King Arthur of Britain: The Quest for the Truth

A Senior Seminar Paper

Submitted to the Faculty of the

Division of History and Political Science

In Candidacy for the Degree of

Bachelor of Arts

 

Quincy University

 

Quincy Illinois

December 1999

 

 

Table of Contents

            Section I:          Introduction………………………………………….1

            Section II:         Historical Background……………………………….4

            Section III:       The One Liners………………………………………8

            Section IV:       The True Believers…………………………………..11

            Section V:        The Skeptics………………………………………….16

            Section VI:       The Comparative Archaeologists…………………….19

            Section VII:      Conclusion……………………………………………25

            Section VIII:     Bibliography………………………………………….28

 

 

I.                    INTRODUCTION

 

As early peoples from every culture grew and prospered, or as they waned and dimmed, they surrounded themselves with various stories to explain how the world worked, why they lost a particular war, or simply just to tell themselves who they were.  These stories explained the history of the people, their cultural identity, morals and values, etc.  The ancient Hebrew people explained why they had been exiled into Assyria and Babylon in their prophetic writings, the Greeks explained the world through their heroic myths, and the Romans told themselves who they were through the epic poem of Romulus and Remus.  At other times in a culture’s existence, new stories arose as a means to boost the identity of a certain group of people.  The Songs of Roland grew in France as a way to unite the Franks, and then spread across Europe.  The stories of Robin Hood and his band of merry men in England strove to show a common bond between the peasants and their resentment of the nobility due to the political opposition to King John, as well as the struggle between the Saxons and the Normans.  Another such story arose in Britain: the legends of King Arthur.  As with all legends that are passed on through the years, the legends of King Arthur took on the cultural and societal norms and expectations of the various writers.  More often than not, much of what is passed on through these stories becomes distorted as story tellers add their own experiences into the story to keep it alive.  However, there still remains the kernel of truth as the basis of the story.

            Like all legends, those surrounding King Arthur grew and developed over the course of several hundred years.  The earliest known record of Arthur comes from Nennius, a British monk, in the eighth century.   The Welsh poem, The Mabinogion, contains numerous references to Arthur, indicating that his name and deeds were well known, and even famed, before the tenth century.  The Englishman, Geoffrey of Monmouth, first compiled the legends in his work The History of the Kings of Britain in 1136.  Chretien de Troyes, a French poet, first introduced the romances in the late twelfth century and Sir Thomas Malory, an English knight, recorded another version of the legends in the middle of the fifteenth century.  Each of these authors drew upon outside sources, such as the oral poems and writings of others, and added their own experiences, helping them to continue growing in increasing popularity.  As they added variations of contemporary events into the legends, the legend became more real and more real, affective, and effective for the people; it became a way to keep Arthur alive in the minds of the people.  Some writers added to the legends for political reasons, as a means to make a statement, while others added and changed the legends to keep the stories popular.

            For centuries, historians distrusted legends and stories as truthful events of the past, as true depictions of the past, and rightly so, while at the same time questioning whether an historical Arthur ever lived in Britain.  The eighteenth century writer, Edward Gibbon, like so many early historians, wrote, “the severity of the present age is inclined to question the existence of Arthur.”[1]  Writing in the time of the Enlightenment, Gibbon sought hard evidence of King Arthur, just as scientists and philosophers were seeking hard facts for religion, a view that has carried on into more recent times.  Historians like Gibbon found so many mythical and fantastic events in the legends, that they doubted the existence of the man, Arthur.  Later historians in the nineteenth century remained unsure as to whether Arthur lived.  Lewis W. Jones wrote, “Arthur remains but a shadowy apparition...”[2]  Historians such as Lewis saw the fancifulness in the legends and were uncertain as to the basis behind the legend.  In more recent years, however, scholars have begun to dig down into the legends and to pull out the historicity in the legends.  While parts of the legend are complete falsehoods, historians now find reason to believe an historical Arthur did live in Britain in the fifth century.  The falsehoods of the legends “no more proves him [Arthur] a fictitious character than similar fables prove it of Alexander or Aristotle, Vergil or Roland.  It tends rather to prove the opposite.”[3]  Falsehoods within legends actually offer more reason to believe them than to doubt them.  Typically, stories evolve around figures who have performed extraordinary feats.  The larger the deed, the larger the story that grows around an individual.   Myths that have no historical backbone more often than not fade out and are not remembered.  But, a legend with historical roots survives for great periods of time.  After careful study of the records of King Arthur, both historical and literary, historians have formed several schools of thought surrounding the Arthurian legends.  The first school, the “True Believers,” have no doubt that Arthur existed.  These historians also place no limits on the figure of Arthur; for them, Arthur could have done, and indeed did, numerous feats of strength and deeds requiring super-human abilities.  For the most part, the True Believers are Medieval writers such as Geoffrey of Monmouth and Sir Thomas Malory.  Another historical school, the “One-Liners,” supports only the bare bones of Arthur.  I have named this school the One Liners because of the brevity of their records concerning Arthur.  Historians such as Nennius and the compilers of the Annales Cambriae are examples of this school, found in the early Middle Ages.  A third school, the “Skeptics,” doubt the historicity of Arthur.  Edward Gibbon and Michael Wood are examples from this school.  A fourth school, the “Comparative Archaeologists,”

examine excavation sites, writings, etc., to determine the historicity of Arthur.  Geoffrey Ashe is

 

from this school. 

These historical schools seem to follow in a chronological system, ever changing as new methods of research unfold and new techniques are discovered.  Siding with the comparative archaeologists, I believe the person behind the King Arthur of legend, in reality, was a Briton, possibly a Celtic, war leader from the southwest of Britain.  This figure defended the isle against the invading Germanic peoples, most especially the Saxons, from the continent in the mid fifth century, after the Roman occupation of Britain ceased.  This leader controlled all of the military units in the army under the old Roman organization.

