Monkey see, monkey do

“There was, and is, a ‘figure’ of Arthur made up of all these elements, who has made a very real impact on history... The truth greater than the facts is that Arthur was considered to be a king by most
medieval monarchs, who sought to imitate him and even bring him into their genealogies” (Snyder, 8).

I found this quotation to be interesting because I always thought of Arthur as (only) a legend to everyone, or at least as an ever-elusive historical figure. I’ve never considered that people thought (or may even still think) that he was a definite enough figure to possibly be included in their family trees. 

Giphy.com

.

I know that this gif makes no sense, but I do have an explanation!! 

Introductory Quest Part 2

Was, or is, King Arthur an ancient version of what we call nowadays a super hero? Instead of being able to fly or zap lasers from his face, Arthur is hot, virtuous and undefeatable.

The Return of the King

Through my reading the quote that I found to be most significant came page 10 of the "Who Was Arthur?" chapter. “Finally, goes the myth, the Round Table collapsed through treason and betrayal, and Arthur, mortally wounded, was carried off to the Isle of Avalon, where he will be healed and one day return to rule over Britain.” (Snyder, Ch 1, Pg 10). 

This quote appears to be alluding to a return of King Arthur. When will he return? I believe that will most likely be when Britain is in a time of great distress, when a ruler as strong as Arthur is truly needed. This idea leads me to believe that King Arthur is really just a symbol for the ideal ruler of Britain. The perfect ruler would possess those same qualities it is written that Arthur possessed. Those qualities of courage, loyalty, honor, etc. 

-Kyle Morgenroth 

Do Facts Ruin Legends?

"The truth greater than the facts is that Arthur was considered to be a king by most medieval monarchs, who sought to imitate him and even to bring him into their genealogies." (Snyder 8)

Thinking about the line between reality and myth, I started to wonder if the actual existence of Arthur really mattered. Sure, it would be great to know that this legendary hero was a real person for history's sake, but I think the facts of life would only take away from his legacy. When a larger-than-life figure loses his mystique, he becomes human like the rest of us. Would tales of Paul Bunyan be better if he was just a normal lumberjack? Would Theseus be iconic if he didn't slay the Minotaur?

The story of King Arthur is the established truth of history and legend. Does it really need to be ruined by fact? Does the world really need more humans?

History and Fiction: Two Halves of One Whole

A favorite movie in my household

I chose my quotation from the first chapter.

"Furthermore, the fact that people from the Middle Ages onwards have believed in Arthur, and that writers and kings have used that belief to their advantage, means that his impact on history has surpassed that of a mere historical being. Yet history informs this story, and must be neither ignored or misused in discussing Arthur" (Snyder 17).

I chose this because I need to remind myself that history is super important while discussing literature, and that belief is a powerful tool. Belief created the strong figure of Arthur, and the hope, the people needed in times of hurt and trouble.

Arthur and the Romans

The significant quotation I picked out was "Arthur's Britons, unlike their modern counterparts, were the cultural heirs of two peoples: the Celts and the Romans. While neither group was homogenous or genetically a 'race', they did produce vigorous cultures which dominated the European Iron Age for over one thousand years." (Snyder, Ch. 1, Pg. 15) I found this quotation to be interesting because I believe we discussed last class that the Romans had pulled out of England by the time the movie took place in, and the idea of the Britons as their cultural heirs would seem to support that, as the term 'heirs' implies they are not the direct subjects of Roman rule. To me it just makes it sound like the Romans had no direct involvement in Arthurian legend, though the film would claim otherwise.

Source: Snyder, Christopher A. The world of King Arthur. Thames & Hudson, 2011.