publication . Article . 1933

King Arthur and the Saints

C. Grant Loomis;
  • Published: 01 Oct 1933 Journal: Speculum, volume 8, pages 478-482 (issn: 0038-7134, eissn: 2040-8072, Copyright policy)
  • Publisher: University of Chicago Press
HAGIOLOGY has two traditions concerning King Arthur. One tradition shows an independence of development, free from any influence of Geoffrey of Monmouth. This type of legend is characterized by a certain crudeness which has nothing of the white Arthur of romance. The king is presented as a rough chieftain, with low tastes and brutal manners, whose successes are questionable, and who receives deserved rebuffs from the hands of religious heroes. He is a figure who fits naturally into the background of the wild days of the fifth and sixth centuries. The second tradition has its origins in Geoffrey's history, or displays some of the refinements which we are accustomed to date from that author. It is sometimes forgotten how much romance material is contained in the lives of the saints. For this reason I have summarized the fragments of Arthurian legend such as they appear in various hagiological documents. The legend of St Cadocus' contains two anecdotes about King Arthur. Neither of these stories does the king much credit. There is a certain naturalness about the incidents which reflects probability. Arthur gives evidence of those crude, rough manners one might expect from a border chieftain in those troublous days. The first tale runs as follows:
Persistent Identifiers
free text keywords: Literature and Literary Theory, Philosophy, Religious studies, Visual Arts and Performing Arts, History, Cultural Studies, Independence, media_common.quotation_subject, media_common, Literature, business.industry, business, Romance, Nothing, Legend, White (horse), Naturalness, History, Theology
  • Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage
Download from
Article . 1933
Providers: Crossref
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue