On Fri, 23 Feb 1996, Marc Morales wrote:
> >I'm sorry. I must have missed part of this argument. Here is what I
> >1. Mark argued that Lancelot is not a Celtic creation.
> >2. You said that Lancelot is a Celtic creation, whether Mark wants to
> >believe it or not.
> >3. I asked why you say that Lancelot is a Celtic creation; I have no
> >strong thoughts either way, as I know too little about the topic.
> >4. You replied "I didn't think I needed reasons to argue that
> >Continental Europe may be as Celtic as the Isles when we consider The
> >Matter of Britain."
> >I am confused by your reply to this, and I presume that it is my own
> >fault. I've missed something in the argument, or have perhaps
> >misinterpreted something. At any rate, please reorient me.
> >As for Pan-Celtic Gathering, I fully support it as encompassed by
> >Pan-Human Gathering. The various Celtic cultures are not threatened by a
> >lack of Celtic unity, but rather by the general lack of concern for other
> >cultures that permeates most of our world.
> 1: Lancelot is a Celtic creation because it is a character that can be
> considered as an avatar of a Celtic God, and at any rate, in the whole
> Matter of Britain, he is now indisociable from Arthur. Some scholars think
> that Lancelot is the Breton version of a former character of the primitive
> texts : Llenleawg the Gael in the welsh texts. RS Loomis has proved the
> indentification between Lancelot and Lug. See also Jean Markale in 'Les
> Celtes et la civilisation celtique' pp396-398. Is it Celtic enough?
Who are these two scholars? What are their qualifications? When did they
> 2: On you opinion who created Lancelot and when ?
As I've said before, I've not come to a conclusion on this subject, since
I know very little about it. The only reason that I'm arguing is that
I've noticed a frightening trend on this list to to support things with
gut instinct, or by saying "prove the reverse." Your choice of the word
"opinion" is very revealing. Whether or not we know it, there is an
absolute truth of who created Lancelot. Defining this/these person/people
is not the same as choosing our favorite color...
> 3: Chretien de Troyes wrote circa 1160-1180.
> Geoffrey de Monmouth wrote his History of the King of Britain c1136.
I've missed something here too. How does this tie in?
> >5. As it is my understanding that this work was produced in the second
> >millenium of this era, I asked how the products of contemporary French
> >aristocratic culture could still be considered Celtic.
> 4: The first mention of Arthur was in a poem : 'Gododin' written down in the
> 13th century. The poem itself seems older c: 7th century. This is to show
> that something old can be written down much later. So how can we say that
> the legends written down in
> the *beginning* of the second millenium are contemporary French.
You seem to forget that we have the option of saying that we just don't
know yet on the basis of the evidence we have. There are no windows in
this room. I do not know that it is raining. Since I can't prove that,
does it mean it's not? We must examine what evidence we can, draw the
best conclusion we can, and accept our limitations.
> Anyway I think that we will dwell on and on the same old problem : the
> definition of what is Celtic.
This could be a good topic of conversation (except that it might bring us
back to "race"...). Let us discuss this.
> I still regret that Mark didn't take on with his assertion himself.
I think he did that quite well.
> Marc Morales
> [log in to unmask]
> Dia Dhuit uile
> A wolf can act but like a wolf