What Did I Just Read?

When I opened the document to read this excerpt from Romance of Arthur, I honestly was not sure what I was reading. I couldn't tell if I was being introduced to the original texts about King Arthur, whether Wilhelm was trying to prove that Arthur was or was not a real figure, or if he was trying to critique the authors as the writings morphed from being more historical to fantasy. There were moments where things were more factual, especially given the very first sentences of the chapter. "The romantic legend of King Arthur and his knights of the Round Table seems more and more to have had some foundation in history."(p.1) Based on that sentence alone I am thinking that the document is going to talk about the historical basis that the legend has. Then things shift greatly a few pages later when other fanatical things are happening like his son's grave never being the same length whenever it's measured or Arthur taking out over 900 soldiers with one swing of his sword. I was bewildered to say the least. Not a bad article since it does have the original texts in it which is helpful, but some clarity on the author's point would have been nice.

King Arthur in the Latin Chronicles: History or Fiction

As I read “Arthur in the Latin Chronicles”, the historical text becomes questionable overtime. The readings feel more like fiction than history because of Arthur's experiences and life. He has survived and won many battles. Giraldus describes King Arthur's grave in an unrealistic way. When Arthur’s body was found, his second wife was buried with him. His wife’s hair was perfectly intact and fresh but the moment a “monk greedily” picked it up, the hair disintegrated (pg6). It seems unrealistic for hair to look alive and intact when untouched. The fact that it was still golden instead of grey did not seem realistic either unless his wife died at a young age. The description of Arthur’s bones were very dramatic because he described them as “huge” compared to the tallest man that was buried there (pg7). Giraldus most likely described Arthur this way because of how he himself views Arthur. He was not just a King but also a warrior. Arthur was like no other man; he was invincible since his body displayed many scars and lethal wounds. 

By the People, For the people?

"Meanwhile, aside from the chronicles, which were written by men of the church, which were often Germanic rather then Celtic in their sympathies, the myth of Arthur grew where he properly belonged: among the common people who had been displaced in Wales and Cornwall and who were looking desperately for a messianic figure of salvation."(7)

This quote is significant to me because it shows how Arthur was truly developed by the people. There were a couple of different historical authors mentioned in the article, but mainly Arthur's legend grew among the people that Arthur himself supposedly defended and protected. To me it makes sense that Arthur's fame would grow among the people who he would later become an inspiration too.

The Evolution of King Arthur Writers

The writers of King Arthur stories (fiction or fact) grow more enlightened with passing time: "Work done in the 1980s  by Geoffrey Ashe and others has shown that behind the puzzling traditions we may glimpse the figure of a known British leader" (7).