Edileide

Layout Stealer & LED scrollerKing Arthur,The MythSome people believe that King Arthur is so inextricably tied up in Celtic Mythology that he must, in origin, have been, not a man at all, but a god. Like so many other characters featured in the Mabinogion, Arthur in his earliest form, appears almost entirely mythical. He and his companions have superhuman strength and abilities, and consort with giants and other mythological creatures. In the early Welsh poem "Preiddeu Annwfn", Arthur visits the Celtic Underworld, Annwfn, and his adventures closely parallel those of the cauldron-seeking god, Bran the Blessed. Even in Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History of the Kings of Britain," and Sir Thomas Malory's "Le Morte D'Arthur," upon being fatally wounded in battle, Arthur is carried to the mystical Avalon, apparently the Underworld home of the Celtic god, Afallach. Many legends around the country attest to Arthur's immortality. He is said to be sleeping in one of numerous caves waiting to return and lead his people. The name Arthur itself appears to derive from the Celtic word Art, meaning "bear". Could Arthur, like so many other Celtic gods, be merely a personification of the many reverred animals of the wild? Later to become humanized like Loucetios, one of several Celtic deities known to be able to transform themselves into birds or beasts of the forest. Many such gods had stellar associations and the constellation of Ursa Major or the Great Bear is sometimes known as Arthur's Wain even today.Three Bear-gods are known from the Celtic world. Strangely, they acted as both champion of bear-hunters and protectors of the beast itself. The most celebrated was, perhaps, Artio, worshipped near Berne in Switzerland and around Trier in Germany; but she was actually a goddess. A male god, Artaios, was reverred in Beaucroissant in Isere, where he was identified with the Roman Mercury. In Britain there is scant evidence for the bear cult, though a number of small jet bear talismans from Yorkshire may have devotional associations. The god to which they probably relate, however, derives his name from the alternative bear word, matus (Gaulish) or math (Irish). Matunus appears to have had a shrine at Risingham, just north of Hadrian's Wall. Some theorists claim Arthur was a late addition to the Celtic pantheon during a resurgence in pagan worship, or possibly a mythical hero, the offspring of a human and a bear. There is no evidence for either. (See Ashe 1985). by David Nash Ford
Profile Layouts & LED scroller
Free scrolling LED and MySpace layout stealerArthur, King of BritonsArthur, it seems, is claimed as the King of nearly every Celtic Kingdom known. The 6th century certainly saw many men named Arthur born into the Celtic Royal families of Britain but, despite attempts to identify the great man himself amongst them, there can be little doubt that most of these people were only named in his honour. Princes with other names are also sometimes identified with "Arthwyr" which is thought by some to be a title similar to "Vortigern".
MySpace Layout Stealer & Free LEDBreton King Geoffrey of Monmouth recorded Arthur as a High-King of Britain. He was the son of his predecessor, Uther Pendragon and nephew of King Ambrosius. As a descendant of High-King Eudaf Hen's nephew, Conan Meriadoc, Arthur's grandfather, had crossed the Channel from Brittany and established the dynasty at the beginning of the 5th century. The Breton King Aldrien had been asked to rescue Britain from the turmoil in which it found itself after the Roman administration had departed. He sent his brother, Constantine, to help. Constantine appears to have been the historical self-proclaimed British Emperor who took the last Roman troops from Britain in a vain attempt to assert his claims on the Continent in 407. Chronologically speaking, it is just possible he was King Arthur's grandfather. Arthur's Breton Ancestry was recorded by Gallet.Riothamus the King Geoffrey Ashe argues that King Arthur was an historical King in Brittany known to history as Riothamus, a title meaning "Greatest-King". His army is recorded as having crossed the channel to fight the Visigoths in the Loire Valley in 468. Betrayed by the Prefect of Gaul, he later disappeared from history. Ashe does not discuss Riothamus' ancestry. He, in fact, appears quite prominently in the pedigree of the Kings of Domnon..e, dispite attempts to equate him with a Prince of Cornouaille named Iaun Reith. Riothamus was probably exiled to Britain during one of the many civil wars that plagued Brittany. He later returned in triumph to reclaim his inheritance, but was later killed in an attempt to expel Germanic invaders. The main trouble with this Arthurian identification is that it pushes King Arthur back fifty years from his traditional period at the beginning of the sixth century (See Ashe 1985).Dumnonian King Welsh tradition also sees Arthur as High-King of