Originally posted by coredrill
I dont think that Saint Galgano & his sword in the stone has anything to do with king Arthur & his sword in the stone.
The Chronology is different for both.
sorry but what does the chronology of events in reality have to do with myth, legends and folklore? there are a lot of concepts to the stories that
are taken from other sources that don't follow the source they took from, such as the grail, or the knights of the round table or the questing the
take the grail: mythologists believe that the grail story comes originally from the cauldron of dagda or arawn that had the power to feed any man or
bring them back to life, depending on the story and the peoples of britain have stories of questing for it. later arthurian writers wanting to mold
these mostly pagan myths toward christianity, took concepts and created the holy grail from them. i have a feeling this is no doubt the same
The earliest mentioned reference of King Arthur is from the Latin Text of Historia Brittonum of the 9th century AD. or if you consider the
theory of Lucius Artorius Castus being the basis for the legend of King Arthur, he lived during the mid -late 2nd or early 3rd century AD.
But Saint Galgano lived from 1148 to 1181.
there is really no mention of his sword just battles, and if the book was history it couldn't be about anyone from the second century or third, the
saxons didn't overrun britain till the late 5th century. also, the story only uses the sword in the stone, nothing else, why even point out
anything about galgano, nothing other than the element of the sword is used in the the arthurian cycles.
Saint Galgano repented for his sins and put his sword into the stone to show he was willing to mend his ways.
i'm sorry but why is this relevant? the story isn't about galgano.
But King Arthur never did that. According to legend, its never clear as to who plunged the sword into the stone and there are arguments over
whether this sword is the same as the Excalibur, which according to other myths was handed over to him by the lady of the lake.
edit on 16/2/12 by coredrill because: for typos
again, why is that relevant?
a majority of mythology, legend, and folklore takes elements from real events or attributes concepts to local sources.
a good one is the wild ride, or wild hunt. the myth is that at night alone, if you are caught in certain places in the world, you might get hunted by
a ghostly hunting party. now depending on where you live there are different beings, people, or things that lead this hunt.
king arthur,odin, the fair folk, others i can't recall.
by the way there are other stories that say it was excalibur,and the lady just made it more magical.
my question for you is this, why are you insisting that mythology, legend, and folklore must follow historical fact? the idea is completely wrong and
downright absurd, i doubt the guy they made the legends after knew a norman knight named lancelot either.