Ok

En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

mardi, 10 septembre 2013

Ich will nicht ohne Narben sterben!

Grande-Bretagne : L’immigration de masse a rendu l’économie moins performante

black_britain.jpg

Grande-Bretagne : L’immigration de masse a rendu l’économie moins performante

 



Dans l’ensemble, les chefs d’entreprise ont tendance à soutenir une politique d’immigration – dite “de la porte ouverte” – ce qui contribue à répondre aux pénuries de main d’œuvre dans les secteurs clés.

Mais, plus particulièrement, cela exerce aussi une pression à la baisse sur les salaires. L’effet est similaire au fait d’avoir des niveaux durablement élevés de chômage, car elle crée une réserve inépuisable de main-d’œuvre bon marché.

Il semble que l’on assiste à la stagnation la plus importante de la productivité britannique. Les économistes ont largement décrit ce phénomène en le qualifiant d’« énigme »; mot qu’ils tendent à utiliser pour décrire une tendance qui tranche avec les normes passées. Pour la plupart d’entre nous, il ne s’agit cependant pas du tout d’un mystère. Pour faire simple, nous avons d’une part la mise en place de politiques publiques qui n’incitent pas à consommer et, de l’autre, une absence totale de réformes bénéficiant au secteur productif. Malheureusement, cela n’a fait qu’empirer depuis le début de la crise financière.

La stimulation de la demande par l’intermédiaire de politiques fiscales et monétaires est la solution de facilité quand les économistes trouvent leurs limites. Elle est peut-être vitale pour prévenir l’évolution de la situation de contraction économique actuelle en une véritable dépression.

Cependant, si le début de redressement s’accélère au Royaume-Uni, il est nécessaire de réaffirmer qu’il ne conduira ni à une croissance soutenable sur le long terme, ni à l’augmentation du niveau de vie. Cela requiert des choix bien plus difficiles.

Une étude, conduite par l’OCDE en début d’année concernant l’économie britannique, attribue le faible taux de productivité depuis le début de la crise à de nombreux facteurs qui sont sans aucun doute une partie de l’explication.

A un certain niveau, c’est principalement lié au système des banques toxiques – possédant de nombreux actifs dépréciés ou qui devraient l’être – qui, comme l’a défendu Ben Broadbent – membre du Comité de Politique Monétaire de la Banque d’Angleterre – entrave la redistribution du capital entre les différents secteurs.

Les récessions éliminent normalement les entreprises et les industries les plus faibles, permettant ainsi aux plus fortes et aux plus productives de prospérer plus aisément. Mais le refus de reconnaître les actifs pourris, de peur des conséquences sur la solvabilité des banques, est venu court-circuiter ce processus quasi naturel. Une politique monétaire accommodante vient aussi soutenir les banques toxiques, là encore court-circuitant la discipline darwinienne du marché.

Comme nous le savons maintenant, la croissance d’avant la crise n’était pas produite par le travail réel mais était produite par la frénésie de la finance et du marché immobilier, tous deux emportés par l’explosion du système bancaire.

La thésaurisation de la main-d’œuvre qualifiée, les baisses de production de pétrole en Mer du Nord et l’incapacité à bien quantifier statistiquement la croissance dans le secteur de l’économie numérique britannique, ont peut-être aussi joué leur rôle.

Pourtant, aucune de ces raisons n’explique de manière convaincante les piètres performances de la productivité à long terme de la Grande-Bretagne.

Afin de trouver d’autres causes, je tiens à souligner deux autres aspects du problème :

- L’impact négatif de l’immigration de masse sur la productivité,

- Et l’incapacité à répondre à de simples carences de l’offre dans la planification, l’éducation, l’infrastructure, l’efficacité du secteur public, le système fiscal et les perpétuelles faibles performances à l’export.

Dans l’ensemble, les chefs d’entreprise ont tendance à soutenir une politique d’immigration – dite “de la porte ouverte” – ce qui contribue à répondre aux pénuries de main d’œuvre dans les secteurs clés de l’industrie.

Mais, plus particulièrement, cela exerce aussi une pression à la baisse sur les salaires. L’effet est similaire au fait d’avoir des niveaux durablement élevés de chômage, car elle crée une réserve inépuisable de main-d’œuvre bon marché.

