From tyagi Sat Jun 24 09:43:37 1995 Received: (tyagi@localhost) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) id JAA23586; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 09:43:37 -0700 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 09:43:37 -0700 From: tyagi mordred nagasiva Message-Id: <199506241643.JAA23586@jobe.shell.portal.com> To: tyagi Subject: forward failed Status: RO tyagimay have a... User unknown /usr/lib/sendmail -t failed Your response has been saved in ~/dead.letter Your article/letter follows: To: tyagimay have a Subject: complex work, but what he took was a *vast* body of both oral and writt From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (mordred) Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (mordred) >Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!nexus.coast.net!news.kei.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.tamu.edu!news.io.com!skizyx >From: skizyx@io.com (Jan ilauem-arluth Tomaszewski kailin-er) >Newsgroups: alt.legend.king-arthur,alt.magick,alt.pagan,alt.mythology >Subject: Re: Merlyn-Druid or Christian? -The Secret of the Grail Here! >Date: 22 Jun 1995 15:41:04 GMT >Organization: Illuminati Online >Lines: 84 >Message-ID: <3sc2ug$jr4@anaxagoras.io.com> >References: <3rmj3r$pk4@portal.gmu.edu> <3rntqk$edh@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3rs9ld$v05@portal.gmu.edu> >NNTP-Posting-Host: bermuda.io.com >X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] >Xref: shell.portal.com alt.legend.king-arthur:557 alt.magick:45509 alt.pagan:109605 alt.mythology:16391 Wesley H Clark (wclark1@osf1.gmu.edu) wrote: > My problem with magic is that, for me, it erodes the credible in > historical (and Arthuian) presentation. For interest, I groan whenever > Robin of Sherwood encounters Satan, witches and weird bald guys casting > spells. (Herne the Hunter I can almost stand.) For me, history is > sufficiently interesting. Why gild it with a lot of hocus-pocus? Wes, as a historian, you should remember that the advent of non-religious bias in historical documents is a rather recent thing. In my study of literature, I have found that the authors who chose to record history in this period had a strong underlying belief in the "otherworld". Such deeply held faiths (including magic and demons) show up in archetecture (e.g. the Cathedrals of Europe are covered in such representations) Literature, and History. The filter thru which the Medieval Historians saw life wias tinted with the supernatural (The Voyage of St. Brenndan is one example, even tho it was a direct copy from earlier Celtic oral traditions.) I understand your wish for "historical fact", but if you are using period literature as source texts, then you have to include "magic" in the "historical fact". > Whoops! Are we talking about the druids/merlin/Alfred the Great business > here or something else? If it's the former, the original poster is simply > wrong ina lot of his assertions about Alfred the Great. If it's not, > remind me again of what it is that you take exception to, please! I was actually a poster with a idea very similar to this early on. And was politely shot down :-) No arguement here from me. However, one of the conceptualizations is that "Arthur" is not *one* singular historical figure, but several. All of which contributed their own particular element to the fabric of the legend. Interesting concept, no? Would expalin how historically seperate sociological constructs have been melded into one body of legend. My Arthurian Legend class at the University of Texas defined one of the great paradoxes of Mallory as the Complex/Simple. It wasn't until Mallory that one really sees a synthsis of the Arthurian legend as "The Matter Of Britian". Mallory may have a complex work, but what he took was a *vast* body of both oral and written traditions and melded them into one, much simpler, body of legends. Who knows what the history of the period *actually* was. Factual history is a recent invention. And as W, Churchill said re: the legends: "...It is all true. And if it isn't, it *should* be... and more besides!" > And thoroughly literary, BUT NOT HISTORIC! I am interested primarily in > history - fact. And as I stated earlier, what *is* fact? The original historians thought they were reporting fact when Merlin prophesyed to Vortergin (sorry for the spelling.) The Histories of the Jews have people being struck dead for touching the Ark. Hindi histories have the gods walking the earth. Historical fact is a rather elusive, and somewhat flexable concept. If all you are looking for is what happened, good luck in finding it. Even Geoffery had to please his patrons. And remember, History is usually written by the victors. Who tells the other side? With that concept expanded, how will you ever *really* know what happened? And if such is the case, where are your facts? Honest, this is not intended as a flame, but one of my concerns re: Historians is their forgetfullness of the fact *everyone* reports not facts, but *interpretations* of facts. Even today. As such, the Fisher King, while now legend, may well have been fact in the Middle Ages. > Perhaps you've perceived my anti-magick quotes as something more than they > are. I repeat: I want a credible historical Arthur, shorn of medieval and > magickal baggage. But to remove the Medieval "baggage" is dangerously close to removing the idea of Arthur totally. As was earlier said, what if Arthur was not one person but an amalgam of several, spanning a long time frame? Then there *is* no "Historical" Arthur, but a body of legend which speaks to what the people want to believe instead of what happened. Unfortunately, *much* of history is just that; what the people *want* to believe, not what actually happened. Just look at Vietnam. Thank you for your most invegorating posting, and I honor you for your grace in admitting your harsh treatment might have been inappropriate. Cheers, John "Skizyx" Tomaszewski P.S. remember, Gildas was a believer in magic, and recorded it in some of his histories.