 

II.                 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

 

Under Roman rule and domination, Britain flourished in a time of mostly peace and

prosperity.  The Britons, as well as the other conquered peoples of the Roman Empire, were allowed to maintain their own aristocracies and local institutions so long as they pledged allegiance to Rome and supported her armies and military campaigns.  The Celtic culture survived while the political and military organizations, as well as the religious, social, and literary styles, took on a Roman form.  The Roman legions offered Britain a sense of peace it had not known, as the legions proved to be an excellent defense from invading peoples looking for new land to settle.  The Roman soldiers also established many cities throughout Britain, including present day London, then Londinium, and Caer Leon Upon Usk, the City of the Legion.  The legions built many roads, acquaducts, and fortifications throughout the countryside, including Hadrian’s Wall on the northern border with Scotland.  However, this time of stability would not last long.

            In the late fourth and early fifth centuries, Rome itself, both the city and the empire, came under severe attack by various tribes looking for wealth, power, and land.  The combination of  attacks, civil strife in the city, and dissent within the army proved to be more than Rome could handle.  As a means to better defend the city of Rome, Rome recalled many of its legions back to the capital, including those  stationed in Britain.  The legions began a gradual withdrawal from Britain and in 410, Rome formally severed its ties with Britain; Britain no longer enjoyed the benefit of Roman protection.[4] 

            Even after the Roman departure from the island, the organization of the isle continued under the model the Romans left behind, especially in the military.  Rome divided Britain into two territories, one in the North and one in the South.  The Northern leader, the dux Britanniarum, or the Duke of Britain, defended the northern part of the country with his headquarters at York.[5]    The dux Britanniarum protected the North from the invading Picts from Ireland and the Scotti from Scotland.  The Southern military leader, the comes litoris Saxonici, or the count of the southern shore, provided the defense of the South East from the invading Angles, Jutes, and Saxons.[6]  Both of these two leaders defended their respective portions of Britain with infantry units.  Rome also established a third military leader in the island, the comes britanniarum, the count of Britain.  Also known as the dux belllorum, or the Lord of Battles, the comes britanniarum held authority and jurisdiction throughout Britain, and ranked above the dux britanniarum and the comes litoris saxonici.[7]  His primary role was that of a backup army.  Wherever a trouble spot arose, the comes britanniarum took his forces to that spot and then took charge of the defence of the realm.  Because of the great need for maneuverability, the comes britanniarum possessed six units of cavalry and three units of infantry.[8]  These positions were often placed in the hands of Romanized Britains.

            When Rome pulled out of Britain and the barbarian invaders came in droves, Britain sent several pleas for help to Rome, but Rome never responded.  In 446, Britain sent one final appeal to Rome, again, without a reply.  The Britons then gave control of the army to the highest official, namely the comes Britanniarum.[9]   

            In 408, the Saxons conducted a large-scale invasion of the island which the Britons were not prepared for.  The Saxons won several victories until 429 when a former soldier turned bishop, Germanus organized a small army.  He trained them to fight and then led them in victory over the Saxons.[10]  However, this victory was short lived when the Saxons returned in greater numbers.   The Britons realized they needed to continue the Roman military style.

            The first of these leaders to deal with the invading Saxons was Vortigern, a Celtic nobleman.  Vortigern held defense of the isle between 425 and 465, the time when the Saxons landed in increasing numbers on the southeastern shores of Britain.  The Saxons came in search of land for their ever-growing population and Britain, without the defense of Rome, was a prime target.  Rather than attempt to fight these vicious soldiers who ravaged the country through rape, murder, pillaging, and arson, in 430 Vortigern decided to allow them to settle on eastern shores if the Saxons would help with defense of the north from the Picts and the Scotti.  The Saxons accepted and defeated the Picts and the Scotti and, for a time, all went well between the Britons and the Saxons.[11]

            After Vortigern’s death, his son Ambrosius Aurelianus assumed the leadership role.  During his stint as leader, the Saxons began pushing eastward, demanding more land and also money.[12]  The Angles and the Jutes also came to island and joined forces with the Saxons.  Ambrosius was a prosperous leader in the West of Britain who had advised Vortigern in his policy toward the Saxons.  Because he was a prosperous landowner, the Britons fled to him for protection.  With his tactics and army, he halted the Saxon expansion.

            Despite his victories, Ambrosius proved unable to fully defeat the Saxons and after his death, the invasions began again.  With the increasing invasions and no powerful leader, Britain was in more danger than ever before.  Seemingly out of nowhere a figure arose to lead the armies as the comes Britanniarum and defeat the Saxons.  The question of who this person was leaves historians divided.

 

III.               The One Liners

 

Throughout the early Middle Ages, historians and chroniclers recorded events they

judged highly important by the chronicler in their collections of dates called annals.  In these annals, each year would be allowed one event, the crowning event of that year.  As we examine the annals of various rulers and kingdoms, we find records of the death of kings and saints, of great battles and even of famine and plague.  Though these documents do not write much about an event, they nevertheless say a great deal about an event.  Any event listed within an annal is of great importance, because the compiler chose that one event out of countless others to keep in the official register.  Whatever event was recorded and kept in the annals is of historical importance because the event must have had an enormous influence on the chronicler.

            The Annales Cambriae, or the Annals of Wales, record history beginning in 447 and ending in 954.  The Annals open in 447 with “Days as dark as night.”[13]  The Annals contain two references to Arthur.  In 516 the Annals say, “The Battle of Badon, in which Arthur carried the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ for three days and three nights on his shoulders and the Britons were the victors.”[14]  In 537 it reads, “The battle of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut fell: and there was plague in Britain and Ireland.”[15]  The chronicler seems to say that before Arthur, Britain was faced with hardships as well as after, but during Arthur’s reign, Britain prospered.  This is the viewpoint of all other recorders of King Arthur, and indeed, the theme of the legends to follow.  These dates seem to be a late placement of Arthur when one looks at the other records of Arthur’s existence.  Geoffrey Ashe, the leading Arthurian scholar, suggests this problem is due to a scribal miscalculation of twenty-eight years as a result of the shifting of the calendar to the Christian dating method.[16]  This would place the dates at 488 and 509 respectively, still late, but closer.  Another possible way to account for the difference in the date is that begin with the year 1, which historians have associated with the year 447.  A third possible explanation lies in the fact that the annals seem to have been completed around 950, with the chronicler combining several older sources.  The simple statements about King Arthur, however, are free from legend and seem to be true.  The entry concerning Medraut is the first known mention of Medraut, otherwise known as Mordred.

