Badly Fine

In Anglo-Saxon society early pores there was a division into four main estates.In the first place was the class of noble people - erlov, compositionwho have ancestral knowledge. For the murder of an earl, they paid 400 shillings, i.e., twice as much as they paid for the murder of a simple freedom foot man. This was the layer of large landowners and slave owners that was emerging by that time. The second place was occupied by free peasants - pearls. The wergeld for them was 200 shillings. Free peasants lived in rural communities and owned family plots in the villages - guides.

The third estate was lety, or wili,- semi-freeestate. The wergeld for them was 40, 60 and 80 shillings, fordepending on their social status. They were addictssitting on a foreign land and under the protection ofstronger people. Mostly they were people of the Celtic proorigins, in contrast to the Earls and Curls, who came from the Anglo-Saxons.

The fourth estate was slaves( theow ), for which notily wergelda; for their murder they paid, as for the murder of cattle, not a wergeld, but a fine in favor of the master. Among the Anglo-Saxons, slavery was quite common after the conquest, and Eastern merchants from the Continent came to England very often for the purchase of slaves. This is explained by the fact that the struggle between the cell Tami and the Anglo-Saxons still continued and the Anglo-Saxons under conquest enslaved a lot of Celts.

Such was the social order Anglo-Saxons for the first time after the conquest. But within VII in. there is a growing difference between the free simplea peasant, a curl, and a noble earl. This can be traced according to the wergeld that the kings of Kent establish towards the end VII in. By this time, the wergeld per earl rises to 600 shillings.lings, that is, it is made three times higher than the wergeld of a simple butny.

Gezites

But the tribal nobility itself begins to be replaced by a new layer -royal vigilantes, the so-called gesites, or tenami, which now constitute a new privileged service class, obligated to military service. Wergeld for such royal vigilantes increases even more. In Wessex at the end VII in. in King's Truth Ini royal druThe ginnik who owns the land is valued at 1,200 shillings, that is, 6 times higher than a simple free person. A royal warrior who does not own land, as well as a non-royal warrior, is valued at 600 shillings, that is, still 3 times higher than justfree peasant. Obviously, the military militia of the free peasants, which originally formed the basis of the military organization of Anglo-Saxon society, no longer satisfies now to the needs of a feudal society. Center of gravityin military affairs moves to professional soldiers, whichare primarily royal vigilantes. But still, initially in Anglo-Saxon society, the bulk of the population is made up of free peasants, Curls, who livevillages, rural communities. This free peasantry gathers at village assemblies, where they decide their affairs, as well as at meetings of the district-hundreds, convened monthly, and, finally, at county meetings, which meet twice a year.

Hyde

Each free peasant owned a special family inheritanceprivate land allotment, guide, which is usually calculated120 acres, that is, about 50 hectares. It's prettylarge allotments; probably they were at the disposal of the whole"big family". Such a plot of arable land, ownedyard allotment, could be cultivated within a year by one harnesswhich is eight oxen. In that era, the plow was not a small plow of the Romanthe type pulled by two oxen; it was a big heavy plow,in which four pairs of oxen were harnessed. In addition, the villageThe peasant households had a share in the meadow, pasture for cattle, as well as in the use of public forests, waters and other lands. Allpossession broke up into separate strips, which were oncethrown into the countryside, where coercion dominatedcrop rotation. Initially, the two-field system predominated.a system with the division of the entire area of ​​arable land into two fields, one of whichsome were fallow, and the other was sown. But there has already been a transition tothree-field.

Feudal relations in Western Europe developed not only in France, Germany and Italy. Early feudal states appeared both in the British Isles and on the Scandinavian Peninsula. At the same time, the process of feudalization in England and Scandinavia proceeded at a slower pace than in these states of Western Europe. This was due to the extremely weak influence of the Roman orders in England and especially in Scandinavia.

1. England in the VII-XI centuries.

Conquest of Britain by the Anglo-Saxons

After the Roman troops at the beginning of the 5th century. were withdrawn from Britain, inhabited by the Britons (Celts), German tribes of Saxons, Angles and Jutes, who lived between the Elbe and the Rhine (the area of ​​​​settlement of the Saxons) and on the Jutland Peninsula (the area of ​​\u200b\u200bsettlement of the Angles and Jutes) began to invade its territory en masse. The Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain lasted over 150 years and ended mainly at the beginning of the 7th century. Such a prolonged nature of the conquest is explained primarily by the fact that the Celtic population of Britain offered stubborn resistance to the Anglo-Saxon conquerors.

In the process of conquest, the Anglo-Saxons exterminated a large number of the Celtic population. Some of the Celts were forced out of Britain to the continent (where they settled on the Armorica peninsula in Gaul, later called Brittany), and some were turned into slaves and dependent people who were obliged to pay tribute to the conquerors.

Independence was defended only by the mountainous Celtic regions in the west of Britain (Wales and Cornwall) and in the north (Scotland), where tribal associations continued to exist, which later turned into independent Celtic principalities and kingdoms. Complete independence from the Anglo-Saxons (until the second half of the 12th century) was also preserved by Ireland inhabited by the Celts.

On the territory of Britain, conquered by the Anglo-Saxons (it later became England proper), around the end of the 6th and beginning of the 7th centuries, several Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were formed. These were: Kent - in the extreme southeast, founded by the Jutes, Wessex, Sessex and Essex - in the southern and southeastern parts of the island, founded by the Saxons, East Anglia - in the east, Northumbria - in the north and Mercia - in the center of the country, founded mostly in English.

All these kingdoms were early feudal states, similar to those that were formed on the continent of Europe by the Franks, Burgundians, Visigoths and other Germanic tribes.

Anglo-Saxon economy

The main occupation of the Anglo-Saxons was agriculture. It undoubtedly prevailed over animal husbandry, although the latter continued to play an important role in the economy. Hunting was also of great importance.

The villages of the Anglo-Saxons were surrounded by small patches of arable land and vast expanses of forest and moorland. Heath and hills, covered with heather and thick bushes, served as pasture for sheep, goats and cattle. Pigs were fattened in the forests, where they found acorns and beechnuts in abundance.

The Anglo-Saxons plowed the land with a heavy plow with a team of 4 and 8 oxen. Sometimes a lighter plow was also used - with one or two pairs of oxen. Significant distribution among the Anglo-Saxons has already received two-field and three-field. The Anglo-Saxons sowed winter wheat, rye, barley, oats, beans and peas. Plots of an arable field were usually fenced, located in strips, and after harvesting and removing fences, they came into common use, turning into communal pastures for livestock.

The level of development of productive forces among the Anglo-Saxons in the 7th-8th centuries. was about the same as that of the Franks in the 5th-6th centuries.

Free rural community and the beginning of its decay

A characteristic feature of the Anglo-Saxon society was the preservation in it for a very long time of a free rural community, similar to the Frankish community-mark. The basis of the Anglo-Saxon society, at least in the first two or three centuries after the conquest, was made up of free communal peasants - curls, who owned, within the community, significant plots of land - the so-called guide ( Gaida was usually called a piece of land that could be cultivated for a year with one plow with a team of 4 pairs of oxen. Such a hyde was 120 acres. In some sources, the gaida was considered equal to 80 or 100 acres.). Gaida was the hereditary allotment of a large family in which brothers, their sons and grandchildren ran the household together. In the period immediately following the conquest of Britain, the individual family, consisting of husband, wife and their children, was, apparently, among the Anglo-Saxons still in the stage of separation from this large family and, at least in property terms, was still closely related to the latter. In addition to an allotment of arable land, each household had the right to land that remained in the use of the entire community - meadows, pastures, wastelands, forests, etc.

The Anglo-Saxons also had noble people - earls, who stood out in the process of social stratification from the mass of ordinary members of the tribe. The Earls, who already differed in property from ordinary peasants, as the community decomposed, turned into large landowners.

The Anglo-Saxons also had slaves and semi-free people, who came mainly from the conquered Celtic population. Slaves were used as yard servants or received a small allotment and cultivated the lands of the Anglo-Saxon nobility.

Leths and wilys (as the Welsh Celts were called), as a rule, sat on foreign land, carried corvee and delivered their masters in kind. Part of the Celts (especially in the western regions of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms bordering Celtic Wales), although they paid tribute in favor of the king, retained their lands and their freedom. Part of the Celtic nobility, not exterminated by the conquerors, merged with the Anglo-Saxon nobility.

The growth of large landownership and the enslavement of the peasants

The Anglo-Saxons gradually fell into the number of people dependent on large landowners, who lost their freedom both as a result of property stratification among free community members, and as a result of violence and oppression by the tribal and military service nobility and direct seizures of arable and communal lands by it. . With the sobbing of the wealthy peasant elite from the community (which was especially facilitated by the emergence of allod - the private property of a community member on an allotment of arable land), the number of free peasants began to inevitably decrease.

Ruined, deprived of their land, the peasants were forced to go into bondage to large landowners and take land plots from them on the condition of paying dues or performing corvée. So, the Anglo-Saxon peasants from free people turned into dependents. Large landowners, under whose private authority the peasants dependent on them, were called Glafords ( Hence the later form of the word is lord.) (which corresponds to the concept of "senior", or master).

In the formation and strengthening of the feudal relations that arose and developed among the Anglo-Saxons, the royal power played an active role, helping the landowning nobility to enslave the free Anglo-Saxon peasants. One of the articles of the “Truth of King Ine” (end of the 7th century) read: “If anyone leaves his glaford without permission or secretly flees to another county and is found, let him return to where he was before and pay his glaford 60 shillings ".

With the growth of the Anglo-Saxon states and the strengthening of royal power in them, the importance of royal warriors - the Gesites, originally medium and small landowners, increased. The old tribal nobility (earls) partly merged with them, and partly was forced out by the new military-service nobility, who received land grants from the king.

The church played an extremely active role in the process of enslaving the peasants. Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons, which began at the end of the VI century. (in 597) and ended mainly only in the second half of the 7th century, met the interests of the ruling stratum of the Anglo-Saxon society, since it strengthened the royal power and the landowning nobility grouped around it. Land grants granted by kings and nobility to bishops and numerous emerging monasteries contributed to the growth of large church landholdings. The church justified the enslavement of the peasants in every possible way. Therefore, the spread of Christianity was met by the free Anglo-Saxon peasantry, who saw in their former, pre-Christian cults the support of communal orders, long and stubborn resistance.

Organization of government in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms

The organization of the local government of the Anglo-Saxons in the period immediately following their conquest of Britain was based on the structure of a free peasant community. Free residents of a village (i.e., a rural community) gathered at a gathering, where, under the leadership of an elected headman, they resolved economic matters related to joint use, communal lands, and other issues, resolved disputes between neighbors, litigation, etc. Representatives of rural communities that were part of a certain district (such a district was called a hundred among the Anglo-Saxons) gathered every month for hundreds of meetings, where they elected a foreman who was in charge of the hundreds. Initially, it was a meeting of all the free inhabitants of the hundreds or their representatives. Here, court cases that arose between residents of different villages, which were part of a hundred, were mainly dealt with.

With the development of feudal relations, the nature of the hundred assembly has changed significantly. The foreman turned into a royal official, a representative of the central government, while the free curls or their elected representatives were replaced by the largest and most influential landowners of the hundreds, as well as the official representatives of each village in the person of the headman, the priest and the four most prosperous peasants.

Popular meetings of the Anglo-Saxons, which were originally meetings of the warriors of the entire tribe, and then of individual kingdoms, from the 9th century. became collections of counties (or skirs, ( Skyr (a later form of the word - shire) means county.) as the Anglo-Saxons now began to call large administrative districts) and were convened twice a year to consider court cases. At first, representatives of the tribal nobility, headed by the eldorman, played a decisive role in these counties. Subsequently, with the growth of royal power, the eldorman was replaced by a royal official - a skyr-gerefa ( The word "gerefa" (a later form - riv) means a steward, headman. From skyr-geref (in its later form - shire-reve) comes the word "sheriff".), who became the head of the county. Since then, only the most noble and powerful people of the county, large secular landowners, as well as bishops and abbots, have taken part in solving cases.

Features of the development of feudalism in England

The process of the disappearance of the free peasantry in England was relatively slow, which was due to the extremely weak influence of the Roman order. A certain role was also played by the fact that the tribes of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes who migrated to Britain were at a lower level of socio-economic development than the Franks who settled Roman Gaul, and they retained communal orders longer. It was in England that, along with the royal squad, for a long time the military militia of free peasants, the so-called fird, continued to exist, which formed the initial basis of the entire military organization of the Anglo-Saxons.

The relatively strong rural community that persisted for a long time in Britain strengthened the forces of the peasants in their struggle against feudal enslavement. This was also one of the reasons that determined the slower process of feudalization in England, compared with other countries of Western Europe.

Unification of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the 9th century. and the formation of the kingdom of England

There was a constant struggle between the individual Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, during which some kingdoms seized the lands of others and even temporarily established their dominance over them. So, at the end of the VI and at the beginning of the VII century. Kent was the most important. Approximately from the middle of the 7th century. the dominant position was occupied by the northernmost of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms - Northumbria, in the VIII century. - Mercia in Central England, and, finally, from the beginning of the 9th century. dominance passed to Wessex in the southwestern part of the country, subjugating all other kingdoms. Under King Ecbert of Wessex in 829, the entire country of the Anglo-Saxons united into one state, which from that time was called England.

The unification of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms into one state at the beginning of the 9th century. was due to both domestic and foreign policy reasons. On the one hand, the feudalizing elite of society needed to overcome the resistance of the peasants to enslavement, which required the unification of all the forces of the ruling class and the unification of individual kingdoms into one state. On the other hand, from the end of the eighth century the devastating raids of the Normans (Scandinavians) began on England. The needs of defense in a difficult struggle with the Normans determined the urgency of the political unification of the country.

In the united Anglo-Saxon kingdom, the general popular assembly was no longer convened. Instead, the king gathered Witenagemot (which means "Council of the Wise"), which consisted of the most noble and influential magnates of the kingdom. All matters were now decided by the king only with the consent of Whitenagemot.

Danish invasions. The struggle of the Anglo-Saxons with the Danes

The Normans, who terrified many states of what was then Europe with their pirate raids, attacked England mainly from Denmark and therefore are better known in English history under the name of the Danes. Initially, Danish pirates simply devastated and plundered the coast of England. Then they began to seize territories here and establish permanent settlements. So they captured the entire north-east of the country and introduced Danish customs and practices there (the area of ​​"Danish law").

Wessex in the south-west of England, which rallied scattered Anglo-Saxon kingdoms around itself and was less accessible to Danish raids than other areas, became the center of resistance to the conquerors.

An important stage in the fight against the Danes, and at the same time in the development of the Anglo-Saxon feudal state, was the reign of King Alfred, who received the name Great from English historians (871-899 or 900). Having bought off the Danes with tribute (after a series of defeats and failures), Alfred began to gather military forces, among which an important role was played by the ancient people's militia from free peasants, and the cavalry, heavily armed feudal army. A significant fleet was built, after which the Anglo-Saxons again entered into a fight with the Danes. Having stopped their onslaught, Alfred concluded an agreement with the Danes, according to which the whole country was divided into two parts. In the southwestern part of England, the power of the Anglo-Saxons remained, and the northeastern part remained in the hands of the Danes.

Of great importance for consolidating the unity of the country and strengthening the feudal state was the collection of laws compiled under Alfred - "The Truth of King Alfred", which also included many legislative provisions from the old Anglo-Saxon "Pravda" compiled at different times in separate kingdoms.

The strengthening of the feudal state was also facilitated by the new system of organization of the Anglo-Saxon army, based on the military service of small landowners as heavily armed mounted warriors.

In the second half of the 10th century, under King Edgar (959 - 975), the Anglo-Saxons were able to subjugate the Danes who settled in Northeast England. Thus, all of England was for a time united again into one kingdom. As a result, the Danes, who lived in England and were related to the Anglo-Saxons both in language and in their social system, merged with the Anglo-Saxons.

At the end of the X century. Danish invasions resumed with renewed vigor. The Danish kings, who by that time had united under their rule not only Denmark, but also most of Scandinavia, resumed raids on England and in 1016, subjugating the whole country, established the power of the Danish kings there. One of them - Canute (at the beginning of the 11th century) was simultaneously the king of England, Denmark and Norway.

In England, he sought to find support in the person of large Anglo-Saxon landowners. The collection of laws published by him confirmed a number of privileges and rights appropriated by large federal landowners. In particular, he recognized the broad judicial rights of the feudal lords over the population subject to them.

However, Danish rule in England proved fragile. The state of Canute, torn apart by internal contradictions and feudal strife, quickly disintegrated, and the old Anglo-Saxon dynasty was restored to the English throne in the person of Edward the Confessor (1042-1066).

The development of feudal relations in England in the IX-XI centuries.

The process of feudalization of Anglo-Saxon society, which continued during the period of struggle with the Danes, by the 11th century. gone far enough. Differentiation among free community members, the ruin of significant masses of the peasantry, intensified by Danish raids, violence on the part of the nobility supported by the state - all this led to the transfer of a significant part of the peasant land into the hands of large landowners. The reduction of peasant landownership was accompanied by the fragmentation of allotments. The size of the peasant allotment also decreased in connection with the separation of individual families from a large family. If initially a common peasant allotment was a haida (120 acres), then in the 9th-11th centuries, when a large family finally gave way to an individual family, a much smaller allotment was already common - a girda (1/4 haida - 30 acres) ( Subsequently, an allotment of 30 acres became known as a virgata.).

