BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Arthur and the British Psyche

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
reidcourchie
16:37 / 05.07.01
Interested on people's opinions on this.

Does the mythological Arthur figure play an important part in the makeup of the national psyche (assuming for a moment that such a beast exists)? I should stress that this refers to the mythological Arthur and is not a question as to the existence of Arthur, or actual historical events. I am particularly interested to hear the response of members from outside of Britain.

Wether you believe Arthur does or does not play an important part in the British national psyche, what do you think can be learnt about Britain from the Arthurian myth? Again I would be interested in hearing comparisons with other cultures and their myth.

Can the mythological stories of a culture be said to have a positive or negative effect on the cultures the come from, or is that purely subjective and depending on the propaganda use that individuals or societies put them too? (For example the Nazis use of the Siegfried stories and indeed Arthurian myth.)
 
 
grant
14:07 / 06.07.01
Malory consistently refers to his source as "the French book."

Figure that one out, nationalism fans....

Arthur might be a uniquely British version of an internationally known myth -- the sleeping king who will awaken in his country's time of need.
Well, that's one of the archetypes in the Arthur story. There are plenty of others.
 
 
SMS
16:51 / 06.07.01
Americans see Arthur as a symbol of freedom (the round table), and of the problems that arise from lust.

Puritans undoubtedly have had more influence on our culture than this one myth, and I would bet that the round table business is exaggerated over time as Britain and America place more emphasis on equality.

This is a case of the culture choosing and forming the myth in its image rather than the other way around.
 
 
FinderWolf
17:27 / 06.07.01
Interesting......as an American, I think of Arthur as the noble warrior-king, who unified the people of England at a time when a very scattered, "gang war" kind of mentality reigned. His mission was first to unite, then organize the kingdom, and add some class, honor, and nobility to it all by creating the Knights, and the Round Table. Didn't he also try to spread intellectual education as well as warrior education? I think he created a library and tried to encourage more people to become literate, as I recall.

Also, the whole 'child inherits the mantle of power' thing is a classic motif, as is the 'child destined to be a great leader who was hidden at birth with humble adoptive parents.' This last motif goes all the way back to Moses (except his adoptive parents weren't humble and poor).

(As a side note, I totally loved it when Haley Joel Osmond's character played Arthur in the movie THE SIXTH SENSE in the school play -- a great little metaphor for him coming into his own as a young man as the story progressed.)

At the same time, you've got 1) a coming-of-age story in Arthur, learning about the grey areas and complications of the world, 2) an amazing adventure story about a noble warrior's rise to power, and the battle against evil (Modred), and 3) a heart-wrenching romance in the archetypal triangle. Pretty damn jam-packed story, and a great one at that.

It's also notable that Camelot pretty much went down in flames after a relatively short time. A brief reign for democracy, order, and honor, destroyed by the complications of life, and by greed, lust, and power-play.

Interestingly enough, this theme is very prevalent in American culture.....the idealized society gets corrupted and struggles to hold onto some of the ideals and values that it was founded on (USA, anyone?).
 
 
grant
17:46 / 06.07.01
quote:Americans see Arthur as a symbol of freedom (the round table), and of the problems that arise from lust.

That's true, actually -- the Round Table is a lot more important in the American psyche than, say, the Grail quest.

And I was pretty surprised when I read the bit where Arthur conquers Rome. They simply leave that out of the summaries & abridgements you get over here. I wonder if that's true in Britain as well...


The best use of the Arthur story I found recently was one of Chris Chandler's spoken word pieces. It starts out being about a vision he had in a glass elevator in a grand hotel in Memphis and turns into this what's-wrong-with-America's-sprawling-soul meditation, and about how Elvis died.
Excess and constipation and the gated community is our own personal Graceland.
The Land and the King are One, he says.

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: grant ]
 
 
reidcourchie
21:44 / 09.07.01
Originally posted by Grant
"Arthur might be a uniquely British version of an internationally known myth -- the sleeping king who will awaken in his country's time of need."

At the risk of sounding pedantic, why "unique"? What makes the Arthurian myth uniquely British?

SMatthewStolte so you see the Arthurian myth as a morality tail on the dangers of adultery? I must admit I've always seen it as a very earthy, primal tail but that may be due to my own leanings and my selected readings on the matter and certainly it was not something that Mallory ever meant (though he was quite an "earthy" for want of a better term, charcter), as he wanted his chaste knights and heavily Normanised codes of chivalry which knights always seemed to fail to live up to. However the film Excalibur which follows the Mallory narritive, to me comes across as very pagan, despite all the plate armour and forsooths.

