Talk:Matter of Britain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

old talk[edit]

"(There are but 3 literary cycles that no one should be without: the matter of France, of Britain, and of great Rome.)"

Use of personal opinion here inappropriate for an encyclopedia?

The opinion reported is the opinion of Bodel, the medieval poet that made the name "Matter of Britain." What you have quoted here is the translation of Bodel's French that appears directly above it. -- Smerdis of Tlön 13:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bodel is neither an important figure in history nor is he a serious historian. Thus Wikipedia uses a personal opinion here, that is against the rules. Please make this article serious and not biased, thanks.

It's not against the rules to quote opinions if one makes it clear that that is what is being done.
As for Jean Bodel, he isn't a historian at all, either serious or frivolous. He is the poet who (as far as anyone can discover) originally set out the distinction between the Matter of Britain and the other two themes of medieval narrative poetry. In one sense, he rivals Arthur for the distinction of being the most important figure in the whole article: it's because of Arthur that the stories exist; but it's because of Jean Bodel that the article exists and has this title. Andrew Dalby 12:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bodel is quoted in connection with the origin of the term, rather than the view expressed. That said, it would be interesting to see a discussion of the contemporary perceptions of the 3 literary cycles. Your post implies some knwledge of the period, so perhaps you could oblige. ps - Wikipedia encourages those who participate in Talk pages to sign their contributions, ideally with a Wikipedia account id. Countersubject 12:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This statement is ethnocentric and does not convey anything but an opinion. Perhaps it is important enough to cite though. The article's first sentence uses a passive voice that could be changed to identify the creator of the term, "Matter of Britain" in context. I work at the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center at the University of Texas in Austin, I do not represent the center, but all my colleagues that I have spoken to find this statement and article odd. If one doesn't know of the Matter of Britan does that make them a literary imbecile? I tried to make it more objective, but my revision was reverted. I request a revision. Alejandr013 19:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand the problem. The statement was made by a 12th century French poet; therefore it is bound to reflect his ethnic perceptions. Naturally, what Bodel said is no longer true, and is ethnocentric. We can't convert him to modern multiculturalism, because he has been dead for 750 years. That's why changing the translation of his words, as you did, doesn't really work: it just becomes an inaccurate translation.
It's still worth quoting Bodel because his historic statement set up the idea of a Matter of Britain, an idea that modern literary historians dealing with this period still employ.
According to Bodel, everyone in 12th century France needed to know about the "Matter of Britain". That's interesting, surely (even if it isn't true of the 21st century world) because it tells us that in his medieval place and time this was a really central, canonical part of literature. For modern people studying medieval literature, such opinions are worth knowing.
I have adjusted the layout to make it crystal clear that this is a translation of a 12th century opinion, and not a modern view: does that help at all? Andrew Dalby 20:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely better worded now, I hope this will clear up that confusion. It's obviously worth quoting because Bodel popularized the term we use for the article's title.--Cúchullain t/c 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move to Arthurian legend[edit]

Matter of Britain -> Arthurian legend —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sonjaaa (talk • contribs) 14:43, 22 Jun 2005. has apparently requested that this page be moved. Smerdis of Tlön 16:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I oppose moving this page to Arthurian legend. Two reasons. First, it obscures the parallelism between Matter of Britain, Matter of France, and Matter of Rome. Second, the "Matter of Britain" is not quite synonymous with "Arthurian legend," since it also contains non-Arthurian legends such as Brutus of Britain or the source of King Lear, that do not relate to King Arthur. Smerdis of Tlön 16:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Smerdis of Tlön in opposing, although the article does not quite make this clear enough. Rmhermen 18:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The academic term is Arthurian literature. See Medieval literature. Stbalbach 18:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Matter of Britain" is an established term in its own right, & at least needs a short article explaining its origin, & not just a naked redirect. BTW, I was always under the impression that "Matter of Britain" applied to the whole legendary history of Britain (e.g., King Lear), & not just Arthur & related tales. -- llywrch 05:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The Matter of Britain is an entirely separate subject in British history, of which Arthur simply falls into. However, the Matter includes descrepencies between various issues such as Merlin and the relation of the kings of Gwynedd to the Mythical British Kings. Whaleyland 14:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. violet/riga (t) 10:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


There is a lemma with arthurian cycle

--213.7.152.60 10:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

English of Article[edit]

