|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:04 am
Hello all, I'm new faculty.
I'm going to run a survey course on Celtic studies. The following is the syllabus...
CELT 0101: Welsh Literature I: "Y Mabinogion"
Professor Annwyl, MM., MA.
Course description: A literary analysis of the four branches of the Welsh mythological text "Y Mabinogion". From it will be discussed important issues in trans-Christianized Brythonic Celtic culture, from society, religion, learning, and history, as well as an analysis of important figures in Welsh legend and pseudohistory. This is not a course on the Welsh language, however.
Texts: "The Mabinogion", preferrably the modern English translation by Gwyn Jones. There may be supplementary reading materials announced. The texts are not required for the course, but I encourage every one to buy them or check them out of a local library.
Course format: I will post lectures and brief articles on an irregular basis, probably two to three times per week. All students are required to read the lectures. Questions can be PMed directly to me and I will post the answers to important ones, or otherwise answer them through PM. There will be no examinations or work other than to read the lectures, articles, and excerpts and ideally to read the tales from "The Mabinogion". Comment and discussion is welcome, but try to keep it down to a minimum within the forum since I am not often online for extended periods of time and undirected discussion usually proves to be disasterous, especially with unfamiliar topics such as this. I will try to schedule actual discussion seminars where most if not all students can be present with me on the forum at one time to have discourse.
Caveat: I reserve the right to make changes of the syllabus without notice.
E-mail: wench_annwyl@yahoo.com
Messenger: Wench Annwyl (AIM), wench_annwyl (Yahoo!)
Students are welcome to join the class at any time, provided they read through all of the posts and catch up. However, I will not spend too much time on issues after they've been covered. Enjoy!
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:06 am
First, I have a brief introduction I usually do for this class in real life...
Who has heard of King Arthur? I hope everyone has. For those who have, who was King Arthur? Tell me (and eachother) as much as you know or have been told about King Arthur. It can be anything at all, I'll respond after I get some answers...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:18 am
King Arthur. The fabled King of the Britons, the once and future king. It is said that his body resides in Avalon, a mysterious and magical island, where it awaits the day he comes back to life. He was slain by his b*****d son Mordred, and had many fables and legends based upon the book he originally appeared in, Le Morte d'Artur by an author I can't quite recall at the moment. (Possibly Mallory?)
He was married to Guinevere, who had an affair with Sir Lancelot, and bore him a son, Sir Galahad. Arthur's own son, Mordred, was borne from Morgan Le Fay.
At the moment, that is the extent of my knowledge, as I read Le Morte many years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 12:46 pm
I know more of Merlin then king Arthur, but I dont remember specific names well. Merlin and arthur were cousins (according to one fiction book I read.). um... Uther Pendragon was the father of Arthur, and (according to the same book) Merlin was the son of a Greek Lord named Ambrosious {sp?}Uther was in love with this one woman whoes name i forget, so Merlin agreed to change Uther so that for 1 night he'd look like the womans husband. in exchange Uther would have to give the child that was conceieved to Merlin. That Child was Arthur and he was taken and raised by an uncle. and um... Merlin wanted to save Pagenism from the Christians. and he had this priestess who helped him track down all the magical items of brittian, and Excallibur was one of the items. out of everyhing Merlin gave Arthur, excallibut was the only one that he wanted back. Arthur was supposed to marry this one girl, but at the ceremony, he saw Guinevere. She was a poor daughter of an Irish(i think) lord. He instantly fellin love with her, and ran away from his other marriage to..um.... some other woman whoes name i cant remember sweatdrop Arthur had two spoiled b*****d sons with... um... some other woman whoes name I cant remember, and I dont know if he and Guinevere ever had a son or daughter. anyways, Guinevere had an affair with Lancelot, who had claimed to do great deeds but was really a coward(or so the book said). I cant remeber how Arthur died... but I know how Merlin did. When merlin was very old he fell in love with a young girl named Marion (i think), and she made him teach her all that he knew of magic and she put him in a deep sleep in a cave somewhere. sweatdrop Thats really all i can remember of the book that I read a while back, sorry its kind of spotty at best. sweatdrop 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fantasy_Magick777 Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 2:42 pm
I noticed so far there the knowledge of Arthur is mostly from the French romantic traditions of Chretien de Troyes (whose work spawned the so-called Breton lais of Marie de France and the fiction of Sir Thomas Mallory and "Le Morte d'Arthur). It is from the French romantic tradition that we receive most of the fiction on the Arthurian Cycle, as it is called.