            Another early historian who recorded the activities of Arthur, is the cleric Gildas the Wise.  Writing in the middle 500s, Gildas relates the history of Britain under the rule of Vortigern and also of the siege of Mt. Badon, after which he says there remained forty years of peace in Britain.  Gildas, however, makes no mention of the name “Arthur” in De Excidio Britanniae, Concerning the Ruin of Britain.   Though he makes no specific mention of the man Arthur, the deeds he attributes to the “Bear” seem to correspond to the deeds of Arthur.  This will be discussed in the following paragraph.  Gildas’ work is, as he described it, “a book of complaints.”[17]  Gildas’ intention was to point out and condemn the evil he saw about him.  He intended to inspire a national repentance for the sins of the people.  His work remains the best source of the Saxon invasions and the best history of Britain until Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People. 

            One of Gildas’ primary complaints centered on those who abused the Church.  In several books on the lives of the saints, we are given a picture of an Arthur who takes property and wealth from the Church in order to supply his army.[18]  The Lives make no mention of the religious belief system held by this figure though.  Gildas probably did not mention Arthur by name due to Arthur’s theft, but the victory of Mt. Badon remained too important to leave out.  It was at this battle the Saxon invaders were defeated and fled back to the continent, therefore  Gildas could not have left this out.  He does, however, make mention of a “chariot which carried The Bear.”[19]  The Celtic word for “bear” is “arth” or artos.”  The name Arthur is a clear derivative of the word, or vice versa.[20]  Gildas simply referred to him as “the Bear” because of the close resemblance.

            Yet another early historian who references Arthur is Nennius, who wrote in the eighth century.  Nennius, a monk in North Wales, wrote History of the Britons, which was later used by Geoffrey of Monmouth.  Nennius, like the others, describes the life of Vortigern and the deeds of Arthur.  But most importantly, Nennius provides a list of twelve battles in which Arthur leads the army and defeats the Saxons, with the climactic battle being Mt. Badon.  Nennius, however, does not describe Arthur as a king, but says of him: “Then Arthur, along with the kings of the Britain, fought against them [the Saxons] in those days, but Arthur himself was the military commander [‘dux bellorum’].”[21]  Nennius sees Arthur not as a king, but as the commander of the army, and assigns him great military authority. 

            In summary, the one liner historians recorded brief, but substantial bits of historical information in their writings.  Even though they did not always leave exact accounts including names and geographic locations, their mentionings can be referenced in other works to work out the details.  Whether or not these recorders wrote with great geographic, political, or religious biases remains uncertain.  However, the one liners remain important for a couple of reasons.  First, they are our first written records of the historical Arthur, however vague they are.  Second, the became the backbone for the true believers and the comparative archaeologists.  The importance of the soft spoken one liners is not to be underestimated.

 

IV.              The True Believers

 

So-called because they seem to accept the entirety of the Arthurian legends, the true

believers hold as truth all parts of the Arthurian legends.  These historians and storytellers are each important in their own right, and also in current scholarship.  These recorders relate the Arthur they believe to have lived by what they have heard and read from the one liners, and add their own “facts” about Arthur to their writings.  In addition to this, the modern “comparative archaeologists” use their writings as a backbone to the actual person of Arthur and the meaning of their works is still debated today.

Geoffrey of Monmouth heard the tales of the Welsh bards concerning the famous deeds

of Arthur and incorporated them into his own History of the Kings of Britain.  Finished around 1136, he traced the history of the kings of Britain from the founding of the island.  He begins his work with the life of the legendary founder of Britain, Brutus.  Geoffrey traces the lineage and deeds of the kings through Cadwallader, who died in 689.[22]  Throughout his work, Geoffrey describes the devastion placed on Britain through the Saxon, Angle, Jute, Pict, and Scot barbarians, their submission under Arthur, and their resurgence after Arthur. 

            More than one fifth of Geoffrey’s History tells of Arthur and he describes his mythical birth, his rise to the throne, and his mysterious death.  Geoffrey also tells, in great detail, of Arthur’s marriage to Guinevere and Arthur’s many battles, including his final battle with Mordred, who attempted to usurp Arthur’s throne and claim Guinevere as his wife.  Geoffrey also has Arthur gaining victories throughout the continent, conquering not only all of the British Isles, but Gaul as well and even tells of Arthur’s campaign against Rome.  Geoffrey’s work laid the foundations for the Arthurian legends that we know today.  He could be called Arthur’s “official” biographer.

            From what little we know of Geoffrey, he lived in the twelfth century and grew up in Wales, either a Welshman by birth, or a Briton born in Wales.  He spent much of his life in or near Monmouth and appears to have been connected with the city of Oxford.  Lewis Thorpe has suggested that Geoffrey was a cannon of the church of St. George, thus connecting him with a “certain very ancient book” upon which he based his work.[23]  Historians do not know exactly what work Geoffrey is referring to with his book.  It is clear that this book is lost to us today, but most likely was a British book and remnants of the work can be found in other sources.[24]  After 1151, he was ordained bishop of St. Asaph in Wales and died around 1155.[25]

            Geoffrey’s work remained enormously popular during his lifetime and after his death for many centuries.  His History reached all levels of society: the peasants found the story of a generous king; the knights found the code of chivalry; the nobility found stories of war and valor.  However, Geoffrey received much criticism from his contemporaries for his work because of the poetic license he seems to have taken in contrast to the historical reality.  A contemporary of Geoffrey, William of Newburgh, wrote that Geoffrey told “savage and shameless lies” and made “the little finger of his Arthur bigger than the back of Alexander the Great.”[26]  Modern scholars have accused Geoffrey of the same problem.  Much of Geoffrey’s History is clearly fictitious.  He begins his History  with the telling of the founding of Britain under Brutus, a person known to have never lived.  Geoffrey also includes accounts of mystical, magical, and miraculous deeds, and fanciful beasts slain.  Geoffrey seems to have combined works and styles from all areas, while not constructed a work in his own unique literary style.  When one looks solely at this evidence, it is easy to dismiss all of his work.

