One of the knights, in these later legends, is Uriens of Gorre. And who was Uriens? He was Urien, a historical king of the north of Britain. Another knight is Ywain the son of Uriens. Historically, this was Owain, the son of Urien. Owain was thus a prince and later became a king, though he could perhaps have been a minor king in his own right under his father. Another knight was Gawain, the supposed cousin of Owain. His father was, so legend tells us, the king of Lothian. Thus, Gawain was a prince of that region. Another famous knight is Percival. He was known in Welsh tradition as Peredur, and he was very probably the same as the historical northern prince Peredur ap Elidur.
Moving further south, we have Sir Cador, who was actually the king of Dumnonia in the sixth century. Then there is Sir Constantine, the son of Cador and therefore a prince (and later a king) of Dumnonia. Furthermore, there is Sir Caradoc Vriechvras, often considered to have been Caradoc ap Ynyr. This figure was a king of Gwent in the late fifth, early sixth century.
When these same individuals are mentioned in the earlier Hsitoria Regum Britanniae as being at Arthur's court, the majority of them are, indeed, called kings. Many other kings are mentioned in this account as well. So, if the legendary 'knights' of Arthur's court in the later Romances who can be identified as real (or at least semi-legendary) individuals of the sixth century are all kings or princes (maybe minor kings in their own right) of various parts of Britain, then what conclusion can we draw about the nature of the arrangement of the Knights of the Round Table?
This arrangement, evidently, was an alliance of the kings of Britain. Specifically, it was an alliance of kings led by Arthur. This is exactly what the Historia Brittonum has always described:
"Then it was, that the magnanimous Arthur, with all the kings and military force of Britain, fought against the Saxons."
One of the only 'fanciful' elements of Arthur's court in the later Romances is the physical Round Table itself, but that is merely aesthetics. It is not of any substantial interest, though obviously, if there was an alliance of kings, they must have gathered somewhere. Another element that makes it seem fanciful is the use of the term 'knights'. If this term had not been used in the Romances, but they were simply referred to as 'the kings of Arthur's court', then much of the apparent fancifulness completely disappears. That this kind of organised arrangement of rulers is perfectly reasonable to believe in is shown by Gildas's almost-contemporary reference to Vortigern and the 'council' deciding to invite the Saxons over to Britain. Admittedly, the rulers who made up this council may not have ruled over a very widespread area (we have no way of knowing for sure either way), but it is nonetheless a demonstration of the same kind of principle involved in Arthur's legendary court.
Additionally, we know from Julius Caesar's account of the invasion of Britain that the British tribes, even during times of great internal strife, were perfectly capable of putting aside their differences and joining together under one united leader to fight against outside invaders. That is what happened in 54 B.C.E., when various tribes of the south east of Britain united under Cassivellaunus. Therefore, the idea that various tribes of Britain would unite themselves under one leader (namely, Arthur) upon a large-scale invasion of Anglo-Saxons is not only within reason, but is likely.
However, there is another major element of Arthur's court in the Romances which seems to be totally fictional. This is the Code of Chivalry which the members of Arthur's court were supposed to live by. Surely this is just an invention of French writers, inserting the ideals of the time into the Arthurian story?
Perhaps partly. But many of the fictional elements in the Arthurian Romances are not really fictional, but just aesthetically anachronistic. For example, Arthur and his men are often presented as wearing armour which actually did not come into being for hundreds of years. Yet, they undoubtedly had armour of some kind. Likewise, there are grand castles in the stories, even though there were no 'castles' of this sort in Britain until hundreds of years after Arthur's time. Yet, they did have fortifications of some kind.
The same principle could easily apply to the Code of Chivalry. It may be anachronistically styled in the stories, but that does not mean that it is fundamentally fictional. In other words, Arthur's court may well have established a particular code of conduct, but the Romance writers simply filled in the details with their own anachronistic ideas of what this meant (just as they had filled in the details of 'armour' and 'castles' with their own understanding of those concepts).
Regardless of any potential historical origin, the literary development certainly shows this to be the case. In Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae, which was written before the Romances, we are told that Arthur introduced "such politeness into his court," or "such a code of courtliness" (according to the translation by J. A. Giles and the translation by Thorpe, respectively). Then mention is made of Arthur's "munificence," or '"generosity." So the suggestion above does, in fact, seem to be what happened. There was information about Arthur having this 'code of courtliness', but without any detail as to what was actually involved, and so the later Romance writers simply provided the details based on their own ethics and philosophy.
In fact, there is a slight hint of this code of courtliness and 'munificence' of Arthur's in, once again, the Historia Brittonum, the earliest definite record about Arthur. As seen in the line quoted earlier in this article, the account describes Arthur as 'magnanimous' - the same kind of quality attributed to him in the later account by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Granted, this description only appears in one surviving manuscript of the HB, so we cannot know for sure if it was in the original. In any case, Arthur's munificence and code of courtliness definitely appears prior to the Romances, though without any of the details, and possibly gets a reference in the earliest Arthurian source.
But that is just the literary development. Is there any evidence that these records actually preserve a true memory of the reality in sixth century Britain? Well, given the lack of archaeological evidence for chivalry, the only way to test this idea would be by comparing the earliest accounts of Arthur's court with the earliest record of sixth century Britain - that is, the work of Gildas, a prominent sixth century preacher. He does not give a very detailed description of the events that occurred in his century, but the information he does give is very interesting indeed.
