King Arthur (2004) Bachelor ’S Diploma Thesis

Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Katarína Mináriková

Legend versus History in the Film King Arthur (2004) Bachelor ’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: doc. Mgr. Milada Franková, CSc., M.A.

2008

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

…………………………………………….. Author’s signature

Acknowledgement I would like to thank my supervisor doc. Mgr. Milada Franková, CSc., M.A. for her patient guidance, valuable advice and especially for her support with consultations at a distance.

Table of Contents

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………….. 5

1. King Arthur in Literature ………………..……………………………………..... 7

1.1. Beginnings of Arthurian Legend ………………………………………… 8

1.2. From history to romance ……...………………………………………... 10

1.3. Malory’s King Arthur ……..……………………………………………. 11

2. Historical Arthur ……...………………………………………………………... 15

2.1. Name of Arthur in historical documents …………………………...... 15

2.2. Arthurian traces in archaeology ……...…………………………………. 19

2.3. Popular historical theories …………...……………………….………… 20

2.4. Innovatory approach in the publication From Scythia to Camelot …….…….25

3. Legend versus History in Contemporary Film Adaptation ………………………29

3.1. Film King Arthur (2004) ………………………………………………… 29

3.2. Interpretation of the legend in the film King Arthur ……….……....…….. 32

3.3. Historical inspirations ………………………………………………….. 38

3.4. Different attitudes to the film ………………………………………...... 43

Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………… 45

Bibliography ………...……………………………………………………………... 46

Introduction

The Arthurian romance is one of the best-known stories of the medieval literature of

Great Britain. At the same time it is one of the major enigmas of British history. Literary

historians may, although not without some obscurities, trace the evolution of the legend, which was changing and developing through the ages, but they still have not managed to

answer the question of the historicity of Arthur. They have not discovered what exactly

inspired the story of the noble king, his knights and their brave deeds. This problem is a

subject of study of many scholars, whose opinions over the existence of real Arthur vary

and thus give birth to numerous theories.

The mysterious background of the Arthurian story and various versions of the legend

itself have always been very attractive not only for the British artists, but many works of art with this theme have been created worldwide. This story is a rich source of inspiration also

for contemporary authors. Among the most popular motifs we can find the quest for the

Holy Grail or a love story of Tristan and Isolt, but the other themes do not stay behind.

Authors also sometimes concentrate on introducing some “true” theories about Arthur’s

existence and they modify the legend considerably. This is the case of the latest Arthurian

film called King Arthur (2004) that was directed by Antoine Fuqua and according to its

subtitle it brings "the untold true story that inspired the legend".

The film King Arthur is an unusual mixture which combines components of the legend with historical observations and discoveries, and this melange is spiced with a dose of

fantasy, producing inaccuracies of all kinds. The story does stick neither to the original

literary content nor to historical theories and it makes its own way through the myth and its

obscure points. It concentrates on one particular quest of Arthur and his “knights”, so the

plot is quite simple and does not make use of many of the notoriously known elements

associated with Arthurian tradition. At the same time it tries to preserve the motif of

knighthood, honour and affection for the land and introduces some of the popular

Arthurian characters, symbols and features - however, the result is often quite awkward.

Which are thus the major faults and missteps that the film is denounced for and does it

have any benefits at all? To answer these questions it is necessary to analyse the adaptation

from the point of view of the legend as well as history, what is exactly the objective of my

thesis.

The first chapter of the thesis deals with the Arthurian legend and its development in

literature, from the first emergence of the name “Arthur” in written records to the era when the king and his companions gained worldwide popularity. The chapter focuses

mainly on the work Le Morte d’Arthur by Sir Thomas Malory, which is the most elaborate

and detailed chronicle of King Arthur’s court. The following section is devoted to history

and its treatment of the legend, with various theories and approaches that have appeared,

trying to explain the origins of the myth. Finally, the last chapter focuses on the film – it

analyses it from the perspective of the points considered in the previous sections and refers

to its peculiarities and imperfections. It seeks to reveal the main problems of this

adaptation and to bring out its merits.

1. King Arthur in Literature

Literature has a mighty power in history. For some historical periods it is one of the

main sources of information about the life, people and events of those times. This case

especially applies to the Early Middle Ages - the period when Arthur was supposed to live.

The information about those times is so insufficient and so unclear that they earned the

name the Dark Ages. Unfortunately, literature is also one of the least credible sources. As

there is not much other evidence, reading any written records from those times, it can

never be said with certitude to what degree they are true and to what degree they were

modified and enhanced by the imagination of their author. And this is exactly the

stumbling block to the research about King Arthur and his existence.

To follow an evolution of the character of Arthur in literature is a demanding and

complex mission. Starting with some vague references, his name gradually gains importance

and more and more stories about him appear - about his life and deeds, his companions

and their quests. But as Arthur's story develops, we can notice also an increasing

exaggeration and addition of some unrealistic and mythological elements. This causes that a warrior scarcely mentioned in the literature of his own times evolves step by step into what

can be perceived as one of the most important national symbols of Great Britain.

The old Arthurian literature could be classified into two categories: a literature with a

historical background and a mere fiction. Yet, it is sometimes difficult to draw a clear line

between these two groups as it is not always possible to decide where the history ends and

the fiction starts. What can be said with certainty is that reliable works of the first category

are quite rare and this makes Arthur more a fictional hero than a historically credible

personality. But before getting deeper involved into all the speculations about Arthur's

authenticity and sources that offer some proofs about his existence, I would like to devote

a few pages to that second category of literature, the content of which is definitely richer

and which has brought to Arthur his fame – the Arthurian legend.

Beginnings of Arthurian legend

Following the path back to the roots of the Arthurian legend, the very first milestones

are not easy to trace. Besides the early historical works by Gildas, Bede and Nennius, where

only the last one mentions Arthur's name directly, several references to this person appear

in literary texts, predominantly of Welsh background. However, they are just some tiny

fragments of what seems to be a more complex story and thus do not shed much light on

Arthur's identity. Finally the person, who can be in these terms considered the father of the

Arthurian tradition, is a cleric called Geoffrey of Monmouth. It is only when his work

Historia regum Britanniae was completed in 1138 that Arthur’s story got its first consistent

form, which would have a significant impact on the future of the legend.

Historia regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain) is a pseudo-historical

manuscript that claims to draw inspiration from a “certain most ancient book in the British

language” (Jones 62). Monmouth pretends to acquire this book from his friend,

Archdeacon of Oxford, who asked him to translate it into Latin. Whether he is telling the

truth or just trying to find a background for his own fantasies, the fact is that such a book was never found. Apparently even during Monmouth’s lifetime, his work was accepted with a considerable controversy and its author was accused by several of his

contemporaries of being a mere liar. One of the most harsh of them, William of

Newburgh, uttered that Monmouth’s story about Arthur and his companions “was made

up, partly by himself and partly by others, whether from an inordinate love of lying or for

the sake of pleasing the Britons” (Jones 69). It is highly probable that Newburgh is right,

yet Monmouth's version of Arthur's life gained much popularity and became a cornerstone

for the following generations.

In Monmouth’s book Arthur is promoted from a war leader, potentially of a great

importance, to a “once and future king” of Britons. The cleric attributes him Uther the

Pendragon for a father and tells an intricate history how the king won Arthur’s mother

Igraine and the future hero was conceived in the castle of Tintagel. After the death of his

father, Arthur inherits his throne and starts fights against Saxons, Picts and Scots. The

most important battle against Saxons is said to be the battle at Bath, which is the way

Monmouth interprets the famous battle of Badon. Gradually Arthur conquers most of the

Northern Europe – Ireland, Iceland, Denmark and Norway. In the periods of peace he

marries Queen Guinevere and establishes an order of knighthood with such knights as

Kay, Bedivere and his nephew Gawain. Later the king is dragged into another war, this

time with a ruler of Western Roman Empire, Lucius, and leaving, he entrusts the country

to his other nephew, Mordred. Soon news reaches Arthur about the betrayal of Mordred who has taken both, his throne and his wife. Therefore he returns to fight his last battle with this treacherous kin, whom he defeats and kills, but he himself is mortally wounded.

But instead of dying on the battlefield, he is carried away to the mysterious Isle of Avalon

“to have his wound which is said to be fatal, healed” (Lupack 27) and that is how a myth

arises about Arthur being still alive and ready to return when the right time comes.

Taking into consideration this ambiguous end of Arthur’s story, it may be true that one

of Monmout’s intentions when writing his Historia was to give some hope to his nation

under the rule of Norman kings. At least that is what king Henry II believed when he

decided to put an end to these prospects of Arthur’s return. In order to prove the death of

the brave king of Britons, he encouraged rumours about his grave being found at

Glastonbury. Since then this argument was repeatedly used by several English kings to

reinforce the legitimacy of their reign. However, this fact did not prevent the cult of Arthur

from increasing in importance; on the contrary, it even supported its further development.

