King Arthur: Man and Myth

King Arthur: Man and Myth

Like any legend or myth, the legend of King Arthur began with the idea of passing an idea from one generation to another. Michael Wood notes that Celtic literature experienced growth after the Norman invasion and many of these tales involved stories of "glorious triumph" (Wood). Stories such as these need a "hero to lead the troops, and this is where Arthur fitted in" (Wood) according to Wood. This view, while it does make sense, might cause many to think that the legend of Arthur is nothing more than myth, which is highly debatable. While we have many stories of grand heroes that are fictional, scholars tend to think that someone that fits loosely the image of this legend did exist. The battles and the literature go hand in hand but that does not mean some figure like Arthur did not live. In fact, because there are so many sources about Arthur, it is quite plausible that a man by this name did exist. A man with all of the characteristics given to him is another matter. The story of King Arthur arrived at a time in history when the people needed something and someone to believe in. As with other folklore, the tale was passed from generation to generation as an attempt to preserve history. Oral storytelling cannot be ignored, as this was the primary source of passing information for hundreds of years. Through this process, facts and figures are undoubtedly going to change -- for better or worse.

Authority regarding the legends of king Arthur becomes sketchy because there is no one primary source to which anyone can go for solid, factual information. The figure of this man and the idea of him, however large, are pulled from several different sources and the passage of time only makes clarifying facts more difficult. One of the most noted individuals associated with the history of Arthur is Geoffrey of Monmouth. Wood maintains that it was probably Geoffrey who "propelled Arthur from being just a Celtic warrior to being a mythical super-star" (Wood). Ashe maintains that his version of history often serve as the "starting point for later stories" (Ashe Origins). However, the legend of King Arthur comes before Geoffrey. The mystical king is first mentioned in the Historia Brittonum, or History of the Britons, written by Nennius, a Welsh monk. In this account, Arthur is a general and warrior during the fifth century. In Nennius' account, King Arthur fought about 12 battles, information that automatically brings into question the authenticity of the tales. Geoffrey's account of Arthur includes defeating the Saxons and reigning over Britain, Ireland, and Norway. Geoffrey also mentions Arthur's father, Arthur's birth at Tintagel, Uther Pendragon, Merlin, Guinevere, and even Excalibur, Arthur's sword. The romanticized idea we have of King Arthur is attributed to - Chretien de Troyes, who included Lancelot and the Holy Grail. Geoffrey's account of King Arthur's life is "tremendous" (Wood) and there are over 200 manuscripts in existence today. It is worth noting that Geoffrey had an "expert way of mixing myth with fact" (Wood), which only helps confuse those searching for the truth. History, however splotchy it may be, does prove to be the best account for pinning down notions about King Arthur.

An Arthurian legend is one that involves the great warrior/king that lived around the fifth century. While Geoffrey is credited for introducing him in his work, he by no means invented, him, according to Ashe. In fact, there were many other tales and myths prior to Geoffrey that included this king, which is why we can postulate that he was, indeed, real. Ashe likes to refer to these notions of the king as "realities" (Ashe Discovery 15), which have been included in the histories of many writers. Many readers, even hundred of years ago, did not take the tale of King Arthur as "pure fiction" (15) and Ashe asserts that these readers were "more right than wrong" (15) in their assumptions. It is likely the story is true in some respects. In many ways, the man was a hero larger than life, which makes many skeptics call into question his existence. Ashe states that many even believed Arthur was a god, "euhemerized as a human warrior" (Ashe Origins). Many scholars believe a king by the name of Arthur actually did exist but they also acknowledge that many of the grandiose stories attached to him are romanticized. However, there seems to be enough factual history to satisfy most scholars that Arthur did exist.