Many of us have grown up with the grand
stories of King Arthur and his Round Table in the fair and majestic Camelot. We
have marveled at the fantastic tales of the wizard Merlin and felt torn over
the love story of Lancelot and Guinevere. These stories that we write off as
nothing more then fairytales may in fact be something more.
Because Camelot and King Arthur are at the
center of all these tales, they will be our focus. As I dove into research
for the origins of Camelot and Arthur, seeking to find if they had any real
historical merit, I found the answer to be full of riddles and not nearly as
simplistic as I thought it would be.Before I can begin to untangle the
historical relevance or even accuracy, we must first set straight the more
fantastical literary stories.
The first place that Arthur is mentioned is
around 1100 AD in the Welsh story of “Culhwch and Olwen”. This story with its
Welsh origins would not have been a known story outside of the Welsh community.
Despite its selective audience it is very important as it reveals the first
assigned location of Arthur’s residence. Arthur is by no means the hero of this
tale, and is only assigned but a few lines. But those sentences tell us that
Arthur is residing in Celliwig; the welsh name for Cornwall. It is important to
remember here that Cornwall was a kingdom in its self at this time in history
and spanned the whole lower half of modern day England. The story does not give
us further information as to where in Cornwall or what Arthur’s Kingdom was
called.
The second and most notable source for
Arthurian legend comes only 35 years later in the year 1135 by British writer,
Geoffrey of Monmouth. His book, “The History of
the Kings of Britain” Or otherwise known "Historia Regum Britanniate". This
book spans a remarkable two thousand years starting with Brute of Troy who
settled in Britain becoming known as the first king of Britain, and ending with
the Anglo Saxon’s claiming the British throne in the 7th century.
It is in the height of this text that we
find the story of Arthur. Once the Romans leave Britain, a man by the name of
Vortigern comes to power but two Saxon mercenaries betray him who were under
his employ. This thrusts the British kingdom into a state of war under the new
power of brothers, Aurelius Ambrosius and Uther Pendragon. Uther of course is
the father of Arthur and with the help of the Wizard Merlin, Arthur grows to
become a great man and military leader. It is accounted in the book that Arthur
beats the Saxons so severely they no longer remain a threat. Arthur goes on, in
the text, to win most of Western Europe ushering in a time of great peace and
prosperity. This lasts until the newly appointed Roman Emperor Luscious
Tiberius demands that Britain once again pays tribute to Rome. Being the great
king that Arthur now is, he rides to Gaul and defeats Luscious. But in his
absence his nephew Mordred takes his throne. Arthur rides back to his kingdom
and defeats Mordred, but is mortally wounded. His body is carried to the Isle
of Avalon where he hands over his throne to his cousin Constantine and then
dies. Interestingly enough there is no mention of a round table or Camelot in
Geoffrey’s work. He places Arthur’s kingdom in the “City of Legions” or more
commonly known as Caerleon, the welsh meaning for, City or Fort of Legions.
Geoffrey’s describes it like this,
“For it was
located in a delightful spot in Glamorgan, on the River Usk, not far from the
Severn Sea. Abounding in wealth more than other cities, it was suited for such
a ceremony. For the noble river I have named flows along it on one side, upon
which the kings and princes who would be coming from overseas could be carried
by ship. But on the other side, protected by meadow and woods, it was
remarkable for royal palaces, so that it imitated Rome in the golden roofs of
its buildings ...Famous for so may pleasant features, Caerleon was made ready
for the announced feast.”
With only 35 years between the first
account of Arthur and Geoffrey’s account, we have two very different places
where Arthur supposedly held his kingdom. If these were the only two texts that
existed we would be hopelessly at odds to where Camelot would have been or if
it even existed. But thankfully in 1170 to 1185 French writer Chrétien De
Troyes provides us with a literary work that unites the two. When writing “Lancelot” or “The Knight
of the Cart” Troyes opens his story thusly,
“Upon a certain Ascension Day King
Arthur had come from Caerleon, and had held a very magnificent court at Camelot
as was fitting on such a day.”
While the actual story has very little to
do with Arthur himself, the opening of the tale is the first place we see
Camelot mentioned, and further more find its connection to Geoffrey’s Caerleon.
Troyes suggests that Arthur has two main places of residence; one is Caerleon
and another in Camelot. But where is Camelot and what about the Welsh stories
placing him in Cornwall? Well Troyes addresses these questions as well. At the
end of his story he says,
“…it is decided that the battle shall be
fought at the court of King Arthur, who holds Britain and Cornwall in his
sway…”
This last line suggests that Camelot is in
Cornwall or Britain, Cornwall being the more likely place as it matches the
location in “Culhwch and Olwen”. This also lines up with Geoffrey’s idea that
Arthur conquered most of Western Europe. This of course including parts of
Cornwall.
So between these three literary works we
now know that Arthur was indeed the King of Britain, that he had two main
places of residence, Camelot most likely in Cornwall and Caerleon in Wales. We
know he was influential in driving out the Saxons and gaining much of Western
Europe for Britain, and lastly we know that he died on the Isle of Avalon.
So with this information in mind we plunge
forward to see if the man and the places he lived really existed. Information is only as reliable as its
sources and so it is important we look at the validly of these texts as
historical documents.
Sadly none of the texts have very much
weight to suggest they have any real historical claim. “Culhwch and Olwen” is a
Welsh story and holds no more historical value than “Jack and the Beanstalk”.
Geoffrey’s “The History of the Kings of
Britain” has even more unstable origins. History tells us that Geoffrey of
Monmouth decided it was important that a book be written detailing Britain’s
rise to power and its great hold on the surrounding areas. With this mission in
mind he began to pen “The History of the Kings of Britain”. The only problem
was that dear Geoffrey was having a rather hard time finding any source
materials. When everything looked like the project would not be completed,
Geoffrey miraculously ran into his old friend Archdeacon Walter or otherwise
know as Walter of Oxford. Walter provided Geoffrey with in his own words,“ A
very ancient book” that he was able to translate and put directly into his own
manuscript. In addition to the sketchy sources for Geoffrey’s work there was a
lot of political benefits to writing such a manuscript, whether accurate or
false. With Britain forever in war over ownership of lands and British Kings
always looking for ways to legitimize their right to the throne, “The History
of the Kings of Britain” provided kings with the proof of their legitimacy they
so longed for. Despite its shaky background, the kings of England regarded it
as an accurate history for centuries after Geoffrey’s death.
Similarly Troyes, “Lancelot” has no
historical claim either. Troyes was the recipient to the patronage of the Countess Marie de Champagne who
was the daughter of Eleanor of Aquitaine who was married to King Henry II of
England. At the Countess’ request Troyes writes his fictional work, “Lancelot”.
While these works
hold no historical value in their literal translation, it is still vary
plausible that they were inspired by real places and events. It is commonly
believed by many historians that Geoffrey drew heavily on his modern history
and European folklore to construct his “History of the Kings of Britain”. They
note the remarkable similarity of King Arthur’s battles with the Saxons to the
historically accurate accounts. And likewise find parallels with modern
folklore of the time to the more fanciful parts of his work. In fact there is
historical record naming a King Arthur at the Anglo Saxon battle at Badon Hill.
Making it very likely that while not as famous or great as Geoffrey’s King
Arthur, a King Arthur existed and may have very well been the inspiration for
Geoffrey’s work.
Troyes similarly,
I believe, found his inspiration for his story in actual people and places.
Troyes, remember, was contemporaries with Geoffrey writing, writing his own
work, “Lancelot” only 40 or 50 years later. For him Geoffrey’s work would have
been revered as historical fact. So when Troyes is approached by the daughter
of the King of England to construct a story, it seems very logical for him to
refer to Geoffrey’s work. After all, as previously stated “The History of the
Kings of Britain” was seen as proof of the British Kings right to their
thrones. By writing a story around a book with such a powerful reputation he
would be confirming the rightfulness of King Henry to his throne. Even though
the story was meant for the Kings daughter, Troyes main goal would have been to
pander to the King. Troyes is very skilled when constructing his story. He
starts out with King Arthur, harkening back to Geoffrey and then quickly steers
away and dives into a fanciful tale, bring the whole thing full circle at the
stories end by mentioning King Arthur once again. Beginning and ending with the
idea that the king comes from a long line of noble men who rightfully claim
power to their thrones.
But why mention
Cornwall or Caerleon? Why not just keep the story in Camelot? Once aging, Troyes was writing a fictional piece unlike Geoffrey. So
he would have wanted the story to be magical rather then factual. But since he
was also using his story to grant him favor with the king, he had to keep his
fantasy within the parameters of Arthurian legend. By mentioning Caerleon he was once again drawing on
Geoffrey’s work, but he most certainly would not have wanted to mess with what
he believed to be history. So he moves Arthur from Caerleon to Camelot most
likely in Cornwall; Troyes too drawing on his environment. After Geoffrey’s
work was published, “Culhwch and Olwen” would have
become widely known because of its connection with Arthur, and with it, the
idea that Arthur owned a castle in Cornwall. If it is true that Troyes used his
literary contemporaries and modern history as his inspiration, then it is
logical that Troyes would have picked up on Cornwall. But if this is the case
and is the location of his magical Camelot then why did he feel the need to
say,
“at the court of King Arthur, who holds Britain and Cornwall in his sway”
Even more puzzling is why Troyes felt the
need to name his kingdom in the first place. Both the kingdoms mentioned in
“Culhwch and Olwen” as well as by Geoffrey do not list a name for the kingdom
just a location. So why would Troyes name his, why not just say,
“Upon a certain Ascension Day King
Arthur had come from Caerleon, and had held a very magnificent court at his
kingdom..” in Cornwall or Briton?