Large landownership grew steadily. The wars with the Danes contributed to the formation of a new dominant layer of landowners - the military-service nobility, or the so-called thegns, who replaced the former royal combatants - the gesites. This was a significant stratum of small and medium-sized landowners, from which the Anglo-Saxon chivalry subsequently formed. The large landowners, who differed from the small tens primarily in the large size of their possessions and great political influence, retained the name of the former noble people - erls.

An important role in the enslavement of free Anglo-Saxon peasants and in their subordination to large landowners was played, as in the Frankish state, by immunity, which in England was called juice. A peasant who fell under the rule of a large landowner who received the rights of immunity was called a cokmen. He was still considered personally free and continued to own his land, he could even leave the estate. But in judicial terms, such a peasant was dependent on a large landowner. This allowed the latter to gradually turn a free peasant into a person who was indebted to the immune landowner for certain payments or duties.

The royal government, in turn, continued to actively promote the enslavement of the peasants. Thus, "The Truth of King Athelstan" (first half of the 10th century) ordered the relatives of a man who does not have a master to "find him a glaford." If even after such an order a person was “out of protection”, he could be killed with impunity. The growth of the private power of the landowner was also evidenced by the "Truth of King Edmund" (mid-10th century), which said that every owner of the land "is responsible for his people and for everyone who is in his world and on his land."

The feudally dependent landowners at that time had not yet merged into a single stratum of the serf peasantry. So, in the Anglo-Saxon feudal estate, according to one monument dating back to the beginning of the 11th century, genites worked, the former free curls, apparently still retaining ownership of the land and were obliged to pay their lord a light monetary and natural dues, and sometimes carry a small barshchina. In relation to the king, the genites were indebted to the military service of a free man. Along with them, geburs lived on the estate - disenfranchised peasants who sat on the master's land and were obliged to corvee in the amount of 2-3 days a week throughout the year. The Geburs also carried a number of other heavy duties (they paid dues, various dues, etc.). Permanent corvée and other heavy duties were also performed by cossetles (cutters) - peasants who were holders of only small plots of land.

Thus, the process of feudalization that began in England after the Anglo-Saxon conquest by the beginning of the 11th century. hasn't been completed yet. Significant masses of peasants remained free, especially in the field of "Danish law", because the class differentiation among the Danes who settled in this part of the country was not yet as sharply expressed as among the Anglo-Saxons, and the feudal estate did not become widespread and did not acquire that finished form, which distinguished the feudal estate (manor) in England in a later period.

2. Formation of the early feudal Scandinavian states - Denmark, Norway and Sweden

The beginning of the transition of the Scandinavian countries to feudalism

Scandia (Scandza, Scadinavia) ancient writers called the Scandinavian Peninsula, as well as the islands adjacent to it.

By the beginning of the Middle Ages, most of Scandinavia and Jutland were inhabited by tribes that made up the northern branch of the Germanic tribes.

In the southern part of the Scandinavian Peninsula, in the region of the lakes Vänern and Vättern, lived the Getae, or Yoty (in some monuments they are called Gauts and Geats). The southern part of modern Sweden has retained the old name - Gotaland (Yotaland), that is, the land of the Goths (Yots). Slightly north of the Getae, in the area around Lake Mälaren (in present-day Central Sweden), the Svei (Svion, or Sveon according to ancient authors) lived. Hence Svealand - the land of the Swedes, or Swedes.

In the western part of the Scandinavian Peninsula (modern Norway), a large number of small tribes lived: Raums, Ryugs, Chords, Trends, Haleigs, etc. These were the ancestors of modern Norwegians. Danes (hence the Danes) lived on the islands of the Danish archipelago, in the neighboring regions of Southern Scandinavia (Skåne and others) and on the Jutland Peninsula.

In addition to the Germanic tribes on the Scandinavian Peninsula (in the northern regions of Sweden and Norway), there lived tribes of Finns ( Hence the name of the northernmost region of Norway - Finnmark.). This name in the Old Norse sources is called the Saami (Lapps). By the beginning of the Middle Ages and even much later, these tribes were at the stage of a stable tribal, primitive communal system. The Scandinavian Germanic tribes at that time were already in the process of decomposition of primitive communal relations, although more slowly than the Germanic tribes living closer to the borders of the Roman Empire. Scandinavia, located on the northern edge of the European continent, was little subject to Roman influence.

The main occupations of the population of the Scandinavian countries in the early Middle Ages were cattle breeding, agriculture, hunting, fishing and navigation. For plow farming, the most favorable conditions were in Jutland (in the middle part of the peninsula and especially on the adjacent Danish islands), in the southern part of Scandinavia and in Central Sweden, in Uppland, an area adjacent to Lake Mälaren. Rye and barley were cultivated here. With the further development of agriculture in Scandinavia, crops such as oats, flax, hemp and hops appeared.

But agriculture was not developed in all areas of Scandinavia. In the vast areas of the northern and western part of the Scandinavian Peninsula, that is, in Norway and most of Sweden, as well as in the northern part of the Jutland Peninsula, there were very few lands suitable for cultivation. Most of the territory here was occupied by forests, mountains and swamps; geographical conditions, especially climatic, terrain, etc.; were not favorable for agriculture. They were dealt with here to a relatively small extent. Cultivated mainly barley, less - rye.

The main occupations of the population in these areas of Scandinavia were cattle breeding, hunting, especially for fur-bearing animals, and fishing. In the far north of Norway and Sweden, reindeer herding played an important role.

Fishing has become especially important in Scandinavia. This is due to exceptionally favorable conditions: the large length of the coastline, highly indented and replete with many bays, bays and other natural harbors convenient for parking ships, the presence of ship timber and iron (mined from swamp ore, and later mining), necessary for the construction of strong sea courts, etc.

The development of navigation and nautical knowledge was also closely connected with the significant development of fishing. The inhabitants of Scandinavia and Jutland, who in the Middle Ages were often called by the common name of the Normans (literally, “northern people”), were courageous sailors who made long voyages on their fairly large ships for those times (multi-oared sailing boats), which could accommodate up to hundreds of soldiers, long voyages. At the same time, the Normans were engaged not only in fishing, but also in trade, which at that time often had a semi-robber character, and outright robbery - piracy.

As tribal relations decayed among the Scandinavian tribes, a transition was made from a tribal community to a rural, neighboring community. At the same time, social stratification grew. The tribal nobility stood out more and more sharply from the mass of free community members, and the power of military leaders, as well as the priesthood, increased. At the same time, the squad began to play an increasingly important role, with which the military leader shared the booty captured during the wars. All this contributed to the further disintegration of the communal order, the strengthening of social differentiation and the gradual formation of classes. There were alliances of tribes headed by kings (konungs) and the first, still very fragile, political associations were born - the forerunners of the early feudal Scandinavian states.

The Scandinavian countries, like many others, did not experience the slaveholding stage of development. Here, however, patriarchal slavery existed. The slave-owning way of life was especially developed in Scandinavia in the 9th-11th centuries, when individual military leaders began to undertake long-distance sea voyages with the aim of robbing, trading and capturing prisoners of war, whom the Normans sold to other states into slavery, and partly used in their economy.

In the economically more developed regions of Scandinavia, especially in Denmark, in southern Sweden, and partly in Central Sweden, slave labor was more widespread. The tribal and military-landowning nobility, towering above the mass of free community members, exploited in their economy a significant number of slaves, for the most part who already had allotments, that is, planted on the land. This nobility began to subjugate the free peasants. Survivals of slave labor remained of considerable importance in Scandinavia even later, until the 13th and even the beginning of the 14th century, but slavery did not become the basis of production.

The Scandinavian countries entered the path of feudal development only in the 9th-11th centuries, and the process of feudalization itself took place in Scandinavia more slowly than in most countries of Western Europe. Free peasantry, although in diminishing numbers, existed in Scandinavia throughout the Middle Ages. Common ownership of uncultivated land, pastures, meadows, forests, marshes and other lands existed and was widespread throughout the Middle Ages. While a significant stratum of independent free peasantry was preserved in Norway and Sweden, the feudal holders did not lose their personal freedom either, which was an important feature of the development of feudalism in Scandinavia.

In most of Sweden and Norway, where agriculture did not become the main occupation of the population, there were usually no conditions for the emergence of large feudal farms with large master fields, the cultivation of which would require the use of corvée labor of serfs. Here feudal exploitation was expressed mainly in food rent and in some other in-kind duties of the dependent population.

In Denmark, that is, in Jutland, on the Danish islands and in Skåne (in the southern part of Scandinavia, which was part of the Danish possessions in the Middle Ages), agriculture was the main branch of the economy. Therefore, here subsequently a large feudal estate with corvée and serfdom played a significant role.

Development of feudalism in Denmark

Feudal relations in Denmark began to develop earlier than in other Scandinavian countries. This was due to the more significant development of agriculture and related sectors of the economy than in other areas of Scandinavia, the earlier collapse of tribal relations and the transition to a rural community, the decomposition of which led to the formation of prerequisites for the transition to feudalism. Of some importance was the fact that, due to its geographical position, Denmark, more than Norway, not to mention Sweden, was connected with the feudal countries of Western Europe and, consequently, its social system could be more influenced by the orders prevailing in these countries.

Earlier than in other Scandinavian countries, an early feudal state began to take shape in Denmark. Back in the 8th century King (King) Harald Battle Tooth, according to legend, united all of Denmark and the southern part of the Scandinavian Peninsula (Skone, Halland, Blekinge) under his rule.

In the 10th century, under King Harald Sinezub (circa 950-986), the Danish kingdom was already strong enough to wage successful wars with the tribes of the Prussians and Pomeranian Slavs. Under the same Harald Sinezub, Christianity began to spread in Denmark. The kings gave large land grants to the church. Christianity finally took root in Denmark in the 11th century.

The Kingdom of Denmark reached considerable power under King Kanute (1017-1035). The composition of his power, in addition to southern Scandinavia, also included England and Norway. But it was just as fragile a state formation, like other large early feudal states. It disintegrated immediately after the death of Kanute. Of all the territories conquered by the Danes, only Southern Scandinavia remained in the Danish kingdom.

Norway in the Early Middle Ages

Numerous small tribes that inhabited Norway for a long time lived within small areas (fylks) separated by high mountains. Communication between them was carried out mainly by sea, thanks to bays (fjords) deeply protruding into the land. At the head of each tribe was its leader - jarl, a representative of the tribal nobility, who ruled with the help of the people's assembly.

Several tribes united in tribal unions. The affairs of such an alliance were decided by the people's assembly, which initially included all free people. Such meetings; called Things. In fact, not all free people could come to the Thing. Too much distance often served as an obstacle: the members of the tribe were forced to break away from their household for a long time. With the growth of social stratification, the nature of the Things also changed. War chiefs and other representatives of the nobility came to the Things with their squads and dependent people, putting more and more pressure on their decisions. The larger tribal unions were the Riks. At the head of such associations were elected kings (kings), who were elected at popular meetings - tings, usually from representatives of a certain noble family.

The decomposition of tribal relations and the emergence of classes led to the formation of the early feudal Norwegian state. An important role in this, as in other Scandinavian countries, was played by the formation of the military service nobility, grouped around the jarls and kings, who took part in their military campaigns and the division of booty.

A long fierce struggle between the military leaders (who tried to unite all counties under their rule) and the local tribal nobility more than once led during the 9th-10th centuries. to the temporary unification of the country under the rule of one or another king. The first still very fragile unification of Norway took place under Harald Fairhair around 872.

In Norway, as in other Scandinavian countries, the Christian church was an important tool of the kings in the political unification of the country. Christianity began to penetrate Norway in the middle of the 10th century. At the end of this century, it was already officially introduced by King Olaf Trygvason (995-1000). It was forced Christianization. The masses put up stubborn resistance to it. The tribal nobility, which relied on local pagan cults, also opposed the introduction of Christianity. Under King Olaf Haraldsson (1015-1028), whom the church called "saint" for his zealous planting of Christianity, the unity of Norway was more or less strengthened. Thus, a relatively strong unification of separate tribes and tribal unions of Norway under the rule of one king occurred at the end of the 10th - beginning of the 11th century.

In 1025, at the Battle of the Helge River (in Skåne), the Norwegians were defeated by the Danes; a little later, in 1028, Norway for a short time became part of the possessions of the Danish king Canute. Norway freed itself from Danish domination in 1035, immediately after the collapse of the Kanut state.

Formation of the Swedish state

In the XI century. The Swedish early feudal state also began to take shape, while two centers played the most important role in the unification of the Swedish tribes. One of them was located in Central Sweden, in the region of Lake Mälaren, in an area inhabited since ancient times by the Sveev tribe (Uppsala). Another center was the region of the tribes of the Goths, or Yots, i.e. Southern Sweden. In a stubborn struggle between the Uppsala kings (kings) and the South Swedish kings, the kings of Central Sweden (Uppsala) won.

Olaf Shetkonung (early 11th century) was the first king to extend his power throughout the country. Under Olaf, the Christianization of Sweden also began (about 1000). But Christianity finally triumphed in Sweden only by the 12th century. By the same time, and even later (XIII-XIV centuries), the final approval of feudal relations in Sweden also applies. But even then the feudally dependent holders made up only a minor part of the peasantry. The bulk of the Swedish peasants during most of the Middle Ages retained the position of free community members, landowners.

Naval campaigns of the Normans and their raids on European countries

Led by the leaders - the Vikings, the Normans made long sea voyages on their ships, the purpose of which was to capture rich booty and prisoners. The captured Normans were sold into slavery in the markets of various European and Asian countries, thus combining sea robbery - piracy with trade.

With the development of feudal relations in Scandinavian society, piracy, initiated by the nobility, intensified. A well-known role in this was played by the rivalry between individual representatives of the nobility for power in the emerging early feudal states and the displacement by the victorious kings (kings) of members of the noble families competing with them, who left Scandinavia with their squads.

The ships of the Normans plowed the seas washing the shores of Europe (Baltic, Northern, Mediterranean) and the waters of the Atlantic Ocean. In the VIII and especially in the IX-X centuries. they raided the eastern coasts of England, Scotland and Ireland, and also reached the Faroe Islands and Iceland, where they established their colonies.

Iceland in the 8th century visited by the Irish. The beginning of the colonization of Iceland by Scandinavians, mainly immigrants from Western Norway, dates back to the 70s of the 9th century. The settlement, from which the main city of Iceland, Reykjavik, subsequently grew, was founded in 874. In the 9th-11th centuries. in Iceland, the same socio-economic processes took place as in Norway, but the isolation of the island, its remoteness not only from Scandinavia, but also from other countries, contributed to a particular slowdown in social development. Tribal nobility - the so-called years were both military leaders and priests. The government of the country was increasingly concentrated in the hands of this nobility. In the all-Icelandic people's assembly - the Althing (which arose in 930), the decisive role belonged to representatives of the feudalizing elite of society. In 1000, under pressure from Norway, Christianity was officially adopted at the Althing, but it spread very weakly in Iceland. Along with Christianity, pre-Christian beliefs and cults continued to exist here for a very long time.

In the second half of the XIII century. Iceland was conquered by Norway, and at the end of the XIV century. (according to the Kalmar Union), together with Norway, fell under the rule of Denmark, which led to the oppression and exploitation of the Icelanders, first by the Norwegian, and then by the Danish feudal state. However, in Iceland, as in Norway, serfdom did not develop.

At the end of the X century. (about 982) Icelander Eric the Red discovered Greenland, on the southwestern coast of which the first settlement of immigrants from Iceland arose. This was the beginning of the colonization of Greenland by Europeans. Scandinavian settlements in Greenland existed for several centuries.

Around 1000, the Scandinavians sailed to America, the first to land here was Life, the son of Eric the Red, his ship was accidentally carried to these shores by strong winds. Skydinavs founded three settlements in North America: Helluland (in the Labrador region), Markland (in Newfoundland) and Vinland (believed to be near present-day New York). But these settlements, as permanent colonies, apparently did not last long. The very fact of the discovery of America by the Scandinavians remained little known and was subsequently forgotten.

The Normans penetrated deep into Germany along the rivers Elbe, Weser and Rhine. The Normans also attacked France - from the English Channel, the Bay of Biscay and the Mediterranean Sea. Just as in Germany, they penetrated the great rivers into the depths of France, mercilessly plundered and devastated the country, bringing terror everywhere. In 885 - 886 years. Normans besieged Paris for 10 months, but could not break the stubborn resistance of its defenders.

At the beginning of the X century. (in 911) the Normans, led by Rollon, seized the territory at the mouth of the Seine and founded their principality here. Thus the Duchy of Normandy was born. The Normans who settled here quickly lost their language, adopted local dialects and customs, and merged with the French population.

Natives of Normandy in the XI century. penetrated through Gibraltar into the Mediterranean Sea, conquered southern Italy and Sicily and founded a number of counties and duchies there (Apulia, Calabria, Sicily, etc.). The politically fragmented feudal states of Western Europe could not offer sufficient resistance to the Normans, but the Normans themselves more or less quickly assimilated and merged with the locals.

The Normans, who in Eastern Europe were called the Varangians, made pirate raids into its borders. They combined these raids with trade, primarily in slaves, whom they delivered to Byzantium, and through the Volga and the Caspian Sea to Iran and its neighboring countries. The path of the Varangians from Scandinavia to Constantinople (the so-called "Great Route from the Varangians to the Greeks") ran through the Gulf of Finland, Neva, Lake Ladoga, Volkhov, Lake Ilmen, the Lovat River, partly the Western Dvina and further along the Dnieper to the Black Sea. Varangian settlements on the lands of the Eastern Slavs remained scattered and isolated, and the assimilation of the Varangians in Russia was extremely fast.

