I have been reading some of the threads relating to Arthur,
particularly the derivation of the name 'Arthur' from 'Artgur' and
thought it would be interesting to engage in some discussion in this
field.
My main area of interest is the Robin Hood legend in which I have done
quite abit of research now and more and more I can see parallels with
the evolution of the Arthur legend, a legend which also fascinates me.
I have an open mind to the origin of the Arthur legend as I do to that
of RH. Which period and where, I have no bias. I can see clearly now
how embelishment has been piled on embelishment in the RH legend and
have no doubt that exactly the same has occured with Arthur,
practically burying the origin. I have looked through books by several
authors relating to the Arthur legend and can see how information can
be manipulated to suit the individual's theories. I am going to be
careful here-A person who has written books about Riothamus for example
even makes a point that the latin form of 'Riothamus' would have been
'Riotamus' and that 'Artorius' is almost an anagram of this. Two other
authors try to place all Neenius's Battle sites in North Wales to
support their theory. Two other authors propose 'Arthur' as a battle
name given to an early 6th c North Wales King. There seems to be quite
abit of manipulation of facts going on in the King Arthur field and I
thought I would just relate some of my experiences with RH to Arthur.
The Riothamus and Ambrosius Aurelianus theories are interesting but
have precisely the same flaws as those that I have found with Robin
Hood candidates. Where does the name 'Arthur' come from connected to
Riothamus or Ambrosius? Why didn't Gildas directly call Ambrosius
Aurelianus 'Arthur' if that is who he was and the name was known? I am
not one bit convinced by this almost conspiracy theory of why Gildas
wouldn't have mentioned Arthur. There is a parallel with RH which I
will go into at a later date. Where is any connection of Riothamus or
Ambrosius to the name 'Arthur, Arturus, Arthurus'? I won't go in to
great details but I have come across precisely the same thing with RH
candidates. There were real, recorded outlaws who looked just like
Robin Hood but there is not one tiny scrap of evidence that they were
called 'Robin Hood' or called themselves by that name. Fulk Fitz Waryn
resembled RH in deeds and many of the elements of his romance may have
been borrowed for compilation of the RH ballads but there is not one
bit of evidence that he was RH. Fulk was not connected to the
traditional RH locations, Sherwood, Barnsdale. There is one outlaw who
is truly outstanding in resembling RH. He led a band of outlaws in
Sherwood Forest and Barnsdale, actually being given shelter by a Knight
in his castle in Barnsdale. He was captured actually in Sherwood Forest
by a Sheriff of Nottingham and imprisoned in Nottingham Castle. His
name was Roger Godberd. There is some information on the net about him
but I have found new records about him at the British Library and the
National Archives whilst researching the Rolls there. This man looks
more like Robin Hood than Robin Hood but there is not one scrap of
evidence that he was ever callled or took the name 'Robert' or 'Robin
Hood'! I have searched in the Coram Rege, Pipe and Assize Rolls at the
National Archives. There is possible evidence anyway that the RH legend
may have been circulating some four years before this man was active.
The point that I am trying to make here is that just because men can
resemble some aspects of Arthur, doesn't make them Arthur. I have found
the same thing with RH and personally think from experience that men
like Riothamus and Ambrosius Aurelianus were not at the origin of the
legend. They may/probably have contributed though to the legend,
writers assigning, incorporating some of their deeds, (probably
definitely as with Ambrosius and Badon) to Arthur.
I have some thoughts on the 'Arth' derivation as well which I will post
at another time. It will be interesting to have a discussion on this. I
hope Tom (Green) joins in?
King Arthur's origins.
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Ford Mommaerts-Browne
Re: King Arthur's origins.
----- Original Message -----
From: <roblynley@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 3:14 PM
Subject: King Arthur's origins.
| I have been reading some of the threads relating to Arthur,
| particularly the derivation of the name 'Arthur' from 'Artgur' and
| thought it would be interesting to engage in some discussion in this
| field.
|
There are two lists which deal specifically with Arthur, or 'the matter of Britain'. They are ARTHURNET and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arthuriana.
ARTHURNET gets awfully esoteric and metaphysical at times. Arthuriana, though, doesn't get as much traffic.
Ford
From: <roblynley@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 3:14 PM
Subject: King Arthur's origins.
| I have been reading some of the threads relating to Arthur,
| particularly the derivation of the name 'Arthur' from 'Artgur' and
| thought it would be interesting to engage in some discussion in this
| field.
|
There are two lists which deal specifically with Arthur, or 'the matter of Britain'. They are ARTHURNET and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arthuriana.
ARTHURNET gets awfully esoteric and metaphysical at times. Arthuriana, though, doesn't get as much traffic.
Ford
-
Gjest
Re: King Arthur's origins.
"Ford Mommaerts-Browne" wrote:
Probably best taken to alt.legend.king-arthur, perhaps?
Esoteric? I'll certainly agree with that, though I might add
occasionally 'dull' too. I'm not sure how Judy Shoaf copes with so
many pseudo-historical posts and theories, with endless reruns of the
same basic threads and bonkers interpretations of Old Welsh texts
reconstructed using discredited 19th-century translations and an
English thesaurus. I long since gave it up, partly through pressure of
work and partly after tiring of being told about how the Sarmatian
theory explains everything so much better and all Celticists are
insular and blinkered, though we did have a good discussion there on
historicity back in 1998...
Cheers,
Tom Green
----- Original Message -----
From: <roblynley@hotmail.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 3:14 PM
Subject: King Arthur's origins.
| I have been reading some of the threads relating to Arthur,
| particularly the derivation of the name 'Arthur' from 'Artgur' and
| thought it would be interesting to engage in some discussion in this
| field.
Probably best taken to alt.legend.king-arthur, perhaps?
There are two lists which deal specifically with Arthur, or 'the matter of Britain'. They are ARTHURNET and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arthuriana.
ARTHURNET gets awfully esoteric and metaphysical at times.
Esoteric? I'll certainly agree with that, though I might add
occasionally 'dull' too. I'm not sure how Judy Shoaf copes with so
many pseudo-historical posts and theories, with endless reruns of the
same basic threads and bonkers interpretations of Old Welsh texts
reconstructed using discredited 19th-century translations and an
English thesaurus. I long since gave it up, partly through pressure of
work and partly after tiring of being told about how the Sarmatian
theory explains everything so much better and all Celticists are
insular and blinkered, though we did have a good discussion there on
historicity back in 1998...
Cheers,
Tom Green
-
James Dow Allen
Re: King Arthur's origins.
roblynley@hotmail.com wrote:
What do experts think of the theory that Artur (Dux Bellorum, not King)
was the son of Aidan MacGabran (c 533 - 608), King of both Manau (via
his mother, a Briton Princess) and Scots Dalriata (via his father, a
Scots King)? Did Aidan have a son Arturius? Was he indeed the
historic
warrior Artur who was killed at the Battle of Manann in the year 582?
If the son of Aidan MacGabran, a King of Scots Dalriata, was indeed the
famous warrior Arthur, it will answer two otherwise very puzzling
questions:
Q: Welsh chronicles make it clear Arthur was an historic person, so
why are the place-names unidentifiable?
A: The ``Land between the Walls'' was being conquered by Scots and
Angles,
and ceased to be part of the Briton dominion, so naturally names
changed,
and memories become blurred.
Q: Why do the Scots, traditional enemies of Britons, claim Arthur as
their
own hero? (In Campbell tradition, he's even their progenitor.)
A: Although 3 of Arturius MacAedan's 4 grandparents were Britons, he
was a
Prince of Scots. King Aidan's subjects and allies were mostly
Britons,
so Arturius was easily revered by both nations.
My webpage
http://tinyurl.com/yw4j6/camelot.htm
gives a link to David F. Carroll's on-line book developing this theory,
along with some other links and comments, and pedigrees (historic and
mythical) for most of the other candidate Arthurs.
James Dow Allen
I have been reading some of the threads relating to Arthur,...
What do experts think of the theory that Artur (Dux Bellorum, not King)
was the son of Aidan MacGabran (c 533 - 608), King of both Manau (via
his mother, a Briton Princess) and Scots Dalriata (via his father, a
Scots King)? Did Aidan have a son Arturius? Was he indeed the
historic
warrior Artur who was killed at the Battle of Manann in the year 582?
If the son of Aidan MacGabran, a King of Scots Dalriata, was indeed the
famous warrior Arthur, it will answer two otherwise very puzzling
questions:
Q: Welsh chronicles make it clear Arthur was an historic person, so
why are the place-names unidentifiable?
A: The ``Land between the Walls'' was being conquered by Scots and
Angles,
and ceased to be part of the Briton dominion, so naturally names
changed,
and memories become blurred.
Q: Why do the Scots, traditional enemies of Britons, claim Arthur as
their
own hero? (In Campbell tradition, he's even their progenitor.)
A: Although 3 of Arturius MacAedan's 4 grandparents were Britons, he
was a
Prince of Scots. King Aidan's subjects and allies were mostly
Britons,
so Arturius was easily revered by both nations.
My webpage
http://tinyurl.com/yw4j6/camelot.htm
gives a link to David F. Carroll's on-line book developing this theory,
along with some other links and comments, and pedigrees (historic and
mythical) for most of the other candidate Arthurs.
James Dow Allen
-
Gjest
Re: King Arthur's origins.
James Dow Allen wrote:
They think it's a load of old (and endlessly recycled) cobblers, both
chronologically and probability-wise, when they bother to think about
it at all
Cheers,
Tom Green
--
Some relevant refs snipped from <http://www.arthuriana.co.uk> :
Bromwich, R. 1975-6, 'Concepts of Arthur' in Studia Celtica 10/11,
pp.163-81 at pp.178-9
Jackson, K.H. 1973, 'Review of R. Barber, The Figure of Arthur' in
_Medium Aevum_ XLII.2, pp.188-9
Roberts, B.F. 1973-4, 'Review of R. Barber, The Figure of Arthur' in
_Studia Celtica_ 8/9, pp.336-39
Ziegler, M. 1999, 'Artúr mac Aedan of Dalriada' in _The Heroic Age_ 1
I have been reading some of the threads relating to Arthur,...
What do experts think of the theory that Artur (Dux Bellorum, not King)
was the son of Aidan MacGabran (c 533 - 608), King of both Manau (via
his mother, a Briton Princess) and Scots Dalriata (via his father, a
Scots King)?
They think it's a load of old (and endlessly recycled) cobblers, both
chronologically and probability-wise, when they bother to think about
it at all
Cheers,
Tom Green
--
Some relevant refs snipped from <http://www.arthuriana.co.uk> :
Bromwich, R. 1975-6, 'Concepts of Arthur' in Studia Celtica 10/11,
pp.163-81 at pp.178-9
Jackson, K.H. 1973, 'Review of R. Barber, The Figure of Arthur' in
_Medium Aevum_ XLII.2, pp.188-9
Roberts, B.F. 1973-4, 'Review of R. Barber, The Figure of Arthur' in
_Studia Celtica_ 8/9, pp.336-39
Ziegler, M. 1999, 'Artúr mac Aedan of Dalriada' in _The Heroic Age_ 1