Hunterwolf, one of the interesting things about the Arthurian myth is that this equality, scholary pursuit, milk and honey for everyone only seems to come around as a result of a strong ultimatly dictatorial leader. Do you see this as dystopian? Or is that reading to much modern revisionist bollocks into what should be just a ripping yarn? I was interested to see the comparisons with America.

The round table vs the grail? From a personel perspective it seems to me that the kids books and what little you hear about it in school (especially for me as I went to primary school in Scotland so English/Wlsh heroes did not come high on the curriculum) and of course the classic early education in Arthurian myth Knights of the Round Table (?? Fifties Hollywood version, I think that's what it's called, Saturday afternoon TV matinee stock, use to watch it all the time as a kid, great stuff), the round table seemed to be emphasised until you were older and then you would be ready to hear about the grail.

Originally posted by Grant
"And I was pretty surprised when I read the bit where Arthur conquers Rome. They simply leave that out of the summaries & abridgements you get over here. I wonder if that's true in Britain as well..."

The Arthur conquering Rome bit of the myth has been picked up by relativly few people writing about Arthur (I think Mallory wrote about it but I'm not sure, it should be horribly clear that I am no expert on Arturian myth), the idea came from some very early history of Britain written by a chap called Geoffery of Monmouth which tells of Arthur conquering Rome. This is largely considered bollocks by most modern historian and seem to have been an excersise in propoganda.

I did like the Chris Chandler idea, very good. Who is Chris Chandler?

Thanks everyone for their response. I may be starting up a similar thread along more mystical lines in the magick forum.

Incidently if you had to define a British spirt, what would it be?
 
 
reidcourchie
21:52 / 09.07.01
This might seem like a strange question but should the myth of Arthur be more importan to the British than to the rest of the world?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
10:19 / 10.07.01
It might be worthwhile tracing a history of the myths to clear up some of the confusion...

The Arthurian myth cycle probably began as a set of legends surrounding a battle chieftain (dux bellorum) active in Britain in the seventh or eighth century. These legends became associated with the legends in the Mabinogion and other Celtic cycles - so that figures such as Geraint, Peredur et al can be associated with later Arthurian charcters such as Gareth and Percival de Gales. It's interesting to see that Gawain (Gwalchmai) still retains (in some of the retellings at any rate) strength which waxes and wanes with the sun, rather like Cuchulain.

These legends passed to the Continent and then back throughout the Middle Ages and became part of the chivalric literature of the time - hence the Lancelot story, which is French in origin - though the underpinnings of Celtic myth still remain, as in the legend of the Fisher King and his barren land (caused by a wound in his 'thigh'). The stories spread throughout Europe, hence 'Parzifal' and the tympanum on an Italian church (cannot remember which one, my sodding memory) which depicts Guinevere et al. Hence we have multiple retellings in different languages - Chretien de Troyes, Layamon, the Englsih metrical Morte Arthure, English prose romances, and Geoffrey of Monmouth's History - in the course of which different cycles became melded. The Roman conquest is, I think, part of the story of Macsen Wledig, and appears in some of the Brittanic stories.

So Malory was working from French sources - chivalric romances when he wrote his 'Morte d'Arthur', but there's no specific national source for the myth that has come down to us. Arthur is not specifically British in anything other than location - and the adoption of the legend as a national myth. Milton considered writing an epic on the 'Matter of Britain' before he plumped for the biblical story of Paradise Lost.

HunterWolf: I think you have been very much influenced by the T. H. White version of the story, which is largely concerned with 'Might is Right' and the problem of trying to make Might work for Right - which failed, of course; that's the source for the musical Camelot.

As for the sleeping king motif and Arthur being a uniquely British variant - I think it has a lot to do with the legend Of Bran, whose head is supposed to be buried under Tower Hill, and who will rise again in time of need.
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
10:21 / 10.07.01
quote:Originally posted by reidcourchie:
This might seem like a strange question but should the myth of Arthur be more importan to the British than to the rest of the world?Possibly, given the fact that the monarchy is still such a visible part of the makeup of the national identity? Maybe Arthurian legend gives people something to hope for: the return of the slumbering king, when the torpor of the current brace of royals will be broken?

I don't know if its especially relevant to the UK now; as the monarchy's role is diminished, so that they become more amusement-park attractions, then the legend becomes less important.

Perhaps someone who actually knows what they're on about could take over now...
 
 
grant
19:11 / 10.07.01
quote:Originally posted by reidcourchie:
Originally posted by Grant
"Arthur might be a uniquely British version of an internationally known myth -- the sleeping king who will awaken in his country's time of need."

At the risk of sounding pedantic, why "unique"? What makes the Arthurian myth uniquely British?

Well, the fact that Arthur, specifically, unified Britain, and did it in a way that seems related to the Magna Carta and all that -- an even alliance of lords around that Round Table.

I meant he's a specific instance of the legend.

Barbarossa is the only other one who comes immediately to mind -- Saxon knight, I think. German, at any rate. Long red beard. He's under one of the rivers.

There's more mentioned here: http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/sleep.html

And here: http://celt.net/Celtic/msg/mmmakers/mmmakers_I.html
quote:The German Siegfried, pierced by the thorn of winter, is sleeping until he shall be again called forth to fight. In Switzerland, by the Vierwald-stattersee, three Tells are awaiting the hour when their country shall again need to be delivered from the oppressor. Charlemagne is reposing in the Untersberg, sword in hand, waiting for the coming of Antichrist; Olger Danske similarly dreams away his time in Avallon; and in a lofty mountain in Thuringia, the great Emperor Yrederic Barbarossa slumbers with his knights around him, until the time comes for him to sally forth and raise Germany to the first rank among the kingdoms of the world. The same story is told of Olaf Tryggvesson, of Don Sebastian of Portugal, and of the Moorish King Boabdil. The Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, having taken refuge in a cave from the persecutions of the heathen Decius, slept one hundred and sixty-four years, and awoke to find a Christian emperor on the throne.


quote:Originally posted by Grant
"And I was pretty surprised when I read the bit where Arthur conquers Rome. They simply leave that out of the summaries & abridgements you get over here. I wonder if that's true in Britain as well..."

The Arthur conquering Rome bit of the myth has been picked up by relativly few people writing about Arthur (I think Mallory wrote about it but I'm not sure, it should be horribly clear that I am no expert on Arturian myth), the idea came from some very early history of Britain written by a chap called Geoffery of Monmouth which tells of Arthur conquering Rome. This is largely considered bollocks by most modern historian and seem to have been an excersise in propoganda.


It also seems to be tied to strained relations with the Catholic Church, but I'm not sure how the time works out. Malory's, what, early 1500s? Seems like that part of the story goes earlier than Luther and Henry VII, but I'm hazy right now.

quote:
I did like the Chris Chandler idea, very good. Who is Chris Chandler?


A slam poet & spoken word artist, touring around America.

Here's one site.

Here's another, even better one.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
11:00 / 11.07.01
Grant:
It also seems to be tied to strained relations with the Catholic Church, but I'm not sure how the time works out. Malory's, what, early 1500s? Seems like that part of the story goes earlier than Luther and Henry VII, but I'm hazy right now.

No, nothing to do with that. Malory wrote in a period between 1450 and 1470; Luther wrote the Wittenburg theses in 1517; and Henry VIII didn't begin the break with the Roman Church till 1529.

The Roman Arthurian tales are obscure in origin; Geoffrey of Monmouth drew on a variety of books and British traditions to compile his History, but it's also thought that he may well have made some of it up. I think the story takes a great deal from 'The Dream of Macsen Wledig', which is part of the Mabinogion - Macsen Wledig was an emperor who tarried away from Rome for too long and had to reconquer the city to regain his throne.

Anyway wherever it came from, the story in Geoffrey of Monmouth becomes part of Arthur's adventures in Europe, and turns up in the alliterative Morte Arthure as the story of the conflict between Arthur and Lucius - that's the source for the story in Malory.

But it's probably more interesting to consider what happens to the myth cycle *after* Malory - why it should have such staying power. I think that has a lot to do with Malory's very human version of the story, which is still readable and quite accessible (especially if you read a version with modernised spelling) - it's given the cycle a life beyond just being myth andd taken it into literature.

Also, there is just no comparable tradition in 'English' mythology (not Scots, Welsh or Irish).
 
 
grant
14:48 / 11.07.01
I had a feeling that's how the timeline worked out, but it just didn't seem right. Quite a bit of prefiguration there, then.

When I studied the book originally (more of a glancing blow, really -- a couple weeks of a longer course), much hay was made of the book as a kind of metaphorical history of the crusades; especially near the end of the book, there's a bit of an emphasis on people from the borders of Christendom (not to mention whatsished, Palomides, the virtuous Saracen). I was into links between Lancelot, Galahad and the Templar order -- the idea of monks who served God by fighting, the conflict between the worldly and sacred. I dug it.

So I think the story gets lasting power in part by being set up as a history.
 
 
reidcourchie
11:26 / 12.07.01
Macavity thanks for your history of the myths.

Posted by Macavity
"So Malory was working from French sources - chivalric romances when he wrote his 'Morte d'Arthur', but there's no specific national source for the myth that has come down to us. Arthur is not specifically British in anything other than location - and the adoption of the legend as a national myth."

Perhaps the Mallory part of the story but surely the earlier Mabinogion stories (which I'm more familiar with than L'Morte to be fair) are intrisicly British. From what little I know about the L'Morte it seems that a lot of the stories in their had their bases with the Mabinogion, wether Mallory took it from that or from another writer who had taken it from that. The once and future king part of the motif may be pretty common as Grant demonstrates (thanks for that Grant I hadn'r realised there was that many), but I would still see Arthur as a particulaly British myth.

Posted by Macavity
"As for the sleeping king motif and Arthur being a uniquely British variant - I think it has a lot to do with the legend Of Bran, whose head is supposed to be buried under Tower Hill, and who will rise again in time of need."

I'm not sure it's than clear cut. Whilst the figure of Bran almost certainly predates Arthur, they do sahre page time together. Bran's head was supposed to be buried (Near London I think, actually that doesn't seem right, no bugger it I can't remember.) and as long as it remained buried the kingdom would be safe. Arthure unearthed the head as he decided he should be the only one protecting Britain.

Originally posted by Rothkoid
"Possibly, given the fact that the monarchy is still such a visible part of the makeup of the national identity? Maybe Arthurian legend gives people something to hope for: the return of the slumbering king, when the torpor of the current brace of royals will be broken?"

Visible yes. Important to the makeup of the national psyche? Less sure. I think I would struggle to find someone who feels that their national identity is heavily influenced by the monarchy. I think of them largely as a cult of celebrity. It would seem a trivial thing to waste the Arthurian myth on compared to say unification, healing, fighting (choose your own) evil, that kind of thing.

More later I should probably at least pretend I'm working.
 
 
matsya
12:13 / 12.07.01
this is cool - I was just talking about arthur with a friend this weekend, but i know very little. why do i have this idea that arthur's stories are welsh in origin rather than english? i know that's probably wrong - all i know comes from sharing a house with a woman eight years ago who studied a course in arthurian legend.

and - when does merlin turn up?

m.
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
12:34 / 12.07.01
quote:Originally posted by reidcourchie:
Important to the makeup of the national psyche? Less sure. I think I would struggle to find someone who feels that their national identity is heavily influenced by the monarchy. Well, maybe in terms of outside perception? I don't know. As long as I've had a picture of the UK in my head, royalty's been a part of it. Whether that's because I come from a Commonwealth (just) country or no, I'd say that there's at least some influence there, even if you're sticking up "Why don't you die, Queen Mum?" stickers on the tube, y'know?

I just feel that it's a relevant mapping: Arthur is royalty, and there's royalty in (limited) effect today. True, they may not be as strong an influence as might've been the case previously, but I think it's still a relevant thing. It would be trivial to use the myth as an "are they doing enough for their money?" yardstick, but there has to be some link there.

[tangent] I seem to remember a show about some previously-lost Nazi colour film of some kind of ceremony, attended by Hitler, in which there was some distinctly Arthurian imagery - people dressed as knights and stuff - is there a risk that the imagery of Arthurian legend (if not the stories, necessarily) could be used in a fascistic way? Admittedly, it's probably more Siegfried, but still... It's interesting, actually - I'm reading The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay at the moment, and there's an observation about comic book characters/iconography that basically suggests that it's only by dint of their heroes being on the side of "good" that prevents them from being perceived as fascistic.[/tangent]

Nice to know I'm not the only one feigning work. Heh.

And duh, I should read threads more rigorously before I post. Pah.

[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: Rothkoid ]
 
 
Ierne
13:36 / 12.07.01
Bran's head was supposed to be buried (Near London I think, actually that doesn't seem right, no bugger it I can't remember.)

