Debated historicity
The historical basis for the King Arthur legend has long been
debated by scholars. One school of thought, citing entries in the
Historia Brittonum (History of the Britons) and
Annales Cambriae (Welsh Annals), sees Arthur as a genuine
historical figure, a
Romano-British leader who fought against the invading
Anglo-Saxons sometime in the late 5th to early 6th century. The
Historia Brittonum, a 9th-century
Latin
historical compilation attributed in some late manuscripts to a Welsh
cleric called
Nennius,
lists twelve battles that Arthur fought. These culminate in the
Battle of Mons Badonicus, or Mount Badon, where he is said to have
single-handedly killed 960 men. Recent studies, however, question the
reliability of the Historia Brittonum as a source for the history
of this period.[6]
The other text that seems to support the case for Arthur's
historical existence is the 10th-century Annales Cambriae, which
also link Arthur with the Battle of Mount Badon. The Annales date
this battle to 516–518, and also mention the
Battle of Camlann, in which Arthur and
Medraut
(Mordred) were both killed, dated to 537–539. These details have often
been used to bolster confidence in the Historia's account and to
confirm that Arthur really did fight at Mount Badon. Problems have been
identified however, with using this source to support the Historia
Brittonum's account. The latest research shows that the Annales
Cambriae was based on a chronicle begun in the late 8th century in
Wales.
Additionally, the complex textual history of the Annales Cambriae
precludes any certainty that the Arthurian annals were added to it even
that early. They were more likely added at some point in the 10th
century and may never have existed in any earlier set of annals. The
Mount Badon entry probably derived from the Historia Brittonum.[7]
NOTE: Joseph Ritsin, Esq, in his book on the Life of
Arthur - (free book at google.com) points to Arthur's death
in 642 AD - page 21 of his book.
This lack of convincing early evidence is the reason many recent
historians exclude Arthur from their accounts of post-Roman Britain. In
the view of historian
Thomas Charles-Edwards, "at this stage of the enquiry, one can only
say that there may well have been an historical Arthur [but …] the
historian can as yet say nothing of value about him".[8]
These modern admissions of ignorance are a relatively recent trend;
earlier generations of historians were less sceptical. Historian
John Morris made the putative reign of Arthur the organising
principle of his history of
sub-Roman Britain and
Ireland,
The Age of Arthur (1973). Even so, he found little to say of a
historic Arthur.[9]
The 10th-century Annales Cambriae, as copied into a
manuscript of c. 1100
Partly in reaction to such theories, another school of thought
emerged which argued that Arthur had no historical existence at all.
Morris's Age of Arthur prompted archaeologist
Nowell Myres to observe that "no figure on the borderline of history
and mythology has wasted more of the historian's time".[10]
Gildas'
6th-century polemic De Excidio Britanniae (On the Ruin of
Britain), written within living memory of Mount Badon, mentions the
battle but does not mention Arthur.[11]
Arthur is not mentioned in the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle or named in any surviving manuscript
written between 400 and 820.[12]
He is absent from
Bede's
early 8th-century
Ecclesiastical History of the English People, another major
early source for post-Roman history that mentions Mount Badon.[13]
Historian David Dumville has written: "I think we can dispose of him
[Arthur] quite briefly. He owes his place in our history books to a 'no
smoke without fire' school of thought ... The fact of the matter is that
there is no historical evidence about Arthur; we must reject him from
our histories and, above all, from the titles of our books."[14]
Some scholars argue that Arthur was originally a fictional hero of
folklore – or even a half-forgotten
Celtic deity – who became credited with real deeds in the distant
past. They cite parallels with figures such as the
Kentish totemic horse-gods
Hengest
and Horsa,
who later became historicised. Bede ascribed to these legendary figures
a historical role in the 5th-century
Anglo-Saxon conquest of eastern Britain.[15]
It is not even certain that Arthur was considered a king in the early
texts. Neither the Historia nor the Annales calls him "rex":
the former calls him instead "dux"
or "dux bellorum" (leader of battles).[16]
Historical documents for the post-Roman period are scarce, so a
definitive answer to the question of Arthur's historical existence is
unlikely.
Sites and places have been identified as "Arthurian" since the 12th
century,[17]
but archaeology can confidently reveal names only through inscriptions
found in secure contexts. The so-called "Arthur
stone", discovered in 1998 among the ruins at
Tintagel Castle in
Cornwall in securely dated 6th-century contexts, created a brief
stir but proved irrelevant.[18]
Other inscriptional evidence for Arthur, including the
Glastonbury cross, is tainted with the suggestion of forgery.[19]
Although several historical figures have been proposed as the basis for
Arthur,[20]
no convincing evidence for these identifications has emerged.