The interesting point to make about this is that already one can observe the de-Celticisation (forgive the contrived term) of Arthurian myth. French hardly equals Celtic, at least by the time of the Christian Middle Ages and Charlemagne (of course France was Gaul before the Merovingian empire, and thus Celto-Roman, and purely Celtic even earlier). But at the time of Chretien and his many literary followers (in both France and England) France was no longer Celtic, and neither was England (don't mistake England with Britain... one is a country, the other an island, and England doesn't take up the whole of the isle).
Therefore, although valid literary inferences have been made, we are still lacking in "Celticism". Let us continue, and see what else students have to say before moving onto the CELTIC heart of Arthurian myth. Let us collect everything we think we know about Arthur so that we may then dismantle it and build it back up again. So, without further ado, any more posts on this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:36 pm
My sister, really got into everything and anything Celtic, and even has a Celtic cross tattoo... I however will admit I know very little on Celtic history, other then I know the popular religion of Wicca Started there, and was nearly lost as well. and like i said up there, my memory is spotty at best... though I would really like to learn Celtic history. I'm half Polish and Half Irish (and english and scottish and welsh etc) so I should learn about my own history, right? As for king Arthur, The book I read was called The Crystal Caves by... some woman whoes name I cant remember >.< If i can find some sort of link or discription on the book i'll be sure to post it. 3nodding I would like to make sure my information is strait, though considering it was a fiction book, i doubt it. sweatdrop 3nodding and i will admit i know very little of King Arthur because he never interested me as much as Merlin did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fantasy_Magick777 Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:29 pm
Fantasy_Magick777 My sister, really got into everything and anything Celtic, and even has a Celtic cross tattoo... I however will admit I know very little on Celtic history, other then I know the popular religion of Wicca Started there, and was nearly lost as well. and like i said up there, my memory is spotty at best... though I would really like to learn Celtic history. I'm half Polish and Half Irish (and english and scottish and welsh etc) so I should learn about my own history, right? As for king Arthur, The book I read was called The Crystal Caves by... some woman whoes name I cant remember >.< If i can find some sort of link or discription on the book i'll be sure to post it. 3nodding I would like to make sure my information is strait, though considering it was a fiction book, i doubt it. sweatdrop 3nodding and i will admit i know very little of King Arthur because he never interested me as much as Merlin did. OH MY GOD!!! *sits* I love you people. *reads all* XD I read that book!(crystal cave) In about grade 4. I should read it again. I also read books by TA Barron but I know those were most likely made up. But it was very interesting. 3nodding I'm in love with that whole story. I would love to hear all about what you are teaching. *sits and stares* *drools* I've also read about 4 other King Arthur but I forget their names. sweatdrop I'm a little obsessed with that time era. sweatdrop heart Fantasy books heart Okay. I'm really really sorry now for posting this but. I'm just. So. Happy. VERY VERY sorry for babbling, Aki
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:33 am
I was so exited when Ded told me you were going to join us giving a celtic course!!!!! biggrin Thank you!
And now... what I know about King Arthur and Merlin... those are the main characters of the myths and legends of the time when the romans left Britain and they started to become a nation. They were constantly attacked by the saxons, irish, scotts, picts (I'm not sure about this word, I am mexican and I read all of this in spanish, so I don't know how to say it in english, those where the people who painted their faces with blue glasto). Merlin was a druid.
Too many different hands and mouths added different things to the original myths, and you can find contradictory deeds and characters.
The principal characters I can remember now were:
King Arthur son of Uther Pendragon
Guinevere
Merlin (or Myrddin)
Mordred
Sir Kay
Sir Lancelot
Sir Gawain son of Lot of Orcady (Aaaaahhhh Sir Gawain and the green Knight biggrin )
Sir Galahad
Sir Bedivere (or welsh Bedwyr, he is the survivor of the last Battle of Camlan who throws Excalibur back into the Lake when Arthur is dying)
Sir Bors
Sir Percival
Igraine (Arthur's mother)
The Lady of the Lake
Morgause and/or Morgan le Fay (Somewhere I read they were different characters, one was the wife of Lot, and the other was a fairy who fell in love with Merlin)
and on late versions you can find Tristan (the Tristan of Isolde) between the Knights
Well... I read all the 5 books of Stephan Lawhead (Taliesin, Merlin, Arthur, Pendragon and The Grial), but I know this is a new remake of the legend... when I finished these books I searched for more info on the net.... I saw John Boorman's Excallibur (and I love it!!!).... well, thats not too much....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:39 am
Ahhhhh!! I forgot to say that when the cristian religion was spread there, the myths were adapted and changed, that's when the Grial enters the legend sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:45 am
Ok everyone, now it's time to get back on track...
First I'd like to address a few issues:
1. Britain wasn't an independent nation until well after the Norman conquest in the eleventh century, much much later than Roman occupation or the Saxon invasions. The Celtic people never solidified all of Britain as a nation.
2. Though the Romans did occupy southern Britain for a couple centuries, Roman culture never grounded itself there and Celtic culture thrived for generations after the Romans fled. Caesar himself thought that the thought of seizing Britain was a joke and the Britons were hopeless.
3. For the sake of actual Celtic literature, forget all of the names in the veritable casts of characters you all provided. Many of them are linguistically connected to actual Brythonic names (and presumably actual Britons of the day) but they are a construct of French romanticism (as are the modern novels and series you mentioned).
4. From this point onward, we'll speak only of the Welsh literature of the Mabinogion and the supplementary texts mentioned from time to time.
Now that we've made mention of the fiction, lets try to recreate the facts from the truly Celtic legends and tales. Some things to keep in mind about Celtic literature...
1. Deification: the process by which bards (Welsh song-poets, storytellers, pseudohistorians, chroniclers) elevate the status of an important historical figure, king, or hero to that of a god-like or demigod-like quality. It is wise to consider the gods and goddesses of the Celtic pantheon as actual people (because they probably were). Bards would sensationalize their abilities and appearances and even their deeds as a way to honour their memory. Fundamental Celtic concept to keep in mind here: ALL CELTS WERE POTENTIAL GODS.
2. Anachronism: very simply, the tendency of bardic tales to be contained within an illogical rendering of time. Be aware of these things.
I'll move on to another post now...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:06 pm
Sorry for stalling again, but I need to explain a few things before moving on that concerned me from your postings.
First, Wicca is not a Celtic religion or spiritual practice. Wicca is a new age religion invented in the 60s as a collective gathering of UNSUBSTANTIATED (key word) mystical earth-based practices from MULTIPLE pre-Judeo-Christian folk religions. Any folk religions of the Celts HAVE NOT SURVIVED as the Celts had no written language. It is very easy for someone to come forward and claim they are a part of some unbroken tradition of pre-Christian Celtic heritage, but considering Roman church records (some of the best-kept records in history) describe that the Druids (Celtic priestly and scholarly class) were some of the first convertees to Christianity, it is very doubtful a bunch of illiterate peasants who followed whatever the Druids said to begin with would bother trying to continue the Celtic religious tradition. Indeed, the notion is absurd.