Cela peut être, ou ne pas être, bon pour les profits des entreprises mais ce n’est certainement pas bon pour la productivité ou pour le niveau de vie des personnes à faible ou moyen revenu.

En rendant la main-d’œuvre bon marché, il supprime une incitation puissante au gain de productivité. Faible salaire, faible engagement.

Pour bien comprendre, regardez ce qui s’est passé depuis que la crise a débuté il y a 6 ans. Durant cette période, plus d’1 million d’emplois ont été créés dans le secteur privé, un exploit remarquable compte tenu de l’ effondrement de la production. Cela a contribué à maintenir le taux de chômage bien inférieur à ce qu’il serait autrement. L’exploit mérite clairement d’être salué mais il a été réalisé au détriment des revenus réels.

Une grande partie de la création d’emplois est composé de métiers à faible rémunération ou à temps partiel. Les revenus réels ont connu leur pire resserrement depuis les années 1920. Pourtant, ce n’est pas juste un phénomène récent. La pression sur les revenus réels, en particulier à l’extrémité inférieure de l’échelle des revenus, date d’avant la crise.

La concurrence étrangère, que ce soit via l’immigration ou l’importation de biens et services, a été un grand obstacle à la croissance des salaires. Ceci a, à son tour, limité les incitations aux gains d’efficacité. Le travail ‘pas cher’ est devenu un substitut à l’investissement dans l’usine, dans les machines, la formation et la recherche et développement.

Lorsque le dernier gouvernement s’est vanté d’un énième trimestre consécutif de croissance, il a omis de préciser que c’était dû en grande partie à l’évolution de la population. Le revenu par tête a progressivement stagné.

La Grande-Bretagne est une économie ouverte qui doit certainement se positionner sur le marché de la main d’œuvre internationale de valeur. Pourtant, les niveaux élevés d’immigration non-qualifiée ont été au mieux un jeu à somme nulle, et peut-être cela aura-t-il une influence négative en décourageant les futurs investissements nécessaires.

Aucun partisan libéral n’envisagerait d’empêcher les employeurs d’embaucher des travailleurs étrangers, mais il y a d’autres formes d’intervention de l’État qui pourraient être plus appropriées. Cependant l’Union Européenne déclarerait illégale toutes formes d’intervention de ce genre, comme par exemple imposer des taxes sur l’utilisation de la main-d’œuvre étrangère peu coûteuse.

En rendant le travail à faible qualification plus cher, le système fiscal fournirait une incitation puissante aux gains de productivité dans la construction, le commerce de détail, les services sociaux et d’autres industries britanniques. Ces taxes pourraient alors être réaffectées dans des dispositifs incitatifs en faveur de la formation et d’autres formes d’investissement.

En tout cas, si le niveau de vie doit à nouveau croître, les employeurs doivent réapprendre les vertus du “faire plus avec moins de travailleurs”. Les gains de productivité ne peuvent correctement se produire que si les entreprises les plus performantes et innovantes sont mises en situation de mettre les plus faibles hors-jeu. Au contraire, s’appuyer sur la croissance de la population et la baisse des coûts unitaires du travail qu’elle entraîne pour rester compétitif est une impasse.

A maintes reprises le Royaume-Uni a esquivé une délicate réforme de l’offre, pour ne s’appuyer que sur une relance de la demande. Ces mesures étaient manifestement importantes dans les premières phases de la crise puisqu’elles ont contribué à éviter que la dépression ne s’installe profondément. Cependant leur poursuite 5 ans après la crise occasionne très probablement plus de mal que de bien.

Selon la fameuse phrase de Juncker, “les politiciens occidentaux savent ce qui doit être entrepris mais ils ne savent pas comment se faire réélire après l’avoir fait.”

De la même façon, tous savent qu’une croissance tirée par la productivité est la seule forme de croissance digne de ce nom, mais ils ne peuvent pas prendre les décisions à long terme nécessaires à sa mise en œuvre.

The Telegraph

The Gentleman from Providence

The Gentleman from Providence

By Alex Kurtagić

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com

iap

S. T. Joshi
I Am Providence: The Life and Times of H. P. Lovecraft [2]
2 vols.
New York: Hippocampus Press, 2012

When it comes to a truly comprehensive biography of Howard Philip Lovecraft, one cannot do better than S. T. Joshi’s I am Providence, a 2 volume, 1,000-page, 500,000-word mammoth of a book that aims to cover everything there is to know about the American master of the weird tale.