1.2. From history to romance

Monmouth’s manuscript finally gained more weight in the literary field than in the field

of history. It did not take a long time before the story crossed the border of Britain and was altered into numerous translations and adaptations in several countries. This fact had a

considerable effect on the future fate of the legend, as the “translators” often enriched

Monmouth’s version of their own ideas, elaborated on some parts and omitted the other

ones. The most influential of such modified translations was Roman de Brut by a Norman

called Wace and its subsequently reworked English version of a cleric Layamon. The

approach they adopted definitely deflects the Arthurian matter from having any historical value and establishes a new romance tradition. Wace, who transforms Monmouth's Latin

text into French verse, decorates the story with features of the courtly literature. He

emphasizes the chivalric aspects and knightly behaviour and adds elements of courtly love

praising ladies, especially queen Guinevere. In Brut Arthur simply becomes “the flower of

chivalry” (Jones 90). Another significant contribution of Wace is that he introduces the idea

of the Round Table, which becomes one of the well-known symbols of Arthur’s court.

This theme is even further developed by Layamon, who on the basis of Wace's Brut creates

an English version in the alliterative verse.

The Round Table is not the only aspect of Arthurian legend that has originated in

France. Paradoxically, in a certain period this subject became much more popular in this

continental neighbour of England than in the country of its origin. The credit for this must

be attributed primarily to Chrétien de Troyes, who in the second half of the 12 th century

created five romances with Arthurian motifs: Erec et Eneide , Cligés , Lancelot or Le Chevalier de

la charrete (The Knight of the Cart), Yvain or Le Chevalier au lion (The Knight with the Lion)

and unfinished Perceval or Le Conte del Graal (The Story of the Grail). In these stories Troyes

not only further develops the concept of courtly love and chivalry, but also introduces

other themes that will ultimately become characteristic for the legend: the quest for the

Holy Grail and the adulterous love of Lancelot and Guinevere. He is also the first to

present Arthur as a character of a secondary importance – the king is not usually directly

involved in the adventures of his knights, who are the central characters of the stories, and

Arthur's court has a sole function to regroup all these heroes and to give them a common

background.

The share of France in the development of the Arthurian legend is undeniable, for it

laid foundations of a new attitude towards the story and presented Arthur as a noble king with a chivalric court. Finally in the mid-15 th century comes a writer, who, building on the

English as well as the French sources and with an addition of his own imagination, gets the

hero back to his homeland - it is Sir Thomas Malory and his vast romance Le Morte

d'Arthur .

1.3. Malory’s King Arthur

The 15 th century does not bring innovations only to the Arthurian story, but to the whole history of literature. In this period William Caxton introduces to England the art of

book printing and thus makes the books more accessible for the readers. One of the first

printed works is, among others, Le Morte d’Arthur by Sir Thomas Malory, with Caxton as a

publisher and an editor in one person. The interventions of the latter into the romance are

quite considerable – besides some changes both in the content and the vocabulary, he

divides the longish text into 21 books and writes his well-known preface. In its opening

lines Caxton describes how he was asked by certain noblemen to publish the story of “the

most renowned Christian king, first and chief of the three best Christian” (3) and adds

some of their arguments supporting Arthur’s existence. Subsequently he notes that this

hero is “more spoken of beyond the sea, more books made of his noble acts, than there be

in England” (5) and therefore he decides to strengthen his reputation in his own country as well as to set the chivalric manners at his court as an example to the public. He apparently

achieves his aims and Le Morte d’Arthur becomes widely read and known. But of course, it

is not only a merit of its publisher - the lion’s share for the success of the book goes to its

author, Sir Robert Malory.

Malory, who derives his inspiration mainly from French books, but combines it also with British tradition, treats the subject in his own way. He adopts some motifs from earlier works, uses his own new ones and creates a literary piece of much complexity, composed

of a number of stories with even bigger number of characters, often interlinked only by the

concept of the Arthur’s court. Besides an intricate content the romance builds also on an

elaborate literary style and dramatic descriptions, and the combination of these factors

makes it to become, from that time on, a key reference for the development of the

Arthurian legend. And this does not apply only to the character of Arthur as such, but to

many other figures and elements introduced by Malory’s version.

One of the main contributions of Le Morte is that it brings respective stories of Arthur

and his knights under one roof and even though the ties among them are often quite vague,

it gives them a common denominator – the Arthurian knighthood. This implies that the

concept of chivalric behaviour gains more importance than the king himself, what can be

understood also from the content of respective books, as divided by Caxton. First few of

them deal predominantly with Arthur and his life story – from the romance of Uther

Pendragon with Igraine to Arthur’s birth, his wars for the throne, acquisition of Excalibur,

marriage with Guinevere, the rise of his court and establishment of the Knights of the

Round Table, campaign against Roman emperor Lucius… But afterwards Arthur’s

importance in the book declines and the leading role passes to his knights and their deeds.

Respective books thus give account of the quests of such characters as Lancelot, Gareth,

Gawain, Tristan, Percival, Galahad, and many others. It is only towards the end of Le Morte when Arthur gets back to the core of the story, being betrayed at first by Lancelot and his

adulterous relationship with Queen Guinevere and subsequently by his illegitimate son

Mordred, whom he finally kills in a battle, but is mortally wounded himself.

The most promoted character in Le Morte is, however, Lancelot. Malory attributes him

much more importance than he had used to be given in previous Arthurian works, so that

it might imply that it is him and not Arthur being the main figure in the story. He is

repeatedly associated with the attribute “the best knight in the world” (Malory, 209) and would have been surely the one to find the Holy Grail, if not for his hopeless love for the

Queen. This affection and its consequences can be considered as one of the key plots of

the entire romance. It gives an example of chivalric devotion of a knight to an only lady,

but on the other hand this illicit love in the end deprives Lancelot of his honour, the

respect of his companions and of the favour of his king. It is also partly a reason of the

destruction of Arthur’s kingdom, as it is during his expedition against Lancelot when

Mordred seizes the throne.

Yet, the love triangle Lancelot – Guinevere – Arthur is not the only popular motif

elaborated in the book. On the contrary, Malory adapts a number of elements that are

nowadays considered as key symbols of the Arthurian legend. He brings in the story about

Arthur pulling out the sword from a stone and stresses the importance of another sword -

Excalibur, which was given to him by Lady of the Lake and the scabbard of which should

have made him invincible. He modifies the story of the Holy Grail, which in his version was found not by Percival, as claimed by de Troyes, but by Galahad, the son of Lancelot.

He also reworks the tale of brave Sir Tristan and two Isolts. And last but not least, he

refines the story of the last battle of the famous king and his departure for Avalon.

Some critics reproach Malory for “accentuating knighthood and military action while

deemphasising or misunderstanding courtly love or the courtly refinement of the authors

he drew from” (Lacy 131). Nevertheless, as stated, this omission of courtesy is replaced by

the concept of knighthood, which, indeed, includes special treatment of ladies – just it is

not so explicit and concentrates more on actions than words. That implies it deals with

doings rather than vain talking and this approach apparently attracts a broad readership.

And besides it gives space to much more complicated plots and stories that even today feed

imagination of many art producers.

2. Historical Arthur

Looking at Arthur’s story as it appears in the literature, it is clear that not much of it

could have happened in real life. The magic powers of the wizard Merlin, the mysterious

character of the Lady of the Lake and her gift – the enchanted sword Excalibur, or singular

skills of certain knights does not sound like credible accounts of history. For that reason it would be rather natural to conclude that there was not any real Arthur and the tales about

him are only an example of quite common attempts to historicise a fictitious literary

character. However, considering all the references to his name, it is generally assumed they

are too frequent for being a mere accident. The historicity of Arthur thus raises many

debates and scholars bring in still more and more theories striving to explain the

connection between literature and history. Their task is almost impossible to achieve, as the written records on one hand are incomplete, unclear or unreliable and the archaeological

discoveries on the other hand are equivocal, difficult to read and rarely reveal concrete

names. That implies that both of these sources of information contain many obscure points

and inaccuracies. At the same time they inspire still more and more speculations. Therefore

it is not rare that even today still new and new approaches to Arthurian subject appear with

fresh ideas how to interpret all the ambiguous information. The following pages will try to

summarise the most essential arguments and theories and to analyse briefly to which extend

they support or disprove Arthur’s existence.

2.1. Name of Arthur in historical documents

The most common way to get information about some historical figure is usually to

accumulate old documents referring to the person and to analyse them. Yet, this is

sometimes easier said than done. First of all, we have to remember that we deal with the

Dark Ages, thus the records are not so many and if there are some, they are often

incomplete and mystifying. Moreover, in the case of Arthur the scale of materials is quite

insufficient and due to the dubious nature of most of them they fail to provide us with any

credible evidence.

As already stated in the first chapter of this work, there are several literary texts,

predominantly of Welsh origin, where the name of Arthur can be found. Although not

having a big say in the field of history, these bits and pieces at least support an argument

that a character of this name existed. But the Arthurian historical tradition itself is generally very dim. The fact that no such name appears in the first works giving account of the

history of the island is one of the principal puzzles in the studies of Arthur’s historicity. If

he really was such an important warrior or even a ruler, why did not the first chroniclers

consider it necessary to mention him? When looking for historically credible texts referring

explicitly to Arthur, the most important among the few manuscripts offering some tangible

traces are Nennius’s Historia Brittonum and a Welsh chronicle Annales Cambriae .

Historia Brittonum or History of the Britons is a chronicle of British history written

around the year 800, supposedly by a Welsh monk Nennius. Nennius claims that he has

drawn its inspiration from a number of older historical sources. That obviously means that

he was not a first person to give a survey of historical events in early Britain. In fact, there were at least two chroniclers of importance who preceded him. The very first of them was

Gildas, who created his De excidio et conquestu Britanniae (On the Destruction and Conquest

of Britain) in the mid-sixth century. Here he provides us with the first information about

the invasion of Saxons and the life of Britons after the withdrawal of Romans from the

Isles. However, the main purpose of his work is not of historical but more of a religious

character. By describing troubles of his nation he demonstrates that Britons are being

punished by God for their sinful actions. He considers “the ravages of the Saxon as a result

of the sins of the British” (Lupack 14). That may be also an explanation why he generally

does not care much about names and mentions only a certain Ambrosius Aurelianus, who was supposed to fight against Saxons. At this point he also touches on a battle of Badon

Hill, which is later ascribed to Arthur. Yet, building on the attitude of this chronicler

towards his nation and its leaders, it cannot be excluded that Arthur played a role in the

events described by Gildas, who only does not consider it important to mention him or worth mentioning.

Another manuscript, this time focused more on history, is called Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (History of the English Church and People) and was completed in 731 by

Bede. This English monk again does not give any account of Arthur, but it has to be taken

into consideration that he draws his inspiration basically from Gildas. Nevertheless, he

adds at least some names, one of them being a ruler called Vortigern, who is said to

foolishly invite Saxons to his country to help him defend it against enemies from the

North.

At the beginning of the next century finally Nennius appears. He is the first historian to

record Arthur’s name explicitly. His chronicle develops in more detail facts already

mentioned by his previous two “colleagues”. Even more, he adds some completely new

elements as is the story of Vortigern trying to build a fortification. As one of the towers

collapses every time it is built, the king is advised to “sprinkle on the site the blood of a

child with no father” (Lupack 15). He finds such a child, whose name is Ambrosius, but

this instead of being sacrificed tells him a story about two dragons living in a lake under the

site. The story is later adopted by Geoffrey of Monmouth, who modifies the name of the

child to Merlin.

And Nennius continues with his innovations by introducing Arthur as a “dux

bellorum” (leader in battle) in twelve battles against Saxons, even with names of concrete

places. What makes it a bit less believable is his remark about the most important battle at

Mount Badon, where Arthur is supposed to kill 960 enemies by his own hand. Finally, in

the attachment to the manuscript with the title Marvels of Britain Nennius adds two more

peculiar references to Arthur. In the first one he describes a pile of stones with a paw print

of Arthur’s dog Cabal on the top, which cannot be removed and it reappears the next day.

Another wonder is a tomb of Arthur’s son Amr, which if measured, never has the same

length.

Annales Cambriae does not go to such details. This chronicle lists some important

historical events during a certain period, starting in 447, and contains two entries in which

the name Arthur appears. One of them records “the battle of Badon, in which Arthur

carried the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ for three days and three nights on his shoulders,

and the Britons were victors” (Lacy 16) and the other talks about “the strife of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut fell” (Lacy 16). However short, even these evidences are not without some discrepancies. The first one obviously refers to the battle on Mount Badon,

mentioned previously in other chronicles, yet the date is incompatible with the facts given

by Gildas, for instance. The same goes for the Cross carried by Arthur, as in Nennius a

similar feature is associated with the battle of Guinnion, with the difference that in his text

it appears as “the image of holy Virgin Mary on his shoulders” (Jones 15) and only one day

is given instead of three. Although most of these inaccuracies can be viewed simply as

copying mistakes and misunderstandings of previous sources, it still does not give us much

certitude that these events really happened and that any Arthur was involved in them.

The next significant and equally disputable material is already mentioned Monmouth’s

Historia regum Britanniae . Following the evaluation of this source given in the previous

chapter, it is clear that it brings more questions than explanations to the Arthurian topic.

Furthermore, since this adaptation clearly popularises the story, it has a strong impact on all

the following references to Arthur and the dubious elements of the book start mixing with what might have been real facts. Consequently it becomes even more difficult to

distinguish the history and the fiction and the balance of Arthurian subject definitely

inclines towards the legend. Therefore it is high time to abandon the literary evidences and

have a short look at archaeology.

2.2. Arthurian traces in archaeology

To search for proofs of existence of a concrete figure in terms of archaeology is a

process with very unsure result. As this branch of history usually does not deal with

concrete names of people, the most natural way is probably to try to spot the places from

legends and writings on a current map of Great Britain. Therefore many researches have

been carried out to localise Arthur’s birthplace – Tintangel, his famous court Camelot or

battlefields wet by the blood of his enemies. But one of the famous triumphs was probably

the discovery of his tomb, or at least what was claimed to be his tomb shared with his wife

Guinevere, in the Glastonbury Abbey, Somerset. In the 12 th century the monastery was

struck by fire and during its reconstruction an old burial place was excavated. There, deep

in the soil and among two stone pyramids, was found a leaden cross and a coffin from a

tree trunk with bones of a man and a woman. Their identification was facilitated by a Latin

inscription on the cross saying “Here lies buried the renowned king Arthur in the Isle of

Avalon” (Castleden 193). The story might sound quite realistic, if omitted a description of

the man skeleton as “large, the shin bone being three finger widths longer than the shin of

the tallest monk present at the exhumation” (Castleden 193). One may also ask why an

inland territory should be identified with a mystic island of Avalon. But in fact, the

monastery area had been for many years almost entirely surrounded by water, which was

artificially drained only a couple of centuries ago. At the same time, archaeological

excavations at this locality suggest that before being transformed into a monastery, this

place might have served as a Celtic sanctuary. All these facts could thus justify the

authenticity of the Arthurian discovery.

On the other hand, as most of the findings related to Arthur, this one is also rather

controversial. As already mentioned, this rumour was spread during the rein of Henry II,

more precisely in 1190 or 1191 and its psychological effect could help the king to subdue

his resistant British subjects. The benefit for the Glastonbury monastery itself is also rather

obvious – after the blaze it was in a desperate need of some financial sources for its

rebuilding. This explanation would also shed a light on another important finding made in

Glastonbury at the same period. Approximately at the time of localisation of Arthur’s

tomb, it was found out that the abbey was in fact the first Christian church in Western

Europe, founded by Joseph of Arimathea. Of course, subsequently the value of this house

of God must have increased considerably, so that a question arises whether it was not the

primary purpose for both of these cases. Another objection often voiced by scholars is that

none of the medieval historians has previously suggested any connection between Avalon

and Glastonbury. Nevertheless, the name of Glastonbury as such had appeared in the

Arthurian legend even before the discovery of the tomb – for the first time it was

mentioned in mid-12 th century in Life of Gildas by Caradoc of Llancarfan as a place where

Queen Guinevere was abducted by knight Melwas. All in all, there are several arguments

supporting the Glastonbury-Avalon theory as well as other diminishing its credibility, so

that the final conclusion again cannot be reached with certainty.

2.3. Popular historical theories

Owing to the obscure character of all the evidences supporting the historicity of

Arthur, it is understandable that there are many approaches to the study of this topic. They

range from complete rejection of an existence of such a person to the most absurd theories

striving to combine all elements into an acceptable interpretation. Some of them give

reasons why Arthur was omitted from some historical works and how respective parts of

the legend came into existence; others opt for identifying Arthur from the myths with some

different historical figures. Considering the popularity of the Arthurian question, the

number of possible explanations is really excessive. Therefore I would like to focus only on

a couple of them which I consider the most essential or somehow connected with the topic

of my thesis.

The supposed Arthurian era is generally dated between 5th and 6 th century, which means

shortly after the withdrawal of Roman troops from what they called “provincia Britannia”.

This timing implies that the famous war leader is often associated with Roman officers or

their descendents installed on the island. Especially two of such figures are frequently

linked to the literary Arthur – Lucius Artorius Castus and Ambrosius Aurelianus.

In case of Lucius, it would be a mistake to consider him a complete counterpart of the

knightly hero. This Roman commander fails to meet the basic criteria in terms of time

scale, for it is known that he led some troops in AD 185 from Britain in order to suppress

an uprising in Armorica. However, it is believed that being an outstanding warrior and

commander, his name and deeds might have been held in remembrance of people for

several generations. That would explicate why a couple of centuries later “a fifth-century

Briton taking a force over the same country or thereabout could have been nicknamed, or

hailed in panegyrical verse as a ‘second Artorius’” (Lacy 35). The records about Castus’ life

are not many and most facts are known predominantly due to inscriptions on his

sarcophagus discovered in Dalmatia. Nevertheless, one quite complex theory about his life was proposed by Linda Malcor, which links him to the Arthurian story in a very untypical

manner. I would like to deal with this theory in more detail in the next sub-chapter

dedicated to the book of Malcor and her colleague C. Scott Littleton - From Scythia to

Camelot .

As for the second option, Ambrosius Aurelianus, there is a genuine belief that this man

could represent a direct model for the literary character. Although his profile in the

manuscripts of Gildas, Nennius and Monmouth alters considerably – while the first one

ascribes him the function of a war leader, the next one portrays him as a fatherless young visionary and Monmouth presents him as a brother of Uther Pendragon and thus Arthur’s

uncle - it is generally assumed that the version of Gildas is for this case the most

trustworthy. It presents Ambrosius as a post-Roman commander standing at the head of

British troops in confrontation with invading Saxon tribes. To understand fully the role he

supposedly played in his age, a little explanation of the situation in 5 th century Britain is

necessary.