There's a minor, good-humoured edit war going on about the use of British or American English in the article. For example: I'm just about to change 'focused' in the intro to 'focussed', the British English form (ironically, the word was introduced in an attempt to avoid the contention of the centred / centered debate!). There's a clear wikipedia guideline on this: Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country. Countersubject 08:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. I'm British and I thought British spelling for this word was "focused". Andrew Dalby 09:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The online dictionaries seem to be divided. Cambridge Online simply gives the two forms as alternatives. Merriam-Webster Online the same. Longman gives focused as American and focussed as British. Does anyone have the OED to hand? Countersubject 11:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree strongly that the "Matter of Britain" is a specifically British topic. The very phrase itself comes from French. We wouldn't change the Tarzan article to British spelling just because the character is supposed to be British. At any rate, it's probably best to use neutral spellings. In this example, "focused" is the only form used in American English, and seems to be prominent in British English as well, perhaps even more prominent than "focussed". If this is going to be a problem, perhaps we should find a different word.--Cúchullain t/c 21:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what the OED says about the participial forms of the verb "focus": "Pples. focused, -ing; in the U.K. commonly, but irregularly, written focussed, -ing." The implication seems to be that the form "focused" is predominant in the UK and elsewhere -- as Andrew Dalby said above. I agree wholeheartedly with Cuchullain re: the Britishness of "The Matter of Britain." In the medieval period, at any rate, the great majority of works that focus on the Matter of Britain are written in French -- and mostly in what is now France. Layamon's Brut -- written in English -- probably didn't appear until the early 13th century; many of the important French works on the MoB had already appeared by that time. And the Middle English romance "Of Arthur and of Merlin" -- arguably the first Arthurian romance in English if you except "Brut" and the difficult to date "Landevale" -- first appears in the Auchinleck MS., which was written in the 1330s; by that time the French vogue for the MoB was largely over. Medieval French writers clearly saw these texts as part of their own literary heritage. And if the sheer number of texts is any guide, they seem to have cared more for this body of work than their counterparts working in Middle English did. This is not a "a specifically British topic." --estmere 07:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, for topics relating to periods before US independence, there can be very little reason to choose one spelling over another. Just that it looks more professional if each article is internally consistent. Andrew Dalby 09:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very odd if British English were not suited to the Matter of Britain. There are two issues here: subject and authorship. The subject of the Matter is a body of legendary and mythological events in or relating to the British Isles, and the Wikipedia guidance is quite clear: use the spellings and forms of the place the article is about. As to authorship: many of the key primary texts are from the British Isles. Where they are not, they are still of European origin, and the convention is for articles about European matters to use a European form of English (e.g. see the article on the EU). The language of the secondary texts is neither here nor there, unless quoted. All that said, it makes sense to use common spellings where it doesn't harm meaning or style. Countersubject 11:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the article should use British spelling (whatever that is, it seems to keep changing) -- Stbalbach 14:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I disagree strongly with that. I think it should be the author's choice, and I don't think we should alter the original spelling if it used one or the other. That said, it's probably best to choose neutral wording and be done with it. In this specific case, I think "focused" is the best option, because it is one of the spellings used in Britain, and the only one used in America. If there are no objections, I'd like to change it.--Cúchullain t/c 15:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of Wikipedia guidelines like this is to provide consistency, encourage courtesy and avoid conflict. That implies self-imposed limitation of choice for the good Wikipedian. In the case of this article, that means avoidance of non-British English. If you don't agree with the guideline, that's a matter for discussion elsewhere. Your suggestion for focussed / focused is a good implementation of the guideline. Best wishes, and sorry if that sounded like a lecture! Countersubject 17:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

This is the main article on Arthurian legend.. and its called this?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!! I think some folk are a bit obsessed with one obscure phrase and are IGNORANT of the common and most widespread academic name for the subject. Silly and as bad as DDR article slotted under East Germany. --maxrspct ping me 21:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matter of France or Britain[edit]

I think there is a mistunderstanding by Anglo-Saxons with the translation of old french which are "Matière de France" and "Matière de Bretagne". Matière de France refers to carolingians stories and Matière de Bretagne refers to brythonics stories. The Brythonics were the inhabitants of Britannia. Welsh and Cornish have stayed in England. All others have gone massively to Armorica which became Brittany, with the the picts, scots nd anglo-Saxons (german) invaders. So it's not the legendary history of Great Britain but the legendary history of brythonics people. Some parts of stories are situated in Britanny.

gallic (latin form) = celtic (greek form) wales (german form by anglo-saxons) = gales (latin form) = gaul Revision as of 11:10, September 19, 2009 by 88.172.141.127

I've added Brittany to the introduction. If we decide to exclude Brittany (Little Britain) from the Matter of Britain to focus only on Great Britain, then we also have to reconsider the position of some of the key writings mentioned (the writings of Marie de France, for example, certainly include Brittany in the territory they cover). 105.226.104.5 (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Carolingian stories are just one part of the Matter of France, as for the Matter of Bretagne, it refers to Celtic tradition, Lancelot as an example, wasn't a Briton but a Gaul. --86.220.189.89 (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Staggering Bias of the author of this page[edit]

I am just astonished how every single legend and story pertaining to the pre-Roman period is described as "fancifull" or "mythological" almost as if the author has the fancifull idea that no history or heroes existed in Britain prior to the coming of the Romans and that they were so backward they didnt bother trying to remember them. I suggest the author reads a bit and actually opens his mind more before contributing to wikipedia and simply regurgitating outdated Victorian ideas about pre-roman Britain. 94.31.12.194 (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are new here. There are maybe 100 people who have edited the page and could be considered authors. If you have reliable sources - see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY to see that that means here - then by all means add something to the article based on those sources (with citations of course per WP:CITE. I'd be fascinated to see what sources you come up with from say the last few decades that back your viewpoint. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WorldCat Genres[edit]

Hello, I'm working with OCLC, and we are algorithmically generating data about different Genres, like notable Authors, Book, Movies, Subjects, Characters and Places. We have determined that this Wikipedia page has a close affintity to our detected Genere of arthurian-romances. It might be useful to look at [1] for more information. Thanks. Maximilianklein (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Britain?[edit]

What is the definition of terms for 'Britain', and how does it apply to this article? The scope is confusing: the title refers to Britain which, given the time periods it covers, could refer to the whole of the British Isles, or simply to the island of Great Britain; but the article also mentions the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish as being distinct from 'Britain'. It seems to concern itself mainly southern Great Britain - specifically a region roughly equivalent of modern England.

Or does it? The Arthur legend does span at least the Irish, Welsh and French regions, and might not even be 'English' at all.

Perhaps a reference to culture or cultures would be better, rather than a reference to a geographical region which has varied, politically speaking, due to various cultural invasions and the invention of the nation state. "Anglo-Norman" matter, perhaps? --173.93.187.26 (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The Matter of Britain" is the name, not something we made up. The article explains this already. By the way you forgot to mention that part of Britain is the France now. Rmhermen (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "the France" is.
The title is certainly not something "we" made up, but somebody did. To that end, I'd like a definition of terms, as I said. The article doesn't do a very good job of explaining - which is why I took the time to write here in the first place. I didn't take the time to write here just so I could be replied to by a dismissive, curt and unhelpful fellow editor who refers to his or herself as "we".
The article describes itself as pertaining to "Great Britain", but the content itself appears to be confined to southern Britain.. as I mentioned above. --24.211.59.70 (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the content concerns the stories of Arthur and associated legendary kings. The stories of Britain. The locations are various and sometimes legendary. You clearly suggested changing the title to Anglo-Norman Matter, but that is not the name given to this subject by an author writing in the 1100s. Rmhermen (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Matter of Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so how should I rewrite this article? Or rather, make a proper one[edit]

And does anyone want to work with me on it. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removal or reworking of the Noteworthy Authors - Modern section[edit]

This section has no introduction and is a mixed bag of authors who may have written fiction based on the Matter of Britain or translated parts. In its current state, without an introduction, it provides limited value. I propose either removal or some introduction along the lines of "numerous modern authors have attempted translations or fiction inspired by the Matter of Britain, such as..." and include actual examples of publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhalamh (talk • contribs) 17:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This list is unfocused and meaningless. Any list which includes names as diverse as Deepak Chopra, William Shakespeare, Eric Idle and John Steinbeck with no qualifying explanation is valueless. As it currently stands, Adolf Hitler, J.K. Rowling and Walt Disney could easily be added, to no overall gain or detriment.--Stevouk (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Matter_of_Britain&oldid=1194486467"