As with Mark Finn, whose biography of Howard I reviewed recently, it would seem that L. Sprague de Camp was what spurred Joshi into action: after reading the latter’s Lovecraft: A Biography upon initial publication in 1975, Joshi dedicated his life thereafter to the study of the author from Providence. His choice of university was dictated by its holding the Lovecraft manuscript collection of the John Hay Library. And when he discovered that At the Mountains of Madness, his favourite Lovecraft story, contained no less than 1,500 textual errors, he devoted the ensuing years to tracking down and examining manuscripts and early publications in order to determine the textual history of the work and make possible a corrected edition of Lovecraft’s collected fiction, “revisions,” and other writings. What we have here, you may confidently conclude, is the product of decades of fanaticism and obsessive investigation.

Lovecraft was born in 1890, into a conservative upper middle class family, in Providence, Rhode Island. His father, Winfield, was a travelling salesman, employed by Gorham & Co., Silversmiths, and his mother, Sarah, could trace her ancestry back to the arrival of George Phillips to Massachusetts in 1630. His parents married in their thirties.

The young Lovecraft was talented, intellectually curious, and precocious, able to recite poetry by age two, and to read by age three. Growing up at a time when school was not compulsory, Lovecraft would not be enrolled in one until he was eight years of age and his attendance would be sporadic, possibly due to a nervous complaint and / or psychosomatic condition. But he was well ahead of his coevals in any event, having been exposed, and thereafter enjoyed ready access, to the best of classical and English literature. From Lovecraft’s perspective, this meant 17th and early 18th century prose and poetry, and, indeed, so steeped was he in the canonical literature from this period that he regarded its style of writing not only the finest ever achieved, but, for him, the norm. In the process, he also absorbed some of the archaic tastes and sensibilities permeating this literature, which would subsequently be reflected in his writing, speech, and attitudes, fundamentally aristocratic and at odds with the 20th century. What is more, Lovecraft was never denied anything he may have needed in the pursuit of his intellectual development, be it a chemistry set, a telescope, or printing equipment, so he became knowledgeable enough on these topics, and particularly his passion, astronomy, to contribute articles to a local publication from an early age. He also regularly produced—while still in infancy—his own amateur scientific journals, many of which still survive and were personally examined by Joshi for this biography. Thus, from early on, Lovecraft, a somewhat lonely boy with a charmed boyhood, was committed to a life entirely of the mind.

With such beginnings, it would appear to a casual observer that Lovecraft was well-equipped to become a success in life. But, instead, in adulthood he experienced ever-worsening poverty, squalor, and, though well known for a period within the specialised milieu of amateur publishing, growing professional obscurity. That his legacy has endured owes—besides to the intrinsic value of his works—perhaps in a not insignificant measure to his having been a prodigous correspondent: it has been estimated that throughout the course of his life Lovecraft may have written as many as 100,000 letters (only about 20,000 of which survive), and these were not hastily penned missives, as can be seen in the many excerpts herein presented, but thoughtful communications, sometimes of up to 30 pages in length, which are works of literatue in themselves.

In examining his overall trajectory, we can identify a number of negative vectors early on. The loss of his father, who, following a psychotic episode and permanent committal to a local hospital, suffering from what Joshi presumes to have been syphilis, meant that, from 1893, Lovecraft passed into the care of his mother, aunts, and his maternal grandfather. Whipple van Buren Phillips, a wealthy businessman, proved a positive influence, but died in 1904, and, his estate being poorly managed, this eventually forced the family to downsize. This badly affected the young Lovecraft, to the point that he briefly contemplated suicide. He was eventually dissuaded by his own intellectual curiosity and love of learning.

In 1908, just prior to his high school graduation, Lovecraft suffered a nervous breakdown. Joshi speculates that failure to master higher mathematics may have been a factor, since Lovecraft’s ambition was to become a professional astronomer. (Failure to master meant not getting straight As, but, among the As, a few A-s and Bs.) Whatever its cause, the breakdown prevented Lovecraft from obtaining his diploma, a fact he would later conceal or minimise. Lovecraft then went into seclusion—hikikomori, as it would be called today—in which condition he remained for five years, mostly reading and writing poetry. Joshi expresses alarm at the sheer volume of reading undertaken by Lovecraft during this period, a large portion of it consisting of magazines.