Concerning Druidism itself, very little is known of it. We will get into it in close details later, since Druidism (like most religions to most cultures) is an important facet of Celtic life, but rest assured that the so-called neo-Druids of the new age paganism of today do not follow anything even remotely close to what the original Druids practiced, at least of the little we know about their practices. Again, we will discuss the specifics as to why Celtic scholars make these assertions later, and I will trust that for the moment it be a non-issue and left out of posts. Without attempting too much sarcasm, any one who for the moment isn't satisfied without the explanation would do well to attend an Irish catholic mass, which contains more of what the Druids possibly believed than any modern pagan religion claims to (since the converted Druids shaped the Irish/Welsh catholic church). One thing to ponder for those who also still dream of a neo-Druidism... if the actual Druids themselves apparently found their religion outdated, why should we try to hang onto it, we who are less culturally Celtic than they were? To be a Celt now is to be immersed in Judeo-Christian dogma (as it is to be just about anything these days with the spread of that religion). Just a thought *wink*...
In the mean time, let us clear our minds of the garbage (though beautiful, inspiring garbage it may some times be) handed down to us through the French romantic tradition and modern sci-fi/fantasy (and apparently new age religious indoctrination from the looks of it). Take the time today and tomorrow to do this so that in my next brief lecture you can view what I'm about to show you with as open a mind as possible and free from prejudices from what you have already heard. This is going to be completely new for most of you, and it'll be good not to bring any of the old in with it (even if the old is really the new, or at least the newer of the mythological renderings). For any of you who think I'm trying to promote Christianity, let me just say is that what we're going to do next is REMOVE the Christian backdrop from the Arthurian myths and go back to the older and very foreign Celtic one (free from God and the Holy Grail nonsense which belongs to Christian lore, not Celtic). I promise you that you'll be shocked by what's to come, and I hope it will be a pleasant discovery and not think that I'm getting my kicks out of shattering the intellectual world you've created out of Arthur. Just trust me...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:47 pm
Here will be our assumptions for this class concerning Arthur:
1. He was a Briton (and therefore a Celt, or at least a member of one of the Celtic cultures of the time, the others being the Gaels, the Gauls, the Belgae, and possibly the Cimbri, with the Galatians in Asia minor... notice the linguistic occurance of -gal- in the names of many of these races. The Belgae give us Belgium, the "Land of the Belgae", and Cimbri, possibly related to the British Cymry, give us the name of Wales in the Welsh language, "Cymru". I could teach a two semester class on European place names from Celtic language, so I'll spare it now).
2. He had a British name. Arthur is made of two elements, "arth" and the Welsh suffix "-ur/-wyr/-wr", giving it a personification of sorts. "Arth" is the ancient (as well as modern) Welsh word for "bear", that is the animal not the verb. So Arthur meant "Bear-man", or even simply "The Bear". Arthur does NOT come from a Latin name such as Arcturus, as many sources claim. The evidence for this? Well, if you won't take my word for it, there are two reasons to make this claim. The first is that, as you can see above, Arthur makes linguistic sense in the Welsh language beyond a reasonable doubt. The second point to make is that in documents WRITTEN IN LATIN he is called "Arthur, rex Britannia". If he had a Latin name like Arcturus, why would he be called Arthur by Latin writers instead of reading "Arcturus, rex Britannia"? Of course the answer is that his name wasn't Arcturus, and he wasn't Roman. The Latin name was applied in the Middle Ages when everyone wanted to make things "classical", that is related to Roman or Greek culture. But the Welsh can take pride in knowing for sure that Arthur was a Welshman.
3. Arthur was not a true king. There was a character alive during the last years of Roman occupation who was given the title that essentially amounts to a warlord in Latin, and that person's name was Arthur. Celtic Briton (and Celtia to begin with, the whole of the ancient Celtic world) was a vast division of warring kingdoms numbering in the dozens. The title "King of Britain" is absurd, since he would have had to kill maybe 30 or so kings in his life time and be accepted somewhat democratically as the ruler of every kingdom (I'll explain in detail Celtic politics later, they will surprise you greatly). However, Arthur's position would have been significantly pan-British in that he would have had to authority to muster warriors from any kingdom in Britain. The term "high general of the Britonnic army" might have been a good modern job description for the historical Arthur, but certainly not king. He only ruled the men he commanded, but his victories over the invading Saxons was enough to glorify him in Celtic folklore, which then started a domino effect of legend until we come to our impression of him today.
