|
|
O kralju Arturu (FAQ):
This FAQ deals with some basic questions and ideas that keen Arthurian amateurs ask. It is quite a good introduction if you think that the whole Arthur thing is cut and dry and looks like John Boormans film Excalibur.
To the unwary, this FAQ may appear to answer few questions. To many questions in the Arthurian Lore, there are no definitve answers, only theories and a few, a very few, undisputed facts. History, legend, religion and myth all combine to make this subject both fascinating and mysterious. Differing authors provide differing answers to the same question. It is not possible for this FAQ to tell you who Arthur truly was. Any answers chosen for this FAQ will always reflect the authors own theories and beliefs.
The FAQ was originally compiled by Chris Thornborrow from questions and answers on the Camelot mailing list. I am thankful for everybodies help who contributed. The FAQ may well alter and grow over time so come back every so often to see what has changed.
If you have suggestions for inclusion or correction to details then contact
This is a very complicated question. There is no known answer. The historical Arthur is shrouded in the mists of the Dark Ages. The best description of what we know and do not know about Arthur is to be found in the introduction to:
The Encyclopaedia of Arthurian Legend , Ronan Coghlan (91)
What is certain is that Arthur was NOT a medieval King. The modern images of knights in plate armour and a grand castle called Camelot are not historical at all. We know very little historically speaking but Arthur was probably a 5th century warrior cheiftain who protected his peoples from invaders for a time. The battle of Camlan is probably connected to Arthur. More than this is pure conjecture, though there is an awful lot of conjecture.
A more modern approach to the question 'Who was Arthur ?' might say that history is irrelevant and that the mythology surrounding the legend is more important. Even mythology is complex though and Arthur changes in stories from a God-like Celtic King, through to a deflated early medieval monarch and finally in modern times, to an ordinary man with an extra-ordinarily difficult job !
There may be one near contemporary Reference to Arthur in the poem Gododdin (A.D. 600) which tells of a hero who although valiant was not as valiant as Arthur. This may be a case of interpolation. The earliest undisputed reference to Arthur occurs in the Historia Brittonum by Nennius (A.D. 800) which left enough time for fact to mix with fancy.
There is no simple answer to this. Malory claims 150. Others claim different numbers. Here is a list compiled from different sources by Brian C. Hogue. It is by no means complete but provides the source for some serious work.
=============================================================================
Common? Malorey Lawhead Mabinogian T.H. White
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Arthur Arthur Arthur Arthur
Bors
Ban
Balan
Balin
Bedevere Bedwyr
Cador
Clegis
Dodinas le Savage
Donard
Ector Ector (foster Father)
Ector de Maris (bro of Lance.)
Gaheris
Galahad
Gareth
Gwain Gawain Gwalchmai
Griflet le Fise de Dieu
Harry le Fise Lake
Hervis de Revel
Kay Kay the Seneschal (Art's foster bro) Cai Kai
La Cote Mal Taile
Lamorak de Gales
Lancelot Launcelote
Lionel
Loevel (knighthood questionable)
Lucan the Butler
Ozanna le Cure Hardy
Palomides
Pelleas
Pelinore Pellinor
Percival Percival
Safer
Urien of Gore
'Yvain (a.k.a. Owain, Owen)'
Tristam (assoc.)
Geraint
Culwych
Heylan
Bellinore
Valadon
Marhuas
Taliesin was a historical 6th (?) century poet who became quite well known and famous. He wrote a large body of poems and a number of older works came to be associated with him, turning him into an almost mythic figure. I am reading a book called 'Taliesin: Shamanism and the Bardic Mysteries in Britain and Ireland' by John Matthews which postulates that Taliesin and the material that became associated with him, give evidence for shamanic practices in Britain and Ireland. It is a quite long book and very detailed and very good.
From 'The Arthurian Encyclopedia' (Norris J. Lacy, Editor, published 1986 by Peter Bedrick Books, New York, don't leave Camelot without it...)