            Geoffrey’s History is fictitious in places for numerous reasons.  Writing during the reign of King Stephen and shortly after the Norman Conquest, Geoffrey used Arthur as a rallying point to unite the people, both the Welsh and the Britons.  Geoffrey also sought to appease the Normans by showing that the invaders were descendants of Britons who had fled to Brittany during the Saxon invasions.  He not only created an excuse for the Norman invasion, but he boosted the morale of the people by reminding them of the glorious past, even if it was a dubious past.  During his lifetime, Celtic lore was gaining popularity and Geoffrey used some of his accounts of Arthur to flatter the Celts; an attempt to bring them closer to the Normans.  Geoffrey also incorporated many references to contemporary events, allusions to the Old Testament and Roman roots and the intermingling of variation of Celtic and English roots for words and names.[27]

            In spite of his biases and falsehoods found within Geoffrey’s History modern scholars using redaction criticism, have uncovered many truths behind Geoffrey’s work.[28]  The geographical descriptions Geoffrey leaves behind appear accurate and archaeological excavations have unearthed evidence to support him in his placement of Arthur, as from the southwest of Britain, but then fighting in all parts of Britain and in Gaul.  Historians such as Geoffrey Ashe have uncovered pieces of historical truth behind the person of Arthur within Geoffrey’s History, while at the same time fully recognizing the fanciful elements contained therein.  Another factor that gives credence the historicity of his work are his statements concerning his complete rejection of various texts  that he believed to be mythical.  These rejections show that Geoffrey was indeed a “true believer” of Arthur.  Geoffrey remains part historian and part novelist.

            While his History is largely fictitious, Geoffrey’s work is remarkably useful in relating many details of Arthur that correspond to Arthurian references found in Nennius, Gildas, and the Annales Cambriae.  He did have these sources, as well as his “ancient book.”  Geoffrey also places Arthur in the time frame that the historical  Arthur is believed to have lived.  Numerous sites named in his History also have yielded archaeological support of a leader comparable to his Arthur.  For these reasons, Geoffrey cannot simply be dismissed as fiction, but must be closely examined to draw out a picture of the historical Arthur.

            Like Geoffrey, Sir Thomas Malory also compiled a record of Arthur’s deeds in his The Whole Book of King Arthur and of His Noble Knights of the Round Table.  His work is more commonly known as Le Morte D’Arthur, after the last chapter of his book and was completed in 1469 or 1470.[29]  Malory’s work traces the life of Arthur, beginning with his parents, through his glorious reign with a tragic end, and he traces the deeds of his knights as well.  Malory, like Geoffrey includes tales of Arthur’s battling with Rome. 

            Little is known of Malory himself.  He appears to have been an imprisoned knight born in England about 1416.  The records tell us that he was imprisoned for rape, murder, and theft.  The accusation were more than likely politically motivated.[30]  Malory tells us that he compiled and completed his work while he was in prison.  He seems to have drawn together his information from several different sources, both oral and written, changing and adapting some events in the legends in order to make his story flow more smoothly.  While some of his work is clearly false, like Geoffrey, there are historical truths hidden within the text. 

            Malory wrote during the reign of Edward IV with the intention of repremanding the British people for their ingratitude of the good kings that had ruled in Britain.  What better way to get the people thankful than to retell the story of King Arthur, who, in Malory’s opinion, was the best king ever?

            The True Believers are important because they took it upon themselves to create a new view of Arthur.  They transformed Arthur, the war leader, into Arthur, the great king loved by all and created a court for him.  The True Believers lend evidence for an historical Arthur directly, but more frequently indirectly, in the way in which they glorify this figure.  The comparative archaeologists continue to sift through their works today and often argue about the views and the historicity of these historians.

 

V.                 The Skeptics

 

The skeptic historians doubt the existence of a King Arthur for a number of reasons. 

While they do not come right out and say that Arthur never lived, or a figure upon whom Arthur is based, they do not necessarily accept the historicity of an Arthur.  They often provide evidence to support an historical Arthur while at the same time providing evidence that denies the historicity of Arthur, remaining unsure of their own position.

            Michael Wood, a historian of the early Middle Ages, is a skeptical historian.  Wood, in contrast to most Arthurian scholars, doubts that Arthur fought against the invading Saxon hordes.  He asks, “Is it possible that Arthur existed as a chieftain and warleader … not fighting heroic warfare against the Anglo-Saxon invaders, but engaged in a desperate dogfight between rival British dynasties?”[31]  Wood arrived at this conclusion after he examined the Arthurian sources detailing the excavation of Arthur’s grave at Glastonbury in 1191, as well as the early Welsh poems and the writings of Nennius and Gildas. 

            Wood makes note of the historical situation of Britain at the time of the Roman withdrawal in 410 and agrees that the conditions appear to have been suitable for the supposed Arthur to have lived.  When examining the early documents, he notices that the Welsh poems place Arthur in Cumbria, a land in southern Scotland, and in Rheged, near Solway, but not in southern England.[32]  When reading Nennius, Wood notes that the list of battles Nennius provides is, in Wood’s opinion, purely fictitious.  He also suggests the battles were not the battles of a fifth century leader.  The early documents from the period of the invasion do not provide any names, and Nennius appears to have placed Arthur into the battles simply by inserting his name.[33]  Wood argues that because the legends were not recorded for several centuries after the figure of Arthur died, that these sources cannot be trusted.