Right where the Tower of London is now. That's why they keep ravens there to this day. (Bran is/was a deity of corvidian nature.)
 
 
grant
14:02 / 12.07.01
quote:Originally posted by Rothkoid:
I just feel that it's a relevant mapping: Arthur is royalty, and there's royalty in (limited) effect today. True, they may not be as strong an influence as might've been the case previously, but I think it's still a relevant thing. It would be trivial to use the myth as an "are they doing enough for their money?" yardstick, but there has to be some link there.

I remember reading an article about Prince Charles, speculating what name he might choose when/if crowned king.
He could go for Arthur - it's one of his middle names.

quote:
[tangent] I seem to remember a show about some previously-lost Nazi colour film of some kind of ceremony, attended by Hitler, in which there was some distinctly Arthurian imagery - people dressed as knights and stuff


Probabbly Teutonic Knights (can't remember the proper name of the order).
Maybe Hospitallers/Knights of Malta -- the folks who competed with the Templars for glory. Still very active in Germany as a charitable outfit.

[qb] quote: - is there a risk that the imagery of Arthurian legend (if not the stories, necessarily) could be used in a fascistic way? Admittedly, it's probably more Siegfried, but still... [qb]

The story of Tristram and Isolde is part of Le Morte D'Arthur, and was made into an opera by Wagner (the one with "Liebestod" -- the "love-death" aria).

The Ring Cycle is more straight-up German Aryan wunderkind stuff. Unfortunately, most of what I know about that is either half-remembered from childhood readings or comes from the P.Craig Russell comic book adaptations.
(Bits of it clearly inspired Tolkien, too, for fans of nationalist/fascist undercurrents in LOTR or the Silmarillion.)

[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: grant ]
 
 
reidcourchie
16:13 / 12.07.01
Originally posted by Matsya
"I was just talking about arthur with a friend this weekend, but i know very little. why do i have this idea that arthur's stories are welsh in origin rather than english?"

This has come up in both this and the sister thread in the Magick (which I'm begining to get confused with this one, so you may have to bare with me). Yes the origins of the Arthur myth are very probably Welsh/West Country. I've been using the word British rather than English (and as a Scot we do tend to whine when people use them interchangeably). I don't know how the Welsh feel about sharing their mythology but they are part of Ynys Prydain and the permiation of the myth I would say would make it British. Also much of the Welsh population of the time came from Celts who lived in England moving away from successive invasions of first the Romans and then later the Saxons.

Perhaps I am taking liberties however are their any Welsh on the board who feel that the Arthurian myth has been robbed from that? Also what about the Hollywoodisation of the myth? (Though if you get me started on First Knight we could be here a while.

But good point when does Merlin turn up? I thought that he was a figure that came with the later French romances, perhaps inspired by Talesin (probably spelt wrong) but I have heard that there is evidence that he may have been a real person. Wishful thinking? Certainly one of my favorite characters in Arhturian myth.



Originally posted by Rothkoid

"I just feel that it's a relevant mapping: Arthur is royalty, and there's royalty in (limited) effect today. True, they may not be as strong an influence as might've been the case previously, but I think it's still a relevant thing. It would be trivial to use the myth as an "are they doing enough for their money?" yardstick, but there has to be some link there."

I take your point and sorry if I was being dissmissive, I think somehow I've got into my head that Arthur is some kind of everyman figure that we can all identify with. Also several of the writers I've read who handle the stories have played down the royal part of his character, certainly what little historical evidence there is would suggest that he was the leader of a warband rather than a king. Certainly there is a lot to be learned about the responsibilities of both royalty and leadership (and to my slightly biased views the Celts had some very good ideas about those kind of things). However I personally like the idea of the myth being about equality, unification, fighting evil, human weakness and the espousal of education and welfare.

Originally posted by Rothkoid
"It's interesting, actually - I'm reading The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay at the moment, and there's an observation about comic book characters/iconography that basically suggests that it's only by dint of their heroes being on the side of "good" that prevents them from being perceived as fascistic."

Not at all a tangent. Something I mentioned briefly in the other thread, one of the things that I ma quite uncomfortable with in a modern context of the Arthurian myth is the facistic subtext of it. We're back to King Mob talking about shooting people who didn't agree with the Invisibles. You're free to have a wonderful life as long as you don't step out of line, but who could possibly want to step out of line in this utopian Camelot?

The footage you're talking about I don't know specifically however the Nazi occult organisation (the Shule Society?) owned a castle somewhere in Bavaria I believe. Now as well as searching for the Spear of Longuinus, looking for the supermen Atlantean ancestors at the poles they were very taken with the Arthurian myth to the point that they had a room in their castle for when Arthur returned and of course naturally joined forces with the master race. I should point out that this is a half remembered documentary so if anyone has more info please feel free to correct me. This kind of thing however is the thing that scares me about the power of the myth.

