This unit has focussed on considering the historicity
of Arthur as well as the historical contexts within which the image of
Arthur has been reconstructed. It has also viewed Arthur through the
lenses of myth, legend, romance and societal expectations.
Arthur in mosaic
Blog Question : Is this history and does it matter?
I think what we’ve focused on in terms of the historical context of Arthur is definitely relevant in terms of learning more about the society which produced the primary source literature we’ve studied, let alone the intrigue that is trying to figure out what elements of the Arthur myth are historically accurate. While it may not matter in terms of modern society whether there was a King Arthur or not, beyond its impact on British identity as a whole, it is extremely important to understanding Dark Ages, Medieval and more recent British society and especially in those periods from which not much source information survives – even though it is not in the clearest of forms through endless transmission through time. Even going beyond my personal interest in the amazing story of Arthur and its accuracy, I think it is widely appreciable that there is information about actual history to be gleaned from these fantastic tales, when taken with a grain of salt.
The story of Athur is definitely history, not so much in the historical truth of the story but in the social and political factors which influenced its creation and the story's influence on the ideals of society. I do not feel that it matters that the actual story of Arthur is not history because despite its inaccuracy or embellishments the Arthurian legend has had a powerful impact on society from the Middle Ages to Modernity.
The many versions of the Arthurian legend that we've studied are historical in the sense that each convey the contemporary views and issues of the time that they were written in, even if the texts themselves are not considered historical. As Hanning suggests, there is often an equal desire to both create fictions about the myth of King Arthur and to demystify such fictions in order to reveal the true story. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that both the fictions and the demystification work in different ways to reveal a certain historicity; the fictions revealing truths about the author and their contemporary society, and the demystification revealing truths about a possibly historical King Arthur and the society that he may have lived in. Furthermore, although some scholars may not consider interpretations of the fictional Arthurian cycle historically valid, there is still value to be found in the message of chivalry, leadership and love that is perpetuated through many of these stories.
Though the actual events contained within the Arthurian legend are yet to be proven as historically accurate, there impact throughout history and the way in which they changed showed they mattered. Literature including Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia regum Britanniae indirectly may help to discover the real events, but even so the the Arthurian legends impact on the Matter of Britain alone constitutes it as being historically significant.
The historical study of the Arthurian stories are undeniably history, irrespective of the veracity of the text. The fact that the story has been told and retold throughout a lengthy period of time gives it immense value as historical literature. Through the alterations that the story has undergone through its history, one can see the clear effects of the culture or zeitgeist shining through the text, which then informs historians of the culture it was formed in. This is similar in principle to finding an archaeological artifact.
Therefore, when the study of Arthur is viewed through the lens of archaeological or historical worth, the question of whether it matters is the same as asking whether archaeology or history matters, and the answer must be a resounding yes. History continues to inform us about our heritage and humanity, as well as enable us to reflect upon our own historical context and setting. Furthermore, history enables us to be informed by both the wisdom and folly of others.
The subjects and texts that we have looked at in this unit have definitely resulted in a historical study. Although it has not been discovered whether Arthur was in fact a real person, the texts that we have focused on have provided us with a great context for the style, values and conventions of the historical period in question. We have studied many forms of literature, butt through a historical observation rather than a literary one. We have also learnt about how writers and historians of the middle ages viewed their own contemporaries, which helps when making hypotheses on the probability of Arthur ever existing.
Personally, I believe that the stories we have looked at (even though retold) are a source of history. Although I still question Arthur's existence, the retelling of his legends has been viable to study the era in which it was retold. Each century added a new interpretation to fit its society. It is history. It does matter.
Whether or not King Arthur truly existed and furthermore truly accomplished all the deeds, victories and conquests legends ascribe to him is actually irrelevant to whether this matters. Legends and stories we heard as children have taught us many things, honour, chivalry, faith and even that it's ok to be flawed. In the end the Arthur legend, the stories of Merlin and the Holy Grail have had a widespread influences over many. As Caxton said in his prefaceof La Morte it is for the readers to take the good and leave the evil and meaningless behind. Most versions contain elements of fantasy and a perspective that are reflective of the time they were written. Whether it is true history as it relates to the Arthur legend does not matter, what does are the thoughts and concerns of the people who wrote them as they tried to find a meaning in their own lives and times.
There seems to be no conclusive proof that Arthur existed, or indeed that he was inspired by one particular individual. I feel that it should still be considered history however, if only for the story's obvious cultural significance and the durability of its legends. The images of Camelot, the Knights of the Round Table and the love story between King Arthur and Guinevere have proven to be timeless and still capture the imagination of many. (The Sword in the Stone for example was one of my favourite films as a child.) To me it is irrelevant whether or not he actually existed - in my mind, it is still an important part of history from a cultural perspective.