After the withdrawal of Romans from the British land, there was a short period of

disintegration before a new leader known as Vortigern appeared. This chieftain was a

supporter of so-called Pelagian heresy, which represented a liberal form of Christianity

propagated by the monk Pelagius and strongly disapproved by Rome. That implies that the

rise of such a leader provoked anxiety in Rome, which sent one of its clerics – a bishop

named Germanus – to secure the situation on the island. He not only succeeded in getting

most of the British on his side, but even faced an attack of a Saxon-Pictish army and

managed to repulse it. However, one victory did not solve the problem of the raids of

enemy tribes. As they continued to harass the country, Vortigern foolishly invited to his

kingdom Saxons in a good belief that they will help him to fight Picts coming from the

north. But soon it turned out that he would not be able to meet the growing demands of

his allies, who subsequently started to ravage the territory. Their raids were finally stopped

by an army of “the remnant of the Romanised and Catholic party” (Ashe 53) under the

command of a certain Ambrosius Aurelianus. This skilled leader originated from a noble

Roman family living in Britain and there is a theory that he was given some power directly

by Vortigern. Others suggest his connection with territories as Gloucestershire or

Amesbury, which would mean that his land was directly endangered by the invaders. That would explain his zealousness in fighting the Saxons, as he not only managed to defeat

them and ensure a relatively peaceful period for his people, but led even some offensive

expeditions. The decisive victory of Britons came with Mount Badon, although there are

doubts if this battle was won still under the leadership of Ambrosius. Some historians note

it would be to late for him to live. And Gildas, who is the first to mention this battle as well

as Ambrosius, does not connect these two names and, as typical for him, neglects to

mention a concrete leader for Badon. Could it be Ambrosius or even mythical Arthur?

Another remarkable Arthurian theory, promoted mainly by a British historian Geoffrey

Ashe, associates the Celtic hero with a person named Riothamus. This was definitely a real

historical figure, as proven by a letter of a Roman bishop Sidonius Appolinaris addressed to

this man. Riothamus is attributed the title “king of the Brittones” – the problem being just

that from this formulation it is not clear whether the term “Brittones” refers to the Britons

or the Bretons. According to Ashe’s hypothesis he might have succeeded Vortigern at the

leadership of his nation and, what is important, led his troops into a war on the continent.

The reason was that at that time the lands under the Roman rule in Gaul were endangered

by the Visigoths. Britons came on the invitation of the ruler of western part of Roman

Empire in order to help defeat the raiders. But Riothamus and his men were betrayed by

the prefect of Gaul and crushed by Visigoths, without any support of Romans, who joined

only when it was too late. Many of the British warriors were killed, but there is no evidence

that Riothamus was one of them. However, after this battle he totally disappears from all

historical records. This fact became a cornerstone for Ashe, who assumes that

“Riothamus” was in fact just a title for a person of a completely different name. He

supposes this term meant “supreme king” and might have been used for more British

leaders (Lacy 346-7). This explanation theoretically meets some facts known about Arthur,

although the agreement with the time axis is not perfect. Riothamus’s continental battle was fought in the year 470 AD, which is quite early if we want to harmonise it with

Arthur’s after-Riothamus-era activities. This is one of the reasons why the hypothesis is

accepted rather reluctantly, but as many others of this kind it could be taken into

consideration as one of the options.

All these positive theories can be contrasted to an approach of scepticism adopted by a

number of scholars. One of the most well known opponents of historical Arthur is a

Cambridge professor Oliver James Padel. His opinion is shared also by Thomas Green

form the University of Oxford, who, building to a large extent on Padel’s arguments,

substantiates his persuasion in an essay The Historicity and Historicisation of Arthur . In this work Green asserts that despite all so-called evidences, the existence of a leader named

Arthur is highly improbable, and he supports the opinion that in this case we deal with an

entity from pagan mythology rather than with a real person. He disapproves the “no smoke without fire” attitude, which builds on the reflection that the number of references to

Arthur testifies to his historicity. He reminds that “whilst the […] ‘legendary Arthur’ might

be the result of a historical figure being mythicised, it is at least equally as likely that, in the

absence of good evidence either way, the […] ‘historical Arthur’ was a result of a legendary

figure being historicised” (Green 9). Therefore he poses a question what are the

motivations that make us believe in historical Arthur. Under this pretext he analyses item

by item what is considered to be the major proofs of his existence, pointing out all the

pitfalls and discrepancies. At the end of this examination he notes that all we can claim with certainty is that “there existed by the 9 th century at the latest a concept of Arthur as a

historical figure; our sources are simply not of the quality that would allow us to come to

any firmer conclusion than this” (Green 9). Green then continues with a statement that the

problem lies also within the methodology and the way the Arthurian question is posed. He

observes that the formulation “Was there a historical Arthur?” (Green 10) itself forces an

answer like “perhaps, maybe” as we cannot prove the contrary. He also recommends that

respective texts should be analysed within the context and not as extracts from a larger

unit. Subsequently he comes up with a number of arguments why it is probable that Arthur was a “figure of pan-Brittonic folklore and mythology” (Green 11) and rejects hypothesis

identifying him with Riothamus or Lucius Artorius Castus. Although he still leaves some

space for a discussion, Green’s opinion could be summarised in as follows: Arthur might

have existed but equally might have not and in this context it is more probable he did not.

2.4. Innovatory approach in the publication From Scythia to Camelot

Quite recently a new striking theory enriched the field of the Arthurian research. Two

American scholars, C. Scott Littleton and Linda A. Malcor, published a work From Scythia to

Camelot , where they point out that the Arthurian legend shares many characteristics with the

culture of Scythian tribes from Western Asia. These tribes used to occupy the western part

of the “sea of grass” area stretching between the Altai Mountains and the Hungarian Plain.

However, as Littleton and Malcor note, somewhere in the 2 nd century, during the era of the

Roman Empire, a group of warriors from Scythia was relocated to British territory as a part

of Roman military troops. This fact led them to the conclusion that the story of Arthur

evolved under the Asian influence and reflects some features of Scythian life in Western

Europe. Since this hypothesis is quite complex and innovative, I think it deserves a bit

more in-depth explanation.

In ancient times the territory of current south Russian and Ukrainian steppes was

inhabited by nomadic tribes known as Scythians. The term ‘Scythians” can be understood

in two ways – either as a reference to a sole ancient Scythian tribe, or in a broader sense it

can comprise more groups of this family, such as Sarmatians and Alans. Within the context

of this theory the latter meaning is used.

One of the Scythian tribes, namely a Sarmatian branch known as Iazyges, got involved

into a war against the Roman Empire, along with the Germanic tribes of the Marcomanni

and the Quadi. In 175 AD Iazyges sustained a terrible defeat and as a tribute to Rome they

had to provide 8,000 fully equipped warriors for the Roman army. Out of these men, 5,500 were sent to protect the Roman territory in Britain. Littleton and Malcor believe that this

group might have served under the command of formerly mentioned Lucius Artorius

Castus, who had spent a part of his service in Lower Panonia and thus had had an

opportunity to become “familiar with the Sarmatian culture, language and fighting

techniques” (Malcor, Lucius Artorius Castus. Part 1 ). Most of the Iazygan soldiers were

stationed in the cavalry post Bremetennacum. They were assigned to protect this area as well as a part of Hadrian’s Wall against attacks of enemy tribes, especially Picts. It is highly

probable that they were allowed to bring also their families – wives and children – and that

not many of them returned back to their native land, but rather settled permanently in

Britain. According to archaeological investigations, their presence on the island can be

demonstrated at least till the early 5 th century.

However, the Iazyges were not the only Scythian tribe that happened to merge with the

Western Europe culture. Another branch of the Scythian family – the Alans – entered into

the Roman service and in the early fifth century they journeyed as far as to Gaul 1 and

Spain. These men were skilled warriors and during the Middle Ages gained much influence

in this territory. Although they gradually fused with the local civilisation, in was not without

an impact of bits and pieces of their culture on the life in that area.

Scythian elements thus undoubtedly infiltrated into the life of inhabitants of Britain as well as of the continent. But is this influence really so remarkable also in the most popular

British myth and what Scythian traces can be found there? In order to answer these

questions, let’s first have a look at several characteristics of Scythian way of life. Both

Iazyges and Alans were “mounted warriors who fought with both lances and bows, as well

as with long slashing swords”. This pattern of fighting “was the basis, upon which the

concept of chivalry developed” (Littleton 8). This feature goes hand in hand with another

chivalric stereotype - the coat of arms - which might have been derived from Scythian

practice of “identifying clans and other kinship units by means of tamgas (‘sacred symbols’)

emblazoned on helmets, shields and other pieces of equipment” (Littleton 8). Another

interesting point is connected with Scythian cult of a war-god, labelled as an equivalent of

Greek Ares, whose symbol was “a sword thrust into a pile of wood” (Littleton 9) or soil. It

1 Today’s northern France

is not difficult to see a parallel between this custom and the Arthurian tradition of pulling

out a sword from stone.

However, the key argument of Littleton and Malcor is a number of similarities that can

be noted between the Arthurian legend and the Scythian Nart sagas, which survived till

nowadays among the Ossetians, “a contemporary Caucasian people” (Littleton xxv – xxvi),

and probably the only direct descendants of the Alans. The death of the main character of

these sagas, Batraz, strikingly reminds of the last moments of Arthur before he was taken

to Avalon.

