywrch 02:41, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC) Thank you for your share about POV and NPOV. Hopefully you accept my latest insertion lower down the 'historical Arthur' spiel as a good way to indicate Arthur's actual dates as best they can be deduced from the primary sources, without being dogmatic ("only one POV is right") about them. I'm not clued up on the Song of Roland:-)..... On the credibility of "facts" from the saints' ''Vitae'', it is worth bearing in mind ''HOW'' and ''WHY'' these were written. EARLY Vitae, such as Adomnan's of Columba, were sometimes concerned to show the superiority of Christian powers over those of Druids. By the 11th century, the usual purpose was to promote the cult of the particular saint and attract pilgrims to his shrine(s) by demonstrating his/her efficacy at miracles, starting with those in their lifetime. Authors sometimes had reason to doctor, borrow or invent magical or miraculous accomplishments (such as Columba's calming half of a sea while the other half remained stormy) but none to play with FACTS of a purely historical and logistical nature or anecdotes from the saint's youth that were just incidental to the narrative and helped to portray the saint as a real human being. I find charming and thoroughly credible, for example, the story of Sts Gildas and Cadoc each rowing across half of the Severn Estuary to spend Lent together with each other and away from the world on the island of Flat Holm, but abandoning the practice after a few years because of harassment by pirates. An exception is that ''facts'' about a saint's death (day, date, year, cause of)were sometimes doctored to increase the saint's apparent holiness or to associate him/her with a particular event (e.g. St. Bride with Imbolc, St. Columba with Whitsun). And as for HOW, most of these Vitae drew on records that were kept at an abbey they founded. The underlying sources were a lot older than the compilation now available as a Vita. (Same as with the Historia Britonum; and as with that work, antiquity is not proof of accuracy.....just helpful.) I bow to you on Illtud. I have Illtyd from Baring-Gould, but I also have Iltud from Lionel Lewis, Illtud from Morris, and Iltuit in a quote from William of Malmesbury. I've not heard of any primary source that gives a definitive answer. User: Pachiaammos 30-04-04 09.00 Its probably worth noting that "lltud" is the modern Welsh spelling of the name but "Illtyd" and "Illtud" are almost identical sounding in Welsh anyway. Iltuit would be a comical but credible English attempt to render the Welsh "ll" sound and an anglicisation. Welsh spelling is basically phonetic and shifts over time, especially before the bible of William Morgan so you may in fact be arguing over a point the simply isnt a point in Welsh at all 8) (Just a passing anonymous reader) Some people believe that Arthur, King of Britain, was a real person, but then some people believe that Sherlock Holmes is a real person, and write letters to him. Some small children believe in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy. There is no contemporary record of such a reign and it is extremely doubtful whether any such person ever existed. Real kings tend to leave some evidence of their existence behind them, but Arthur apparently minted no coins and issued no charters. He is not mentioned by early historians such as Gildas or Bede, nor is there any reference to him in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. The evidence for his existence is exceptionally slight. A recent book (The Anglo-Saxons, by James Campbell, Eric John, & Patrick Wormald) listed it as follows: 1. An early Welsh poem, which mentions that some hero WASN�T Arthur ('he fed black ravens on the ramparts, although he was not Arthur'). 2. The historian Nennius, who listed twelve battles supposedly fought by Arthur. 3. The Welsh Annals, which mention some of the same battles, and record his death in 537, in battle with Modred. Nennius wrote his Historia Britonum around 858, which is about 300 years after the events he describes. That is the equivalent of someone writing today about the reign of Queen Anne. Either he had access to written sources that no-one else has ever seen, or he used his imagination. His book can be read on-line at http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/histbrit.html (he wrote in Latin, of course, but there are translations available: http://www.postroman.info/nennius/historia_brittonum.htm ). Nennius did not call Arthur a king, just �dux bellorum� (war leader). The paragraph about Arthur is sandwiched incongruously between a Life of Saint Patrick and a set of Anglo-Saxon genealogies, tracing the ancestry of kings back to the god Woden. The book seems to have been thrown together from scraps, without much care or understanding. The Welsh Annals were probably composed at an even later date. The earliest surviving manuscript dates from the late tenth