3. The culture of the early feudal society in England and Scandinavia

Culture of England

In the initial period of the early Middle Ages, at least in the first century and a half after the start of the migration to Britain, the Anglo-Saxons did not yet have a written language. They developed oral poetry, especially heroic epic, which preserved historical legends, everyday and ritual songs - drinking, wedding, funeral, as well as songs related to hunting, agricultural work and pre-Christian religious beliefs and cults. Skillful singer-musicians, the so-called gleomaniacs, who composed and performed songs accompanied by musical instruments, enjoyed great respect among the Anglo-Saxons. With the strengthening of the role of the princely and royal squads, the Anglo-Saxons appeared singers-squads, the so-called ospreys. Using tribal and tribal traditions, they composed songs about the exploits of ancient heroes and modern military leaders (7th-8th centuries).

The largest work of the Anglo-Saxon heroic epic, which arose on the basis of the folk traditions of the Anglo-Saxon tribes, heroic songs and sagas of Scandinavian origin, is the Beowulf Poem (about 700), originally written, as is believed, in the Mercian dialect of Old English. The most ancient copy of the poem has been preserved in a manuscript of the 10th century, containing over 3,000 verses.

The poem sings of the heroic struggle of Beowulf with the bloodthirsty monster Grendel. Beowulf, the bravest of the knights of the South Scandinavian tribe of Geats (Gauts), defeats this monster in single combat and performs a number of other feats. The poem in a vivid artistic form reflects the characteristic features of the tribal system. Beowulf embodies the best qualities of a folk hero - fearlessness, courage, justice, the desire to help comrades in trouble, the willingness to die in the struggle for a just cause. At the same time, the poem clearly shows the features of the life of the squad, the relationship between kings and warriors, on which the growing royal power relied more and more. Pre-Christian beliefs and mythology in this poem clearly predominate over elements of Christian beliefs, which, as established, are mostly later additions of the clerics who rewrote the poem.

One of the oldest monuments of Anglo-Saxon writing and at the same time a work of fine art is a box made of whalebone, dating from about the middle of the 7th century, with runic inscriptions carved on it ( Runes are written characters (letters) that had some similarities with the Latin and Greek alphabets. They were used by various ancient Germanic tribes (Goths, Anglo-Saxons, Scandinavians, etc.) for inscriptions carved on rocks, gravestones, shields, household items, items made of horn, bone, wood, and metal.) in the Northumbrian dialect and with relief images of episodes from ancient Germanic, ancient and biblical mythology. This testifies to the undoubted penetration into the popular culture of the Anglo-Saxons of church influence.

The development of feudal relations and the Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons associated with this process led to the emergence of religious poetry in various dialects of the Old English language, based on biblical stories. Examples of this kind of poetry are the so-called Caedmon Hymns, originally written in the Northumbrian dialect, and then translated into the Mercian and Wessex dialects, and works of a religious epic and didactic nature (biblical tales, legends and lives of the saints) attributed to Cynewulf, who lived It is believed that at the end of the 8th - beginning of the 9th century.

Christianization led to the emergence of the Anglo-Saxons along with Old English and Latin writing. Originated in England in the 7th-8th centuries. the monasteries became centers of ecclesiastical education and literature, which developed primarily in Latin.

A page from the "Ecclesiastical History of the Anglian People". Troubles of the Hon. 8th century

The most significant centers of feudal-church culture were located in the north-east of England. In the monastery of Yarrow in Northumbria lived Bede the Venerable (673-735), one of the most educated people of his time, the author of the first major work on English history - "The Church History of the Angles". Bede's historical work, written in Latin, covered the events of English history up to 731 and included, along with reliable information, many legends and ancient folk traditions. At the episcopal school in York, the famous figure of the "Carolingian revival" Anglo-Saxon Alcuin was brought up and began to teach.

Danish invasions, which began at the end of the 8th century, led to the ruin of entire regions of the country, especially in the northeast, and caused great damage to the development of Anglo-Saxon culture. Some rise in it was outlined only in the second half of the 9th century; as a result of strengthening the position of Wessex as the center of the unification of England. Under King Alfred, secular schools were opened in Wessex for the children of the nobility, in which teachers who arrived from the continent taught. Translations into English of the works of Latin authors were made (a number of translations belong to Alfred himself). This contributed to the development of the Anglo-Saxon, i.e., Old English language and literature. At the same time, the compilation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was undertaken, which marked the beginning of chronicle writing in English.

Significant successes were achieved in the IX-XI centuries. in the design of handwritten books. With great skill, the Anglo-Saxon masters, people from the people, whose names remained unknown, illustrated secular and church books. The headpieces, endings, capital letters and miniatures they made testify to the richness of creative imagination, they are distinguished by the subtlety of the drawing and the surprisingly artistic combination of colors.

Culture of Scandinavia

The culture of Scandinavia is interesting, first of all, for its precious heritage of pre-feudal (primitive communal) and early feudal origin: epic songs of the so-called “Elder Edda”, amazing in their original artistic content, powerful narrations of Icelandic family and royal sagas and poetry of skalds - Old Norse singers and poets, who moved from one place to another and composed heroic songs about the battles and campaigns of the Vikings. This epic folk poetry, in its content and power of poetic representation, has no equal in all Western European literature of the period of the early Middle Ages.

The most important monument of the Scandinavian poetic epic "Elder Edda" is a collection of ancient Norse and Old Norse songs of a mythological and heroic nature, tales of gods and heroes based on a well-developed pagan mythology. These works reflect in poetic form not only pagan ideas and beliefs, but also the life and real relations of the tribal society. The heroic songs included in the Edda tell of historical events that took place during the so-called "great migration of peoples." The Elder Edda was recorded in Iceland, believed to be in the 12th century. with the advent of Latin writing there (the oldest manuscript that has come down to us dates back to the second half of the 13th century), but its songs were composed in the 9th-10th centuries, and in content many of them date back to ancient times.

"Younger Edda" is a prose treatise on Scandinavian mythology and poetics, written in the XII century. Icelandic skald and historian Snorri Sturluson.

A special place in the Scandinavian medieval literature is occupied by the Icelandic sagas - prose epic narratives in Icelandic, developed orally by skalds and first recorded in the 12th century.

Sagas are varied in content. Many of them are historical legends, in which real historical events have found a fairly true reflection: for example, the “Egil Saga” is a legend about the famous Viking and skald of the 10th century. Egile Skalagrimsson is one of the most reliable sagas in terms of its historical content, the “Saga of Njal”, the wise Icelandic lawyer of the late 10th - early 11th century. and bloody tribal strife, "The Saga of Eric the Red", which tells about the discovery of Greenland and North America by the Icelanders, etc.

Some sagas are of great value as historical sources, in particular sagas that provide evidence related to the history of Russia. Actually feudal, chivalric culture arose in the Scandinavian countries much later and developed under strong German influence (especially in Denmark).

In the history of the material culture of the Scandinavian countries of this time, it is necessary to note the remarkable folk applied art - woodcarving, as well as church architecture (the construction of wooden churches). Both of these arts flourished especially in Norway.

The stone architecture of this time is represented by the cathedral in Stavanger (Norway, the end of the 11th-beginning of the 12th century) and the large cathedral in Lund (Sweden, the 12th century), built in the Romanesque style.

Virtual cashier, replenishment in X casino W1 is the fastest way to deposit to your account.

Ladygina O.M.

Introduction

The myth appears at the dawn of mankind and accompanies it up to the present day, changing, but not losing its meaning. The essence of myth has been studied by many researchers from the standpoint of literature, folklore, ethnology, and philosophy. It proposes an analysis of the myth as a phenomenon of culture, inseparably connected with it, influencing it and being under its influence. Ethnic, social, cultural processes are reflected in the transformations of the myth, allowing us to judge how they proceeded and what imprint they left on the mentality of peoples.

The legends about King Arthur's Round Table appear as early as the period of Celtic domination in Northern Europe, responding to the peculiarities of Celtic thinking and beliefs under the influence of certain historical events - a threat from the Germanic tribes, which gave rise to the need to glorify one of the military leaders.

Modern historians divide the development of Anglo-Saxon England into two periods - from the middle of the 5th to the 9th century and from the 9th to the middle of the 11th century. The early period is considered as the time of the decomposition of the tribal system and the emergence of elements of feudal relations (this applies, in particular, to the economy and the social structure of society). The early period (I-V centuries) is characterized by the unconditional dominance in Western Europe of the Celtic group of barbarian tribes, with whom the Western Roman Empire is fighting at that time.

At the end of the 8th century, the Scandinavians invaded, who captured a significant part of England. This contributed to the consolidation of a number of barbarian kingdoms into a single early feudal state. In 1066, England was conquered by Duke William of Normandy, a descendant of the Scandinavian Vikings and a vassal of the French king. The subsequent period is considered to be related to the high Middle Ages.

The transition from state tribal relations to clearly structured feudal relations was closely connected with the formation of the Anglo-Saxons ethnic group, and then the British. Obviously, the influence of the ethnic groupings that joined it - the Saxons, Scandinavians, later the Normans - on the change in the social structure of the society in question. The state on the territory of Britain developed rapidly, acquiring its classical forms. All these processes are clearly reflected in the legends about the Round Table of King Arthur and their evolution.

The myth "absorbs" all the features of culture that are characteristic of a particular society in a particular historical period: this applies to ethical standards, and material culture, and religion. In the legends of King Arthur's Round Table, along with preserved Celtic mythological elements, there are norms of courtly courtesy introduced by the Normans, ideals preached by Christianity, etc., which makes the myth extremely multi-layered. An analysis of its layers provides the key to understanding the mentality of the peoples who inhabited the British Isles, as well as the influence that the sociocultural processes that took place in Britain had on it.

A special place in the formation of the myth is occupied by author's works written by Benoit de Saint-Maure, Chrétien de Troyes, Marie Champagne, Thomas Malory, Wolfram von Eschenbach, etc. Depending on whether the author was French, English or German, one or another theme came to the fore in his work (romantic relationships, heroic deeds or moral standards); the characters, the style of writing works differed sharply. Features of national culture are clearly manifested in myth-making.

Despite the abundance of books devoted to this topic, until now the legends about the Round Table of King Arthur have been studied mainly by literary critics (such as V. Sherer, A. Morton, A. D. Mikhailov, E. M. Meletinsky and others). This is a very specialized approach that does not consider the peculiarities of the mythological nature of these legends.

This book attempts to trace how the culturological features of society, its formation and development are refracted in myth-making, consider myth as a cultural phenomenon and analyze how the changes that took place in the British Isles from the 5th to the 15th centuries were reflected in such a phenomenon as myth.

Our whole life, to one degree or another, is permeated with myths, and the study of their reflection in everyday life, as well as myth-making both in the past and in the present, is one of the most important tasks of cultural and social sciences.

Cultural qualities of the myth

Before considering the cultural features of a particular myth, it is necessary to clarify the meaning of the concepts of "culture" and "myth". There are many definitions for each of these concepts1. The study of myths is carried out by literary criticism, folklore, ethnology, religious studies and other sciences - and each gives its own interpretation of the myth, but not one. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify these fundamental concepts for cultural studies.

Theories about culture, on which modern culturological science is based, have their roots in the 18th and 19th centuries. For example, in Germany in the 18th century, the concepts of "culture" and "civilization" were opposed. It makes no sense to consider in detail all the experience that has been accumulated in this area from the 18th to the 20th century. But it should be noted that it is reflected in the works of modern researchers. In particular, the researcher A.B. Esin puts the following meaning into the terms “civilization” and “culture”: “Civilization is a way for a person to survive in the world by changing the world ... Culture is the opposite way of survival. Its essence is the adaptation of a person to a hostile world and, as a result, the acquisition of spiritual comfort. A similar point of view is shared by V. Bibler, who, in his article on culture, proposes a hypothesis according to which “it is precisely the opposition of the mega-society of industrial civilization (whatever form it takes) and the small nuclei of society to culture - this opposition will be the decisive event of the beginning of the 21st century”3 . Some researchers see the origins of this opposition in the difference between creativity and everyday activity. For example, P.S. Gurevich states: “Human activities are diverse. In one case, it gives rise to culture, in the other - something else ... The person who invented the wheel is the creator of culture. A worker who places a wheel on an axle on a conveyor is a man of civilization. Speaking about culture and activity, it seems appropriate to quote from V.M. Mezhuev’s book “Culture and History”: “From the fact that activity forms the main reason for the existence of culture, it does not at all follow that culture is activity, that it one and the same thing, that one can reduce culture to activity”5.

Since the 18th century, scientists have disagreed in assessing the role of culture. The successors of the optimistic theory, according to which the development of culture follows a progressive path (put forward by I.G. Herder), are such philosophers of the 20th century as N. Krerich. He translated the word "culture" as "reverence for the light" ("cult" - reverence, "ur" - light). He writes: “Culture is a synthesis of lofty and refined achievements... Culture is salvation. Culture is the engine”6. The modern researcher A.I. Arnoldov also adheres to an optimistic view of culture, giving the following definition of the concept of “culture” in his “Introduction to Culturology”: “... we should approach the understanding of culture as a syncretic phenomenon, perceive it as a dynamic creative process, synthesis of material and spiritual values ​​created by man, harmonious forms of man's relationship to nature, society and himself, as a result of his connection with the world and affirmation in it”7.

The opposite, so-called "pessimistic" view of culture was put forward by Jean-Jacques Rousseau - this is a theory of culture, according to which culture only harms humanity. In the 20th century, it was developed in the works of many significant philosophers. Thus, Z. Freud argued that thanks to culture, “man ... has become something like a god on prostheses”8; Freud saw in it the cause of the complexes and unstable human psyche: “... culture in general is built on the rejection of primary impulses ... These “cultural deprivations” are dominant in a large area of ​​social relationships between people; we already know that this is the root of the hostility that all cultures have to contend with.”9 In addition to the followers of Z. Freud, representatives of the Frankfurt school, in particular G. Bell, adhered to a pessimistic view of culture. In his Frankfurt Readings, he argues that “the Germans are a people traumatized by education, this trauma creates a breeding ground for demagogy, nurtures educational estates, restrictions, resentments”10. The Spanish thinker J. Ortega y Gasset wrote that “the tyranny of intellectual vulgarity in public life is perhaps the most distinctive feature of modernity”11.

Existentialists and some other scientists took the same positions.

The point of view of religious philosophers is also very interesting. Without using the actual term "culture", Professor Prot. V. Zenkovsky in his work “Fundamentals of Christian Philosophy” devotes a whole chapter to “the doctrine of the “damage” of nature”, where he discusses the causes of evil: “Animals in the struggle with each other do not seek evil, but simply destroy each other. This, of course, is true in the sense that we find the attraction to evil as such only in people, and here, by the way, it occupies a very significant place among other signs that distinguish man from subhuman nature.

Some researchers argue that there are many cultures inherent in different peoples. For example, Alan Finkielkraut, in an article on cultural self-awareness, speaks of the equivalence of cultures, referring primarily to European culture and the cultures of the "third world" peoples. Eva Bérard writes in her article "The Dialogue of Cultures" that "the differences between cultures having a common source are less sharp than those between European metropolises and colonized peoples."13

In contrast to such anthropological views, R. Robin offers a structuralist definition: “Culture is an area of ​​symbolism,<...>the term "culture" ... should be understood as the whole area of ​​the symbolic, and not just the whole field of collective representations"14. L.E. Kertman, rejecting the belonging of material elements to culture, formulates the following definition: “... this is the spiritual life of society, determined in its main characteristics by the conditions of material life and social relations, and also exerting a reverse influence on them”15. K. Marx called culture the sphere of spiritual achievements of mankind, excluding material culture and religion from this concept.

These are just a few theories that formulate the concept of culture. However, each of them considers this phenomenon in one of its aspects. Here it is appropriate to quote K. Levi-Strauss: “We call culture any ethnographic set that reveals significant differences in its study compared to other sets. If one tries to identify significant deviations between North America and Europe, then they can be considered as different cultures; if we pay attention to the significant differences between, say, Paris and Marseille, then these two urban complexes can be tentatively represented as two cultural units. ... The same association of individuals, if it objectively exists in time and space, is always related to different cultural systems: universal, continental, national, provincial, local, etc.; family, professional, confessional, political, etc.”17. If we continue the reasoning of the philosopher, we can derive a definition according to which everything that a person creates will belong to culture; everything that is not nature: “Culture is considered a special ordered selective field of phenomena, opposed to “natural”. "Natural" is considered as material for "culture" - the realized ability of a person in a specific way to "mark" the environment as his "environment""18. It is illogical to limit the concept of "culture" to one or even several areas of human activity, or to consider this concept from the point of view of the main question of philosophy. “A feature of the processes of the functioning of culture is that any fact of culture is a unity of the material and the ideal, since material culture is always the embodiment of a certain spiritual culture, just as spiritual culture can exist only when it is materialized, objectified, or has received this or that material embodiment. Thus, material and spiritual culture are dialectically interconnected, they influence each other, they cannot exist in isolation from one another.

Here we come, probably, to the most general definition of culture, which is given, in particular, by E.V. Sokolov: “We call culture everything that is created by the hands and mind of man, the whole artificial world of phenomena, different from nature”20.

Thus, the concept of "culture" covers all areas - both material and spiritual; both the progressive achievements of mankind, and that which can lead to the death of the entire surrounding world (such as the atomic bomb). And each of the elements of culture is inextricably linked with others, they mutually influence each other and bear the imprint of this influence. So, a striking example of this process can be the attitude towards ancient myths in the Renaissance: on the one hand, being an element of the third ancient influence (which consisted in the fact that the ideologists of the Renaissance were looking for the origins of culture in antiquity, and not in the Middle Ages that preceded this era), ancient myths are often reflected in philosophical works (for example, F. Bacon "On the Wisdom of the Ancients"21), and in art (for example, "Danae" by Titian, "Sleeping Venus" by Donatello), and in other areas. At the same time, the myths are given such an interpretation, which was hardly supposed by the ancient peoples. F. Bacon gives very bold allegories, likening Cassandra to Inappropriate Frankness, the Sphinx to Science, etc., and the artists dress ancient heroines in the dresses of their contemporaries and place them in an environment not too different from that which surrounded the artists themselves.

Since antiquity, the term "myth" has been given a very different interpretation: embellished historical event (Herodotus), allegorical narration (F. Bacon), primitive religion (this very common point of view was held, in particular, by E. Tylor and J. Fraser); there were attempts to consider the myth as a kind of description of natural phenomena (Max Muller and natural philosophers); the myth was studied from the point of view of structuralism (Clevi-Strauss), psychology (ALevi-Bruhl), etc. However, apparently, the myth is a phenomenon much broader than any of its interpretations given above. It can cover and describe almost any area of ​​human activity. Here, it seems to us, we can agree with F.V. 22.

Let's try to formulate what characterizes this world. First of all, the existing myth is not a lie or fiction. It is accepted by those who believe in it as a very real, reliable and valid fact. In the work of A.F. Losev “The Dialectic of Myth” it is said: “For mythical consciousness, as such, myth is not at all a fairy-tale being, or even simply transcendental”23. A.F. Losev claims that “it (myth - OL.) ​​is not an invention, it contains the strictest and most definite structure and is logically, i.e. primarily dialectically, a necessary category of consciousness and being in general. If this world, represented by myth, is neither fantasy nor fiction, then what is it, where does it come from, and what are its characteristics? First of all, no matter how real this world is, it does not repeat everyday reality, although in some way it relies on it. A.F. Losev calls this “mythical detachment”, which means “detachment from meaning, from the idea of ​​everyday and everyday life. In fact, in terms of its real existence, reality remains the same in myth as in ordinary life, and only its meaning and idea changes.

Here we come to the need to determine what is included in this "other world", similar to everyday reality. F.W. Schelling writes that mythology “represents the very universe of prototypes”26, which, in our opinion, fully explains such features of the myth as its authenticity, which is accompanied by a separation from everyday reality; its universality (myths gradually permeate all areas of human activity), as well as infinity, or, more precisely, "timelessness", characteristic of myth. Here we can once again quote F. W. Schelling: “Mythology should not only depict the present or the past, but also embrace the future. As if by means of a prophetic anticipation, it must in advance be coordinated with future conditions and the endless unfolding of time...”27.

As a certain system of prototypes, myth is a wonderful world. “The whole world and all its constituent moments, and everything living and everything inanimate, are equally a myth and equally a miracle”28.

Myth-making is directly related to three aspects: history, personality and the word as a general concept.

The historical aspect is what makes the ideal archetype an "expressed idea"29 (as opposed to an abstract meaning). At the same time, “myth is not a historical event as such, it is always a word”30. Here, as a clarification, it seems logical to cite the point of view of R. Bart, who claims that “we are no longer faced with a theoretical way of representation, but precisely this image, endowed with precisely this meaning ...”, and this word, apparently, due to the prototype lying basically, it can have a direct impact on each individual. “The myth has the imperativeness of a call: proceeding from some historical concept, and arising directly from current circumstances, it is addressed to me...”31.

So, the prototype, transformed under the influence of certain historical events, becomes a word, on the one hand, influencing the personality, and on the other, reflecting its being. And here we are no longer considering a single individual, but a component of a certain community, whether it be a tribe, social stratum, age group or some other group. According to F.W. Schelling, “mythology cannot be the creation of either an individual person or a clan (since the latter is only a collection of individuals), but only a clan, since it itself is an individual and is similar to one individual person. - Not an individual, because mythology must have absolute objectivity and be a second world that cannot belong to an individual. Not of some kind, since the latter is only a collection of individuals, for under such circumstances mythology would lack harmonic consonance.

Thus, through the word “neither intentionally nor intentionally”, the existence (ie, a certain system of prototypes) of a certain person as part of a particular group, under the influence of certain historical events, manifests itself as a myth. It depends on the historical and personal aspects what this word will be, which means what the myth will be like. In the book "Mythologies" R. Barth analyzes a number of modern myths: everyday (chapter "Foaming agents"), ideological ("The poor man and the proletarian"), political ("Pre-election photogeny") and others. These myths differ sharply from ancient, pagan, medieval and other myths. These myths are typical for the 20th century, for the personality generated by this century and its historical events. This is the same “second world” that was mentioned above. Analyzing these myths, R. Barth asserts that “a myth is read as an actual system, being in reality just a semiotic system”; in his opinion, the function of myth is the deformation of reality33. But this contradicts the claim that the myth is certain; it can be assumed that the discrepancy between myth and everyday life is explained rather by the discrepancy between the prototype and the result.

In this book, the myth as a cultural phenomenon will be considered on the example of the legends of the Round Table of King Arthur.

The legends about King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table went through several stages in their evolution, reflecting the features and changes in the historical and social situation in ancient Britain. The roots of the legends about Arthur go back to the "dark" era of the 5th-7th centuries and, as many researchers believe, even further - "in the beliefs and legends of pre-Christian and pre-Roman Britain, in the culture of the ancient Celts"34.

It is customary to consider three stages of understanding the legends about Arthur. Most historians, relying on the "Chronicle" of William of Malmesbury, compiled around 1125, believe that Arthur was not a king, but the leader of a detachment of free shooters who were in the service of the then British kings and repelled the invasions of the ancient Germans - Saxons. After the death of Arthur in the 5th-6th centuries, the Britons made him a hero by presenting him as a protector king. By the way, perhaps it is precisely because Arthur was not a king in reality that the legends pay such close attention to the moments of his conception, birth, and upbringing in Sir Ector's remote possessions.

The doubts and distrust of the court are defeated not by documentary confirmation of Arthur's genealogy, but by magical indications of his royal origin: only he can pull out the sword Excalibur, placed between the stones; the magic stone Fal, located under the step to the throne and killing any impostor who is about to sit on the throne, screams with joy when Arthur steps on it.

The emergence of legends about King Arthur testifies to the genetic connection of two sociocultural levels - tribal and early feudal. If at an early stage of understanding the legends about the Knights of the Round Table, Arthur and his court protect the lands of Britain mainly from the Saxons, then when the latter conquered the Britons, the Normans became the enemies of the king and the knights. Arthur's legendary dominions expanded; more and more insistently it was emphasized that he was the king of Britain and Armorica (that is, Northern Europe, from where the Saxons came from, also fell into his sphere of influence).

The legends about Arthur became especially popular during the conquest of the British Isles by the Normans (ancient northwestern Germans) in the 11th-12th centuries. In them, Arthur at first, again, acts as a defender of the Saxons, and after the conquest of Brittany and Wales, he becomes the king of the fictional state of Logr, in which justice reigns. He takes on the traits of a Norman hero, for he and his kingdom are examples of the chivalry that the conquerors brought with them.

For about fifty years, at the end of the 10th and beginning of the 11th centuries, the Normans captured the lands of Wales and Brittany. During this period, the main versions of ancient legends were created, which served as the basis on which literary adaptations of the Arthurian legends later grew, both English and French. On the one hand, the legends of the Knights of the Round Table spread more and more among the vanquished, as they aroused patriotic feelings among the Welsh, reminding them of a heroic past. On the other hand, the conquest of Wales and Brittany introduced the Norman nobility of France to the legends about Arthur, which, after some processing, could be used in the interests of the conquerors.

England, most of France and all the lands of Wales were ruled by the Norman dynasty (note that William the Conqueror was only a duke, moreover, the illegitimate son of a cooper's daughter). She needed a myth that attracted the sympathy of society, Arthur, among other things, was good because he was originally a hero of the pre-Saxon era and was depicted in many legends as a fighter against the Saxon conquests. The image of King Arthur, subjected to a certain processing, was quite suitable for popularization.

A similar situation arose in Brittany. In the 10th century, this area was invaded by the Normans, but it managed to maintain its independence, and its duke - power until 1148, when Plantagenet Geoffroy of Anjou launched a new attack. The next Geoffroy, the son of Henry II of England, married Constance of Brittany, and he had to fight for a long time before he was able to assert his rights to the Duchy of Brittany. It was at this time that the legend that Arthur did not die like mere mortals spread with extraordinary speed.

In 1187, Geoffroy and Constance had a son, who was baptized Arthur with the clear intention of touching the Bretons (Edward I did exactly the same later, proclaiming his newborn son Prince of Wales). Literally two years after the birth of Arthur of Brittany, Arthur's grave was "discovered" in Glastonbury Monastery. This was another attempt by the ruling class from Normandy to undermine the people's faith in the miraculous salvation of Arthur, while at the same time preserving certain features of his cult that were in the interests of the Plantagenets; however, such attempts never succeeded.

The Norman conquest of England stimulated social division that took place everywhere. By the 12th century, the era of migrations and conquests had ended, and life, at least for the ruling class, had become calmer, safer, and more refined. This new ruling stratum needed a new ethic, a new code of manners and behavior, and a new idea that would emphasize its abrupt departure from the masses, whose lives had changed to a much lesser extent. The ideas of chivalry became, as it were, a cement that held together the environment of the ruling elite.

The warrior turned into a knight; war, which did not need any justification in the "heroic age", now it became necessary to explain some kind of moral considerations. Thus, the military detachment, previously united by kindred principles, was now based on personal loyalty to the military leader. And this detachment itself can be regarded as a transitional form; he was the link between the tribal group and the feudal lord with his vassals. As feudal society developed, war lost its significance as a source of profit. Its main engine was the constant exploitation of the peasants.

A corresponding change in attitude towards the war itself can also be traced. Previously, a warrior fought for prey, and he did not have to justify himself. The knight must, at least for the sake of appearances, cover up his militancy with Christian love. He does not just fight, but fights for justice, for honor, for his beloved or for Christendom. It is during these centuries that the Arthurian cycle undergoes numerous revisions and changes, reflecting the transforming balance of old and new forces. After all, although feudalism was a new era, it originated from the historical era that preceded it and for a long time retained its features.

The heyday of the Arthurian cycle fell on the period that followed immediately after the end of the "heroic age". Former themes, ancient ideas are outdated, but have not been completely forgotten. And the image of Arthur retains some of its features in modern times, although it is transformed in the spirit of the ideas of the XII century.

Speaking about the reasons that influenced the formation and evolution of the myths about Arthur, one should not lose sight of the fact that in the 5th century, at about the same time as these legends appeared, Christianity was established in the British Isles. Moreover, the Celts take it quite painlessly. As S.V. Shkunaev writes: “In Ireland, there was not a gap, but a merging, though very peculiar, of two traditions, the heritage of the oldest of which fit into the system of the new one, was curtailed and transformed, but not rejected and cursed”35. In particular, Brigit, one of the most revered pagan goddesses, becomes a saint with the advent of Christianity, without changing either her name or her ancient functions, and takes her place in the Christian cult no less firmly than in the pagan pantheon. And this is not the only case.

There is reason to believe that the Christian church among the Celtic peoples largely inherited the model of the Druidic system. Thus, “most of the Irish monasteries were located on the tribal borders, that is, in the same place where the sacred places and centers of the Druids were located, as is well known, which had a nationwide supratribal character. The system of connections between the Irish monasteries also resembles the organization of the Druid caste”36.

Thus, we see that in the myths about Arthur that have come down to us, various sociocultural layers are reflected, the analysis of which will help to understand the features of the era under consideration.

Let's try to trace in chronological order how Arturiana was formed.

Initial premises of the formation of myths about Arthur

The Celtic element in the Arthurian legends is the oldest and most significant. By the beginning of our era, the Celtic civilization had already broken up into several autonomous branches, between which, of course, there was a constant exchange, they had common origins, but the paths and destinies were different, as well as the contribution to the formation of Arthurian legends. It was also important that many Celtic tribes had a ban on recording sacred and literary texts. When this ban was lifted, or rather, forgotten, only the latest versions of Celtic legends and traditions were recorded.

Traces of Irish and Welsh versions of myths and legends in Arthurian legends are seen much more clearly than the proto-Celtic element. However, for example, the Celtic cult of lakes and springs reached the Arthurian tradition, in which a lot is said about water: the heroes spend entire periods of their lives in the depths of the lakes (Lancelot was raised in an underwater castle by the Lady of the Lake), emerges from the lake and returns to the lake King Arthur's sword - Excalibur. The theme of the ford, which is not given to everyone to find and at which decisive battles of heroes take place, is also very characteristic of Arthurian legends. It should also be noted that the cult of animals, which was widespread among the Celts, was often endowed with supernatural power and was with a person in a difficult relationship, sometimes enmity, sometimes friendship. In Arthurian legends, horses, boars, hawks, and dogs almost certainly have their own names and enter into active communication with people, while maintaining independence from them.

Here it is interesting to mention the role of the raven in the Arthurian cycle: according to legend, Arthur did not die, but turned into a raven, and when Britain is in mortal danger, he will return and save her. Among the Celts, the raven was a mythical character. “This bird... was associated with the cult of the Sun, and later... was also associated with warrior deities...”37.

It would be erroneous to say that the Celtic legends are the direct source of the legends about the Round Table of King Arthur, but they are the basis of these legends, and, probably, as AD Mikhailov notes, “... Irish sagas are ... a parallel, to some extent even a model of the legends of King Arthur. Here one should not build straight genetic series*38. Thus, it is imprudent to see in King Ulad Conchobar the prototype of King Arthur, but his wisdom and justice are similar to the qualities of the King of Armorica, and his court in Emain Maha resembles Arthur's Camelot. “Truly, all the valiant warriors from among the men of Ulad found a place for themselves in the royal house during drinking, and yet there was no crowding. Brilliant, stately, beautiful were the valiant warriors, the people of Ulad, who gathered in this house. Many great assemblies of every kind and wondrous amusements took place there. There were games, music and singing, heroes showed feats of dexterity, poets sang their songs, harpists and musicians played various instruments.

However, despite all the similarities with the Round Table, one cannot ignore that the court of Conchobar is more primitive and rude than the court of Arthur, and in Conchobar himself one sees the ideal not of a feudal king, but of a tribal leader. And this is not surprising - after all, the legends about King Ulad developed in much more ancient times, in a primitive tribal environment, where the decomposition of the tribal system was just beginning and the social structure was clearly more primitive than in the setting of an emerging feudal society, when Arthurian legends arose, which reflect a more complex hierarchy and a system of behavior guided by the laws of courtly ignorance.

Nevertheless, in the legends of King Arthur, we find echoes of Celtic myths. As A.D. Mikhailov notes: “At the same time, the multilayeredness of myths can hardly be taken into account with sufficient accuracy. Let us add that the legends about Arthur recorded in the Welsh texts are of secondary origin,<...>they have a lot of Irish elements. There is more than one layer in the Celtic mythological system. This system developed in constant interaction and collision with the rudiments of the mythology of the Picts (who gave the world culture the prototype of Tristan) and with the legends of neighboring peoples (in particular, obviously, the Scandinavians, who had long raided the British Isles)"40. In addition to the multi-layered cultural traditions that influenced the formation of legends about the Round Table of King Arthur, Christianity was a very effective factor in their development. The British Isles, especially Ireland, were Christianized very early and very peacefully. As already noted, the Celtic pagan culture was not destroyed, but enriched the Christian one, which, in turn, brought with it the traditions of Greek and Roman literature, and they found solid ground here. It was thanks to the popular beliefs that were not supplanted by Christianity, but to the folk beliefs that adapted to it, that the Arthurian legends turned out to be so saturated with the motives of the supernatural, miraculous, fantastic. Thus, the characteristic features of the Celtic worldview in some ways even intensified due to the transformations caused by Christianity.

This can be seen in specific examples. So, Merlin probably inherited the features of the Celtic poet and soothsayer Myrddin, a clairvoyant, able to penetrate into all the secrets of the past, present and future. This character embodied all the supernatural features that, according to the Celts, are inherent in filids. Mirddin, who in medieval legends turned into Merlin, was born of a maiden and as a baby was already wise as an old man41.

The story of the origin of King Arthur and the description of his path to the throne is very interesting. According to Celtic traditions, “when a new king ascended the throne, the filid had to confirm the noble origin of the applicant and take an oath of allegiance to the ancient customs”42. When Arthur pulls the Excalibur sword out of the stone, the magician Merlin is present, testifying to the noble origin of Arthur, and the Christian archbishop, blessing him to the kingdom, and also taking an oath from him to be a true king and stand for justice (remember how easily and quickly passed Christianization in the Celtic environment).

Some researchers also find echoes of Celtic legends in the story of how Arthur, the son of Uther and Igerna, was born. So, X. Adolf writes in his essay “The concept of reflection in the Arthurian chivalric novel of original sin”: “We do not know what Uther is - an incorrect reading of a name, a person or God; we do not know what exactly Igerna supposedly did; whether this simple "war leader" belonged to the ruling family, whether he was a new Hercules, whether he was descended from a Celtic God"43.

The role of women in the Arthurian cycle is also noteworthy. The Celts adopted “the custom of inheriting through the female line. For example, the hero of a medieval legend of Celtic origin, Tristan, succeeded his mother's brother, King Mark. It is interesting to note that the name of King Arthur's wife, who plays a significant role in the cycle, is found in old Welsh texts, where it sounds like Guinfevar - "white spirit". In the course of the development and transformation of Arthurian myths, the cult of the Virgin Mary is superimposed on the traditions of the Celts, which gives rise to one of the most common themes of the cycle - the theme of the Beautiful Lady.

Another image of the Arthurian legends, Gawain, throughout the development of Arthuriana retains a number of its original features that characterize the initial stage in the formation of myths about Arthur. Under the name of Valvein or Guolchmai, he becomes one of the earliest characters in the Arthurian cycle.

Welsh by birth, he is endowed with such primitive and rude features that it is difficult for the Anglo-Normans to accept.

Few of these traits Gawain carries through the entire cycle. They are preserved even in Malory's text, dating back to the end of the 15th century: its strength increases from dawn to noon and disappears at sunset; his maternal kinship is much more important than that of his father; everything connected with Gawain bears the stamp of magic, and in general his adventures have a special element of fantasy and even grotesque. From the very beginning, he was one of Arthur's most prominent associates and was too prominent a figure to disappear afterwards. This did not happen, but as new characters appeared who "usurped" many of the features and adventures of Gawain, he gradually faded into the shadows. Professor E. Vinaver writes: “The story of Gawain is especially interesting. He is one of the most famous knights of the Round Table, second only to Lancelot. Infinitely devoted to his king, he is generous and noble, brave and powerful. He is endowed with all earthly human virtues, he is honored and loved by both compatriots and foreigners ... But since the Lord has nothing to do with his exploits, no virtues help him, and he ends up like the last criminal. It was probably dangerous to make a sinner so attractive, and it was considered necessary to show that the merits and successes of Gawain still do not bring him reward. He fails to retain even his human dignity. By the end of the 13th century, Gawain was surpassed by many knights who came on the scene after him.

Gawain, as a simple and rude nature, in which the features characteristic of the pre-feudal era still strongly affect, from the point of view of the church and feudal norms, was morally unacceptable. Initially, he apparently acted as the queen's lover, who saved her from imprisonment in the other world. Only much later, not Gawain, but Lancelot became Guinevere's lover. And, of course, it was Lancelot who inherited many of the features originally characteristic of Gawain.

In the meantime, Gawain, who was no longer regarded as an exclusively exemplary character, was "allowed" to regain his old "immoral" traits. As a result, Gawain's role has become rather ambiguous. For example, in T. Malory, on the one hand, Gawain killed Lamorak, openly broke his word, seducing Etard after he swore to win her back for Peléas. All this was in no way consistent with the code of knightly honor, and Gawain is bred so reckless, sensual and cruel that even his own brother condemns him.

On the other hand, in the story of the war between Arthur and the emperor Lucius, Gawain is given a heroic role. And at the end of the book, despite the fact that Gawain's hatred for Lancelot and the determination to avenge his relatives entail tragic consequences, his image acquires a truly epic grandeur, which even his shortcomings seem to contribute to. Perhaps it is necessary to take into account here that Malory used both French and English sources, and some of these contradictions are explained by the method of his work.

T. Malory's conflict between Gawain and Lancelot symbolizes the struggle between two different ideas, two worlds. Gawain represents the old world, its deepest feelings (for example, the feeling of blood relationship). Lancelot personifies the new (although, perhaps, due to the archaic nature of the historical material underlying the Arthurian cycle, and in this hero there is a struggle between the old and the new), his loyalty is the loyalty of the vassal to his overlord. In this struggle, the unstable balance between the two worlds, maintained by the Round Table, collapsed.

Not only the image of Gawain undergoes various changes in the course of how Arthuriana is transformed under the influence of socio-cultural reasons - the image of Arthur himself acquires a new meaning (in early myths, he himself, his deeds and relationships with others are of great interest; in later versions, the hero, as a rule, is one of the knights of the Round Table, while Arthur is assigned the role of a symbol), ideals affirmed by legends (if at first the main theme is military achievements, then the norms of courtly ignorance are preached later), etc.

Consider the first written origins of the formation of Arturiana. The mention of Arthur by Nennius, dated 858, which speaks of the famous commander of the Britons (dux bellonan), who won twelve victories over the Anglo-Saxons and Picts, can hardly be considered mythological. Note, however, that some researchers consider it as an indication of the Arthurian legend, which by this time had already firmly won the sympathy of people. So, for example, M.P. Alekseev argues that “Gildas (6th century) still does not say anything about Arthur, although he tells in detail about the struggle of the Celts against the Anglo-Saxon conquerors; nothing is reported about him by Anglo-Saxon sources, for example, Bede, chronicles”46. So, let's see where the literary versions of the Arthurian cycle originate.

For a long time, legends about Arthur existed only in oral folk art, and Latin sources report only the popularity of Arthurian legends in the Celtic environment (William of Malmesbury, who wrote at the beginning of the 12th century, not without condemnation, noted the extreme spread among the population of legends about Arthur, which the people “rave to today"47). These sources, as E. Faral believed, served as the starting point for Geoffrey of Monmouth, his "History of the Britons", which appeared about ten years after the works of William of Malmesbury, since it was in this book that Arthur was first depicted in full growth as a monarch conquering the world, surrounded by an exquisite court and the bravest knights 48.

Geoffrey lived on the borders of Wales, his immediate patrons were the marcher barons, who established new forms of feudal power in this area. His "History" was dedicated to the most powerful of them - Earl Robert of Gloucester, and for political reinsurance and his enemy Stephen of Blois. There is no doubt that Geoffrey had a good opportunity to get acquainted with the traditions of Wales. As he claimed, he even had in his possession “a very ancient book in the language of the Britons,”49 although no trace of such a book or anything of the kind has survived. In any case, she could only give him meager material. It is also possible that he knew some legends, later completely forgotten, that circulated in Cornwall and Brittany.

It must be assumed that such legends really existed and Galfrid learned a lot from them for his book. In this regard, it is interesting that, although Geoffrey cannot but speak of the people's belief in the miraculous salvation of Arthur, he refutes this legend to the best of his ability. Geoffrey's "History" immediately won strong popularity, and everyone who later turned to this topic drew a lot from this book.

Let us dwell in more detail on how Galfrid tells about the legendary king. First of all, in the History of the Britons, Arthur is a wise and just ruler. As A.D. Mikhailov writes, “in the image of Galfrid, he becomes on a par with such ideal rulers (according to the ideas of the Middle Ages) as Alexander the Great or Charlemagne. But this is not yet a wise old man, whitened with gray hair, as Arthur will appear in the works of the closest successors of Geoffrey of Monmouth.

In the "History of the Britons" the reader passes the whole life of the hero. The greatest attention is paid to his numerous victorious campaigns, how he diligently and wisely "gathers the lands" and creates a vast and powerful empire. And this empire perishes not because of the luck or courage of its enemies, but because of human credulity, on the one hand, and treachery, on the other. Along with Arthur’s military achievements, Geoffrey tells us about the main features of his character, thereby laying the foundation for the myth of the “fairest of kings”: “The boy Arthur was fifteen years old, and he was distinguished by unheard-of valor and the same generosity. His innate benevolence was so attractive to him that there was almost no one who did not love him. So, crowned with a king's crown, and following the old custom, he began to shower the people with his bounties.

It is Geoffrey of Monmouth who introduces into the story about King Arthur a romantic motif about the destructiveness of female charms - "the cause of the death of the powerful Arthurian power is, in the final analysis, the infidelity of Guinevere, who entered into a love affair with Mordred, the king's nephew"52. (Note that the love rivalry between an elderly uncle and a young nephew is the plot most often used in mythology. In further literary adaptations of Arturiana, it is found not only where it is about Guinevere, whose lover in later interpretations becomes Valwein (aka Gawain ) - another nephew of King Arthur, and only then Lancelot, but also in the history of Tristan and King Mark, the origins of which, apparently, lie in the mythology of the Picts.)

In the presentation of Galfrid, such legends as the battle of the king with the terrible dragon that lived on St. Michael's Mountain, as well as the creation of the ring of Giants by Merlin, were heard - a myth that still enjoys some fame to this day. So, for example, J. Hawkins and J. White in their work “Solving the Mystery of Stonehenge” note with some displeasure that “among the stories about the wondrous life and the old times of the original structure, which were added to the late Middle Ages, the most popular was the one that attributed the creation Stonehenge to Merlin"53. In general, Merlin occupies no less significant place in Geoffrey's work than Arthur himself. In addition to the History of the Britons, where Merlin acts as an adviser and assistant to such rulers as Aurelius Ambrosius and Uther Pendragon, as well as a soothsayer at Vortegern, Geoffrey of Monmouth writes in verse the Life of Merlin, completely dedicated to this character and his deeds.

Thus was the beginning of literary adaptations of Arthurian legends. As Bernard D. N. Grebanier observes in Foundations of English Literature: “Having written what was for the most part a fantastic history of Britain, which began with the mythical settlement of one Brutus, who originated from Athens, Geoffrey did it mainly to justify an adaptation of the amazing deeds of the greatest folk hero Arthur. Various French poets took up this material, and soon a whole legend grew up around Arthur's personality. Let's see how exactly this happened.

Classical Arturiana

Speaking of classical Arthurian, it is necessary to imagine the peculiarities of the mentality of a medieval person, as well as the sociocultural processes that formed him. Only then does it become possible to figure out why the need arose in that mythological reality, in that second idealized world, which is represented in the works of Layamon, Chrétien de Troyes, Vass, Eschenbach, and others. Thinking about the history of previous eras, people cannot but compare them with your time. But when comparing our era or civilization with others, we tend to apply our own modern standards to them. But if we try to see the past as it "really" was, in Ranke's words, then we will inevitably face the need to evaluate it objectively, to try to understand how a person of one or another era perceived the world around us.

So, thinking about the culturological significance of the legends about the Round Table of King Arthur, it is necessary, if possible, to take into account the uniqueness of the vision of the world inherent in medieval man. A lot of things in this era seem irrational, contradictory. The constant interweaving of polar opposites: gloomy and comical, bodily and spiritual, life and death is an integral feature of the medieval worldview. Such contrasts found their basis in the social life of the era - in the irreconcilable opposites of domination and submission, wealth and poverty, privilege and humiliation.

Medieval Christian worldview, as it were, removed real contradictions, translating them into the highest plan of all-encompassing supra-world categories.

It should also be noted that the “image of the world” that developed in the minds of representatives of different social strata and stages of feudal society was not the same: knights, townspeople, peasants treated reality differently, which could not but leave a certain imprint on the medieval culture.

It should not be overlooked that (since literacy was the property of the few) in this culture, the authors mainly addressed the listeners, and not the readers, therefore, it was dominated by spoken rather than read texts. Moreover, these texts, as a rule, were unconditionally accepted on faith. As N.I. Konrad noted, “the “love potion” in the novel “Tristan and Isolde” is not mysticism at all, but simply a product of the pharmacology of that time, and not only for the heroes of the novel, but also for Gottfried of Strasbourg, not to mention about his predecessors in the processing of the plot"55.

On the one hand, the medieval worldview was distinguished by its integrity - hence its specific non-differentiation, the non-segmentation of its individual spheres; this is where confidence in the unity of the universe comes from. Therefore, the culture of the Middle Ages should be considered as a unity of different spheres, each of which reflects all the creative practical activity of people of that time. From this point of view, one should obviously consider the cycles about the Round Table of King Arthur.

On the other hand, all social processes in Britain were closely connected with the relations between different ethnic groups, the formation of the ethnic identity of the Anglo-Saxons and, later, the British. As E.A. Sherwood notes: “The transition from a tribe to a new ethnic community was closely connected with them (Anglo-Saxons - OL.) ​​with the transition from a pre-state form of organization of society to a state one”56. All this is closely connected with the change and impact on the life of society of certain socio-cultural conditions.

The opposition of various ethnic groups to each other, their influence on each other, and sometimes their merging and the birth of a new perception of the world by the formed ethnic community - all this is directly dependent on the awareness of territorial boundaries and on the relationship between people as landowners.

With the expansion of the spatial distribution of the new ethnos and with the emergence of awareness of territorial unity, society "was delimited internally on a social basis, opposing itself only to external groups of other ethnicities"57. Thus, along with the formation and development of territorial and ethnic self-awareness, the Anglo-Saxons were developing and becoming more complex in the social structure of society. And further, as E.A. Sherwood: “Despite ... the conquest of England by immigrants from France, despite attempts to introduce in England the same orders that dominated the continent and slowed down the formation of peoples there due to the emergence of classical feudalism, in England ... the English people arose very quickly . The early withering away of the feudal basis with the preservation of only the forms of the feudal system, the early involvement of the bulk of the free population in public life led to the rapid addition of conditions for the formation of the English nation ... "58. All these aspects, of course, left a certain imprint on the further development of the legends about King Arthur.

Reflecting on the culturological significance of the Arthurian cycle, one cannot but take into account that from the very beginning there was a sharp difference between the processing of these legends in England and in France.

In England, the pseudo-historical background that Geoffrey of Monmouth introduced into the legends about Arthur has always been preserved, although this background has constantly changed and developed under the influence of French adaptations of the same plots. At the same time, French authors of poetic and prose chivalric novels were interested in the personality of the hero, describing his adventures in every possible way, as well as the events of his personal life and the vicissitudes of refined and artificial different love. In addition, in the English version there is always an epic scope that is completely absent in the French. These differences are revealed very early - already when comparing the pro-cenions of Layamon, who wrote in English, and Vasa, who wrote in the Norman-French dialect. Both authors borrow their plot directly from Geoffrey of Monmouth, but Vasa's novel is distinguished by its sharpness of style compared to Layamon's simple folk and epic novel.

Layamon, for example, constantly remembers that Arthur was not a French, but a British king, but for Vas this has almost no zeal. Everything related to Arthur in England helped to strengthen the growing national spirit and fed on it, although, of course, we can talk about the existence of a British or English nation in the period of the Middle Ages. f Although the Round Table is first mentioned in The History of the Britons, it is rather Lilon's development of the Arthurian story that is of interest. This plot, in an early version already found in Welsh legends, owed its development to a large extent to the orders of chivalry that arose in the 12th century. But it is also associated with legends about the military detachments of kings or leaders of the feudal "heroic age".

In French legends, the leading principle is the chivalric principle, which was an integral part of the refined atmosphere of the royal courts that arose everywhere in that era, and served as the motivation for all sorts of fantastic adventures. In contrast to the emu, Layamon emphasizes ancient motifs that sounded even in Welsh legends. As a truly epic poet, he connects the legend with bloody battles for the means of subsistence.

Layamon's style is very different from that of Vasa, which is explained by the difference in the intentions of the authors. Thus, Layamon, in the opening verses of his Brutus, declared that he wanted to tell "about the noble deeds of the English," and this theme, indeed, is the basis for him; he loves valor, energy, power, brave speeches and heroic battles; chivalrous courtly adventures are still alien to him, as well as the sentimental interpretation of love.

No wonder that Layamon interprets the image of Arthur in a completely different way than you. Where it comes to military fun and feasts, “if Layamon does not skimp on the image of the pomp and splendor of the legendary British royal court, then he does it mainly from patriotic motives, to characterize the power, strength and glory of Britain, and not only from picturesque -decorative, aesthetic considerations, which often led Vas»60.

The difference between these two authors is also manifested in the extent to which religious motives are present in their works. If in Layamon all the heroes are staunch defenders of Christianity, and all the villains are by all means pagans, then you try, if possible, not to touch upon the topic of faith and remain a secular writer.

One of the most prominent medieval authors who addressed the Arthurian theme was the French novelist Chretien de Troyes. The Arthurian world of Chrétien de Troyes arose long ago, exists for a very long time, in fact always, but exists outside of contact with the world of reality, in a different dimension. It is no coincidence that the kingdom of Arthur's Logre does not have clear boundaries for Chrétien de Troyes, it is not geographically localized: Arthur reigns where the spirit of chivalry exists. And vice versa: the latter is possible only thanks to Arthur, who is its embodiment and the highest guarantor. For Chrétien de Troyes, Arthur's kingdom becomes a poetic utopia, not a social utopia, but above all a moral utopia.

In his novels, Chrétien de Troyes refuses to give a detailed account of the hero's entire life. It is as if he chooses from the eternal existence of the Arthurian world a typical hero and a vivid episode, to which the novel dedicates. Therefore, in a novel there is always one hero (the novel is usually named after him) and one conflict, around which all the action is concentrated. You can, of course, talk not about one hero, but about one love couple, but women in novels still occupy a subordinate place, although sometimes they play a very significant role. The concentration of the plot around one episode, in which the young hero acts, leads to the fact that King Arthur, the personification and protector of true chivalry, practically does not take part in the action. As far as the hero is young, active and capable of self-development, the king is infinitely wise, old and essentially static.

An important feature of the novels of Chrétien de Troyes is the atmosphere of happy love that fills them, a sublime idea of ​​a feat. Meaningful love and meaningful feat go hand in hand, they exalt a person, affirm his right to a deeply individual, unique inner world.

The hero of Chretin's novels is of the same type. He is a knight, but this is not the main thing; he is always young. Young Erec ("Erek and Enida"), who first comes to the court of King Arthur; Yvain ("Ivain, or the Knight of the Lion"), although he has already received recognition as a member of the Arthurian knightly brotherhood, is also young, and the main adventures are still ahead of him; Lancelot is no exception (“Lancelot, or the Knight of the Cart”), his character is also in internal formation, in motion, although he does not undergo such strong changes as the characters of Yvain and Erek. The main plot of the novels of Chrétien de Troyes can be formulated as follows: "... a young hero-knight in search of moral harmony." These are the main features of the Arthurian novel by Chrétien de Troyes

This is how J. Brereton formulates the essence of the novels of Chrétien de Trois in his book “A Brief History of French Literature”: “... endless adventures and exploits with weapons in their hands, love stories, seductions, captivity. A lonely tower, a dark forest, a girl on a horse, an evil dwarf - everything appears in curiously detailed descriptions and can hardly be called symbolism. These novels are not built on an allegorical or symbolic narrative; they are oriented towards a mythological worldview, which determines their special composition and the special motivation of the plot. “... Chretien de Troyes can describe the ideal order in the “endless” kingdom of Logres, where everything is subject to the will of the just King Arthur, and then calmly declare that the knight who left the royal castle of Camelot immediately found himself in an enchanted forest teeming with Arthur’s opponents »62.

For the author, there is no contradiction in such a transition at all: after all, he describes two different realities, mythologically coexisting, but not interconnected, and the hero’s transition from one to another is instantaneous and is not realized by him. J. Brereton identifies two topics that interest Chrétien de Troy the most: “the duty of a knight by vocation - the honor and prestige of a warrior - and the duty towards his lady”63.

It is probably these two motives that cause the greatest protest from Payen de Mezière, the “author” of the novel The Mule Without a Bridle (if Chrétien de Troyes is translated as “Christian from Troyes”, then Payen de Mezière is “The Pagan from Mezière”, a town located nearby from Troyes; who was hiding behind this pseudonym - one or more authors - we do not know). In The Mule Without a Bridle, Gauvin, the main character, has no need to defend his honor and prestige as the strongest fighter - no one, and first of all, the heroine herself, who, on her own initiative, gives him a kiss before he completes the task, has no doubts about the success of the knight (which cannot be said, for example, about Sir Kay, who is present here). Moreover, in The Mule Without a Bridle, a villan turns out to be worthy of all respect - a man of far from noble birth; in the novels of Chrétien de Troyes, the villains were usually opposed to the knights by rudeness and cowardice, but here the villans are superbly polite and courageous.

The relationship between the knight and the ladies is also very far from the ideals of Chrétien de Troyes. Having promised to become a wife to the one who returns her bridle, the girl safely leaves Arthur's castle, apparently having forgotten about this promise, and the knight does not even think of keeping her. Moreover, before getting the bridle, Gowen has dinner in the company of some beautiful lady, who turns out to be the sister of the heroine. The latter treats the knight so cordially, apparently fully appreciating her hospitality, that the narrator is forced to shut up and refuse to describe the dinner.

Of course, the situations are far from the ideals of Chrétien de Troyes, all of whose characters are in one way or another fighting for marital happiness (the exception is Lancelot, or the Knight of the Cart, the author wrote this novel by order of Maria Champagne). Such a controversy is a very interesting example of how the Arthurian legends expressed and shaped the ideals of the Middle Ages, especially considering that Payen de Maizières left the mythological basis of the chivalric romance unchanged.

In the middle of the 14th century, the anonymous English novel Sir Gawain and the Green Knight appears. B. Grebanier characterizes it as follows: “Of all poetic novels, none can be compared in beauty with the novel of the nameless author of the middle of the XIV century #Sir Gawain and the Green Knight”, one of the most exquisite works among those that have come down to us from medieval literature. It is also an allegory, the purpose of which * is to give an example of chastity, courage and honor - the qualities inherent in a perfect knight. As a rather late work, the novel is allegorical through and through, "Aude "glorifies Christian virtues in complex allegories and in this it merges with the typical genre of the era - a didactic allegorical poem that arose already entirely on urban soil"65.

So far we have considered some of the characteristic features of the writings of English and French authors who wrote about King Arthur's Round Table. But German novelists do not ignore this topic either. So, Hartmann von Aue (XII century) translated into German two poetic novels by Chrétien de Troy - "Erec and Enida" and "Ivein, or the Lion Knight", making them more "pretty" and accessible to the German public. This is how Wilhelm Scherer characterizes this work: “... the Frenchman is natural; The German keeps to decency. The Frenchman shows us a colorful world, the German makes it monotonous. The Frenchman assumes in advance that the requirements of elegant manners are implied by themselves and, on occasion, allows them to be violated, where there is a sufficient reason for this; the German considers himself obligated to preach elegant manners everywhere. The figures of the Frenchman must be entertaining; the figures of the German were to serve as models of life”66. The German tradition is characterized by an epic manner of presentation with a pronounced didactic educational element, which was alien to French and English authors.

At about the same time as Hartmann von Aue, the outstanding minnesinger Wolfram von Eschenbach worked. In the novel "Parzival" the theme of the Grail unfolds in a completely new way, only outlined in the novel of the same name by Chrétien de Troyes. In Eschenbach, this is a radiant gem endowed with a number of wonderful properties. It becomes a moral symbol and the center of a sacred community, of which only a spiritually pure person can become a member.

“The story of Parsival tells us the guilt and purification of the hero. We see how from darkness and confusion he reaches the highest perfection. Wolfram von Eschenbach apparently draws on the traditions of Hartmann von Aue and "develops in his novel the motifs of the knightly educational genre"68. His concept of chivalry and nobility is very interesting: “It is not only in courage on the battlefield and not only in protecting the weak and orphans from the strong and evil: the highest knightly prowess is not to be arrogant about your chivalry, not to be afraid to show yourself ridiculous and transgress, if necessary, the laws of courtesy in the name of the laws of humanity.

At the beginning of the 18th century, Gottfried Strasbourg's novel Tristan and Isolde appeared. This is a deeply psychological work that describes not so much external events as internal experiences and spiritual growth of the characters. Gottfried of Strasbourg actively uses mythological means to create a special atmosphere of the work, causing deep sympathy for the reader, for which V. Scherer reproaches him: “The irresistible power of love is symbolized in the saga by fairy-tale means. While the German heroic song in the twelfth century was freed as much as possible from fairy-tale features, the Celtic plots that came into German literature from France reintroduced a whole world of miracles, the Enlightenment of the old time gave way to a romantic taste for ghosts and improbability.

It is interesting to note that in "Tristan and Isolde" the norms of secular life are described in some detail, while the author tries to answer the question: is it worth considering human relations exclusively through the prism of the norms of courtesy? Some researchers (for example, R.M. Samarin and A.D. Mikhailov) see this as a sign of the impending crisis of courtly culture, which at that time was in its prime.

As we can see, the differences in the interpretation of the Arthurian legends by authors of different nationalities or simply adhering to different points of view are undeniable. At the same time, the chivalric romances that form the classical Arthurian have a common feature: they are built on the same mythological basis. Raising various problems or discussing the priority of certain values, they create a single ideal world, a second reality, which includes norms of behavior, qualities attributed to knights, features of their environment, and so on.

The normalized Arthur and his court were the epitome of chivalry. Let's see what traits were associated with the ideal of a knight.

The knight had to come from a good family. True, sometimes they were knighted for exceptional military exploits, but almost all the knights of the Round Table flaunt their generosity, among them there are many royal sons, almost everyone has a luxurious family tree.

A knight must be distinguished by beauty and attractiveness. In most of the Arthurian cycles, a detailed description of the heroes is given, as well as their robes, emphasizing the outward virtues of the knights.

The knight needed strength, otherwise he would not be able to wear armor that weighed sixty to seventy kilograms. He showed this strength, as a rule, even in his youth. Arthur himself pulled out a sword stuck between two stones, being quite young (however, it was not without magic). A knight must have professional skills: manage a horse, wield a weapon, etc.

The knight was expected to tirelessly care for his glory. Glory required constant confirmation, overcoming more and more new trials. Yvain from Chrétien de Troy's novel Yvain, or the Knight of the Lion cannot stay with his wife after the wedding. Friends make sure that he does not pamper himself in inaction and remembers what his fame obliges him to do. He had to wander until the opportunity to fight with someone turned up. There is no point in doing good deeds if they are destined to remain unknown. Pride is perfectly justified, unless it is exaggerated. Rivalry for prestige leads to stratification within the fighting elite, although in principle all knights are considered equal, symbolized in Arthurian legend by the Round Table at which they sit.

It is clear that with such constant concern for prestige, courage is required from a knight, and the most difficult accusation is the accusation of lack of courage. The fear of being suspected of cowardice led to the violation of the elementary rules of strategy (for example, Erec in Chrétien de Troy's novel "Erec and Enid" forbids Enida, who is riding ahead, to warn him of danger). Sometimes it ended with the death of the knight and his squad. Courage is also necessary for the performance of the duty of fidelity and loyalty.

The relentless rivalry did not break the solidarity of the knightly elite as such, a solidarity that extended to enemies belonging to the elite. In one of the legends, a simple warrior boasts that he killed a noble knight of the enemy camp, but the noble commander orders the proud man to be hanged.

If courage was necessary for a knight as a military man, then with his generosity, which was expected of him and which was considered an indispensable property of a noble-born, he did good to people dependent on him and those who glorified the exploits of knights at courts in the hope of a good treat and decent gifts for the occasion. Not without reason, in all the legends about the Knights of the Round Table, not the last place is given to descriptions of feasts and gifts in honor of a wedding, coronation (sometimes coinciding) or some other event.

A knight, as you know, must remain unconditionally faithful to his obligations towards his equals. The custom of bringing strange knightly vows, which had to be fulfilled contrary to all the rules of common sense, is well known. Thus, the seriously wounded Erec refuses to live at least a few days in King Arthur's camp in order to allow his wounds to heal, and sets off on a journey, risking dying in the forest from his wounds.

The class fraternity did not prevent the knights from fulfilling the duty of revenge for any offense, real or imaginary, inflicted on the knight himself or his relatives. The marriage was not particularly strong: the knight was constantly out of the house in search of glory, and the wife left alone usually knew how to “reward” herself for his absence. The sons were brought up at foreign courts (Arthur himself was brought up at the court of Sir Ector). But the clan showed solidarity, if it came to revenge, the entire clan also bore responsibility. It is no coincidence that in the Arthurian cycle such an important role is played by the conflict between two large rival groups - adherents and relatives of Gawain, on the one hand, adherents and relatives of Lancelot, on the other.

The knight had a number of obligations towards his overlord. The knights were charged with a debt of special gratitude to the one who ordained them to the knighthood, as well as care for orphans and widows. Although the knight was supposed to provide support to anyone in need of help, the legends do not talk about a single weak man offended by fate. On this occasion, it is appropriate to cite the witty remark of M. Ossovskaya: “Even, the Lion Knight, protects offended girls in bulk: he frees three hundred girls from the power of a cruel tyrant, who, in cold and hunger, must weave a cloth of gold and silver threads. Their touching complaint deserves to be noted in the exploitative literature.

The glory of the knight was brought not so much by victory as by his behavior in battle. The battle could, without prejudice to his honor, end in defeat and death. Death in battle was even a good end to the biography - it was not easy for the knight to come to terms with the role of a weak old man. The knight was obliged, if possible, to give the enemy equal chances. If the enemy fell off his horse (and in armor he could not climb into the saddle without assistance), the one who knocked him out also dismounted to equalize the chances. “I will never kill a knight who has fallen from his horse! exclaims Lancelot. “God save me from such a shame.”

Taking advantage of an opponent's weakness did not bring fame to the knight, and killing an unarmed enemy covered the killer with shame. Lancelot, a knight without fear and reproach, could not forgive himself for having somehow killed two unarmed knights in the heat of battle and noticed this when it was already too late; he made the pilgrimage on foot wearing only a linen shirt to atone for this sin. It was impossible to strike from behind. The knight in armor had no right to retreat. Anything that could be considered cowardice was unacceptable.

The knight, as a rule, had a beloved. At the same time, he could show adoration and care only for a lady of his class, who sometimes occupied a higher position in relation to him. Contrary to popular belief, sighing from afar was the exception rather than the rule. As a rule, love was not platonic, but carnal, and the knight experienced it for someone else's wife, not his own (a classic example is Lancelot and Guinevere, Arthur's wife).

Love had to be mutually faithful, lovers overcame various difficulties. The most difficult test that the lady of his heart could only subject to was Lancelot Guinevere, whom he saved at the cost of dishonor. The beloved is looking for Guinevere, kidnapped by evil forces, and sees a dwarf riding a cart. The dwarf promises Lancelot to discover where Guinevere is hidden on the condition that the knight gets into the cart - an act that can dishonor the knight and make him the subject of ridicule (knights were taken in a cart only for execution!). Lancelot finally decides to do this, but Guinevere is offended by him: before getting into the cart, he took three more steps.

The church tried to use chivalry to its advantage, but the Christian shell of chivalry was extremely thin. Adultery was considered a sin and officially condemned, but all sympathies were on the side of lovers, and at God's court (ordeals), God allowed himself to be easily deceived when it came to a treacherous spouse. Guinevere, whose affair with Lancelot lasted for years, swore that none of the eleven knights sleeping in the neighboring chambers entered her at night; Lancelot, who enjoyed this privilege, was the twelfth knight not provided for in the calculations. This oath was enough to save the queen from burning at the stake. Deceived husbands often have a heartfelt affection for their wife's lover (this is how King Arthur refers to Lancelot). God also, judging by the fact that the bishop guarding the body of Lancelot dreams of the angels taking the knight to heaven, forgives sinful love.

The social ties of the Middle Ages were primarily interpersonal, that is, mostly direct and immediate. Establishing a connection between the seigneur and the vassal involved the acceptance of certain obligations by both parties. The vassal was obliged to serve his lord, to provide him with all kinds of assistance, to remain faithful and devotion. For his part, the lord had to patronize the vassal, protect him, be fair to him. Entering into this relationship, the lord took solemn oaths from the vassal (rite of anointing), which made their bond indestructible.

The peasant was obliged to pay dues to the feudal lord, and he was obliged to protect his peasants, and in case of famine, feed them from his stocks. There was a very clear division of labor: not freedom and dependence, but service and fidelity were the central categories of medieval Christianity. That is why in Arthurian legends it is always very carefully sorted out who was whose squire and who was whose vassal. However, the hierarchy of privilege, freedom, dependence, and captivity was also a hierarchy of services. In feudal society, social roles were very clearly divided and defined by custom or law, and the life of each person depended on his role.

It is impossible not to notice that in the legends very close attention is paid to material culture; moreover, the real requirements for it, due to vital necessity, are closely connected with the mythical qualities that medieval authors generously endow with all kinds of armor (not pierced by ordinary weapons), weapons (piercing charmed armor), cups (from which they can get drunk without spilling, only those who are true to their ladies to knights), cloaks (which can only be worn by the same ladies), etc.

Let's take a closer look at some examples. Speaking about the material culture, which is reflected in the legends of the Arthurian cycle, one cannot fail to notice that a very large place is devoted to descriptions of war horses, weapons and clothing. And no wonder - the knight's function was to fight: to defend his possessions, sometimes increase them by capturing neighboring ones, or simply maintain his prestige by taking part in tournaments (after all, you should seriously think before you try to capture, for example, the land of a knight who won several brilliant victories in the last tournament and was recognized as the strongest). ,

The warhorse is actually one of the most important pieces of equipment for a knight in battle. Horses were trained in a special way, and they often helped their owners by rearing up in time or stepping aside. Each war horse had its own name, it was groomed and cherished. Many legends tell of horses who spoke like human beings and often gave very practical advice to their owners. Considerable attention was paid to the description of the armor and weapons of the knights, the reliability and convenience of which were important for success in the campaign and victory in the tournament. The knight's weapons, as a rule, were a sword and a spear, sometimes also a pike. Often the sword was a family relic, had its own history, a name, often symbolic (some researchers give such an interpretation of the name of Arthur's sword: Excalibur - “I cut steel, iron and all”); when knighted, the sword was a mandatory attribute.

The custom of those times demanded that the knight have “good” armor: a helmet, shell, chain mail and ringed headdress, leg armor and gauntlets. If weapons and armor “burn” in the sun, this indicates not only that they are beautiful, but also that they are polished and properly maintained and, therefore, reliable (in the same way, the description of sweatshirts and saddles testified to a caring attitude towards horses). Over the armor, the knights wore a short wide cloak, embroidered, as a rule, with heraldic patterns, which were also repeated on the shield.

The clothes of knights are described in great detail in the legends in terms of their functional significance. Before the battle, clothes are put on under the armor, it must be sewn in such a way that the armor does not rub the skin, and the metal of the armor heated in the heat does not touch the body. Travel clothes were lighter to make long journeys less tiring - a constant feature of chivalric romances - and to provide protection for the knight.

The description of the ladies' clothes also makes it possible to judge its functional significance: it is convenient and practical when a lady is a hostess and is engaged in practical activities (she constantly has to go down to cellars, climb towers); the elegance of clothing is of paramount importance only if it is ceremonial (in this case, fabrics, golden tassels, furs, jewelry are described in detail), while color is also taken into account, since in addition to heraldic meaning, it can be used to emphasize the beauty of a hero or heroine.

In almost every work of the Arthurian cycle, some kind of castle appears - enchanted, impregnable, or one that, with her hand and heart, a charming lady promises the knight that he will complete his task. So, we know that Arthur was conceived in the castle of Tintagel, located on a rock above the sea. This is one of the castles of the early Middle Ages, which is actually one tower, walled and protected on all sides by the sea (only a narrow path leads to the castle, along which only one person can pass).

In the novels of the Arthurian cycle of Chrétien de Troyes, we find descriptions of later and improved castles. Each of them was like a mini-city, walled on all sides. Inside were the lord's castle proper, rooms for servants, stables, cellars where food and drink were stored in case of a siege or famine, and often a chapel in which the lord prayed. Blacksmiths often worked here, shoeing the lord's horses and making products for the castle. Thus, the castle was equipped with maximum comfort.

To understand why such an important role in chivalric romances is often assigned to castles and those who inhabit them, let us dwell in more detail on a number of historical facts.

The first fortification built on the orders of William the Conqueror immediately after the landing of his troops in England was a motte - a fortification previously unknown in the British Isles. At first, the motte was an earthen hill surrounded by a moat. A wooden tower was built on its top, the foundation of which was powerful logs dug into the ground. It was these fortifications that were used by the Normans as strongholds in Hastings. On the territory of England, they erected many mottes, strengthening with their help their dominance in the conquered lands.

The Normans gained experience in building mottes in France, where the simplest fortifications of this type allowed the feudal lords to resist the absolute power of the heirs of Charlemagne and establish their own domains. It can be said without exaggeration that the appearance of a new defensive structure in Europe was of great importance. Politically, it played an important role in the decentralization of royal power. Undoubtedly, the social significance of the new fortification was even more important: it became a kind of school where the lords and their warriors learned knightly skills.

Usually the motte was in the form of a truncated cone or hemisphere; the diameter of its base could reach 100 m, and its height - 20 m. In most cases, a bailey adjoined the motte - an area fenced with an earthen rampart, a moat, a palisade. Such a double line of earthen fortifications was called the "castle with motte and bailey." Another type of medieval buildings is a miniature bailey on the flat top of an artificial hill with a diameter of 30 to 100 m with an obligatory moat and palisade. Some baileys served only as cattle pens. Small earthen fortresses were also built everywhere, to which cattle pens also adjoined.

Using the labor of peasants, it was possible to relatively quickly carry out earthworks related to the construction of fortifications. The advantage of the motte was that, apart from the wooden superstructure, it was almost impossible to destroy.

The tactics of those constructing mottes can be compared with the tactics of playing chess - to advance their pieces as much as possible and at the same time prevent the enemy from capturing them. By erecting a motte, the feudal lords, together with their garrison, were preparing for a siege, which the rival could start at any moment, trying to win back the lost territories. In most cases, the siege ended in failure: the motte, by that time already called the castle, was impregnable. The enemy could get into the castle only if the gate was opened by a traitor or the lord himself was captured. (Remember the numerous legends about castles that are constantly spinning, so that it is almost impossible to get into them, besides, they are inhabited by deadly animals, in the fight against which only one of the inhabitants of the castle can help the knight; mysterious castles surrounded by the shields of defeated knights ; and also Morgana's castle, where Sir Gawain - sometimes Lancelot - enters and cannot get out until he is led out of there by a girl serving four queens visiting the castle.)

The chronicles of those years testify that the feudal lords could not fully rely on their close associates and lived in constant expectation of treason. By all means they tried to avoid capture, and when it came to open battles, the lord, seeing that his army was being defeated, was the first to leave the battlefield. If the seigneur was captured, then they demanded from him by force that he force those who remained in the castle, including his family, to open the gates. If they refused to do so, the prisoner was hanged at the entrance to the castle. Sometimes the enemy managed to take the children of the seigneur hostage. Demanding the surrender of the fortress, he threatened to hang them or blind them. (One of the stories about King Arthur is the abduction of his wife Guinevere, who is forced to be rescued from captivity by Lancelot).

Life in the castle put the warriors from the lord's retinue before a choice: either maintain camaraderie, or constantly quarrel with each other. In any case, it was necessary to be tolerant of others and for this to adhere to certain rules of behavior, or at least not to allow manifestations of violence.

Established in the world, fenced with a palisade, moral norms later, at the second stage of the development of feudal society, at the end of the 11th century, inspired the troubadours. Their hymns sang of chivalry and love, but in fact they glorified two social achievements - stabilization and the development of a new space. Many famous knights were at first simple warriors in the retinue of the feudal lord, but they received a high rank for the valor shown in battles. At the same time, a warrior could not achieve honors if he did not behave like a real knight.

Mott also had an impact on the rural population. (In myths, often after getting rid of the cruel animals that inhabited the castle, or after freeing it from witchcraft, crowds of jubilant, singing and dancing peasants appeared in the previously deserted area, thanking the knight for protection.) Many households became dependent on the feudal lord, to whom the peasants were now required to pay taxes.

However, even more profound social changes took place among the masters themselves. Accustomed to life in estates, in the countryside, side by side with free peasants, seigneurs in just a few decades moved to castles, armed to the teeth, first in order to seize power, then to keep it. Having seized the motte as a weapon of intimidation, the feudal lords and their vassals began to create a new system of social relations - primitive, but original. On the one hand, it was a policy of suppression, on the other hand, the ideals of honor and courage were proclaimed among the chivalry. It was these ideals that were sung by medieval chivalric romances.

So, with the change of generations, social balance was gradually established. New relations consolidated the class community of seniors, which weakened the sense of constant danger. Castles opened their gates to friends and neighbors, wars gave way to tournaments, family coats of arms now flaunted on knightly shields. Where once cunning and cruelty reigned, valor and generosity were now sung. Thus, from the second stage of the development of feudalism in the setting of medieval motts, the foundations of the heritage that this era left to the descendants and which rightfully deserved the name "castle culture" began to be laid.

All the processes that took place in the real world left their mark on the second reality, which formed the mythical basis of chivalric novels and ballads. If the book of Geoffrey of Monmouth tells about the life, deeds and exploits of Arthur himself, then the classical Arthuriana sings of the brotherhood of the Knights of the Round Table, their adventures, which have little to do with the military achievements described in the History of the Britons. These are single fights between two or more knights, or competitions in a tournament (characteristic of the period of feudal fragmentation). However, along with the ideals of courtly ™, a new myth arises and forms - the myth of the Holy Grail, which requires spiritual purity and chastity from a knight (which are far from always inherent in knights who are impeccable in terms of the norms of courtly courtesy). The theme of the Holy Grail was most developed in the late Middle Ages, when the formation of myths about the Round Table of King Arthur was actually completed. As the Middle Ages give way to the Renaissance, the formation of these myths comes to an end.

Completion of the Mythos of King Arthur's Round Table

During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the legends of King Arthur and his knights continued to inspire poets: “... verse novels, translated or stylized in French, dedicated to one or another fragment of a vast magical history, were popular among both the noble and the simple”72 .

And at the end of the 15th century, a work appeared that combined all these myths. In 1485, the Westminster printers of Caxton published the novel Le Morte d'Arthur by the English prose writer Thomas Malory. This work completes the Arthurian cycle of the Middle Ages. It is an adaptation of a number of novels of the Arthurian cycle or works adjacent to it. Fifty-six times in the text of his book, Malory repeats to readers that his sources were "French books", but he probably also used English verse adaptations of the French poems of the Arthurian cycle.

Translating all this extensive material into English, Malory combined borrowed motifs, cut and modified patterns, and made his own inserts; the result is a coherent work of art, in which, by the way, King Arthur and his wife Guinevere are not always in the foreground. The presentation is divided into many episodes, adventures follow one after another, often without motivation and special preparation of readers. Brave knights clad in armor fight each other, beautiful exiles find shelter in the twilight of dense forests, dwarfs and the magician Merlin, who has the miraculous gift of prophecy, expose the secret connections between the heroes and announce misfortunes that they can neither explain nor prevent.

In many adventurous stories told, the image of Lancelot looms more clearly than others, languishing in love with his overlord's wife, Queen Guinevere, and trying in vain to find the Grail, which is hindered by the sin gravitating over them; Tristram, fatally carried away by Isolde; other notable figures are the evil Mordred, who kidnaps Guinevere and starts a rebellion against Arthur; mischievous, and sometimes ridiculous loser, Seneschal Sir Kay. In many episodes, it is felt that Malory either used editions of Arthurian legends that are inaccessible to us, or introduced new features into his narrative, introduced new characters.

Malory's narratives are full of charming naivete, innocence and unsophisticated grace. However, Malory often reveals a tendency to moralization, sobriety, prudence and practicality. The world of French medieval poetry and its subtle psychologism are largely alien to him. Malory condemns love for the sake of love, and considers love in a legal marriage to be ideal. True, in order to clearly express his point of view, the author has few reasons; in his book there is only one case of a happy marriage - the marriage of Tristram's parents, but the image of Lancelot Malory, for example, differs significantly from the interpretation that he had in French poetry.

Lancelot is one of the most interesting images of the novel, as in its sources, Lancelot Malory had all the data in order to get the Grail, but, imbued with sinful love for the queen, he was only able to see the cup of grace from a distance. In Malory, Lancelot does not marry not so much because of the vow of knightly chastity (a necessary condition for achieving the Holy Grail), but for quite practical reasons: marriage, he argues, will tie him to his wife, make him lay down his arms, forget tournaments, battles and knightly adventures. Lancelot does not want to start casual love affairs either, and Malory constantly forces him to express virtuous morality and rebel against its violators.

It is characteristic that, contradicting her sources, Malory does not dare to oppose the sinful Lancelot to the chaste seeker of the Grail Galahad, and that, while elevating Lancelot as an ideal knight, Malory at the same time deviates from the church-Christian interpretations of the search for the "cup of grace" that they receive from him. more prosaic and earthy coloring of entertaining knightly adventures.

As weapons are improved (the crossbow appears, and then - in the Renaissance - and firearms), from which armor can no longer protect a person, knights are becoming a thing of the past. And now the very concept of chivalry is becoming a myth, creating an ideal image of a world in which people are characterized by courage, strength, valor, inaccessible to mere mortals, and friendship and love are absolute values.

Such bonds are strong and unbreakable. The world of magic directly intersects with the world of chivalry: the characters of chivalric novels constantly communicate with magicians and fairies, every now and then on their way they come across various objects endowed with miraculous power. Knights are special people living in a special reality, and in Malory "we hear about high deeds of love, loyalty and revenge, represented by the great representatives of chivalry - Gawain, Lancelot, Percival and Galahad"73.

Initially, the ideas of chivalry were an organizing force both in public life and in the military field - and served to justify the norms of behavior imposed by the Normans, and also corrected the relationship between various cultural strata and social groups. As the structure of society and cultural norms changed, these myths increasingly reflected ideas not about the ideal norms of behavior of a particular social stratum, but about an exciting, exemplary life, about the rules, qualities and feelings that anyone can dream of. Chivalric novels were increasingly detached from reality.

The idea of ​​the late Arthurian Round Table essentially embodied the tradition of personal loyalty of the vassal to his overlord of the feudal era, which was the bonding link of the entire feudal society. It also embodied one of the contradictions of this society - the king was constantly looking for a way to reward his warriors and thereby maintain their loyalty, without turning them into feudal lords, whose possessions would inspire them with the illusion of independence and dictate interests that diverged from his own.

Knightly orders, created precisely at the time when the idea of ​​the Round Table spread especially widely, had significant military and social significance. But by the beginning of the 14th century, the situation had changed dramatically. Orders increasingly followed the path of enrichment and decay. Professional armies began to supplant individual detachments of knights and their squires, among whom any order and discipline were impossible. At the same time, chivalry became more and more closed, an increasing stratification was observed within it, since the former knights, losing military functions, had to look for a new field of activity and new opportunities for existence.

Thus - and this is especially characteristic of England - while the nobility and the richest gentry turned into courtiers, the lesser nobles increasingly remained to live on their estates. And if earlier they existed mainly at the expense of subsistence farming and were looking for additional income in the war against robberies and ransoms, now they began to produce wool and products for sale, often replacing the forced labor characteristic of the earlier Middle Ages with hired labor.

As chivalry lost its original meaning, the Arthurian cycle and the chivalric romance as a whole lost touch with reality and acquired an increasingly religious and fantastic character, with the Grail theme predominating. The works of this genre became more and more refined, reflecting the artificiality of the behavior and manners of the knights; the plots became more and more fantastic, grotesquely improbable, the endless adventures of the heroes were presented more and more sophisticated. The fall of pathos and the emasculation of the epic novel are depicted in the priest's discourse in Cervantes (with slight exaggeration).

Apparently, Malory preferred to avoid such a style, which, as A.A. the Arthurian cycle as a whole. Malory's position is no less clearly visible in the fact that he reintroduces heroic and epic motifs, as well as in the strong national feeling that permeates his work. It seems that he directed all his efforts towards restoring in the Arthurian cycle a sense of the reality of what was happening, once again giving it a modern sound. However, times have changed, and the myths about King Arthur inevitably had to change their semantic load, and, consequently, their form.

In the Renaissance, the stories about the Round Table became, rather, the starting point for myth-making, where completely new ideas were preached in the form of a chivalric romance. One of the characteristic examples is the work of Garcia Rodriguez Montalvo "Amadis of Gaul". “Under the pen of Montalvo, the chivalric romance became a genre of Renaissance literature. Based on the plot motifs of medieval stories about King Arthur and his associates, about the magician Merlin, Montalvo reflected the heroic pathos inherent in his era. The mythical reality of this work probably found the most vivid response among the Spanish nobles, who, according to the tradition of childhood, were inspired by the concepts of military prowess, honor and pride.

On the other hand, the Renaissance is a period of great geographical discoveries. The adventures of conquistadors and navigators contributed to a vivid perception of the fantastic feats of chivalric novels. However, the heroes of Montalvo were by no means Spaniards, in addition, attention is drawn to "the similarity of the images and even situations described by Montalvo with the French novels about Tristan and Lancelot"76. The myth about people of exceptional physical and mental qualities, whose life is full of amazing adventures, attracts many readers at this time.

A striking example of the Renaissance chivalric romance is Ludovico Ariosto's Furious Roland. As D.E. Mikhalchi notes: “The main character ... he made ... an exemplary knight in the humanistic sense, an unchanging patron of the oppressed, a fighter for justice; in his face the ideal qualities possessed by the heroes of the best Spanish novels about Amadis of Gaul are embodied in a transformed form...”77. In this work, under the auspices of "chivalry", the revivalist myth of humanism finds expression.

If for the mentality of a medieval person the key is the concept of God (remember the role of the Grail in classical Arturiana), then in the Renaissance, the idea of ​​anthropocentrism and the myth of the omnipotence of the human mind come to the fore (Roland's madness deprives him of absolutely all the qualities that he possessed, but when Astolfo heals a friend, the knight becomes "even smarter and more courageous").

In the work of Ariosto, a plot line that would seem to have nothing to do with Arthurian legends, Merlin appears in one of the first chapters, prophesying Bradamante about her future; and the way it is spoken of suggests that its history is well known: "This is Merlin's ancient memorial grotto, of which you must have heard."

In general, although Renaissance chivalric romances for the most part no longer use the storylines of the Arthurian cycle, the name of Arthur and his associates is apparently familiar to everyone. F. Petrarch in the treatise "On the means against any fate", stipulating that this is a fairy tale, but not doubting that everyone knows its origin, mentions Arthur. Thus, the heroes of this cycle have a new meaning - Merlin from an adviser to King Arthur becomes a good wizard (almost a saint), divining and helping the worthy; the names of Arthur and his knights take on a symbolic sound.

At this stage, the mythological nature of the Arthurian cycle loses its significance; The Round Table and the people and events associated with it acquire the status of a symbol. Unlike a myth, a symbol does not create a picture of the world and does not explain anything; rather, it is a set of ideas associated with a particular concept. A.F. Losev writes that “... in a hidden form it contains all the possible manifestations of a thing”79. At the same time, we cannot unambiguously say what exactly lies behind this or that symbol.

On the one hand, Arthur and the brotherhood of the Round Table are elevated to the absolute and associated with the ideals of justice, brotherhood and mutual assistance, on the other hand, the kingdom of Logr, based on these concepts, perishes along with Arthur.

With the symbolization of Arturiana, its formation and development ends - the cycle has gone from Celtic pagan myths to a symbol that is no longer a myth itself.

Conclusion

It would seem that with the departure of the Middle Ages, the Arthurian cycle was not destined to develop further; True, in fairy tales (Scottish, Irish, English), no, no, and Arthur will flash, waiting with his knights for the moment of awakening, or Merlin, helping one or another fairy-tale character, but this was the case and was limited until the 19th century.

The fact is that in the 17th-18th centuries, myth-making on knightly themes practically did not exist, since feudal ideals were not only not relevant, but could slow down and interfere with the development of society, which explains the rejection of them at this stage. Again, interest in the Middle Ages and the ideals associated with it appears only among the pre-romantics (Macpherson's "Ossian's Songs"). Romantics pick up medieval themes. As the bourgeois ideology, which is mainly oriented towards material values, provokes more and more protests, medieval stories and value systems based on the traditions of chivalry are increasingly being used as a countermeasure.

During the development of the Arthurian cycle, the underlying Celtic mythology largely disappeared from it. “The world of Arthurian legends itself acquired mythological features. Camelot, the Round Table, the brotherhood of knights, the search for the Grail became new mythologemes. It was in this capacity that they were perceived already at the end of the Middle Ages. Therefore, the appeal to Arthurian legends in the XIX-XX centuries by ATennison, R. Wagner, W. Morris, O. C. Swinburne, D. Joyce (in Finnegans Wake) and many others revived old myths, but the main mythologems were not the motifs of Celtic folklore, but the ideas of the courtly Middle Ages. The above authors saw in the legends of King Arthur a moral and ethical ideal; the Pre-Raphaelites (Dante Gabriel Rossetti and others), inspired by Arturiana, created their own artistic style, drawing inspiration from it for creativity. In 1889, Mark Twain wrote Book I "A Yankee in King Arthur's Court", replacing the moral and ethical myth with the myth of the omnipotence of science that existed in the 19th century (although M. Twain himself read Malory's book with enthusiasm, he did not approve of the craze for the Middle Ages).

In the 20th century, J.R.R. Tolkien creates a new genre - "fantasy". And within a very short period of time, a number of works dedicated to Arthur and his knights appear, ranging from transcriptions and retellings of Malory and other authors (for example, "Knights of the Round Table" in the retelling of E. Balabanova, O. Peterson) and ending with serious philosophical works Mary Stewart, Terence H. White, Michel Rio and others. The authors choose a different manner of narration; each in his own way explains the events about which he narrates.

M. Stuart, speaking in the first person, interprets events from the standpoint of a person with paranormal abilities, but at the same time bringing the story as close as possible to what a modern person can perceive as reality.

Terence H. White, freely introducing modern judgments into the paintings of the Middle Ages, focuses on the psychoanalytic nuances in the relationship of the characters, at the same time, sometimes to the point of eccentricity, humanizing the character. In his interpretation, the hero Lancelot becomes a shy, ugly young man seeking spiritual purity in exhausting physical exercises, Guinevere ages over time, as a woman should, and Merlin looks like an absent-minded eccentric who does not care at all about how he looks and what they think of him other. At the same time, moral and ethical myths, which came along with the Arthurian cycle from the Middle Ages, and myths that arose much later (the myth of psychoanalysis, the myth of paranormal abilities, etc.) are fancifully mixed in the works.

The popularity of the fantasy genre raises many questions, but perhaps the main one is the following: why do people who already know what a space rocket and a nuclear bomb are enthusiastically plunge into the innumerable worlds of magicians and swords? The fact that the second reality offered by the myth of the Round Table is of cultural value to this day is confirmed by the abundance of modern works devoted to this topic (R. Wickman's rock oratorio "Arthur", the musical "Camelot", the films "Excalibur", Merlin and the Sword, etc.). And the answer must probably be sought in the myth - the second ideal reality, where you so want to go.

The fantasy genre appears after the First World War, which became a severe shock for mankind (weapons of mass destruction are invented, from which civilians suffer first of all; a fair fight, revealing who is stronger and wiser, often turns into a thoughtless massacre). In the light of these events, the tragic end that befalls the kingdom of Logr acquires a new meaning - it is not for nothing that M. Stuart and M. Rio insistently emphasize that Arthur predetermines his death at the moment of his rise - after the first victorious battles, he gives life to Mordred, the battle with whose army will be the last for the kingdom of Logr:

Particular attention is paid to the “humanization” of the characters: if in the classical Arthurian the main place was given to the event outline and through it the reader was given to understand what experiences the hero had and what internal changes take place in him, then the novels about Arthur, written in the 20th century, put in the center of the inner world of the characters, their feelings and thoughts.

In a wonderful mythical reality, there are living, extremely earthly people who are characterized by weaknesses, doubts, and mistakes. In this context, along with the relationship between the family of Arthur's sister Morgause (or Morgana) and the king, the triangle Arthur - Guinevere - Lancelot and the relationship between Merlin and Vivienne are of particular importance. Myths about an ideal state where justice reigns are closely connected with the philosophical myth that every good undertaking has its end, as well as with myths about love, friendship, and mutual understanding.

Probably, such a transformation in time space is inherent in every myth ever created by a sociocultural community. And not the last role in this process was played by the myth of King Arthur and his knights. For Europe, with its Celtic and Germanic myth, it was one of the central ones in the development by European society of its socio-normative and cultural guidelines for the existence of each of the individuals.

Bibliography

1 In 1952, A. Kroeber and K. Clackhohn collected 164 formal definitions of culture and over 100 descriptive explanations of this concept (see about this: Kroeber A., ​​Clackhohn C. Culture. A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. - Cambridge, 1952 ).

2 Esin A.B. Introduction to cultural studies. - M., 1966. - S. 8.

3 Bibler V. Culture // Experience of the Dictionary of New Thinking. - M., 1989. - S. 241.

4 Gurevich P.S. Culturology. - M., 1966. - S. 20.

5 Mezhuev VM Culture and history. - M., 1977. - S. 72.

6 Roerich N.K. Culture and civilization. - M., 1994. - S. 41.

7 Arnoldov A.I. Introduction to cultural studies. - M., 1993. - S. 10.

8 Freud 3. Dissatisfaction with culture // Freud 3. Selected. - M.,

1990. - Book. 2. - S. 31.

9 Freud 3. Dissatisfaction with culture // Selected. - M., 1990. - Book. 2. - S. 37.

10 Bell G. Frankfurt Readings // Self-Consciousness of European Culture of the 20th Century: Thinkers and Writers of the West on the Place of Culture in Modern Society. - M., 1991. - S. 303.

11 Ortega y Gasset X. Aesthetics. Philosophy of culture. - M., 1991. - S. 322.

12 Zenkovsky V. Fundamentals of Christian philosophy. - M., 1992. - S. 163.

13 Finkelmkraut A. Identity, cultural identity. - S. 69; Berar E. Dialogue of cultures // Experience of the dictionary of new thinking. - S. 35-38,20-21.

14 Robin R. Culture // Ibid. - S. 234.

15 Kertman L.E. History of culture of the countries of Europe and America. - M, 1987. - S. 26.

16 See about this: ibid.

17 Levi-Strauss K. Structural Anthropology. - M., 1985. - S. 263-264.

18 Orlova EA. Introduction to social and cultural anthropology. - M., 1994. - S. 18.

19 Dobrynina V.I. Culture and civilization. - M., 1992. - S. 14.

20 Sokolov E.V. Culturology: Essays on theories of culture. - M., 1994. - S. 10.

21 Bacon F. On the wisdom of the ancients // Works. - M., 1978. - T. 2. - S. 241,291.

22 Schelling F.V. Philosophy of art. - M., 1966. - S. 105.

23 Losev A.F. Philosophy. Mythology. Culture. - M., 1991. - S. 40.

24 Ibid. - S. 25.

25 Losev A.F. Philosophy. Mythology. Culture. - M., 1991. - S. 65.

26 Schelling F.V. Philosophy of art. - S. 113.

28 Losev A.F. Philosophy. Mythology. Culture. - S. 160.

30 Losev A.F. Philosophy. Mythology. Culture. - M., 1991. - S. 134.

31 Bart R. Mythologies. - M., 1996. - S. 249.

32 Schelling F.W. Philosophy of art. - S. 114.

33 Bart R. Mythologies - S. 247.34 See, for example: Mikhailov AD. Arthurian legends and their evolution //Malory T. Death of Arthur. - M., 1974. - S. 793.

35 Shkunaev S.V. Traditions and myths of medieval Ireland. - M., 1991. S. 12.

36 Shkunaev S.V. Traditions and myths of medieval Ireland. - M., 1991. - S. 13.

37 In the world of myths and legends. - SPb., 1995. - S. 272.

38 Mikhailov AD. Arthurian legends and their evolution // Malory T. Death

Arthur. - M., 1974. - S. 799.

39 Icelandic sagas. Irish epic. - M., 1973. - S. 587.

40 Mikhailov AD. Arthurian legends and their evolution. - S. 796.

41 In the world of myths and legends. - S. 288.

42 Ibid. - S. 258.

43 Adolf H. The Concept of Original Sin as Reflected in Arthurian Romance //Studies in Language and Literature in Honor of Margaret Schlauch. -Warzawa, 1966. - P. 27.

44 In the world of myths and legends. - S. 261.

45 VinaverE. Malory. - Oxford, 1929. - P. 73.

46 Alekseev ML. Literature of modern England and Scotland. - M., 1984. - S. 61.

47 See about this: Mikhailov AD. Arthurian legends and their evolution. - S. 806.

48 See about this: ibid.

49 Geoffrey of Monmouth. History of the Britons. Merlin's life - M., 1984. - S. 5.

50 Mikhailov AD. The Book of Geoffrey of Monmouth // Geoffrey of Monmouth. History of the Britons. Merlin's life. - M., 1984. - S. 210.

51 Geoffrey of Monmouth. History of the Britons. Merlin's life. - S. 96-97.

52 Mikhailov AD. Book by Geoffrey of Monmouth. - S. 211.

54 Grebanier B.D.N. The Essentials of English Literature. - N. Y., 1953. - P. 14.

55 Konrad N.I. The problem of realism in the literature of the East // Selected Works. - M., 1978. - S. 56 Sherwood EL. From Anglo-Saxons to English. - M., 1988. - S. 112.

57 Ibid. - S. 158.

58 Ibid.-S. 232.

59 History of English Literature. - M., 1943. - T. 1. - S. 86.

61 Brereton G. A History of French Literature. - L., 1961.-R.18.

62 Culturology. Theory and history of culture. - M., 1996. - S. 146.

63 Brereton G. A History of French Literature. - L, 1961. - P. 19.

64 Grebanier B.D.N. The Essentials of English Literature. - N. Y., 1953. - P. 14.

65 Samarin R.M., Mikhailov AD. Knight's novel // History of World Literature. - M., 1984. - T. 2. - S. 570.

66 Scherer V. History of German Literature. - SPb., 1893. - S. 148.

67 Ibid. - S. 163.

68 Samarin R.M., Mikhailov AD. Knight's novel // History of World Literature. - S. 564.

69 Ibid. - S. 565.

70 Scherer V. History of German Literature. - S. 153.

71 Ossovskaya M. Knight and bourgeois. - M., 1987. -, S. 87.

72 Gosse EL. Short History of Modern English Literature. - L., 1903. - P. 53.

73 Moody W.V., Lavett R.M. A History of English Literature from Beowulf to 1926.-N. Y., 1926.-P.68.

74 Morton AL. From Malory to Eliot. - M., 1970. - S. 49-50.

75 Plavskin Z.I. Literature of the early pan-Spanish Renaissance // History of World Literature. - M., 1985. - T. 3. - S. 345.

76 DunlopJ.C. History of Prose Fiction. - L, 1888. - P. 354.

77 MihalchiD. Ludovico Ariosto // History of World Literature. - M., 1985. - T. 3. -S. 127

78 Ariosto L. Furious Roland. - M, 1993. - T. 1. - S. 53.

79 Losev A.F. The problem of the symbol and realistic art. - M., 1976. - S. 17.

80 Mikhailov AD. Death of Arthur. - S. 827. 51

Breton folk ballads. - St. Petersburg, 1995.

Wolfram von Eschenbach. Parzival // Medieval novel and story. - M., 1974.

Geoffrey of Monmouth. History of the Britons. Merlin's life. - M., 1974.

Icelandic sagas. Irish epic. - M., 1973.

Chretien de Troy. Ivein, or the Lion Knight // Medieval novel and story. - M., 1974.

Chretien de Troy. Erec and Enida. Cliches. - M., 1980.

Ariosto Ludovico. Furious Roland. - M., 1993.

Payen de Maizières. Mule without a bridle // Two old French stories. - M., 1956.

Traditions and myths of medieval Ireland. - M., 1991.

The novel about Tristan and Isolde // Medieval novel and story. - M., 1974.

Thomas Melory. Death of Arthur. - M., 1974.

Alekseev ML. Literature of modern England and Scotland. - M., 1984.

Arnoldov A.L. Introduction to cultural studies. - M., 1993.

Bart R. Mythologies. - M., 1996.

Berar E. Dialogue of cultures // Experience of the dictionary of new thinking. - M., 1989.

Bell G. Frankfurt Readings // Self-consciousness of European culture of the XX century. - M., 1991.

Bibler V. Culture // Experience of the Dictionary of New Thinking. - M., 1989.

Boer M. The social significance of the medieval fortifications motte and bailey // In the world of science. - M., 1983. - No. 7.

Bacon F. On the wisdom of the ancients // Works. - M., 1978. - T. 2.

In the world of myths and legends. - St. Petersburg, 1995.

Gurevich P.S. Culturology. - M., 1996.

Dobrynina V.I. Culture and civilization. - M., 1992.

Evsyukov V.V. Myths about the universe. - Novosibirsk, 1988.

Introduction to cultural studies. - M., 1996.

History of English Literature. - M., 1943. - T. 1.

History of foreign literature. Middle Ages and Renaissance. - M., 1987.

History of French Literature. - M., 1946. - T. 1

History of culture of the countries of Europe and America. - M., 1987.

Konrad N.I. The problem of realism and literature of the East // Selected Works. - M., 1978.

Culturology. Theory and history of culture. - M., 1996.

Ladygin M.B. English chivalric romance and the problem of the development of the romantic novel in England in the 18th-19th centuries. // Problems of method and genre in foreign literature. - M., 1984. - Issue. nine.

Levi-Strauss K. Structural Anthropology. - M., 1985.

Losev A.F. The problem of the symbol and realistic art. - M., 1976.

Losev A.F. Philosophy. Mythology. Culture. - M., 1991.

Luchitskaya SM. Culture and Society of the Western European Middle Ages. - M., 1994.

Matuzova V.I. English medieval sources of the 9th-13th centuries. - M., 1979.

Mezhuev V.M. Culture and history. - M., 1977.

Meletinsky E.M. Introduction to the historical poetics of the epic and the novel. -M., 1986.

Meletinsky E.M. medieval romance. - M., 1983.

Melnikova EL. Sword and lyre. - M., 1987.

Mikhailov AD. Arthurian legends and their evolution // Thomas Mallory. Death of Arthur. - M., 1974.

Mikhailov AD. The Book of Geoffrey of Monmouth // Geoffrey of Monmouth. History of the Britons. Merlin's life. - M., 1984.

Mikhailov AD. French chivalric romance. - M., 1976.

Mikhalchi D.E. Ludovico Ariosto // History of World Literature. - M., 1985. - T. 3.

Morton AL. From Malory to Eliot. - M., 1970.

Orlova EA. Introduction to social and cultural anthropology. - M., 1994.

Ortega y Gasset X. Aesthetics. Philosophy of culture. - M., 1991.

Ossovskaya M. Knight and bourgeois - M., 1987.

Plavskin Z.I. Literature of the early pan-Spanish Renaissance // History of World Literature. - M., 1985. - T. 3.

Roerich N.K. Culture and civilization. - M., 1994.

Robin R. Culture // Experience of the Dictionary of New Thinking. - M., 1989.

Rudzitis RY. Brotherhood of the Grail. - Riga, 1994.

Samarin R.M., Mikhailov A.L. Knight's novel // History of World Literature. - M., 1984. - T. 2.

SaintsburnD. A Brief History of French Literature. - St. Petersburg, 1884.

Serov N.V. Chromatism of the myth. - L., 1990.

Sokolov E.V. Culturology: Essays on theories of culture. - M., 1994.

Steblin-Kamensky MM. Myth. - L., 1976.

Toporov V.N. Myth. Ritual. Symbol. Image. Studies in the field of mythopoetic: Selected works. - M., 1995.

Finkielkraut A. Identity of cultural self-consciousness // Experience of the dictionary of new thinking. - M., 1989.

Freud 3. Dissatisfaction with culture // Selected. - M., 1990. - Book. 2.

Hawkins J., WhiteJ. Unraveling the mystery of Stonehenge. - M., 1984.

Schelling F?. Philosophy of art. - M., 1966.

Sherwood EL. From Anglo-Saxons to English. - M., 1988.

Scherer V. History of German Literature. - St. Petersburg, 1893.

Adolf H. The Concept of Original Sin as Reflected in Arthurian Romance //

Studies in Language and Literature in Honor of Margaret Schlauch. - Warzawa, 1966. 2.

Brereton G. A Short History of French Literature. - L, 1961.

Dunlop J.C. History of Prose Fiction. - L, 1888.

Gosse E. A Short History of Modem English Literature. - L, 1903.

Grebanier B.D.N. The Essentials of English Literature. - N. Y., 1953.

KmeberA.L., Clackhohn C. A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. - Cambridge, 1952.

Moody W.V., Lovett R.M. A History of English Literature from Beowulf to 1926.-N.Y., 1926.

VinaverE. Malory. — Oxford, 1929.

In the concept of Malinovsky, who showed that the myth in archaic societies is not so much a means of knowing the world, as it performs purely practical functions, maintaining the traditions and continuity of tribal culture. Myth codifies thought, strengthens morality, acts as a tool for solving critical problems related to the well-being of the individual and society. Thus, the myth, on the one hand ...

As a separate individual, she accepted the whole formal side of mythology (ritualism and prohibitions), as well as the main psychological principle for the implementation of this regulation - faith based on suggestion. The myth in the process of adaptation to the functions of religion is sacralized. In the religious consciousness, the world splits, doubles: the sacred world (sacred) and the worldly (profane) arise, while in mytho...

L. Levy - Brühl, K. Levy - Strauss, the outstanding Russian philosopher A.F. Losev. The ideas of these authors form the basis of our presentation. 1. Myth as the first form of culture A whole epoch of the spiritual life of mankind, the formation and flourishing of ancient civilizations was the realm of myth, created by the imagination of man. Imagination is a great gift of nature, a precious quality...

And civilization often devalues ​​the myth, shows the inadequacy of the regulatory functions and values ​​of the myth, the essence of modern socio-cultural reality. However, this does not mean that the myth has exhausted itself. Myth in modern culture creates the means and methods of symbolic thinking, it is able to interpret the values ​​of modern culture through the idea of ​​"heroic", which, let's say, is inaccessible to science. ...