Knights & Knaves Alehouse

I do not think that these things are necessarily mutually exclusive, so I am fine with it as things have developed. Mind, I do find that Guinevere's fickleness prompts the strongest emotion in me. When she is Mordred's victim it is easier to accept, but less interesting. That the whole realm is brought down by the infidelity of the queen is at once both alarming and revealing of the instability of its foundations.

Briefly, I agree with Steve’s main point, and the cowardly/weak/foolish aspects of Arthur’s character are probably modeled after King Mark’s.

I think that, for all intents and purposes, Geoffrey of Monmouth and Chrétien de Troyes are the originators of Arthurian Legend as we know it, and if you’re going back before that to find a “real” Arthur you’re really looking for a sort of ur-Arthur. According to the one, Guinevere sleeps with Mordred (i.e., willingly), and according to the other, she sleeps with Lancelot. So, she was always an adulteress. It doesn’t always look bad on Arthur, so that’s not entirely the point, but it is a popular topic.

The essence of the Arthur myth isn't to be found in the earliest known written record. Arthur is the Hero of a Thousand Faces.

Unlike Robin Hood or Little John, who probably were historical people, I don't see any reason to think Arthur was historical. Nor do I believe Arthur was the invention of someone writing a book.

Arthur is probably a composite of oral stories being invented and mashed together by various unknown storytellers, stories crafted to appeal to their audiences by appealing to their hopes and dreams. Arthur is the nostalgia for a return to the good ol' days that never were.

The main character in the Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot triangle is Lancelot. Lancelot is the noble hero with the fatal flaw. Arthur is passive. Guinevere is just another person committing adultery due to being attracted to the new hotness (not particularly novel or interesting). The real source of tension and interest is within the person of Lancelot. There is the tension between love of friend and romantic love. Duty to king, law, and society vs. duty to one's desires.

But Arthur is the main character, not Lancelot. Arthur made Lancelot famous and not the other way around. You can completely remove the Lance and Guin love affair and the story of Arthur remains the same.

Arthur didn't become such a popular myth by being weak and passive. It was precisely because Arthur was the opposite of these things that popularized the introduction of the Lancelot and Guinevere affair. You can't tear down the hero without first building him up.

I don't see a problem with the main Arthurian characters not being flawless heroes... The Troubadours were the original romantic people, the original rockstars if you like... The Arthurian stories were as much about tragic love as mighty deeds...

These stories are supposed to make us uncomfortable...

I like the Arthur portrayed in the sources before Chrétien de Troyes. Geoffrey of Monmouth's Arthur is who I immediately think of when Arthur is mentioned.

Falconer wrote: Briefly, I agree with Steve’s main point, and the cowardly/weak/foolish aspects of Arthur’s character are probably modeled after King Mark’s.

I really do not see those character traits in any significant Arthurian literature.

Falconer wrote: I think that, for all intents and purposes, Geoffrey of Monmouth and Chrétien de Troyes are the originators of Arthurian Legend as we know it, and if you’re going back before that to find a “real” Arthur you’re really looking for a sort of ur-Arthur. According to the one, Guinevere sleeps with Mordred (i.e., willingly), and according to the other, she sleeps with Lancelot. So, she was always an adulteress. It doesn’t always look bad on Arthur, so that’s not entirely the point, but it is a popular topic.

The treachery of Guinevere is very important from a Christian point of view, I think, as she personalises the sins that lead to the downfall of the kingdom, which is the core story of Christianity [sin, punishment, redemption].

I like the Cornwell story and the Excalibur movie. I also like the idea of Arthur as a smith king who @drew the sword from a stone by forging it.
's a bit more of a robber baron.
In the original Welsh myth he's a lot less pure and more of a classic pagan hero. What's really remarkable is that a sworn enemy of the English has been adopted as one of their greatest mythic heroes.

It’s perhaps uncoincidental that his rise to popularity occurred after the Norman conquest, perhaps even as a bit of anti-Saxon propaganda.

But I think the real popularity explosion had to do with Perceval and the Grail, between Crusader furor and Chrétien’s masterpiece being left unfinished with a laundry list of uncompleted quests. This invited countless sequels and expansions, which account for a good bulk of the Arthurian literature of the medieval period.

The Arthurian myth is definitely bound up in the post-Norman conquest environment, but Monmouth's pseudo-chronicle was wildly popular outside of that context too; the number of surviving manuscripts and translations attest to that. Of course the romances that began to appear afterwards also enjoyed their own popularity, but poems like the Alliterative Morte Arthure demonstrate that there was an awareness of genre distinction. Although the crusades transformed the role of violence in Christian culture, I doubt there exists any significant link between the crusades and the popularity of the Arthurian cycle.

I'm fine with the "great king yet weak man" take on Arthur, I think it makes him more believable as a human being and fits the tone of the stories that portray him as such.
However my favourite version is the Mabinogion's: Arthur and his knights are more akin to supernatural beings than to common mortals.
The Mabinogion has a very different tone than Mallory or Chretien de Troyes, though.

artikid wrote:However my favourite version is the Mabinogion's: Arthur and his knights are more akin to supernatural beings than to common mortals.
The Mabinogion has a very different tone than Mallory or Chretien de Troyes, though.

I love, love, love The Mabinogion, including of course “Culhwch and Olwen,” which is an absolute treasure. It differs in many ways, of course, from later tradition—mainly in the very Welsh feel?—, however, arguably the main device of Arthur’s court as a nexus from which heroes set forth and to which they return is very in-line with Chrétien and his continuators.

It’s part of what leads me to suspect that not Chrétien but Geoffrey who is the innovator and outlier from the mainline Arthur tradition. The mythological Arthur sends his heroes (including his brother and nephews) and sometimes goes himself on quests to the underworld to plunder treasures and rescue captives (including his wife) and has a final showdown Mordred at Camlann. He’s basically the king of heaven.

The pseudo-Historical Arthur of Geoffrey is a patchwork of Riothamus and Ambrosius Aurelianus: campaigning in Gaul, repelling Saxons at Badon Hill, and retiring to Avalon.