or early eleventh century, and lists events up to 977. So, in this form, it must be at least 400 years later than the supposed reign of Arthur. In the annal recording his death, Arthur is referred to as �the famous Arthur, King of the Britons�, which looks more like a late interpolation than a contemporary description. The most elaborate account of his reign was concocted by Geoffrey of Monmouth, writing in the twelfth century. His book contains more fiction than fact, and is altogether too bizarre to take seriously. William of Newburgh, writing around 1190, concluded �It is quite clear that everything this man wrote about Arthur and his successors, or indeed about his predecessors from Vortigern onwards, was made up, partly by himself, and partly by others, either from an inordinate love of lying, or for the sake of pleasing the Welsh�. In 1191 the monks of Glastonbury claimed to have found a tomb with the inscription �Hic jacet sepultus inclitus rex Arturius� (�Here lies buried the famous King Arthur�). No doubt they hoped to boost the tourist trade. In addition to these, Arthur is mentioned in a Life of Gildas (Vitae Gildae), composed in the thirteenth century. Arthur is said to have killed the brother of Gildas. But Gildas himself criticized five supposedly evil kings (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/gildas-full.html), but failed to mention the alleged killer of his brother. == Links == Is there someone who can restore the deleted links that some unregistered user just deleted? User:Kuralyov 20:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Done, but anyone can revert an edit like this by going to the "history" tab, and editing and saving an older version of the article. -- User:Arwel Parry 23:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::And someone has just deleted them again without comment. Sheesh. Restoring. -- User:Llywrch 18:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Year of death == Llywrch commented that Arthur's year of death is not known. Actually it is traditionaly placed in 537 according to the article about Battle of Camlann. The date comes from the Annales Cambriae. The historicity of Arthur is debatable and the accuracy of the chronicles has been questioned. But at least they provide us with a traditional placement and context for his death. User: Dimadick :Which leads to an intreguing problem: for the purposes of listing a year of death, do we consider Arthur a legendary or historical personage? If legendary, then he did not exist, could not have died, & thus has no year of death. If historical, then we have to deal with the issue that this date is given in only one source (which is suspect), & that a number of scholars & experts reject his existence entirely -- & thus we make the article POV. :Admittedly, I believe there was a historical Arthur, for reasons that I won't bore anyone here by stating. However, what we can reasonably infer about his existence is so limited that I feel the safest course is to conservatively state that he lived in the late 4th century/early 5th century, rather than to state the years offered by the ''Annales Cambriae'' without any qualifications. -- User:Llywrch 20:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) Actually several "legendary" or "mythical" events have a traditional placement in historical timelines. For example the Trojan War (1194 - 1184 BC) . Stating the so-called traditional date and pointing arguments for and against it should make clear both a context for the story and how questionable it appears. The Annales Cambriae actually state only one think on Arthur. (Going from memory): "Arthur and Medraut died in the Battle of Camlann". That is it. No other life account of the two figures. Only time and place of death. In our presumably older source for them. The late 4th century? Making Arthur a contemporary of Theodosius I, Arcadius and Flavius Augustus Honorius? Should not this instead be "5th century births" and "6th century deaths? User: Dimadick :Your correction is what I meant to write. Oops. :However, the ''Annales Cambriae'' has 2 entries on Arthur, one corresponding to the year 517, the other to 537. Keep in mind that the original document did not provide the years for its entries, merely a series of "an.", which is usually assumed to be an abbreviation for the Latin word for year. Thus we have no idea if the scribe of this unique document was careful & placed the years where he thought they should go, or was reckless & just wrote out his entries where they looked most attractive on the page, or simply made one or more unavoidable errors in placing them in his chronology (e.g., dating them x years before another event, or entering them onto the wrong line). At least the date for the Sack of Troy has a clear & documented rationale for its date! -- User:Llywrch 23:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Name == Why do Kings only have one name? If the mythical King Arthur was based on a real man named Arthur, what was his last name? bb Because they are known as such. Being most likely a Romano-British military leader, "Arthur" would probably have a name following Roman naming convention rather than a modern "last name". He has been suggested as a member of the gens Artorius. User:Dimadick =="Some stories..."