Troyes could have been saying that Camelot
was in either Britain or Cornwall, but what I think it is more likely is that
he mentions Cornwall because that
is the location of Camelot and mentions Britain because that is the origins of
the rule of King Henry II. So in other words Britain is thrown in, not because it
is important to the story, but as an added ego boost for the king. Furthermore,
naming the kingdom Camelot would have brought the fanciful twist to a story
based in what Troyes believed to be history. Cornwall exists, Britain exists,
and Caerleon exists. So Troyes needed a place that did not exist by that name,
a place where his characters could do whatever they please without insulting
history. But just because the name Camelot does not exist does not mean there
is not evidence supporting that Troyes used modern geography and locations to
inspire him.
There are many places that claim to be the
origins of Camelot. But after reading through many of them, there are only two
that really catch my attention.
Under the pretence that my assumptions are
wrong about why Troyes mentions Britain, there is a site in Winchester that is
located in the kingdom of Britain, where a giant round table was discovered by
Sir Malory. He suggests in his “Le Morte D’ Arthur, printed in 1485, that this
is the legendary round table of King Arthur’s fame and therefore must be the
location of Camelot. The problem with this claim is that it rides wholly on the
origins of the round table. As I mentioned earlier Geoffrey makes no mention of
the round table. It is in fact introduced into the legend of Camelot in Wace’s
“Roman de Brut” a Norman translation of Geoffrey’s work. His translation was
finished in 1155, just 20 years after the original. While it is possible that
Wace drew on the table at Winchester as his inspiration, it is far more likely
that he drew his inspiration from the books setting in Caerleon.
Consistent
with Geoffrey’s description of Caerleon there are many Roman ruins thought the
city. One of these is a round hole that appears to have benches placed around
its outer rim and a round table or raised floor at its center. It is thought
that this is where Wace drew his inspiration, and that the original
translation, round meeting place was skewed over the years becoming round
table. The table at Winchester
from my viewpoint was probably constructed to mimic the round table in Wace’s
translation, in order to make the king of that castle appear just, righteous
and fair as King Arthur was. This information only strengthens the idea that
Britain was only mentioned by Troyes for the Kings benefit and that the true
location for Camelot’s inspiration is indeed in Cornwall.
Camelot is derived from the Latin word, Cameldunum. In Cornwall flows the Camel river. It is very possible that
Troyes used this river as his inspiration for his name. Furthermore just 12
miles from that river is the Castle Tintagel, this being the only castle that
has overwhelming evidence to support the idea it was the site Troyes used for
his Camelot.
The site was originally dismissed as having
any connections with King Arthur as it only had only the remains of a single
monastery dating back to the 12th century. But historians and
archeologists were put in awe when fires swept through the area revealing that
there were the remains to not just a single monastery on the site, but over 200
buildings dating back to the late 5th century. In addition pottery
was discovered from the Byzantine Empire, confirming that Tintagel was an
important place of trading and wealth. But most remarkable of all was a
medieval inscription found describing a king that lived there who had
remarkable similarities to the legendary King Arthur. If Geoffrey really based
his story on a real man and Troyes followed suit, it is very plausible that
Tintagel was the home of the King Arthur mentioned in the Anglo Saxon battle at
Badon Hill. In addition Tintagel is positioned between the Celtic sea and land.
The Celtic sea would provide a direct route to Caerleon and provide them with
the rich trade that Camelot was famous for. It would have also provided a
strategic place to be for war. If they were blocked by sea they could make
their way to Caerleon by land or receive reinforcements quickly and easily. I
think of all the castles that exist that this one provides Troyes most closely
with all the inspiration need for his literary work.
The story of Camelot, its knights, kings,
lords and ladies has certainly evolved over the years into a fairytale only
loosely connected with its origin. And even going back to the original tales it
is most certain that King Arthur and his kingdom of Camelot do not exist as
they do in the pages of Geoffrey and
Troyes literary work. But they were most certainly inspired by real people, events and places. I think it is safe to say that there was a King Arthur, that Camelot lives on in Tintagel and that the round meeting place still stands reminding us of the lessons of great leadership.
“On either side the river lie Long
fields of barley and of rye, That clothe the world and meet the sky; And
through the field the road runs by To many-towered Camelot.”
-Tennyson
'The Lady of Shalott' (revised1842), pt.1, l.1^5.
Sources:
