From jmpfund@bgnet.bgsu.edu Sun Sep 10 12:46:40 2000 Received: from mxu4.u.washington.edu (mxu4.u.washington.edu [140.142.33.8]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.05/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id MAA77480 for ; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:46:39 -0700 Received: from sp07.notesnet.bgsu.edu (sp07.notesnet.bgsu.edu [129.1.7.7]) by mxu4.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.02/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id MAA32593 for ; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:46:39 -0700 Received: from [129.1.190.92] ([129.1.190.92]) by sp07.notesnet.bgsu.edu (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.2b) with ESMTP id 2000091015435129:1546 ; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 15:43:51 -0400 X-Sender: jmpfund@popj.bgsu.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <39BA4707.6C999EF2@charm.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 15:48:42 -0400 To: classics@u.washington.edu From: "James M. Pfundstein" Subject: Re: The NTD virus (was: ... London Times) - long X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on MAIL03/SERVER/BGSU(Release 5.0.2b |December 16, 1999) at 09/10/2000 03:43:51 PM, Serialize by Router on MAIL03/SERVER/BGSU(Release 5.0.2b |December 16, 1999) at 09/10/2000 03:43:56 PM, Serialize complete at 09/10/2000 03:43:56 PM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 4:24 AM -0400 9/10/2000, Christopher Robbins wrote (in part): >>Dr Baillie also cited the death of King Arthur, which is dated to 537, >>539 and 542 in various works [...] > > > >There is not a shred of evidence that a King Arthur ever existed, and >Geoffrey of Monmouth's elaborate romantic fictions, composed six >centuries later in his _Historia regnum Britanniae_, are nothing but the >combination of his imagination, his pro-Breton sentiments, and what >appears to be his father's name, Arturus. As this was a common Breton >name at that time (though not with the Welsh), it has been inferred >that Geoffrey was of Breton descent, which may have contributed to his >sympathy with the ancient Britons. Like the Romans before them, the >Anglo-Saxons had first to contend with the native Britons, mostly those >who had not been subsumed into the Roman world of the Britannia >province. These battles appear to have been fierce indeed, if >intermittent. But again like the Romans, the A/S kingdoms eventually >prevailed and drove their Briton challengers back into the >so-called Celtic fringe, with Offa's dyke standing in lieu of the Hadrian >and Antonine walls. ----------------- It's certainly true that anyone who takes Geoffrey of Monmouth's account as history in the modern sense probably also believes that Duke Astolfo flew to the moon to search for mad Orlando's wits. But skepticism regarding the historicity of *Orlando Furioso* doesn't justify the inference that Charlemagne never lived. If the evidence for Arthur's historical existence is slight, no more than a shred or two, it does exist. See, for instance, a temperate scholarly book by archaeologist Leslie Alcock, *Arthur's Britain*, published sometime in the 70s. At the very least, Alcock demonstrates there were traditions about Arthur independent of Geoffrey the Mouth. The English themselves were aware of some Romanized Britons who strove to resist the Anglo-Saxon barbarians: see Bede's *Historia Ecclesiastica* 1.16, on the career of Ambrosius [n.b.] Aurelianus. JM("Morholt")P .