King Arthur Essay, Research Paper

The mystical references to Arthur and his adventures are dated in literature in

some form for over 1400 years, verifying the enduring appeal of this romantic

character. Since the beginnings of the English language there have been legends

of great heroes. The first settlements of Britain produced stories rooted in

ancient Celtic and Germanic imagination; of the many, Arthur is undoubtedly

preeminent. The earliest known description of Arthur?s noble endeavors was

written by Gildas, (ca. 490-540) the author of De excidio et conquestu

Britanniae makes reference, albeit vague, to an Arthurian figure; however, the

name Arthur is not mentioned in the story (Strayer 564). The full flourish of

writings associated with his miraculous feats and victories do not reach a

crescendo for several hundred years after Gildas (Strayer 564). During the

Middle Ages, however, Arthurian myth was prominent and en vogue and attempts to

discover the truth behind the myth have been pursued for generations. Arthur’s

history, as Geoffrey Ashe reminds us in The Discovery of King Arthur, is

"more than just a medley of yarns, more than just a saga in the romanticism

of myth. It puts him within a definite period. It names definite places and

takes him to definite countries" (3). It is this fact and the fragmentary,

often contradictory references of an Arthur (the Latin "Artur,""Arturius,"

or "Artorius") from ancient records, that lends enough validity to the

story to set researchers on the Clodfelter 2 trail of the legendary king.

However, progress has been stymied for a number of reasons and even now we can

say little of substance about the man behind the myth. A major difficulty facing

researchers is that the role of the historian in the Dark Ages was rather

flexible; a mixture of storyteller and propagandist whose regional traditions,

personal prejudices, and loyalties were bound to greatly influence the nature of

its material (Coglan 214). In Arthur, Richard Barber clarifies this fact and

speaks of the early tendency to use history as "?an inspiration or as a

warning to the men of the present, or as part of a vast divine scheme for man’s

spiritual salvation" (Coglan 7). Another problem facing historians is that

the earliest sources we have are never originals, but copies, and considering

their age we must allow for the propagation of errors. One possible such error

is found in the Annals of Wales, written in the tenth century. Its entry

concerning the Battle of Badon claims that Arthur carried Christ’s cross on his

shoulder for three days, but it?s likely that "shoulder" should

instead be "shield," due to confusion between the Welsh words "scuid"