            When examining the excavation of Arthur’s tomb in Glastonbury by the monks in 1191, he denies the existence of the discovery, because the remains have since disappeared and the condition of the monastery at the time of the dig.  In 1195, the abbey was destroyed by a fire and monetary funds for the monks were running very low.  Wood, like other skeptical historians, suggest the monks forged the site in order to increase visitors to the abbey to increase donations to help rebuild the abbey.  He also cites William of Malmesbury’s, a contemporary of the dig, denial of the discovery.[34]

            All of Wood’s reasons for denying the existence seem logical, until you look more closely at the evidence he uses to place Arthur in the south of Scotland.  He uses Nennius’ list  of battles, which he has said are purely fictitious as a starting ground.  The majority of the sites Nennius gives are in Northern England and Southern Scotland.  He then goes on to suggest that Arthur ruled at the Northern city of Carlisle, just south of Hadrian’s Wall.[35]  Archaeological excavations provide evidence that Carlisle was a late Roman settlement ruled by British lords.  This is how Wood suggests that Arthur was a British leader fighting amongst other British lords, by using Nennius’ list as a jumping board.

            When one disregards Wood’s declaration of Nennius’ list of battles as a list that is completely false, his arguments do seem logical and plausible.  Other historians have offered the same suggestion concerning Arthur’s placement in the North, but in a more convincing way.  The placement he gives of Nennius’ twelve battles corresponds to the sites suggested by other historians.  Wood’s distrust of oral tradition lead him to ignore the writings of Geoffrey of Monmouth as a possible Arthurian source and he did not even use the Annales Cambriae in his discussion.  For these reasons, Wood’s arguments should not be taken too seriously, because he did examine all of the sources.

            Another skeptical historian, Gerhard Herm, questions exactly who Arthur was and what he did, but is certain there was an historical figure upon whom Arthur is based.  Herm views the legends, and even the battles, attributed to Arthur as simply the Celtic people’s attempt to maintain their identity while at the same time entering into the European Medieval culture.[36]  Herm argues rather loosely that there was an historical figure upon whom the legends grew around but he is reluctant to say who that figure may have been.  As evidence, he cites Nennius and a few Welsh poems, but nothing more.  Herm is content simply to say that there was an historical Arthur.  What makes him a skeptical historian is that he is unsure exactly who this Arthur was or if he even partook of the events attributed of him.

 

VI.              The Comparative Archaeologists

 

The historical school of the comparative archaeologists, when dealing with the legends of

King Arthur, arose during the later twentieth century.  Archaeologists began digging at South Cadbury Castle in hopes of authenticating an old folk tale surrounding the castle.  It is said that on nights of a full moon, one can hear the hoof beats of King Arthur’s knights as they return to the hill fort castle that was once Camelot.  The team of archaeologists, headed by Leslie Alcock between 1950 and 1970 and even today, sought to determine whether or not any connection could be made between South Cadbury Castle and King Arthur.  From these excavations, a renewed interest in King Arthur came forth and scholars began looking at excavation sites, documents, poetry, legends, linguistics, etc, to determine the historicity of this King Arthur.  This special school of historians looks at the tools and techniques of many academic disciplines and schools to examine the historical truth behind Arthur from every possible way, in order to learn the complete historicity of Arthur.

            Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Geoffrey Ashe is the world’s leading Arthurian scholar, as well as a comparative archaeologist.  Ashe served as the secretary for the Camelot Project, the team formed to excavate South Cadbury Castle.  His involvement in the project spurred his interest in King Arthur and led to his research in nearly all fields of Arthurian topics.  Ashe is the author of numerous books and articles on the subject, and is quite knowledgeable and thorough in his discussions of Arthur.

            Ashe’s investigations begin in the works of the Annales Cambriae, the writings of Gildas and Nennius, the Lives of the Saints, Geoffrey of Monmouth, etc., archaeological evidence, linguistic evidence, and other historical facts.  In his research, Ashe starts with the records passed down to us, looking for possible clues, such as dates, names, places, etc., then moves into the archaeological evidence, as well as the historical documents.

            Ashe examines the archaeological from various digs at differing times and links the information together.  Other historians argue that Arthur did not exist by citing such inconclusive evidence as the writings of William of Malmesbury concerning Arthur’s burial at Glastonbury, or the evidence at Tintagel, the supposed place of Arthur’s birth.  They attempt to show that the castle was not even started until the twelfth century.   Ashe uses both archaeological evidence and the written records to prove these views incorrect.

            Concerning Arthur’s tomb at Glastonbury, Ashe makes note of Malmesbury’s record but also uses the writing of Gerald Of Wales, in which he describes the finding of the monks, as well as the writings of the monks themselves, and other historical evidence.  Ashe looks closely at the description of the site given by the monks and Gerald and compares it to both the history of the abbey and to the archaeological evidence uncovered by Ralegh Radford.  By doing so, Ashe concludes that the bones of at least an Arthur of the correct time period were indeed discovered by the monks.[37]

            Ashe also examines archaeological evidence unearthed at Tintagel.  Evidence has been found of a fifth century monastery, containing pieces of pottery and jewelry from throughout the Mediterranean.  He concludes that the monastery obviously held important status because of the archaeological findings and that a war leader certainly could have lived there at one time.[38]  He suggests the owner of the site in Arthur’s time could have been an abbot, a chieftain, a nobleman, or at the very least, someone connected with such a person.[39]

            When examining South Cadbury Castle as the location of Arthur’s famed court, Ashe again turns to written records as well as archaeology.  He first notes that John Leland, the chief historian under King Henry VIII wrote, “At South Cadbyri standith Camallate…,” another spelling for Cadbury and Camelot.[40]  Ashe says that Cadbury is “the likeliest site of Camelot” because of the evidence uncovered by Radford’s excavations at the site.[41]  Radford’s findings include an early British hill fort with four lines of earthwork ramparts encompassing an eight-teen acre enclosure.  “Dark Age” material was uncovered indicating the fort belonged to a fifth century military leader.[42]  He also makes note of the fact the site is not far from two of the more important locations given in Nennius’ list.

            Ashe also takes the quest for Arthur one step further by attempting to associate an acctual historical figure with the person of Arthur.  Ashe makes the connection between the version of Arthur that Geoffrey of Monmouth provides and compares Geoffrey’s description of Arthur to the record of a certain Riothamas.  This record comes to us in the form of a letter from Sidonius Apollinaris, a fifth century Bishop of Roman descent, to “Riothamas, King of the Britons.”[43]  Ashe notices that the description given by Sidonius matches very well with that given by Geoffrey, and he suggests that Geoffrey’s Arthur, may very will be this Riothamas.  Ashe also points out the name itself, “Riothamas” is a name as well as a title meaning “King of the Britons.”[44]  He makes this conclusion by reminding us that the title “Caesar” became Julius’ name over time, as well as the title “Ghengis Khan (very mighty ruler) became his name. 

            Ashe’s reputation as the world’s leading Arthurian scholar is well deserved.  He has written more on the subject of Arthur’s historicity and done far more research than any other scholar.  The many ways that he combines different academic schools to find the bits of truth behind the legends is quite spectacular, yielding more evidence than we would otherwise have.  In his works, Ashe also refers to the opposing views, examines them, and then uses his own evidence to dismiss them, oftentimes using more current information.

            Another historian of note in the comparative archaeological school is David Day.  Day focuses his attention primarily on Northern Britain, near the Anntonine and Hadrian’s Walls.  He claims Arthur to be from the Votadini tribe in the north.[45]  Day suggests Arthur probably held his court in Edinburgh and did most of his fighting in the North.  However, Day does not give much evidence to support his claim.  He spends most of his energy investigating the legends of Arthur’s knights, rather than Arthur himself.  Even so, Day does offer two key ideas.  Firstly, he suggests that Arthur was “not only [the] savior of people on the brink of extinction” but that he also “gave the glory [to the people] of twelve victorious battles [over the Saxons when hope was lost].”[46]  For Day, Arthur was remembered because he gave the Britons one last piece of shining glory just after the great destruction of the Saxon invasions, and just before the Saxons were able to conquer the island.  If Day is correct in this idea, it would certainly explain how great legends of fantastical deeds could grow around one man.  For Arthur seemed to be an invincible  and miraculous figure, seemingly coming from nowhere.

            Day also hints at a very important find in the work of Geoffrey of Monmouth.  However, he does not expand on it and almost seems as though he did not realize just how close he was to an Arthurian fact.  He offers a description of Arthur as leading the armies on a white horse, flanked by two dragon standards, one red and one gold, with a dragon on his helm.[47]  What Day does not mention is that a similar description is found in Geoffrey: “There he [Arthur] set up the Golden Dragon which he had as his personal standard.”[48]  Had Day gone a little in his research and done some cross-referencing, he would have discovered what he hit on.  Graham Webster says, “By the end of the fourth century dragon standards were common to the legions [in Britain] and according Vegetius one was carried by each cohort…”[49]  If Arthur commanded the army in the Roman style as he suggests, Day hit on a good piece of truth behind Geoffrey without even realizing it.[50]

            Another historian, W. Lewis Jones, offers reasons why Bede, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, and Gildas do not make specific mentions of Arthur.  The silence of these three, especially Bede, has been used as evidence against an historical Arthur.  Jones reminds us that Anglo-Saxon Chronicle did not mention Arthur because the chroniclers did not care about British victories; rather they cared for, and recorded, only their own victories.[51]  In response to Gildas’ silence, he does not suggest that Gildas simply did not like Arthur, but rather that Gildas wrote for a Roman audience and therefore included only Roman figures, and not Britons.[52]  In response to Bede, Jones makes note that Bede only used Roman and Saxon texts to compile his Ecclesiastical History.  Jones suggests that Bede either did know not of, or distrusted, the Celtic and British traditions, which would have included references to Arthur.[53]  Jones also spends considerable energy investigating the early Welsh legends, as well as Geoffrey’s History, and concludes that Arthur spent most of his time in the north, but died in the south.[54]  Jones provides a well-balanced investigation into the historical truth of Arthur and examines carefully all of the necessary sources when doing so.  His arguments are neither far fetched nor unexpected.  His conclusions are rationally and locially thought out. 

            Christopher Hibbert makes great use out of early Roman in Britainsources and their description of Arthurian Britain.  He then, like the other comparative archaeologists, compared those records to those found in Nennius, Gildas, Geoffrey, and others.  Hibbert arrived at the conclusion that Arthur was the comes Britanniarum, the supreme military commander of Britain, modeled after the style of the Romans.[55]  He also explores the early British geographical conditions, especially those around Glastonbury and South Cadbury Castle.  His research has revealed has revealed that at the time of the fifth and sixth centuries, the land surrounding these two sites was swampy, lending support to Geoffrey’s writings.[56]  Hibbert’s efforts circled around his use of the geography of Britain, and his sifting through the legends to find the earliest version and the earliest facts.  In describing the deeds of Arthur, Hibbert did use some of his own speculation which he based upon the records of Arthur we have today. 

 

VII       Conclusion

 

            When considering the historical truths behind the legends of King Arthur, I fall into the comparative archaeological school of thought.  It is impossible to determine the historicity of any legendary event, indeed any historical event, without carefully examining all of the available evidence.  It remains especially impossible to do so with the legends surrounding the historical figure of Arthur. 

