In the course of this, new tales began to be introduced to account for the origins of Arthur’s sword, and to relate its passing, while at the same time, new swords are introduced to fill the place of Excalibur in Arthur’s hand. Thereafter, the story of Arthur’s “swords” becomes a struggle to account for, and lay the puzzle to rest. Here, a simple misunderstanding produced much later confusion as to just whose sword Excalibur really was. But it is in the early French tradition that we find the seeds of much of the later confusion. Starting with the earliest Welsh accounts, references to Arthur’s swords are traced through the Latin, Old French and Middle English texts. So, did Arthur have two swords, only one of which was named, or was there only one sword, with two different accounts of its origins? This paper examines how the modern confusion has arisen from the way the legend of Arthur’s sword was transmitted across cultures over the course of the Middle Ages. Yet if you ask them to name Arthur’s sword, only one name, Excalibur, will spring to mind. Today, most people know the story of Arthur drawing the sword from the stone, and many also know the tale of his taking the sword from a hand rising out of the middle of a lake.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |