After discussing Geoffrey's History of the Kings of Britain I think it's a good thing we don't set too much by his "history" of Arthur. Maybe Arthur was a real person, a real King, but we must remember Geoffrey was writing based on what he knew from the stories passed down about a great king named Arthur. While the Arthur in the history is a much more violent and condescending king than the Arthur of the stories we are used to reading and hearing Geoffrey was following in the tradition of great kings. I do not believe his audience (who exactly that was, as we know, is still debatable)would have taken to a King of Britain who was assisted by magic and the unknown comfortably but rather to a king who succeeded in dividing the enemy and uniting his people with valiant and courageous acts. Is it because his audience would have found it more palpable? We should remember the mysticism surrounding Arthur as well. As was pointed out in class Arthur's rule is defined by great deeds, wealth, and of course, the legends of the Knights of the Round Table. But his birth is mysterious, as is his death. I do hope we will continue to discuss the historic versus mythic Arthur. Since we now have three different conceptions of "Arthur" I believe it is important to remember these as we read further on the subject. I know my view of Arthur has changed after reading the History of the Kings of Britain. But I am not disappointed. Whether Arthur is judicious, arrogant, malevolent, even weak, his stories are still legend.