Re: RE: Inaccurate myths; bronzes

From: Roderick and Ellen Robertson <rjremr_at_...>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:33:06 -0700

> An amusing derivation, and I'd love to believe it.
> I've seen heaps of those elision marks, myself. De
> for domine, for instance. One problem that I can see:
> what about the context? Sounds like the middle of a
> battle scene, taking a sword out of a Saxon. Hardly
> corresponds with the whole ceremonial set-up. Since
> Arthur is always fighting the Saxons, I can't imagine
> him accepting a sword from one as a token of kingship,
> either.

One of the problems I have with the whole Sarmatian "Sword in the Stone" theory is that the first time we hear about the Sword in the Stone is a thousand years after Arthur *may* have lived, (which was 200 years after Arturus Castus *did* live). The theme doesn't appear in any of the earlier Arthur works, even in the 1100's with Geoffrey of Monmouth, Wace and Layamon. I don't have access to my copy of the Vulgate, so I can't check to see if it was part of the French cycle, but in English the first appearance is (I think) Mallory in the 1400's.

Could it have remained, preserved by a thousand years of only oral history? Well, I suppose it could have, but Occam's Razor suggests otherwise.

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