Did Arthur Really Live? A Critical Look

This is the inherent problem in applying modern standards to an age-old "matter": the more the years go by, the more difficult it is to sort out who knows what about what or whom.

So what are we to make of Mr. Dumville's assertion? It is probably a matter of individual preference. A great many people believe in the legendary Arthur, with the medieval castles and the quests and the Grail and such. In fact, for these people, facts don't enter into it too much because the stories are much more palatable when they are dressed up in colorful language and images. It's the hard-core historians, like Dumville, who need facts and figures. The trouble for him and for for others is that those facts and figures are in short supply. Those who believe that Arthur existed in some form or fashion are still waiting for the evidence to be found (much like the Britons are still waiting for the Return of the King). Research into the Matter of Britain is ongoing; perhaps someday, evidence will be found to corroborate the various assertions about the existence and vitality of Arthur; perhaps not. It is entirely possible that even if he did exist, perhaps in exactly the way that he is described in some historical texts, the hourglass of time has buried the facts that would support those assertions under too much sand.

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic