King Arthur, An Enduring Legend Essay, Research Paper

Clodfelter 1

Christopher Clodfelter

English 201

Mr. Miller

February 14, 1999

King Arthur, an Enduring Legend

The mystical mentions to Arthur and his escapades are dated in literature in some signifier for over 1400 old ages, verifying the digesting entreaty of this romantic character. Since the beginnings of the English linguistic communication there have been fables of great heroes. The first colonies of Britain produced narratives rooted in ancient Celtic and Germanic imaginativeness ; of the many, Arthur is undoubtedly preeminent.

The earliest known description of Arthur? s baronial enterprises was written by Gildas, ( ca. 490-540 ) the writer of De excidio et conquestu Britanniae makes mention, albeit vague, to an Arthurian figure ; nevertheless, the name Arthur is non mentioned in the narrative ( Strayer 564 ) . The full flourish of Hagiographas associated with his marvelous efforts and triumphs do non make a crescendo for several hundred old ages after Gildas ( Strayer 564 ) . During the Middle Ages, nevertheless, Arthurian myth was outstanding and en trend and efforts to detect the truth behind the myth have been pursued for coevalss.

Arthur & # 8217 ; s history, as Geoffrey Ashe reminds us in The Discovery of King Arthur, is & # 8220 ; more than merely a potpourri of narrations, more than merely a saga in the romanticism of myth. It puts him within a definite period. It names definite topographic points and takes him to definite states & # 8221 ; ( 3 ) . It is this fact and the fragmental, frequently contradictory mentions of an Arthur ( the Latin & # 8220 ; Artur, & # 8221 ; ” Arturius, & # 8221 ; or & # 8220 ; Artorius & # 8221 ; ) from antediluvian records, that lends adequate cogency to the narrative to put research workers on the

Clodfelter 2

trail of the legendary male monarch. However, advancement has been stymied for a figure of grounds and even now we can state small of substance about the adult male behind the myth.

A major trouble confronting research workers is that the function of the historiographer in the Dark Ages was instead flexible ; a mixture of narrator and propagandist whose regional traditions, personal biass, and truenesss were bound to greatly act upon the nature of its stuff ( Coglan 214 ) . In Arthur, Richard Barber clarifies this fact and speaks of the early inclination to utilize history as & # 8220 ; ? an inspiration or as a warning to the work forces of the present, or as portion of a huge Godhead strategy for adult male & # 8217 ; s religious redemption & # 8221 ; ( Coglan 7 ) . Another job facing historiographers is that the earliest beginnings we have are ne’er masters, but transcripts, and sing their age we must let for the extension of mistakes. One possible such mistake is found in the Annals of Wales, written in the 10th century. Its entry refering the Battle of Badon claims that Arthur carried Christ & # 8217 ; s cross on his shoulder for three yearss, but it? s likely that & # 8220 ; shoulder & # 8221 ; should alternatively be & # 8220 ; shield, & # 8221 ; due to confusion between the Welsh words & # 8220 ; scuid & # 8221 ; and & # 8220 ; scuit & # 8221 ; ( Alcock 51-52 ) . The hunt for the truth of fable continues.

Possibly the best known of all Arthurian fables is that of Geoffrey of Monmouth. His History of the Kings of Britain, ( ca. 1136 ) & # 8220 ; Besides seting extremely erroneous impressions of British history, & # 8230 ; supplied a footing and model for Arthurian love affair and exerted an influence widening through Spenser, Shakespeare, and many others & # 8221 ; ( Coglan 209 ) . In it, Geoffrey recounts the history of Britain & # 8217 ; s leaders back to their beginning in 1115 BC to King Cadwallader & # 8217 ; s decease in AD 689. Geoffrey & # 8217 ; s history, though most agree non purely factual, offers a clear expression into the events environing Arthur & # 8217 ; s decease and is the get downing point for much probe ( Coglan 214 ) . Geoffrey & # 8217 ; s work was vastly popular and was non criticized during his life-time

Clodfelter 3

( Goodrich 45 ) . Modern historiographers, nevertheless, have many grounds to be disbelieving of Geoffrey & # 8217 ; s work. The most obvious job is its anachronic representation of a purportedly fifth century male monarch in a really Norman England ; as was typical of historiographers in his twenty-four hours, Geoffrey superimposed his modern-day civilization upon his word picture of the yesteryear ( Goodrich 47 ) . Many inaccuracies exist in his description of the period.

If there is an Arthur, he will non be a brilliant Christian male monarch sitting astride a heavy Byzantine courser, accoutered in Norman home base armour. He will non be enjoying in a mighty palace between European jaunts with a set of international knights ; instead, he will be no more than an unkempt and perchance heathen military leader with small if any armour. He will probably hold a little nut

tourage of hired regional soldiers and live in no better than a rough wooden fortress. Amazingly, Geoffrey’s glowering inaccuracies were converting adequate to happen their manner into the Oxford History of England, written in 1937 ( 332 ) . Geoffrey besides made immense geographical mistakes, such as puting King Arthur in Cornwall ( Goodrich 42 ) . He made mistakes in church history such as puting an Archbishop in Canterbury in Arthur’s life-time and an Archbishop in Caerleon ( Brooke 202 ) . Inaccuracies aside, Geoffrey? s romantic, fictional word pictures have endured.

Geoffrey is clearly a fiction author, but there is small uncertainty that he drew from older plants both historical and fictional. & # 8220 ; Besides Roman historians he draws upon Gildas, Nennius, Bede, and likely the Annales Cambriae, every bit good as Welsh genealogical and hagiographic affair ; yet an probe into these older paperss shed small light upon Arthur ( Coglan 212 ) . Gildas & # 8217 ; De Excidio Britanniae, mentioned earlier and despite its obviously erroneous historical subdivision, is considered a cardinal beginning merely because it? s the lone one coeval to Arthur & # 8217 ; s clip. In it Gildas describes how a powerful swayer summoned Saxon aid against his enemies merely to happen

Clodfelter 4

that the Saxons had themselves become a menace. The Britons fought back under Ambrosius Aurelianus and had a series of triumphs which culminated at Badon, a conflict normally attributed to Arthur ( Strayer 565 ) . Once once more, nevertheless, Gildas makes no reference of Arthur by name ( Strayer 564 ) . This silence, nevertheless, is non considered damaging to subsequently claims. & # 8220 ; With & # 8230 ; Arthur, [ Gildas ] might hold been soundless because of his biass or because of a spread in his information. When he is covering with events beyond populating memory that information is surely thin ; he leaves out of import people who can be proved to hold lived & # 8221 ; ( Ashe 67 ) .

The following of import papers is Nennius & # 8217 ; Historia Brittonum, 800 AD ; nevertheless, much of his work contains mistakes and incompatibilities and so is non trusted really much for truth ( Coglan 404 ) . Nennius is the first to really advert Arthur & # 8217 ; s name and he gives a list of 12 conflicts attributed to Arthur. Harmonizing to Nennius, Arthur was non a male monarch, but a dux belloram & # 8211 ; a leader of conflicts ( Coglan 405 ) . The earliest reference of Arthur & # 8217 ; s decease 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 be, there is a certain given that a existent Arthur must underlie [ this ] questionable [ claim ] & # 8221 ; ( Coglan 8 ) . While much of the information in the Annales is taken from Nennius, there is besides grounds of early Celtic and Irish beginnings and it becomes inconsistent at certain points. However, the dating is of import in following a possible history for Arthur and the entries for Arthur are lent more cogency because of the other figures mentioned there ( Coglan 8 ) . These are the primary beginnings for Arthurian surveies, although there are other early paperss which make some mention to a powerful warrior named Arthur.

Despite valorous attempts of Arthurian historiographers to glimpse through the fog of the Dark Ages, Arthur has remained shrouded in enigma. King Arthur, nevertheless legendary he may be, is

Clodfelter 5

still popular as a romantic hero and therefore we may anticipate these bad pseudo-historical plants to go on. In decision, I think Hollister ( citing James Campbell ) summed it up instead good: as James Campbell sagely said, & # 8220 ; The natural frailty of historiographers is to claim to cognize about the past. & # 8221 ; But with regard to fifth and 6th century Britain, & # 8220 ; what truly happened will ne’er be known & # 8221 ; ( 29 ) .

Strayer, Joseph Reese. , et Al. Dictionary of the Middle Ages. Vol. 1. New York:

Scribner? s, 1982.

Alcock, Leslie. Arthur & # 8217 ; s Britain. London: Penguin Press, 1971.

Ashe, Geoffrey. The Discovery of King Arthur. New York: Anchor Press, 1985.

Brooke, Christopher. & # 8220 ; The Archbishops of St. David & # 8217 ; s, Llandaff, and Caerleon-on-the-

Usk. & # 8221 ; Surveies in the Early British Church. erectile dysfunction. 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.