British Literature - Week 11 - Arthurian Literature - "The Elusive Arthur"

There is significant circumstantial evidence supporting the existence of a leader/general/king named Arthur/Artorius in the mid-fifth century C.E. (A.D.). In my view, there is a strong likelihood someone named Arthur existed and the legend of King Arthur is based on a historical figure. Due to the numerous sources written over several centuries in many languages mentioning Arthur, it seems probably the writings are based on someone who led battles in Britain around 460 C.E. The "no smoke without fire" argument is appropriate considering all the "smoke" swirling around Arthur. What was the original spark that generated all that smoke?

I found what may appear to be an unconvincing and irrelevant bit of information quite compelling. Near the end of the sixth century, the name Arthur experienced a resurgence. Popular historic figures often pave the way for a plethora of namesakes and there is no other plausible explanation for the sudden popularity of the name Arthur other than that an actual, popular person named Arthur existed.

Arthur is included in many accounts where all other figures are historical. Thus, it stands to reason Arthur is also a historical figure. All the people mentioned in the Annales Cambriae were real, leading me to believe Arthur was also real. Folklorist Jennifer Westwood pointed out that in every case, figures pictured sleeping in a cave are historical, not merely legends. So it would seem that Arthur was a living, breathing man, or at the very least was thought to be a real man by those who wrote about him throughout the years.

The Round Table at Winchester Castle.https://wwnorton.com/college/english/nael/middleages/
topic_2/illustrations/imroun.htm

There are references to, and ommissions of, Arthur from the earliest historical account of British history. Gildas, a sixth-century monk, does not mention Arthur by name, nor does Bede in 731 C.E. However, an Old Welsh Poem written in the sixth century, Y Gododdin, mentioned Arthur by name. Nennius, in the early ninth century, claimed to have gathered up all the oral and written tradition and "made one heap of all he found" (Lacy and Ashe 12). Nennius pictures Arthur as a leader of battles who carried the image of the Virgin Mary into battle, and at one time killed 960 men. One can see in this account the historical figure birthing the legendary figure.

The time period Arthur lived in cannot be pinned down with exactitude, but the many references to fighting the Saxons put his lifetime during the period the Britons were fighting off invading barbarians--Vandals, Alans, Sueve, Franks, Goths, Burgundians, and Huns. When Britain broke away from the Roman Empire in around 410 C.E., Angles, Saxons, and Jutes began to invade Britain. They expanded and multiplied, eventually taking power and naming Britain "Angleland" (England). However, for a short period of time, the Britons resisted, and it is during this period that Arthur must have lived. This resistance is historical, and all the references to Arthur place him at the center of the resistance.

The final piece in the puzzle to solve Arthur's legitimacy is from outside Britain. A cleric from Brittany named William wrote the Legend of St. Goeznovius. He called Arthur 'the king of the Britons,' and noted that Arthur cleared the warlike men of Saxony from the island before he died. All the features of the story are historical. Thus, with all the evidence provided, Arthur himself should be considered historical.