Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Everything Else => Topic started by: Rose Lewis on April 05, 2004, 02:06:50 PM
-
??? Hi, I am one of Brandon Sanderson's creative writing students and I am looking for information about King Arthur. Who were Athur's parents? Who was Merlin, exactly (was he noble or peasant born)? Where and when did Merlin show up? Did he have any family? Who were Guinivere's parents/ family? What was her age in relationship to Arthur's? Where did the Lady of the Lake come from and where did she get Excaliber?
If you have the answers to any of these questions I would appreciate it very much if you answered on this forum or e-mailed me at [email protected]
Thanks.
--Rose Lewis
-
I told her she could drop by and start up an Arthur thread to get some expert advice. Can you help her out, SE?
-
/me runs for the hills
-
Lol. Asking SE for Arthur advice IS a bit like asking a Mormon missionary if he knows of a good church to attend....
-
no, its more like asking a missionary what he'd like for dinner when he gets back home.
-
It doesn't help that all of her questions have different answers, depending on the source you appeal to.
-
Lets give the kid the basic answer...
-
Of COURSE I can help her. Longer post coming to follow up. I'll answer those specific questions, and tonight, when I have access to my bib, I'll post some references I think you should look at.
-
I knew you'd help--she came to me with an Arthur question at the beginning of the semester. It took me this long to convince her that coming to you would be beneficial to her story.
-
Yes, but its a little like sending a reporter to a crack addict to cover the drug trade.
-
first off, MoD is right. Nearly all of these questions have more than one valid answer. But let me address them and give you the basics.
Who were Athur's parents?
Uther Pendragon and the wife of the Duke of Cornwall (Often unnamed, but usually Igraine is her name). Yes, it was adultrous. The duke saw Uther falling in love with his wife and took her away. Which made King Uther right angry. He laid seige to Tintagel (Cornwall's home). Seeing this wasn't working, he distracted him with a battle further away, and with a disguise given him by Merlin, he snuck in with the appearance of the duke, slept with the woman, and sired Arthur. In the mean time, the duke died in battle, and Uther marries the duchess before Arthur is born.
Who was Merlin, exactly (was he noble or peasant born)? Where and when did Merlin show up? Did he have any family?
"exactly" is not something I can answer. As for his family, it depends on the story, and varies widely. Recent Arthurian offerings make him a Druid or other pagan religious leader. Some texts make him an obscure noble's son with "the gift." Other's have him come out of no where. Pick your favorite, I guess. My favorite story is a bit heretical. The next Paragraph is rated PG-13 at best folks, that's my only warning:
A demon wanted to create an anti-christ and raped a young virgin. The woman, however, baptized the baby as soon as he was born (the demon was waiting to take possession of the child), thus saving him (these were staunchly Catholic times). Thus Merlin's powers are dark powers, granted by his diabolic heritage, but he's a good Christian nonetheless.
Other traditions conflate (combine) him with the figure of Taliesin, a bard of legendary status. This would make him quite old. The traditions of Taliesin start before the traditions of Arthur, probably 3 or 4th century if I had to guess (Arthur is 5th century, at the absolute earliest). As for when he appears in the Arthurian cycle, much earlier than Arthur, as he was a wizard of note before he was born. He did, in fact, prophecy for King Vortigern, who preceded Uther (Arthur's father) as High King. Often there are severl kings betwee Vortigern and Uther, making Merlin very, very old by the time Arthur happens along.
Who were Guinivere's parents/ family? What was her age in relationship to Arthur's?
I can't remember their names right now. I'll edit this when I have my Arthurian Encyclopedia to refresh myself. The cool thing to note is that in almost all traditions, the famous round table is a wedding gift from Gwen's father. Just going by medieval marriage traditions, she's probably a few years younger than Arthur, though they would both be relatively young when married.
Where did the Lady of the Lake come from and where did she get Excaliber?
This is another "pick your favorite answer" question. She could be a faerie, a pagan goddess, or a priestess (pagan or possibly Christian if you stretched it). As far as I know, there is no standard answer to how she got Excalibur. Some say Merlin brought it to her before Arthur was born. Others that she brought it on her own (with no other source given). The order of the lady presenting the sword and Arthur drawing it from the stone is confused too. Sometimes one, sometimes the other. Sometimes it's two different stones. Merlin sometimes forged it, sometimes he found it. Sometimes it's a sword from time out of mind, sometimes a sword that belonged to some specific rulers (like Macsen/Maximillion who left Britain to conquer and rule Rome during the empire's decline).