LADY OF THE LAKE, a name designating several different women, although the distinction among them is frequently blurred. In additional to being known as the Lady of the Lake, or the Dame du Lac, she most often bears such names as Viviane, Eviene, or Niviene; elsewhere, she is Nimue or (in Wordsworth) Nina. Readers of Malory will recognize her as the being who gives Excalibur to Arthur and later receives it back from him, and some works also identify her as the lady responsible for Lancelot's upbringing. In Malory, the Vulgate Cycle, and various other settings of the legend (e.g., Apollinaire), she enchants Merlin with spells he had taught her. Some texts in fact tell us that she not only enchants him but kills him.
In the 'Vita di Merlino', for example, the Lady of the Lake serves as a scribe for Merlin, recording his prophecies, after which she tricks him into lying in a tomb; then, by a charm she had learned from him, she closes the lid and seals the wizard's doom (although the author assures us that Merlin's spirit will not die). [NJL]
The [NJL] refers to the contributor of this particular entry, who was Norris J. Lacy himself (the editor, from the University of Kansas).
In such a vast field of literature (over a thousand books) this is a difficult question. Several books are recommended time and time again:
There are many others and the choice of which to read is largely a matter of taste. For fuller references, please refer to the book list.
For a good guide to historical texts to put Arthur into his correct context, follow this link.
Note: Geoffrey wrote an early text with references to Arthur called Historia regum Britanniae
Regarding complaints about Geoffrey of Monmouth's accuracy: anyone who criticizes Geoffrey for writing a fabricated work is completely missing the point. Although he claimed that he was merely copying an ancieint manuscript he had run across, there is no doubt that he invented most of his story, although large elements are beleived to have already existed in Celtic myth. He was definitely interested in writing a 'political work' more than an accurate description of past events. His intention was much like that of Vergil in The Aeneid or the authors of the Charlemagne/Roland legends.
I used the King Arthur and Merlin books as sources for a thesis paper. The general consensus I've run into is that her geography is plausible and well-supported. I have a problem with the way she presents some of her arguments, though. In a number of cases, she starts with an assumption that is unsupported but presented as a common truth, then procedes to base a whole chapter of well-reasoned argument on this assumption. The one case of this I remember clearly was her defense of Lancelot as a historical figure (a fairly likely possibility) and as a contemporary of the historical Arthur (a fairly unlikely possibility). Still, the books are good source material. They do represent some of the contemporary work now being done in the analysis of the Arthurian mythos. [Ken Kubo ]
This film is considered by many to be the definitive Arthurian film and is certainly one of the most accurate. For 14:99 (pounds sterling) you can get a copy on video (VHS) from :
Castle Communications PLCThe term 'Matter of Britain' is a play on the term 'Matter of France,' which was the story of Charlemagne, mainly the Song of Roland. This term was in widespread use at the time when the French romances about Arthur were being written. Since the Charlemagne stories were about the beginnings of France, and the Arthurian stories were about the beginnings of England, the analogy was an obvious one at the time. Eleanor of Aquitaine made both terms popular because she used the stories to strengthen the positions of each of her husbands by stressing their respective illustrious 'ancestors.'
Merlin 'remembering the future' was used by T.H.White in 'The Once and Future King', and this work has been the starting point for a lot of 20th century treatments of Arthur.
There is an introduction to current theories about the Holy Grail written by Chris Thornborrow. This is the abstract:
This article is a collection of theories concerning the Holy Grail and what it could be. The confusion arises because the word Grail is derived from the word graal which first appeared in turn of the first millenium (A.D.) prose and poetry. There is no confusion over the meaning of the word Graal, which was a dish or platter brought to the table at various stages during a meal. However, the things that the graal or grail has come to represent has changed from story to story throughout the words history. The first story in which the word appears was written by Chretien de Troyes - ``Le Conte del Graal''. Chretiens story was almost certainly based on an earlier one, but it is unknown what his actual source was or his meaning of the word Graal. Chretien did not finish his story and continuations and rewrites of the story are then free to embellish and invent as much as the authors saw fit. Now the Grail represents many different things to many different people. No one meaning seems to explain all the strange events in the Grail stories. The reader will not find a definitive answer. Nor will he read all theories as some are obscure and not yet encountered in detail by the author.
