At 12:44 PM 2/23/96 +0000, M.A. Handley wrote:
> Of course parts of the continent have to be called places that
>were 'once' Celtic, places such as Austria and the Czech Republic, and of
>course things Celtic survived in Gaul long after the Roman conquest -
>Sidonius Appolinaris refers to the 'Celtic language' in the fifth century
>AD! But to take from this that the 12th Century Norman-French were
>culturally indebted to the Celts enough for them to be the first to give
>us notice of a 'genuine' Celtic figure is overstepping the bounds of
>evidence just a little. Frankly I really don't see why the celticity of a
>figure such as Lancelot need be defended so staunchly, its not as if
>there is a shortage of real Celtic heroes.
>Mark Handley, Trinity Hall Cambridge.
If I defend the celticity of Lancelot, it is because I believe this
'personnage' is Celtic even if it was first introduced by the name Lancelot
by a french norman writer.
I have already given the sources for what I think.
And if Arthur was first mentioned in the 12th century by Geoffrey de
Monmouth and Lancelot first mentioned in the *same* century by Chretien de
Troyes I don't see why one would be invented and not the other ...
What do you think Mark?
[log in to unmask]
Dia Dhuit uile
A wolf can act but like a wolf