Britain but tends to follow the genealogies laid down in the Mostyn MS117 and the Bonedd yr Arwr. These show Arthur as grandson of Constantine but, this time, he is Constantine Corneu, the King of Dumnonia. Traditional Arthurian legend records three Kings of Dumnonia during Arthur's reign: Constantine's son, Erbin; grandson, Gereint and great grandson, Cado. Nowhere is there any indication that these three were closely related to Arthur, nor that he had any claim on the Dumnonian Kingdom. Nor is their any explanation as to why a Dumnonian prince would have been raised to the High-Kingship of Britain. Arthur's connection with this area of Britain is purely due to his supposedly being conceived at Tintagel, the residence of his mother's first husband, and buried at Glastonbury, the most ancient Christian site in the country.Cumbrian KingThe Clan Campbell trace their tribal pedigree back to one Arthur ic Uibar: the Arthur son of Uther of tradition. Norma Lorre Goodrich uses this fact to argue that Arthur was a "Man of the North". This idea was first proposed by the Victorian Antiquary, W.F.Skene, and there is some evidence to recommend it, especially the possible northern location of Nennius' twelve battles. Goodrich places Arthur's Court at Carlisle. As the capital of the Northern British Kingdom of Rheged, this seems an unlikely home for Arthur, who was not of this dynasty. Prof. Goodrich relies heavily on late medieval literary sources and draws imaginative conclusions. (See Goodrich 1986 & Skene 1868).Pennine King There was a Northern British King named Arthwys who lived in the previous generation to the traditional Arthur. He was of the line of Coel Hen (the Old) and probably ruled over a large Kingdom in the Pennines. Many of Nennius' Arthurian Battles are often said to have taken place in the Northern Britain. These and other northern stories associated with the King Arthur may, in reality, have been relating the achievements of this near contemporary monarch.King of Elmet Another Northern British Arthwys was the son of Masgwid Gloff, probably a King of the Elmet region of modern West Yorkshire. Nothing is known of this Prince who was exactly contemporary with the real King's traditional period. Though it is unlikely that he held his own kingdom, his exploits may have contributed to King Arthur's story.Scottish King The Scots, though fresh from Ireland, also used the name Arthur for a Royal Prince. Artur, the son of King Aidan of Dalriada, was probably born in the 550s. David F. Carroll has recently argued that this man was the real Arthur, ruling Manau Gododdin from Camelon (alias Camelot) in Stirlingshire. Details can be found on the author's web site. (Carroll 1996)Powysian King Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman identify Arthur as Owain Ddantwyn (White-Tooth), a late 5th century Prince of the House of Cunedda (more specifically of Gwynedd). Their arguments, however, are wholly unconvincing, and contain many unresolved discrepancies. Owain's son, Cuneglasus (known from Welsh pedigrees as Cynlas) was among the five Celtic Kings condemned in the writings of Gildas. Through a misinterpretation of this account, Keatman & Phillips imply that Cuneglasus was the son of one Arth, ie. Arthur. They further claim that he, and therefore his father, Owain, before him, must have ruled Powys, as this is the only Kingdom un-reconciled with Gildas' Kings. However, Cynlas lived at Din Arth in Rhos. He was not the son of Arth. In traditional Welsh manner the Kingdom of Gwynedd had been divided between his father, Owain, who received Eastern Gwynedd (ie. Rhos) and his uncle, Cadwallon Lawhir (Long-Hand) who took the major Western portion. During this period, Cyngen Glodrydd (the Renowned) was ruling Powys. He was probably the Aurelius Caninus mentioned by Gildas. (See Phillips & Keatman 1992).Rhos King A much simpler and thoroughly more convincing thesis from Mark Devere Davies suggests that Arthur may have been Cuneglasus himself. I can do no better than recommend you to the author's website.Dyfed King A King Arthwyr ruled in Dyfed in the late 6th century. He was the son of King Pedr ap Cyngar, but little else is known of him. Though he was probably merely named after the great man, it is possible that some of his accomplishments may have become attached to the traditional legend.Glamorgan King Baram Blackett & Alan Wilson have theorised that the legendary King Arthur was an amalgam of two historical characters: Anwn (alias Arthun), the British King who conquered Greece and Athrwys (alias Arthwys) the King of Glywyssing and Gwent. Arthun was a son of the British Emperor Magnus Maximus, who lived in the late 4th century. He is better known as Anwn (alias Dynod) and his title of King of Greece is generally thought to be a misreading of his Latin name, Antonius Gregorius. He actually ruled much of South Wales. Arthwys of Glwyssing & Gwent is widely accepted as a seventh century King who lived in South-East Wales. His home in the traditional Arthurian region around Caerleon is part of this man's attraction. Blackett & Wilson argue, not unconvincingly, that he really lived in the early 6th century and that his father, King Meurig was called "Uther Pendragon", a title meaning Wonderful Commander. They also make the important assertion that Arthur lived, not in Cerniw (ie. Cornwall), but in Cernyw (ie. Glywyssing). (See Blackett & Wilson 1980).St. Arthmael the King Like Blackett & Wilson, Chris Barber & David Pykitt identify the King Arthur with King Athrwys of Glywyssing & Gwent. However, here the similarity stops, for there are important differences in the identification of people, places and events. Their major addition is the supposition that after Camlann, Arthur/Athrwys abdicated and retired to Brittany where he became an important evangeliser. He was known as St. Armel (or Arthmael) and his shrine can still be seen at St.Armel-des-Boschaux. Their ideas have much to commend them and make compelling reading. (See Barber & Pykitt 1993).Roman King It has been suggested, many times over the years, that King Arthur may have been a descendant of one Lucius Artorius Castus: a theme most recently taken up by P.J.F. Turner. Castus was an historical 2nd century Dalmatian general stationed in Britain who commanded the Roman auxiliary troops, known as Sarmations, on an expedition to crush an uprising in Armorica. It is highly unlikely that the two had any connection with each other. (See Turner 1993).
Layout Stealer & LED scrollerKing Arthur, Genereal of BritonsThough Arthur is quite firmly established as an historical figure, there appears to be little evidence that he was the King of tradition. To quote Nennius, Arthur fought...together with the Kings of the British; but he was Dux Bellorum. This would seem to confirm the popular view today that Arthur was a professional soldier: a brilliant military leader employed in an official capacity by an alliance of British Kings to carry out their warfare against all coming enemies. "Dux Bellorum" translates literally as Duke of Battles. This might be comparable to the Roman "Dux Britannorum" in charge of the Northern British defences. Though many think the Roman "Comes British History Clubrum" a better fit, for he led mobile cavalry forces across the country, as perhaps indicated by Arthur's supposed widespread battles. None of this, however, precludes Arthur from also being a King. Nennius may have intended his phrase to imply that Arthur was one of the Kings alongside whom he fought, yet he was the greatest warrior among them. If the more formal title of Dux or Comes was meant, then perhaps a High-Kingship is implied as tradition would suggest. Early sources, no doubt, assumed that everyone already knew Arthur was a King, as with most Royal entries in the Annales Cambriae. There was no need to announce it.King Arthur's Twelve BattlesThe Welsh historian, Nennius, records twelve great victories in battle during Arthur's time as Dux Bellorum. Much of his material is mythical, however, and the magical number 12 does not sit well for historical evidence. Some historians have argued that this is too great a number for one man's lifetime, and their locations may well have been too widespread for a single leader to have fought in each. Counteracting this view, some believe Arthur to have headed up a warband of cavalrymen travelling around the country and championing the British cause: hence his widespread popularity. True or not, it seems likely that, as with stories attached to the real Arthur, several of these battles may have been properly associated with alternative Arthurs or just with other great Dark Age heroes. A tendency towards Northern locations may strengthen this theory. Unfortunately identifying the location of the battles is a highly controversial pass-time. "The first battle was at the mouth of the river called Glein": This has been tentatively identified as one of the two Rivers Glen in Britain today, one in Lincolnshire and one in Northumberland. Unfortunately, Glen stems from the Celtic for "pure", so there were probably many rivers thus named in 6th century Britain. A battle at the former would have presumably been against the first Bernician settlers and at the latter against the northward moving East Anglians. Either could be attributed to King Arthuis of the Pennines. "The second, the third, the fourth and the fifth were on another river, called the Dubglas, which is in the region of Linnuis": The River Dubglas is modern Douglas, meaning "black water". If the Saxons translated this directly, it might be any one of the many Rivers Blackwater around the country today. So, we must first turn to identifying Linnuis. The 2nd century geographer, Ptolemy, recorded the associated name of Lindum at the Roman Fort of Drumquhassle in the Lennox area of Scotland. The River Douglas still runs into the nearby Loch Lomond, on the borders of Strathclyde. Could King Arthuis of the Pennines have fought the Scots or the Strathclyde Britons here? The better known Roman Lindum, however, is now the city of Lincoln. The surrounding area would be Linnuis: it is still called Lindsey today. Unfortunately, there is no longer a River Blackwater or the like here, but one of the waterways flowing off the muddy peat moors could easily have been originally described as such. Geoffrey of Monmouth indicates this as the correct identification. His chronicle relates how immediately Arthur came to the throne, he swore to rid Britain of the Saxon menace and so set out to attack the Anglian stronghold at York. Hearing of this, the Deiran leader, Colgrin, gathered together an alliance of Saxons, Scots and Picts and marched south to meet him. They clashed on the River Douglas. Geoffrey also describes an ensuing Battle of Lincoln, probably one of the successive battles on the same river, thus identifying it as the Witham. Several of these ensuing battles may have been invented, however, to increase the number to the mysterious 12. Some theorists have argued that Linnuis simply means "Lake Region" and therefore other rivers, such as the Douglas near Wigan in Lancashire have been suggested. Southerly alternatives, more suited to the traditional Arthur, include an imaginative identification with the Battle of Natanleag, now Netley in Hampshire; and, more convincingly, the area around Ilchester in Somerset, the Roman Lindinis, which may have become corrupted to Linnuis. The River Divelish and Devil's Brook, both deriving from Dubglas, flow nearby. Perhaps one of them demarked the border of Dumnonia. "The sixth battle was on the river called Bassas": Only one convincing possible identification appears to have been forthcoming for this battle: Cambuslang in the southern suburbs of Glasgow. This place already has Arthurian associations as the burial place of the great King's Northern British enemy, Caw. Perhaps he was killed in the battle. Other proposals include the Lothian coast near Bass Rock; Baschurch in Shropshire, Old Basing and an obscure identification with the Battle of Cerdicesford, now Charford, both in Hampshire. "The seventh battle was in the Caledonian Forest, that is, the Battle of Celidon Coit": As well as unconvincing arguments for the Chilterns and the Sussex Weald, some follow Geoffrey of Monmouth in supporting a wood just north of Lincoln for the location of this battle. However, Geoffrey appears to have been confused. He informs us that the battle took place after the Saxon, Scottish and Pictish alliance fled north from the Battle of Lincoln. He does not seem to have realized just how far they managed to travel before Arthur finally caught up with them; for the seventh battle site can pretty certainly be identified as the Caledonian Forest in modern Scotland: Coed Celyddon. It may originally have stretched from the Solway to the Highlands, but Welsh tradition indicates the area of the Scottish border. The Moffat region of Dumfieshire, Penrith in Cumbria or Glasgow have all been suggested. This could, again, have been King Arthuis of the Pennines fighting against invading Scots; or possibly this is a memory of the later Battle of Arfderydd, now Arthuret in Cumbria. In 573, the British armies of Kings Gwendoleu of Caer-Winley and Peredyr of Ebrauc clashed here in a territorial quarrel over the fort at Caer-Laverock. The fight is particularly associated with Arthurian legend because the original Merlin or Myrddin fled, after the battle, into the Celidon Forest."The eighth battle was in Guinnion fort, and in it Arthur carried the image of the holy Mary, the everlasting Virgin, on his shield, and the heathen were put to flight on that day, and there was great slaughter upon them, through the power of Jesus Christ and the power of the holy Virgin Mary, his mother.": This quote suffers from the same problems as that for the Battle of Badon in the Annales Cambriae: the Welsh words for shield and shoulder being confused. Geoffrey of Monmouth explains that Arthur bore armorial bearings of both cross and virgin: the arms later adopted by Glastonbury Abbey. Guinnion is another site that is difficult to identify. The name is very similar to the Roman fort of Vinovium at Binchester, Durham. Land's End, Caer Guidn in the British tongue, has also been proposed. An interesting theory suggests a translation of the Saxon Battle of Wihtgarasburh, the Isle of Wight: Gwyn in Welsh. However, either of the walled towns called Venta by the Romans seem more likely. One became the modern Caer-Went in Gwent, the other Win-Chester in Hampshire. The latter was the location for a pre-Camlann battle between Arthur and his usurping nephew, Morded, according to Geoffrey of Monmouth. Modern historians suggest the Saxon invader, Cerdic, as a more likely enemy. An intermediate stage in the evolution of Winchester's name was the Romano-British Caer Guinntguic or Caer Guinn. -guic would be a corrupt form of -iog, a standard Celtic place-name ending. -ion was used similarly and, though there is no record of it, an acceptable alternative for the name would be Caer Guinnion, as with Caer Leir recorded as Caer Lerion and Caer Celef recorded as Caer Celemion. Caerwent is unlikely. The e never did change to an i."The ninth battle was in the City of the Legion": The Urbe Legionis or "City of the Legions" causes problems because there were two cities so called: Caerleon and Chester, at either end of the Welsh border. It is also possible that York bore such a title. The idea that many other Roman forts, like Carlisle or Exeter, once had similar names seems unlikely though; as does identification with the Battle of Dyrham. Chester was Caer Legion, while Caerleon was Caer Legion guar Uisc (that is "Caerleon-upon-Usk"), though the latter often lost its suffix. Chester appears to be the likeliest candidate. It was actually recorded in the Annales Cambriae as Urbs Legionis and was the site of a well-attested Battle of Chester in Dark Age times. In 613, King Æthelfrith of Bernicia invaded the Welsh Kingdoms in order to stop King Iago of Gwynedd restoring the former's old enemy, Edwin, to the Deiran throne. The armies of Gwynedd, Powys, Pengwern & Dumnonia rose to repell him, but were bitterly defeated at the Battle of Chester: Kings Iago of Gwynedd & Selyf Sarffgadau of Powys being killed. This brave British stand against the Northern Saxons was probably transported back a hundred years to the time of Arthur. "The tenth battle was on the bank of the river called Tribruit": Tribruit is more properly Tryfrwyd. The battle is mentioned in an eleventh century Welsh poem from the Black Book of Carmarthen, Pa Gur. Cai Hir (the Tall), Arthur's foster-brother of traditional legend, apparently fought there against a foe named Garwlwyd. Presumably therefore, Arthur, as Cai's patron in the poem, was the British commander at the battle. Some people identify it's location as the River Frew at Stirling; others, the River Ribble in Lancashire; the Severn at Gloucester or the Eden at Carlisle. "The eleventh battle was on the hill called Agned": Geoffrey of Monmouth identifies Monte Agned as Edinburgh and there appears to be little evidence to contradict him. The rock of Edinburgh Castle was certainly occupied at this time. It was a strategic point of some importance at the centre of the Kingdom of Gododdin. Perhaps the battle was connected with King Lot of Gododdin being one of the eleven kings who rebelled against Arthur at the beginning of his reign. Edinburgh alias Din-Eityn specifically relates to the settlement on top of the rock of course. Geoffrey calls this the Castle of Maidens or the Dolorous Castle. There was apparently a 7th century Siege of Din-Eityn. Could this have been the real Battle of Mount Agned pushed back to Arthur's reign? More obscure proposed identifications include Brent Knoll, Somerset; Ribchester, Lancashire and Cirencester, Gloucestershire. A 10th century version of Nennius' History gives this battle the alternative name of Breguoin. This may have been another of Arthur's victories. The name could be a corruption of Bravonium, a Roman name for Leintwardine in Herefordshire. This is conveniently situated for a possible battle involving King Athrwys of Ergyng, though the place was, more usually, called Branogenium. Alternatively, the name could stem from Bremenium, now High Rochester in Northumberland. Unfortunately, this is probably also the site of King Urien Rheged's Battle of the Cells of Brewyn, as mentioned in Welsh poetry. Arthur, therefore, erroneously claims another battle. "The twelfth battle was on Badon Hill and in it nine hundred and sixty men fell in one day, from a single charge of Arthur's, and no-one lay them low save he alone.": It was at the Battle of Mount Badon that tradition says the Saxon advance into Britain was finally halted. It was Arthur's greatest victory and, not surprisingly, there are many claimants for its location. Forts are preferred since Gildas, in his De Excidio Britanniae", more properly called the battle a "siege" and nearby Rivers Avon strengthen claims. Possibilities include Bowden Hill, Lothian; Dumbarton Rock, Strathclyde; Mynydd Baedan, Glamorgan; Little Solway Hill, Somerset; or Brent Knoll, Somerset. Modern theory, however, suggests one of the many Badburys around the country: in Devon, Dorset, Wiltshire, Berkshire, Warwickshire, Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire. Liddington Castle, near Badbury in Wiltshire, seems most popular at present. Welsh tradition backed up by Geoffrey of Monmouth is, however, almost certainly correct in identifying the battle site with Bath, Caer Baddon, or, at least somewhere in its vicinity. Bathampton Down has been suggested. Arthur's last battle, where he was fatally wounded, is not mentioned by Nennius. It is known to us from the Annales Cambriae as: "The Strife of Camlann in which Arthur and Medraut perished". Over the years, it has been variously identified as being at Queen or West Camel on the River Cam, Somerset; at Slaughter Bridge on the River Camel in Cornwall; at Camelon, Stirlingshire or Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire. Recent suggestions indicate Goring Gap on the Thames at the Berkshire/Oxfordshire border or Cadnam in the New Forest. Generally, however, modern historians recognise the battle-site as the Roman fort of Camboglanna, on Hadrian's Wall. The place is now called Castlesteads in Cumbria, though the place is often confused with nearby Birdoswald, now thought to have been Banna. However, this northern site appears unlikely for the traditional Arthur and there seems no good reason to look anywhere other than one of the three Welsh Camlans of today: the two Camlan Valleys in Southern Meirionydd and the River Gamlan in Southern Dunoding.King Arthur in Literature The earliest full stories concerning King Arthur and his exploits appear to be the little known Welsh tales of "Culhwch and Olwen" and the "Dream of Rhonabwy". Though dating from before the 11th century, these two stories became a late attachment to a collection of Welsh mythological tales taken from the 14th century White Book of Rhydderch and Red Book of Hergest. Together, they are known as the "Mabinogion": an introduction for aspiring poets. Though the stories have a mythological slant, a certain amount of bardic poetic license is to be expected. Their background, however, is clearly an unfamiliar Dark Age society that gives us some idea of what the realArthur was probably like. The much-maligned Geoffrey of Monmouth, Archdeacon of Monmouth and later Bishop of St. Asaphs, first popularized King Arthur's story, around 1136, in his "History of the Kings of Britain". Though he was writing some six hundred years after Arthur's death, there is no reason to suppose that Geoffrey's history was "made up...from an inordinate love of lying" as both contemporary and modern historians almost universally insist. Geoffrey claimed he had taken most of his information from an earlier British source (he referred to it as "a certain, very ancient book written in the British language"; ed.), unknown to us today. The early portion of his history clearly relates the mythology of the Celtic peoples and the stories of their gods, whom his source had turned into early Kings: Bladud, Leir, Belenus, Brennius and so on. Later in his account, however, he turns to real history. From the time of Julius Caesar's invasion of Britain in 55 bc, which both Geoffrey and the great man (ie. Caesar), himself, relate at great length, we can no longer be sure that the Archdeacon is reciting mere legend. Much of his information has corroborative historical sources like this. Who is to say that everything he tells us, from then on, is not pure fact? Furthermore, Geoffrey was the only source to hail the existence of King Tenvantius of Britain, until modern archaeologists began finding Iron Age coins bearing his name: "Tasciovantus". What other gems of Geoffrey's history have been dismissed by today's historians? It was the French medieval poet, Chrétien de Troyes, however who, not long after Geoffrey, introduced us to most of the characters and tales that we now think of as an integral part of the Arthurian story. He specialized in tales of Arthurian courtly love and thus brought us: Erec & Enid (1160), Lancelot (c.1162), Cligés (1164), Yvain (c.1170) and the Count of the Grail (also known as Perc..1180). He transformed the names of Geoffrey's characters from Welsh to the medieval French used today. It was Chrétien and those who followed him who distorted the Arthurian story, so that the true historical Arthur became lost in an amalgam of Celtic myth and literary fantasy. For example, neither Lancelot nor the Holy Grail were part of the Arthurian legend before Chrétien came along. Both do have origins in early Celtic myth, but there is little justification for including them in Arthur's story. During the early 13th century, the anonymous Vulgate Cycle further embellished the Arthurian stories. This collection of romantic prose was apparently put together by Cistercian clerics between 1215 and 1235, some say at the instigation of their founder, St. Bernard of Clairvaux. The vast work consists of the Prose Lancelot, Queste del Sainte Graal, Estoire del Sainte Graal, Mort Artu and Vulgate Merlin. It is particularly noted for introducing the idea that Mordred was the incestuous son of King Arthur. Sir Thomas Malory's 15th century work, "Le Morte d'Arthur" is, perhaps, better known than Geoffrey or Chrétien. He took their stories and retold them with an epic unity, creating the Romantic Age of Chivalry. With one stroke of his pen, he transformed Arthur's Court from Dark Age obscurity to the height of medieval pageantry. Being written in English and printed by William