The debatable land in question is the thin wedge of territory between England and Scotland on the west coast which, for a period in the late Middle Ages, was officially declared as lawless by the parliaments of each country. The resulting piece of English legislation contains a quite magnificent disclaimer:It's these Border Country folk who later, following an adventure in the Stewart plantationing of Ulster, become the "Scots-Irish" so momentous in American history.All Englishmen and Scottishmen are and shall be free to rob, burn, spoil, slay, murder and destroy, all and every such person and persons, their bodies, property, goods and livestock… without any redress to be made for same.As Robb comments dryly, ‘by all accounts they availed themselves of the privilege’.
Arthur the Centurion
An implausible theory, says the Spectator. But the border country hosting it certainly has an interesting history.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It is difficult to swallow, because Arthur clearly should have existed, even though he apparently did not. I would have like Geoffrey Ashe's version to prove out.
As for the Borderers, the book looks interesting. I need to pay more attention to the Spectator, as it always pleases me.
A good book about the history of that border country is The Steel Bonnets, by George MacDonald Fraser (of the Flashman historical novels fame). I'm currently reading his memoir of fighting in Burma, titled Quartered Safe Out Here: A Harrowing Tale of World War II. He was from Carlisle, in or near that border country.
Of course Arthur is real. He cannot be otherwise by a good Neoplatonic argument. What we are debating is the manner of his being.
I notice the Wiki article uses "Scotch-Irish." Like you, I am accustomed to "Scots-Irish." It got drummed into me that "Scotch" was what you drink. On the other hand, my Scots-Irish grandmother- though all of my grandparents had some Scots-Irish ancestry- referred to her thrifty ways as showing the Scotch in her.
A friend of mine who identifies as Scottish, but not as Scots-Irish, informs me that his ancestors also came from the borderlands.
I had a period when I read a lot of books promoting various theories on the "real" king Arthur. One of them made him Scottish, as I recall. Arthurian studies are remarkable for producing lots and lots of what I might call "inverted pyramid" theories -- where a great mass of speculation rests on a tiny foundation of actual evidence. The only comparable field in my experience is books on the Kensington Rune Stone, but no doubt there are lots and lots I'm not aware of. What the heck, it's a fun form of recreation for the amateur historian.
Post a Comment