Lady of Legends

Written March 2004

Fact, legend, or myth? Historians for years have pondered whether or not Queen Guinevere really existed. Each have come up with their own story of King Arthur and his courts, and it is rare that they could agree on many of the facts (or theories) surrounding that story.

Geoffrey of Monmouth

One of the earliest known accounts of a King Arthur, or at least the one that seemed to ignite the Medieval myths and was the most complete, was the "History of the Kings of Britain" which was in Latin, a book written by Geoffrey of Monmouth while in Oxford and finished in 1136. This "history" began with the fall of the city Troy, and the warrior Aeneas finding his way to Italy to be the father (according to Virgil's Aeneid) of the future Roman Empire. But Geoffrey's story branches off from that story and tells us that Brutus, the great-grandson of Aeneas, took a band of Trojans to Britain sometime later. It was said by Geoffrey that what was previously Albion was renamed "Britain" after the Trojan leader Brutus, and that the group founded what they called "New Troy", the city we now know as London.

The book goes on to describe the reign of seventy-five kings, the majority of which were completely fabricated on Geoffrey's part. He then decides to give his readers an account of how the Romans came to settle in the area, changing the Welsh tale from it being a settlement of retired Roman soldiers moving to the area to a full fledged kingdom. However, when Britain’s people were attacked by invading tribes such as the Pict’s of Scotland and Rome failed to send aid, the Archbishop of London requested the help of nearby Brittany (that settlement of retired soldiers) and promised the kingship of Britain to him who helped. It was a man named Constantine that defeated their enemies. Constantine had three sons, the third of which was Uther, who is in this and many other tales the father of the renowned King Arthur. Geoffrey brings in many other people (such as Merlin) as well as other storylines, but it is enough to know how Arthur’s line supposedly came into power.

Arthur enters the story with the death of his father Uther and the invasion of the Saxons and their Pictish and Scottish allies. When Rome launched a campaign against Arthur for not paying tribute he chose all out rebellion against them and leaves his nephew Mordred and his Queen to rule the kingdom. So enters the first tale of a treacherous Guinevere; she abandons her husband and joins Mordred in attempting to take the throne from Arthur, a role that is more innocent or more at fault depending on what version of the story you read. In later tales created by Medieval authors it was sometimes written that Arthur forgave Guinevere her treachery before going to the Isle of Avalon and Geoffrey stated she later entered a convent. It is interesting to note that while Guinevere is accused of adultery, the text earlier claims she died, therefore giving the claims of her sins even less credibility.

Geoffrey of Monmouth also claims that Guinevere was of Roman descent, quite beautiful, and was raised by the Duke Cador of Cornwall. It seems odd that he knows this of her origins and yet cannot even decide the spelling of her name (her name undergoes tremendous changes throughout his ‘history’), though Geoffrey makes it quite clear in his work that her name was not Latin, which would seem to point to her not being Roman.

Despite Geoffrey’s status at Oxford and his rank as a nobleman, his information proves to be less than dependable. From those seventy-five generations, many of his own fabrication, to the prophecies of Merlin, it is quite obvious that Geoffrey’s writings are not quite the “history" that he called them, but rather a mythology designed to uplift certain people of that period by exaggerating their supposed ancestors worth.

Medieval Writings and other Tradition

During the Medieval times, many writers would use writings like Geoffrey of Monmouth’s "history" and many others as the basis of their stories and poems. However, during that period few worried about the historical accuracy of their work, and made no effort to mention to their readers whether their tales were fact or fiction. Thus, throughout that period much evidence that may have existed was twisted, and we cannot be sure of the accuracy of their details. In addition to this lack of classification of tales we are faced with the problem of motives. What was the author trying to convey? Who might they have been trying to please by their work? Few sources were available; each writer may have based their work entirely on one source and their imaginations.

When reviewing writings prior to that of the incredulous Geoffrey of Monmouth and years before the Medieval writers got involved you will still find references to King Arthur. Excluding those obviously mythological in nature, you will find four uses of the words Arthur and Artur in Welsh writings and genealogies. The story of the leader Gordur (or Gwawrddur) from Y Gododdin says Gordur is 'no Arthur'. Having been written about 638 A.D., this text certainly points to a general acceptance of a King Arthur in Welsh tradition prior to those later writings that are not considered accurate. There are also a few references in the "Historia Brittonum", a historical chronicle from the 9th century. In his "The Quest for Historical Arthur" Nick Kapur wrote:

"In chapter 56, the author lists twelve battles of highly debated location that Arthur supposedly won against the Saxons, including a certain battle of Mount Badon which is notable because it is also mentioned by Gildas and in the Annales Cambriae. Much has been made of the title the author gives Arthur in this section, dux bellorum. Literally ‘duke of battles’ in Latin, the title is usually translated as ‘battle leader’ or ‘leader of battles,’ and is very similar to the sub-Roman title dux britanniarum given to the commander in charge of the defense of northern Britain. The dux bellorum title has been used to argue that Arthur was not a king but rather a war leader in the service of a king, perhaps Gildas’ Ambrosius Aurelianus. Alternatively, Arthur may have indeed been a king who (perhaps due to his prowess) was elected the war leader of an alliance of multiple petty kings..."

The Annales Cambriae is a record that is even more likely to be accurate than the Historia Britonum. But some scholars are still not satisfied. So after this you move on to the De Excidio Brittanniea (The Ruin of Britain) by a man named Gildas. While he does not mention a 'King Arthur' he does praise an Ambrosius Aurelianis, and credits him with a victory credited Arthur in the Annales Cambriae as well as the Historia Brittonum. While Gildas does not praise him straight out, he does imply it, and his work leads us to believe the two men, Arthur and Ambrosius Aurelianis, may be one in the same. It must be mentioned that Gildas' work is not a history but a sermon, an account of Arthur may not have fit his topic, so explaining his omission of further accounts. Mr. Kapur's article that I quoted before mentions the possibility of 'Artorius' being the third name of Ambrosius Aurelianis, and says that 'Artorius' can be quite easily changed to 'Arthur' using the Welsh linguistic traditions. Another possibility he mentions is that 'Arthur' could be Ambrosius' war name. He also mentions that Arthur could have been one of Ambrosius' relatives, but this does not seem probable to me as Ambrosius and Arthur are, in different texts, credited for the same battles. That tells us they were probably one in the same and writers varied as to which name they preferred to use. The last possibility Kapur presents is that Arthur may have been Lucius Artorius Castus, a 2nd century Roman soldier, however this is extremely unlikely as the only possible link is the name 'Artorius'.

When getting into the more questionable pieces of evidence you will find four mentions of an Arthur (with spelling variations) in Welsh legends, but these were written in the 9th century, and were possibly stemming from those legends that had already started developing regarding Arthur. Many theories have been based on these accounts, but none have sufficient evidence. There are also those who believe the accounts of Geoffrey of Monmouth and his contemporaries, as well as those who try to prove him to be entirely mythological, but neither group's case is strong at all. Yet with all the evidence we have, and with all the lack of it, the best possible theory is that there was an Arthur, whether by that name or a similar one, who was a great king and the foundation of many legends. He was a great warrior from the 7th century or before, and until further evidence is discovered I will not risk the creation of any more theories about him.

So what was Guinevere’s role in all this? What important part did she play? There are some texts that say she kept the records of Arthur’s court in her care (though some say Merlin did so); fragments of these records were supposedly found in the twelfth century in Oxford as well as in the city of Troyes, France.

In the upcoming movie King Arthur, Guinevere (played by the talented Keira Knightley) will be portrayed as a warrior queen. This account is not so farfetched as it may seem. In the French Prose Lancelot there is actually a mention of her fulfilling such a role. The Saxon Princess Camilla wished to marry Arthur and had captured him. It was then that the first part of the Battle of Badon Hill was fought... between Camilla and Guinevere. Is this source reliable? Well there is a possibility of any of the texts related to King Arthur being so, but this twist is certainly a interesting contrast to that of other writers. However, according to Geoffrey’s text, at her coronation Guinevere was crowned with laurel, something that could be taken as a symbol of her being a victorious warrior queen, though by that time it was tradition for her to wear it anyway. In the book King Arthur, the authoress Norma Lorre Goodrich suggests that the fact Guinevere was so quickly appointed vice-regent after her marriage may point to her being a chieftainess from northern Britain. While Geoffrey of Monmouth does tell us she wore the ensigns of her royalty he fails to elaborate, thus eliminating the possibility of a clue regarding Guinevere’s own origins.

Physical Evidence

Despite the overall lack of evidence in any direction, at least enough to be conclusive, there are several pieces of physical evidence (such as stuff from archeological digs) that are quite interesting and support at least the possibility of a historical Queen Guinevere.

One piece of interesting archeological information (though not the strongest of them all) was a slate fragment found on July 4, 1998 by Glasgow University archaeologists excavating the Tintagel island, Arturius' supposed birthplace, which read "Pater Coliavificit Artognov," which a Professor Charles Thomas of Exeter University said to mean "Artognou, father of a descendant of Coll, has had this built". The dating of the slab and surrounding items is consistent with the Arthurian time frame. There is no strong evidence that 'Artognov' is King Arthur, but the possibility remains, as does the possibility of new, undiscovered proof.

Actual information on Guinevere is rather scarce. At that time in history little was recorded (or at least, not as much as we would like), and information on women is even harder to find. We do know that she was Arthur's queen (if he existed), though Giraldus Cambrensis claimed that her gravestone named her as Arthur's second wife. The problem is the drawing he made was created years after he supposedly saw it and portrays only one side.

In the year 1190 A.D. an excavation ordered by King Henry prior to his death found King Arturius' (the Latin form of his name) gravesite buried seven feet under the earth. Over his casket was a stone slab that read 'Hic jacet sepultus inclytus rex Arturius in insula Avalonia', which can be translated 'Here lies entered in the Isle of Avalon the renowned King Arthur'. In 1278 when the caskets were ordered open by Longshanks Edward I, there was an eye-witness account of this discovery by a Adam of Domerham which states that '...in two caskets, painted with their pictures and arms, were found separately the bones of the said king, which were of great size, and those of the Queen Guinevere, which were of marvelous beauty.' Some scholars do not believe this account, but the supposed remains were placed in a tomb under a church, and though the actual remains were lost over the years the tomb was found in 1931.

Conclusion

Though historians disagree on the subject of King Arthur, there is certainly evidence enough for it to be safe to say there likely was, though past that no one can be quite certain. The evidence I have mentioned here is not by any means the full extent of the evidence in favor of a historical Arthur and Guinevere, but they are a few of the most frequently used pieces of evidence in modern works on King Arthur. However, the evidence that is currently out there is by no means all there is or will be, as archeologists are constantly discovering more and more information on this subject.

Works Cited

Ashe, Geoffrey. “The Discovery of King Arthur". New York: Anchor Press, 1985.

Kapur, Nick. “The Quest for Historical Arthur". Nick Kapur’s Writings
<http://www.stanford.edu/~nickpk/writings/Arthur.html> [Accessed Mar 21, 2004].

Rolleston, T.W.. “Celtic Myths and Legends". New York: Avenel Books, 1985.

Goodrich, Norma Lorre. “King Arthur". New York: Franklin Watts, 1986.

"Arthur." Encyclopedia Mythica from Encyclopedia Mythica Online.
<http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/arthur.html> [Accessed Mar 21, 2004].

"Geoffrey of Monmouth." Encyclopedia Mythica from Encyclopedia Mythica Online.
<www.pantheon.org/articles/g/geoffrey_of_monmouth.html> [Accessed Mar 21, 2004].

"Guinevere." Encyclopedia Mythica from Encyclopedia Mythica Online.
<www.pantheon.org/articles/g/guinevere.html> [Accessed Mar 21, 2004].