King Arthur - how his story grew in the telling
Posted: Sat May 16, 2015 4:06 pm
Many of us know the story of Arthur Pendragon, former King of Britain around 500 CE. He demonstrated his legitimacy by pulling a sword out of a stone, and he went on to conquer not only Britain but also nearby parts of Continental Europe. He and his friends had lots of colorful adventures, but his empire eventually fell. He is mortally wounded in the process, and he gets sent off to recover at the legendary island of Avalon.
But there is a curious lack of documentation from contemporary outside sources. They are rather limited, but they exist.
Instead, the first reference to him is around 820, in History Brittonum (History of the Britons). Some versions contain a preface by a Welsh cleric named Nennius, but aside from that, its authorship is unknown. Arthur appears as a dux bellorum (military leader) and as a miles (warrior, soldier), and he fights 12 battles. This is followed by several similar sorts of references.
Then another Welsh cleric, Geoffrey of Monmouth, got to work. Around 1136, he wrote Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain), and he went into much more detail about Arthur and his associates than previous works had done. The Arthurian legend took pretty much its present form in it, and later writers expanded on it even further. If it is legitimate history, then what sources did Geoffrey have that Nennius didn't?
Not surprisingly, there has been a lot of argument about who the historical King Arthur had been. I've seen several hypotheses, including the hypothesis that he was a myth. But one thing is evident: a historical King Arthur was likely not much like the post-Galfridian Arthur. Galfridian -- from a Latinized version of Geoffrey: Galfridius.
The debate is likely how the debate over Jesus Christ's historicity would go if none of the participants had doctrinal commitments that would get in the way. There is no Church of King Arthur, and one can be a good British patriot even if one believes that King Arthur was pure fiction.
Historical basis for King Arthur - Wikipedia
But there is a curious lack of documentation from contemporary outside sources. They are rather limited, but they exist.
Instead, the first reference to him is around 820, in History Brittonum (History of the Britons). Some versions contain a preface by a Welsh cleric named Nennius, but aside from that, its authorship is unknown. Arthur appears as a dux bellorum (military leader) and as a miles (warrior, soldier), and he fights 12 battles. This is followed by several similar sorts of references.
Then another Welsh cleric, Geoffrey of Monmouth, got to work. Around 1136, he wrote Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain), and he went into much more detail about Arthur and his associates than previous works had done. The Arthurian legend took pretty much its present form in it, and later writers expanded on it even further. If it is legitimate history, then what sources did Geoffrey have that Nennius didn't?
Not surprisingly, there has been a lot of argument about who the historical King Arthur had been. I've seen several hypotheses, including the hypothesis that he was a myth. But one thing is evident: a historical King Arthur was likely not much like the post-Galfridian Arthur. Galfridian -- from a Latinized version of Geoffrey: Galfridius.
The debate is likely how the debate over Jesus Christ's historicity would go if none of the participants had doctrinal commitments that would get in the way. There is no Church of King Arthur, and one can be a good British patriot even if one believes that King Arthur was pure fiction.
Historical basis for King Arthur - Wikipedia