== Can we get some precision on this: ''" Some stories say that Arthur did indeed pull the sword from the stone (Excalibur), giving him the right to be king, but accidentilly killed a fellow knight with it and cast it away. Merlin told him to undertake a quest to find another blade, and it was then that Arthur recieved his sword from the hand in the water, and named it Excalibur, after his original sword. Some people also believe that the first Excalibur was named Caliburn."'' --User:Wetman 02:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) :The Caliburn names comes from Geoffrey, as I recall. The story of Arthur getting the sword from the Lady of the Lake is recounted from numerous medieval sources.User:Kuralyov 20:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Thanks Kuralyov! I nailed the Geoffrey of Monmouth quote and entered it. --User:Wetman 20:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::: However, the name "Caledfwlch" is the name used by the author of "Culhwch and Olwen", which some believe predates Geoffrey of Monmouth's writing (ISTR the date "c.1050" repeated a number of times), & argue that Geoffrey borrowed its name (with his usual license with accuracy) from the oral tradition. -- User:Llywrch 23:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Historical Arthur== ''The historical Arthur, however, is most likely to have been a son of the Scots king Aedan, referred to in the writings of Saint Columba as 'Arturus'.'' I altered this line as it's a little ridiculous to say THE historical Arthur is MOST LIKELY to have been anyone. I also changed some information that didn't fit with what's on the Historical Arthur page.--User:Cuchullain 09:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) What about NLG's assertion that traditional Arthurian tales are geographically displaced from areas of active saxon-british conflict in 5th to 6th century? I know she is unpopular but that seems to be an easily verifiable claim. Certainly the fact that tintagel and glastonbury are much later sites also argues in favor of her ideas. :Traditional Arthurian tales place him Wales, which isn't far removed from the Saxon border at all. And Tintagel and Glastonbury were both occupied in thr 5th/6th centuries; it's just that the structures that we see there now were built much later.User:Kuralyov 20:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) :The Tintagel "connection" with Arthur, on which an essential tourist industry depends, was initiated by Tennyson, as the Tintagel article explains. Glastonbury on the other hand is even older than Arthur as a site of human occupation. --User:Wetman 07:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: My understanding was the same for Glastonbury, that the lead cross found there was likely a hoax drummed up by the cash strapped monks of the abbey there (which did not exist early 6th century) ::: No, the Glastonbury relics can be traced reliably back to c.12th century, & less reliably earlier. ::: Locating where Arthur's activities lay in Britain is little more than a game anyone can play with a map of Britain, a selection of sources, & enough time. (I remember reading an article published in ''Brittania'' about 30 years ago which argued all of Arthur's battles could be identified with places in Sussex!) Any conclusions would be infalsible, because the names of the British landscape drastically changed between c.450 & c.600, so that locating even "Badon Hill" is nothing more than a calculation of probabilities. I feel that the only NPOV way to addressing the problem of where Arthur lived, fought & died would be to report the legends & traditions, & the more reasonable modern theories. ::: I don't know who NLG is, but if she means that Arthurian tales are found in the parts of Britain with significant Celtic populations (e.g. Welsh, Cornwelsh, & Scots) because that is where the people who told & listened to these stories ended up, then that is plausible. -- User:Llywrch 20:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Several statements== *''" However, a recent translation of newly discovered documents may have referred to him as a king."'' Not very informative. I moved this mysteriously knowing promise here for some corroborating details, if there are any. **Does anyone know what these "new materials" are, and from what tiem period they're from? User:Kuralyov 19:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) *''"This may be related to legends where Arthur is depicted as the leader of the Wild Hunt, a folk motif that is also recorded in Brittany, France, and