Talk:King Arthur: Difference between revisions

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? 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. 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. llywrch 22:51 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

Okay, so should this guy be at "Arthur"...? -- Oliver P. 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? 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... -- Oliver P. 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. JTD 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. --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. -- llywrch 23:17 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

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. —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. 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. -- 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? —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.) -- llywrch 20:36, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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. :-)

—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. -- llywrch 00:03, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There are some problems in this article that keep coming back, which I feel I have to correct & keep out. These are my reasons:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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. -- 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.

Is there someone who can restore the deleted links that some unregistered user just deleted? 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. -- Arwel 23:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And someone has just deleted them again without comment. Sheesh. Restoring. -- llywrch 18:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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. -- 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! -- llywrch 23:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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." --Wetman 02:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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.--Cuchullain 09:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)