Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Analyst · 01-18-2009, 10:07 PM

From "Lady Godiva: A literary History of the Legend (or via: amazon.co.uk)" -- Daniel Donoghue

pp26 - 27

Quote:

For more than a century after Godiva’s death, no written source makes even the faintest allusion to her legendary ride or to anything now commonly associated with it, such as nakedness, the horse, or taxation. For example, when Godiva’s name appears in William of Malmesbury’s History of English Kings (ca. 1126), she is eulogized as Leofric’s saintly wife in a rather conventional way. Nothing would lead anyone to anticipate the sensational story that abruptly appears a century later, when chroniclers in the Benedictine abbey of St. Albans insert a fully developed narrative into their Latin histories. The story comes under the entry for 1057, the year of Leofric’s death. After praising the couple’s piety and their generosity to religious institutions, one account continues:

... (clipped)

Once this narrative (quoted here from Matthew Paris’s Chronica Majora, ca. 1250) was put into circulation, the earlier woman of pious reputation was eclipsed by the Godiva familiar to every subsequent century. The anecdote is remarkable for containing so many elements that have become essential to the legend: Godiva’s compassion for the citizens, her persistence as a nag, her audacity in agreeing to Leofric’s terms, the ride itself, and her ability to complete it unseen by anyone. Just what the people’s “servitude” consists of is not stated, though later manuscripts of the St. Albans chronicles identify it as a toll, a detail which may owe something to Matthew Paris’s opposition to all forms of taxation. Whatever its origin, the toll or tax becomes a permanent part of the story. Aside from the miraculous elements, the mention of the toll is one of the first signs that the story is a fabrication, because it presupposes post-Conquest social and political institutions that would be anachronistic in Anglo-Saxon England (as discussed later in the chapter). But the tendency to project anachronisms has always been part of the legend’s reception, because readers from every century approach it with preconceptions shaped by contemporary culture, and those preconceptions in turn shape the way the story is handed down to later generations. It may be impossible to read the St. Albans chronicles without imposing our own anachronisms, but the effort to consider it in its early context repays the trouble. How do the first versions, taken on their own terms, characterize Godiva?

Notes from the book: Her name wasn't Lady Godiva, she was Godgifu of Mercia. And most every element of her story is also fiction, it seems. There are also a number of religious connections to the story which are interesting.

It seems this is one of those myths which fit into some place in human psyche and thus persist. There are certainly echoes of the Jesus myths in the way the story seems to have sprung up as an oral tale to be written down long after the supposed events.

Camio · 01-19-2009, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Analyst

Her name wasn't Lady Godiva, she was Godgifu of Mercia. And most every element of her story is also fiction, it seems.

So she did exist, and some sort of hagiography developed afterwards, rather common process IMO. To what extent should it appear as an example of "myth becoming history"?

George S · 01-19-2009, 01:25 AM

The following document was unearthed in 4007.

At the start of all there Was the Land. Then out of the East there came our heroes bold. Men and women came they here. To take what was theirs, a gift of God.

At first we thought the Land was Taken by a native horde. And then God intervened and brought them small Pox. And by the Will of God but two in ten lived on. He had prepared an Easy way for us. Amen.

Not all the heathen were beyond redemption. The blessed Pocahontas (small wonder) became as one of us. Being concubine had brought her to her Blessed state. She learned her Lesson well.

And it came to pass that we should be peoples apart. Thus thirteen States with thirteen Stars and thirteen Stripes was born. The Prophetess Betsy had prepared a Flag, indeed the very token of the Unity to come.

In Philadelphia, so named for manly love of man, housed at that time the unbroken Liberty Bell unrung. And when first Rung on The Fourth of July it had completed its ordained duty and by God's will Denied to ring again.

There arose in that day the Wizard Benjamin. Although he never yearned for formal leadership, there were those who knew the Truth. His Voice contained in all its incarnations Truth, most dear. His touchstone being only Truth from anywhere, he dared to tame the lightning in a jar. Known for his buying short term concubines, sometimes for but one night, he still in all ways was a moral man. Poor Richard, his nom de plume, back then, emitted Truth in this Voice, too. Two men or more he was. Wizardry in Freedom and in Science and in Living life in all its glory now.

