 10.05.2004 09:56
|
|
Kaylee
Offline
Registriert: Jan 2004
Beiträge: 4029
|
|
Wooow!
*gespanntzuhör*
Aber man muss jetzt schon berücksichtigen, dass die Quelle eine christliche war, oder war sie das nicht?!
War dieser Aurelianus jetzt Arthur??? *hibbeeeel*
Welche Schlacht aus der Sage ist denn mit der am Badon Hill vergleichbar?? Weiss man über welchen Zeitraum sich diese Schlachte hinzogen???
IP: Logged
|
|
|
10.05.2004 10:06
|
|
pfeifenkrautler
Honk
Offline
Registriert: Mar 2004
Beiträge: 5344
|
|
Zitat:
Ich zitiere die entscheidenden Kapitel hier nicht im originalen Latein, sondern in einer englischen Übersetzung des 19. Jh.
Das ist..äh..sehr nett von dir.
*gespannt auf den echten Artus wart*
IP: Logged
|
|
|
11.05.2004 22:35
|
 Arthurian History, part 3
    
|
|
Alex.
Offline
Registriert: Aug 2002
Beiträge: 538
|
|
Hier noch ein bißchen Hintergrund-Info über Gildas, danach kommen wir endlich zu Nennius – und Artur.
"Gildas wrote his main work, the 'Ruin of Britain', about 540 A.D. or just before, when he was forty three years old. It is a fierce denunciation of the rulers and churchmen of his day, prefaced by a brief explanation of how these evils came to be. This preface is the only surviving narrative history of fifth century Britain. But it was not written as history. Gildas names in the fifth century only one person, one place, and one date, which he misplaced. Just enough is known to make his narrative intelligible: we know two key dates from contemporary Europe, and isolated detail from other sources, chief among them a collection of historical documents assembled about 800 A.D. known by the name of Nennius.
At the beginning of the fifth century Britain had been a Roman province for nearly 400 years, and for 200 years all freeborn Britons had been Roman citizens; there was no more contrast between 'native' and 'Roman' than there is to-day between 'Yorkshireman' and 'Englishman'. Society was dominated by a landed nobility, whose splendid country mansions, abundant in the southern lowlands, were built and furnished on a scale not matched again until the 18th century. The rents that sustained them were drawn from a vigorous agriculture and industry, whose output was distributed along an intricate road system. But in the highland regions of the south-west, of Wales and the North there was little comparable prosperity; poorer farmers supported no wealthy gentry. Beyond the frontier, northern border kingdoms were still uneasy allies of Roman authority, and beyond the Clyde and Forth lived the hostile barbarian Picts, ready allies of the Scots, the late Roman name for the inhabitants of Ireland, who raided when they could, and had established a number of colonies on the western coasts of Britain.
This sophisticated civilisation was destroyed long before Gildas was born. When he wrote, its realities were fast fading from men's memories; to Gildas, Romans were again foreigners, their empire a thing of the past. The Roman empire of the west was mortally wounded in 410, when the western Goths took Rome, though its ghost survived for two generations. The Goths obtained the right to settle in Roman territory under their own laws and rulers, with the status of federate allies, in 418. They were the first, but others soon followed, and when Gildas was young the western empire was divided between four Germanic kingdoms, in France, Spain, Italy and North Africa. Roman and German fused; German kings inherited the centralised authoritarian rule of Rome, and preserved the property and power of landlords.
The British differed. In 410 the emperor in Italy instructed them to provide their own defence and government. At first they were outstandingly successful, and kept their society undamaged for a generation. A strong sovereign emerged in the 420s and survived for some 30 years. Later writers knew him by the name or title of Vortigern, which means 'superior ruler' or 'high king'; Gildas' word-play describes him as superbus tyrannus, proud tyrant. Invasion from Ireland and beyond the Forth, which had harassed previous Roman governments for centuries, was permanently ended; but to curb it he settled German federates. Romans, British and Irish called them Saxons, but in Britain they called themselves English; the two words mean the same people, in different languages.
In or about 441 the English rebelled. Gildas condenses nearly twenty years' fighting, which ended with the destruction of a large part of the nobility of Britain, and the emigration of many of the survivors. The migration, to northern and central Gaul, is dated by contemporary Europeans to 460, or a year or two before. At home, renewed resistance was begun under the leadership of Ambrosius Aurelianus and continued, traditionally under the leadership of Arthur, for over thirty years until 'the final victory of our fatherland', after the decisive battle at Badon Hill, probably near modern Bath, in the 490s.
