Completing 40 tasks for a lazy giant sure does sound realistic

While reading this story, I think that overall, it was pretty realistic and definitely could have happened in a much less exaggerated sense. Despite giants not existing, a couple of the tasks that Vsbaddaden gave to Culhwch seemed like random errands that he did not feel like doing himself. I felt it was very plausible that when Culhwch went to the giant and demanded his daughter's hand in marriage, Vsbaddaden could have just decided to shift his work to the man since he was too lazy to do it himself. For being "impossible tasks," it sure didn't seem that difficult to do when Vsbaddaden told Culhwch to burn a bush, plant a garden, plow the fields, and collect kitchen utensils for the feast. Also, despite the giant telling Culhwch not to worry about the food and clothing for the wedding, a lot the tasks specifically dealt with preparing the food and clothing.



I also think that it was realistic that Arthur would want to help Culhwch out with the tasks, considering that he was Culhwch's first cousin. Rescuing a man from prison, stealing a sword, and killing a boar, all seem like things that would have happened in Britain back then, with exaggerations later having been added to the story to make it seem more thrilling.

What is the difference?

The question that I find to be most important when reading through this section is, do the Britons only feel disdain and anger towards foreign enemies? Geoffrey of Monmouth describes the final battle between Arthur and his army and the Army of Modred. Prior to the battle Arthur gives a pre-battle speech in which he urges his men to devastate the army of Modred since they are foreigners, “mongrels and barbarians from many kingdoms,”(Pg. 86) This motivates Arthur’s army to a victory, although they would suffer heavy casualties in the process. Some of the casualties listed by Monmouth came from foreign kingdoms who had pledged support to Arthur, Kingdoms such as Norway and Denmark. What is the difference between these foreigners fighting along side Arthur and his army and those who fought for Modred? The only plausible difference I can find is that the foreigners fighting alongside of Mordred were fighting to, in Arthur’s words, take the lands and fortunes held by members of Arthur’s army. Were the foreigners in Arthur’s army not fighting for similar reasons? Did they not want lands or fortunes as well?

Too Good to be True

King Arthur, in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s tale, seems to be realistic until assessing the text further and rereading the introduction. Arthur's realness or falseness is something that this class debates. Following the reading, I am now confirmed to think and believe Arthur is fake after not knowing prior to this course. The evidence lies in Geoffrey of Monmouth, and his work, History of the Kings of Britain, on the great king. It seems as though Geoffrey has created this text for a sole purpose of giving the Normans justification for invading Britain and taking over the Saxons. Also, Arthur fought valiantly against the Saxons; whereas now, the Normans are “fighting” for the native Britons as Arthur did before. Another point that Geoffrey puts in his work is when Arthur fights the giant and wins. It seems unlikely that Arthur could have single-handedly killed a giant, due to the fact that giants are not real. It hints that he has dramatized his work, and even other historians of Geoffrey’s time have dismissed his tale of Arthur (Loomis 58). Finally, Geoffrey makes Arthur too good at everything. Arthur, throughout the text, is presented as the ideal, true leader of Britain. He wins every battle with the exception of his final battle. Geoffrey also has created Arthur with the valor and command to be the best king possible at the ripe-old age of fifteen. Overall, I think the text does not tell the full truth of King Arthur, if there is one.

Geoffrey of Monmouth or Lavar Ball's Role Model?

                                                                                                                  While I was reading this, I thought of Lavar Ball talking about himself, his kids, or the “Big Baller Brand.”  The introduction to this chapter does a great job of quickly detailing Geoffrey’s work in the History of the Kings of Britain, and how he weaved Arthur, Merlin, and the knights into the history of English kings.  Geoffrey knew his Norman audience had recently conquered the Saxons, and gave them an ancient hero who also bested them.  He created Arthur as this larger than life King, who could do almost anything, just like Lavar is trying to do with his business.  Geoffrey wrote Arthur into existence, like Lavar spoke his son onto the Lakers.

Arthur is The Man

In case the embedded vid doesn't work!

The common thread throughout Geoffrey of Monmouth's history of Arthur is that he is the capstone of kings: slaying giants, slicing heads in half, or just being a generous, religious monarch. Arthur is the best and brightest, and seems to think of himself as such. This song by The Killers seems to convey exactly what Geoffrey of Monmouth is trying to (if we take the lyrics as lyrics and ignore any social commentary). Arthur's carrying the crown, and nothing can bring him down.

The Most Convient Book

On page 58 of chapter 4, the author tells the reader that Geoffrey of Monmouth's account of Arthur is based on an ancient book that contains the history of all British kings. What I want to know is, did Geoffrey of Monmouth really receive an ancient book written in the British language with all the deeds of all British kings from Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford? 

Building Blocks

What I gathered from Chapter 1 is that the story of Arthur is sort of like a big puzzle, or building blocks being thrown together by a multitude of people.  And I do not mean a puzzle as in whether he existed or not is a puzzle, or the many stories force puzzling questions.  What I mean is that the many historians and poets and storytellers that have written about the mythic King Arthur all seem to draw on each other's ideas and sometimes even use the exact same foundation, and then add and build on to it.  Oftentimes they even specifically reference another's work.  Hence, the building blocks.  Take, for example, Gildas and Bede.  The two historians chronicle just about the same exact thing and neither makes any mention of Arthur.  But then comes along Nennius, who again repeats much of what his two predecessors state, but then throws in Arthur's name.  And this continues on through history with multiple writers until we get accounts from the likes of William of Malmesbury and Geoffrey of Monmouth.  William being the writer that added in the great knight Gawain, and Geoffrey being the writer who's work regarding Arthur and his knights is most known. 

All of the work by the great number of historians and writers on Arthur creates blurred lines and jumbled pieces for the modern person to sort through and try to organize.  This leaves every question ever asked of Arthur practically unanswerable and still a confused mess. 

The Truth is in the Hair

The following quote is from Giraldus Cambrensis who wrote On the Instruction of Princes (De instructione principum), writen in the 1190s. He is describing Arthur's tomb.

A golden handful of woman's hair was found there, retaining its fresh wholeness and radiance, but when a certain monk greedily reached out and grabbed it the hair dissolved into dust.

I picked this quote because there was some truth to it. It is true that delicate things, like hair, can hold its shape and not turn to dust if properly preserved, but the slightest disturbance, like an air current or breath, can cause the object to fall apart, instantly turning into dust. Even if the story was fiction, those writing about it and passing it on wanted it to be believable. As with any good lie, or story, it's in the details.

1962. 'Arthur's grave'. Radford and Peter Poyntz-Wright, from the south. Copyright: Peter Poyntz-Wright 

Lacy, Norris J., and James J. Wilhelm. The Romance of Arthur: an Anthology of Medieval Texts in Translation. Routledge, 2013. pp. 6

The man's a mystery, probably on purpose

If there's one theme to be taken away from the few readings that we've had so far, it's that, in all the texts presented before us, history has revered Arthur for the ideas he represents more than the reality of his existence. Each of the texts presented and analyzed in chapter one presents the same basic story framework: right as the Britons were on the verge of annihilation, a great military leader of Roman descent rose up, fought off the Saxons and delivered countless victories for the Britons until his death, at which time the Saxons took back over.

This was one of the few artistic re-creations of Arthur I've found to be, at least, partly realistic. i still feel he's too heavily armored, but at least the soldiers around him are more realistic than the band of Renaissance-era knights he's usually shown with. Photo credit and ownership goes to Alamy images.

Having attended Catholic school, I can't help but draw parallels between the legends of Arthur and the stories of Jesus presented in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Like the works of Geoffrey of Monmouth, William of Malmesbury, and Gildas, they align on the major events of his life and teachings, but are not wholly the same. It feels to me that Arthur was created to be a new-world messiah. What would be better for the christians remaining in a land that Rome abandoned than having a central, prophetic figure right in their backyard? Having this leader live by the ideal christian truths and be a soldier for god would provide them the right foothold for spreading their religion in a "godless land." At that point, having his myths align in a similar narrative fashion to Jesus' would be the cherry on top. All the reading we have done so far have led me to the theory that Arthur was most likely an actual military figure, who's accomplishments and abilities were hyperbolized by his people in order to spread the religion and add legitimacy to their claim for rule over the British Isles.

Legend as History

The following quote is from Giraldus Cambrensis's On the Instruction of Princes (De instructione principum):

The burial place is now known as Glastonbury, and in ancient times it was called the Island of Avalon. It is indeed almost an island, being surrounded by marshes; and so in the British language it was called Inis Avallon or Apple Island, since apples grow there in abundance. Then too Morgan, the noble matron and lady-ruler of those parts, who was closely related by blood to King Arthur, transported Arthur after the Battle of Kemelen [Camlan] to this island, now called Glaston, to heal his wounds. In the British language it was once called Inis Gutrin (that is, Glass Island), and for that reason the Saxons dubbed it Glastonbury since Glas means "glass" in their tongue, and bury is "city" or "camp."

This quotation stands out to me due to the way it blends history and legend. Giraldus writes as if it is a given that Arthur and Morgan lived and died as in the stories, and focuses on changes in place names over time. The way he explains Avalon's different names and where they come from is similar to how someone else might explain the different names of New York City or Istanbul. I think it shows that it is important to keep in mind as we read whether the author of a text considered Arthur to have existed, for that will affect how the author presents the material.

Wilhelm, James J. "Arthur in the Latin Chronicles." The Romance of Arthur, edited by Norris J. Lacy and James J. Wilhelm, Routledge, 2013, pp. 1-7.