The book in question is 'The Holy Blood & The Holy Grail' by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. In this they hypothesise that Jesus may not have died on the cross but fled (or if he did die, that his descendants fled) to Europe for safety. Here they established a royal line that gave rise to the Merovingian Kings. The French for royal blood = 'Sang Re`al', which is could easily be changed to give 'San Gre`al', the holy grail. Also, the Mary that Jesus was married to was either the Magdalene or Martha's sister (or they could be one and the same).
A word of warning for those of you dashing out to buy it. The book is on the surface a well researched, honest historical account. It is not. The work done is claimed to have been discovered while researching an altogether different subject. Their work is actually very very *very* similar to work done by Walter Stein. Steins work was discredited and largely ignored because of his one time connection with the Nazis (can you say Indiana Jones ?). Mssrs Baigent and Co. conveniently discover pieces of paper in French libraries that afterwards disappear that fill in the gaps that Stein was never able to. Consequently their work in the field of Grail Lore is not taken seriously at all. It is considered to be exploitative fabrication.
The Fisher King is generally seen as the keeper of the Grail. He is sometimes called the Rich Fisher/Angler. He might be an avatar of the Welsh hero/god Bran the Blessed. The Fisher King is the wounded occupant of the Grail Castle in Chretien de Troyes's Perceval as well as in other works. The nature of the Fisher King's wound varies, but is generally seen as some form of castration or other loss of fertility. In the various versions of the Perceval Saga, Perceval sees a procession while at the Grail Castle, but fails to ask questions despite his curiosity. P. later discovers that if he had asked his questions, he would have discovered that the Fisher King was his cousin and P. would not have been forced to go on the Grail Quest. In Wolfram von Eschenbach's Perceval, The Fisher King is given the name Anfortas.
Robert de Boron, in his Arthurian cycle, identifies the Fisher King with either Bron or Hebron and makes him Joseph of Arimathea's brother-in-law. (Note the similarity to Bran). In The Didot-Perceval, Perceval finishes his quest and returns to the Grail castle where he asks the proper question and in so doing Perceval restores the health (read 'fertility') of the Fisher King (read 'country').
Camelot itself is, by some, believed to be at the site of Cadbury castle. This is a small village in Somerset some 15 or so miles south of Glastonbury. All that remains today is a ringed hillfort with evidence of a large castle inside the outer walls. There have been some extensive excavations of the site, and there are detailed reports of the archaeological dig available. This dig was undertaken by the Pendragon Society. From Cadbury you can see, on a clear day, the Glastonbury Tor. Once again though, there is no definitive answer to this.
Avalon is the place Arthur is said to have been taken to when he was dieing, to be healed. There are lots of theories as to where Avalon might actually have been. Some say it was not a geographical place, but a euphemism for the otherworld. Of those that claim Avalon to have a modern geographical equivalent, the most usual claim is Glastonbury.
There is a good article available that discusses this issue well. The introduction is included here.
In recent years the Arthurian legends have become very popular. One of the more intriguing aspects of the Arthurian legends deals with the disappearance or death of King Arthur. In many accounts of the Arthurian legends, King Arthur was taken to the Isle of Avalon to be healed, but what happened to him after reaching the island remains a mystery. Some people say he lies in a cave awaiting the day he is once again needed. Others say King Arthur was taken to Avalon and he died there. If this is true, surely his remains were buried in or around the island of Avalon. Some scholars believe that Arthur was indeed buried at Avalon, which, according to these scholars, is now known as Glastonbury. In 1190 monks at the Glastonbury abbey produced a tomb and a cross that they claimed belong to the late King Arthur. Since that time some doubt has arisen about the validity of this claim.
Many people asking this question have no idea that within an hours drive of any city in Britain there is an Arthur's Hill or a Merlin's Grave. There are so many places trying to claim Arthur and his knights as one time residents that an entire book could be written on the subject. Having said that, the major sites are always popular.
And many more. For an excellent guide to this, please see The Landscape of Arthur by Geoffrey Ashe.
HIC IACET SEPULTUS INCLITUS REX ARTURUS IN INSULA AVALONIA 'HERE LIES BURIED THE RENOWNED KING ARTHUR IN THE ISLE OF AVALON'
Those were the words which were inscribed on the cross found at Arthur's tomb in Glastonbury. The cross apparently existed and was around during the 18th century in Wells near Glastonbury. Then it was lost again, time for Indiana Jones ?