Lovecraft’s re-emergence owes to his irritation with a pulp author, Fred Jackson, whose stories in Argosy magazine he found maudlin, mediocre, and irritating. His letter was published in the magazine, whereby it detonated an opinionated debate. When Lovecraft’s expressed view led to attacks, he responded in lofty and witty verse, thus instigating a months-long war—in archaic rhyme—in the letters’ page. This got him noticed by the president of the United Amateur Press Association (UAPA), Edward F. Daas, who invited Lovecraft to join. This inaugurated Lovecraft’s amateur career, which led to his return to fiction—something he had dabbled in years before—and, by 1919, to his first commerically published work. During his early years in amateurdom, Lovecraft would also produce his own literary journal, The Conservative, a publication that truly lived up to its name and that has only recently been reprinted by Arktos in unabridged form.

Throughout this period Lovecraft continued to live with his mother, who sustained them both off an ever-shrinking inheritance. Trapped between the expectations of her class and dwindling resources, she grew progressively more neurotic and unstable. She already had an unheathily close, love-hate, relationship with her son, and Joshi records that she considered her son’s visage too ugly for public view. By 1919, suffering from hysteria and clinical depression, she would be committed to hospital, where she would remain for the rest of her days. Mother and son stayed close correspondents, but she was a perennial source of worry. Thus, when Sarah died in 1921, initial grief led to a sense of liberation, and an improvement in Lovecraft’s general health—though he, at this time a tall man of nearly 200 lbs, always regarded himself as ailing.

Yet there were further turns to the worst ahead. In 1921, at a convention for amateur journalists in Boston, Lovecraft met Sonia Green, an assimilated 38-year-old Ukrainian Jew from New York, whom he would marry in 1924. Interestingly, Lovecraft only told his aunt after the fact, writing to her from New York, where he had by then already taken residence at Sonia’s apartment.

Joshi notes that at this time Lovecraft’s prospects appeared to be improving: Sonia earned a good living at a hat shop in Fifth Avenue, and Lovecraft’s professional writing career was taking off. Lovecraft, then in a decadent phase, was also enthralled by the city, where he had a number of amateur friends. However, Sonia lost her job almost immediately when the shop went bankrupt. This forced Lovecraft for the first time to find regular employment, but without qualifications, work experience, nor, apparently, marketable skills, he was unable to find a position. The consequent financial difficulties impacted on Sonia’s health, who entered a sanatorium for a period of recovery. Eventually, she would find a job in Cleveland, leaving Lovecraft to live on his own, in a tiny apartment, in Brooklyn Heights (then Red Hook), back then a seedy neighbourhood. Sonia sent him an allowance, which permitted him to cover his rent and minimal expenses, but otherwise Lovecraft lived in poverty, stretching as far as possible a minuscule fare of unheated beans, bread, and cheese.

This was, however, genteel poverty. When, on one occasion, Lovecraft’s apartment was burglarised, he was left with only the clothes on his back (while he slept, the thieves gained access to his closet and stole all his suits). His reaction says much about Lovecraft: first priority for him was to get four new replacements: light and dark, winter and summer—no easy task, given his slender wallet. A gentleman may be poor, but he must still dress like a gentleman! The ensuing hunt for suitable attire taxed Lovecraft’s ingenuity, and ignited his frustration at the shoddy quality of modern suits (Lovecraft’s original suits had been made in happier times). Eventually, he succeeded, with minimal compromise.

Seething with immigrants of all descriptions, crowded, and filthy, Lovecraft came to despise New York, recognising it as an emblem of modern degeneration (remember: he already thought this in 1925!). This negative opinion does not sit well with Joshi: having immigrated from India at a young age and having been a New York resident for 27 years, Joshi puts Lovecraft through the wringer for failing to appreciate the city’s vibrancy. Here and elsewhere, he attacks Lovecraft for his enamourment with Anglo-Saxondom, his fierce resistance to racial egalitarianism, and his rejection of the multicultural society. In Joshi’s estimation, Lovecraft ought to have considered Franz Boas’ research, which was beginning to transform anthropology at this time; Joshi views this as contrary to Lovecraft’s rigorous scientific outlook—in other words, as Lovecraft having been blinded by prejudice. However, this overlooks the fact that there were different strands of opinion in anthropology at this time: this was the Progressive Era, when the American eugenics movement was at its height, enjoying institutional legitimacy, famous proponents (e.g. John Harvey Kellogg), and backing from the likes of the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Institution, and the the Harriman estate. Boas’ findings were politically motivated and not universally accepted, and he had by no means proven his case. (Worse still, since then there have been accusations of scientific fraud.) It would, therefore, seem that Lovecraft was entirely consequent with his aristocratic and scientific worldview.