Grant, there was an order of knights called the Teutonic Knights, the came later on in the crusades awell after the Templars and the Hospataliers (who may have been German in origin as well) where formed. The main competition during the 2nd crusade (Lionheart's the one that evryone knows about) was between the Hospataliers and the Templars. On the way to the holy land Richard sought to score points be connecting himself to the Arthurian myth by presenting the king of Scicily with a sword he claimed was Excalibur.

Thank you Ierne I'm an idiot. I should have remembered that.
 
 
Ierne
17:47 / 12.07.01
It's hardly idiotic to start up two wonderful threads like this, eh? I was feeling foolish because I didn't realize there were two threads at first. We could discuss the multicultural Britain factor here better than there...

Although I do agree that the Roman influence brought multicultural diversity to the Isle of Britain (this came up in the other thread, if anyone's confused ), I'm not so sure those cultural variants are reflected in the Arthurian cycle. To be fair, I've not read the cycle with an eye to the Imperial Roman diasporic influence and how it would affect or influence modern diasporic people in Britain today. It would be really cool to find, say, a Mithraic influence or a comparison of The Lady of the Lake with say, Cybele or Isis or Juno Opulentia or other major Roman female deities of sovereignity.

But would an Egyptian influence matter to, say, asylum seekers from Africa today? And could our resurrected regent use that influence to bring said asylum seekers in league with (for example) native-born Celts?

What if Arthur came back as a black woman? or a Hijra? (That was a long shot – I suspect there are Hijras in the Indian population of Britain, but I've not seen any myself.) How would that affect the unification process?

All these questions...sheesh.

[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: Ierne ]
 
 
grant
18:23 / 12.07.01
Hmm. As far as nationality/claim to the throne goes, it's important to remember that Arthur was a bastard orphan.
Not of "pure" lineage to begin with, although a direct descendant of the former king.
 
 
matsya
05:01 / 13.07.01
quote:Originally posted by grant:
Hmm. As far as nationality/claim to the throne goes, it's important to remember that Arthur was a bastard orphan.
Not of "pure" lineage to begin with, although a direct descendant of the former king.

That's one of the Joseph Campbell "22 steps in the hero's journey" thing, isn't it? the king born of unremarkable parentage? Jesus Christ the carpenter's son, Krsna the cowherd, Anakin Skywalker the slave-boy?

Sorry about the skywalker reference...

m.
 
 
reidcourchie
06:55 / 13.07.01
Ierne some of your post was a bit over my head however. As far as ethnicity and British national identity go my opinions or thus. Arthur is a British character and I beleive part of our heritage, anyone who is British regardless of there ethnicity has a right to take an interest if they want to. My definition of who is British is anyone who lives in the country and wants to consider themselves British (as well as any ex-pats). I like the idealised American form of ethnicity/nationality (African American etc), I know it's not all sweetnes and roses as far as race relations go in America but the I just like the idea of you culture/heritage and nationality being strongly identified. If however you move to this country and don't feel you want to identify yourself as British then that's fine too. One of the things I was trying to find a way to ask was that do people think that the Arthurian legends are accessible to ethnic minorities?

That's a bit confusing, what Im trying to say is regardless of wether there were Hijras in Britain during Romano/Celtic times if there are Hijras here living in Britain now then the Arthur legends are for them too, if they want it.

And excuse my appalling ignorance but who are the Hijras?

As for coming back as a black woman? I think that part of the unification process would involve explaining to racists the history of the country they pertain to love so much (And can someone please explain to me the criteria for WASP superiority because I just do not see it? Is it purely a number thing?). A black woman would be cool, I feel that she would have a harder time of it than a white male because she would have to deal with the mabient racism and sexism of this country.

Joseph Campbell another Author on my must read list. Matsya, I have no problems with the Skywalker reference, though I'm not a huge fan of the films I did at one point consider doing a compare and contrast of the two myths. Perhaps in 1500 years people will be having conversations like this about Star Wars, not that we don't have conversations l;ike this about Star Wars anyway, oh you know what I mean.

Apologies for the slightly confused and rambling nature of this post, it early.
 
 
reidcourchie
07:07 / 13.07.01
I'm not entirely sure and I'msure there are people better equipped to answer this than I but I think the Roman Empire did have contact wih India.
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
10:09 / 13.07.01
According to this page, Romans did, at least, have trade links with India; gemstones were bought. I'm unclear exactly on how close to India in an empire sense they got, though.
 
 
grant
14:57 / 13.07.01
Were Hannibal's elephants African or Asian?

(I know he came from Carthage, but I didn't think African elephants ranged that far north. And I know they'd be much harder to train than the Asian variety.)

I think the Arthur story isn't really concerned with your ethnic background (witness Palomides, the outsider, versus Gareth, Gawain, and Mordred -- all blood relatives, some heroes, some villains).
It's really about your ability to hold true to your avowed oath to God, king and country.

It's much more about national borders than ethnic backgrounds.
 
 
Ierne
17:08 / 13.07.01
Sorry if my last post confused people. I found an article on Hijras for you, reidcourchie.

One of the things I was trying to find a way to ask was that do people think that the Arthurian legends are accessible to ethnic minorities?
I was trying to ask that too...but your way is more concise!

I'm not so sure that the legends are accessible to nonwhiteand/or diasporic Brits in the same way that it would be to Anglo-Saxon/Celtic Brits. (By diasporic I mean people who live in Britain now but come from other areas of the world, usually for reasons of social/political/religious antagonism in their country of origin.) There are many wonderful aspects to the Arthurian legend that speak beyond the specifics of its Northwestern European background, and can be enjoyed no matter where you come from. But I'm not convinced Arthur is all that meaningful for 21st Century Britain.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
20:38 / 13.07.01
To answer the question about Merlin... he's another of they tricky buggers. Basically, he can be identified to some extent with the Welsh bard Myrddin, who is said to have made prophesies like Merlin. But again, the chief source for Merlin's life is Geoffrey of Monmouth who (according to the Oxford Companion to Eng Lit - that's the reference library by my computer) used Nennius' story of Ambrosius as a basis for the Vita Merlini... Merlin then becomes an important figure in the French Arthurian romances and has a couple of cycles devoted to his story.

Taliesin was also a bard, but a different one, who comes up in the Saxon genealogies and is the supposed author of the Book of Taliesin - that's the one Graves goes over in The White Goddess, IIRC...

The Welsh origins of the myth - yes, they are but, as reid says, really only insofar as Wales became the last outpost of the Britons in the face of the Saxon invasions. I think it's fair to regard the myths as 'Britonic' rather than Welsh in origin.

Ierne: there was a Mithraic influence in Britain - he was one of the most popular gods over here. The Romans hd very little religious difficulty in britain becasue it was easy to identify Roman gods with local deities (because of common roots, I think) and Mithras was the equivalent of the Sun-gods (Lugh/Llew was the chief British one, I think).

I don't know about the others, but I bet if you read The White Goddess you'll find they're all connected somehow (even if only in Graves' overheated brain...)
 
 
MJ-12
17:17 / 14.07.01
quote:Originally posted by grant:
Were Hannibal's elephants African or Asian?


I'm seeming to recall that they were a 3rd, now extinct, species. Mauritanean?
 
 
reidcourchie
06:15 / 16.07.01
Posted by Ierne
"But I'm not convinced Arthur is all that meaningful for 21st Century Britain."

I've just spent the weekend in the Huddersfield/Leeds/Bradford area. There was little trouble as far as I am aware this weekend (I could be wrong), I was however hearing all the stories about the rioting and there was definitly a rather unpleasant atmosphere there, more rioting is expected and apparently it looks possible that Birmingham is going to go up as well. To a romantic like myself it would appear that although it's not the answer in it's self, that we couls all learn from the symbolism of the round table and the grail. (I realise this is a kind of trite answer to your post and doesn't negate your point.)

Originally posted by Macivity
"Ierne: there was a Mithraic influence in Britain - he was one of the most popular gods over here. The Romans hd very little religious difficulty in britain becasue it was easy to identify Roman gods with local deities (because of common roots, I think) and Mithras was the equivalent of the Sun-gods (Lugh/Llew was the chief British one, I think)."

The cult of Mithras apparently gave Christianinty a run for it's money in very nearly becoming the dominant religion in Western Europe. As far as I am aware Lugh was largely an Irish god, Dagdha I think was the head of the panteon, oh hold on now I'm confusing myself. Bran? I'll stop now.