4. Finally, the only other thing about the real historical Arthur that can be known is that he had ties to Kernyw (Cornwall in English). Thus why the so-called "Duke of Cornwall" creeps itself into the French romances, and the Duchess of Cornwall becomes his mother in those tales. The truth is we don't know where he was from, who his parents were, or who fought under him. We do know he had a rival named Vortigern (from "Vor + tigerna", meaning "Great king"), who was a real king of Britons in what is now Northeastern England. Other than that, we can historically discount places in modern stories such as Tintagel, Avalon (really Ynys Mon off the coast of northern Wales, called Anglesey Island in English... in other words, the place really exists and it's far from a blessed secret fairy kingdom, I've been there myself when I lived 40 miles away from in it Eryri), and Camelot (which is a French word to begin with).
To recapitulate...
Historically Arthur was an appointed British warlord who won victories during the Saxon invasions and probably hailed either from modern Cornwall or perhaps south Wales. He was NOT English (there was no England yet). He was NOT Roman (at least not racially, though he must have been involved with Roman affairs in Britain, obviously as a paid mercenary). And as for all of the other stuff (like Holy Grail, Excalibur, Round Table etc.), never existed.
But this isn't a class on actual history (if it is, class dismissed, I just finished what is historical about Arthur). This is a class on how the Britons actually wove historical Arthur into mythological Arthur. As I've not failed to stress ad nauseum, this isn't a class on how the French and now modern writers have wove the mythological Arthur into the... well the new, non-Celtic mythological Arthur. We're going to put aside what's real (since the Celts hardly seemed concerned with an accurate description of reality), and specifically we'll delve into Celtic lore.
For those of you who think I'm beating a dead horse, I've been teaching the Maginogion for years now and it never ceases to amaze me how often students will continually cling to what they know. So for those of you who are screaming inside "all right, all right, I get the bloody point, let's talk about the Mabinogion already," my apologies.
At this time I'm willing to answer any questions (forgive me if I'm not on often enough to answer them in an expedient manner, but I will check daily). Please make the questions relevant to what has been said, and if anyone has a discrepency they think they should debate with me (in otherwords, if you don't believe me or think I'm full of it), please PM me to keep it out of the "classroom", so to speak. When everyone's comfortable, we'll crack open the Mabinogion and get to what is arguably the heart of Welsh (or even Celtic) literature.
One final note... don't mention Irish literature if you happen to know any. It's difficult to explain, but it's mostly irrelevant to Welsh literature in that comparing and contrasting them is doctoral dissertation work. Again, I'll do my best to attempt to make this a class on Welsh literature, and not on history, linguistics, philosophy, theology, and comparitive literature except when they apply or as a prelude to something for explanatory reasons. I'm more than willing to teach Irish myth and comparative Celtic myth at later times. One step at a time, "gradus ad Parnassum" (climbing the steps of Parnassus, as they say).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:21 pm
Phew... sorry for all of the tedium and relative ranting (I'm impassioned as you may notice). We will begin, I PROMISE you this time *giggles*, after everyone answers just ONE question for me... have you the text? If any were truly planning on getting their hands on it, I'll wait until they do. If you are planning to have the text, let me know, and we'll begin actual reading and analysis of it after those who want it have it (for those who weren't planning I still recommend it, at least as a point of reference for the lectures when I mention something). Please respond either in the room or PM me so we can begin with the literature as quickly as possible. Until then, again, feel free to make comments or ask questions. Feel free to talk to eachother as well (as a graduate student I found my best learning experiences was often discussion with fellow students). I'll be in touch!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:25 pm
Edit: Okay. I will try to check out the text tomorrow.
Edit2: I can't sad I wonder if it's online....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fantasy_Magick777 Vice Captain
|
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:14 pm
my brain is spent for the day, (I hate roofing) I'll come back and read this later, if it is alright. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
