King Arthur?

[caldrail]

The legend of King Arthur is well known to us. The seductive image of a noble king ruling the land with his chivalrous knights righting wrongs and courting ladies of virtue are the source of countless books and films. These stories were romances, and the definitive version on which we base our modern tales was Morte D'Arthur (The Death of Arthur) written in 1480 by Thomas Mallory.

 

The story was taken from a set of five volumes written during the 14th century. Attributed to Walter Map, a cistercian cleric, the Vulgate Cycle was probably the accumulated effort of his fellow monks. In the cycle were Estoire Del Saint Graal (History of the Grail), Estoire De Merlin (History of Merlin), Lancelot, Queste Del Saint Graal (Quest for the Holy Grail), Morte De La Roi Artu (Death of King Arthur)

 

The Cycle was in turn a development of Chretien Des Troyes work, Perceval, written in 1185 but never completed. Chretien had written arthurian tales before and was an established author in this field. Perceval was rewritten with different endings by other authors of the period.

 

In turn, these romances had been inspired by earlier poets and authors, and the trail goes back to a gentleman named Geoffery of Monmouth who lived between 1129 and 1151. This author established many of the themes we read of today and even included Arthur as a historical king in his latin work Historia Regum Brittanniae (History of the Kings of Britain) completed in 1136. Geoffery claimed historical references for his work but this has been disputed, and clearly depicts a medieval court with Arthur at its head.

 

Before this, we have the tales of celtic tradition, in which Arthur is not the idealized chivalric king, but a brave hero struggling against monsters of the underworld and undergoing mystical quests. These tales emerge in the ninth century in a work named Preiddeu Annwn (Spoils of the World) and there seems to be a connection with celtic mythos of a much earlier period, in which Arthur is placed as the hero of tales existing from centuries before.

 

There is an historical reference to Arthur contained in Vita Sanctae Gildas (Life of Gildas) which mentions the rebellious tyrant Arthur as besieging Glastonia to rescue his queen from the clutches of King Melwas.

 

Perhaps the earliest historical reference is from a man named Nennius, whose Annals Cambriae (Annals of Wales) mentions our famous warrior as the victor of twelve battles against the saxons, picts, and irish. Nennius infers that Arthur is Dux Bellorum (Duke of Battles) and therefore a military leader and not a king, a title ascribed to him from the eleventh century in romantic fiction. In fact, its clear that Arthur commanded an army assembled from those of british kings. His campaign began with a battle at the mouth of the River Glein. Four more were fought on the River Dubglas in a region named Linnus, followed by another by the River Bassus. More victories took place at the Forest of Celidon, the Fort of Guinnion, the City of Legions, the River Tribuit, the Mountain of Agned (or Cat Bregouin), and at last his epic finale at the Battle of Badon in which Arthur was reported to have personally slain 960 men. This account is difficult to prove because the locations are no longer known.

 

The afore-mentioned Gildas, a monk whose main work was the De Excidio Brittanniae of AD540, had personal reasons not to praise or mention Arthur. His brothers were pirates whom Arthur had executed, and the story goes that Gildas took all his works mentioning Arthur and threw them into the sea. This establishes the time at which Arthur lived since Gildas was said to have been born in year the Battle of Badon was won. The Venerable Bede doesn't even mention Arthur at all.

 

The earliest reference of all is credited to the bard Taliesin, who is said to have included him and his quests in a sixth century poem.

 

But what of the Britain that Arthur knew in the 6th century? He was born into a world where roman power had collapsed. Following the abandonment of Britain in AD410, a series of petty rulers emerged until AD425 when Vortigern claimed Britain as his realm in its entirety although its only established that he ruled Kent. In AD440 he appealed for help against the picts to two Jutish chiefs, Hengist and Horsa. According to contemporary sources, the english king escaped a saxon plot to murder his nobles from which he escapes to Wales, where he later dies in a fire, but theres no mention of the defeat of Vortigern in the Battle of Aylesford in AD449, nor his earlier attempt to ask the saxons to go home. Finally by AD450 the roman government had evaporated. As late as AD495 the saxons were still arriving, followed by the angles thirty years later who went on to dominate northern england and create the realm of Mercia. The historical sources of these times are not judged reliable, but its noticeable that Vortigern is described as a villain for inviting the saxons into Britain. These were days of tribal migration and battles for territory.

 

Despite the terrible reputation won by the saxons, both they and the angles were capable farmers who preferred the flatter lowlands for agriculture, which left mountainous refuges for the hardpressed and disunited britons.

 

The real Arthur is perhaps a determined capable general, a man who has set himself the task of pacifying the island. If these ancient texts are to be believed, then Arthur was a brutal and cruel man who preferred swift justice and freedom to act. His persona certainly made an impression since he was later placed as the hero of mythic tales when clearly his peers regarded him as a tyrant. Right from the beginning his reputation as a warrior had been turned to romance by the bards of the time despite the censorship of the chroniclers. By all accounts, his campaigns were a success, yet the fighting continued until the 7th century. The Seven Kingdoms of Britain were set to be dominated by saxons and other germanic tribes until the arrival of Vikings and their Norman descendants.

