I get a lot of press releases each week, and most of them are either useless, off-topic, or so obscure that they go directly into the trash. But yesterday I received one about a “new” claim that the historical King Arthur had been discovered (yet again), and I felt compelled to follow it up with a bit of investigation because it struck me immediately that there was nothing new about it. To begin, let’s take a look at what the press release has to say: A historian believes he has found proof that the legendary King Arthur was actually the son of a 6th century Scottish king – and is offering £50,000 to anyone who can prove him wrong. How dramatic! Hunting an unknown manuscript in the bowels of a Swiss library only to stumble into the earliest record of King Arthur! That would truly be a dramatic turn of events, if it weren’t for the fact that Dr. Ferdinand Keller of Zurich, an archaeologist, actually discovered the manuscript at the bottom of a chest full of books at the Schaffhausen public library. In 1845. The Dorbene manuscript is better known as the oldest extant recension of the Vita Columbae (Life of St. Columba) by Adaman, copied no later than nine years after Adaman’s death. The dating come from the fact that the copyist, Dorbene of Hy, died in 713, nine years after Adaman. This manuscript, almost certainly a direct copy of the original rather than a copy of a copy, is the basis for all modern editions of the Life of St. Columba and has been available in both a transcribed Latin copy and English translation since the nineteenth century. The original is locked away not to hide it but because it’s 1,300 years old and really fragile. The relevant section, referencing a warlord Latinized as Arturius (here re-Anglicized as Artur), occurs in Book 1 of the Vita, where Columba, who died in 597, meets with King Aidan (or Aedán) of Dal Riada (covering parts of Scotland and Ireland), who reigned from 574 to 606, and delivers a prophecy about the royal succession: CHAPTER VIII. That’s it.
Carroll chooses to read the text as stating that Artur was a warlord—in keeping with Nennius’ description of him in the ninth century in the Historia Brittonum as the “military commander” (dux bellorum) rather than as king (ch. 56). But the text of the Vita Columbae doesn’t actually say that. Adaman says only that Artur was killed in battle, not that he was a commander of his father’s forces in that battle. Carroll seems to have read backward from Nennius. Rodney Castleden, whose work I am not particularly fond of, believes that the aforementioned Artur was named in honor of the “real” Arthur, who had just died. Whatever you think of that, he rightly notes that there were a number of princes in the 500s and 600s who were named Arthur, a name which had quite a fad among royalty in the Dark Ages. But none of this is new. Carroll first proposed his idea in 1996, in Arturius: A Quest for Camelot. The late ancient astronaut theorist Laurence Gardner picked up the idea and ran with it, too, as did a few lesser authors. The second point that Carroll makes is not related to this text. His claim that Artur had a sister named Morgan comes from a different book altogether, the Martyrology of Oengus the Culdee; or, rather, the medieval notes to it, in mixed Irish and Latin, which he elides with the text itself. This is very long and complicated, and honestly, it tried my patience some. The critical edition reads the relevant line of the poem as “Muirgein, a wondrous birth” (entry for January 27) with no mention of Arthur or anyone else. However, in the Irish/Latin notes, an unnamed medieval redactor, writing at an uncertain date, also glosses the line as “Muirgein, daughter of Aedán,” but the scholiast offers no documentation for the source of this legendary figure. Nor does he dwell on it. He gives the first and apparently preferred reading as “Muirgein, i.e. the birth of the sea, i.e. the abbot of Glen Uissen, as Oegenus says,” but he devotes the most space to yet another reading, of Muirgein as the daughter of Eochaid, about whom he quotes a lengthy poem. Later Arthurian writers simply assumed without referencing the poem itself that it explicitly called Muirgein the daughter of Aedán, though it was one of three possible explanations suggested centuries after the fact. The oldest