Suite101

The Arthurian saga: fairy tale, folktale, mystery, morality play


© David White

I think the Arthurian story still fascinates so many people because it has all the good elements of a fairy tale, a folktale, a historical mystery, and a morality play--all in the same saga. It has something for everyone. Let's examine each in kind:

Fairy tale: It has magical elements (the magic of Merlin and Morgause and Morgan Le Fay, the Holy Grail, the Sword in the Stone, Excalibur). It has a great warrior marrying a princess. It has heroic deeds. About the only thing the Matter of Britain does not share with the classic fairy tale is a happy ending.

Folktale: The variants of the Arthurian story are many and wide. Celts tell their visions, Scots claim Arthur as their own, Britons say he was their High King, etc. Classic folktales usually have a fanciful explanation for ordinary things. How did Arthur become king? Why, he pulled the Sword from the Stone, of course. Becoming a king is ordinary enough by historical standards. But pulling a sword from a stone? Now, that's fanciful. Take this into the realm of classical literature and we encounter Nennius, who says Arthur killed at least 900 men all by himself. Obviously, the Battle of Badon Hill was significant in that is stopped the Saxon migrations for a generation. But did Arthur really kill 900 all by himself? Who are we to say?

Historical mystery: Here's where we get to the theme of this topic. Who was Arthur really? Where did he live? Where was his stronghold? Where did he fight? Was he a land-based hero, or did he have a navy at his disposal? The questions are legion and the answers few. Archaeologists and historians alike would love to solve their respective mysteries, but the clues are so few and far between that no clear solution emerges. From the murky depths of Ancient British History we get this picture of Arthur: a great man who saved his country when it needed saving. Beyond that, no one knows for certain. Do you believe Nennius or Geoffrey of Monmouth or William of Malmesbury, who were writing only a few hundred years after the historical Arthur is believed to have lived? Or do you believe Geoffrey Ashe and Leslie Alcock and Richard Barber, who are writing almost 1,500 years after the (supposed) fact? Because the Arthurian story has been expanded to incorporate so many elements, a clear-cut vision of who Arthur was and where he fought and against whom is nonexistent. About the only thing everyone agrees on is why he fought: to save Britain from the invading Saxons.

Go To Page: 1 2


Post this Article to facebook Add this Article to del.icio.us! Digg this Article furl this Article Add this Article to Reddit Add this Article to Technorati Add this Article to Newsvine Add this Article to Windows Live Add this Article to Yahoo Add this Article to StumbleUpon Add this Article to BlinkLists Add this Article to Spurl Add this Article to Google Add this Article to Ask Add this Article to Squidoo


Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: View all related messages

2.   Aug 30, 2002 5:35 PM
Hi David,

Your article is wonderful. You've mastered a difficult task - breaking down a massive body of litereature into a brief but comprehensive overview. What exactly do you mean by 'what you ...


-- posted by ecarterb


1.   Mar 24, 2002 10:25 PM
David ...
This was an enlightening article.... We are all mesmerized by Arthur and the Holy Grail....

Infact we all dream, I'm sure , of being part of the mystery of it all. It's a study to be a ...


-- posted by roslinds





Join the latest discussions

For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to David White's Ancient British History topic, please visit the Discussions page.