by Mark Hopkins

Created on: September 03, 2008

The stories and legends surrounding King Arthur, 'the once and future King', are so vivid and so deeply ingrained into the psyche of the Celtic west of Europe, especially Britain, that it is almost unthinkable that he could be entirely fictitious. However, one crucial fact has to be faced. There is no gap in the 'regnal lists' which could accommodate the reign of Arthur except, perhaps, far back in the days when the Roman Empire was losing its grip on Britain and Germanic settlers were beginning to over-run the country.

The stories of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, of Queen Guinevere and the sword Excalibur/Caliburn, can be traced to the writings of Geoffrey of Monmouth. He was a Welshman but spent most of his life at Oxford. In 1136 he finished his book, 'History of the Kings of Britain', which he claimed was based on a secret 'lost' Celtic manuscript which he alone had seen and translated. Geoffrey described a 12th century King, with 12th century Knights and a 12th century code of chivalry.

His work was accepted as true by contemporaries, and was further embellished in the work of Chretien de Troyes in 'Perceval' where we encounter the Holy Grail for the first time in an Arthurian context. Sadly, these stories and depictions of Arthur and his Knights are clearly and demonstrably fantasy. They are no more true than the Errol Flynn (or Kevin Costner) depiction of Robin Hood and his Merry Men in Sherwood Forest. But it was not until the 17th century that anyone began to question the validity of Geoffrey of Monmouth's work, by which time the fantasy had taken deep root.

Geoffrey of Monmouth, with his Welsh ancestry, had blended into his work folk memories of
very ancient times. Merlin the magician has some resemblance to pre-Christian Druidic figures. Excalibur and the Lady of the Lake may echo Iron Age belief and custom, for instance the depositing of votive objects such as swords in pools and rivers. This, of course, raises the possibility that similar 'folk memories' of some outstanding, heroic, leader might have survived. Vast amounts of knowledge was simply passed down by memory, rather than in writing, in pre-Christian times and only a fraction was recorded by Christian monks later on. So could there have been a real, 'Dark Age' Arthur?

The only conceivable context for such a figure is fifth or early sixth century Britain, when Roman control had collapsed. Sub-Roman civilization clearly carried on for several generations in some areas, evidenced

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>