Gildas asserts that the victors maintained orderly government for a generation, but that in recent years power had passed to regional warlords, whose mutual violence overrode law and convention and corrupted the church. But the British had won the war. The English were beaten, though not expelled, and were confined to partitioned reservations, chiefly in the east. Yet victory had come too late, at the cost of almost everything that the victors had striven to protect. Though Britain was 'calm' and 'secure', freed from 'external wars', Roman civilisation was destroyed. Industry and market agriculture perished as roads became unsafe; towns that lost their supplies became 'ruinous and unkempt'; country mansions not built for defence were abandoned to wind and rain. After more than fifty years of war, peace could not revive a dead society. The skills of the builder, the potter, the tool-maker and other crafts were buried with old men who had trained no apprentices; more important, the rents and taxes that had paid for them could no longer be collected or paid. The war-lords could compel a self-sufficient agriculture to maintain their men and horses, but not to rebuild the past. They maintained their power throughout Gildas' lifetime; but soon after his death the English rebelled again, and between 570 and 600 permanently subdued most of what is now England.
But Gildas did not write in vain. On the contrary, few books have had a more immediate and far-reaching impact than his. He uttered what tens of thousands felt. His readers did not reform political society. They opted out. They had a precedent. Two hundred years earlier, in the eastern mediterranean lands, immense numbers had dropped out of a corrupt society to seek solitary communion with God in the deserts; but their sheer numbers forced them to form communities. Their western imitators had hitherto aroused little response; apart from the clergy of some cathedrals and a few high-powered seminaries, Latin monasticism was 'torpid' by 500 A.D., and had inspired only a few pioneers in the British Isles when Gildas wrote. But within ten years monasticism had become a mass movement, in South Wales, Ireland, and northern Gaul. Its extensive literature reveres Gildas as its founding father, named more often than any other individual.
Most of this literature is a sickly stew of half-truths, distorted by the ignorance and bias of medieval pietism. But there is first hand evidence that reforming monks were many and popular in South Wales, Ireland and Brittany before the mid sixth century plague, rapidly increasing in numbers thereafter; and that Gildas was respected. In the 7th century the movement spread from Ireland through Northumbria to much of England, and also to eastern France; in the 8th century, English and Irish missionaries brought Christianity and monasticism to Germany. In time, many of these houses adopted a version of the Rule of Benedict of Nursia, and became the nucleus of the later Benedictine Order.
A few notices outline Gildas' life. He was born a northerner, in the kingdom of the Clyde, but is said to have been schooled in South Wales, where he clearly wrote, since it is only the rulers of Wales and the South-West that he denounced by name. In later years he is said to have migrated to St. Gildas de Rhuys, in Morbihan, in southern Brittany. The Welsh Annals enter his death at 570, and report a visit to Ireland in 565. It is in these maturer years that the Letters were written. There is contemporary evidence (Letter 4, note) that some concerned Ireland, and others intervene in the dispute between ascetic extremists and milder monks which sharpened in the 560s (Letters 2 and 3, notes). The 'Penitential' or Monastic Rule ascribed to him deals with the same problems, and may well be his.
Gildas' reputation stood high among the early monks, but he is less esteemed by later and modern writers. Historians who have quarried his early chapters are understandably irritated that he did not provide a clear narrative with names and dates; and the extraordinary Latinity of his main invective seems tiresome, its purpose irrelevant to other ages.
The narrative is unclear because it was written from oral memory. The experience of our own age or any other defines the limits of oral memory. Most men over 60 today have learnt something from their fathers of the late 19th century; some listened in childhood to men who were born and schooled before Wellington died, and have heard of Waterloo. But, by word of mouth alone, they can have no understanding or time scale beyond their fathers' youth; they cannot know whether a Martello Tower is older or younger than a romanesque church. So it was with Gildas. In youth he knew older men who had lived through the wars, but few who were adult before they began. All he understood of the Roman past was that it was orderly; though he knew two northern walls, he knew nothing of when or why they were built. Oral memory took him back to the wars and a dateless Vortigern but no further. But for all its obscurity his narrative remains our chief guide to the history of Britain between the Romans and the English. That period shaped the peculiarities of our future. The mid fourth century Roman frontier is still the border between England and Scotland; but behind it, Britain was the only western province where the newcomers met prolonged resistance. The conflict ended in permanent division. There was no fusion between German and Roman; Roman institutions and language disappeared; the Welsh and the English both perpetuate the languages that their ancestors had spoken in and before the Roman centuries. The present day consequences of these divisions are better understood when their origin is known."
John Morris
University College, London
(Fortsetzung folgt)
IP: Logged
|
|
|
17.05.2004 18:51
|
|
Kaylee
Offline
Registriert: Jan 2004
Beiträge: 4029
|
|
ähemmm....nicht, dass ich gerade extrem bildungshungrig wäre, aber nicht dass du denkst, wir würden Brittanien über Europa-Asien-Konflikt vergessen, Alex! *geduldigwart*
Vielleicht stellt sich ja heraus, dass an der Arthur-Überlieferung auch viel mehr dran ist, als man Anfangs gedacht und nur für Dichtung gehalten hatte?! *smileeee+
IP: Logged
|
|
|
18.05.2004 03:08
|
|
Alex.