At the same time in another State, the one Blessed by the Virgin Pocahontas, The George was born. And grew to manhood captured by the burden of no means to tell a lie. Dare we speculate that he was cursed? If so by Whom we wonder. But The George was Entranced by this affliction when discovered in a childish prank he could not lie. He could only take full measure of his Father's wrath. And so he grew to be a man of Whole integrity. How rare a man He was. He took only his expenses when he became the leader of an army. Forsooth he made out better than if he had taken a fair salary, but no matter, he meant it well, we know. He prayed to God, you see, in all the Winter at the Valley of the Forge. And God in his Mercy did Bring weather warm enough to melt the ice upon the river. And so He led his troops to do battle to the Death to Right the wrongful claim of Kingly rights claimed over We the People.

Amaleq13 · 01-19-2009, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camio

To what extent should it appear as an example of "myth becoming history"?

To the extent that the myth was believed to be history and the actual history forgotten. :huh:

Seitsuman · 01-19-2009, 09:14 AM

This is probably what's at the root of it

Quote:

However Harold died in 1040 and was succeeded by Harthacanute, who made himself unpopular with heavy taxation in his short reign. Two of his tax-collectors were killed at Worcester by angry locals. The king was so enraged by this that in 1041 he ordered Leofric and his other earls to plunder and burn the city, and lay waste the whole area.[3] This command must have sorely tested Leofric. Worcester was the cathedral city of the Hwicce, his people.

From: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...Earl-of-Mercia

BTW Godgifu would have been pronounced Godyeevu and Leofric, Levric at that time.

gstafleu · 01-19-2009, 09:26 AM

So this is another case of "that is where they got the name." Compare King David, whose name has been found on a stele, while it seems clear (The Bible Unearthed) that he wasn't the king of any grand unified Israel. Arthur may have been some type of military leader around the 6th century CE or so, but without (m)any of the attributes he has in the legends. Jesus may have been a real person, but without any of the gospels attributes. There was apparently a Godiva, but she wasn't anything like the legend.

In what sense, then, is it useful to say that there was a "real" David, Jesus, Arthur and Godiva. They seem to have shared the name with the legendary figure, but that is about where it ends.

Gerard Stafleu

Seitsuman · 01-19-2009, 09:37 AM

You can go further with David. Christians always used the Greek Septuagint OT in preference to the Hebrew Masoretic. For unknown reasons, Protestants changed that so that some NT references no longer read the same if checked back.

The Greek text was translated much later than the Hebrew but it appears to be from a lost older Hebrew version. On of the differences is that it is not clear in the Septuagint at all whether David the Giant-killer and David the King are the same person. The Masoretic actually adds text to say that they are.

Were they? Probably not. There may have been a King David (or was he perhaps in reality a governor for Egypt?) but David the Giant-killer sounds more like a quite common kind of folktale that became attached to him purely through identity of name.

bacht · 01-19-2009, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seitsuman

You can go further with David. Christians always used the Greek Septuagint OT in preference to the Hebrew Masoretic. For unknown reasons, Protestants changed that so that some NT references no longer read the same if checked back.

The Greek text was translated much later than the Hebrew but it appears to be from a lost older Hebrew version. On of the differences is that it is not clear in the Septuagint at all whether David the Giant-killer and David the King are the same person. The Masoretic actually adds text to say that they are.

Were they? Probably not. There may have been a King David (or was he perhaps in reality a governor for Egypt?) but David the Giant-killer sounds more like a quite common kind of folktale that became attached to him purely through identity of name.

Fair enough, but the Psalmists and prophets believed in the David legends centuries before the Septuagint (or at least the post-exilic editors wanted us to think so)

andrewcriddle · 01-19-2009, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camio

Quote:

Originally Posted by Analyst

Her name wasn't Lady Godiva, she was Godgifu of Mercia. And most every element of her story is also fiction, it seems.

So she did exist, and some sort of hagiography developed afterwards, rather common process IMO. To what extent should it appear as an example of "myth becoming history"?

It is also worth noting that the legend started to develop more than a century after the supposed events.

Andrew Criddle

Analyst · 01-19-2009, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

It is also worth noting that the legend started to develop more than a century after the supposed events.

Andrew Criddle

That was one thing that struck me; also that when first written down the story was pretty much complete, which suggests much telling and retelling over time with various accretions such as Peeping Tom during the process. It all seems so reminiscent of the gospels.

01-19-2009, 01:25 AM	#3
George S Contributor Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Austin Posts: 16,498	How our history might be mythologized... The following document was unearthed in 4007. At the start of all there Was the Land. Then out of the East there came our heroes bold. Men and women came they here. To take what was theirs, a gift of God. At first we thought the Land was Taken by a native horde. And then God intervened and brought them small Pox. And by the Will of God but two in ten lived on. He had prepared an Easy way for us. Amen. Not all the heathen were beyond redemption. The blessed Pocahontas (small wonder) became as one of us. Being concubine had brought her to her Blessed state. She learned her Lesson well. And it came to pass that we should be peoples apart. Thus thirteen States with thirteen Stars and thirteen Stripes was born. The Prophetess Betsy had prepared a Flag, indeed the very token of the Unity to come. In Philadelphia, so named for manly love of man, housed at that time the unbroken Liberty Bell unrung. And when first Rung on The Fourth of July it had completed its ordained duty and by God's will Denied to ring again. There arose in that day the Wizard Benjamin. Although he never yearned for formal leadership, there were those who knew the Truth. His Voice contained in all its incarnations Truth, most dear. His touchstone being only Truth from anywhere, he dared to tame the lightning in a jar. Known for his buying short term concubines, sometimes for but one night, he still in all ways was a moral man. Poor Richard, his nom de plume, back then, emitted Truth in this Voice, too. Two men or more he was. Wizardry in Freedom and in Science and in Living life in all its glory now. At the same time in another State, the one Blessed by the Virgin Pocahontas, The George was born. And grew to manhood captured by the burden of no means to tell a lie. Dare we speculate that he was cursed? If so by Whom we wonder. But The George was Entranced by this affliction when discovered in a childish prank he could not lie. He could only take full measure of his Father's wrath. And so he grew to be a man of Whole integrity. How rare a man He was. He took only his expenses when he became the leader of an army. Forsooth he made out better than if he had taken a fair salary, but no matter, he meant it well, we know. He prayed to God, you see, in all the Winter at the Valley of the Forge. And God in his Mercy did Bring weather warm enough to melt the ice upon the river. And so He led his troops to do battle to the Death to Right the wrongful claim of Kingly rights claimed over We the People.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-19-2009, 09:26 AM	#6
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	So this is another case of "that is where they got the name." Compare King David, whose name has been found on a stele, while it seems clear (The Bible Unearthed) that he wasn't the king of any grand unified Israel. Arthur may have been some type of military leader around the 6th century CE or so, but without (m)any of the attributes he has in the legends. Jesus may have been a real person, but without any of the gospels attributes. There was apparently a Godiva, but she wasn't anything like the legend. In what sense, then, is it useful to say that there was a "real" David, Jesus, Arthur and Godiva. They seem to have shared the name with the legendary figure, but that is about where it ends. Gerard Stafleu

01-19-2009, 09:37 AM	#7
Seitsuman Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 37	You can go further with David. Christians always used the Greek Septuagint OT in preference to the Hebrew Masoretic. For unknown reasons, Protestants changed that so that some NT references no longer read the same if checked back. The Greek text was translated much later than the Hebrew but it appears to be from a lost older Hebrew version. On of the differences is that it is not clear in the Septuagint at all whether David the Giant-killer and David the King are the same person. The Masoretic actually adds text to say that they are. Were they? Probably not. There may have been a King David (or was he perhaps in reality a governor for Egypt?) but David the Giant-killer sounds more like a quite common kind of folktale that became attached to him purely through identity of name.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.