Great piece. As someone who is often accused of Euhemerism, I do think a distinction needs to be made when it comes to grey areas. One such is the Horse-Twins. While no doubt they were a real part of the IE Pantheon, they are often projected into any set of twins located anywhere, as some have done with the figures Peredur (Peredurus) and Gwrgi (Owain or Eugenius) the twin sons of Eliffer. This comes from poring through the pages of later texts such as De Gestis Britonum searching for any possible parallels. These and many others (even Arthur himself who some try to equate with the god Alator) were no doubt real figures, but when pointing out that they were real, many reconstructionists will cry "EUHEMERISM".
Yes, I do largely agree, I think that this would be a case of deification that requires careful euhemerization to understand. Like yourself, I believe Arthur was a real man, and I think other heroes which sometimes get relegated to mythology (and therefore, pagan religion) such as Finn McCool, Beowulf, Wayland, among others, are also probably real in some form. Their status within the folkish religion is unique owing to their deification. This is where I think euhemerization can be used a tool to better parse through these heroes and their roles both in history and mythology. You are probably the best example of how this can be done, in the case of Arthur. Perhaps you will one day dive into Finn, or some of the other heroes, but their antiquity is probably too much of an obstacle for much fruit to be found at this point.
I did not know that about Peredur and Gwrgi. Have you covered this in detail? If so, feel free to drop a link.
It's been a few years since I ran afoul of whoever it was claiming it, but as far as I remember the gist of it boils down to them appearing as ancient kings within De Gestis Britonum and being twins. The similarities end there, almost literally spinning the connection from nothing, with the only actual notable similarity being them being twins. Geoffrey separates them from their actual place in history by about 700 years, placing them much earlier than they should be. He does this with others, such as their cousin Gwenddoleu, even Arthwys is subject to it as the king Arthgallo, Garbanion ap Coel as Gorbanianus, Einion ap Mor and his son Rhun are given similar treatment, the list goes on. This wily-nilly treatment by Geoffrey of many of these pedigrees is a prime stomping ground for making molehills out of small possibilities when it comes to comparative myth, and takes a very tempered approach. Because of his flippant use of real figures, it is hard to make heads or tales how much he is drawing from lost Brythonic myth, and lost Brythonic history.
Great piece. As someone who is often accused of Euhemerism, I do think a distinction needs to be made when it comes to grey areas. One such is the Horse-Twins. While no doubt they were a real part of the IE Pantheon, they are often projected into any set of twins located anywhere, as some have done with the figures Peredur (Peredurus) and Gwrgi (Owain or Eugenius) the twin sons of Eliffer. This comes from poring through the pages of later texts such as De Gestis Britonum searching for any possible parallels. These and many others (even Arthur himself who some try to equate with the god Alator) were no doubt real figures, but when pointing out that they were real, many reconstructionists will cry "EUHEMERISM".
I am glad you saw this.
Yes, I do largely agree, I think that this would be a case of deification that requires careful euhemerization to understand. Like yourself, I believe Arthur was a real man, and I think other heroes which sometimes get relegated to mythology (and therefore, pagan religion) such as Finn McCool, Beowulf, Wayland, among others, are also probably real in some form. Their status within the folkish religion is unique owing to their deification. This is where I think euhemerization can be used a tool to better parse through these heroes and their roles both in history and mythology. You are probably the best example of how this can be done, in the case of Arthur. Perhaps you will one day dive into Finn, or some of the other heroes, but their antiquity is probably too much of an obstacle for much fruit to be found at this point.
I did not know that about Peredur and Gwrgi. Have you covered this in detail? If so, feel free to drop a link.
It's been a few years since I ran afoul of whoever it was claiming it, but as far as I remember the gist of it boils down to them appearing as ancient kings within De Gestis Britonum and being twins. The similarities end there, almost literally spinning the connection from nothing, with the only actual notable similarity being them being twins. Geoffrey separates them from their actual place in history by about 700 years, placing them much earlier than they should be. He does this with others, such as their cousin Gwenddoleu, even Arthwys is subject to it as the king Arthgallo, Garbanion ap Coel as Gorbanianus, Einion ap Mor and his son Rhun are given similar treatment, the list goes on. This wily-nilly treatment by Geoffrey of many of these pedigrees is a prime stomping ground for making molehills out of small possibilities when it comes to comparative myth, and takes a very tempered approach. Because of his flippant use of real figures, it is hard to make heads or tales how much he is drawing from lost Brythonic myth, and lost Brythonic history.
I highly appreciate these comments, thanks Aurochs.