Name
The origin of the Welsh name
Arthur
remains a matter of debate. Some suggest it is derived from the Latin
family name
Artorius, of obscure and contested etymology.[21]
Others propose a derivation from Welsh arth (earlier art),
meaning "bear", suggesting art-ur (earlier *Arto-uiros),
"bear-man", is the original form, although there are difficulties with
this theory.[22]
It may be relevant to this debate that Arthur's name appears as
Arthur, or Arturus, in early Latin Arthurian texts, never as
Artorius. However, this may not say anything about the origin of
the name Arthur, as Artorius would regularly become
Art(h)ur when borrowed into
Welsh; all it would mean, as John Koch has pointed out, is that the
surviving Latin references to a historical Arthur (if he was called
Artorius and really existed) must date from after the 6th century.[23]
An alternative theory links the name Arthur to
Arcturus, the brightest star in the constellation
Boötes,
near
Ursa Major or the Great Bear. The name means "guardian of the bear"[24]
or "bear guard".[25]
Classical Latin Arcturus would also have become Art(h)ur
when borrowed into Welsh, and its brightness and position in the sky led
people to regard it as the "guardian of the bear" (due to its proximity
to Ursa Major) and the "leader" of the other stars in Boötes.[26]
The exact significance of such etymologies is unclear. It is often
assumed that an Artorius derivation would mean that the legends of
Arthur had a genuine historical core, but recent studies suggest that
this assumption may not be well founded.[27]
By contrast, a derivation of Arthur from Arcturus might be taken to
indicate a non-historical origin for Arthur, but Toby Griffen has
suggested it was an alternative name for a historical Arthur designed to
appeal to Latin-speakers.[24]
Medieval literary traditions
The creator of the familiar literary persona of Arthur was
Geoffrey of Monmouth, with his pseudo-historical
Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain),
written in the 1130s. The textual sources for Arthur are usually divided
into those written before Geoffrey's Historia (known as pre-Galfridian
texts, from the Latin form of Geoffrey, Galfridus) and those
written afterwards, which could not avoid his influence (Galfridian, or
post-Galfridian, texts).
Pre-Galfridian traditions
A facsimile page of
Y Gododdin, one of the most famous early Welsh texts
featuring Arthur, c. 1275
The earliest literary references to Arthur come from Welsh and
Breton sources. There have been few attempts to define the nature and
character of Arthur in the pre-Galfridian tradition as a whole, rather
than in a single text or text/story-type. One recent academic survey
that does attempt this, by Thomas Green, identifies three key strands to
the portrayal of Arthur in this earliest material.[28]
The first is that he was a peerless warrior who functioned as the
monster-hunting protector of Britain from all internal and external
threats. Some of these are human threats, such as the Saxons he fights
in the Historia Brittonum, but the majority are supernatural,
including giant cat-monsters, destructive
divine boars, dragons,
dogheads, giants and witches.[29]
The second is that the pre-Galfridian Arthur was a figure of folklore
(particularly topographic or onomastic folklore) and localised magical
wonder-tales, the leader of a band of superhuman heroes who live in the
wilds of the landscape.[30]
The third and final strand is that the early Welsh Arthur had a close
connection with the Welsh Otherworld, Annwn. On the one hand, he
launches assaults on Otherworldly fortresses in search of treasure and
frees their prisoners. On the other, his warband in the earliest sources
includes former pagan gods, and his wife and his possessions are clearly
Otherworldly in origin.[31]
One of the most famous Welsh poetic references to Arthur comes in
the collection of heroic death-songs known as
Y
Gododdin (The Gododdin), attributed to the 6th-century
poet
Aneirin. In one stanza, the bravery of a warrior who slew 300
enemies is praised, but it is then noted that despite this "he was no
Arthur", that is to say his feats cannot compare to the valour of
Arthur.[32]
Y Gododdin is known only from a 13th-century manuscript, so it is
impossible to determine whether this passage is original or a later
interpolation, but John Koch's view that the passage dates from a
7th-century or earlier version is regarded as unproven; 9th- or
10th-century dates are often proposed for it.[33]
Several poems attributed to
Taliesin, a poet said to have lived in the 6th century, also refer
to Arthur, although these all probably date from between the 8th and
12th centuries.[34]
They include "Kadeir Teyrnon" ("The Chair of the Prince"),[35]
which refers to "Arthur the Blessed", "Preiddeu
Annwn" ("The Spoils of the Annwn"),[36]
which recounts an expedition of Arthur to the Otherworld, and "Marwnat
vthyr pen[dragon]" ("The Elegy of Uther Pen[dragon]"),[37]
which refers to Arthur's valour and is suggestive of a father-son
relationship for Arthur and Uther that pre-dates Geoffrey of Monmouth.
