Re: Re: Shields

From: Roderick and Ellen Robertson <rjremr_at_...>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 17:36:07 -0700

> *Recent bad films aside, my own understanding of Artorius Castus and his
> Sarmatians' connection to the Arthur story is that distinctly
> Sarmatian mythic and storytelling elements (the grail, sword in stone,
> story structures) and visual elements (dragon banners) are to be found
> in the Arthurian mythology, elements that can't be readily tied to
> Celtic traditions. I'm sure there are high and low (as well as
> Hollywood) variants to the thesis - I've read articles in 'Archaeology'
> and 'Folklore' as well as Reid's popularisation ('The Dragon King'?) -
> so it comes down to not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
> Assuming there is a baby of course :)

I agree, John, there are elements that *may* have been handed down (but I'm skeptical of 200-year-old legends suddenly springing to life (The first mentions of Arthur), let alone 1,000 year old legends (the more popular Arthur stories, which encompass the Sword in the stone, Grail, etc. myths - elements missing form the very earliest Arthur stuff). Dragon banners - well, they were pretty much the typical Roman Cavalry banner by the 200's.

I find that I just can't buy Linda Malcor's theories about Castus "being" Arthur.

And I won't comment on the complete tripe that was "King Arthur", other than to say "good thing the local theatre is only $5 for the afternoon showings". I didn't *quite* waste my money - there were some scenes that werent't complete groaners. I did go to a triple feature once (at the $1 theatre in San Jose) where I *did* think I'd wasted my money - Pet Semetary was one of the films, the others are mercifully blanked from my memory...

RR
It is by my order and for the good of the state that the bearer of this has done what he has done.
- Richelieu