The heroic narratives of the legend of King Arthur have somehow persevered through centuries and are still alive in contemporary times. Presently, societies are aware of the fable because of multiple depictions that range from movies to novels, all of which spin the tale in one way or another. Still, the depiction of King Arthur in such works revolves around a character that is not only victorious and strong as a leader but also passionate about his kingdom, ready to defend it from potential harm. Still, is it possible that King Arthur of Camelot and the documented adventures in which the man went alongside his brave knights are nothing but tales spun from a fanciful imagination? Multiple scholars have and continue to debate on the legitimacy of the literary individual existing in the real world. Nonetheless, historical evidence suggests that there indeed was an Arthurian persona in British medieval times and as a result, one has no need to assume that King Arthur was a mere myth. To that end, this paper presents the legend that was King Arthur before proceeding to show the opposing arguments on the realism of the Arthurian tales and determining the existence of King Arthur in modern times.
According to legend, King Arthur’s conception was subject to the whims of Merlin, a wizard. Apparently, young Arthur was to become the adopted child of the magician and for that reason, a close relationship between the two figures became inevitable with the latter acting as the guardian and advisor of the former. Now, as per the terms of a prophecy in which the real Monarch of England was to prove his worth by withdrawing the sword of “Excalibur” from a boulder, Arthur did so and promptly ascended to claim the throne. On that note, the sword was apparently the property of the “Lady of the Lake” and when Arthur dies, one of Arthur’s faithful knights has the task of returning it to the mythical creature. Throughout the tale, King Arthur’s nemesis is his half-sister Morgana, who also happens to be an enchantress. The root of the feud lay in one incident when Morgana seduced her half-brother to beget an illegitimate child, a son they called Mordred. Upon the child’s birth, Merlin warns Arthur against letting him live as their destinies are intertwined: the son will kill his father. In response, Arthur ordered the killing of all male infants in his realm and his knights acted on the orders by drowning the newborns; naturally, the murders and his incestuous actions would later haunt the man as Mordred was not among the killed children.
The threats of Merlin’s prophecy aside, King Arthur’s reign was subject to multiple rivalries amid challenges issued by other rulers around Camelot. Amid constant battles, Arthur prevailed and even invaded the Saxons to become the single Monarch in the entire territories of Britain. Accordingly, after his marriage to Guinevere, his father in law availed him with a round table with an estimated sitting capacity of one hundred knights (it was the same scenario that the legend of the Knights of the Round Table came into existence. In some versions, King Arthur went on to defeat other European armies including the French and even fought the emperor of Rome. At home, his marriage was in tatters as Guinevere came to love Sir Lancelot, who also happened to be close to the king. On a similar note, even present day depictions of the story do not fail to focus on the Queen’s questionable actions; however, each narrative works around the scene as the writers see fit. In one, the enchantress Morgana is to blame while in another Arthur is evil and Sir Lancelot steps in to save the life of his Queen. Either way, the tensions between the King and the Queen are impossible to overlook especially since Guinevere never conceived to give an heir to the throne. While the Knights of the Round Table engage in quests, such as the search for the Holy Grail, King Arthur makes a move to invade France only to have Mordred, his illegitimate son with Morgana, return and claim the throne. It is after his return that Merlin’s prophecy comes to pass, and Mordred mortally wounds King Arthur. Now, the legend does not end as one would expect; on the contrary, King Arthur did not die but is instead lying in an unknown location waiting to return when the world needs him most.
With the given legend in mind, the next step entails determining whether or not King Arthur’s legends are an actual piece of Britain’ history. Central to the questions of the legitimacy about King Arthur is writer Geoffrey of Monmouth. Considered the chief Arthurian writer, the man sought to discover some historical evidence to the myth that surrounds King Arthur’s life and his successes as a British Monarch that saw him rule all England. In the “History of the Kings of Britain”, Geoffrey of Monmouth depicted many reasons for producing his Arthur-based text. Apparently, for the Britons, the author created a work that would store the country’s history for future generations; prominently with a particular interest in the pre-Roman era. Additionally, as his work traces the origins of Britons to Aeneas, the Trojan champion, the “History” gives the people of Britain a traditional background on which they can ground their existence and cultures. At the same time, by tracing the line of Kings from the conception of the Monarch to the reign of Arthur, he manages to trace back to Brutus; the Monarch after whom Britain got its name. Arthur’s story, from Monmouth’s perspective, demonstrates the power of the kings of Britain and as a result, his narration becomes something akin to history. However, the debates are not so easy to settle.
On one hand, it is plausible that the tale of King Arthur spread too far across the medieval world that even the nations outside Britain came to know of his deeds and admire his ability to guide a nation with such bravery amid the threats that surrounded his life. Thus, when the Britons claimed that King Arthur was not only real but one of the Monarchs to have ruled over Britain and expand its borders, they gained respect while the legend became a powerful tool of half truths. It is acceptable that there is a need to determine the legitimacy of the tale; King Arthur was too significant a person for Britain to forget. Thus said, there are claims of a clear description of an individual fitting the period and context of King Arthur’s reign; however, there is no way of confirming the portrayed figure was indeed royalty or only a person with considerable power in the realm such as a general in the British Army.
Extensively, and on the other hand, some insist that there is little historical and archeological proof that sometime in either the sixth or the seventh century there was a King Arthur in existence. Accordingly, the mentioned Geoffrey of Monmouth’s thirteenth-century work dubbed “History of the Kings of Britain” stands accused of being responsible for introducing the characters of King Arthur’s legends. From the magician Merlin to the incestuous birth of Mordred, none of it is real. The later text “Le Morte D’Arthur” by one Sir Thomas Malory in 1485 added more intrigue to the tale of King Arthur by introducing French romances via Lancelot, the man who would steal Guinevere from his king. Thus, there are multiple versions of the story. The various Arthurs and the interpretations that go into his story and reign as a king ought to highlight the fact that there are no truths to the legend, but pure fiction devised too early in history and is often mistaken for realism.
In conclusion, amidst the various narratives based on King Arthur and the claims against his existence, the quest to establish his historical authenticity continues. Evidently, the questions surrounding the legend make create the basis on which the narrative still exists to this day. Originally, the tales of King Arthur were within the confines of the peoples’ imaginations; however, literature works, and visual presentations of the tale have propelled them to become the most common medieval story of all time. From his Knights of the Round Table to his murder at the hands of his son, the tale of King Arthur certainly goes beyond the expectations one has for a mere legend. To that end, there are chances that the tale is merely a correlation among different works or that Arthur was a warlord seeking riches across Europe. After all, which other king leaves his throne at a time of possible rebellion by his son and evil half-sister to personally see into an invasion abroad? In that sense, Arthur’s existence may have entailed that of multiple men and even if he was one man, there are chances that he was a power-hungry leader pursuing the prospects of owning vast lands and controlling many territories that went past the boundaries of his country, Britain.
Bibliography
Barber, Richard. King Arthur: Hero and Legend. Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1986.
Castleden, Rodney. King Arthur: The Truth Behind the Legend. Abingdon: Psychology Press, 2000.
Higham, N. J. King Arthur: Myth-Making and History. New York: Routledge, 2005.
Mathis, Andrew E. The King Arthur Myth in Modern American Literature. North Carolina: McFarland, 2001.
Roberts, Jeremy. King Arthur. Minnesota: Twenty-First Century Books, 2001.