Immortal Batraz chooses to die voluntarily after he has revenged the death of his

father. But he claims: “I cannot die until my sword has been thrown into the sea” (Littleton

68). A handful of men charged to accomplish this task find the sword too heavy to carry

and therefore they try to deceive Batraz. But as he is the only one to know what happens

after the sword plunges in the water, he can tell their lie. When they finally satisfy his wish,

“the sea becomes turbulent, boils, and turns blood-red” (Littleton 68) and the hero can

finally die. Now we can think of Arthur, who, mortally wounded, pleads his friend, Sir

Bedivere: “take thou Excalibur, my good sword, and go with it to yonder water side, and when thou comest there, I charge thee throw my sword in that water, and come again and

tell me what thou there seest” (Malory 516). Although Bedivere’s reason for trying to cheat

his Lord is that he cannot bring himself to throw away such a beautiful sword, the concepts

of both stories as such are very similar. They both include throwing a sword into water,

treason and a magical effect after sword touches the water – in Arthur’s case it is a hand which catches the sword and waves it three times before it disappears in the lake. This

parallelism seems quite extensive to be just accidental. Besides, many other common

features suggest that there must have been some connection between the two stories and

the cultures from which they originated. A number of Arthurian characters, for example,

can be attributed a Nart counterpart. This is the case not only for Arthur, but also Kay,

Perceval, Gawain, Dame du Lac and many others. Moreover, the Lady of the Lake and its

Scythian equivalent, Satana, are also a demonstration of both myths being associated with a

magical elements related to water. Only Guinevere is said to be “an almost completely

Celtic intrusion into what otherwise appears to be a cycle of largely Alano-Sarmatian origin with a Celtic overlay” (Littleton 153). The same was thought about Lancelot, until Linda

Malcor came with a judgement that this knight share many common features with his King

and therefore they could have been inspired by the same Scythian character. She offers an

explanation that while Arthur is a figure born in Britain, Lancelot has a continental origin.

She concludes that “Arthur is in all probability a reflection of the same Alano-Sarmatian

hero as Lancelot, but the Arthurian legends were skewed by the presence of the historical

Arthur” (Littleton 105).

To summarise the theory of the two American scholars, they believe that the legend of

King Arthur and his knights is a Western European modification of the legends from Asian

plains, partly influenced by local events and the Celtic tradition. As for the character of

Arthur himself, it was probably coloured by the name of the first leader of Iazyges, Lucius

Artorius Castus, and “after 469 there was a ‘real’ Arthur in the person of the shadowy

figure of Riothamus, whose military adventures in Gaul are attested in contemporary

accounts” (Littleton 281). Complicated as the story may seem, this interpretation is not at

all improbable and could give a new direction to the Arthurian research. As assumed by

Victor H. Mair from the University of Pennsylvania, this publication should represent an

“unavoidable benchmark for all future discussions of King Arthur and his band of warriors”.

3. Legend versus History in Contemporary Film Adaptation

3.1. Film King Arthur (2004)

Enigmatic stories and figures from history have always been a rich source of inspiration

for filmmakers. The more questions the subject raises, the more space it offers to director’s

imagination. The classical Arthurian theme has therefore been a subject of a number of

interpretations on the screen, focused on various motifs of the story like the love triangle,

knighthood, the quest for the Holy Grail, etc. The newest adaptation King Arthur (2004) by

Antoine Fuqua, however, stands out among all the Arthurian films. Under the label “the

untold true story that inspired the legend” it attempts to present Arthur from a more

realistic and historical perspective. But at the same time, instead of renouncing all the

elements of the popular legend, it tries to insert some of them into this new concept.

Taking into consideration all the pitfalls arising from this combination of a well-known

myth and historical speculations, I would like to analyse the contribution of both of these

aspects to the story and to evaluate the overall impression of the film. For being able to do

so, I would like first to give an outline of its plot and the main characters. 2

A person who would expect another romantic adaptation of the Arthurian subject,

involving noble quests and knightly values, learns his or her mistake immediately from the

beginning of the film. The introductory scene, accompanied by a commentary of a narrator, who later turns out to be Lancelot, shows the expansion of the Roman Empire and a war with brave Sarmatinas. For most of the audience, who do not know the Scythian

hypothesis, this may be a quite peculiar setting. But those familiar with recent Arthurian

research can quickly understand that the script is built on the basis of the same facts and

suppositions as the theory of Littleton and Malcor. In fact, Linda Malcor was one of the

research consultants for the film, although the two works does not treat the subject exactly

the same way.

2 In my work I refer to the Director’s cut of the film, which differs in some details from the version presented in cinemas.

The story itself begins with Lancelot explaining how brave Sarmatian warriors were

defeated by voracious Romans and how the latter appreciated the courage of the only

survivors – a brave Sarmatian cavalry. Their lives were thus spared, but in return they had

to pledge to send their men to the service of the Roman army. As Lancelot notes, “the

second part of the bargain they struck indebted not only themselves, but also their sons,

and their sons and so on” ( King Arthur ). In 452 AD a bunch of Roman soldiers comes to

pick up a group of Sarmatian boys – Lancelot and his companions - and to deliver them to

the location of their 15-year-long service – Britain. On their arrival to the final destination a

young boy named Artorius learns from his teacher Pelagius that these may be his future

knights.

The story then jumps in ‘medias res’, that means 15 years forward. A unit of Sarmatian

knights – Lancelot, Tristan, Bors, Dagonet, Galahad and Gawain, under the leadership of a

brave Roman commander Artorius Castus, is fighting against a tribe of savage Woads 3 in

order to protect a Roman bishop Germanus, coming to the country. The service of these

Sarmatian men is approaching its end and so is the Roman presence in Britain. The part of

the country under Roman control has been protected by Hadrian’s Wall against attacks of

enemy tribes. However, an army much more dangerous than Woads – the warlike Saxons –

is approaching from the north. Besides, the Romans need all their men to defend their

territories in the mainland and thus they have decided to withdraw from the island and to

throw the land and its people to the wolves. Bishop Germanus arrives to announce this

news and at the same time he should discharge the few Sarmatian knights who survived the

15 years of fighting. But instead he informs their leader Arthur that before getting back

their freedom, the knights are expected to carry out a last, suicidal mission. Their duty is to

rescue the pope’s godchild and pupil Alecto, who lives with his family “in the wilds”

beyond the Wall and is directly endangered by the approaching Saxon army. Despite their

3 A nickname of the Picts, derived from the name of the blue paint used by its people to decorate their bodies.

protests, the knights have to set off northwards to fulfil this burdensome task. Upon their

arrival at the estate of Alecto’s family, they find out how cruelly Alecto’s father treats his

subjects and decide to save all the people of the village. Just before their leaving they

discover 2 prisoners – a child and a half-dead daughter of the Woad leader Merlin,

Guinevere. This lady is not a noble queen as known from legends, but a brave woman warrior devoted to her land and her people. Therefore she strives to make Arthur

understand the Woad perspective of the Roman occupation. She reminds him that he

himself is half-British on his mother’s side and suggests that instead of fighting his own

nation 4, he should reconsider his loyalty to Rome. She also mediates his meeting with

Merlin, where the reason of Arthur’s hatred is revealed – his mother died during a Woad

attack of a Roman village.

This all happens already during the journey back to the Hadrian’s Wall. The progress of

the group is hampered not only by the slow advance of poor villagers but also by snow that

starts to fall. Finally, the Saxon pursuers are too close to escape, so Arthur and his knights

opt for a foolish attempt to defeat the whole army on a frozen lake. The handful of

Sarmatians along with their leader and recovered Guinevere succeed to overcome the

Saxons mainly thanks to Dagonet, who breaks the ice of the lake with his axe, but is

himself mortally wounded. The rescued expedition is consequently transported to the

Roman stronghold and the knights receive their discharge papers. However, it does not

take long time till the Saxons reach the Wall. The Roman troops in the meantime start their

journey back to the mainland, so that the fort is left without any military protection. At

least this is what the Saxons think. They do not know that Arthur has finally understood

that his place is here, among the British people, and that he is preparing a trap along with

Merlin’s Woads. Although he encourages his knights to leave with the Romans, they

decide, this time on their own free will, to continue the fight they have led over the last

4 Woads and Britons are presented in the story as interchangeable groups

fifteen years under the Roman command. The seemingly smooth seizure of the fortress by

Saxons turns into a savage battle - the Battle of Mount Badon. Many men lose their lives in

this ferocious combat, among others also Lancelot and Tristan. But Arthur finally succeeds

to kill the Saxon leader and the progress of this bloodthirsty tribe is stopped once and for

all. And, after the burial of their fallen companions, Arthur marries Guinevere and

becomes the King of the Britons.

Taking into account that the primary purpose of the “historical” reconstruction of the

Arthurian myth is, in fact, to entertain the public and not to present a historical theory, it is

understandable that the plot does not stick entirely to the scientific discoveries. Despite an

omission of all magic and fantastic elements, it still contains a number of speculations,

inaccuracies and fictions. In the next subchapters I would therefore like to treat these

imperfections from the point of view of the legend as well as history. At the end I would

like to summarise the opinion of the film producers about their creation and how it was

accepted by critics and Arthurian experts.

3.2. Interpretation of the legend in the film King Arthur

To present Arthur as a historical character is surely an interesting challenge. Yet, it is very difficult to completely purify the story of all the stereotypes associated with a hero of

so many legends. Therefore the film King Arthur does not radically cut off all the non-

historical elements, but instead tries to present some of them in a different light. In this

subchapter I would like to concentrate at these modifications and compromises and to

compare them to the “original” legend. 5 Some of them may be also partly related to history,

for as already stated a couple of times, within the context of Arthurian story these two

concepts are often closely interconnected.

5 In terms of the legend, I refer to the version of Thomas Malory - Le Morth d’Arthur , unless specified differently.

King and his knights

The first conflict between reality and legend arises in terms of the terminology. King

Arthur and his knights are two inseparable units. Of course, in the Roman setting Arthur is

a mere commander obeying orders from higher authorities. Yet at the end of the film, at

the occasion of Arthur’s marriage with Guinevere, Merlin proclaims him the King of the

Britons. So, one point of the tradition is achieved in a considerably compromising way.

What is a bit more difficult to accept is the label “knights” used for Sarmatian warriors in

the service of Rome. It should be reminded that this term entered into usage during the

Middle Ages as a reference to “professional cavalry warriors” (“Knight”, E. Britannica ).

However, the meaning of this title broadened during centuries and as explained in the webpage of Renaissance Magazine , its bearers started to be associated with virtues like loyalty,

courtesy and generosity. These characteristics were elaborated on also by Arthurian writers,

and the Knights of the Round Table became a sort of chivalric prototypes. As an

illustration can serve the pledge they undertook in Malory’s Le Morte , in which they

committed themselves “never to do outrageousity nor murder, and always to flee treason;

also, by no means to be cruel, but to give mercy unto him that asketh mercy, upon pain of

forfeiture of their worship and lordship of King Arthur for evermore; and always to do

ladies, damosels, and gentlewomen succour, upon pain of death. Also, that no man take no

battles in a wrongful quarrel for no law, nor for no world's goods.” (215-6).

From the historical point of view it is thus nonsense to attribute the title of “knights”

to soldiers of Roman Empire, just as it is odd to give Sarmatians names like Lancelot or

Tristan. But on the other hand, if they were called simply “warriors” or “soldiers” and their

names were changed, the Arthurian aspect would be lost completely.

Another question is do these Sarmatian “knights” meet the requirements of chivalric

behaviour? If we rely on the words of Guinevere, we can believe so. She says she has

known Arthur and his knights from “fairy tales - the kind you hear about the people so

brave, so selfless that they can’t be real” ( King Arthur ). Nevertheless, not all of their actions

give evidence to her words. The way the knights talk about women and Bors’ extensive

family of little “bastards” surely do not fit the noble world of knights. Not to mention that

one of the most chivalric characters from the legend, Lancelot, presented as a completely

pragmatic figure, says to Guinevere: “I would have left you and the boy there to die.” ( King

Arthur ).

The general notion of knights is that they should be devoted to God, to their lord and

to their lady. For Arthur’s knights not much of it is truth in this case. Even though they

obey Roman commands, except for Arthur they are not devoted to the Romans, who took

them away from their homes. Indeed, they are devoted to Arthur, who is just a mere

commander and their companion, but at the end becomes a real lord. But they do not fight

for any “ladies of their hearts” or “damsels in distress” and do not treat women with any

special care. And what is the main contrast, again with the exception of Arthur who had

been brought up as a Roman, all the knights are pagans. Not only do they not worship the

Christian God, but Lancelot even despises him when he sees practices of fanatic priests

torturing pagan prisoners. And Arthur himself is torn between the belief in the God of the

Romans and the heretic philosophy of his teacher Pelagius. Luckily the motif of the Holy

Grail is left out; otherwise it would be very difficult to find among the knights a man worthy of finding it.

Characters and characteristics

The changes in the setting inevitably imply modifications in characteristics of respective

Arthurian figures. Some of them, like the Lady of the Lake or Arthur’s wicked half-sister

Morgan le Fay and her son Mordred, are simply excluded from the story, others, like

Merlin and Guinevere, are attributed completely different roles. As for the choice of

Arthur’s men, in the film they are but five and I daresay they are not the most

representative sample. Of course, besides Lancelot as one of the main characters, it is quite

logical to introduce figures like Tristan, Gawain or Galahad. But why did the producers

prefer Bors and Dagonet, whose names are not on the list of the most well-known heroes,

instead of choosing Gareth, Perceval, Bedivere or Kay? The reason could be that they

opted for a couple of less stereotypical representatives, who could be better adapted to the

needs of the scenario. In any case, a number of differences between all film characters and

their literary counterparts can be noted. Maybe it would be interesting to have a look at

some of them.

Firstly I would turn my attention to the Arthurian knights and their leader. Being

presented as a group of seasoned warriors, they do not have much in common with the

noble chevaliers from the Middle Ages. The nature of some of them is also drastically

modified. Bors, known for his purity and for being “one of the three knights who achieve

the quest for the Holy Grail” (Lupack 436), is presented as a rough and sarcastic fellow and

a father of a bunch of children. On the other hand, the calm and self-sacrificing Sarmatian version of Dagonet contrasts with his literary model, known as Arthur’s jester. Gawain and

Galahad, originally Arthur’s nephew and Lancelot’s son respectively, are shown as skilled warriors, but otherwise they do not stand out among their companions. The one who is

given slightly more importance is Tristan. Yet, with his hawk and love of fighting, he does

not comply at all with the portrait of “one of the great tragic lovers of medieval romance”

(Lupack 471). The same can be said about one of the leading characters – Lancelot. While

the medieval figure is a hot-headed and daring knight having two principal concerns in his

life – the quest for the Grail and the love of Guinevere – the Sarmatian Lancelot is almost

the opposite. He does not display any interest in Guinevere’s fate and his pragmatic and

atheistic attitude always contradicts Arthur’s generous views. As for the latter, he is

probably the closest version of his literary counterpart. A brave and noble-minded leader,

illustrious warrior and protector of those in need, he can fully rely on the loyalty of his

knights. His only fault is that he is quite hesitant in terms of his beliefs and identity.

Nevertheless, he finally makes the right choice and wins a battle that will bring him fame

and acknowledgement of many generations.

Apart from Arthur and his men, another characteristic figure of the legend is the wizard

Merlin. However, in the film he loses all of his magical powers and is degraded to a leader

of a Woad tribe. I say “degraded”, because he seems to be quite helpless in his position. He

spends years fighting against Rome and therefore against Arthur and his knights, to get

back the land of his people, but apparently without much success. On the departure of the

Romans, he is aware that with his handful of warriors he cannot resist the Saxon invasion

and therefore needs to win Arthur’s support. Luckily for him, he succeeds in doing so,

although it is disputable whether it is an effect of his feeble arguments or rather the

influence of his daughter Guinevere.

Guinevere is another example of a complete digression from the legend, but for this

time probably from the history as well. The profile of the blue-painted yelling Woad leader

that replaced the fragile queen from Arthurian classics is based on the argument that “The

Celts and the Picts both had women warriors who went into battle, next to their men”

(Foley, K. Arthur - The Celts and the Picts ). Yet, some experts like Dorsey Armstrong, object:

“In the legend, Guinevere was never a warrior. Even though there is evidence in Celtic

culture that women fought, we can be sure Guinevere didn't fight,” (Press Comment).

Love triangle

It may be noted that the historical focus of the story suppresses its emotional aspect.

The knights are pictured as rather harsh-natured and even if they express some sentiments,

they are definitely not as refined as in the courtly times. The usual love triangle Arthur-

Guinevere-Lancelot is also reduced to a hint of attraction between the first two and a few

meditative looks and conversations that Guinevere exchange with the latter. In one of their

discussions about homeland and freedom she says to Lancelot: “We are much alike, you

and I” ( King Arthur ) and subsequently asks with an enigmatic smile: “When you return

home, will you take a wife, have sons?” But he answers: “I’ve killed too many sons. What

right do I have to my own?”, demonstrating again that any romantic feeling; let alone a love

relationship between him and the Woad princess, is out of the question. The knight, known

from the legend as the most devoted to the lady of his heart, thus totally fails to meet his

model. This is given by the way Lancelot is presented in the film – not as a romance hero,

but as the most rational and sober from the company. And while in the classical stories he

is willing to sacrifice everything just to save Guinevere from her abductor, here he would

be the first to leave her without help in a village endangered by Saxons. Luckily there is

Arthur, who insists on saving her. And it is also him who wins Guinevere’s heart. In a

completely untraditional conclusion, Lancelot, and not Arthur, is killed in a battle, and just

after that Arthur weds Guinevere. However, the close relationship of the two men rests

until the end unstained by any love rivalry.

Round Table and Excalibur

Not only people but also objects have their importance in the Arthurian tradition.

Among them the most notoriously known are the Holy Grail, the Round Table and

Arthur’s sword, Excalibur. Although the first one does not appear in the film, the latter two

are with more or less success comprised in the story.

Arthur and his knights do not reside in Camelot, but in a fortress separating the

“civilised” Roman world from unconquered British land full of menaces. Therefore they do

not have much time to spend sitting at the Round Table, but rather ride their horses and

fight the enemies of Rome. Nevertheless, this symbol of equality is presented in one scene, where it takes aback bishop Germanus when he wants to demonstrate his superior

position. Having only 40 chairs, the Table is much smaller than the original model, which

according to the legend could seat 1.600 people. But its function remains unchanged – it

demonstrates that all people are of the same importance – the knights, their leader, even

the imperious cleric.

As for the Excalibur, the film producers make the same mistake as many of their

predecessors and interchange it with another Arthurian sword – the one he pulled out of

the stone. As explained by Lupack in Oxford Guide to Arthurian Literature and Legend ,

“Excalibur is the name given to the sword Arthur receives from the Lady of the Lake and

entrusts to Bedivere to return to the water after his final battle.” (443). However, the film

offers its own story about Arthur pulling out the sword Excalibur from the tomb of his

father in order to save his mother during the Woad attack. In this case the inspiration is

partly drawn from Sarmatian culture and the custom to thrust swords into the soil as a

symbol of a warrior-deity.

3.3. Historical inspirations

“Historians agree that that the classical 15 th century tale of King Arthur and his knights

rose from a real hero who lived a thousand years earlier in the period often called Dark

Ages. Recently discovered archaeological evidence sheds light on his true identity,” declare

the first lines of the film King Arthur . It is a serious commitment, to start a film story by

claiming its historical authenticity, and even more serious to use it as a main slogan for a

promotion of the film. It seems that the film producers really desired to get everything

right and to create as believable historical interpretation as possible. This impression is

testified also by the fact that they consulted not one, but two experts dealing with Arthur

and the period in which he presumably live. One of them, Linda A. Malcor, highly praises

this collaboration: “The film-makers really did everything they could to take my advice whenever it was still possible,” (Youngs). The other one, English historian John Matthews

also states that it is “quite rare, if not unique, to have Hollywood a company saying, ‘yes, we’ll change that, we want to get it right’,” (Foley, K. Arthur - John Matthews ).

But as it usually happens in Hollywood films, something has always to be sacrificed for

the sake of entertainment and commerce. Even though both research consultants try to

convince the public that the authors of the film did their best, a number of missteps can be

found in the whole story. To start directly from the beginning; as proven in the previous

chapter of this work, not all the historians agree that Arthur “rose from a real hero”. But

this is just a play on words. In the next part I would like to point out some of the more

serious problems, such as geographic and time discrepancies.

One of the most crucial imperfections of the adaptation is related to the time chart.

The filmmakers, trying to combine too many factors, got into a serious melange of

historical periods. The story itself pretends to be set in 467 AD, but many of the events

presented there occurred prior to this date or a couple of years later. The main character

himself, bearing the name of Artorius Castus, should apparently refer to Lucius Artorius

Castus from 2 nd century. So what is the explanation for the three-century gap? In Matthews’ words “You've got a Lucius Artorius Castus in the second century, on whom all of the

subsequent Arthurian characters are based. The one in the movie is a descendant of that

first Arthur,” (Press Comment). Lind Malcor, on her turn, simply notes that “some creative

licence was taken with a few of the details, but that happens in all storytelling, and what is a

movie if not another way of telling a story?” (Youngs). However, this “detail” is not the

only problem in terms of historicity that arises in the adaptation.

Romans, Pelagius and Germanus

The first question marks about accuracy arise already in the prologue, when Lancelot

talks about the unstoppable expansion of the Roman Empire, which around 300 AD

reached up to Sarmatia. In fact Roman expansion stopped a long time before and the

Empire certainly never reached the territory of the Sarmatian nation. The battle in question was fought in 175 AD in Pannonia, invaded by the tribe of Iazyges. And the obligation to

send Sarmatian men to the Roman army was just a one-off deal and not a repetitive

tradition.

Let’s now pass to Britain of 467 AD, the period when Roman troops decided to leave

the country – according to the scriptwriter but not historians. A British academic Tony

Keen reacted to this assertion by stating that the date usually given for Roman departure was around 410 AD, but “there was no formal withdrawal”. And as affirmed by Ashe in

The Quest for Arthur’s Britain ; “by 425 at latest, British independence was an accomplished

fact” (47).

The main setting of the movie is the Hadrian’s Wall, the replica of which was

constructed in Ireland with a big accent on its resemblance to the original. The original

Wall, running from the western to the eastern shore of Britain and dividing the country in

two parts, was built by the Romans in order to protect their territory from the Picts.

Therefore it is not very understandable why any Roman family should live outside the wall

and risk to be razed to the ground by the savage inhabitants of this part of the land. Or

better to say, if there had been such a family, it would not probably have had much time to

enjoy its estate.

The names Pelagius and Germanus have already appeared in my thesis in connection with the Ambrosius Aurelianus theory. The first, presented in the film as Arthur’s teacher, was a monk, probably of British or Irish origin, who settled in Rome around 380 AD and wrote several religious works. There he also started to announce the theory later labelled as

Pelagianism - a heretic philosophy based on the denial of the original sin. For this reason

he was excommunicated, but surely not executed as claimed in the film - he disappeared without any trace around 420 AD, which is therefore an estimated period of his dead. But

even if he survived, the approximately 70-year gap between his coming to Rome and his

presence in Britain to teach young Artorius, does not sound very believable.

As for Germanus, it is truth that he came to Britain twice as a deputy of the Pope, who, indeed, was not in control of the Roman troops as the story suggests. However, the

two visits were around 429AD and 446AD and their purpose was to fight Pelagianism.

There is a tale that he won a confrontation with a Saxon-Pictish army by baptizing his

British soldiers and ordering them to shout “Alleluia” - this act “so frightened their enemy

that they fled, many of whom drowned in a nearby river” (Sumner). But this was already a

couple of years after the main Roman forces left Britain - and he is not known to lead any

of them to the mainland.

Woads, Picts or Britons?

Watching the first battle scene of Arthur and his men with Woad warriors, most viewers probably ask a question “who are these painted people?”. Confusing as it may be,

the answer is quite simple. Woads, in fact, is a term sometimes used to denominate the

Picts, who were living to the north of the Wall. This tribe is till nowadays quite enigmatic,

for not much is known about their origin and way of life. The name “Picts” means “the

painted ones” and was probably given to them because of “their habit of tattooing

themselves with intricate markings, believed to be tribal or religious” (Matthews). Besides,

they used to paint whole bodies with a blue dye made from a woad plant – and that is where their nickname comes from. However, that is not an explanation why in the film this

term was given priority to the original name of these people. An even much bigger mistake

is an attempt to associate the Picts, or Woads, with Britons and with Celtic traditions.

Although the possibility that Picts had Celtic roots is not completely excluded, the generally

believed theory assumes “that the Picts were an aboriginal race and non-Celtic” (Duncan).

Notwithstanding this fact, the concepts of Woads and Britons are continuously

interchanged in the whole story. It starts with Woad Guinevere suggesting that by fighting

Woads, Arthur, half-Roman, half-Briton “kills his own people” (King Arthur ), and ends with

Merlin, the Woad leader, attributing Arthur the title of the king of the British people during

a wedding ceremony in a Stonehenge-like ritual site.

Saxons and Mount Badon

The most feared enemies of both, the Romans and the Woads, are the fierce Saxon

invaders. This Germanic tribe, coming from the northern Europe, was distressing the

inhabitants of the island for several decades. In the story they are led by Cerdic and his son

Cynric, who were real Saxon chieftains, only they came to Britain at the beginning of the 5 th

century. The depicted attitude of these leaders towards the native people is quite peculiar –

in one scene Cerdic prevents one of his men from raping a Briton woman, stating “we

don’t mix with these people. What kind of offspring do you think it would yield?” ( King

Arthur ). But the history says exactly the opposite – it was rather characteristic of Saxons,

even after the fatal defeat at Mount Badon – to intermarry with local inhabitants; after all

they are considered the ancestors of the present English people.

As for the Badon Hill, the exact location of this battle is not known and most of the

theories place it to the area of England and Wales, but there was also an attempt to localise

it in the proximity of the Hadrian’s Wall. So in this point the film may be quite right, but

there is still a couple of other misleads. Primarily, as pointed out by one of the critics of the

film, “Badon Hill is traditionally the site of a Saxon settlement, and Arthur led the attacking

force. In the film, it’s the Saxons who are laying siege, and Arthur is the defender.”

(Greydanus). Secondly; even if the Saxons were the initiators of the battle, they never

attempted to cross the Wall southwards. On the contrary, their troops always landed in the

south and headed northwards to the Scottish area, so that they reached the Wall from the

opposite side. Finally, the battle of Mount Badon is a real historical event, documented by

several records from those times. The chronicles do not exactly agree on the date when it

took place, but all the given choices approximate the year 500AD, therefore 467AD is

surely not among the options.

3.4. Different attitudes to the film

Upon its release in the summer 2004, the film King Arthur has provoked a torrent of

reactions. A Hollywood reproduction of the British national myth treated in a completely

non-mythical way - this contrast outraged many inflamed critics. Its alleged historicity full

of missteps touched off a groundswell of protests from the part of historians. Only the

authors of this blockbuster of the season do not admit they did any mistake and are

perfectly satisfied with the result. Let me now give the word to these respective groups and

to present a sample of their opinions.

In the reviews of most of the American as well as British press, the rating of the film was highly critical. Manohla Dargis from The Los Angeles Times talks about “consummate

New World vulgarity” and affirms that the film presents “the Arthurian legends, a

PlayStation Passion play and a Jerry Bruckheimer 6 lollapalooza rolled into one”. The British

daily The Guardian in an article with the title “Death of a Legend” protests that the

Arthurian legend “without chivalry and romance, without spells, curses and tragic destiny”

is “a national insult” (Press Comment). Of course, a couple of positive critiques can also be

found, appreciating the new approach, performance of actors, action and authenticity of

the production, but these are highly outnumbered by the voices of criticism. Among the

most repeated reproaches can be listed complete absence of chivalry, romance and

emotions as such, which normally construct the core of Arthur’s story. In addition they

denounce the barbarous portrait of Guinevere, unconvincing indecisive Arthur and

unknightly amusing Bors, and suggest that the film bears many resemblances to the

6 Producer of King Arthur (2004)

previous works of its respective authors. And one of the most frequent targets of comments is also the unjust claim of the film to be completely historically credible.

If the press critics underline historical inaccuracies, the reaction of historians and experts on the particular period must be, naturally, even stronger. They point out all the already mentioned mistakes, along with other trespasses, considering for example costumes or weapons. Besides, many of them condemn the Sarmatian theory as improbable or unfounded. As asserts the Arthurian expert Geoffrey Ashe: “There is simply no evidence for it. Make no mistake, I'm not saying there is little evidence for it, I'm saying there is no evidence.” (Youngs). On the other hand, the film has its defenders in the two research consultants - Malcor and Matthews. In the opinion of Malcor, “these film-makers did a better job than most could have done when it comes to giving us something besides knights in tin foil and damsels in chiffon,” (Youngs).

The filmmakers themselves are apparently also satisfied with their job. Their priorities different seems to be different from those of their critics - they underline how much attention they paid to the authenticity of fighting scenes and to a special training for actors.

They are especially proud about the replica of the Hadrian’s Wall and the number of different costumes and weapons they accumulated. After all, their intention was to reshape the legend into a realistic story and they believe they have succeeded. They are not bothered by the fact that they have slightly reshaped also the history and that under a label of true events they sometimes present their own fantasies. As claims the director Antoine

Fuqua, the film offers a “very human” portrait of Arthur. “There is no magic; power is in the man, not in the sword. You know, just become a king by wielding a sword. You have to earn it. This is what the movie is about - him earning the right to be a king.” (Blood on the

Land: Forging King Arthur).

Conclusion

The recent film adaptation of the Arthurian theme - King Arthur (2004) by Antoine

Fuqua - promises an unconventional historical treatment of the popular romantic legend.

However, to modify a classical story, which is moreover, a subject of British national pride

and reverence, is a serious commitment. The objective of my thesis was to analyse this

innovative approach and to observe how the filmmakers succeeded in combining the

elements of the legend with historical theories and evidences. A special attention was also

devoted to the concept of the historical Arthur as such, since the opinions of scholars on

this subject differ radically.

The modern version of the story of Arthur and his knights does not share many

common features with the original myth, yet all its traces cannot be completely eradicated.

The film therefore finds a solution in adapting some of them to the needs of the “realistic”

story. For this purpose it also eliminates all magical, unrealistic and romantic notions and

replaces them with action and numerous fighting scenes.

On the other hand, although the film claims to be a reproduction of the true life of

Arthur and his contemporaries, it fails to deliver a believable historical background. Even

though it is based on a quite modern Arthurian theory, which assumes that the legend was

born under an influence of the Scythian tribes from Western Asia, it does not follow

precisely this hypothesis. Instead it builds predominantly on spurious evidence, bending of

historical facts and on the imagination of its authors.

From one point of view, King Arthur merits a credit for an attempt to present the noble

king and his companions from a less mythical and more human perspective. Although the

Scythian theory has not been recognised by many Arthurian scholars, pointing to the lack

of evidence, it brings an interesting possible explanation of the origins of the Arthurian

story. Besides, its arguments are much more believable than a number of other solutions

and should be made more known to the public. The only problem is that taking into

account the way the film manipulates history in general, many people may not be able

distinguish where is the boundary between the facts and the illusions.

Personally, I must admit that when I watched the King Arthur for the first time, I

switched it off in the middle, disappointed with this pseudo-historical interpretation. But when I finally managed to finish it and started this research about the facts presented by

the film, I found the idea quite interesting. I cannot say that I agree with the entire script

and that I do not find it too Hollywood-styled, but the initial intention to look at Arthur

from a historical point of view is fresh and innovative. Only it would need a more cautious

treatment and less boasting about the verity of the story, as the actual truth is not known

and the chance that we will ever know the real Arthur is rather small.

Bibliography

Literary Sources – works cited and consulted

Ashe, Geoffrey, and al. The Quest for Arthur’s Britain. 2nd ed. London: Pall Mall Press ltd.,

1969.

Castleden, Rodney. King Arthur: The truth behind the Legend. 2nd ed. London and NY:

Routledge, 2003.

Caxton, William. Preface. Le Morte D’Arthur in Two Volumes, Vol. 1. by Malory, Sir Thomas.

Ed. Janet Cowen. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1969. 3-8.

Higham, N.J. King Arthur: Mythmaking and History. London and NY: Routledge, 2002.

Jackson, Kenneth Hurlstone. “The Arthur of History” Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages .

Ed. Loomis, Roger Sherman. London: Oxford UP, 1959.

Jones, W. Lewis. King Arthur in History and Legend. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1914.

Lacy, Norris J., and Ashe, Geoffrey. The Arthurian Handbook. 2nd ed. London and NY:

Garland Publishing Inc., 1997.

Littleton, C. Scott., and Linda A. Malcor. From Scythia to Camelot. Rev. ed. London and NY:

Routledge, 2000.

Lupack, Alan. Oxford Guide to Arthurian Literature and Legend . 2 nd ed. Oxford: Oxford UP,

2007.

Malory, Sir Thomas Le Morte D’Arthur in Two Volumes, Vol. 1. Ed. Janet Cowen.

Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1969.

---. Le Morte D’Arthur in Two Volumes, Vol. 2. Ed. Janet Cowen. Harmondsworth: Penguin

Books, 1969.

Monmouth, Geoffrey of. Histories of the Kings of Britain. Trans. Sebastian Evans. Ed. Ernest

Rhys. London: J.M. Dent, n.d.

Electronic Sources – works cited and consulted

Dargis, Manohla. “King Arthur.” The Los Angeles Times . July 7, 2004. Apr. 26, 2008.

Duncan, John. A. “The Origins of the Iron Age Picts.” Scottish History Online . July 8, 2007.

Apr. 26, 2008.

Foley, Jack. “King Arthur - John Matthews Q&A..” IndieLondon . Apr. 26, 2008.

---. “King Arthur - The Celts and the Picts both had women warriors who went into

battle… usually naked.” IndieLondon . Apr. 26, 2008.

Green, Thomas. “The Historicity and Historicisation of Arthur” Arthurian Resources. Ed.

Thomas Green. Nov. 1, 2007. Apr. 10, 2008.

Greydanus, Steven D. “King Arthur (2004)”. Decent Films Guide . 2004. Apr. 27, 2008.

Keen, Tony. “King of the Who?” Memorabilia Antonina . Feb. 27, 2005. Apr. 26, 2008.

“Knight.” Def. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online . Apr. 18, 2008.

Mair, Victor M. “C. Scott Littleton and Linda A. Malcor’s From Scythia to Camelot.” The

Heroic Age . Issue 2. Autumn/Winter 1999. Apr. 16, 2008.

Malcor, Linda “A. Lucius Artorius Castus. Part 1: An Officer and An Equestrian.” The

Heroic Age . Issue 1. Spring/Summer 1999. Apr. 5, 2008.

---. “Lucius Artorius Castus. Part 2: The Battles in Britain.” The Heroic Age . Issue 2.

Autumn/Winter 1999. Apr. 5, 2008.

Matthews, John. “King Arthur - key historical facts.” IndieLondon . Apr. 26, 2008.

Pohle, Joseph. “Pelagius and Pelagianism”. New Advent. Ed. Kevin Knight. 2008. Apr. 25,

2008.

“Press Comment about the King Arthur Movie.” Arthurian Legend. Ed. Patrick Taylor.

2007. Apr. 26, 2008.

“Sidonius Apollonaris.” Britannia . 1999 Apr. 18, 2008.

Sumner, Graham. “A review of ‘King Arthur’, the movie.” Vortigern Studies . Ed. Robert

Vermaat. 2005. Apr. 26, 2008.

The Roman Empire. Apr. 3, 2008. Apr. 24, 2008.

Youngs, Ian. “King Arthur Film History Defended.” BBC . July 30, 2004. Apr. 24, 2008.

Other Sources

King Arthur. Director’s Cut. Dir. Antoine Fuqua. Perf. Clive Owen, Ioan Gruffudd, Keira

Knightley. Buena Vista Pictures, 2004.

“Blood on the land: Forging King Arthur. ” King Arthur. Dir. Antoine Fuqua. Perf. Clive

Owen, Ioan Gruffudd, Keira Knightley. Buena Vista Pictures, 2004.