Other early Welsh Arthurian texts include a poem found in the
Black Book of Carmarthen, "Pa gur yv y porthaur?" ("What man is
the gatekeeper?").[38]
This takes the form of a dialogue between Arthur and the gatekeeper of a
fortress he wishes to enter, in which Arthur recounts the names and
deeds of himself and his men, notably
Cei
(Kay) and
Bedwyr (Bedivere). The Welsh prose tale
Culhwch and Olwen (c. 1100), included in the modern
Mabinogion collection, has a much longer list of more than 200 of
Arthur's men, though Cei and Bedwyr again take a central place. The
story as a whole tells of Arthur helping his kinsman
Culhwch
win the hand of
Olwen,
daughter of
Ysbaddaden Chief-Giant, by completing a series of apparently
impossible tasks, including the hunt for the great semi-divine boar
Twrch Trwyth. The 9th-century Historia Brittonum also refers
to this tale, with the boar there named Troy(n)t.[39]
Finally, Arthur is mentioned numerous times in the
Welsh Triads, a collection of short summaries of Welsh tradition
and legend which are classified into groups of three linked characters
or episodes in order to assist recall. The later manuscripts of the
Triads are partly derivative from Geoffrey of Monmouth and later
continental traditions, but the earliest ones show no such influence and
are usually agreed to refer to pre-existing Welsh traditions. Even in
these, however, Arthur's court has started to embody legendary Britain
as a whole, with "Arthur's Court" sometimes substituted for "The Island
of Britain" in the formula "Three XXX of the Island of Britain".[40]
While it is not clear from the Historia Brittonum and the
Annales Cambriae that Arthur was even considered a king, by the time
Culhwch and Olwen and the Triads were written he had become
Penteyrnedd yr Ynys hon, "Chief of the Lords of this Island", the
overlord of Wales, Cornwall and the North.[41]
In addition to these pre-Galfridian Welsh poems and tales, Arthur
appears in some other early Latin texts besides the Historia
Brittonum and the Annales Cambriae. In particular, Arthur
features in a number of well-known vitae ("Lives") of post-Roman
saints,
none of which are now generally considered to be reliable historical
sources (the earliest probably dates from the 11th century).[42]
According to the Life of Saint
Gildas,
written in the early 12th century by
Caradoc of Llancarfan, Arthur is said to have killed Gildas' brother
Hueil and to have rescued his wife Gwenhwyfar from Glastonbury.[43]
In the Life of Saint
Cadoc,
written around 1100 or a little before by Lifris of Llancarfan, the
saint gives protection to a man who killed three of Arthur's soldiers,
and Arthur demands a herd of cattle as
wergeld for his men. Cadoc delivers them as demanded, but when
Arthur takes possession of the animals, they turn into bundles of ferns.[44]
Similar incidents are described in the medieval biographies of
Carannog,
Padarn
and Eufflam, probably written around the 12th century. A less obviously
legendary account of Arthur appears in the
Legenda Sancti Goeznovii, which is often claimed to date from
the early 11th century although the earliest manuscript of this text
dates from the 15th century.[45]
Also important are the references to Arthur in
William of Malmesbury's De Gestis Regum Anglorum and Herman's
De Miraculis Sanctae Mariae Laudensis, which together provide the
first certain evidence for a belief that Arthur was not actually dead
and would at some point
return, a theme that is often revisited in post-Galfridian folklore.[46]
Geoffrey of Monmouth
Mordred, Arthur's final foe according to Geoffrey of Monmouth,
illustrated by
H. J. Ford for
Andrew Lang's King Arthur: The Tales of the Round Table,
1902
The first narrative account of Arthur's life is found in
Geoffrey of Monmouth's Latin work
Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain).[47]
This work, completed c. 1138, is an imaginative and fanciful account of
British kings from the legendary Trojan exile
Brutus to the 7th-century Welsh king
Cadwallader. Geoffrey places Arthur in the same post-Roman period as
do
Historia Brittonum and
Annales Cambriae. He incorporates Arthur's father,
Uther Pendragon, his magician advisor
Merlin,
and the story of Arthur's conception, in which Uther, disguised as his
enemy
Gorlois by Merlin's magic, fathers Arthur on Gorlois's wife
Igerna
at
Tintagel. On Uther's death, the fifteen-year-old Arthur succeeds him
as King of Britain and fights a series of battles, similar to those in
the Historia Brittonum, culminating in the Battle of Bath. He
then defeats the
Picts and
Scots before creating an Arthurian empire through his conquests of
Ireland,
Iceland and the
Orkney Islands. After twelve years of peace, Arthur sets out to
expand his empire once more, taking control of
Norway,
Denmark
and Gaul.
Gaul is still held by the
Roman Empire when it is conquered, and Arthur's victory naturally
leads to a further confrontation between his empire and Rome's. Arthur
and his warriors, including
Kaius
(Kay),
Beduerus (Bedivere) and
Gualguanus
(Gawain), defeat the Roman emperor
Lucius Tiberius in Gaul but, as he prepares to march on Rome, Arthur
hears that his nephew
Modredus
(Mordred) – whom he had left in charge of Britain – has married his wife
Guenhuuara (Guinevere) and seized the throne. Arthur returns to
Britain and defeats and kills Modredus on the river Camblam in Cornwall,
but he is mortally wounded. He hands the crown to his kinsman
Constantine and is taken to the isle of
Avalon
to be healed of his wounds, never to be seen again.[48]