Offline
Registriert: Aug 2002
Beiträge: 538
|
|
Hach... Kaylee... hallo. 
Ja, wenn wirklich noch jemand Interesse hat, schreibe ich weiter. Gebt mir noch einen Tag, ich hab gerade wirklich viel zu tun. Hier schon mal das erste Häppchen.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
18.05.2004 03:10
|
Arthurian History, part 4
|
|
|
Alex.
Offline
Registriert: Aug 2002
Beiträge: 538
|
|
Es folgt nun das wichtigste oder zumindest inhaltsreichste Dokument über den historischen Artur.
Es wird meist als Nennius' "Historia Brittonum" bezeichnet, manchmal auch als "British Museum Harleian MS 3859" oder als "British Historical Miscellany". Der Autor Nennius ist nicht gesichert, aber unter diesem Namen ist es am besten bekannt. Das Dokument ist ein ursprünglich separater Codex oder Buch, das mit verschiedenen anderen Dokumenten zusammen in ein Buch gebunden 1729 von der Harleian Library erworben wurde.
Es wurde um 1100 oder etwas später in schön regelmäßiger und gut leserlicher Schrift geschrieben. Es ist unvollendet; die farbigen Initiale wurden nur im ersten Viertel des Text eingemalt; ein Titelblatt und Inhaltsverzeichnis fehlt, was bei so alten Texten allerdings nicht ungewöhnlich ist; das Ende ist mit "FINIT AMEN" bezeichnet.
Anhand des Inhalts (walisische Annalen und Genealogien) läßt sich belegen, das das Dokument eine direkte oder indirekte Kopie eines Originals aus der 2. Hälfte des 10. Jahrhunderts ist. Dieses Original war eine Kompilation aus verschiedenen unterschiedlichen Quellen.
So interessant auch die Einzelheiten der Datierung und die Manuskriptteile, die sich nicht mit Artur beschäftigen, für den Historiker sind, komme ich doch gleich zu der uns interessierenden
Section 56.
"In that time, the Saxons grew strong by virtue of their large number and increased in power in Britain. Hengist having died, however, his son Octha crossed from the northern part of Britain to the kingdom of Kent and from him are descended the kings of Kent.
Then Arthur along with the kings of Britain fought against them in those days, but Arthur himself was the military commander ["dux bellorum"]. His first battle was at the mouth of the river which is called Glein. His second, third, fourth, and fifth battles were above another river which is called Dubglas and is in the region of Linnuis. The sixth battle was above the river which is called Bassas. The seventh battle was in the forest of Celidon, that is Cat Coit Celidon. The eighth battle was at the fortress of Guinnion, in which Arthur carried the image of holy Mary ever virgin on his shoulders; and the pagans were put to flight on that day. And through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and through the power of the blessed Virgin Mary his mother there was great slaughter among them. The ninth battle was waged in the City of the Legion. The tenth battle was waged on the banks of a river which is called Tribruit. The eleventh battle was fought on the mountain which is called Agnet. The twelfth battle was on Mount Badon in which there fell in one day 960 men from one charge by Arthur; and no one struck them down except Arthur himself, and in all the wars he emerged as victor. And while they were being defeated in all the battles, they were seeking assistance from Germany and their numbers were being augmented many times over without interruption. And they brought over kings from Germany that they might reign over them in Britain, up to the time in which Ida reigned, who was son of Eobba. He was the first king in Beornica [Bernicia], that is, in Berneich." Und es geht weiter mit Dynastien und Genealogien.
Hier ist die betreffende Textseite. Sektion 56 beginnt am ersten roten Strich:
In der sechsten Zeile unter dem oberen roten Strich, die mit einer Lücke (für den noch nicht eingemalten T-Initial) beginnt, heißt es:
[T]unc arthur pugnabat contra illos
in illis diebus cum regibus brittonum sed ipse dux erat
bellorum. Primum bellum fuit in ostium flumi-
nis quod dicitur glein [...]
Dann kämpfte Arthur gegen sie [d.h. gegen die vorher erwähnten Sachsen] in jenen Tagen, zusammen mit den Königen der Briten; er selbst aber war der Heerführer [dux bellorum]. Die erste Schlacht fand an der Mündung des Flusses Glein statt [...]
Es folgen dann die 12 Schlachten, die mit dem Battle of Mt. Badon oder Badon Hill enden. Zu diesen Schlachten demnächst mehr.
