Arthurian Romance (British History)

[Hatty]

Hi Tel,
Well, I joined this IMDb thing so I could look at the post in question; the poster is clearly Welsh, which explains his stance! I haven't yet been convinced that Arthur was 'real', there's an interesting article on the subject called "The historicity and historicisation of Arthur" (but this one really IS huge).
The link is http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~tomgreen/arthur.htm

The fact that Gildas doesn't mention Arthur is explained away by saying that he was anxious not to antagonise the Roman rulers of Britain but it's far more plausible that there isn't even a passing reference to Arthur because he hasn't yet been invented. [Gildas' work was first published in 1525 during Henry VIII's reign so it is possible that it was edited/tampered with but I can't see any reason why Arthur would have been removed from the record if he'd been included originally]

The name is uncommon as your expert points out, hence the desperate rooting around for derivatives, but also widespread as variations of Arthur are found right across Europe though it's not a common name anywhere, which makes it more rather than less likely to be selected for a fictitious 'High King'. (If there was a Welsh hero-king called Arthur in the 6th century, you'd expect his name to have been correspondingly popular, at least for a few generations)

[TelMiles]

Thank you very much for taking the time to check out his post, Hatty! I debated with him before (all the posts were removed - although it wasn't much of a debate since he ignored everything I said. I ended with me calling him an idiot) and he made so many assumptions and errors that it was unreal. At one point he suggested I discard all the "English" evidence of Arthur and concentrate on only the "Welsh" legends - which are, as I'm sure you know - just legends. He annoys me as he is passing it all off as fact. (that and his insistence that Frank D Reno is a "great Arthurian historian" - why ain't anyone heard of him then?) But yeah, you're right, with the Welsh theme, everyone has an agenda!

As for Arthur's historicity (spelt right?) I really am on the fence. I have privately studied Arthur and the Dark Ages for around 15 years now and I can safely say I am no closer to pinning down his existence or his non-existence. That twat on IMDB would never convince me. That being said I suppose I do lean towards him being real, but nothing like the Emperor/High king or even king that the legends paint him. Anyway, I'm beginning to ramble, so I'll stop.

Thanks again, Hatty.
_________________
Against all Gods.

[Hatty]

I seee what you mean, Tel, it's an extraordinary exchange - and this Riardd-Ambrosius is apparently the Frank D. Reno you mentioned, of whom I've never heard either.

One of the posters quite reasonably questioned how Aurelius/Ambrosius could devolve into Arthur

"I see no reason for Aurelius, Aurelianus, or Ambrosius, to turn into Arthur or Arturus, as the literary character is named."

to which he responds

"Arthur" is simply the literary name that represents the bonafide historical figure of Ambrosius Aurelianus. The term "Arthur" simply evolved from an honorary title describing Ambrosius to a proper name, so as to qualify as a direct character in subsequent literature. Hypothetically speaking, if the term "Arthur' was to be used in literature as still an epithet, you would have for instance, Chretien de Troyes, in his work, referring to a character without a proper name. For a direct translation of Arthur as an epithet into French, Chretien would constantly be referring to "High King." High King married Guinevere, High King fought this battle," etc. It woudn't make sense. Well, yes, he is High King! But that doesn't describe the central character in the story. Understand? He has to go by a proper name to directly describe him.

This is how he reached his conclusion:

"Ardd" or arth is a term meaning "high" "Ri" or Rex are terms that mean "king" So, used as a title or nickname to describe a prominent figure, we have "Riardd" or Riarth. From there, we have word corruption forming the term "Arthir" and later "Arthur." Adding to the corruption of the term, people now view "Arthur" not as a title, but as a proper name. This is where the confusion starts when any person wishes to find an historical figure behind the fantasy facade. You must treat "Arthur" as a corrupted titular name!

Do you know any Welsh, Tel? I tried looking up 'ardd' online but "no matches found"- on the other hand, arth translates as 'bear'; king in Welsh is rhi as he says. (The closest I could get was ar thir, Irish gaelic meaning 'on the land', not very kingly or high)

Arthur derived from the Celtic Arddhu (pronounced 'ar-thee') makes much more sense, as suggested by another post:

Is it true that the "name of the devil" in the Welsh bible is Arddhu? Does this name mean "the dark one" (or perhaps "the high one")? Does it have any connection with the Guernsey god Har Hou? Both have been equated with the god Cernunnos. Do you know anything about them? Can "Arthur" be a phonetic transcription of "Arddhu"?

In which case an Arthur linked to Celtic mythology is definitely not historical, which is why he dismisses her suggestion, albeit not very convincingly.

[TelMiles]

Hey Hatty,
I had a distinct feeling he was actually Frank D Reno!

I know nowt about the Welsh language except what I've picked up reading books about the period in question. I've known for quite a long time that Ardd means bear...but he interchanges its meaning with "high king" and "bear". He also maintains that Arthur is purely a titular name that became confused in the later literature, however, the Latin form of Arthur is Atorius, and there are records of Roman soldiers posted in Britain centuries before this time bearing the name Artorius. The most famous being Lucious Artorius Castus, who RA dismisses as a contender for Arthur.

His reasoning is also flawed in my opinion, he says that the name wasn't Arthur at all, but Riarth, but how does that evolve into Arthur when, as you pointed out, it wasn't really a popular name at any time? Also, there is a legend of a Breton king of around the same time whose name is "Riothamus" (could be a title, akin to Augustus)...so why do we still know his name? Why hasn't it become corrupted into Arthur? If the name was Riarth, we would still know it as such, even allowing for mistranscribing, as, if Arthur was a "Welsh" hero, surely they would want him to have a Welsh name and not the very English-sounding Arthur.

He also maintains that the Latin title "imperator" means Emperor and was not heard of in Britain until the time of Ambrosius...what hogwash! Imperator means general, and there had been Roman imperators in Britain from almost the first day they "invaded." Obviously he has never heard of Carausius.

I agree with you that the origin of King Arthur could well lie in mythology, it could also lie in the story of Alfred The Great whose stories are very similar.
_________________
Against all Gods.

[TelMiles]

"Dd" in welsh gives a "th" sound...so that Gwynedd is pronounced Gwyneth.

Forgot that bit.
_________________
Against all Gods.

[Hatty]

Tel wrote:

I know nowt about the Welsh language except what I've picked up reading books about the period in question

Neither does this Riardd/Reno guy by his own admission.

[TelMiles]

I've never heard of the Beowulf link before, sounds interesting. I'll have to look into it.

The posts get deleted after a while if no-one posts. The posts were basically me asking him questions and him ignoring them and posting more of his claptrap. It all started 'cos I said another Arthurian character, the founder of Wessex, Cerdic, was actually a "Briton" and not a Saxon. I said Cerdic COULD HAVE been an exiled "British" noble who became a mercenary in the pay of the Saxons...just a theory. He took it that I said that's what definitely happened and gave some explanation of Cerdic that didn't really make sense.

I can't remember exactly what he said, but at one point he said Cerdic was a Roman sent by Aetius (maybe) to reclaim Britain for the empire, and then said he was a son of Ambrosius and an Angle woman. Thing is, the Anglo Saxon chronicle (which he suggested I ignore) called Cerdic an Earldorman, which means he was an "appointed offical". Now the question is, appointed by who? But seeing as the Saxons adopted him as the founder of their Royal line, I would say there's the answer.

He gave really strange locations for historical sites associated with Arthur, and also moved the original Saxon incursions over to Wales and placed the whole legend there, with Arthur having never moved out of Wales. He also called the Dark Ages the "age of late antiquity" and said I wasn't very PC for calling them the Dark Ages. I just told him it's what we called them here. His last post was an attack on me for which I called him an idiot.

Cheers for taking the time to chat, Hatty.
_________________
Against all Gods.

[Hatty]

Tel wrote:

[TelMiles]

Yea, the ASC proclaims that Cynric and his father Cerdic became kings of Wessex at the same time, just after the battle of Badon. Could be that they are the same man. If that is the case, and then we take into account your explanation of their names, it reads as The Celtic King "Ric". Also, this leads on to other Anglo-Saxon names such as Aethelwulf and Aethelric...now, apparently the Aethel bit means "son of the king"...so was that part of their names ever prounounced? Were their names just Wulf and Ric? If so, we have a precedent for the name Ric in Britain at the time. This also lends further weight to the theory of The Celtic king Ric if he is indeed half Briton/ half Saxon.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean in your last paragraph Hatty. If he wasn't important, then why would the ASC mention him? (I could be missing something though).
_________________
Against all Gods.

[Hatty]

[TelMiles]

The ASC is very Wessex biased also. For instance it claims that no Mercian ruler was ever "Bretwalda". Which, seeing as Offa and Penda thrived when the title was being used, is obviously wrong. I don't see a problem really with the founding of Wessex, it may not be how the ASC says it is, but I can't see why it didn't take place.

I am really taken with the notion that Cerdic and Cynric are one and the same. I think we may be onto something!
_________________
Against all Gods.

[TelMiles]

Hatty, I've been thinking about our previous posts and so how's about this for an off-the-wall theory?

The historical Arthur could have been none other than the Cerdic mentioned in the ASC (and by Nennius and Geoffrey of Monmouth as it turns out)...now...let's take it that we're right and that Cerdic and Cynric are actually the same person and their names are a mutated version of "The Celtic King"...now...Whether Cerdic existed as a separate entity or not, his name is tinted with both Saxon and Celtic hues...so what if Arthur, a "Celt", but leading an army mainly of Saxons, defeated a second Saxon army (possibly that of Kent) in the battle of Badon, thus establishing Wessex?

Later Saxon scribes, constructing the ASC under the aegis of Alfred the Great may be loathe to mention an enemy of the Saxons, and indeed a non-Saxon as their founding father, or may have simply forgotten this original leader's name, or indeed it may have already become "Cerdic" and "Cynric". Maybe the historical Arthur, far from "saving his dying country" (ie Wales), established the most powerful "English" kingdom of all?

What do you think? have I lost the plot?
_________________
Against all Gods.

[Ishmael]

Most likely, Arthur is just Aten/Adam. The name of his queen, Guenevere, is literally "Queen Eve."

King Adam and Queen Eve.

[Hatty]

[TelMiles]

So you believe that this bear-god/cult entered the literature as Arthur and was so adopted as a hero-king? Do you believe that the earliest people that wrote of his existence knew this? or was all the knowledge of the period hopelessly lost by then?
_________________
Against all Gods.