Why does Arthur—someone who may or may not have been King of England, and may or may not have even existed—become such a hugely important figure in England and English Literature, and why is the death of this one man so important? The beginning of our answer, I think, can be found in what he comes to represent, and the time (or times) in which he represented it: Arthur, as warleader (dux bellorum) and later as king, fighting as the leader of the remnants of Roman Britain against the various barbarian invaders, came to represent the last valiant stand of civilization against the overwhelming forces of chaos and collapse. It was, for the Romanized Britons, long accustomed to the benefits and comforts of Roman civilization for almost half a millenium, the end of the world—or at least the end of the world as they knew it, and they did not feel fine. While it would be nice to be able to say definitively whether Arthur existed or not, the historical evidence is, ultimately, inconclusive. Evidence for his existence from the Annals of Wales may have been inserted later, given the relatively late date of our extant copies, and our best contemporary source (Gildas) for the final collapse of Romanized British civilization mentions the Battle of Badon and Ambrosius Aurelianus, but not Arthur. There may, of course, be good reasons for this, such as Arthur being only a warleader, not a king, or my favourite rationale, that Gildas held a grudge against Arthur for killing his brother, but the fact remains that the earliest semi-reliable historical source we have for Arthur ends up being Nennius’ The History of the Britons, written some three centuries later. For what it’s worth, I myself am partial to giving the Annals of Wales entries more credence than most, and if there is a good case to be made for Arthur’s historicity, I think it is as Ambrosius Aurelianus’ warlord. Perhaps most notably, not necessarily for Arthur’s historicity, but for what he comes to represent as the myth becomes the man, is the repeated mention of Arthur triumphing at the Battle of Badon bearing a Christian symbol—whether that be the cross of Christ or an image of the Virgin Mary—on his shield and armour, with the victory over the barbarians on that day being almost unanimously attributed, in the historical (or semi-historical) record, to Arthur as an instrument of the Lord. Ultimately, then, it doesn’t matter that much whether Arthur actually existed, or whether he was a king or just a warlord: what he came to represent for the British people was a sort of Christ-figure, or, at this point, an instrument in the hand of God for the preservation and salvation of His people—or at least His civilization—holding at bay for a brief but glorious time the forces of barbarism, chaos, and darkness. This is the legendary and/or historical kernel of what Arthur and his death will ultimately come to represent for the British people, and, by extension, for the people of all English-speaking countries, as we will see in the upcoming episodes. Show Notes: Historical Context: Roman Britain, AD 43 – AD 410 * conquest began 43-47 with four legions sent by Claudius, conquering the southeast (SE of Fosse Way) * continued 77-84, conquering as far north as Caledonia/north-Scotland (up to the Antonine Wall) * road network completed around AD 150 * Emperor Honorius, himself under siege at Ravenna at the time, tells the Roman Britons they are on their own AD 410 1. Annals of Wales * Date: c. 12 C copy of 10th C original Year * Main quote re Arthur: * 72 [c. AD 516] The Battle of Badon, in which Arthur carried the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ on his shoulders for three days and three nights and the Britons were victors. * Year 93 [c. 537] The Strife of Camlann in which Arthur and Medraut (Mordred) fell and there was death in Britain and in Ireland. Notes: * The words for “shoulder” and “shield” were, however, easily confused in Old Welsh – scuit “shield” versus scuid “shoulder” – and Geoffrey of Monmouth played upon this dual tradition, describing Arthur bearing “on his shoulders a shield” emblazoned with the Virgin. * Alternate dates for the Battle of Badon, sometime between AD 430 and 516: 493 or 501. Or maybe 490. 2. Gildas, “On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain” * Date: c. AD 526/560 * Homily on the ruin of Britain by someone who would be a contemporary of Arthur * Fascinating description of the ruin of Roman Britain by one who personally witnessed the final stages of the dissolution of the remnants of the Roman state: “A council is held, to deliberate what means ought to be determined upon, as the best and safest to repel such fatal and frequent irruptions and plunderings by the [Scots and the Picts]. At that time all members of the assembly, along with the proud tyrant, are blinded; such is the protection they find for their country (it was, in fact, its destruction) that those wild Saxons, of accursed name, hated by God and men, should be admitted into the island, like wolves into folds, in order to repel the northern nations. … They sailed out, and at the directions of the unlucky tyrant, first fixed their dreadful talons in the eastern part of the island, as men intending to fight for the country, but more truly to assail it. To these the mother of the brood, finding that success had attended the first contingent, sends out also a larger raft-full of accomplices and curs, which sails over and joins itself to their b*****d comrades. From that source, the seed of iniquity, the root of bitterness, grows as a poisonous plant, worthy of our deserts, in our own soil, furnished with rugged branches and leaves. Thus the barbarians, admitted into the island, succeed in having provisions supplied them, as if they were soldiers and about to encounter, as they falsely averred, great hardships for their kind hosts. These provisions, acquired for a length of time, closed, as the saying is, the dog’s maw. They complain, again, that their monthly supplies were not copiously contributed to them, intentionally colouring their opportunities, and declare that, if larger munificence were not piled upon them, they would break the treaty and lay waste the whole of the island. They made no delay to follow up their threats with deeds. … In this way were all the settlements brought low with the frequent shocks of the battering rams; the inhabitants, along with the bishops of the church, both priests and people, whilst swords gleamed on every side and flames crackled, were together mown down to the ground, and, sad sight! there were seen in the midst of streets, the bottom stones of towers with tall beam cast down, and of high walls, sacred altars, fragments of bodies covered with clots, as if coagulated, of red blood, in confusion as in a kind of horrible wine press: there was no sepulture of any kind save the ruins of houses, or the entrails of wild beasts and birds in the open, I say it with reverence to their holy souls (if in fact there were many to be found holy), that would be carried by holy angels to the heights of heaven. For the vineyard, at one time good, had then so far degenerated to bitter fruit, that rarely could be seen, according to the prophet, any cluster of grapes or ear of corn, as it were, behind the back of the vintagers or reapers. Some of the wretched remnant were consequently captured on the mountains and killed in heaps. Others, overcome by hunger, came and yielded themselves to the enemies, to be their slaves for ever, if they were not instantly slain, which was equivalent to the highest service. Others repaired to parts beyond the sea, with strong lamentation… Others, trusting their lives, always with apprehension of mind, to high hills, overhanging, precipitous, and fortified, and to dense forests and rocks of the sea, remained in their native land, though with fear. After a certain length of time the cruel robbers returned to their home. A remnant, to whom wretched citizens flock from different places on every side, as eagerly as a hive of bees when a storm is threatening, praying at the same time unto Him with their whole heart, and, as is said, “Burdening the air with unnumbered prayers,” that they should not be utterly destroyed, take up arms and challenge their victors to battle under Ambrosius Aurelianus. He was a man of unassuming character, who, alone of the Roman race chanced to survive in the shock of such a storm (as his parents, people undoubtedly clad in the purple, had been killed in it), whose offspring in our days have greatly degenerated from their ancestral nobleness. To these men, by the Lord’s favour, there came victory.” [source] * Mentions the Battle of Badon (“obsessionis Badonici montis” = seige of Badon Hill): * “From that time, the citizens were sometimes victorious, sometimes the enemy, in order that the Lord, according to His wont, might try in this nation the Israel of today, whether it loves Him or not. This continued up to the year of the siege of Badon Hill, and of almost the last great slaughter inflicted upon the rascally crew. And this commences, a fact I know, as the forty-fourth year, with one month now elapsed; it is also the year of my birth.” * Mentions Ambrosius Aurelianus, but not Arthur * Arthur ahistorical? assumed? not relevant to homiletical purpose? But if Ambrosius is mentioned to contrast ancient heroism with modern corruption, why not Arthur? * Alternate explanation offered by Gildas’ 12th C hagiographer: * “That Arthur had gone unmentioned by Gildas, ostensibly the source closest to his own time, was noticed at least as early as a 12th-century hagiography of Gildas which claims that Gildas had praised Arthur extensively but then excised him completely after Arthur killed the saint’s brother, Hueil mab Caw.” [Wikipedia] 3. Nennius, The History of the Britons * Date: c. AD 828 (Nennius’ “Preface” dates itself 858) *