[Dieser Beitrag wurde von Alex. am 18.05.2004 um 03:35 editiert]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
18.05.2004 14:07
|
Re: Arthurian History, part 2
|
|
_TylerDurden_
Offline
Registriert: Oct 2002
Beiträge: 2560
|
|
Zitat:
Gildas schrieb:
The twelfth battle was on Mount Badon
Das passt ja zu Gildas. Oder hat Nennius nur von ihm abgeschrieben?
Die älteste Nennung von Arthus ist in der "Y Goddodin", ein keltisch-walisisches Epos aus dem 6. Jahrhundet (das älteste überlebende Manuskript aus dem 13.Jhd) über einen gloriosen Angriff auf die bösen Angeln (der übrigens total vergeigt wurde und nur vom Barden Aneirin und zwei anderen überlebt wurde).
Im Original habe ich es leider nirgendwo gefunden im Netz, deshalb hier in der Übersetzung:
He thrust beyond three hundred, most bold, he would slay both middle and flank.
He proved worthy, leading noble men; he gave from his herd steeds for winter.
He brought black ravens to a fort's wall, though he was not Arthur.
He made his strength a refuge, the front line's bulwark, Gwawrddur.
wall
Bulwark = Bollwerk
Nachdem die Angeln die Hauptstadt der Goddodin eroberten wurde sie in Edinburgh umbenannt, das ganze spielt also in Schottland. Interessant, dass Aneirin Arthur als bekannt genug voraus setzt, um andere Krieger an ihm zu messen.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
18.05.2004 22:21
|
Arthurian History, part 6
|
|
|
Alex.
Offline
Registriert: Aug 2002
Beiträge: 538
|
|
"But whether or not Aneirin himself composed the line [gochore brein du ar uur/ caer ceni bei ef Arthur ‘he glutted (?) black ravens in the rampart of the strongfhold, though he was no Arthur’], its fleeting unexpanded reference to a hero of an earlier period than the Gododdin warriors implies that the poet could rely on the hearers whom he addressed in his own day to have a full knowledge of all the circumstances of Arthur’s career. It is surely a fair conjecture that the body of heroic tradition current in Strathclyde between the seventh and ninth centuries included this full information about Arthur. That this common knowledge was appealed to by the poet, who either introduced the line into the Gododdin, or who transmitted a version of the poem which already contained the Arthurian reference. That a part of this information likewise made its way into the ‘Northern Chronicle’ from when Annales Cambriae derived its two notices. And, that this information included a battle-listing poem whose contents Nennius summarized, or whoever it was who first redacted the Arthuriana passage in the Historia Brittonum."
Rachel Bromwich ("Concepts of Arthur", Studia Celtica, Volume X/XI, 1975/76, University of Wales Press, Cardiff)
Y Gododdin wurde mehrere Jahrhunderte lang mündlich tradiert, bevor es schriftlich fixiert wurde. Wir wissen also nicht, ob der Hinweis auf Arthur schon zu Aneirins Lebzeiten (um oder kurz vor 600) im Gedicht war oder zu einer späteren Zeit in die mündliche - oder schriftliche - Überlieferung eingefügt wurde. Der Text wurde um die Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts niedergeschrieben und in einer der überlieferten Versionen läßt sich anhand der Sprache erkennen, daß sie auf ein Original des 9. oder 10. Jahrhunderts zurückgeht. Somit wurde Arthur möglichwerweise bereits um 600, spätestens aber im 9./10. Jh. als Held verehrt.
Der Text des Gedichts bedeutet übrigens "He glutted black ravens on the rampart of his fort although he was not Arthur" (er mästete schwarze Raben an den Wällen seiner Festung [mit den Leichen erschlagener Feinde], auch wenn er nicht Arthur war).
Hier ist das Original, werter Tyler:
Ef guant tratrigant echassaf
ef ladhei auet ac eithaf
oid guiu e mlaen llu llarahaf
godolei o heit meirch e gayaf
gochore brein du ar uur
caer ceni bei ef arthur
rug ciuin uerthi ig disur
ig kynnor guernor guaurdur
Walisisch ist einfach eine geile Sprache! (Ich verstehe kein Wort davon, aber es liest sich göttlich.)
[Dieser Beitrag wurde von Alex. am 18.05.2004 um 22:30 editiert]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
21.05.2004 13:51
|
|
Kaylee
Offline
Registriert: Jan 2004
Beiträge: 4029
|
|
gibt es WIRKLICH 'nur' diese wenigen schriftlichen Belege, dass es einen Kriegsheld Arthur gegeben haben muss??
*tatsächlichkaumglaubenkann*
Wurde generell so wenig über die Zeit überliefert, nicht nur chronikhaft, oder ist es merkwürdig, dass Arthur ansonsten nicht erwähnt wird, wenn es ihn in der Form gegeben hätte??
Oder wird hier auch streng getrennt zwischen Legende, Erzählungen und mehr oder weniger beglaubigten Chroniken?!
IP: Logged
|
|
|