How much of this narrative was Geoffrey's own invention is open to
debate. Certainly, Geoffrey seems to have made use of the list of
Arthur's twelve battles against the Saxons found in the 9th-century
Historia Brittonum, along with the battle of Camlann from the
Annales Cambriae and the idea that Arthur was
still alive.[50]
Arthur's personal status as the king of all Britain would also seem to
be borrowed from pre-Galfridian tradition, being found in Culhwch and
Olwen, the
Triads and the Saints' Lives.[51]
Finally, Geoffrey borrowed many of the names for Arthur's possessions,
close family and companions from the pre-Galfridian Welsh tradition,
including Kaius (Cei), Beduerus (Bedwyr), Guenhuuara (Gwenhwyfar), Uther
(Uthyr) and perhaps also Caliburnus (Caledfwlch), the latter becoming
Excalibur in subsequent Arthurian tales.[52]
However, while names, key events and titles may have been borrowed,
Brynley Roberts has argued that "the Arthurian section is Geoffrey’s
literary creation and it owes nothing to prior narrative."[53]
So, for instance, the Welsh Medraut is made the villainous Modredus by
Geoffrey, but there is no trace of such a negative character for this
figure in Welsh sources until the 16th century.[54]
There have been relatively few modern attempts to challenge this notion
that the Historia Regum Britanniae is primarily Geoffrey's own
work, with scholarly opinion often echoing
William of Newburgh's late-12th-century comment that Geoffrey "made
up" his narrative, perhaps through an "inordinate love of lying".[55]
Geoffrey Ashe is one dissenter from this view, believing that
Geoffrey's narrative is partially derived from a lost source telling of
the deeds of a 5th-century British king named
Riotamus, this figure being the original Arthur, although historians
and Celticists have been reluctant to follow Ashe in his conclusions.[56]
Whatever his sources may have been, the immense popularity of
Geoffrey's Historia Regum Britanniae cannot be denied. Well over
200 manuscript copies of Geoffrey’s Latin work are known to have
survived, and this does not include translations into other languages.[57]
Thus, for example, around 60 manuscripts are extant containing
Welsh-language versions of the Historia, the earliest of which
were created in the 13th century; the old notion that some of these
Welsh versions actually underlie Geoffrey's Historia, advanced by
antiquarians such as the 18th-century Lewis Morris, has long since been
discounted in academic circles.[58]
As a result of this popularity, Geoffrey's Historia Regum Britanniae
was enormously influential on the later medieval development of the
Arthurian legend. While it was by no means the only creative force
behind Arthurian romance, many of its elements were borrowed and
developed (e.g., Merlin and the final fate of Arthur), and it provided
the historical framework into which the romancers' tales of magical and
wonderful adventures were inserted.[59]
Romance traditions
The popularity of Geoffrey's Historia and its other
derivative works (such as
Wace's
Roman de Brut) is generally agreed to be an important factor in
explaining the appearance of significant numbers of new Arthurian works
in continental Europe during the 12th and 13th centuries, particularly
in France.[60]
It was not, however, the only Arthurian influence on the developing "Matter
of Britain". There is clear evidence for a knowledge of Arthur and
Arthurian tales on the Continent before Geoffrey's work became widely
known (see for example, the
Modena Archivolt),[61]
as well as for the use of "Celtic" names and stories not found in
Geoffrey's Historia in the Arthurian
romances.[62]
From the perspective of Arthur, perhaps the most significant effect of
this great outpouring of new Arthurian story was on the role of the king
himself: much of this 12th-century and later Arthurian literature
centres less on Arthur himself than on characters such as
Lancelot and
Guenevere,
Perceval,
Galahad,
Gawain,
and
Tristan and Isolde. Whereas Arthur is very much at the centre of the
pre-Galfridian material and Geoffrey's Historia itself, in the
romances he is rapidly sidelined.[63]
His character also alters significantly. In both the earliest materials
and Geoffrey he is a great and ferocious warrior, who laughs as he
personally slaughters witches and giants and takes a leading role in all
military campaigns,[64]
whereas in the continental romances he becomes the roi fainéant,
the "do-nothing king", whose "inactivity and acquiescence constituted a
central flaw in his otherwise ideal society".[65]
Arthur's role in these works is frequently that of a wise, dignified,
even-tempered, somewhat bland, and occasionally feeble monarch. So, he
simply turns pale and silent when he learns of Lancelot's affair with
Guinevere in the Mort Artu, whilst in
Chrétien de Troyes's
Yvain, the Knight of the Lion he is unable to stay awake after a
feast and has to retire for a nap.[66]
Nonetheless, as
Norris J. Lacy has observed, whatever his faults and frailties may
be in these Arthurian romances, "his prestige is never – or almost never
– compromised by his personal weaknesses ... his authority and glory
remain intact."[67]
Arthur and his retinue appear in some of the
Lais of
Marie de France,[68]
but it was the work of another French poet, Chrétien de Troyes, that had
the greatest influence with regard to the above development of the
character of Arthur and his legend.[69]
Chrétien wrote five Arthurian romances between c. 1170 and c. 1190.
Erec and Enide and
Cligès
are tales of courtly love with Arthur's court as their backdrop,
demonstrating the shift away from the heroic world of the Welsh and
Galfridian Arthur, while Yvain, the Knight of the Lion features
Yvain and
Gawain in a supernatural adventure, with Arthur very much on the
sidelines and weakened. However, the most significant for the
development of the Arthurian legend are
Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart, which introduces Lancelot and
his adulterous relationship with Arthur's queen (Guinevere),
extending and popularizing the recurring theme of Arthur as a
cuckold,
and
Perceval, the Story of the Grail, which introduces the
Holy Grail and the
Fisher King and which again sees Arthur having a much reduced role.[70]
Chrétien was thus "instrumental both in the elaboration of the Arthurian
legend and in the establishment of the ideal form for the diffusion of
that legend",[71]
and much of what came after him in terms of the portrayal of Arthur and
his world built upon the foundations he had laid. Perceval,
although unfinished, was particularly popular: four separate
continuations of the poem appeared over the next half century, with the
notion of the Grail and its quest being developed by other writers such
as
Robert de Boron, a fact that helped accelerate the decline of Arthur
in continental romance.[72]
Similarly, Lancelot and his cuckolding of Arthur with Guinevere became
one of the classic motifs of the Arthurian legend, although the Lancelot
of the prose Lancelot (c. 1225) and later texts was a combination
of Chrétien's character and that of
Ulrich von Zatzikhoven's
Lanzelet.[73]
Chrétien's work even appears to feed back into Welsh Arthurian
literature, with the result that the romance Arthur began to replace the
heroic, active Arthur in Welsh literary tradition.[74]
Particularly significant in this development were the three Welsh
Arthurian romances, which are closely similar to those of Chrétien,
albeit with some significant differences:
Owain, or the Lady of the Fountain is related to Chrétien's
Yvain;
Geraint and Enid, to Erec and Enide; and
Peredur son of Efrawg, to Perceval.[75]
The Round Table experience a vision of the
Holy Grail. From a 15th century French manuscript.
Up to c. 1210, continental Arthurian romance was expressed
primarily through poetry; after this date the tales began to be told in
prose. The most significant of these 13th-century prose romances was the
Vulgate Cycle, (also known as the Lancelot-Grail Cycle), a series of
five Middle French prose works written in the first half of that
century.[76]
These works were the Estoire del Saint Grail, the Estoire de
Merlin, the Lancelot propre (or Prose Lancelot, which
made up half the entire Vulgate Cycle on its own), the Queste del
Saint Graal and the Mort Artu, which combine to form the
first coherent version of the entire Arthurian legend. The cycle
continued the trend towards reducing the role played by Arthur in his
own legend, partly through the introduction of the character of Galahad
and an expansion of the role of Merlin. It also made Mordred the result
of an
incestuous relationship between Arthur and his sister and
established the role of
Camelot,
first mentioned in passing in Chrétien's Lancelot, as Arthur's
primary court.[77]
This series of texts was quickly followed by the
Post-Vulgate Cycle (c. 1230–40), of which the Suite du Merlin
is a part, which greatly reduced the importance of Lancelot's affair
with Guinevere but continued to sideline Arthur, now in order to focus
more on the Grail quest.[76]
As such, Arthur became even more of a relatively minor character in
these French prose romances; in the Vulgate itself he only figures
significantly in the Estoire de Merlin and the Mort Artu.
The development of the medieval Arthurian cycle and the character
of the "Arthur of romance" culminated in
Le Morte d'Arthur,
Thomas Malory's retelling of the entire legend in a single work in
English in the late 15th century. Malory based his book – originally
titled The Whole Book of King Arthur and of His Noble Knights of the
Round Table – on the various previous romance versions, in
particular the Vulgate Cycle, and appears to have aimed at creating a
comprehensive and authoritative collection of Arthurian stories.[78]
Perhaps as a result of this, and the fact that Le Morte D'Arthur
was one of the earliest printed books in England, published by
William Caxton in 1485, most later Arthurian works are derivative of
Malory's.[79]
Decline, revival, and the modern legend
Post-medieval literature
The end of the Middle Ages brought with it a waning of interest in
King Arthur. Although Malory's English version of the great French
romances was popular, there were increasing attacks upon the
truthfulness of the historical framework of the Arthurian romances –
established since Geoffrey of Monmouth's time – and thus the legitimacy
of the whole
Matter of Britain. So, for example, the 16th-century humanist
scholar
Polydore Vergil famously rejected the claim that Arthur was the
ruler of a post-Roman empire, found throughout the post-Galfridian
medieval "chronicle tradition", to the horror of Welsh and English
antiquarians.[80]
Social changes associated with the end of the medieval period and the
Renaissance also conspired to rob the character of Arthur and his
associated legend of some of their power to enthral audiences, with the
result that 1634 saw the last printing of Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur
for nearly 200 years.[81]
King Arthur and the Arthurian legend were not entirely abandoned, but
until the early 19th century the material was taken less seriously and
was often used simply as vehicle for allegories of 17th- and
18th-century politics.[82]
Thus
Richard Blackmore's epics Prince Arthur (1695) and King
Arthur (1697) feature Arthur as an allegory for the struggles of
William III against
James II.[82]
Similarly, the most popular Arthurian tale throughout this period seems
to have been that of
Tom
Thumb, which was told first through
chapbooks and later through the political plays of
Henry Fielding; although the action is clearly set in Arthurian
Britain, the treatment is humorous and Arthur appears as a primarily
comedic version of his romance character.[83]
Tennyson and the revival
In the early 19th century,
medievalism,
Romanticism, and the
Gothic Revival reawakened interest in the Arthur and the medieval
romances. A new code of ethics for 19th-century gentlemen was shaped
around the
chivalric ideals that the "Arthur of romance" embodied. This renewed
interest first made itself felt in 1816, when Malory's Le Morte
d'Arthur was reprinted for the first time since 1634.[84]
Initially the medieval Arthurian legends were of particular interest to
poets, inspiring, for example,
William Wordsworth to write "The Egyptian Maid" (1835), an allegory
of the
Holy Grail.[85]
Pre-eminent among these was
Alfred Lord Tennyson, whose first Arthurian poem, "The
Lady of Shalott", was published in 1832.[86]
Although Arthur himself played a minor role in some of these works,
following in the medieval romance tradition, Tennyson's Arthurian work
reached its peak of popularity with
Idylls of the King, which reworked the entire narrative of
Arthur's life for the
Victorian era. First published in 1859, it sold 10,000 copies within
the first week.[87]
In the Idylls, Arthur became a symbol of ideal manhood whose
attempt to establish a perfect kingdom on earth fails, finally, through
human weakness.[88]
Tennyson's works prompted a large number of imitators, generated
considerable public interest in the legends of Arthur and the character
himself, and brought Malory’s tales to a wider audience.[89]
Indeed, the first modernization of Malory's great compilation of
Arthur's tales was published shortly after Idylls appeared, in
1862, and there were six further editions and five competitors before
the century ended.[90]
This interest in the "Arthur of romance" and his associated
stories continued through the 19th century and into the 20th, and
influenced poets such as
William Morris and
Pre-Raphaelite artists including
Edward Burne-Jones.[91]
Even the humorous tale of
Tom
Thumb, which had been the primary manifestation of Arthur's legend
in the 18th century, was rewritten after the publication of Idylls.
While Tom maintained his small stature and remained a figure of comic
relief, his story now included more elements from the medieval Arthurian
romances, and Arthur is treated more seriously and historically in these
new versions.[92]
The revived Arthurian romance also proved influential in the United
States, with such books as Sidney Lanier's The Boy's King Arthur
(1880) reaching wide audiences and providing inspiration for
Mark Twain's satiric
A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (1889).[93]
Although the "Arthur of romance" was sometimes central to these new
Arthurian works (as he was in Burne-Jones's
The Last Sleep of Arthur in Avalon, 1881–1898), on other
occasions he reverted back to his medieval status and is either
marginalised or even missing entirely, with
Wagner's Arthurian operas providing a notable instance of the
latter.[94]
Furthermore, the revival of interest in Arthur and the Arthurian tales
did not continue unabated. By the end of the 19th century, it was
confined mainly to Pre-Raphaelite imitators,[95]
and it could not avoid being affected by the
First World War, which damaged the reputation of chivalry and thus
interest in its medieval manifestations and Arthur as chivalric role
model.[96]
The romance tradition did, however, remain sufficiently powerful to
persuade
Thomas Hardy,
Laurence Binyon and
John Masefield to compose Arthurian plays,[97]
and
T. S. Eliot alludes to the Arthur myth (but not Arthur) in his poem
The Waste Land, which mentions the
Fisher King.[98]
Modern legend
The combat of Arthur and
Mordred, illustrated by
N.C. Wyeth for The Boy's King Arthur, 1922
In the latter half of the 20th century, the influence of the
romance tradition of Arthur continued, through novels such as
T. H. White's
The Once and Future King (1958) and
Marion Zimmer Bradley's
The Mists of Avalon (1982) in addition to comic strips such as
Prince Valiant (from 1937 onward).[99]
Tennyson had reworked the romance tales of Arthur to suit and comment
upon the issues of his day, and the same is often the case with modern
treatments too. Bradley's tale, for example, takes a
feminist approach to Arthur and his legend, in contrast to the
narratives of Arthur found in medieval materials.[100]
The romance Arthur has become popular in film as well. The musical
Camelot, with its focus on the love of Lancelot and Guinevere
and the cuckolding of Arthur, was made into a film in 1967. The romance
tradition of Arthur is particularly evident and, according to critics,
successfully handled in
Robert Bresson's
Lancelot du Lac (1974),
Eric Rohmer's
Perceval le Gallois (1978) and perhaps
John Boorman's fantasy film
Excalibur (1981); it is also the main source of the material
utilised in the Arthurian spoof
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975).[101]
Re-tellings and re-imaginings of the romance tradition are not the
only important aspect of the modern legend of King Arthur. Attempts to
portray Arthur as a genuine historical figure of c. 500 AD, stripping
away the "romance", have also emerged. As Taylor and Brewer have noted,
this return to the medieval "chronicle tradition"' of
Geoffrey of Monmouth and the
Historia Brittonum is a recent trend which became dominant in
Arthurian literature in the years following the outbreak of the
Second World War, when Arthur's legendary resistance to Germanic
invaders struck a chord in Britain.[102]
Clemence Dane's series of radio plays, The Saviours (1942),
used a historical Arthur to embody the spirit of heroic resistance
against desperate odds, and
Robert Sherriff's play The Long Sunset (1955) saw Arthur
rallying Romano-British resistance against the Germanic invaders.[103]
This trend towards placing Arthur in a historical setting is also
apparent in
historical and
fantasy novels published during this period.[104]
In recent years the portrayal of Arthur as a real hero of the 5th
century has also made its way into film versions of the Arthurian
legend, most notably
King Arthur (2004) and
The Last Legion (2007).[105]
Arthur has also been used as a model for modern-day behaviour. In
the 1930s, the Order of the Fellowship of the Knights of the Round Table
formed in Britain to promote Christian ideals and Arthurian notions of
medieval chivalry.[106]
In the United States, hundreds of thousands of boys and girls joined
Arthurian youth groups, such as the Knights of King Arthur, in which
Arthur and his legends were promoted as wholesome exemplars.[107]
However, Arthur's diffusion within contemporary culture goes beyond such
obviously Arthurian endeavours, with Arthurian names being regularly
attached to objects, buildings and places. As Norris J. Lacy has
observed, "The popular notion of Arthur appears to be limited, not
surprisingly, to a few motifs and names, but there can be no doubt of
the extent to which a legend born many centuries ago is profoundly
embedded in modern culture at every level."[108]
See also
Notes
- ^
Barber 1986, p. 141
- ^
Higham 2002, pp. 11–37, has a
summary of the debate on this point.
- ^
Charles-Edwards 1991,
p. 15; Sims-Williams 1991.
Y Gododdin cannot be dated precisely: it describes
6th-century events and contains 9th- or 10th- century spelling, but
the surviving copy is 13th-century.
- ^
Thorpe 1966, but see also
Loomis 1956
- ^ See
Padel 1994;
Sims-Williams 1991;
Green 2007b; and
Roberts 1991a
- ^
Dumville 1986;
Higham 2002, pp. 116–69;
Green 2007b, pp. 15–26,
30–38.
- ^
Green 2007b, pp. 26–30;
Koch 1996, pp. 251–53.
- ^
Charles-Edwards 1991,
p. 29
- ^
Morris 1973
- ^
Myres 1986, p. 16
- ^ Gildas,
De Excidio Britanniae, chapter 26.
- ^
Pryor 2004, pp. 22–27
- ^ Bede,
Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum,
Book 1.16.
- ^
Dumville 1977, pp. 187–88
-
^ Green 1998;
Padel 1994;
Green 2007b, chapters five
and seven.
- ^
Historia Brittonum
56;
Annales Cambriae
516, 537.
- ^ For
example, Ashley 2005.
- ^
Heroic Age 1999
- ^ Modern
scholarship views the Glastonbury cross as the result of a probably
late 12th-century fraud. See Rahtz
1993 and Carey 1999.
- ^ These
range from
Lucius Artorius Castus, a Roman officer who served in Britain in
the 2nd century (Littleton
& Malcor 1994), to Roman usurper emperors such as
Magnus Maximus or sub-Roman British rulers such as
Riotamus (Ashe 1985),
Ambrosius Aurelianus (Reno 1996),
Owain Ddantgwyn (Phillips
& Keatman 1992), and
Athrwys ap Meurig (Gilbert,
Wilson & Blackett 1998)
- ^
Malone 1925
- ^ See
Higham 2002, p. 74.
- ^
Koch 1996, p. 253. See further
Malone 1925 and
Green 2007b, p. 255 on how
Artorius would regular take the form Arthur when borrowed
into Welsh.
- ^
a
b
Griffen 1994
- ^
Harrison, Henry (1996) [1912].
Surnames of the United Kingdom: A Concise Etymological Dictionary.
Genealogical Publishing Company.
ISBN 0-806-30171-6.
http://books.google.com/books?id=H1msWqD0SA4C.
Retrieved on 2008-10-21.
- ^
Anderson 2004, pp. 28–29;
Green 2007b, pp. 191–94.
- ^
Green 2007b, pp. 178–87.
- ^
Green 2007b, pp. 45–176
- ^
Green 2007b, pp. 93–130
- ^
Padel 1994 has a thorough
discussion of this aspect of Arthur's character.
- ^
Green 2007b, pp. 135–76. On
his possessions and wife, see also
Ford 1983.
- ^
Williams 1937, p. 64, line
1242
- ^
Charles-Edwards 1991,
p. 15; Koch 1996, pp. 242–45;
Green 2007b, pp. 13–15,
50–52.
- ^ See, for
example, Haycock
1983–84 and Koch 1996,
pp. 264–65.
- ^ Online
translations of this poem are out-dated and inaccurate. See
Haycock 2007, pp. 293–311,
for a full translation, and Green
2007b, p. 197 for a discussion of its Arthurian aspects.
- ^ See, for
example, Green 2007b,
pp. 54–67 and Budgey 1992,
who includes a translation.
- ^
Koch & Carey 1994,
pp. 314–15
- ^
Sims-Williams 1991,
pp. 38–46 has a full translation and analysis of this poem.
- ^ For a
discussion of the tale, see
Bromwich & Evans 1992;
see also Padel 1994, pp. 2–4;
Roberts 1991a; and
Green 2007b, pp. 67–72 and
chapter three.
- ^
Barber 1986, pp. 17–18, 49;
Bromwich 1978
- ^
Roberts 1991a, pp. 78, 81
- ^
Roberts 1991a
- ^
Translated in Coe & Young 1995,
pp. 22–27. On the Glastonbury tale and its Otherworldly antecedents,
see Sims-Williams 1991,
pp. 58–61.
- ^
Coe & Young 1995, pp. 26–37
- ^ See
Ashe 1985 for an attempt to use
this vita as a historical source.
- ^
Padel 1994, pp. 8–12;
Green 2007b, pp. 72–5, 259,
261–2; Bullock-Davies
1982
- ^
Wright 1985;
Thorpe 1966
- ^ Geoffrey
of Monmouth, Historia Regum Britanniae
Book 8.19–24,
Book 9,
Book 10,
Book 11.1–2
- ^
Thorpe 1966
- ^
Roberts 1991b, p. 106;
Padel 1994, pp. 11–12
- ^
Green 2007b, pp. 217–19
- ^
Roberts 1991b, pp. 109–10,
112; Bromwich & Evans 1992,
pp. 64–5
- ^
Roberts 1991b, p. 108
- ^
Bromwich 1978, pp. 454–55
- ^ See, for
example, Brooke 1986, p. 95.
- ^
Ashe 1985, p. 6;
Padel 1995, p. 110;
Higham 2002, p. 76.
- ^
Crick 1989
- ^
Sweet 2004, p. 140. See
further, Roberts 1991b and
Roberts 1980.
- ^ As noted
by, for example, Ashe 1996.
- ^ For
example, Thorpe 1966, p. 29
- ^
Stokstad 1996
- ^
Loomis 1956;
Bromwich 1983;
Bromwich 1991.
- ^
Lacy 1996a, p. 16;
Morris 1982, p. 2.
- ^ For
example, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia Regum Britanniae
Book 10.3.
- ^
Padel 2000, p. 81
- ^
Morris 1982, pp. 99–102;
Lacy 1996a, p. 17.
- ^
Lacy 1996a, p. 17
- ^
Burgess & Busby 1999
- ^
Lacy 1996b
- ^
Kibler & Carroll 1991,
p. 1
- ^
Lacy 1996b, p. 88
- ^
Roach 1949–83
- ^
Ulrich, von
Zatzikhoven 2005
- ^
Padel 2000, pp. 77–82
- ^ See
Jones & Jones 1949 for
accurate translations of all three texts. It is not entirely certain
what, exactly, the relationship is between these Welsh romances and
Chrétien's works, however: see Koch
1996, pp. 280–88 for a survey of opinions
- ^
a
b
Lacy 1992–96
- ^ For a
study of this cycle, see Burns
1985.
- ^ On
Malory and his work, see Field
1993 and Field 1998.
- ^
Vinaver 1990
- ^
Carley 1984
- ^
Parins 1995, p. 5
- ^
a
b
Ashe 1968, pp. 20–21;
Merriman 1973
- ^
Green 2007a
- ^
Parins 1995, pp. 8–10
- ^
Wordsworth 1835
- ^ See
Potwin 1902 for the sources
Tennyson used when writing this poem
- ^
Taylor & Brewer 1983,
p. 127
- ^ See
Rosenberg 1973 and
Taylor & Brewer 1983,
pp. 89–128 for analyses of The Idylls of the King.
- ^ See, for
example, Simpson 1990.
- ^
Staines 1996, p. 449
- ^
Taylor & Brewer 1983,
pp. 127–161; Mancoff 1990.
- ^
Green 2007a, p. 127;
Gamerschlag 1983
- ^
Twain 1889;
Smith & Thompson 1996.
- ^
Watson 2002
- ^
Mancoff 1990
- ^
Workman 1994
- ^
Hardy 1923;
Binyon 1923; and
Masefield 1927
- ^
Eliot 1949;
Barber 2004, pp. 327–28
- ^
White 1958;
Bradley 1982;
Tondro 2002, p. 170
- ^
Lagorio 1996
- ^
Harty 1996;
Harty 1997
- ^
Taylor & Brewer 1983,
chapter nine; see also Higham
2002, pp. 21–22, 30.
- ^
Thompson 1996, p. 141
- ^ For
example:
Rosemary Sutcliff's
The Lantern Bearers (1959) and
Sword at Sunset (1963);
Mary Stewart's
The Crystal Cave (1970) and its sequels;
Parke Godwin's Firelord (1980) and its sequels;
Stephen Lawhead's
Pendragon Cycle (1987–99);
Nikolai Tolstoy's
The Coming of the King (1988);
Jack Whyte's
Camulod Chronicles (1992–97); and
Bernard Cornwell's
The Warlord Chronicles (1995–97). See
List of books about King Arthur.
- ^
King Arthur at the
Internet Movie Database;
The Last Legion at the
Internet Movie Database
- ^
Thomas 1993, pp. 128–31
- ^
Lupack 2002, p. 2;
Forbush & Forbush 1915
-
^
Lacy 1996c, p. 364
References
-
Anderson, Graham (2004), King Arthur in Antiquity, London:
Routledge,
ISBN 978-0415317146 .
-
Ashe, Geoffrey (1985), The Discovery of King Arthur, Garden
City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday,
ISBN 978-0385190329 .
-
Ashe, Geoffrey (1996), "Geoffrey of Monmouth", in Lacy, Norris,
The New Arthurian Encyclopedia, New York: Garland, pp. 179–82,
ISBN 978-1568654324 .
-
Ashe, Geoffrey (1968), "The Visionary Kingdom", in Ashe, Geoffrey,
The Quest for Arthur's Britain, London: Granada,
ISBN 0586080449
-
Ashley, Michael (2005), The Mammoth Book of King Arthur,
London: Robinson,
ISBN 978-1841192499 .
-
Barber, Richard (1986), King Arthur: Hero and Legend,
Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press,
ISBN 0851152546