Wart unknowingly becomes king even though he does not want the throne. In the other texts we have read the king wants the power of king and gets the power deliberately; are there any instances in which a ruler does not want to be king or does not know that he will become king because of his actions?
At one point King Arthur talks about how animals live in harmony because they know no boundaries. Are there any parallels that can be drawn from this and the tales of Hero's we read who have push past previously extant boundaries (i.e. Alexander's deeds exceeding these of his ancestors or exploring unknown lands in the Alexander Romance)? How does King Arthur's thoughts on boundaries relate to the conquests of other hero's we've read about in class?
In the TH White reading, they mention "Purple Emperors" (p272) what were/are they? I also thought it was interesting to see a return of the bow that cannot be drawn.
Jordann, I think that TH White is playing up the ideal of Arthur but showing that if such a man ever existed he would not fully live up to the ideal, though it would be important just that he tried. Why? Because he would set a precedent, a model to follow, if history remembered him and his ideals, then they (and he) would never die but rather become a part of posterity. It is similar to the way we sometimes view the founding fathers of America or how the Greeks looked back to Heracles as a benefactor of mankind, a suppressor of tyrants and a liberator. Of course, White has created a completely fictional Arthurian narrative set vaguely in the high middle ages (perhaps 12th century), not in the supposedly real time period of the 6th century. This is, I think, a way to tell us that his Arthur is literary and ideal, not real, not meant to be understood as a particular historical man but rather as man in general or at least as a symbol for the man who strives for perfection. In part to, White's anachronistic chronology is a nod to the many high medieval versions of the Arthur story from which White drew his inspiration and to which he alludes (Notice his title is a translation of Arthur's supposed epitaph as given by Mallory). In other words, he is saying "My Arthur is more like their Arthur than some real historical person."
Sara, Remember Numa and Lycurgus both were reluctant to accept kingships. In fact, Lycurgus never did. The idea is that the wise man is reluctant to undertake the problems and is not lured by the desire for power. It is a common enough theme. Of course, Christ similarly told of the futility of such earthly power, and other wise figures (of history and fiction) have had similar messages.
Maeve, You are very right that the whole idea of boundaries (that can be passed) is important for these heroic figures. If you want to equal or do better than those who have gone before, you must equal or surpass the limits that they reach. Alexander did this by invading other lands and often killing the people who lived there. By imagining that Heracles or Dionysus had been there before, he could claim that he and the Greeks had an ancestral claim to the land. He could also use the idea that might is right (remember the story about his advisor telling him whatever the king does is just). Some philosophers and religious wise men of the ancient world certainly thought that the whole world should be viewed as one and talked about the community of mankind in general. We still do this today, but then and now we have not quit using boundaries--if anything our boundaries are even more set today. White's Arthur discovered that men were just not ready for such a step yet. Too many people today are warped by the previous genreation who were in turn warped by the generation before that, back to Cain and Abel (so to speak). As far as heroes that we have read about, Numa is one who led no military campaigns to surpass or expand boundaries. Nor were there any attacks on Rome in his time because they were so pious.
Shannon, Butterflies, I think. Yes, of course Little John was a giant figure and bowman, I think that only John and Robin Hood could manage to draw his bow. Of course, though Arthur fails there, his success at drawing the sword from the stone is of the same sort as Heracles son Scythes who draws the bow, Theseus retrieving his father's sword from under the huge stone, and Telemachus being the only one who can (almost) string Odysseus' bow. Good point on Numa and Lycurgus as I noted above.
I thought it was very interesting to read the compilation of historical views. The fact that some historians doubt his existence while others praise him is an interesting paradox. This is reminiscent of Romulus and the ancient Kings of Rome.
Good point, I particularly like Ranulf Higden's comments but I guess I am just a skeptic. I like to read the fantastic accounts of Arthur but I don't view them as history in any sense.
Jordann Markowitz
ReplyDeleteDid Arthur tell the page why he had created the round table so that not only would he be immortalized but his ideas as well?
Sara Welish
ReplyDeleteWart unknowingly becomes king even though he does not want the throne. In the other texts we have read the king wants the power of king and gets the power deliberately; are there any instances in which a ruler does not want to be king or does not know that he will become king because of his actions?
Maeve Tischbein
ReplyDeleteAt one point King Arthur talks about how animals live in harmony because they know no boundaries. Are there any parallels that can be drawn from this and the tales of Hero's we read who have push past previously extant boundaries (i.e. Alexander's deeds exceeding these of his ancestors or exploring unknown lands in the Alexander Romance)? How does King Arthur's thoughts on boundaries relate to the conquests of other hero's we've read about in class?
Shannon Potts
ReplyDeleteIn the TH White reading, they mention "Purple Emperors" (p272) what were/are they? I also thought it was interesting to see a return of the bow that cannot be drawn.
And Sara: what about Numa and Lycurgus?
AR
ReplyDeleteJordann,
I think that TH White is playing up the ideal of Arthur but showing that if such a man ever existed he would not fully live up to the ideal, though it would be important just that he tried. Why? Because he would set a precedent, a model to follow, if history remembered him and his ideals, then they (and he) would never die but rather become a part of posterity. It is similar to the way we sometimes view the founding fathers of America or how the Greeks looked back to Heracles as a benefactor of mankind, a suppressor of tyrants and a liberator. Of course, White has created a completely fictional Arthurian narrative set vaguely in the high middle ages (perhaps 12th century), not in the supposedly real time period of the 6th century. This is, I think, a way to tell us that his Arthur is literary and ideal, not real, not meant to be understood as a particular historical man but rather as man in general or at least as a symbol for the man who strives for perfection. In part to, White's anachronistic chronology is a nod to the many high medieval versions of the Arthur story from which White drew his inspiration and to which he alludes (Notice his title is a translation of Arthur's supposed epitaph as given by Mallory). In other words, he is saying "My Arthur is more like their Arthur than some real historical person."
Sara,
Remember Numa and Lycurgus both were reluctant to accept kingships. In fact, Lycurgus never did. The idea is that the wise man is reluctant to undertake the problems and is not lured by the desire for power. It is a common enough theme. Of course, Christ similarly told of the futility of such earthly power, and other wise figures (of history and fiction) have had similar messages.
Maeve,
You are very right that the whole idea of boundaries (that can be passed) is important for these heroic figures. If you want to equal or do better than those who have gone before, you must equal or surpass the limits that they reach. Alexander did this by invading other lands and often killing the people who lived there. By imagining that Heracles or Dionysus had been there before, he could claim that he and the Greeks had an ancestral claim to the land. He could also use the idea that might is right (remember the story about his advisor telling him whatever the king does is just). Some philosophers and religious wise men of the ancient world certainly thought that the whole world should be viewed as one and talked about the community of mankind in general. We still do this today, but then and now we have not quit using boundaries--if anything our boundaries are even more set today. White's Arthur discovered that men were just not ready for such a step yet. Too many people today are warped by the previous genreation who were in turn warped by the generation before that, back to Cain and Abel (so to speak).
As far as heroes that we have read about, Numa is one who led no military campaigns to surpass or expand boundaries. Nor were there any attacks on Rome in his time because they were so pious.
Shannon,
Butterflies, I think.
Yes, of course Little John was a giant figure and bowman, I think that only John and Robin Hood could manage to draw his bow. Of course, though Arthur fails there, his success at drawing the sword from the stone is of the same sort as Heracles son Scythes who draws the bow, Theseus retrieving his father's sword from under the huge stone, and Telemachus being the only one who can (almost) string Odysseus' bow.
Good point on Numa and Lycurgus as I noted above.
Maeve,
Krysta Brown
ReplyDeleteI thought it was very interesting to read the compilation of historical views. The fact that some historians doubt his existence while others praise him is an interesting paradox. This is reminiscent of Romulus and the ancient Kings of Rome.
Krysta,
ReplyDeleteGood point, I particularly like Ranulf Higden's comments but I guess I am just a skeptic. I like to read the fantastic accounts of Arthur but I don't view them as history in any sense.