Primary sources provide first-hand testimony or direct
evidence concerning a topic under investigation. They are created by witnesses
or recorders who experienced the events of conditions being documented. Primary
sources are original materials and may be artefacts, documents or other sources
of information created at the time under study.
They are characterised by their content, regardless of whether they are
available in original format, in microfilm, in digital format or in published
format.
 |
| Late Roman and "Arthurian" artefacts |
It is through the primary sources that the past
indisputably imposes its reality on the historian. That this imposition is
basic in any understanding of the past is clear from the rules that documents
should not be altered, or that any material damaging to a historian's argument
or purpose should not be left out or suppressed. These rules mean that the
sources or the texts of the past have an integrity and that they do indeed
'speak for themselves', and that they are necessary constraints through which
past reality imposes itself on the historian. [E. Sreedharan (2004) A textbook of Historiography, 500 B.C. to
A.D. 2000 Orient Longman, p.302] [try Google Books for this]
 |
| Celtic myth and Arthurian artefact |
However, there are considerable challenges in the use
of primary sources. They are usually fragmentary and most usually survive
without their original context. They are often ambiguous and notoriously
difficult to interpret. Eyewitnesses may misunderstand events or distort their
reports either deliberately or unconsciously. These effects often increase over
time as others uses these sources and add further distorting filters. It is
usually helpful to interrogate the source and one of the most common methods
uses the following “W” questions : Who, What, When, Where and Why.
 |
| Gildas instructing a pupil |
Analyses of the works of Gildas, Nennius and Bede have been used equally to debunk and support the historicity of Arthur.
The question to answer is this:
What historical question can you answer using the excerpts of Gildas, Nennius and Bede found in the unit reader?
This may be completely off par, but all three excerpts refer to the turmoil of Britain at the hands of the Saxons (the 'who, what and where'). However, since the three accounts were written at different times, it shows that the fine details of an event are subject to change over time.
ReplyDeleteNot off par at all but very perceptive. Could you have another look at this and see if you can come up with a historical question which these excerpts can answer?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if this is what you're looking for but my question is:
ReplyDeleteAre all historical writings driven by the author's agenda which may distort the author's perception of the place/person/event?
Yes, that's the sort of thing Emily. You might limit the question to the sources from the excerpts perhaps.
DeleteA historical question that the three documents could perhaps begin to answer is what kind of value writers of different centuries placed on the idea of leadership in times of war and heightened anxiety (whether this is a strictly historical question, I'm not completely sure!). The Gildas text makes mention of the leader "Ambrosius Aurelianus", but not Arthur, and also explicitly condemns the idea of royalty by stating that kings "are tyrants", suggesting that Aurelianus was a war hero of some kind and thereby placing a high value on military leadership at this time. The Bede text appears to do the same by also withholding any mention of Arthur and instead focusing on what was actually occurring at the time between the different nations and how Aurelianus helped in obtaining victory for the Britons. The text that seems to stand out is therefore the Nennius text, as it focuses more on the Arthurian mythology and less on the war with the Saxons. In this text, Arthur, like Aurelius, is described as a "war-leader", but is this time said to be associated with "the kings of Britain", begging the question of whether Nennius more strongly believed in the value of royalty in times of war, and also whether Arthur himself was perhaps a king, or likened to one, and not simply a war-leader.
ReplyDeleteWhether these textual differences are based on the writers' personal opinions on kinds of leadership (war hero or king), or whether they are a reflection of the age that each writer was living in and what leadership was important at those times may be an interesting question to investigate.
Great question!
DeleteWhether it is clear or not, these three sources do give evidence to support the existence of a figure that we could view as 'Arthur', or could be used as evidence to display the figures in history who could have contributed to the creation of 'Arthur'.
ReplyDeleteVery perceptive Sarah. Could you have another look at this and find an historical question which these excerpts provide the answer to?
DeleteI'm not quite sure how quite to word it into a proper question - my thoughts address more of a broader issue. I suppose what we might think about is how by analyzing these works we can extract the real 'truth' of a historical figure of the past. Especially when what we have to explore is a variety of documents whose authors will vary in ideas, values and personal opinion - and if we were to come close how would we know? The excerpts of Gildas, Nennius and Bede were all provided extremely different accounts and ideas. All we can do is make deductions from the subjective understandings of contemporaries from the time.
ReplyDeleteWith this in mind we might extend it further to perhaps think about the 'conception' of Arthur as a historical idea or creation fueled by these sources, far removed from any truth.
This is all good Bree. Try to frame this as a question.
DeleteIt is possible to use the texts to answer certain historical questions: the broad 'who', 'when' and 'where' of the events, as Pamela put it. It seems safe to say, for instance, that a period of conflict between the Saxons and Britons did take place during this period in history. It also seems likely that one particularly significant battle took place at Mount Badon – the three texts concur in this regard, as well as in others.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as people have noted, asking questions more specific than this becomes problematic. The texts differ considerably in their presentation of finer details, a reflection of the fact that Gildas, Nennius and Bede are individuals with their own values and ideas, each writing in very different periods. The question 'who is Arthur' seems particularly problematic as the figure seems to be somewhat mythologised even at this point — perhaps, as Bree remarks, it is better to examine a 'conception' of Arthur rather than trying to pinpoint his historical existence.
I know it's a difficult task to construct a question when all you have is answers, but I think it's an important skill that is worth labouring over a little.
DeleteThe thread that runs through all three excerpts for me is the relationship perceived by the authors between success in battle and religious aspects such as God’s favour being given to leaders or causes. This is especially powerful in Nennius’ account as he describes Arthur carrying the image of the Holy Virgin Mary on his shoulders and immediately causing the pagans to turn and flee, but it also comes through in Gildas where “the Lord assented” to the victory of the leader Ambrosius Aurelianus and in Bede who describes “God’s just vengeance for the crimes of the people”. The excerpts describe numerous battles, pillaging and violence with varying groups involved but the impact of religious belief remains clear, including a graphic account in Bede of the attacks on the clergy. This may be ascribed in part to the nature of the Christian church as the record keepers, and the traditional victor’s prerogative to compose their own history, but it still leads me to ask: to what extent was the success of British leaders attributed in contemporary accounts to religious righteousness and favour, as opposed to the exemplary personal skills of governance and military might as has traditionally been characteristic of Arthur?
ReplyDeleteThat's a great question.
DeleteI find it interesting to note that only nennius mentions Arthur specifically. While this may initially cause individuals to render his report farcical, if he did in fact have access to now undiscoverable primary sources, the question must be asked: could Arthur (or more likely ambrosius, the roman soldier) be a true historical character?
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, it is interesting to note that Gildas' clear disapproval of kings and royalty, could find Ambrosius, a roman soldier, an individual of good merit, capable of becoming a successful ruler. What makes a better leader? One born into it? One of religious calling? One who rises to the challenge as needed. What is Arthur if not all?
My question that these sources can answer:
ReplyDeleteCan historians use primary evidence that depicts the supernatural and the impossible when shedding light on 'real' people of the time. If so, how can historian's weigh how relevant various sources are to their research.
This is a long shot, but perhaps Gildas never explicitly mentions Arthur because he so despises the institution that he represents. (Namely the monarchy.) He refers to Britain’s kings as “tyrants” and provides an extensive lists of their sins from waging unjust wars to having multiple wives. Gildas chooses instead to credit Aurelianus with the victory against the Anglo-Saxons. One question that arises from this piece is: Is Aurelianus King Arthur’s true identity? I’m not entirely certain what other historical question you could answer with this excerpt, however it certainly gives an interesting insight into the discontent certain sections of society felt towards Kings and the monarchy in general.
ReplyDeleteHow do the perceptions and representations of Arthur, and Britain itself, vary according to the background of the author? And how do these variations affect how we, as modern-day historians, understand and use these sources?
ReplyDeleteThese 3 exerts show that the leader we now know as "Arthur", remained a great figure that was well know for a long period of time. As shown by the difference in time that they were published. Furthermore, they exhibit how the story of Arthur and his victories were used by people to add weight to argument and inspire those they were addressing.
ReplyDeleteThey inspire the question as to how and why these stories were altered over time, so that they became something different and almighty in their ability to inspire certain reaction?
-Eleanor Jackson
ReplyDeleteI can access the blog now but can't seem to connect with my Google Account or another account...
My question: From looking at the three sources, it is clear that each author uses a different style and methods of retelling history. Gildas forms his version in the way of a sermon, writing in first-person and expressing his evidently negative thoughts on the aristocracy. Nennius focuses more on the religious imagery of the figure of Arthur and his marvels, whilst Bede is more concerned with accurately describing the battles between the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons.
Which author do you believe is most successful at conveying their own version of the story? Which source would their contemporaries have been more inclined to believe?
Question: How is King Arthur used, as in what is he intended to portray through his historical depiction? Gildas put forward in his sermon like piece,that King Arthur wasn't Arthur but in fact King Aureleans, who united Britain creating a "golden age". However after Aureleans' death at the battle of Badon Hill in-fighting resumed. Gildas then goes on to speak of the British kings as tyrants demonstraing his own grievances with the system. Glidas places his birth in the year of Arthur's death, implying that he is prophet-like with instruction of how to redeem and/or fix Britain. Gildas through Arthur's story influenced people to follow his instructions and brrought his vision to Britain. Nennius uses Arthur in a historical narrative, to put forward the idea that great religous commitment to christianity grants the individual power. Finally Bede attempts to incorporate Arthur into a chronological history of Britain.
ReplyDeleteMy question is: In the excerpt of Nennius, how does his focus on the myths that surround the twelve battles fought by King Arthur - especially the last battle fought at Badon where Arthur slew "nine hundred and sixty men" in a "single charge", bring light to link between victory and religious value in the 9th century?
ReplyDeleteKahleen Low
From reading the sources of Gildas, Nennius and Bede and their depictions of Britain and Arthur, it’s notable the various differences of style and approaches to historical story telling. Out of the three authors, which one conveys a more convincing adaptation of Arthur? And what stylistic features could you note to support your answer?
ReplyDeleteAs much as all of the questions that have been addressed are relevant, for me, I think the most important one when starting to analyse the three texts is understanding the writer's agendas when initialling writing their takes on the story. As Arthur in all of these texts has a different title, whether it be a king or a war leader or a symbol of the divine, I think it is also important to understand how the writer interpreted Arthur and how the story had changed on paper throughout the years between each piece being written. Whether this question is subconscious or conscious as Gildas, Nennius and Bede write, it's important to ask 'How does the status of 'my' Arthur change the way my agenda is addressed?' From there it is possible to go in depth analysing their purposes and how, for example, as discussed in class how Nennius' religious beliefs and 'mythical' representation of Briton changes the way it is read to be this divine holy land, which addressing his perhaps educational but also entertaining agenda etc.
ReplyDelete