Though Joshi deems it necessary to shoehorn his views on race and racism—zzz . . . —he shows admirable restraint, all things considered—though he has still been criticised by readers. He clearly struggles to reconcile his admiration for Lovecraft with an imagined rejection by him, which is coloured by the absurdities of the modern discourse on these matters. As the author of The Angry Right: Why Conservatives Keep Getting it Wrong (2006), where he invects against liberals like William Buckley and Rush Limbaugh, and where he welcomes the Leftward drift of American values, he can understand Lovecraft’s own merely as a reflection of the times in which he lived. Yet, Joshi has expended an immense amount of time and energy studying and writing about Lovecraft’s thought and worldview, as expressed both in correspondence and in fiction, and thus makes a fair attempt at describing them at length in a temperate fashion.

Lovecraft would eventually return to Providence, thus marking the beginning of the most productive phase of his career. By this time his marriage to Sonia was essentially over; a final attempt was made, but Lovecraft’s aunts rejected the idea of Sonia setting up shop in Providence, regarding her—or rather, the idea of a businesswoman—as somewhat declassé. Joshi again takes Lovecraft to task for not having shown more backbone before his aunts, but he is, nevertheless, of the opinion that Lovecraft was unsuited for marriage—being emotionally distant, stiff-upper lipped, and sexually sluggish—and ought never to have taken a wife. The Lovecrafts would in time agree on an amicable divorce (though, in the end, and to Sonia’s shock later on, he never signed the decree).

Despite his peaking productivity, Lovecraft’s economic prospects continued to decline. His stories became longer and more complex, and it became increasingly difficult to place them. Farnsworth Wright, Weird Tales’ capricious editor, repeatedly rejected them, though sometimes he would accept some after a period, after lobbying or intercession by one of Lovecraft’s correspondents. His seminal essay on horror fiction, Supernatural Horror in Literature [3], completed at this time, appeared haphazardly and incompletely in tiny amateur publications, and would never appear in its final, revised, complete form during his lifetime. Therefore, Lovecraft, now living in semi-squalor with his aunt in cramped accommodation, was increasingly forced to survive through charging for “revisions,” which, given the amount of hands-on editing and re-writing involved, was for the most part tantamount to ghostwriting. Lovecraft was too much of a gentleman, too generous for his own good, and charged very modest fees. We must remember, however, that Lovecraft, in this same modest spirit, saw himself as a hack.

All the same, through extreme frugality and resourcefulness, Lovecraft still managed to travel yearly around New England, mainly as an antiquary. This resulted in extensive travelogues, written in 18th-century prose, replete with archaisms and therefore neither publishable nor intended for publication. Joshi mentions that some have criticised Lovecraft for expending excessive energy on correspondence and unpublishable travelogues, rather than writing fiction, but he argues that this was Lovecraft’s life, not his critics’—who are they to tell him, posthumously, what he ought to have done?

Joshi notes that the Great Depression forced Lovecraft to reconsider some of his earlier positions, and that he—encouragingly in his view—embraced FDR’s New Deal. He also notes, although briefly, that Lovecraft may have misunderstood the nature of the program. All the same, he likes to describe Lovecraft as having become a “moderate socialist,” even if he is later careful to point out that his socialism was radically distinct from the Marxist conception—in fact, Lovecraft instinctively sympathised with fascism and Hitler’s movement, and would remain firmly opposed to Communism. Lovecraft’s conception of socialism was entirely elitist. From his perspective, the culture-bearing stratum of a civilisation should not, in an ideal world, be shackled by the need to waste time and energy on trivial tasks, out of the need to earn a living: the production of high culture is often incompatible with commercial goals, so, in his view, it demands freedom from economic activity. And this implied some sort of patronage, in the manner that kings, popes, or wealthy aristocrats or businessmen provided to artists in the past. In other words, a portion of the nation’s wealth should be channelled into things of lasting value—and, therefore, into seeing to it that the very few individuals capable of producing them are in a position to do so. Lovecraft conceived this as socialism because he saw it as the task of the best to better the rest, and high art and intellection played an important rôle in that endeavour.