manuscript of the Martyrology seems to date to the thirteenth century, so presumably the notes were compiled sometime between the eighth and thirteenth centuries, with scholarly opinion suggesting that the notes we have are derived from an original from early times. Any given note, however, is not possible to date. At any rate, they were written many centuries after the events described. The edition produced by the Irish Texts Society in 2012 inserted a question mark after the note about Aedán’s daughter, presumably to indicate that the reading is uncertain. The only correct claim is that Muirgein is probably cognate with Morgan, both referring to a “sea-born” water-spirit. William Stokes, the translator of the poem and its notes, is most likely correct in assuming that the reference to Muirgein is a euhemerized reference to an early Irish mermaid myth. All of this seems irrelevant, though, since Morgan Le Fay was not Arthur’s sister before Hartmann von Aue made her so. Before that, she was the leader of the magical sisters of Avalon who heal Arthur, characters parallel to Pomponius Mela’s description of early Gallic / Celtic beliefs about magical healing virgins on an island off Brittany. The long and short of it is that Morgan wasn’t originally Arthur’s sister, so the whole argument is moot. Carroll is offering his £50,000 reward (according to the press release; it was $50,000 on his website) on disingenuous terms. It is impossible to know what was in the hearts and minds of the first storytellers to spin myths about King Arthur. Therefore, short of finding a parchment stating “I made up this story after reading about General Moore D. R. Tour,” it is simply impossible to prove that Carroll is wrong, no matter how unlikely his claims are, or how badly he has mangled the evidence.
56 Comments
Hal
6/15/2018 09:08:49 am
Worthless poppycock. Of course Colicrapo knows more about Arthur in his tiny Albany house than all the scholars in the UK who have actually done research.
Reply
Americanegro
6/15/2018 01:13:58 pm
It seems likely that Carroll borrowed his idea from Michael Wood. The consensus among "all the scholars in the UK who have actually done research" with regard to Carroll's idea seems to be "nope, nowhere proven."
Reply
Clete
6/15/2018 01:52:03 pm
There is a difference, Jason has actually read some of the research conducted by real historians, while you have done none and cannot quote any sources at all. Worthless Poppycock is a apt description of everything you have ever posted to this blog.
Reply
An Anonymous Nerd
6/16/2018 09:59:17 am
What an odd post. Not only for the bizarre misspelling of Mr. Colavito's name and the crack about his house (btw: what does the house size matter, and how do you know? If you've driven by it then Mr. Colavito needs to call the police right now. If you've looked it up online then why on earth would you do that?), but for its content.
Reply
Riley V
6/18/2018 12:01:53 am
Thanks Nerd. I admire your comments.
Bob Sunman
12/14/2019 05:51:04 am
This links elsewhere and to a comment bereft of space to reply.
Adrian Grant
8/8/2018 03:09:45 pm
Arthur and the fake £50 000 prize
Reply
8/18/2018 10:39:16 pm
His requirements prove he has a bogus claim.
Adrian Grant
8/8/2018 03:15:08 pm
I do believe that I have identified Arthur in my recently published book "Arthur: Legend, Logic & Evidence".
Reply
angus murray
12/9/2019 06:27:52 am
Perhaps when you are a careful enough observer to notice that
angus murray
12/10/2019 01:18:35 am
You may think my criticism is unimportant. However, attention to detail is crucially important in this sort of research and your lack of recognition of that is why you have not solved the mystery. To claim that Malory is unimportant is naive. You have to look at every scrap of evidence because there is a paucity of it. Not all of Malory's sources are known, so you can't dismiss it simply because you have read some of his source material like Chretiens, etc..
angus murrayn
12/10/2019 02:15:20 am
Flint,
Adrian Grant
12/10/2019 05:31:27 am
Sorry Angus, I have no idea why there are no "reply" buttons underneath your various posts.
angus murray
12/10/2019 10:34:50 pm
Re point 1), you don't say why you disagree with me. One can be a king and a soldier simultaneously and be referred to by either epithet.
