Our usual vision of King Arthur is that of a majestic character, covered in royal ornaments and surrounded by a company of faithful knights, all covered in shining armour. They would reunite around a round table in the great hall of a fortress, before leaving for some far off expedition. This comes from the fact that the attributed adventures of King Arthur and his companions were written in the 12th and 13th centuries by authors who used the feudal society of their time as a model and described the Court of the Capetians (dynasty of kings who reigned in France from 987-1328) and the Plantagenets.

However, this vision is a result of a complet non-sense, since the events described in the romances of the Round Table are about a period which can be located in what was still known as the Island of Britain, and what is presently Great-Britain, around about 500 A.D., at the end of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Merovingian period. The time interval is : seven centuries.

The Romans began to occupy the Island of Britain under the reign of the Emperor Claude, that is to say what is now England and Wales, the latter being a remarkable strategic position within the boundaries of the Empire. However, this occupation was totally different from the one that the Gauls were subjected to. In fact, the Romans contented themselves with building or converting fortresses, founding colonies of veterans and organising towns following the municipal (citizen who had privileges of a Roman citizen) principle. Most of the Briton tribes kept their customs, their language, their religion and their chiefs, and that was despite multiple revolts and numerous periods of unrest during what was known as the "Roman Peace". And amongst the troublemakers were notably the Gaels of Ireland and the Picts north of Scotland who made frequent incursions into Roman Britain, pillaging and destroying and taking slaves. In order to protect themselves from the Picts, the Romans built the famous wall of Hadrian, between Carlisle and Newcastle, and later the Antonin wall, north of the line going from Glascow to Edinburgh. The Romans took advantage of them by trusting the defense of the northern frontiers to the tribes known as the "The Northern Bretons", residing in Lowland Scotland, who had kept, more than others, the customs and the virtues of the former Celtic warriors.
However, another danger became more important, that of the saxons, who had begun to attack the Armorican coasts. To ensure the defense of the coastline, the Romans called upon the Breton islanders. From the 3rd century, many of them came to settle in the north of the Armorican peninsula. This was the beginning of the Breton emigration, and it had the benediction of the imperial authorities. In addition to that, in 410, the emperor Honorius, realising that the legions were not sufficient enough in number on the Island of Britain, called them back onto the continent, confiding the entire defense of the Island to the Britons, as citizens of the Roman Empire. This edit of Honorius explains the events of the end of the 6th century perfectly, when the Briton king Vortigern (GWRTHEYRN), probably a usurper, called upon the Saxons, as well as the Jutes and the Angles who were allies and made the most of the situation. They were well paid and occupied numerous regions of the Island. It was at this time that the Arthurian period began.

Indeed, a reaction against these Saxon encroachments saw daylight. A certain Aurelius Ambrosius drove Vortigern away. He took refuge in Armorica - where hagiography made him the hermit saint Gwrthiern - and confronted victoriously with the Saxons. It is possible that this Aurelius Ambrosius had combatted on the continent in the company of the Franks, and he was perhaps recognised by the name of Riothame, hero of the battle of Déols, in Poitou. But everything is a bit confused during this period. Thus appeared the completely mythical character of Uther Pendragon, the so-called father of Arthur by the grace, and the magic of Merlin the Enchanter. In fact, a study of the manuscript of Historia Brittonum, a latin chronicle written at the beginning of the 10th century by a certain Nennius, shows certain confusion arising from a sentence, mixing Gallic and Latin, concerning Arthur mab uter id est horribilis filius. If we have correctly understood, Arthur is considered here as a horrible son, but this term was taken to be a name. And the monastic texts of the same period all insist on presenting this Arthur as a true brigand leader of a band of horsemen, who committed pillaging and the most diverse barbaric atrocities against religious establishments. Anyway, he is not a king and Nennius states clearly that he was only a dux bellorum, a "war leader" serving for the Breton kings who wanted to get rid of the Saxons. And Arthur managed to stop the Saxon advances thanks to the victory of Mont-Badon (maybe Bath) in 516, according to the Cambrian annals. It was thus the opening of a calm period for the Bretons, a period characterised by a rebirth of the former Celtic civilisation and which didn't stop, still according to the Cambrian annals, until the deadly battle of Camlann (Camelford in Cornwall?) where Arthur and his rival Medrawt (Mordret) killed each other, leaving the country as prey to the invaders.

Such was the historic Arthur, war leader and not king. The legend has done the rest. A character as famous as Arthur, and his strange name which refers to a celtic term for the bear, all this has lead to an exceptional character, true king of the world, preserver of the balance of an ideal and equal society around this famous Round Table. Purely Celtic mythological narratives cristalised around him, such as the story of Merlin, the story of Lancelot of the Lake, the story of Tristan and Yseult, and above all the huge epic of the Holy Graal. The Bretons who had been conquered both politically and militarily wished to remake their history according to their nostalgia and their hopes. And since, in the 12th century, Henry II Plantagenet on becoming King of Great-Britain did not feel at ease about his legitimacy, he wanted above all to claim to be heir to and exceptional King, so he encouraged his writers at that time, or at least those that were under his sphere of influence, to write and develop all that existed in the oral tradition about this character. It is thanks to that the the Arthurian epic invaded the whole of Europe in the Middle Ages and soon conquered the whole world. It's a pure fabrication, that is true, but it's brilliant.

In 1191, in the Abbey of Glastonbury (Somerset), which is taken to be the Island of Avalon, the monks, greatly inspired by Henry II, found the remains of a king and a queen which they declared to be Arthur and Guenièvre, not far from the "Chalice Well" with its ruddy waters, inside of which one can find, of course, the Holy Graal. A new tomb has been built for Arthur and Guinièvre and an anglican priest stays permanently in the ruins of the great church, near this grave, at the disposal of the faithful wishing to have prayers said for this strange King of the past, who is maybe not even dead, but "sleeping", and who, anyway you look at it, symbolises wonderfully the dream of the Bretons. Is there really a rift between myth and history?

Jean Markale

Bibliography:
J. Markale, le roi Arthur et la société celtique, Paris, Payot, 1976, reprint 1992
J. Markale, Le Cycle du Graal, huit volumes, Paris, Pygmalion, 1992-1996
J. Markale, Petite encyclopédie du Graal, Paris, Pygmalion, 1997