Germany."'' Any authentic connection of Arthur and the Wild Hunt would certainly be worth citing a historical source for. A quote could be convincing. --User:Wetman 21:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) **The ''Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend'' (ed. Maria Leach; New York, 1972) may not qualify as a "historical source" (although when I was studying at college, it was accepted as a reliable authority), but in the article "Arthur" the following statement appears on page 77: :::Long-lived was the belief in the British king as leader of the Wild Hunt, originally the personification of winter and its storms. Gervase and two other 15th century writers assign this role to Arthur, and tell how he and his company of riders may be seen by moonlight in the forests of Britain or Brittany or Savoy; we have a Scottish reference from the 16th century; and at Cadbury Castle, Somerset, and in several parts of France, the belief was still current in the 19th century. ::The article was written by Roger S. Loomis, so perhaps you will forsake the usual disdain against citing encyclopedia articles to defend a point. I also remember reading in a translation of Jacob Grimm's ''Deutsche Mythologie'' an extensive recital of Arthur in this role, but that was about 30 years ago, & it is possible that I have misremembered. In any case, the personage of Arthur has long been a feature of European folklore, as well as medieval literature. -- User:Llywrch 08:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Just what was needed! tweak the edit I made of ''your'' material! --User:Wetman 09:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Excalibur== Would a better Arthurian than I (that's easy enough to find!) please make sure that all material about Arthur's sword/swords here is actually more fully treated at Excalibur, which is meant to be the main reference. --User:Wetman 11:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Excalibur and the Sword from the lake?? == Please correct me if I�m wrong. But I could have sworn that the Excalibur pulled from the stone and the one that is given to Arthur by the hand in the lake was the same. I recall that though the sword could cut through anything, it could do no wrong. So when used in a duel between Arthur and (I think it was) Lancelot or Galahad, when they first met and his (Lancelot or Galahad) ego provoked Arthur. When Arthur went in for the killing blow the blade broke in two. Merlin took the sword to the lady of the lake to repair it. Following instructions from Merlin Arthur went to the lake and received the blade from the hand in the lake. As far as the sheath goes I don�t remember when he received it. Now that I think about it this might be from the movie Excalibur. :These aren't ''events'', they are parts of the network of narratives that is called a "cycle". By picking and choosing among sources, and adding some fresh detail and interpretations, one can come up with a version to satisfy oneself and one's contemporaries, even today. The task at this entry is to ''report'' the versions, and interpret what they signified to their writers and hearers. Just the same with modern retellings. The interpretations give information about the interpreter, as with Christian interpretations of ''Book of Daniel'' etc. "Correct" is there none, Master Luke. --User:Wetman 17:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC). :I'm fairly sure these are diffrent swords - one breaks, so he recives an unbreakable sword. At least, I believe Excalibur was supposed to be unbreakable - one origin of the name is the phrase 'cut steel' in a language I can't remember, and the other is from a Irish (?) sword carried by heroes such as Cu Chulainn, which probably wouldn't be able to break. He recives the sheath with Excalibur, because Merlin asks which he likes better - sword or scabbard, and then advises him to keep the scabbard safe. User:DuctapedaredevilUser_talk:Ductapedaredevil 03:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC) :Another common interpretation is that we are seeing elements from ''two'' autonomous traditions that have been knit together in literary retellings, made to "make sense", rather like the two accounts of creation in Genesis or similar awkward "joins" in the New Testament. --User:Wetman 03:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

King arthur

#REDIRECT King Arthur

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

K

KA | KB | KC | KD | KE | KF | KG | KH | KI | KJ | KL | KM | KN | KO | KP | KR | KS | KT | KU | KW | KX | KY | KZ |

Words begining with King_Arthur:

King_Arthur
King_Arthur
King_arthur
King_Arthur's_Family_Tree
King_Arthur's_Round_Table,_Cumbria
King_Arthur's_World
King_Arthur,_the_Young_Warlord
King_Arthur_(2004)
King_Arthur_(2004_film)
King_Arthur_(2004_film)
King_Arthur_(2004_movie)
King_Arthur_(movie)
King_Arthur_(movie)
King_Arthur_and_the_Knights_of_Justice