After speaking of the battle of Badon (Arthur's decisive victory against the Saxons, according to later records), he says the following:
"kings, public magistrates, and private persons, with priests and clergymen, did all and every one of them live orderly and according to their several vocations."
Though not explicitly referring to an 'alliance' of kings, this is consistent with the concept in that it shows that there was order among kings at that time. Then Gildas goes on to say that when
"a new race succeeded, who were ignorant of this troublesome time, and had only experience of the present prosperity, all the laws of truth and justice were so shaken and subverted, that not so much as a vestige or remembrance of these virtues remained among the above-named orders of men."
This is some very significant information. It reveals that, during the generation who lived during the battle of Badon (hence, the time of Arthur's rule), not only did kings live orderly, but they lived according to certain virtues, certain laws of truth and justice, which were abolished by the generation that lived after the battle.
So how does this relate to the Arthurian legends? Well, the Romances identify the uprising of Mordred, the nephew of Arthur, as causing the downfall of the Round Table and, therefore, the Code of Chivalry linked to Arthur's court. The much earlier Welsh Annals places the battle of Camlann - the climactic battle between Arthur and Mordred according to the later records - 21 years after the battle of Badon. Gildas, meanwhile, seemed to state that he was writing 43 years after Badon. Therefore, this 21-year gap between Badon and Camlann results in a comfortable middle ground after Badon, in which the new generation could have crushed the laws of justice, and before the time of Gildas's writing, in which he referred to this.
In fact, it is possible to correlate the timing of the two events even more strongly than that. In Historia Regum Britanniae, Geoffrey describes how, one or two years after Arthur achieved his victory at Badon, he ruled his kingdom in peace for 12 years. Then the next section describes how Arthur helped Lot gain his rightful place as king of Norway (almost certainly a mistranslation of 'Llychlyn', which is a word used variously for Scotland and Scandinavia). At this point, Geoffrey makes the remark that Gawain is 12 years old. In other words, then, Gawain was born one or two years after the battle of Badon. This is an enormously significant detail, for the account also claims that Gawain and Mordred were brothers. The age difference is not given, so we cannot conclude more than that they were similar in age.
The grand sum of this is that the Arthurian material paints a picture in which someone who was of the generation who lived during the peace established after the battle of Badon (that is, Mordred) rose up in rebellion, causing a civil war and the collapse of an orderly arrangement of kings and princes and a code of courtliness which they had, until that rebellion, lived by. This is completely, totally consistent with the statements of Gildas.
But that is just the literary development. Is there any evidence that these records actually preserve a true memory of the reality in sixth century Britain? Well, given the lack of archaeological evidence for chivalry, the only way to test this idea would be by comparing the earliest accounts of Arthur's court with the earliest record of sixth century Britain - that is, the work of Gildas, a prominent sixth century preacher. He does not give a very detailed description of the events that occurred in his century, but the information he does give is very interesting indeed.
After speaking of the battle of Badon (Arthur's decisive victory against the Saxons, according to later records), he says the following:
"kings, public magistrates, and private persons, with priests and clergymen, did all and every one of them live orderly and according to their several vocations."
Though not explicitly referring to an 'alliance' of kings, this is consistent with the concept in that it shows that there was order among kings at that time. Then Gildas goes on to say that when
"a new race succeeded, who were ignorant of this troublesome time, and had only experience of the present prosperity, all the laws of truth and justice were so shaken and subverted, that not so much as a vestige or remembrance of these virtues remained among the above-named orders of men."
This is some very significant information. It reveals that, during the generation who lived during the battle of Badon (hence, the time of Arthur's rule), not only did kings live orderly, but they lived according to certain virtues, certain laws of truth and justice, which were abolished by the generation that lived after the battle.
So how does this relate to the Arthurian legends? Well, the Romances identify the uprising of Mordred, the nephew of Arthur, as causing the downfall of the Round Table and, therefore, the Code of Chivalry linked to Arthur's court. The much earlier Welsh Annals places the battle of Camlann - the climactic battle between Arthur and Mordred according to the later records - 21 years after the battle of Badon. Gildas, meanwhile, seemed to state that he was writing 43 years after Badon. Therefore, this 21-year gap between Badon and Camlann results in a comfortable middle ground after Badon, in which the new generation could have crushed the laws of justice, and before the time of Gildas's writing, in which he referred to this.
In fact, it is possible to correlate the timing of the two events even more strongly than that. In Historia Regum Britanniae, Geoffrey describes how, one or two years after Arthur achieved his victory at Badon, he ruled his kingdom in peace for 12 years. Then the next section describes how Arthur helped Lot gain his rightful place as king of Norway (almost certainly a mistranslation of 'Llychlyn', which is a word used variously for Scotland and Scandinavia). At this point, Geoffrey makes the remark that Gawain is 12 years old. In other words, then, Gawain was born one or two years after the battle of Badon. This is an enormously significant detail, for the account also claims that Gawain and Mordred were brothers. The age difference is not given, so we cannot conclude more than that they were similar in age.
The grand sum of this is that the Arthurian material paints a picture in which someone who was of the generation who lived during the peace established after the battle of Badon (that is, Mordred) rose up in rebellion, causing a civil war and the collapse of an orderly arrangement of kings and princes and a code of courtliness which they had, until that rebellion, lived by. This is completely, totally consistent with the statements of Gildas.
Wonderful article!
ReplyDelete