They really loved blood

"Blood and guts": from Rochefoucauld Grail manuscript

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328819/The-Rochefoucauld-Grail-Sothebys-auction-14th-century-King-Arthur-text.html

After reading about the process of making a manuscript, I couldn’t stop thinking about the sheer amount of effort put into making this version of King Arthur exist in physical form. It makes sense that monks would have created manuscripts of their religious text and doctrine because they had devoted their entire lives to those teachings. Geoffrey of Monmouth, on the other hand, put a lot of time and energy into producing a standardized version of historical folklore. And people liked it enough to make hundreds of copies! That process surely took more hours than Star Wars: Uncut. The fact that this was a story that people were willing to put so much work into tells us a lot about the culture at that time in terms of what they wanted to read about (those that could read and would have access to the manuscript, of course). More than anything, it highlights that they rewarded military accomplishments, other-ed their enemies (“those half-men, mere weaklings compared to you” [84]), and, overall, were fond of outfitting themselves as conquerors.

Enduring, for Better or Worse

Jaleel White as a talking mutant chicken with an axe for a beak? Some elements are better to forget.

I can think of few stories as persistent as King Arthur and his knights. In a way, it is the perfect example of how popular culture engages with and alters a story a over time. One need only look at how many different adaptations and interpretations there have been between the work of Geoffrey of Monmouth and the modern day. There are so many adaptations of the basic stories that it's impossible to name them all, and then there are all the twists: sequels where Arthur awakens from his death-sleep in the modern world, Avalon High in which the characters are all teenage reincarnations of Arthur and his court, prequels about the life and adventures of Merlin, anime/manga that include on... uniquely altered versions of Arthur and Merlin, numerous films ranging from the hilarious Monty Python and the Holy Grail and the quasi-historical 2004 film based on the "Arthur as Roman commander" element to the 1998 animated film Quest for Camelot which gave us the abomination shown above.

For better or for worse, some stories loom large in popular culture long after their initial impact. They endure because people keep finding new ways to make that story hold meaning they can identify with and make it their own.

Nationalist Value

From the Conquest of the Past in The History of Great Britain  by Michael Faletra.

Page 123- "This model would see Geoffrey as a compiler, providing access to native Welsh traditions to larger audiences; it is not difficult to see this editor-Geoffrey as preserving the nativist bias of his source materials, and thus to see the historian as fitting easily within a pro-Welsh (and essentially anti-Norman) camp"

Page 124- "If we accept the implications of Neil Wright’s arguments that Geoffrey significantly manipulates all the source materials we can identify, it becomes easier to see Geoffrey as a true compositeur: he is by and large fabricating the past that he is narrating. Indeed, it is still very much an open question how much of The History is completely the product of Geoffrey’s imagination; at the very least, it seems he probably patched together a variety of Welsh, Breton, and Latin sources, organizing them as it suited his purposes and filling in the gaps with fabricated details when necessary"

Falerta and Loomis texts establish Geoffrey's historical shortcuts in his work very well. However what is the value in viewing his work as a critical piece of British folklore that helps create a sense of nationalism with a shared "history?"

King Arthur - Religious and Mythical Parallels

Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britannie draws several parallels between King Arthur and Jesus Christ, from his "natural goodness" (64) to his downfall being set into action by someone close to him (86).  An important difference, however comes though Arthur's origin.  In stark contrast to Christ's immaculate conception, Arthur is conceived through through deception, disguise, and a serious lack of consent (63). Is this "dark spot" on Arthur's history necessary for him to be seen as a powerful ruler instead of a peaceful savior? Is this a parallel to Hercules' conception, which involves Zeus disguising himself as Alcmene's husband?

Differences in Interpretations of the King Arthur Myth

As I was reading Geoffrey of Monmouth's portrayal of Arthur, I could not help but wonder how and why the legend of King Arthur was spread and how is this different from the myth that we know today?  According to the introduction given before the excerpts from Geoffrey of Monmouth's work, this was the first point in Medieval History that King Arthur was mentioned.  In books I have read and in movies, I have always seen King Arthur as this great and noble king that is guided my Merlin the Sorcerer and the knights of the round table.  Geoffrey's account of Arthur shows him to be somewhat self centered and war hungry; he is always going into battle to conquer distant lands motivated by his own interests and religious fervor.

Image Source-https://arthurian.home.blog/tag/quest-for-camelot/

Image Source-https://boingboing.net/2020/01/18/brawny-disneyland-guest-remove.html

Was Jeffrey of Monmouth a welsh nationalist?

Was Jeffrey of Monmouth a welsh nationalist? If Jeffrey intended his history of the British realm to be subversive then yes if he intended it simply to be a salute to the bank on rule of the Saxons then no. The welsh almost uniquely among the Saxons we’re never comfortable with the Norman conquest and the odd language they spoke at court and the customs they imported from France. The story Of King Arthur can therefore be understood as a Clarion call for the remembrance and revival of the Saxon era with its customs politics and social organization. The political situation wheels today is unique in that whales is not a self-governing Dominion it is a constituent part of the United Kingdom that can legislate for it self only in specific areas the Welsh Parliament only exists because Westminster allows it to exist same thing applies with The Scottish Parliament Wales and Scotland our nations within a larger nation it lacks  ability to fully and completely govern themselves they enjoyed autonomy in so much as the central node allows them to enjoy it.
When we examine the spread of Jeffrey of months seminal work the amount of readership that it was able to collect along with the number of copies distributed was remarkable for its time. It had a rich and influence in its own time across Europe that could only be eclipsed by the holy Bible. And it would not be seen again until the printing press centuries later.

Truth only matters when it fits our schema!

I came across this quote from Norris J. Lacy, author of The New Arthurian Encyclopedia. He states, "The popular notion of Arthur appears to be limited, not surprisingly, to a few motifs and names, but there can be no doubt of the extent to which a legend born many centuries ago is profoundly embedded in modern culture at every level."  As I begin to approach this legend for the first time in my life, it does make me wonder, why?  What do we still find approachable and relevant in the name King Arthur to our culture?  Why do we allow this relatively made-up story still affect our culture and beliefs?  Why does flour have to be blessed by King Arthur to make really good cookies?