            Despite the fact no detailed account of Arthur exists, it is still possible to construct a framework in which to place an historical Arthur.  The Arthur of whom the legends grew around, undoubtedly lived in the late fifth or early sixth centuries in Britain during the Saxon invasions.  All of the evidence seems to support the idea that Arthur somehow rose to the position of the comes Britanniarum and controlled the military forces of the people.  This Arthur then used his armies, including several units of cavalry, to destroy the invading hordes of Saxons who had ravaged the countryside for several decades.  When it seemed all was lost for the people, Arthur emerged and drove the invading tribes back to the continent.  Arthur, as the supreme military commander, could have easily been transformed into Arthur the king by the Medieval writers who sought to glorify him all the more. 

            After examining the archaeological evidence, it seems very plausible that Geoffrey is correct in his placement of the deeds of Arthur.  Arthur’s birth probably did occur at Tintagel castle, he probably did die in the Battle of Camlann on the Salisbury plain, and his body probably was taken to Avalon, otherwise called Glastonbury, where it was discovered by twelfth century monks.  Nennius seems correct in his placing of Arthur’s twelve battles.  When these two lists are combined, it is clear that Arthur acted in all parts of Britain, a notion supported by the thesis of Arthur as the highest military official.

            But just what is it about King Arthur that intrigues and fascinates so many people even today, a millenium and a half after the man lived?  Why are we so caught up in the legend of Arthur and his knights?  We are engrossed in the legends for the very reason people since the time of Arthur have been involved in the story.  Arthur somehow represents all of his, as he has been portrayed through the legends.  There is some evil in all of us that we wish to conquer.  At times, it seems as though we will never be able to conquer this adversary.  Yet the story of Arthur reminds us that when things seem to be at their darkest hour, a champion can emerge to defeat the evil.  This same idea can be used to explain why entire nations are caught up in the story of Arthur.  The United States refers tot he presidency of John F. Kennedy as “Camelot.”  Camelot was Arthur’s idealistic capital city where peace, justice, and equality all ruled supreme.  We all long for an idealistic society in which life will be easier.  Finally, Arthur is said to be sleeping and awaiting his return in many of the legends.  As human beings, we all long for something more than just this passing life.  In some strange way, the legends of Arthur hint at an afterlife.

            In conclusion, I close with the words of Caxton, the first real publisher of Sir Thomas Malory’s works: “It will not do to dismiss summarily all Arthurian tradition as so many old wives’ tales.  They are too widespread and persistent not to have some basis of solid fact underlying them.”[57]  Historians like Geoffrey Ashe have uncovered the historical Arthur.

 

VII.            End Notes

 

[1] Michael Wood, In Search of the Dark Ages  (Oxford: Facts on File Publications, 1987), 38.

2 Lewis W. Jones,  King Arthur in History and Legend  (Cambridge: Cambridge University

  Press, 1911),  2.

⁴R. G. Collingwood and J. N. L. Myres, Roman Britain and the English Settlements, Second

  Edition  (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936), 321.

5 Wood, In Search, 41.

6 Christopher Hibbert,  The Search for King Arthur  (New York: American Heritage Publishing                           

  Co., Inc, 1969), 83.

7 Ibid.

8 R. G. Collingwood and J. N. L. Myres, Roman Britain, 321.

9 Ibid, 85.

10 Wood, In Search, 18.

11Hibbert, The Search, 69.

12Ibid, 71.

13 Ibid, 73.

14 Medieval Sourcebook: The Annales Cambriae, (Fordham University, accessed 7 September,

   1999), available from <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/annalescambriae.html >,  

   Internet.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid.

17 Geoffrey Ashe, “‘A Certain Very Ancient Book.:’ Traces of an Arthurian Source in Geoffrey

   of Monmouth’s History,” (Speculum 49: 1974), 317.

18 Hibbert, The Search 91.

19 The Life of St. Padain mentions Arthur attempting to steal from a saint.  In the Life of St.

   Cadoc Arthur appears twice, both times as a war leader.  The Life of St. Carannog describes  

   Arthur’s theft of an altar to force the saint to kill a serpent.  See Geoffrey Ashe, King Arthur   

   in Fact and in Legend (Camden: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1969), 58-60.

20 Hibbert, The Search, 92.

21 Historical linguists seem to agree on this suggestion.  See Ibid and also R. G. Collingwood and

   J. N. L. Myres, Roman Britain and the English Settlements, Second Edition (Oxford:  

   Clarendon Press, 1936), 320-21.

22 Medieval Sourcebook: Nennius’ The History of the Britons (Fordham University, accessed 7

   September, 1999), available from<http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/nennius.html>,  

   Internet.

23 Geoffrey of Monmouth, The History of the Kings of Britain, trans. Lewis Thorpe.  (London:

   Penguin Books, 1966), 9.

24 Ibid, 12.

25 For a complete discussion of Goeffrey of Monmouth’s “certain very ancient book” see  

   Goeffrey Ashe, “An Arthurian Source.”

26 Geoffrey, History, 12.

27 Jones, King Arthur, 5.

28 Geoffrey, History, , 23.

29 Redaction criticism is a “method of analyzing  written texts that tries to define the purpose and

   literary procedures of editors who compile and edit older documents.”  By doing so,

   scholars are then ready to uncover the oldest pieces of the text in order to determine

   which parts of the work are more historically accurate.  This type of work has proved

   invaluable especially in Biblical studies in recent years.  See Stephen L. Harris,

   Understanding the Bible, Fourth Edition  (Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing

   Company, 1997), 527.

30 Peter J. C. Feld, “Sir Thomas Malory,”  The New Arthurian Encyclopedia (London: Garland

   Publishing Inc, 1991), 295.

31 Ibid, 294.

32 Wood, In Search, 59.

33 Ibid, 56.

34 Ibid, 55.

35 Ibid, 39.

36 Ibid, 57-8.

37 Gerard Herm, The Celts: The People Who Came out of the Darkness (New York: St.

   Martin’s Press, 1975), 278.

38 Geoffrey Ashe, King Arthur in Fact and Legend  (Camden: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1969),

   90.

39 Ibid, 72-75.

40 Ibid, 72.

41 Ibid, 96.

42 Ibid, 95.

43 Ibid, 96.

44 “Sidonius Apollinaris: Letter to Riothamas, King of the Britons,” Britannia: Arthurian 

  Sources (accessed 17 October, 1999), <http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/sidonius.html>

45 Geoffrey Ashe, “Riothamas,” in The New Arthurian Encyclopedia, Norris J. Lacy, Ed,   

   (London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1991), 383-384.  See also, Ashe, “An Arthurian Source.”  

    Speculum, 56 (1981), 301-323.

46 David Day, The Search for King Arthur (London: De Agnostini Editions, Ltd., 1995), 18.

47 Ibid, 15.

48 Ibid, 17.

49 Geoffrey, History, 248.

50 Graham Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, Second Edition (London: A. & C. Black,

  1969), 136.

51 Day, The Search, 13.

52 Jones, King Arthur, 30.

53 Ibid, 29.

54 Ibid.

Bibliography

Articles

“Arthur, Meet Arthur.”  National Geographic 196, no. 3 (1999), 3.

Ashe, Geoffrey.   “A Certain Very Ancient Book’: Traces of an Arthurian Source in Geoffrey of

Monmouth’s History.”  Speculum, 56 (1981), 301-23.

Barker, Felix.  “Morte D’Arthur.”  History Today, 37 (1987), 3-4.

Gregory, Damien.  “Names and Places.”  History Today, 40 (1990), 3.

Keller, Hans E.  “Two Toponymical Problems in Geoffrey of Monmouth and Wace: Estrusia

and Siesia.”  Speculum, 49 (1974) 687-698.

Matthews, William.  “Where Was Siesia-Sessoyne?”  Speculum, 49 (1974) 680-686.

Books

Ashe, Geoffrey.  Camelot and the Vision of Albion.  New York: St. Mary’s Press, 1971.

____________.  The Discovery of King Arthur.  New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1985.

____________.  King Arthur in Fact and Legend.  Camden: Thomas Nelson, Inc, 1969.

____________.  The Quest for Arthur’s Britain.  London: Frederick A. Praeger, 1968.

Barber, Richard.  King Arthur: Hero and Legend.  New York: Dorset Press, 1961.

Chambers, E. K.  Arthur of Britain.  Cambridge: Speculum Historiale, 1927.

Day, David.  The Search for King Arthur.  London: De Agostini Editions, Ltd, 1995.

Geoffrey of Monmouth,  The History of the Kings of Britain, trans. Lewis Thorpe.  (London:

Penguin Books, 1966).

Goodrich, Norma Lorre.  King Arthur.  New York: Franklin Watts, 1986.

Guest, Charlotte, Trans.  The Mabinogion.  London: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd, 1906.

Herm, Gerard.  The Celts: The People Who Came out of the Darkness.  New York: St.

Martin’s Press, 1975.

Hibbert, Christopher.  The Search for King Arthur.  New York: American Heritage Publishing 

Co. Inc, 1969.

Holmes, Michael.  King Arthur: A Military History.  London: Blandford, 1998.

Jenkins, Elizabeth.  The Mystery of King Arthur.  New York: Coward, McCann, &

Geoghegan, Inc., 1975.

Jones, W. Lewis.  King Arthur in History and Legend.  Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1911.

Lacy, Norris J., Ed.  The New Arthurian Encyclopedia.  London: Garland Publishing, Inc.,

1991.

Loomis, Roger Sherman.  Wales and the Arthurian Legend.  Cardiff: University of Wales

Press, 1956.

Matthews, John, Ed.  An Arthurian Reader: Selections from Arthurian Legend, Scholarship,

and Story.  London: The Acquarian Press, 1988.

________________.  The Arthurian Tradition.  Shaftesbury, Dorset: Element Books Limited,

1994.

Miller, Helen Hill.  The Realms of Arthur.  New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1969.

Sturdy, David and Fiona.  Historic Monuments of England and Wales.  London: J. M. Dent &

Sons, 1977.

Tennyson, Alfred Lord.  Idylls of the King.  J. M. Gray, Ed.  London: Penguin Books, 1983.

__________________.  ______________.  Henry C. Walsh, Ed.  Philadelphia: Henry

Altemus, 1889.

Troyes, Chretien de.  Arthurian Romances.  William W. Kibler, trans.  London: Penguin

Books, 1991.

White, Richard, Ed.  King Arthur in Legend and History.  London: J. M. Dent, 1997.

White, T. H.  The Once and Future King.  New York: Ace Books, 1939.

Wood, Michael.  In Search of the Dark Ages.  Oxford: Facts on File Publications, 1987.

Internet Sites

An Archeological Quest for the 'real' King Arthur (University of Idaho, accessed 21 September,

1999), available from <http://www.uidaho.edu/student_orgs/arthurian_legend/england/arch/>

Britannia History.  (accessed 17 October, 1999); available from <http://www.britannia.com>

Medieval Sourcebook: The Annales Cambriae (Fordham University, accessed 7 September,

1999); <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/annalescambriae.html>

Medieval Sourcebook: Gerald of Wales: The Discovery of the Tomb of King Arthur from On

The Instruction of a Prince (Fordham University, accessed 7 September, 1999), available from < http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1223gerald-arthurtomb.html>

Medieval Sourcebook: Gildas: Concerning the Ruin of Britain (Fordham University, accessed 7

September, 1999), available from < http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gildas.html>

Medieval Sourcebook: Nennius’s The History of the Britons (Fordham University, accessed 7

September, 1999), available from <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/nennius.html>

Tintagel Excavations 1998.  (University of Glasgow, accessed 17 October, 1999), available

from  <http://www.info.gla.ac.uk/Acad/Archaeology/staff/tintagel/ttg1.html>