avoid that of others
I think Chamber's Biographical Dictionary, Edited by J.O. Thorne, M.A.
Revised Edtion 1968 SBN 550 16001 9, is one of those we can rely upon, page
57 :
ARTHUR, a half-legendary king of the Britons - Cymri driven into the west of
England by the Saxons - is represented as having united the British tribes
in resisting the pagan invaders, and as having been the champion, not only
of his people, but also of Christianity. He is said to have lived in the 6th
century, and to have maintained a stubborn contest against the Saxon Cerdic,
but the 'Anglo-Saxon Chronicle' is suspiciously silent as to his warfare and
as to his existence. Indeed the Welsh bards of the earliest period do not
assert that he was a contemporary, and it is more than doubtful whether he
is an historic personage. It is worthy of remark that the fame of Arthur is
widely spread; he is claimed alike as a prince in Brittany, Cornwall, Wales,
Cumberland, and the lowlands of Scotland; that is to say, his fame is
conterminous with the Brythonic face, and does not extend to the Goidels or
Gaels. The story of Arthur passed into literature and a multitude of
fascinating legends became interwoven with it, including those of the Round
Table and the Holy Grail, both introduced near the turn of the 12th-13th
century.
I have a copy of "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle", translated and edited by
Michael Swanton, and the name Arthur is not to be found in the index.
Literature can have a huge impact and at times taken seriously. "The Da
Vinci Code" was taken so seriously by the Vatican that they advised
Catholics not to read it. There are still people who believe the earth is
flat, and there are on the world probably more people who do not believe in
Jesus than those who do. Today there are people who maintain the Germans in
WWII did not have extermination camps for the Jews.In my opinion Jesus does
not fall within the realm of "Medieval Genealogy and History" but Arthur,
fictitious or not, does. Why throw in red herrings?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: Arthur
will johnson wrote
To start, the idea that Arthur was king until 538 is based on no
credible source. �A close reading of the British History of Geoffrey
Monmouth shows
that he certainly wasn't a credible source. His book is mostly
fiction.
I think the point is, this entire line is mostly fiction.
Fictional lines require fictional sources, but when modern-day authors
create new facts from thin air that also needs to be pointed out. �The
idea that Arthur was king until 538 is based on ... thin air. �Nothing
at all. �Not any shred of anything, fictional or not.
-------------------------------------
Will, this is too scholarly for you; your lack of knowledge on this
subject borders on Todd Farmerie's revisionist history of the time
period in question...all are agreed that the dates given by Monmouth
are incorrect as he attempted to outline a chronology, but it is
proven that GM did not invent Arthur out of thin air; if you don't
know that then you come from the school that believes Arthur was a
fictitious character, however, there is another school that believes
Arthur was a real person; yes, really!!! .....just curious, do you
believe that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead in what
year...there is disagreement of His dates also, or do you believe He
ever was; the reason i say this is that it has been my observation
that people who have trouble with an historical Jesus also have
trouble with an historical Arthur
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message