Andrew asks: How much should I engage a grade six class about the historiography of the King Arthur legend, or should I leave it entirely a wonderful mystery?
Good Paul says:
When you ask how much you should engage a grade six class with the historiography of Arthurian legend I take that to mean at core: what should I tell them about the real King Arthur? And maybe it’s helpful to have a grounding in what you know, and indeed what anybody knows about King Arthur.
Was there a real King Arthur? Is Arthurian legend historical?
I want to assert for you Andrew but also for everyone else reading this: there was not really a King Arthur. There may possibly have been a leader whose name was Arthur (or something like it) at one point, but that person really bears no more important relationship to the King Arthur of legend than Nellie Bly has to Lois Lane. That is: the history may be an inspiration but the story has long since moved so far away from any historical grounding that the historical aspects are curiosities, not fundamental to the topic.
Nobody, whether they are in grade six or in the midst of a University degree, needs to know Nennius or Gildas or Y Gododdin or even Geoffrey of Monmouth if what you are doing is introducing them to the topic of Arthurian legend, and anyone, whether they are doing a graduate degree or they’re in kindergarten, could benefit from learning all about Nennius if they’re interested in knowing more or if the intention is a deep dive.
And that brings me back to the real root of your question, Andrew. Should you engage a grade six class in a deep dive of the historiography of Arthurian legend or just leave it a mystery? And while the shorter answer is “it depends on what you want to achieve as a teacher” I think the longer answer is that on average a grade six class is more likely to be bored than engaged by the kind of detail it takes to get the historiography of King Arthur right. For most classes and most teachers it’s best to give them a taste. Tell them the legend and that there’s more to know and let them explore that “more” in their own time if it piques their interest.
That said: I think there’s room in a pedagogical strategy to indulge some of a teacher’s passions. If you are compelled by the historiography of Arthurian legend and want to share that enthusiasm with your class, I say do it! In a good teacher, enthusiasm is infectious, but students of any age (and children especially) can see through halfhearted or fake enthusiasm.
Bad Paul says:
I think you’re asking entirely the right questions here, Andrew, you’re just not going far enough.
Children don’t need to know facts, they need to know stories, and the only criteria of a good story is how entertaining it is. So I don’t think the question is “should I leave the historiography of King Arthur a mystery” it’s “should I add to the mystery of this and all subjects?” And the answer is: yes.
The best way to add mystery to your students’ lives is to actively misrepresent the world. The clever students will see through your version of history, literature, science, math, and they’ll thrive under the challenge. The slower students aren’t going to understand you no matter what you do, so don’t even bother with them.
You should “engage” your students with the historiography of Arthurian legend by doggedly asserting its factual nature. If your students doubt you then congratulate yourself on fomenting mystery! If they don’t then make your claims more outrageous. Not only is Arthurian legend based on history, it’s based on recent history. Arthur’s immediate successor was Queen Elizabeth the Second but she embarked on a long campaign of propaganda intended to solidify her claim to the throne. They should expect the return of Arthur at any moment.
Alternatively, you may want to point out that they can’t know with any real certainty their parents continue to exist while they are in school, and they definitely can’t be certain that there was ever really a “First World War”. All “history” is really legend, and all they have is the stories people tell, many of which contradict each other. The safest assumption is probably that nothing is real except themselves.
And Merlin.