This dissertation studies the use of the Arthurian myth from the fifteenth through early seventeenth centuries, as a narrative that connected a set of political principles for the unification of Britain and its imperial expansion. Joining other competing political myths in the British archipelago, the political significance of the Arthurian myth has nevertheless been overlooked. On the one hand, the myth informed the transformations of kingship in England and Wales from the crowning of Edward IV to the early years of James’ English reign. It did so specifically within the process of institutionalizing a British crown which was intertwined with the claim of imperium. On the other hand, the myth also reinforced the assertion of possession over other peoples’ lands, including the whole of Britain, Ireland, and even different spaces in the north Atlantic. The Arthurian myth intertwined these two claims—of imperium and of possession—through two different competing narratives which connected the Crown of England with the history of ancient Britain. Furthermore, Arthurian literature and historiography represented an internal liminality within the British archipelago which Britain then projected to the North American shores. Transatlantic colonization not only was legitimized by supposed ancient conquests, including Arthur’s, but the American spaces and inhabitants, like the Irish before them, were codified in connection to an imagined British past, which began to be alienated from the present, or modern times. Working against traditional approaches to intellectual history of political thought and utilizing various perspectives that include literary analysis and neo-structuralism, this dissertation thus argues that the Arthurian myth was an important contributor to the emergence of an Anglocentric British imperial constitution by intertwining its legal, political, historical, philosophical, and poetical foundations.
","abstract_html":"<p>This dissertation studies the use of the Arthurian myth from the fifteenth through early seventeenth centuries, as a narrative that connected a set of political principles for the unification of Britain and its imperial expansion. Joining other competing political myths in the British archipelago, the political significance of the Arthurian myth has nevertheless been overlooked. On the one hand, the myth informed the transformations of kingship in England and Wales from the crowning of Edward IV to the early years of James’ English reign. It did so specifically within the process of institutionalizing a British crown which was intertwined with the claim of <em>imperium</em>. On the other hand, the myth also reinforced the assertion of possession over other peoples’ lands, including the whole of Britain, Ireland, and even different spaces in the north Atlantic. The Arthurian myth intertwined these two claims—of <em>imperium </em>and of possession—through two different competing narratives which connected the Crown of England with the history of ancient Britain. Furthermore, Arthurian literature and historiography represented an internal liminality within the British archipelago which Britain then projected to the North American shores. Transatlantic colonization not only was legitimized by supposed ancient conquests, including Arthur’s, but the American spaces and inhabitants, like the Irish before them, were codified in connection to an imagined British past, which began to be alienated from the present, or modern times. Working against traditional approaches to intellectual history of political thought and utilizing various perspectives that include literary analysis and neo-structuralism, this dissertation thus argues that the Arthurian myth was an important contributor to the emergence of an Anglocentric British imperial constitution by intertwining its legal, political, historical, philosophical, and poetical foundations.</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Gonzalez de Leon Heiblum, Julian"],"institution":"The Graduate School and University Center of The City University of New York","degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy","degree_level":"Doctoral","degree_discipline":"History","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Sarah Covington"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":["Timothy Alborn","Herman Lee Bennett","Clare Carroll","Allison Kavey","Jonathan Miles-Watson","Sara McDougall"],"year":2022,"date_issued":"2022-02-01T08:00:00Z","date_published":"2022-02-01T08:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:00:13Z","subjects":["Celtic Studies","Comparative Methodologies and Theories","Intellectual History","Legal","Medieval Studies","Renaissance Studies","Social and Cultural Anthropology","British Isles","British Empire","Arthurian Myth","Structuralism","Colonialism","Transatlantic Expansion"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/4643","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Sarah Covington"]},{"key":"dc:contributor.committeemember","label":"Committee Member","values":["Timothy Alborn","Herman Lee Bennett","Clare Carroll","Allison Kavey","Jonathan Miles-Watson","Sara McDougall"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Gonzalez de Leon Heiblum, Julian"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2024-02-01T08:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["History"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Doctoral"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Doctor of Philosophy"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["The Graduate School and University Center of The City University of New York"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Celtic Studies","Comparative Methodologies and Theories","Intellectual History","Legal","Medieval Studies","Renaissance Studies","Social and Cultural Anthropology","British Isles","British Empire","Arthurian Myth","Structuralism","Colonialism","Transatlantic Expansion"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/4643"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["This dissertation studies the use of the Arthurian myth from the fifteenth through early seventeenth centuries, as a narrative that connected a set of political principles for the unification of Britain and its imperial expansion. Joining other competing political myths in the British archipelago, the political significance of the Arthurian myth has nevertheless been overlooked. On the one hand, the myth informed the transformations of kingship in England and Wales from the crowning of Edward IV to the early years of James’ English reign. It did so specifically within the process of institutionalizing a British crown which was intertwined with the claim of imperium. On the other hand, the myth also reinforced the assertion of possession over other peoples’ lands, including the whole of Britain, Ireland, and even different spaces in the north Atlantic. The Arthurian myth intertwined these two claims—of imperium and of possession—through two different competing narratives which connected the Crown of England with the history of ancient Britain. Furthermore, Arthurian literature and historiography represented an internal liminality within the British archipelago which Britain then projected to the North American shores. Transatlantic colonization not only was legitimized by supposed ancient conquests, including Arthur’s, but the American spaces and inhabitants, like the Irish before them, were codified in connection to an imagined British past, which began to be alienated from the present, or modern times. Working against traditional approaches to intellectual history of political thought and utilizing various perspectives that include literary analysis and neo-structuralism, this dissertation thus argues that the Arthurian myth was an important contributor to the emergence of an Anglocentric British imperial constitution by intertwining its legal, political, historical, philosophical, and poetical foundations.
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["A “Medieval” Myth for a “Modern” Empire Britain under the Shadow of Arthur (1461–1612)"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Sarah Covington"],"dc:contributor.committeemember":["Timothy Alborn","Herman Lee Bennett","Clare Carroll","Allison Kavey","Jonathan Miles-Watson","Sara McDougall"],"dc:creator":["Gonzalez de Leon Heiblum, Julian"],"dc:date.available":["2024-02-01T08:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["This dissertation studies the use of the Arthurian myth from the fifteenth through early seventeenth centuries, as a narrative that connected a set of political principles for the unification of Britain and its imperial expansion. Joining other competing political myths in the British archipelago, the political significance of the Arthurian myth has nevertheless been overlooked. On the one hand, the myth informed the transformations of kingship in England and Wales from the crowning of Edward IV to the early years of James’ English reign. It did so specifically within the process of institutionalizing a British crown which was intertwined with the claim of imperium. On the other hand, the myth also reinforced the assertion of possession over other peoples’ lands, including the whole of Britain, Ireland, and even different spaces in the north Atlantic. The Arthurian myth intertwined these two claims—of imperium and of possession—through two different competing narratives which connected the Crown of England with the history of ancient Britain. Furthermore, Arthurian literature and historiography represented an internal liminality within the British archipelago which Britain then projected to the North American shores. Transatlantic colonization not only was legitimized by supposed ancient conquests, including Arthur’s, but the American spaces and inhabitants, like the Irish before them, were codified in connection to an imagined British past, which began to be alienated from the present, or modern times. Working against traditional approaches to intellectual history of political thought and utilizing various perspectives that include literary analysis and neo-structuralism, this dissertation thus argues that the Arthurian myth was an important contributor to the emergence of an Anglocentric British imperial constitution by intertwining its legal, political, historical, philosophical, and poetical foundations.
"],"dc:identifier":["https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/4643"],"dc:subject":["Celtic Studies","Comparative Methodologies and Theories","Intellectual History","Legal","Medieval Studies","Renaissance Studies","Social and Cultural Anthropology","British Isles","British Empire","Arthurian Myth","Structuralism","Colonialism","Transatlantic Expansion"],"dc:title":["A “Medieval” Myth for a “Modern” Empire Britain under the Shadow of Arthur (1461–1612)"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["History"],"thesis:degree_level":["Doctoral"],"thesis:degree_name":["Doctor of Philosophy"],"thesis:institution_name":["The Graduate School and University Center of The City University of New York"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:00:13Z"}