Arthurian Reading Suggestions

Some time ago, I posted on the world of Arthurian literature (link here).  There, I briefly discuss the legend of King Arthur, and hint at its various re-tellings over the centuries.  This post is a more thorough treatment of the subject.

The King Arthur legend, being centuries old, has taken on various forms in various ages.  From his initial mention in writing in the 800s, his legend has grown to mythical proportions.  The most popular takes on him have him as English, standing for Christian ideals at his round table in Camelot, as he rules his land with truth and justice, only to be betrayed by his wife Guinevere and knight Lancelot, and eventually fall in battle with Mordred, his relative.  Over the years, many authors have weaved their own takes on the legend- there are hundreds of Arthurian books out there (300 choices for you are here).  But, at its core, we know almost nothing about him.  This begs the question: how did this all come about?  Why such attraction to a man about whom so little is known?  And, are the few depictions we have accurate?

A brief history lesson on Arthurian literature is as follows.  Nennius, around 800 AD, mentioned an Arthur in his work Historia Brittonum.  After 300 years of silence, we see him again in Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain (1136).  We get a lot more background in Geoffrey's pseudo-historical work, and that's believed to be the basis of popularity.  Things really take off, and gain a romantic element, with Chrétien de Troyes, a Frenchmen who penned Four Arthurian Romances in the 1170s.  This is probably the foundation of the modern Arthurian romance, though Mallory (mentioned shortly) gets more credit.  An unknown author released Sir Gawain and the Green Knight in the late 1300s, and around 1400 we have the alliterative Le' morte d'Arthur.  But what gets the most publicity, and is used most frequently as the basis for subsequent works, was Sir Thomas Mallory's Le’ morte d'Arthur (1485).  Interest waned in the post-Medieval world, but in the mid-late 1800s, Alfred, Lord Tennyson rekindled interest when he published his epic verse The Idylls of the King. In the 1900s, there's been an explosion of Arthurian literature, everything from Howard Pyle's The Story of King Arthur and His Knights (1903) to T.H. White's The Once and Future King (1940s) to the last thirty years, where Arthurian literature has grown beyond easy cataloging. 

Since Arthur works are so prevalent, several guides have been written to help navigate the field.  If you are a moderate Arthurian enthusiast, Alan Lupack's The Oxford Guide to Arthurian Literature and Legend is a good book to reference.  If you're a fanatic, and you believe you exist solely to study Arthur, The Arthurian Annals (by Nastali & Boardman) is for you.  The latter is a two-volume set that looks at everything written in English about Arthur from 1250-2000, and can set you back £150 if you buy it straight from Oxford here.

Which depictions of Arthur are accurate?  Did he even exist?  And, if so, who was he?  Military leader, great king, minor lord?  There are many things we don't know, and never will.  Still, historians have been able to conclude some things, and most agree that if there was an Arthur, he existed in the 480s-500s timeframe, when the Romans had left Britain, and the Anglo-Saxon tribes were invading.  Unlike most legends, then, Arthur was not Christian, and most decidedly not English- he was a Briton in the "native, tribal" sense- effectively, the current Welsh.  There would have been no shining armor, and few (if any) castles.  This image of Arthur is very different than the prevailing tales of the man today.

Some, however, claim that all historical attempts to find Arthur are hogwash.  Noted historian Marc Morris says, in his book on King Edward I (review), that "Arthur himself never existed.  Beyond any reasonable doubt, the legendary 'king' began life as an elemental figure or demi-god - a sort of low-grade Thor or Wodin . . . Arthur was not historic, but had been 'historicised.'  That is to say, a number of earlier medieval writers, at different times and for different reasons, had taken the legenday or god-like figure and written about him as if he had been a real person."  Morris blames Geoffrey of Monmouth more than any, calling his work (mentioned above and listed below) "the most brilliant and audacious literary hoax of the Middle Ages."

Whether or not Arthur existed is perhaps not as relevant as who he has become in our culture.  He is the image of the ideal earthly king- bound to honor and justice, capable of glorious feats, tortured by intimate betrayals.  He is both above us and one of us- ideal and real.  To that end, many Arthurian works have been and will continue to be produced, as humanity grasps for examples worthy of emulation.

Update (from June 2017): originally, I concluded this post with a list of Arthurian works.  I've moved that to my main Arthur page.