Edited April 10, 2007 by caldrail

[DecimusCaesar]

Arthur is also mentioned in the North British epic poem 'Y Gododdin', which was composed around AD.600. He is only mentioned in one line, and it says nothing about him. There is no reason to believe that this is the Arthur of legend. Once again, he is not called King Arthur, but rather simply Arthur, which might imply that he was a great warrior rather than a ruler. 'Y Gododdin' also mentions Coel Hen, who is the "historical" King Cole, but like Arthur no information is given on him.

Edited April 10, 2007 by DecimusCaesar

[caldrail]

Its been suggested that other historical personalities are responsible for events and not Arthur. This is understandable because the guys legend was always rising to the best seller list. However, under close scrutiny there are gaps that Arthur fills very nicely. Ambrosius Aurelianus for instance is supposed to have formed a british confederation at the end of the 5th century to fight against the foreign incursions. That marks him as a capable diplomat, someone who is well versed in the etiquette and protocol of dark age britain given the arguementative state of the petty nations. Arthur doesn't seem to have this skill. He seems more like a man who is blunt, a loose cannon on deck. A useful man to have leading your armies but lets leave the deals to Ambrosius, yes? I think one of the reasons his historical reference is muted is because no-one wanted him as king. A guy like that? He'll be annexing our country next! Trouble is, Arthur was for many ordinary people the hero who came over the hill and send the bad guys packing. There was a risk that his popularity would make him king. So I really do wonder if the kings in the confederation (and ambrosius too?) never intended Arthur to get all the glory. In the end, Ambrosius seems a lacklustre character yet Arthur is impossible to put back in the box.

 

As to whether the chroniclers were aiding this 'conspiracy' is unknown, but Gildas, ever the angry radical, foams at the mouth about tyrannical kings and lambasts his colleagues as toadies. Its isn't impossible that Arthurs part in history has been ignored.

[Ursus]

Excellent post, Caldrail. I've always had an interest in the Arthurian legends.

 

I think the idea of Arthur simply being a romanticized post-Roman warlord is most credible. I read somewhere (can't remember where) "Arthur" is a corruption of Art-Ursus - which is Celtic and Latin for "bear." Thus "Arthur" is not a man's name but a title - The Bear of Britain, a Celto-Roman warlord fighting Saxon hordes. That he was a warlord and not a king is highly reasonable given the times.

[caldrail]

There is now compelling evidence of conflict in various parts of eastern england, that clearly shows in the absence of celtic bloodlines.

 

Interesting comment about his name - that would imply that, like spartacus, we never will know exactly who he was. The real arthur must have been a singularly charismatic leader to keep his composite army together, and must have been a capable general to have won twelve battles back-to-back without defeat. At least if we can trust the sources. legends like his become persistent because there's an element of rebelliousness in the character that lends itself to dramatic romanticisation. When you look at the literary sources of the time, there are hints that arthur was a maverick. I see him as being given the role of Dux bellorum because he was the right man for the job and it kept him away from the courts of dark age celtish kings?

[The Augusta]

Excellent post, Caldrail. I've always had an interest in the Arthurian legends.

 

I think the idea of Arthur simply being a romanticized post-Roman warlord is most credible. I read somewhere (can't remember where) "Arthur" is a corruption of Art-Ursus - which is Celtic and Latin for "bear." Thus "Arthur" is not a man's name but a title - The Bear of Britain, a Celto-Roman warlord fighting Saxon hordes. That he was a warlord and not a king is highly reasonable given the times.

 

I don't want to be too fanciful here, but this has tweaked something with me. In Manda Scott's Boudica books, she has a group of Celtic warriors known as the 'warriors of the she-bear'. As she did quite extensive research into Iron Age Britain and the Britain of the early Roman occupation, I presume she found this legend somewhere in the literature. Although these warriors lived at the time of the Boudican revolt and Arthur some 400/500 years later (?), I just wonder whether there was still a lasting legendary tradition in Celtic folklore about these bear warriors?

 

Just an idea.

[Ursus]

I don't want to be too fanciful here, but this has tweaked something with me. In Manda Scott's Boudica books, she has a group of Celtic warriors known as the 'warriors of the she-bear'. As she did quite extensive research into Iron Age Britain and the Britain of the early Roman occupation, I presume she found this legend somewhere in the literature. Although these warriors lived at the time of the Boudican revolt and Arthur some 400/500 years later (?), I just wonder whether there was still a lasting legendary tradition in Celtic folklore about these bear warriors?

 

 

From what I understand, in both Celtic and Germanic society, the bear was a symbol of power. Certain warrior groups were thought to take on the spirit of the bear through ecstatic religious rituals and/or pyschotropic drugs. The warriors were then "beserkers" in battle, behaving with the fury and strength of wild animals.

 

Even if that hadn't survived in Celtic society by Arthur's time, the bear is obviously a powerful animal and thus a condign symbol of power to any warrior. The standard bearer for the Roman legions wore a bear skin, if I remember correctly.

 

Perhaps the symbol of the bear is a very ancient Indo-European understanding.

[Pantagathus]

Perhaps the symbol of the bear is a very ancient Indo-European understanding.

Didn't

[caldrail]

Possibly, but it might only have been a cool fashion item at the time. I'll do some digging about celtic/animal stuff and see what crops up.

[CiceroD]

Perhaps the symbol of the bear is a very ancient Indo-European understanding.

Didn't

[Ursus]

Both, really. According to legend his father was Uther Pendragon (chief dragon). So the dragon was a familial thing. But the bear is still supposed to be a title or rank associated with Arthur.

[CiceroD]

Im wondering is the Bear thing related in the texts (and which ones) or is it based only on the Art-Ur(sus) theory with his name?

[caldrail]

Its just playing with a name, because there's no literary tradition that associates Arthur with bears. 'Straws' and 'clutching' come to mind.

[longshotgene]

Caldrail,

 

It is interesting that you posted this topic. Part of my research this summer was chasing the myth of King Arthur throughout the U.K. I can honestly say if there was any place King Arthur would have lived, it would have to have been the far north. Sorry to any one from the south. Holy Island was the first place the Saxons really started to invade according to historical references. There was a group of monks who lived there for a long time preaching the good word. They were attacked in succession over a number of years. If that is where the trouble began, most likely any help would have gone there. Here in Indiana, which happens to be in the United States, we have the legend of Johnny Appleseed. No one knows for sure where he was, but every where one looks, there is a mentioning of the traveler. In fact, we have Johnny Appleseed days in my town. King Arthur was the same way. You have Tintagel castle in the extreme south west. You have the supposed round table in Winchester. You have another round table in Caerleon, Wales. In the far north, there is the legend of King Arthur being on the Wall. In Bamburgh castle next to Seahouses, you have the once was home of Sir Lancelot. This is the same home Arthur had to go to, to get Lancelot on his side. Amazingly, Holy Island is next to Bamburgh. The list goes on and on. There are even legends of him around the White Cliffs. Hence the Saxon church which lies inside the Dove castle grounds. Like I said, it goes on and on. If you ask me if King Arthur existed?, I would definitely have to say yes. Where?, you might ask. I personally would say the north. Why?, you would ask. I would have to say it is the most beautiful part of the U.K. That is where I would have lived. Trying to catch King Arthur is like trying to catch smoke. You think you have him, and all you have is a small remnant, which leaves you wanting more.

 

Hope this makes sense. I just woke up, and was interested by this string. And yes, I do believe Arthur was part Roman and part Briton.

[caldrail]

What we typically find in britain is that local communities like to get in on the act regarding legends. It gives local pride and offers an excuse to extract cash from easily impressed strangers. For instance, on Dick Turpins epic 12hr dash north to York, we have every old public house along the route saying he stayed there for the night! Where Arthur is concerned, we have a bigger problem, because the earliest records are so imprecise. His battles for instance appear to be fought here and there with no apparent logic to it, and in one sense I agree with you because the likeliest sites put forward are mostly the north of england or scotland. What muddies the water is the modern popular view of Arthur as a medieval king - well he obviously wasn't was he? That was an invention of Geoffery of Monmouth (or perhaps he related these tales by other unknown sources?), whose history of england is a little embellished by such invention. Now we do know that Arthur was given the title Dux Bellorum (Duke of Battles) as related by Nennius. This is significant and also more so that it is mentioned in a history of Wales, as our redoubtable warrior fends off all-comers in twelve battles.

 

England at this time was not unified. Following the roman withdrawal we see a collapse into petty kingdoms within fifty years, survival of the strongest, but eventually the situation stabilises around seven kingdoms at the time of Arthur. He was king of none of them, and his legend is part of each. So, he was either a general much in demand, or he's being credited with victories he never took part in, or simply that someone was fibbing to sell a good yarn and the story stuck.

 

As for being heroic, there's no doubt at all that Arthur was fearsome in battle. What he wasn't was a noble chivalrous leader. In fact, the older stories suggest a cruel and hard-nosed guy who wasn't going to take crap from anyone, and I think possibly his almost rebellious hot-headedness was the real reason he did not become a king. Revered by the people he personally saved perhaps, but loathed by the more sophisticated nobles who may have seen him as a coarse and dangerous upstart. Which is why he was made Dux Bellorum and tasked with defending Britain regardless of national borders?

 

As you can see, there are many inconsistencies in this tale, which makes it all the more fascinating.

Edited September 16, 2007 by caldrail