The only important thing is that it's magically sharp, and that the scabbard it comes with it is a great defense: the person who retains the scabbard cannot receive a mortal wound.
What? No grail questions?
-
wasn't Guinivere's father Leodegrance of Camilyard?
At least in the Mallory.
Spellings prolly off.
-
Eric, while we're on the subject, what are your opinions of the trailers for the new King Arthur movie? I saw it before Hellboy, and could only think that Guinivere looked somewhat cool instead of the regular annoying, "Megan-wants-to-strangle-the-slut" they usually cast.
-
lol, I actually haven't seen them. What spoilers we hear tell about on Arthurnet however, make us displeased with what they might be doing.
More interesting is the Tristan and Isolde film in production.
-
What's the community's feeling on that made for TV 'Merlin' movie that came out a few years back?
-
The one Hallmark did was surprisingly well done. For a hallmark movie anyway. I enjoyed it. It was thematically loyal but definitely made it's own work. The effects adn costumes were often a bit... tacky... but still.
-
I wasn't too thrilled with who they cast as Merlin. He's still too associated with Jurassic Park for me, I guess.
I did enjoy watching it, but it isn't something I'd buy in order to watch it again.
There was another TV movie from the 80s my mom had recorded, with Murphy Brown's actress as Arthur's sister. I liked that one, but the one with Rudy's actress from The Cosby Show was a little strange.
-
really? I thought he did an impressive job. I liked that image of Merlin a lot. I think I would have liked Hugo Weaving even more, though. I think he'd make a great Merlin in that style.
-
Here's a link to the trailer. It's the new one with Keira Knightley as Guinevere. She's all nifty and has a sword.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/touchstone/king_arthur.html
-
That moive follows what most historians now beleave to be the most accurate account of author. So, luck you, me as the historian am going to give you a quick overview of Aurthor. That he was influenced by the romans, possibly even friends with the roman empror at the time. Though out history there has been no refrence to a "Author" that was king, all thought there was a "great king" as he was called in laten that has been proven to be involved with many of the battles associated to Author, includeing invadeing france.
Next is the legend of the round table, most historians beleve this is more of a metaphore then anything else. It's ment to symobolise the male bonding that arutor and his officers would go through before each battle. This usaly would happen sitting around a hearth or fire, thus the round table.
The legend of excalabur is another intresting one. And well break it down into two parts. The first is pulling the sword out of the stone. This possible came from the method of casting bronze and sometimes iron swords called "cold casting". It works much the same as scultpturs use today wich is just pooring the metal into a mold then, once cool, yank it out of the mold. This required a decent amount of strength.
The second part is the lady of the lake. It was custom at the time for Britonics to throw the swords of fallen comrads into lakes to help that persons (the dead one) soul to pass into heaven. So its beleaved that the lady of the lake legoned came from there.
There's not much known about merlin or where that came from. But I can easly go off on Authors birth (most beleve he was of noble birth comming from a seaport town that was know to have strong connections to rome) and the location of camalot.
-
I believe most historians think Merlin came from the stories of a mad hermit named Myrddin who had the gift of prophecy or at least thought he did. And then to take it further Myrddin was supposedly the name of some place and the character was invented to explain the name, I suppose sort of like Romus and Remus story for Rome.
King Arthur ain't got nothin on Merlin, he's one of the coolest characters of all time.
-
I'm not sure exactly how to go ahead with this:
Arthur isn't a historical figure. There may have been "an" Arthur who eventually metamorphosed via stories into a King, but at best, there MAY have been an Arthur who was a war duke of the britons against the Saxons. There is no conclusive proof of this, however, and most scholars actually remain unconvinced about any archeological evidence about Arthur.
This Arthur would have been sub-roman, which is to say, AFTER the fall of the Roman empire. At the very least, after Rome had no interest at all in the British isles, which would lead most Britons to think that the Romans weren't the best guys to be friends with. Though it is true that many probably imitated and continued Roman culture and ways, they felt no alliance or allegiance to the Roman Empire, which no longer existed in any case.
Note also that the origins of the stories are primarily Welsh, with some influences much more northern, and only a few from the mainland, well after Rome was something people's grandparents were generations too young to remember. Wales and Pictland/Scotland were at best on the fringes of Roman control, often outside of it completely.
The Round table, as such, probably never existed as described, true. But this is mainly because it was supposed to have sat 144, and such a table would never have been moved. It was actually not uncommon for round tables to be used for people to sit at in counsel (there was, however, still a best seat: that near the King, who was a figurative head). If some King in the 5th or 6th century did have a round table, it was probably empty in the middle so servers could approach from the opposite side.
Excaliber is not so simple either. There are about a half dozen theories as to what is meant or what it means. None are truly prevalent or totally convincing. Most actually have more to do with pagan and/or Christian rituals than anything else.
Camelot has several contenders -- if such a place even existed, stretching across most of southern Britain. Not all (in fact most aren't) are seaports or even large villages today.
It should be noted that there is NO mention whatsoever of a King Arthur until several centuries after he supposedly lived. Which means NO primary sources and no way to figure out where the authors of those histories even got their ideas about Arthur. There were 12 great battles associated with either Arthur or one of his predecessors (Uther or Ambrosius Aurealis) were involved in. but even these battles are not mentioned till hundreds of years after they occurred. It should be noted that only 2 of the locations of these battles can be established with any degree of certainty (and those are still contended), and the most important, badon, is totally unknown. There is some evidence that the war these involved occurred, but not enough to be conclusive and there is nothing establishing Arthur as a real figure, let alone the leader of a Britonic empire or collection of kingdoms.
While most of what Spriggan said are valid interpretations, I would warn against assuming that any of them are conclusively true, or even accepted by any majority of scholars.
As for Merlin: change most to "some" and you have something. Myrddin may also have been some sort of Celtic God. He also may have had nothing to do with it, as the strongest argument for the connection rests with a linguistic twist that is possible but highly speculative and unproven.
-
Bibliography:
If you want more authoritative stuff, THE most important work is The New Arthurian Encyclopedia edited by Norris J. Lacy. If you only look at one reference, this is it. It will give a an accounting of the major and important ways that different characters have been interpreted and used.
The Romance of Arthur edited by James J. Wilhelm and Laila Z. Gross is another good summation and explanation.
For history, I recommend The World of King Arthur by Christopher Snyder, which gives an excellent overview of sub-Roman Britain, connects some of the major themes to their roots, and gives some origins. It also looks at portrayals of Arthur today. To go further, try John Davies' A History of Wales.
The best way to get an over all feel is to ready Thomas Malloy's Le Morte d'Arthur (many good English translations and abridgements are available). It's old, possibly dry, but you don't get a better summation. he did EVERY story he knew of into one big cycle.
For more modern historical looks at arthur, try Mary Stewart's Merlin series or even Marian Zimmerman Bradleys Mists of Avalon (I liked the former, couldnt' stand the latter).
Tennyson's Idylls of the King is a wonderful poetic work.
If you dont' mind "R" movies and don't have time to read Mallory's rather bulky work, try watching Excaliber
-
While most of what Spriggan said are valid interpretations, I would warn against assuming that any of them are conclusively true, or even accepted by any majority of scholars.
True but they are the interpretations of the leading experts in the arciological evendece of who king author might have been. I just paraphrased what I've read.
-
I'm very disturbed, Spriggan, that King Arthur became King Aurthur and now King author.
His name is in the title. That's not bad spelling that's LAZINESS.
-
That's a misspelling? I thought he was just talking about me.
-
well, define for me what "leading archeologists" were taken. Reading the discussion on Arthur.net (an international mailing list on scholarly issues surrounding Arthur, contributed to by historian, archeologists, folklorists, linguists, and other literati who have made Arthur their whole career) nothing nearly so settled has come about. And much of it runs against what little IS settled (such as Arthur being a friend to the Roman emperor when, if he lived at all, he lived after Rome had fallen). The biggest thing is that your post implies that he DID live, and that is not something that will ever be commonly accepted among the leading scholars
-
I'm going by Geoffrey Ashe's (http://www.britannia.com/history/h17.html) interpertations of Arthur. I beleave that most major legend's are allways based off of historical events and/or people. And I beleave that Arthur as we know him is more a combination of several people from that time when there were many fights against the Saxons going on. And that it's probable that the arthur persona started out as a way to boost moral among Brittish troops, and that the stories were based off a real commander then went from there. of course, one of the problems with that part of hisotry in Europe is that civilization wasn't very good record keepers so most of anything we know of that time there can be desputed by one person or another.
Here's a fun quote you can now argue about, from aformentioned Ashe. How right he is we'll never know, but a lot of his arguments seem more along the right path to me, then alot of the others out there.
My new idea was to scrutinize Arthur's foreign warfare in Geoffrey of Monmouth and take it seriously. Historians had assumed that any original Arthur would never have gone outside Britain: in that respect Geoffrey's narrative was pure fancy and it was useless looking for clues overseas. I did look overseas, and found trustworthy records of a "king of the Britons" who took an army to Gaul toward the year 470. We even have a letter to him. He is referred to as Riothamus, which means "supreme king" or "supremely royal" and may be a sort of honorific applied to a man who had another name. His career seems to underlie at least a major portion of Geoffrey's account, and passages in a Breton text and several chronicles suggest that he was in fact the original Arthur.
-
granted, if you change "leading experts" (plural) to "leading expert" (singular) than you may have a case. The problem is that you keep implying that there's some sort of consensus in this direction. While Mr. Ashe is very highly regarded, that doesn't mean that everyone, or even most scholars, think he has it right on.
The other problem with your conflation-of-famous-leaders theory is that you can't say "arthur did this" at that point. You can only say one of the inspirations for Arthur did this.
As you say, the record is scanty. There is no evidence directly refuting the existance of some Arthur. But there is also only a little evidence saying that there WAS an Arthur. And that evidence doesn't point to a king or a pan-Briton leader, and most of it is considerably after the fact with no primary evidence, which makes it wholly unreliable.
So, what I'm saying is NOT that your ideas are wrong, but that there isn't anything resembling a public consensus agreeing with it. In most cases, there IS no public consensus, and the world of Medieval studies and Arthuriana would be much better off if people would stop telling their audiences and readers that there IS such a consensus (I'm not speaking about you, I'm speaking of every author of a remotely Arthurian book who presents information about Arthur as if it were proven fact).
-
Well I was wrong about implying there was a consensus about the topic. I was in a hurry when typeing my first post and that came out. But Ashe isn't the only one to beleave that So implying that he's the only one isn't fair to my arguments. As for me refrencing "Arthur" did this and such, I was implying that the persona or insperations did such from what evendnce I've seen, so in my mind I was correct in speach.
-
what most historians now beleave
isn't implying though, its flat out stating the information as a fact.
-
to me that is the same as implying Jeffe, that can be either flat out stating the facts or meerly suggesting such. But you should talk, you're worse then I am when it comes to this.
-
eh. I think that Spriggan and I are at an accord. We both understand each other now and I think everyone else understands us. I see no need to continue arguing about that.
I would like to know if Rose has any other questions or concerns though.
-
(because I know EUOL wants to say it) What cord? A sharp or C flat?
-
B7 minor
-
I guess the difference Sprig is that I dont use the word implied as lightly as you do.
However my impression of the historical Arthur differs greatly from yours, given the works I've read. The General consensis is that there isn't one. Its like how Camelot continually roams around the whole of Britain and Wales.
The waters get considerable more muddy when you bring the new attempts to Celtise or Romanize Arthur.
-
:-/ I must admit that I am a bit bewildered by your replies. I guess what concerns me is my ability to make up a past for Merlin and the lady of the lake for my short story that I am working on. If both of the pasts of these two figures are obscure in the legends then that's perfect. Do either of them have other names that I should know about before I begin writing or any other pertinent information? Thanks for taking the time to adress my questions and all the information that you gave back. If I can ever return the favor, horses, not King Arthur are my speciality. Gandalf rode an Andalusian in TLOTR Movie. Anyways, Thanks again for your time.
-
Well, to return the favor you could always register permanently and become a much-needed female presense on the board.
-
your supposed to make that a threat...
-
yes, they're both pretty vague in background... or at lease inconsistent in the presentations. So you can take a lot of liberties without offending diehard enthusiasts.
Merlin is often combined with Taliesin or Myrddin. You could use those. "Merlin Taliesin" is not uncommon.
The Lady of the Lake is often identivied as Viviane, Eviene, Niviene, Nimue, or even Nina (only in Wordsworth).
If you're looking for any relationship they had, Nimue (as a fairy) and Merlin are often cast as lovers, ending tragically as Nimue entombs Merlin in either a tree or in stone. (Perhaps she didn't like him as much as he thought)
-
Thanks for the invitation but I don't know if I am ready to play with the big dogs--er, I mean dragons. Thanks for all the easeful information about Merlin and Arthur.