Caxton, "Le Morte d'Arthur" was instantly available to the masses, and it remains highly popular, even today, as a classic work of literature. Malory's work, however, is just that: a work of literature. There is little history left amongst his pages. Arthur's modern popularity owes much to his re-emergence during the Victorian Age at the hands of Alfred, Lord Tennyson. His huge poetic elegy entitled "Idylls of the King" led to a resurgence in interest in this early monarch, as reflected in much of the pre-Raphælite art of the time. The fascination is still going strong today. However, modern Arthurian students have become much more critical of the romantic picture woven by many of these literary greats. Nowadays, we tend to be much more interested in the real Arthur, drawing upon the Mabinogion, Geoffrey and beyond, to examine historical sources that may just show us a glimpse of the truth behind this strangely compelling character.References to a Real King Arthur There is only one contemporary Arthurian source that can be examined today. "Concerning the Ruin of Britain", or "De Excidio British History Clube" was written by the Northern British monk, St. Gildas, in the mid-6th century. Unfortunately, Gildas was not a historian. He was only interested in lamenting the loss of the Roman way of life and reproaching the British leaders (Constantine, Aurelius Caninus, Vortepor, Cuneglasus & Maglocunus) who had usurped Imperial power and degraded Christian values. There is no reference to Arthur, but Gildas does make reference to a character called "The Bear", the meaning of the Celtic word, Art-. He praises Ambrosius Aurelianus and also mentions the Siege of Mount Badon, though not the name of the victor. Gildas' writings are dated immediately prior to 549 (the death of Maglocunus, one of his usurpers). The passage telling of Badon places the siege forty-four years before this. This places Arthur firmly around the turn of the 6th century. (See Alcock 1971). The Welsh Easter Annals or Annales Cambriae, supposedly written over the years that they cover, AD 447 to 957 (though very early entries were probably written some time after the events), are amongst the earliest sources to mention Arthur. Used to calculate Easter dates, this document also records historical events alongside many of its yearly entries. Two of these tell of Arthur. AD 516 refers to "The Battle of Badon, in which Arthur carried the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ for three days and three nights on his shoulders and the Britons were the victors". The entry for AD 537 records "The Strife of Camlann in which Arthur and Medraut perished". All characters included elsewhere in these, otherwise reliable, annals appear to have been real historical people. There is no reason to suppose, therefore, that Arthur and Mordred were not likewise. It has been suggested that stylistically speaking, Arthur's appearance in the Badon entry may have been an interpolation. Criticisms of the length of the battle are unfounded though, for Gildas (see above), more correctly, calls the battle a siege. The statement that Arthur carried "the cross of Our Lord on his shoulders" may refer to an amulet containing a chip of the true cross. Or more likely it is a transcriptual error of Welsh "shoulder" for "shield", indicating the cross was merely an armorial bearing. (See Alcock 1971). Arthur does warrant a passing comment in the early 7th century poem Y Gododdin by Aneirin, the famous bard from the Royal House of the North Pennines. This work praises the efforts of the Northern British armies, headed by those of Din-Eityn and Gododdin, at the battle of Catraeth around AD 600 and one warrior is described as having "glutted black ravens on the ramparts of the fort, although he was no Arthur". It has been argued that this shows the early spread of Arthur's fame. Unfortunately, considering the northern overtones, this may refer to the Arthur's Northern contemporary, King Arthwys of the Pennines. The last major Arthurian reference occurs in the 8th century "Historia Brittonum" or "History of the Britons", apparently written by a Welsh historian called Nennius, possibly a monk from Bangor Fawr (Gwynedd). Nennius used numerous chronicles to put together this compilation history of the British peoples, followed by genealogies and a list of the 28 Towns of Britain. The work is particularly noted for its chapter concerning the Campaigns of Arthur, telling of his twelve battles. These latter may be a Latin summary of an ancient Welsh battle list, possibly pre-dating the unmentioned Battle of Camlann. Was this sung at Arthur's Court? Each battle is named in turn, but the enemy is not specific and the places are difficult to identify. Nennius states that at all the battles, Arthur fought them, implying the previously mentioned Kentish Saxons, though this seems unlikely. (See Alcock 1971). Reference: David Nash Ford
Layout Stealer & LED scroller