Adrian Grant
12/11/2019 05:43:33 am
1. What you say here is obviously true, but the "others" are described as "more noble". I am pretty sure (ie I can't put my hands on it - so I may have misremembered) that one source (was it one version of Nennius?) actually asserts he was not a king. However in my existing book I show exactly what rank he did have and why throughout the period to 517. There is a very interesting addition to be made for the period following - but still he is not "king" per se.
Angus Murray
12/13/2019 05:35:23 am
Adrian,
Adrian Grant
12/13/2019 06:05:31 am
OK Angus you have me at a loss here. The life of St Genovesius? I had not heard of it nor can I find it - perhaps you can point me to a source? However I see from eg https://www.scribd.com/document/152150355/Arthur-Charters-of-the-Kings-Wilson-Alan-Blackett-BaramGwent that it is not beyond question.
Angus Murray
12/13/2019 07:44:41 am
Adrian
Angus Murray
12/13/2019 08:16:06 am
Adrian
Adrian Grant
12/13/2019 08:31:06 am
Well you say you know where the battle sites were and given that you say you don't agree with mine, I refute yours. But you would need to read my book to understand the whole argument. As for Badon Hill, you are suddenly very sure about pronunciation - which I challenge.
Adrian Grant
12/13/2019 08:45:36 am
Perhaps I should add that I do take a fairly robust/relaxed view about vowel sounds - perhaps even more.
Angus Murray
12/13/2019 10:37:56 am
Adrian
Adrian Grant
12/13/2019 11:26:30 am
Of course it is the case that Arthur was NOT fighting the Saxons on the Antonine Wall - that is the point. In the 12 famous battles the enemy were the Picts and the Scots. Even Geoffrey recognises that his early battles were there and that he had other dealings in the Old North.
Angus Murray
12/13/2019 12:52:01 pm
Adrian,
Angus Murray
12/13/2019 01:11:35 pm
PS
Adrian Grant
12/13/2019 02:49:19 pm
In reply to the last comment, my questions would be "Says who?" and "On what basis"?
Angus Murray
12/13/2019 05:26:35 pm
You say
Adrian Grant
12/14/2019 10:20:49 am
OK... I am not clear what is going on here. My email alert says Bob (at least from "The Latin Suffix...") while the blog comment says Angus.
Angus Murray
12/14/2019 10:20:08 pm
I think you should be a bit less plonking eg about Ba-don/Don-ba. While it was indeed normal for Gaelic to work this way, it is by no means so standard for Brythonnic (Dynguoaroy notwithstanding). And of course Cymru is pronounced Come-ri.(or are you also proposing a vowel shift - and if so when and on what basis?)
Angus Murray
12/14/2019 10:28:05 pm
I could add others who are viewed in this way (some wrt Arthur, others other). Count me in as unimpressed - but I won't distract by adding any detail here. Suffice it to say that am well aware of their work and remain underwhelmed. I would add that a talent for collation is orthogonal to a talent for interpretation.
Adrian Grant
12/15/2019 06:31:08 am
Hello Angus,
Bob Sunman
4/5/2019 02:46:36 pm
For the record, Morgan means born of the sa.
Reply
Adrian Grant
12/9/2019 06:53:15 am
Note to Angus Murray: [Sorry I don't know why I cannot post immediately underneath your comment.]
angus murray
12/10/2019 02:36:57 am
Adrian,
Bob Sunman
12/9/2019 07:39:37 am
The Bruts state that after the harvest, Arthur returned to his kingdom (Glamorgan and Gwent). Further, Arthur was the son of Meurig - and Meurig is buried in Llandaff Cathedral - and grandson of Tewdrig who lies at Mathern. We are not discussing fairy tales, but a very real and well documented king. Cerniw forest lies between Cardiff and Newport, and Caer Melyn lies above it. So the claim that Arthur was a scot is palpably poppycock.
Reply
Adrian Grant
12/9/2019 09:38:26 am
I am not quite sure why you are posting this comment at this point in the discussion, Bob.
Jim
6/15/2018 11:29:16 am
Arthur was a being from another dimension.