Mauritanean elphants, cool.
 
 
grant
16:09 / 16.07.01
quote:Originally posted by MJ-12:
I'm seeming to recall that they were a 3rd, now extinct, species. Mauritanean?


Dude!
 
 
Frances Farmer
15:45 / 17.07.01
I have this odd memory of posting in this thread... but it seems.. there is no post.

Strange.
 
 
grant
16:42 / 17.07.01
So -- to what extent can an ethnic minority be considered "British"?

In America, it's much easier. Lately, we just slap "-American" as a suffix on whatever national origin a person has and let it go.
(Not the best system: technically, it makes me, or at least my parents, "African-American" although we're all pretty white.)

In Spanish-speaking areas in North America, the term "Anglo" is used pretty widely (although not universally) to refer to English-speaking whites. But in England, is there such a thing as being, I dunno, "Anglo-African"? Or is the fact that the language is given the same name as the land a big problem?
 
 
Ierne
18:23 / 17.07.01
In America, it's much easier. Lately, we just slap "-American" as a suffix on whatever national origin a person has and let it go. – grant

I think it's a tad more complex than that, because there's a process of assimilation that indiviuduals may or may not choose to go through.

Each culture within the United States (for example) will contain individuals with varying degrees of desire and/or ability to assimilate into American Culture. Much of that may depend on their financial status, education and various other factors. But those individuals who choose to assimilate will consider themselves American first. Those who cannot or choose not to assimilate will show more loyalty to their country of origin, and being in America is a means to an end.

The myths associated with American culture (say, Daniel Boone or the Founding Fathers) will mean more to those who have assimilated than to those who have not. I would think that a similar situation would be the case in Britain.
 
 
reidcourchie
18:36 / 17.07.01
Frances you posted in the "once and Future King" thread in the magick. Although dealing with the Arthurian myth as this one is it's about the hypothetical return of Arthur. This thread is regarding the imapct of the Arthurian myth on the British psyche. There's a lot of crossover obviously but hopefully they're not to samey.

Grant, Afro Carribean is the only suffix I can think of but that does not nessecarily connect them to the land. I think I may have already posted (might be on the magick thread I am becoming confused) I like the American model of African American, Italian American etc. I think the differance is that wrongly the British do not see themselves as the immigrant country we most obviously are. I'm not sure if many ethnic minorities see themselves as British I suspect not and this may be the cause of our current problems. Largely they don't see themselves as British because of the almost constant racism they experience. Not just from verbal and physical attacks but from an almost constant level of ambient racism, looks they receive, peoples attitudes, access to jobs, the stupid articles run in many newspapers and of course from the TV. One of the most telling examples of this is when Darkus Howe an Afro Carribean journalist/television host asked the then chairman of the conservative party if he (Howe) was English the chairman (Tebbitt?) said that he could be British but never English, utter bollocks. Not sure what my point is and how it pertains to Arthur, may just be ranting.

Something else I've been thinking on. Oftemn I've heard that for Britian to be united what we need is an external enemy (often the Germans). Is this a rather sad truth?

This is a point of pedantry however the language is English the land is Britain, England is only one of four parts of Britain.
 
 
grant
14:55 / 18.07.01
I know about the English/British thing -- I'm wondering if Arthur counts as thoroughly "British" though. I know there were problems with Cornwall in the Morte, and I can't remember what, if anything, was said about Ireland. Scotland's in there too, but I can't recall who's in charge there and if they were regarded as allies or what.

"Afro-Caribbean" is a term I've run into around here, but it strikes me as odd, if I think about it. "Caribbean" actually refers to the Carib Indians. They're long gone, if I recall. Odd.

quote:Ierne: Each culture within the United States (for example) will contain individuals with varying degrees of desire and/or ability to assimilate into American Culture. Much of that may depend on their financial status, education and various other factors. But those individuals who choose to assimilate will consider themselves American first. Those who cannot or choose not to assimilate will show more loyalty to their country of origin, and being in America is a means to an end.

Yeah, I guess that's true -- but the choice is there. I mean, the founding myth is of "our" arrival on Plymouth Rock (despite the fact that the Spanish had a thriving system of missions and forts from Florida to California at the time...).

America is a place where people arrive to renew themselves (and this might even tie into stories about Hy Breasil, Prospero's Island or other "lands to the West"). If Arthur is said to have the same foundational quality to England (or Britain) as the Pilgrims do here, what does that say about the idea of the nation? A consolidation of warring states, built on shifting sands of alliegiance and desire? A place of vows of loyalty rather than reinvention?
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply