King Arthur The Arthurian legends are well known in today's society. However, very few people know of the "real" Arthur -- who he was and what his accomplishments were. This paper will establish a difference between legend and truth, show evidence to support and explain who the real Arthur was, and shed some light on the sometimes confusing Arthurian legends. To establish any sort of idea that there was, in fact, a "real" Arthur, it is imperative to look over the legendary Arthur and his impact on different cultures. Arthur's beginnings are shrouded in mystery, though it is generally accepted that he is the bastard child of Uther Pendragon and Ygerna. Ygerna was not married to Uther, but to Gorlois at the time of Arthur's conception. His childhood is generally considered a happy one, and it is even suggested that Uther thought too highly of Arthur and therefore the boy did not have to work. However, Jean d'Outremeuse stated that Arthur "was a promising trainee knight," which suggests that Arthur worked hard in his childhood to prove that he was capable of achieving knighthood. Since it was difficult to be a knight, he would have had to work very hard, especially if he was Uther's son. An older knight who took him under his wing wouldn't let him get away with being lazy simply because of his lineage. (Morris, p. 34) The earliest mentions of Arthur occur in Welsh poetry, previous to any stories the French poets wrote of him. There are no mentions of his name in chronicle literature of the pre-Norman period, though there are brief references to campaigns that he supposedly fought in. As far as his being mentioned in Welsh poetry, this is more evidence of the "real" Arthur and will therefore be discussed late... ... middle of paper ... ...ian legends are true, they must be taken lightly for it should be assumed that everything in print may be amplified to ten times what the real Arthur may have accomplished during his lifetime. The main purpose of this essay has been to discuss the facts that prove there was a "real" Arthur, as well as to discuss the legendary Arthur, to try to find an explanation why his deeds were portrayed in a way that made them larger than life. The legendary Arthur and the real Arthur have been presented, and the two have been compared for the purpose of drawing conclusions as to why, perhaps, this mortal man was personified as a legendary warrior and king of his people. Now, with both the legendary Arthur and the "real" Arthur discussed, perhaps a new outlook on the Arthurian legends can be taken when a person hears about Arthur and his knights of the Round Table.
King Arthur, a courageous man, who was able to pull out a sword from a rock as simple as possible. As for everyone else who tired, it was almost impossible. This was just the beginning stage of Arthur becoming a king. The thing that Merlin didn’...
King Arthur, was he man of truth or myth? King Arthur was a real person, not just a fictional character. While many believe that King Arthur was a non-fictional character, others feel that he was a fictional character. This was because there is no written record of a King Arthur in any area where he was reportedly born or deceased. King Arthur was real because there many people recall King Arthur or who have known personal stories of him, his family, and the wars he so bravely participated in. There are many people who recall King Arthur or know someone he was based off of. King Arthur was not real because it was not recorded in history that there was ever a “King Arthur.”
Who was King Arthur? Most people would tell of a great King; a devoted circle of heroic knights; mighty castles and mightier deeds; a time of chivalry and courtly love; of Lancelot and Guinevere; of triumph and death. Historians and archaeologists, especially Leslie Alcock, point to shadowy evidence of a man who is not a king, but a commander of an army, who lived during the late fifth to early sixth century who may perhaps be the basis for Arthur. By looking at the context in which the stories of King Arthur survived, and the evidence pertaining to his castle Camelot and the Battle of Badon Hill, we can begin to see that Arthur is probably not a king as the legend holds.
Sir Gawain and The Green Knight has prompted scholars to examine and diversely interpret the medieval narrative. One of the underlying questions that has been proposed embodies the analysis of the relationship between Christian and Pagan ideals and how knightly chivalry is influenced by religion during the Arthurian Romance period. It is no mistake that the two varied religious ideals are intertwined throughout the poem due to the nature of classical antiquity. Amidst the overlap between superstitious rituals and Orthodox- Christian beliefs it is clear that Sir Gawain has a sense of personal integrity guided by a moral compass.
The world of Arthurian literature is filled with magic and adventure that enchants readers of all ages. T.H. White has done a fantastic job of turning the childhood adventures of Arthur by turning his narrative into spellbinding, cartoon like interpretation of the sword in the stone legend. Moral values are apparent from the beginning of White’s novel. White has cleverly connected all the educational adventures of Arthur, along with the people and animals encountered to the pulling the sword out of the stone. This marvelous amalgamation of key elements not only ties the loose ends of Arthur’s adventures together, they also solidify the reasoning behind Arthurs’ predetermined path to becoming the king of England.
The Arthurian cycle shows a sporadic awareness of the impossibility of mere humans fulfilling all the ideals that Arthur and his court represent. The story of Lancelot and Guenevere, Merlin's imprisonment by Nimu‘, and numerous other instances testify to the recognition of this tension between the real and the unrealistic.
Sir Gawain is, undoubtably, the most varied of the Arthurian characters: from his first minor appearance as Gwalchmei in the Welsh tales to his usually side-line participation in the modern retelling of the tales, no other character has gone from such exalted heights (being regarded as a paragon of virtue) to such dismal depths (being reduced to a borderline rapist, murderer, and uncouth bore), as he. This degree of metamorphosis in character, however, has allowed for a staggering number of different approaches and studies in Gawain.
The passage (130-202) of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight describes the appearance of a strange knight in King Arthur's court. The anonymous author of the epic describes the rider in great detail, emphasizing the importance of this character. The passage is intended to arouse readers' curiosity, and at the same time, to introduce the mighty danger that the main character, Sir Gawain, will have to face. Furthermore, the strange knight is shown to be a test or trial for King Arthur and his knights. Finally, the passage presents the actual dynamics of Arthur's court as incompatible with the poet's initial praising of nobility, justice and chivalric ideals.
The Legend of King Arthur is in comparison to The Epic of Gilgamesh because Arthur's closest companion was Merlin, and Gilgamesh's closest companion was Enkidu and neither Gilgamesh nor Arthur forgot their friends. Enkidu only came in contact with Gilgamesh after becoming a man. Enkidu released the animals from the hunter's traps when they ere caught, so to make him a man the prostitute slept with him so that the animals would be ashamed of him and reject him. King Arthur became aware of Merlin when he was a young man. When Arthur was born Merlin placed him in the care of Sir Ector, throughout his boyhood Arthur learned the ways of chivalry, knighthood and how to become a gentleman. At the tournament one day Arthur pulled Excalibur from the stone and this is what brought upon Arthur meeting Merlin once again. In The Legend of King Arthur, Merlin exclaimed, "it is the doom of men if they forget." Gilgamesh along with Enkidu together fought and killed Humbaba, protector of the Cedar forest, and the Bull of Heaven, sent as punishment to Gilgamesh for killing Humbaba. King Arthur nor Gilgamesh forgot their faithful friends.
The Court of King Arthur in the Tales of Lanval and Sir Gawain the Green Knight
Malory, Thomas, and Keith Baines.Malory's Le morte d'Arthur: King Arthur and the legends of the Round Table. 1962. Reprint, New York: New American Library, 2010.
Arthur is portrayed to be somewhat foolish and gullible in Book I along with Book IV, not in the sense that he is silly and imprudent, but in the sense that he is a pushover.
When Chretien de Troyes began his first Arthurian Romance, Erec et Enid, around 1170, the Arthurian legend had already spread throughout Western Europe, told by crusading armies in the Middle East. It is important to note that not only was the popularity of the Arthurian complex already a pan-European phenomenon, but the lines of communication between its courtly Franco-Norman audiences and its native Welsh sources were already well-established (Parker). Chretien is described as a poet, with an inferred clerical background, whose Arthurian projects were sponsored by the Houses of Champagne and Flanders, nominal vassals of the king of France. Hi...
"Arthurian Legends." U*X*L Encyclopedia of World Mythology. Vol. 1. Detroit: UXL, 2009. 120-124. Gale World History In Context. Web. 24 Feb. 2011.
Historians agree that the man called King Arthur had little or anything at allto do with the picture that we now associate the French poems with. The anecdotal character was mearly a perception of the perfect lord of the High Middle Ages when these sentiments were composed, not the 6th century warlord who effectively managed to keep the Saxons under control.