Reply
Shane Sullivan
6/15/2018 11:48:26 am
If I can prove he was a time traveller, will you give me fifty cents? I want to go back to 1992 and buy ten pieces of Bazooka Joe from the corner gas station.
Reply
SouthCoast
6/17/2018 05:49:13 pm
While you're at it, go back a bit farther, and bring back some actual Cracker Jack with actual prizes in actual boxes.
Bob Sunman
12/10/2019 06:14:51 am
Adrian: I hardly think the pleonasmus of 'splenetic' is justifiable. Further: there were two Arthurs, the first being the son of Macsen, the second the son of Meurig. Their conflation is perhaps the cause of much confusion.
Reply
Adrian Grant
12/10/2019 06:24:42 am
Bob: I am confident that you are right that the multiplication of Arthurs in and after his time has been the basis of much confusion. You cite 2 and immediately we can add 3 others in the same timeframe. [As a parallel you may recall that in 1100 the name William accounted for a huge proportion of all males in England.] Indeed the collation of the 13 Treasures of Britain can be dated to considerably after this time, so it was one of mythification etc. and surely the scope for confusion can only have got worse once the Angles and Saxons were actually in charge.
Machala
6/15/2018 12:45:09 pm
Nothing like offering a reward for disproving what can be proven ! Carrol gets to keep his money because there's no way to prove his assertions are correct, let alone incorrect. That's having your cake and eating it, too - for Carrol it's a Pound cake !
Reply
Scott David Hamilton
6/15/2018 01:33:14 pm
Is the Life of St. Columba the same one with the river monster story that cryptozoolgists claim as the first Loch Ness Monster sighting? I wonder if that story differs in different manuscripts.
Reply
Bob Jase
6/15/2018 03:15:57 pm
Next they'll be claiming that Arthur is the Loch Ness Monster.
Clete
6/15/2018 04:13:40 pm
That can't be true, the Loch Ness monster is female. Her name is Annabell.
Joe Scales
6/15/2018 01:45:50 pm
Well, Arthur was the once and future king. Perhaps he'll come back to claim the 50K.
Reply
http://legacy.earlham.edu/~herdda/Pages/monty.htm
6/15/2018 02:33:18 pm
"Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony! "
Reply
Uncle Ron
6/15/2018 04:21:54 pm
HTTP:etc-
George
6/28/2018 08:03:14 pm
Don't worry Uncle Ron. I hear your coconut will reappear in episode 10 of Ancient Aliens!
Adrian Grant
12/10/2019 03:24:10 pm
While enjoying the style here, I should point out that the "Lady of the Lake" is not necessarily IN the lake. And in point of fact she wasn't.
Senhal
6/17/2018 09:49:41 am
Medievalist here. Back when I was in grad school the Vita Columbae was one of our favorite texts for studying medieval Latin. One of the highlights is Book II, Chapter XV, where the saint expels a demon from a possessed milk bucket (and then magically refills the milk via prayer). I used to work that section into my courses whenever possible.
Reply
Bob Jase
6/17/2018 09:56:21 am
Finally a cure for lactose intolerance!
Reply
Susan Linton
7/28/2018 11:43:01 am
So how exactly does one contact the author? I always thought issuing a challenge at least came with some details on how to contact the person issuing it.
Reply
8/23/2018 04:10:17 am
Arthur was Arthur Mac Aedan - ref. my books Finding Merlin and Finding Arthur.
Reply
Adrian Grant
8/23/2018 05:59:51 am
Adam Ardrey is nearly right in some small respects. I agree that Lailoken (who was the Merlin who went mad after the Battle of Ardrhydderch in 573) was Rhydderch's brother-in-law because Rhydderch had married his sister. The siblings were amongst the children of the exiled royal family of Bryneich who had been ousted by the Angles they had initially invited in. It may be Adam who nearly identified that their place of exile was Cadzow (later a hunting lodge).
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Blog RollCategories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
June 2023
|