By now, pretty much anyone who has been reading my blog posts over the years are as confused and conflicted as I am about exactly who the famous Arthur was (or wasn't). Unless, of course, they have their own idea that really works. In which case I would ask that they come forward with that and attempt to put me out of my misery.
With no ore left to mine, I've decided to let everything gestate for awhile. I will then come back (hopefully!) with some kind of Grand Unifying Theory that will tie the very disparate materials together. Or at least not leave too many stray or frayed threads unattended.
The Arthurian Problem is a thorny one, no doubt about it. But rather than continue to endlessly vacillate between this and that extreme, I need once and for all to settle on what I think best expresses a viable historical candidate for Arthur.
What it's going to take to produce a viable Arthur candidate is a synthesis of a lot of disparate elements. The end result will not so much be a historical reconstruction as a logically devised imaginary portrait. Not so much who/what was Arthur, but rather who/what he might have been. Methodology will be influenced by an admitted bias towards wanting an Arthur who matches the HB and AC chronology. I will not be resorting to L. Artorius Castus as a default explanation.
Bear with me (pun strictly intended); we may still manage to wrestle the sword of truth from the stone of fable.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.