King Arthur
King Arthur was a legendary king of Britain. He is a folk hero and a central figure in the medieval literary tradition known as the Matter of Britain.
In Welsh sources, Arthur is portrayed as a leader of the post-Roman Britons in battles against the Anglo-Saxons in the late-5th and early-6th centuries. He first appears in two early medieval historical sources, the Annales Cambriae and the Historia Brittonum, but these date to 300 years after he is supposed to have lived, and most historians who study the period do not consider him a historical figure. His name also occurs in early Welsh poetic sources, such as Y Gododdin. The character developed through Welsh mythology, appearing either as a great warrior defending Britain from human and supernatural enemies or as a magical figure of folklore, and was sometimes associated with the Welsh otherworld Annwn.
The legendary Arthur developed as a figure of international interest largely through the popularity of Geoffrey of Monmouth's fanciful and imaginative 12th-century Historia Regum Britanniae. Geoffrey depicted Arthur as a king of Britain who defeated the Saxons and established a vast empire. Many elements and incidents that are now an integral part of the Arthurian story appear in Geoffrey's Historia, including Arthur's father Uther Pendragon, the magician Merlin, Arthur's wife Guinevere, the sword Excalibur, Arthur's conception at Tintagel, his final battle against Mordred at Camlann, and his final rest in Avalon. Chrétien de Troyes, the 12th-century French writer who added Lancelot and the Holy Grail to the story, began the genre of Arthurian romance, which in turn became a significant strand of medieval literature. In these French stories, the narrative focus often shifts from King Arthur himself to other characters, such as various Knights of the Round Table.
The themes, events and characters of the Arthurian legend vary widely from text to text, and there is no one canonical version. Arthurian literature thrived during the Middle Ages but waned in the following centuries until it experienced a major resurgence in the 19th century. In the 21st century the legend continues to have prominence, not only in literature but also in adaptations for theatre, film, television, comics and other media.
Historicity
King Arthur was traditionally accepted as a historic person. He was originally thought to have been an ancient British war commander and, at least from the early 12th century, a king. There was, however, much discussion regarding his various deeds, and contemporary scholars and clerics generally refuted the popular medieval belief in his extreme longevity and future return. From the eighteenth century onwards, there has been academic debate about the historicity of Arthur. Details of Arthur's story are mainly composed of Welsh mythology, English folklore and literary invention, and most modern historians writing about the period do not think that he was a historical figure.One school of thought, citing entries in the Historia Brittonum and Annales Cambriae, saw Arthur as a genuine historical 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 that early Anglo-Saxon migration to Great Britain reversed between 500 and 550, concurring 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 were both killed, dated to 537–539. These details have often been used to bolster confidence in the Historias account and confirm that Arthur fought at Badon.
Problems have been identified, however, with using this source to support the Historia Brittonums 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 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 the historian Thomas Charles-Edwards, "At this stage of the enquiry, one can only say that there may well have been an historical Arthur 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 sceptical. The historian John Morris made the putative reign of Arthur the organising principle of his history of sub-Roman Britain and Ireland, The Age of Arthur. Even so, he found little to say about a historical Arthur.
Partly in reaction to such theories, another school of thought emerged, arguing that Arthur had no historical existence. 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, 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; instead, Bede refers to Ambrosius Aurelianus as the leader of the Britons at that battle, whose parents had perished 'in the storm' and who was 'of the royal race'. The historian David Dumville wrote: "I think we can dispose of him 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" and "miles".
File:Former Gravesite King Arthur.jpg|thumb|upright|Supposed former gravesite of Arthur at Glastonbury Abbey in Somerset
Andrew Breeze argues that Arthur was a historical character who fought other Britons in the area of the future border between England and Scotland and claims to have identified the locations of his battles as well as the place and date of his death, 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.
Name
The origin of the Welsh name "Arthur" remains a matter of debate. The most widely accepted etymology derives it from the Roman nomen gentile Artorius. Artorius itself is of obscure and contested etymology. 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". This patronym is unattested, but the root, *arto-rīg, "bear/warrior-king", is the source of the Old Irish personal name Artrí. Some scholars have suggested it is relevant to this debate that the legendary King Arthur's name only appears as Arthur or Arturus in early Latin Arthurian texts, never as Artōrius. Others believe the origin of the name Arthur, as Artōrius would regularly become Artur when borrowed into Welsh.Another commonly proposed derivation of Arthur from Welsh arth "bear" + wr "man" is not accepted by modern scholars for phonological and orthographic reasons. Notably, a Brittonic compound name *Arto-uiros should produce Old Welsh *Artgur and Middle/Modern Welsh *Arthwr, rather than Arthur. In Welsh poetry the name is always spelled Arthur and is exclusively rhymed with words ending in -ur—never words ending in -wr—which confirms that the second element cannot be wr "man".
An alternative theory, which has gained only 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 Artur 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.
Many other theories exist, for example that the name has Messapian or Etruscan origins.