I think what we’ve focused on in terms of the historical context of Arthur is definitely relevant in terms of learning more about the society which produced the primary source literature we’ve studied, let alone the intrigue that is trying to figure out what elements of the Arthur myth are historically accurate. While it may not matter in terms of modern society whether there was a King Arthur or not, beyond its impact on British identity as a whole, it is extremely important to understanding Dark Ages, Medieval and more recent British society and especially in those periods from which not much source information survives – even though it is not in the clearest of forms through endless transmission through time. Even going beyond my personal interest in the amazing story of Arthur and its accuracy, I think it is widely appreciable that there is information about actual history to be gleaned from these fantastic tales, when taken with a grain of salt.
ReplyDeleteThe story of Athur is definitely history, not so much in the historical truth of the story but in the social and political factors which influenced its creation and the story's influence on the ideals of society. I do not feel that it matters that the actual story of Arthur is not history because despite its inaccuracy or embellishments the Arthurian legend has had a powerful impact on society from the Middle Ages to Modernity.
ReplyDeleteThe many versions of the Arthurian legend that we've studied are historical in the sense that each convey the contemporary views and issues of the time that they were written in, even if the texts themselves are not considered historical. As Hanning suggests, there is often an equal desire to both create fictions about the myth of King Arthur and to demystify such fictions in order to reveal the true story. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that both the fictions and the demystification work in different ways to reveal a certain historicity; the fictions revealing truths about the author and their contemporary society, and the demystification revealing truths about a possibly historical King Arthur and the society that he may have lived in. Furthermore, although some scholars may not consider interpretations of the fictional Arthurian cycle historically valid, there is still value to be found in the message of chivalry, leadership and love that is perpetuated through many of these stories.
ReplyDeleteThough the actual events contained within the Arthurian legend are yet to be proven as historically accurate, there impact throughout history and the way in which they changed showed they mattered. Literature including Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia regum Britanniae indirectly may help to discover the real events, but even so the the Arthurian legends impact on the Matter of Britain alone constitutes it as being historically significant.
ReplyDeleteThe historical study of the Arthurian stories are undeniably history, irrespective of the veracity of the text. The fact that the story has been told and retold throughout a lengthy period of time gives it immense value as historical literature. Through the alterations that the story has undergone through its history, one can see the clear effects of the culture or zeitgeist shining through the text, which then informs historians of the culture it was formed in. This is similar in principle to finding an archaeological artifact.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, when the study of Arthur is viewed through the lens of archaeological or historical worth, the question of whether it matters is the same as asking whether archaeology or history matters, and the answer must be a resounding yes. History continues to inform us about our heritage and humanity, as well as enable us to reflect upon our own historical context and setting. Furthermore, history enables us to be informed by both the wisdom and folly of others.
Thus, it is history and it does matter.
The subjects and texts that we have looked at in this unit have definitely resulted in a historical study. Although it has not been discovered whether Arthur was in fact a real person, the texts that we have focused on have provided us with a great context for the style, values and conventions of the historical period in question. We have studied many forms of literature, butt through a historical observation rather than a literary one. We have also learnt about how writers and historians of the middle ages viewed their own contemporaries, which helps when making hypotheses on the probability of Arthur ever existing.
ReplyDeleteWhoops, forgot to put my name: Eleanor Jackson
DeletePersonally, I believe that the stories we have looked at (even though retold) are a source of history. Although I still question Arthur's existence, the retelling of his legends has been viable to study the era in which it was retold. Each century added a new interpretation to fit its society.
ReplyDeleteIt is history. It does matter.
Whether or not King Arthur truly existed and furthermore truly accomplished all the deeds, victories and conquests legends ascribe to him is actually irrelevant to whether this matters. Legends and stories we heard as children have taught us many things, honour, chivalry, faith and even that it's ok to be flawed. In the end the Arthur legend, the stories of Merlin and the Holy Grail have had a widespread influences over many. As Caxton said in his prefaceof La Morte it is for the readers to take the good and leave the evil and meaningless behind. Most versions contain elements of fantasy and a perspective that are reflective of the time they were written. Whether it is true history as it relates to the Arthur legend does not matter, what does are the thoughts and concerns of the people who wrote them as they tried to find a meaning in their own lives and times.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be no conclusive proof that Arthur existed, or indeed that he was inspired by one particular individual. I feel that it should still be considered history however, if only for the story's obvious cultural significance and the durability of its legends. The images of Camelot, the Knights of the Round Table and the love story between King Arthur and Guinevere have proven to be timeless and still capture the imagination of many. (The Sword in the Stone for example was one of my favourite films as a child.) To me it is irrelevant whether or not he actually existed - in my mind, it is still an important part of history from a cultural perspective.
ReplyDelete