Was King Arthur real?

cmh blogWhether or not King Arthur was a real person is an either/or query.  He either was or he wasn’t.  Many scholars, researchers, and Arthurophile’s have strong opinions on this topic, both for and against.  Because of the paucity of written records (most notably, Gildas fails to mention him), much of the academic work has come down on the side of ‘wasn’t’–or at least if Arthur was a real person, his name was not ‘Arthur’ and he possible wasn’t even a king.  In another blog (here), I list the original sources that posit the existence of King Arthur.

Obviously, since I’ve written a novel about King Arthur, he’s very real to me!

Wikipedia has a remarkably thorough analysis of the subject:

For now, I’d like to point to two aspects of the ‘wasn’t’ camp that I find particularly interesting, as they have to do with the development of Welsh myth and the transformation of Wales from a pagan culture to a Christian one.

One theory about King Arthur was that his stories were originally not about him at all, but about Gwydion, one of the sons of Don and a chief character in the Four Branches of the Mabinogi.  In these tales, Gwydion, while evident through much of the Mabinogi, is completely absent from the stories that include Arthur, implying that the ancient poet did a global ‘find and replace’. This theory was originally posited by Sir John Rhys, writing at the end of the 19th century.

The second curious aspect of the development of Arthur, which parallels the Gwydion relationship, is the way in which the character adopted not only the characteristics of Gwydion, but of Cadwaladr ap Cadwallon, the last ‘King’ of Wales (died 682 AD).  Included in the books of Taliesin are not only poems about Arthur, but also about Cadwaladr.  It is Cadwaladr whom the Welsh tales describe as sleeping in a cave on Mount Snowdon, and whose return the Welsh await (see my post on The Great Prophecy of Britain).

I would love for Arthur to have been a ‘real’ person, but I find the discovery of the way in which myth becomes ‘real’, as well as the ‘real’ becomes myth fascinating.  It is almost a parallel process:  many scholars of celtic myth believe that the stories of the Don or Tuatha de Dannan (in Ireland) were once ‘real’ to the people who told them, but with the coming of Christianity, their tales were either adopted and transformed into Christian parable, or faded into the realm of fable.  Similarly, Gwydion (a mythic character) or Cadwaladr (a ‘real’ one) might have had their stories blended into the tale of King Arthur–for Gywdion, the stories were sanitized and made palatable for Christian audiences, and for Cadwaladr, his story was submerged into the tale of an already more famous and reknowned hero and thus made more ‘mythic’.

Follow me!

2 thoughts on “Was King Arthur real?

  1. hi Sarah, Like your site! Came across it while checking up on Cadwaladr. I take a middle position, which is that Arthur was real but most of the stories woven around him are culture-universal myths, e.g. the magical birth at Tintagel (c.f. the magical birth stories of Taliesin & Kentigern).

    Arthur as a warrior at Badon and killed at Camlann as per the Annales Cambriae, yes. (Badon in 491 though, by the way). Arthur as the “chief giver of feasts” of Taliesin’s poem Journey to Deganwy, yes. Arthur as ‘tyrannos’ (ruler who got there by military force not legal process) of Celtic Britain, 491 to 540, yes. Arthur tyrannos as per the Vita of Cadog, and cousin of the Christian leader Illtyd of Llan Illtyd Fawr, yes.

    Arthur as all-conquering hero who fought 12 battles as per Nennius, no. Arthur as ruler of Spain etc as per geoffrey, no. Arthur a real down-to-earth fighter with giants and conqueror of megic islands (Preiddeu Annwn, Culhwch and Olwen) no.

    Arthur as a prince brought up at the court of petty-king Cadwg who ruled the civitas of Lindinis from Dunster in Somerset, Arthur who held feasts for royals at Cadbury-Camelot, another of Cadwg’s border-forts as are Cadbury-Tiverton and Cadbury-Congresbury, and was buried at Glastonbury – believable, albeit not proven.

    1. I too think that Arthur was ‘real’ in some sense, not fabricated out of whole cloth (although I don’t think he was buried at Glastonbury–just another one of the Anglo-Norman fabrications 🙂

Comments are closed.