By 1936, Lovecraft, already in constant pain, was diagnosed with bowel cancer. He would die a few months later, on 15 March 1937.

As with Finn’s biography of Robert E. Howard, Joshi carries on beyond the grave to trace Lovecraft’s legacy, and the development of Lovecraft scholarship over the past 75 years. Like Finn, he has complaints about L. Sprague de Camp’s biography, which he deems substandard and inaccurate; he describes de Camp as business-minded (a euphemism for opportunist). Joshi also criticises August Derleth, one of Lovecraft’s correspondents, who acted early on and energetically to preserve Lovecraft’s legacy through his publishing company, Arkham House: as de Camp did with Howard, Derleth sought to extend Lovecraft’s mythology with posthumous “collaborations,” wherein he distorted the mythology by infusing it with his own preconceptions. To Joshi this was a disreputable attempt to market his own fiction using Lovecraft’s name, though Derleth would later become a well-regarded author in his own right.

While Joshi’s biography is impressive in its comprehensiveness and level of detail, I found his compulsion to provide a plot summary of every single story that Lovecraft ever wrote rather tedious and beyond requirements. One can see that the biography’s comprehensive logic dictates their inclusion, and they can be useful, but I wonder if the tomes’ objectives could not have been met without this overwhelming prolixity.

Joshi recognises his subject’s superior character in that, though Lovecraft would have been able to prosper economically had he compromised on quality, produced more, and stuck to what was popular, he remained steadfast in his refusal to do so. Whatever he did, he did to the best of his ability, without homage to Mammon. Readers, says Joshi, should be grateful for that, as it was this that has guaranteed the lasting value of Lovecraft’s work as well as his enduring legacy.

 


Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/09/the-gentleman-from-providence/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/iap.gif

[2] I Am Providence: The Life and Times of H. P. Lovecraft: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1614980519/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1614980519&linkCode=as2&tag=countercurren-20

[3] Supernatural Horror in Literature: http://shop.wermodandwermod.com/supernatural-horror-in-literature.html

Le roi Arthur était-il un cavalier sarmate?

arth.jpg

Le roi Arthur était-il un cavalier sarmate et les mythes arthuriens ont-ils une origine dans le Caucase ?

(source : agencebretagnepresse)

L’actualité récente en Géorgie a mis les projecteurs sur la République indépendante d’Ossétie (Indépendance proclamée en 1991). Les Ossètes comme les Bretons d’ailleurs, ont des origines ancrées dans la fin de l’Empire romain. Les Ossètes descendent des fameux Alains, ou plutôt de ceux qui sont restés et ne sont pas partis piller l’Empire au Ve siècle.

Les Sarmates en Bretagne insulaire

cataphracte.jpgCes peuplades qui parlent une langue iranienne apparaissent dans le bas-Empire romain sous le nom de Sarmates quand ils sont alliés ou federati et de Scythes quand ils sont ennemis. Envahisseurs, ils sont connus sous le nom d’Alains alliés des Vandales.

La cavalerie sarmate-alain très appréciée des Romains était quasiment invincible. Elle était appelée cavalerie [1], du nom de leur cuirasse d’écailles, la cataphracte.

Depuis 175, les Sarmates devaient fournir à Rome 5000 cavaliers, pour la plupart envoyés en Bretagne (insulaire) à la frontière nord. Les Sarmates de Bretagne auraient été commandés à la fin du IIe siècle par Lucius Artorius Castus qui serait le roi Arthur historique (1), du moins le premier, car il semblerait que le roi Arthur soit un personnage composé de plusieurs figures historiques. Lucius Artorius ayant vécu 200 ans plus tôt que le roi breton qui rallia les Brito-Romains contre les envahisseurs saxons.

D’après Léon Fleuriot, c’est Artorius Castus, préfet de la VIe légion, qui aurait aussi maté la révolte armoricaine de 184. Une intervention en Gaule que rapporte bien la légende dans la première version écrite, celle de Geoffroy de Monmouth.

