06-12-2009, 10:43 AM
Sadly, there probably wasn't an "Arthur" as later authors imagined him. But where did the elements used by those story tellers come from? Some elements, like the Grail Quest, probably had independent origins. Others, such as the battle locations, may relate to historical events.
Gildas is, of course, tantalizing and frustrating. That sub-Roman Briton had mostly dissolved by the time he wrote is obvious. Equally obvious, however, is his apparent yearning for some "Golden Age" of Britain, that maybe never existed or perhaps was an idealized memory of Ambrosius Aurelianus' brief ascendency leading "the remnant of the Romanised and Catholic party". [G. Ashe's phrase]
J. R. R. Tolkien tells us these legends grow out of a "stew" of historical and fanciful elements with each storyteller including elements based on his or her taste and time. That Arthurian legend may include fanciful elements cannot be doubted; determining whether (and what) historical elements Gildas--not to mention Geoffrey of Monmouth, Thomas Malory, Alfred Lord Tennyson and later authors--included is part of the fun.
It is not hard to imagine--though difficult to prove--that a faction of the post-Roman Britons tried to maintain Roman culture and military organization and norms well after the departure of the legions. That they were ultimately unsuccessful is obvious, but the imagination is fired by the thought that at some times and some places they may have temporarily succeeded. Some versions call that place Camelot and name the leader Arthur. Could that place have been what we call South Cadbury Castle? And could that leader, the unnamed victor at Mount Badon, have been the core of "Arthur"? Could his knights in shining armor have been local levies or tribal chiefs attempting to recreate the form of Roman calvery? Maybe.
Maybe in those unsure and frightening times, even the memory of a victorious leader only a century before had already morphed into something, though historically untrue, which would fire the imagination of British (and French, and Americans, and . . .) for millenia to come.
Gildas is, of course, tantalizing and frustrating. That sub-Roman Briton had mostly dissolved by the time he wrote is obvious. Equally obvious, however, is his apparent yearning for some "Golden Age" of Britain, that maybe never existed or perhaps was an idealized memory of Ambrosius Aurelianus' brief ascendency leading "the remnant of the Romanised and Catholic party". [G. Ashe's phrase]
J. R. R. Tolkien tells us these legends grow out of a "stew" of historical and fanciful elements with each storyteller including elements based on his or her taste and time. That Arthurian legend may include fanciful elements cannot be doubted; determining whether (and what) historical elements Gildas--not to mention Geoffrey of Monmouth, Thomas Malory, Alfred Lord Tennyson and later authors--included is part of the fun.
It is not hard to imagine--though difficult to prove--that a faction of the post-Roman Britons tried to maintain Roman culture and military organization and norms well after the departure of the legions. That they were ultimately unsuccessful is obvious, but the imagination is fired by the thought that at some times and some places they may have temporarily succeeded. Some versions call that place Camelot and name the leader Arthur. Could that place have been what we call South Cadbury Castle? And could that leader, the unnamed victor at Mount Badon, have been the core of "Arthur"? Could his knights in shining armor have been local levies or tribal chiefs attempting to recreate the form of Roman calvery? Maybe.
Maybe in those unsure and frightening times, even the memory of a victorious leader only a century before had already morphed into something, though historically untrue, which would fire the imagination of British (and French, and Americans, and . . .) for millenia to come.
"Fugit irreparabile tempus" (Irrecoverable time glides away) Virgil
Ron Andrea
Ron Andrea