and "scuit" (Alcock 51-52). The search for the truth of legend

continues. Perhaps the best known of all Arthurian legends is that of Geoffrey

of Monmouth. His History of the Kings of Britain, (ca. 1136) "Besides

planting highly erroneous notions of British history,…supplied a basis and

framework for Arthurian romance and exerted an influence extending through

Spenser, Shakespeare, and many others" (Coglan 209). In it, Geoffrey

recounts the history of Britain’s leaders back to their beginning in 1115 BC to

King Cadwallader’s death in AD 689. Geoffrey’s account, though most agree not

strictly factual, offers a clear look into the events surrounding Arthur’s death

and is the starting point for much investigation (Coglan 214). Geoffrey’s work

was immensely popular and was not criticized during his lifetime Clodfelter 3

(Goodrich 45). Modern historians, however, have many reasons to be skeptical of

Geoffrey’s work. The most obvious problem is its anachronistic representation of

a supposedly 5th century king in a very Norman England; as was typical of

historians in his day, Geoffrey superimposed his contemporary culture upon his

depiction of the past (Goodrich 47). Many inaccuracies exist in his description

of the period. If there is an Arthur, he will not be a magnificent Christian

king sitting astride a heavy Byzantine charger, accoutered in Norman plate

armor. He will not be basking in a mighty castle between European excursions

with a band of international knights; rather, he will be no more than an unkempt

and possibly pagan military leader with little if any armor. He will likely have

a small entourage of hired regional soldiers and live in no better than a crude

wooden fortress. Amazingly, Geoffrey’s glaring inaccuracies were convincing

enough to find their way into the Oxford History of England, written in 1937

(332). Geoffrey also made huge geographical errors, such as placing King Arthur

in Cornwall (Goodrich 42). He made errors in church history such as placing an

Archbishop in Canterbury in Arthur’s lifetime and an Archbishop in Caerleon

(Brooke 202). Inaccuracies aside, Geoffrey?s romantic, fictional depictions

have endured. Geoffrey is clearly a fiction writer, but there is little doubt

that he drew from older works both historical and fictional. "Besides Roman

historians he draws upon Gildas, Nennius, Bede, and probably the Annales

Cambriae, as well as Welsh genealogical and hagiographic matter; yet an

investigation into these older documents shed little light upon Arthur (Coglan

212). Gildas’ De Excidio Britanniae, mentioned earlier and despite its plainly

erroneous historical section, is considered a key source simply because it?s

the only one contemporary to Arthur’s time. In it Gildas describes how a

powerful ruler summoned Saxon help against his enemies only to find Clodfelter 4

that the Saxons had themselves become a threat. The Britons fought back under

Ambrosius Aurelianus and had a series of victories which culminated at Badon, a

battle usually attributed to Arthur (Strayer 565). Once again, however, Gildas

makes no mention of Arthur by name (Strayer 564). This silence, however, is not

considered damaging to later claims. "With…Arthur, [Gildas] might have

been silent because of his prejudices or because of a gap in his information.

When he is dealing with events beyond living memory that information is

certainly sparse; he leaves out important people who can be proved to have

lived" (Ashe 67). The next important document is Nennius’ Historia

Brittonum, 800 AD; however, much of his work contains errors and inconsistencies

and so is not trusted very much for accuracy (Coglan 404). Nennius is the first

to actually mention Arthur’s name and he gives a list of twelve battles

attributed to Arthur. According to Nennius, Arthur was not a king, but a dux

belloram–a leader of battles (Coglan 405). The earliest mention of Arthur’s

death comes from an entry in the Annales Cambriae, 950 AD. It claims he was

slain in The Battle of Camlann in 537 AD. ?? since everyone else who is

mentioned in the Annals did exist, there is a certain presumption that a real

Arthur must underlie [this] questionable [claim]" (Coglan 8). While much of

the information in the Annales is taken from Nennius, there is also evidence of

early Celtic and Irish sources and it becomes inconsistent at certain points.

However, the dating is important in tracing a possible history for Arthur and

the entries for Arthur are lent more validity because of the other figures

mentioned there (Coglan 8). These are the primary sources for Arthurian studies,

although there are other early documents which make some reference to a powerful

warrior named Arthur. Despite valiant efforts of Arthurian historians to glimpse

through the fog of the Dark Ages, Arthur has remained shrouded in mystery. King

Arthur, however legendary he may be, is Clodfelter 5 still popular as a romantic

hero and therefore we may expect these speculative pseudo-historical works to

continue. In conclusion, I think Hollister (quoting James Campbell) summed it up

rather well: as James Campbell wisely said, "The natural vice of historians

is to claim to know about the past." But with respect to fifth and sixth

century Britain, "what really happened will never be known" (29).

Strayer, Joseph Reese., et al. Dictionary of the Middle Ages. Vol. 1. New

York: Scribner?s, 1982. Alcock, Leslie. Arthur’s Britain. London: Penguin

Press, 1971. Ashe, Geoffrey. The Discovery of King Arthur. New York: Anchor

Press, 1985. Brooke, Christopher. "The Archbishops of St. David’s, Llandaff,

and Caerleon-on-the- Usk." Studies in the Early British Church. ed.

Chadwick, Nora K. Cambridge: Arcon Books, 1966. Coglan, Ronan. The Encyclopedia

of Arthurian Legends. Rockport: Element Inc., 1992. Goodrich, Norma Lorre. King

Arthur. New York: Franklin Watts, 1986. Hollister, C.Warren. The Making of

England. Lexington: D.C. Heath, 1996. Collingwood, R. G., and J. N. L. Myres.

Oxford History of England, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1937.