C’est cette cavalerie sarmate-alain qui aurait apporté d’Asie le symbole du dragon en Grande-Bretagne. Rien de plus normal pour des cavaliers aux cuirasses écaillées de se battre derrière des enseignes d’un monstre écaillé. Le dragon rouge du roi Arthur, dit justement « Pendragon » comme le roi Uther. Le dragon rouge apparaît aussi dans les prophéties de Merlin. Un dragon que l’on retrouve aujourd’hui jusque sur le drapeau du Pays de Galles.

Les Alains en Armorique

Les Sarmates-Alains, révoltés contre Rome, ont pillé le nord de la Gaule de 407 à 409. Après avoir traversé la Loire en 408, le consul Aetius leur donnera l’Armorique pour qu’ils les laissent tranquilles. Un peu comme le roi de France cinq siècles plus tard donnera la Normandie aux Vikings de Rollon.

Avec à leur tête un chef du nom de Goar, les Alains se divisent en plusieurs bandent et pillent l’Armorique. C’est encore eux, redevenus des mercenaires au service de l’empire qui vont réprimer la dernière révolte armoricaine dite des Bagaudes (bagad = bande en gaulois et en breton moderne) en 445-448 à une époque où justement les Bretons commencent à arriver de Grande-Bretagne puisque les dernières légions la quittent en 441.

Certaines s’établiront juste de l’autre côté de la Manche puisque le mot Léon dérive justement de « légion » et Trégor de tri-cohortes. Voir à ce sujet le Guide des drapeaux bretons et celtes de Divi Kervella et Mikaël Bodloré-Penlaez, qui vient de sortir en librairie. Les symboles héraldiques du Haut-Léon et du Trégor semblent avoir justement hérité du dragon.

Certains linguistes pensaient que les patronymes Alain ou Alan seraient tout simplement des gens descendant d’Alains établis en Gaule mais le vieux breton a un terme alan pour le cerf et cette origine semble plus vraisemblable. Des Alains se sont surtout installes en Île-de-France, en Aquitaine, en Lusitanie (Portugal) autour de Carthagène en Vandalousie qui deviendra Andalousie. Le nom de Tiffauge, célèbre pour son Barbe Bleu viendrait du nom d’une des bandes de barbares alliés aux Alains, les Taïfales, établis dans cette région au Ve siècle. Le nom de l’Aunis viendrait aussi d’Alains.

Les mythes arthuriens d’origine alanique ?

Dans leur livre De la Scythie à Camelot, Covington Scott Littleton, professeur d’anthropologie à Los Angeles et Linda Ann Malcor, docteur en folklore et mythologie, ont remis en cause l’origine celtique du cycle arthurien.

Pour eux, le cour de cet ensemble fut apporté entre le IIe et le Ve siècle par des cavaliers alains-sarmates.

La culture des Ossètes, les cousins contemporains des Alains, possède des récits qui ressembleraient aux aventures d’Arthur et des chevaliers de la Table ronde. On y raconte notamment la saga du héros Batraz et de sa bande, les Narts. Dans cette histoire il est, entre autres, question d’épée magique qui serait l’équivalent d’Excalibur et de coupe sacrée, le Graal donc, la coupe du Wasamonga que l’on retrouve sur l’emblème moderne de l’État d’Ossétie du Sud avec un triskell qui est par contre universel et pré-cetique puisque sur des monuments mégalithiques comme à Newgrange en Irlande. Il semblerait que les échanges de mythes aient eu lieu dans les deux sens.

(1) rapprochement fait pour la première fois par Zimmer, Heinrichen 1890, repris par Kemp Malone en 1925.

Sources : – C. Scott Littleton, Linda A. Malcor, From Scythia to Camelot, New-York ; Oxon, 1994 (rééd. 2000).

- X. Loriot, Un mythe historiographique : l’expédition d’Artorius Castus contre les Armoricains, Bulletin de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France, 1997.

- Guide des drapeaux bretons et celtes, D. Kervella et M. Bodloré-Penlaez. Éd. Yoran Embanner, 2008.

- Les Origines de la Bretagne, Léon Fleuriot. Payot, 1980 (nombr. rééd.).

Notes

[1] cataphractaire

00:05 Publié dans Histoire | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : histoire, sarmates, alains, bretagne, armorique, empire romain | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook