.JPG)
King Arthur: Legend and History
.jpg)
The Historical Arthur
The historical basis for King Arthur has been long debated by scholars. One school of thought, citing entries in the Historia Brittonum (History of the Britons) and Annales Cambriae (Welsh Annals), saw 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, contains the first datable mention of King Arthur, listing twelve battles that Arthur fought. These culminate in the Battle of Badon, where he is said to have single-handedly killed 960 men. Recent studies question the reliability of the Historia Brittonum. Archaeological evidence in the Low Countries and what was to become England shows early Anglo-Saxon migration to Great Britain reversed between 500 and 550, which concurs with Frankish chronicles. John Davies notes this as consistent with the British victory at Badon Hill, attributed to Arthur by Nennius. The monks of Glastonbury are also said to have discovered the grave of Arthur in 1180. The other text that seems to support the case for Arthur's historical existence is the 10th-century Annales Cambriae, which also links Arthur with the Battle of 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 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 Badon entry is probably derived from the Historia Brittonum. This lack of convincing early evidence is the reason many recent historians exclude Arthur from their accounts of sub-Roman Britain. In the view of historian Thomas Charles-Edwards, "At this stage of the inquiry, 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". These modern admissions of ignorance are a relatively recent trend; earlier generations of historians were less skeptical. The historian John Morris made the putative reign of Arthur the organizing principle of his history of sub-Roman Britain and Ireland, The Age of Arthur (1973). Even so, he found little to say about a historical Arthur. 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 the archaeologist Nowell Myres to observe that "no figure on the borderline of history and mythology has wasted more of the historian's time". Gildas's 6th-century polemic De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae (On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain), written within living memory of Badon, mentions the battle but does not mention Arthur. Arthur is not mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle or named in any surviving manuscript written between 400 and 820. 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 Badon. The historian David Dumville wrote: "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." 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 Hengist and Horsa, who may be totemic horse-gods that later became historicised. Bede ascribed to these legendary figures a historical role in the 5th-century Anglo-Saxon conquest of eastern Britain. 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 bellorum" (leader of wars) and "miles" (soldier). Details of Arthur's story are mainly composed of Welsh mythology, English folklore, and literary invention, and most historians of the period do not think that he was a historical figure. Because historical documents for the post-Roman period are scarce, 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, 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. Other inscriptional evidence for Arthur, including the Glastonbury cross, is tainted with the suggestion of forgery. Andrew Breeze has recently argued that Arthur was historical, and claimed to have identified the locations of his battles as well as the place and date of his death (in the context of the extreme weather events of 535–536), but his conclusions are disputed. Other scholars have questioned his findings, which they consider are based on coincidental resemblances between place names. Nicholas Higham comments that it is difficult to justify identifying Arthur as the leader in northern battles listed in the Historia Brittonum while rejecting the implication in the same work that they were fought against Anglo-Saxons and that there is no textual justification for separating Badon from the other battles. Several historical figures have been proposed as the basis for Arthur, ranging from Lucius Artorius Castus, a Roman officer who served in Britain in the 2nd or 3rd century, to sub-Roman British rulers such as Riotamus, Ambrosius Aurelianus, and the Welsh kings Owain Ddantgwyn, Enniaun Girt, and Athrwys ap Meurig. However, no convincing evidence for these identifications has emerged.
ARTHURIAN BIBLIOGRAPHY: https://mason.gmu.edu/~rutledge/classes/arthurbibl.html
Recommended Media
Web Resources
Print:
THE MATTER OF BRITAIN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_of_BritainOVERVIEW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_ArthurOVERVIEW: https://www.britannica.com/topic/King-ArthurOVERVIEW (with video): https://www.britannica.com/topic/King-ArthurOVERVIEW (with video): https://www.worldhistory.org/King_Arthur/OVERVIEW (Arthurian website): https://kingarthursknights.com/ARTHURIAN CHARACTERS (With links to separate biographies): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Arthurian_charactersMERLIN: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Merlin-legendary-magicianMERLIN: https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends-europe/legendary-origins-merlin-magician-002627
MERLIN: https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2021/11/merlin-the-magician.html
LADY OF THE LAKE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_of_the_LakeMORGANA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_le_FayMORGANA: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Morgan-le-Fay
GUINEVERE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GuinevereGUINEVERE: https://www.worldhistory.org/Guinevere/
LANCELOT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LancelotMORDRED: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MordredPERCIVAL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PercivalGAWAIN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawain
Video:
HISTORY OF ARTHURIAN LEGEND: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRgFsZ_kRAUTRUTH OF ARTHURIAN LEGENDS (TED Talk): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBsY88Lir-ALIFE AND LEGEND (Bio-graphics): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fuVAnAZXHUSHORT OVERVIEW (from UNEXPLAINED): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRbFsUcDElIOVERVIEW (50 minute documentary): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1VO-MzfBYAMERLIN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1VO-MzfBYALADY OF THE LAKE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdOYAcgtm30MORGANA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkZHLgydExgGUINEVERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ywxJcW0ewMLANCELOT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP3BydQJPJ8MORDRED: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT20LVUSzQ0PERCIVAL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvlyUNsaqJMGAWAIN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhaOeBF9QI4
.jpg)
Arthur's Name
Even the very name of Arthur has been a cause of controversy. Is it Welsh? Is it actually from a Roman name? / As you’ll see, even his name is a source of scholarly fights. The most widely accepted etymology derives Arthur’s name from the Roman family name Artorius. Linguist Stephan Zimmer suggests Artorius possibly had a Celtic origin, being a Latinization of a hypothetical name Artorījos, in turn derived from an older patronym Arto-rīg-ios, meaning "son of the bear/warrior-king". Further, arto-rīg, "bear/warrior-king", is also the source of the Old Irish personal name Artrí. Interestingly, King Arthur's name only appears as Arthur or Arturus in early Latin Arthurian texts, never as Artōrius. However, this may not say anything about the origin of the name Arthur, as Artōrius would regularly become Art(h)ur when borrowed into Welsh. Another commonly proposed derivation of Arthur comes from the Welsh arth "bear" + (g)wr "man" (earlier Arto-uiros in Brittonic) is not accepted by modern scholars for phonological (speech sounds) and orthographic (spelling) reasons. An alternative theory, which has gained limited acceptance among professional scholars, derives the name Arthur from Arcturus, the brightest star in the constellation Boötes, near Ursa Major or the Great Bear. 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” and the "leader" of the other stars in Boötes. All of this is important to scholars, but it shows us laypersons that even the very name of Arthur is freighted with controversy.
See: https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1068/the-historical-king-arthur/See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur#Name See: https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/the-life-and-times-of-king-arthur/
See: https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1068/the-historical-king-arthur/See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur#Name See: https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/the-life-and-times-of-king-arthur/
The Lady of the Lake
Merlin
Morgana
Arthurian Myth and Legend
Arthur, a Celtic king born of deceit and adultery, grew to become one of the most famous rulers of Britain. He was a warrior, a knight, and a king who killed giants, witches, and monsters and led a band of heroes on many daring adventures. He is known for his Knights of the Round Table and for uniting the peoples of his land. Even though his end was tragic, he is still known and celebrated all over the world today. His story is painted on the halls of the British Parliament. Arthur's story begins with Uther Pendragon, his father. Pendragon is smitten by Igraine, the wife of the Duke of Cornwall. Disguising himself as Igraine's husband he sneaks into her bed and she conceives Arthur. Merlin the wizard raises Arthur away from his parents. It is Merlin who had designed for Arthur's father Uther a great Round Table at which 150 knights could sit. Upon Uther's death, the knights do not know who should take his place. Merlin tells them that whoever could draw a mysterious sword out of a stone should be the next king. Many try but all fail. Then one day Arthur, who is attending to his foster brother Sir Kay, is sent to find a sword to replace his brother's broken one. He comes upon the magical sword Excalibur in the stone and, not knowing the prophecy, draws it out. Thus, he is proclaimed the new king. Arthur unites Britain and drives off the invading Saxons. He becomes a benevolent and well-loved king. His reign is known for its heroic deeds and chivalric romance. In fact, the name of his castle, Camelot, has come to signify a golden age. The greatest quest of Arthur and his Knights is the quest for the mythical Holy Grail, the cup from which Jesus drank at the Last Supper. While King Arthur is never to find the Holy Grail himself, his knight Sir Galahad does because of his purity of heart. King Arthur marries Guinevere, daughter of the King of Scotland. Merlin tries to warn him against the marriage because Guinevere is in love with Sir Lancelot, one of Arthur's knights. When Arthur discovers that his wife and Sir Lancelot are having an affair, Sir Lancelot flees for France and Arthur pursues him. In his absence, Arthur's nephew Mordred seizes power. Arthur returns to Britain and a terrible battle ensues, during which most of his knights die and he is grievously wounded. He has Excalibur thrown back into the lake and boards a boat for the magical Isle of Avalon. Here, he hopes to be cured of his wounds so that he might return to lead his people again. For this reason, Arthur is called "the once and future king."
LIST OF WORKS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_based_on_Arthurian_legendsMATTER OF BRITAIN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_of_BritainARTHURIAN CHARACTERS: https://mythbank.com/list-of-arthurian-characters-and-groups/ARTHURIAN CHARACTERS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arthurian_characters