However, as Historia Brittonum is the first known historical portrayal of Arthur, Nennius’ context cannot be proved to have altered his portrayal. Despite this, it is widely accepted that Nennius’ portrayal of Arthur as a Christian warrior was dramatically influenced by his purpose, and his association with Christianity.
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s famous ‘Historia Regum Britanniae’ portrays an Arthur that has been heavily influenced by Geoffrey’s 13th century context. In comparison to Nennius a very different approach to the figure is taken, Geoffrey adopting a more heroic and historically prominent Arthur. Arthur is portrayed not only as a great Christian warrior, but also as a ‘king’, a king whose tremendous leadership led the British nation to ‘a golden age of peace and prosperity’. Compared to Nennius, Geoffrey also goes into a more detailed description of Arthur’s life, describing (amongst other things) Arthur’s; overseas battles; death in 543AD; and family life. This text has recently experienced a great deal of academic criticism concerning its validity; this criticism has largely been reactive to the fictional rather than historical writing style adopted, combined with the lack of historical evidence. Accordingly, many historians have deemed Geoffrey’s writings as psuedo history, Just one such historian is Thomas Green who commented that ‘it would be unwise to take this [Geoffrey’s writings] for fact…’. The reason for this pseudo-historical representation of the figure can be directly linked to the circumstances under which Geoffrey wrote. Firstly, Geoffrey’s purpose for the writings had an impact on his portrayal of Arthur. B Rise accurately describes Geoffrey’s purpose in Historia Regum Britanniae ‘‘to extol the glories of the Celtic Briton ancestors of the Welsh… who became mighty but were eventually conquered by the Saxons, the ancestors of the British, through treachery and their own moral decay”; accordingly, it can be said that Geoffrey’s purpose for portraying Arthur was to symbolise the excellence of the ancient Britons to his 13th century audience (achieved by creating this heroic and Kingly figure). This purpose (which does not hold historical accurateness in the forefront) had a tremendous influence on Geoffrey’s portrayal of the figure, causing Geoffrey to deter from the truth in aspects of the portrayal such as; Arthur as King; Arthur’s overseas campaigns; and Arthur’s heroic military victories. Green, reactive to Geoffrey’s purpose has recently written ‘Indeed the whole portrayal of Arthur in the Historia Regum Britanniae might be seen to reflect the needs and aims of the 12 Century Author… there is nothing at all suggestive of such a notion of Arthur as this Gallic adventurer’’.
It was not only his purpose the influenced Geoffrey’s portrayal of Arthur, the fact Geoffrey wrote at Oxford University had a profound influence on his work. Oxford has traditionally been renowned for extolling the British heritage; accordingly (even if Geoffrey’s purpose was not aimed to extol the glories of ancient Brittain) Geoffrey was obligated to exaggerate the excellence of Britain’s Heritage. This association may have added to the influence of Geoffrey’s purpose, causing an exaggeration of the historical Arthur in order to extol the glories of Ancient Britton. Writing at Oxford also inclined Geoffrey to implement Christian values in his portrayal of Arthur. At the time Oxford was closely associated with the Church; in fact, the Church entirely funded Oxford University. Accordingly, in order to maintain residency at Oxford Geoffrey was obligated to incorporate Christianity in what ever he wrote; therefore Christian representations of Arthur such as ‘Then through our lord Jesus Christ, Arthur…’ may be historically inaccurate. Rise commented on this Oxford association ‘… it seems Oxford had an unusually negative effect upon….and the accuracy in his [Geoffrey’s] writings’.
Geoffrey’s portrayal of Arthur was also greatly influenced by his intended Audience. Geoffrey knew that his 13th Century audience where both gullible and impatient. He also knew that in order to achieve his purpose (‘extol the glories of Ancient Britain’) Geoffrey would have to engage this audience. If Geoffrey was to write conventional history consisting of ‘boring’ statistics of Celtic society, his audience would not be engaged and Geoffrey would have failed in his purpose; so Geoffrey adhered to a popular trend of the times, adopting a heroic persona found in Arthur to exert his message to society. Accordingly, Geoffrey may have created or bent the truth in certain facets of his Arthurian story in order to sensationalise Britain’s History. As previously mentioned, Green acknowledges this influence in his comment ‘Indeed the whole portrayal of Arthur in the Historia Regum Britanniae might be seen to reflect the needs and aims of the 12 Century Author’.
However, like Nennius, Geoffrey’s influences cannot be proved to have had a definite impact upon the portrayal of Arthur, as the ‘ancient book’ Geoffrey supposedly sourced his writings has not yet been found, and archaeological evidence is yet to wrongly prove any of his heroic claims of Arthur. Despite this, it is widely accepted that Geoffrey’s purpose, association with Oxford, and intended audience had a profound impact on his portrayal of Arthur; evidence of this is the fact the histories are commonly referred to as pseudo history.
In modern times there have been countless portrayals of Arthur; perhaps the most famous (or infamous) of these belongs to an Oxford Scholar by the name of Dr John Morris. In Morris’ The Age of Arthur various ancient sources, along with ‘new archaeological evidence’ are employed to justify the existence of a King Arthur similar to that which Geoffrey portrays. Arthur is historically ‘proven’ to have been a ‘all conquering military commander, who as ‘king’ or ‘emperor of Britain’ reigned during the ‘crucial central years of British history’. Morris goes even further, using various sources to ‘historically prove’ 8 of the 12 battles Nennius mentions in Historia Brittonum. However, despite his hefty use of sources, there are many who classify Morris portrayal of Arthur as ‘pseudo history’; this is due to two main reasons; firstly, many of the ancient sources Morris uses to prove Arthur existence have since been deemed inaccurate due to various archaeological discoveries; and secondly, due to the unjust (and often absurd) historical interpretation of sources that Morris presents. Howlett (just one of Morris’ critics) commented ‘[Morris’ work]… this is not the stuff of which history can be made of’. Accordingly Morris’ pseudo historical representation in The age of Arthur is evidence of just how much influence context can have on ‘non fiction’ representations, proving that even the elite Oxford Scholar’s are exposed to threat.
Like the earlier authors, Morris’ purpose had a profound impact upon his portrayal of Arthur. Morris states his purpose in the opening lines of the text ‘to reconstruct the history of Britain and Ireland during the so called Dark ages following the Roman withdrawal’; however from looking back on how the text was written (ie with absurd interpretations of sources), this proclaimed purpose is obviously inaccurate. Morris (being a patriot for Britain) had the real purpose to locate and glorify an Ancient Britain in a time when it no longer existed (a similar purpose to Geoffrey’s ‘extol the glories of ancient Britain’). This subjective purpose had a major influence on Morris’ portrayal of Arthur, causing him to exaggerate the worth of both ‘new’ and ancient sources in order create a hero and glorify the British past. Therefore Morris’ ‘historical proof’ of Arthur as a ‘king’, and the occurrence of various ancient battles may not be historically accurate portrayals of the Arthurian story. Howlet commented ‘Morris was so caught up in the excellence of his own nation he forgot he was writing non fiction’.
Morris’ association with Oxford University influenced the portrayal of Arthur. Oxford University is renouned as a veneer of academic reason and authority, accordingly Morris was obligated to incorporate and analyse various sources from an‘neutral’ point of view. Due to this, Morris would have to exaggerate the historical relevance of both ancient and modern sources in order to achieve his purpose. Therefore, much of the ‘historical proof’ Morris presents may have been (and has been proven to be) inaccurate, causing a historically inaccurate portrayal of Arthur. Oxford’s infamous John Morris’ The age of Arthur is proof of just how much influence context can have upon a text’s historical accuracy; Modern history has proven Morris’ purpose and association with Oxford university to have a profound impact on his portrayal of Arthur, to the extent of calling modern Oxford literature pseudo history.
One of the most recent portrayals of Arthur can be seen in Christopher Snyder’s 1998 An age of Tyrants, Britain and the Britons AD 400-60. In this comprehensive analysis, Snyder does not mention Arthur once during the body; Arthur is not mentioned until the Appendix. In this appendix section Snyder adopts a purely fact proven historical portrayal of Arthur, commenting ‘Look, I know that your waiting for me to say something about King Arthur. So let me make it clear where I stand on this issue’, following this blunt statement he briefly analyses the different theorys of the Arthurian legend concluding that Arthur’s historical existence is probably not true; ‘At this stage of the enquiry, one can only say that there may well have been a historical Arthur’; that the historian can yet say nothing of value of him’. From this representation it is fair to say that Snyder exhibits the least bias of the historians. Unlike the previous historians, Snyder not English; Snyder is American and wrote for the University of Pennsylvania, therefore Snyder has no personal stake in glorifying early British history. However, he does exhibit some bias. Snyder comes from a western critical tradition, this influence has obligated Snyder to adopt a historically critical analysis of Arthur; as such, Snyder will not deem any thing historically accurate if it is not supported by historical evidence, this is because Snyder (being a serious academic who intends to maintain his reputation) cannot make unsubstantiated or inaccurate claims that can be scrutinised or criticised by his academic colleagues. This influence had a major impact upon Snyders portrayal of Arthur, bestowing Snyder an inability to actually portray a historical Arthur. Therefore, Snyder’s inconclusive argument may be historically inaccurate, as Snyder will not portray anything that has not been historically proven. It is interesting to analyse this portrayal of Arthur, by doing so it is learnt that even those who dedicate themselves to a neutral point of view have some bias in their writings.
The historical reality of Arthur has been portrayed in varying ways over the past one thousand years. Nennius’ 8th Century Historia Brittonum; Geoffrey’s 13th Century Historia Regum Britanniae; Morris’ 1976 An age of Arthur; and Snyder’s An age of Tyrants; are just four of these differing representations. It is interesting to see that the primary reason for the varied portrayals derives from the differing contexts of the respective authors. Modern Archaeological finds have not yet been able to provide a conclusive answer concerning this historical existence of Arthur, and as such the ultimate debate goes on. Although the actual historical reality of Arthur may never be entirely exposed, one can be almost certain that the Arthurian story will continue to evolve to changing societal contexts and values. The historicity of the Arthurian legend is truly a fascinating topic.
Nennius: Historia Brittonum. Translated by AW Wade Evans (a member of the Church Historical Society) (London 1938)
There is considerable debate concerning the date of production, this is due to numerous cites of the work presented in other prior literature (see Latin Writings in England to the Time of Alfred- 1907-21- The Cambridge history of English Literature). However for the purpose of this historiographical debate we will keep to this widely accepted date.
Nennius: Op.cit- p74-75 (Chapter 56)
Nennius: Op.cit- ch56. Translated to ‘leader of Battles’ (Evans) → not translated to King.
Ibid. (Translated to ‘Battle of Fort Guinnon’ (Evans) often geographically taken to be Winchester.)
1938- member of Church historical Society (publisher of Nenninus work today)
Nenius: Op.cit- preface I
Eldugus was a very high figure in the Catholic Church at the time, this would have obligated Nennius to incorporate Christianity. Nennius says ‘I Nennius, disciple of Eldugus…’ (Nennius: Op.cit-- Preface I)
To date, the only scholar ship from this period discovered has been by Christian Monks.
Howlett, DR: Cambro- Latin Compositions; their competence and craftsmanship (Dublin 1998) ch 5
Geoffrey of Monmouth: Historia Regum Britanniae (1953 Edition). Translated by Aaron Thompson (London 1718). Page 36
In recent years there has been those who do not believe this to be Geoffrey’s work (see Thomas Green’s Historicity and Historicisatoin of Arthur (England 1998), available at ) however for the purpose of this debate we will keep to what is widely accepted and refer to the work as Geoffreys. Therefore the place of publication is Monmouth in the years of 1138-39.
The only historical evidence presented is in the preface where it is said ‘…from an ancient book I have recently acquired, which has since then been misplaced’ (Geoffrey: Op.cit- preface I)
History that on the surface seems to be history, but does not follow any historiographical conventions (Brooks, M: Oxford Primary Dictionary (Melbourne 1995)
Thomas Green, The Historicity and Historicisation of Arthur (London 1998), pg 7
B Rise, Geoffrey of Monmouth, (Encyclopaedia Mythica, 1995) pg 1 (only page)
Evidence of this is Howlett’s comment ‘… in those days [the 12th Century] Oxford had strong ties to the Church…’ (Howlett: Op. cit- ch 9)
Geoffrey: Op. cit- pg 46 (among others)
B Rise, Geoffrey of Monmouth, (Encyclopaedia Mythica, 1995) p1
This popular trend was to write ‘sonnets’ with fictional characters in order to explain real events, one famous example of which is The Song of Roland
Dr John Morris: The age of Arthur (1973, Oxford)
Morris: Op. cit- ch7, p147. Morris claims that recent finds (particularly the finds dating from ‘pre irish history) have enabled a historically accurate portrayal of Arthur → modern finds have however deemed this claim inaccurate (see Green’s The Historicity and Historicisation of Arthur 1998 – available at )
Morris: Op. cit- ch7, p145
Morris: Op. cit -ch 6 p 87
Morris: Op. cit -ch 6 p 87
Morris: Op. cit -ch6, p87
Morris: Op. cit- ch 6, p87
Morris: Op. cit -ch7, p145
History that on the surface seems to be history, but does not follow any historiographical conventions (Brooks, M: Oxford Primary Dictionary (Melbourne 1995)
One example was the find of ‘the artefacts of meslothic food gathers’ which enabled an understanding of ‘how men lived in Ireland before the flood’ (Morris: Op. cit- ch8, 148). From this particular find, much of Morris’ argument about the Arthurian wars was discreted. Green commented ‘… we from now see how pathetic these [Morris’] claims really are(Green: Op. cit- p9).
Morris: Op. cit- preface page
The most notable proof of this is the fact that he was a former Labour party candidate for British parliament.
Morris: Op. cit- preface page
Morris: Op. cit- ch7, p145
Morris: Op. cit- ch6, p87
It must be noted that this was not the case for Geoffrey, when Geoffrey wrote at Oxford this was not vital.
Morris: Op. cit- ch7, p145
Snyder, Christopher: An age of Tyrants, Britain and the Britons, AD 400- 600 (Pennsylvania 1998)
Snyder: Op. cit- p461 (appendix section)