King Arthur: Man or Myth

“Perhaps a tomb will be uncovered with an engraved cross that can be dated to the early sixth century. Maybe a stone, embedded in an old church or castle , its face hidden from view. The Latin or Ogham inscription will read ‘Arthur, dux bellorum, fought here and won in the year of Christ…’.”

So writes Tony Sullivan as he concludes in his book King Arthur: Man or Myth (Pen & Sword, 2020) that the only way we will ever know for certain if Arthur actually existed is the discovery of some solid evidence. That evidence is currently lacking, leaving many authors the freedom to construct fanciful theories of Arthur’s battles and his realm.

Here Sullivan reviews all the available evidence in chronological order in an effort to reconcile the sources from Gildas, Bede, the Historia Brittonum to Geoffrey of Monmouth to produce a best fit narrative. The early chapters set the scene for Arthur’s time; Roman Britain and the End of the West. Moving through the contemporary sources, he discusses the archaeological evidence (or lack of), timelines, through to the Saints Lives and Geoffrey of Monmouth from the 12th century. After discussing the French Romances Sullivan looks at the Brittany Connection, before examining the genealogies and the etymology of the name “Arthur”.

Along the way he discusses the various theories that have been produced claiming to have discovered the true identity of King Arthur without showing any bias towards any particular given theory.

In the introduction Sullivan tells us that he sets out to examine two things that are often neglected. Firstly, the historical discrepancies concerning the Anglo Saxon arrival; the lack of archaeological evidence for an invasion and the ambiguous genetic evidence contrasting with the literary evidence. He highlights the contradictions between the Gallic Chronicle, Gildas and Bede concerning the dates of the alleged events. Secondly, Sullivan attempts to put all the literary sources alongside each other and address the contradictions and inconsistencies to be found in the Arthurian stories. In doing so the author explores the differences in the timeline of events suggested by these primary sources.

Sullivan determines that the first mention of Arthur places him sometime after the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons but before they became the dominant political force of much of what became England, the so-called "Dark Age" period between AD 450-550. This is the Arthur recorded in the 9th century Historia Brittonum who fought twelve battles against the Saxons, culminating in the victory of the Britons at Badon Hill.

Here Sullivan’s work excels, taking a neutral stance, he spends many pages considering the Anglo Saxon advent. He cautiously puts faith in the Gallic Chronicle entries for Saxon incursions which could only have related to southern England.

In examining the sources of the Western Roman Empire he concludes that it is clear that in the whole period there is not one mention of an Arthur. The implication of course is that the King did not exist; the burden of proof does not lie on the historians to prove the existence of imaginary figures he writes.

But perhaps at times Sullivan appears too neutral, particularly on the chapter on genealogies which is overloaded with conjecture and I found my concentration started to drift. Yet this is forced on the author as Arthur does not appear in any contemporary genealogies and we are left to guess the best fit. However, before the end of this chapter I was crying out for the author to get off the fence and declare his preference; which he finally does, without presenting any wild theory, revealing his hunch for who Arthur was, if he existed.

In sifting through this evidence Sullivan sits firmly on the fence and discusses all options, which makes this an important book as a starting point for anyone coming to the Arthurian legend for the first time. A newcomer reading for example King Arthur: The True Story by Phillips and Keatman (Century, 1992) as an entry to the subject would be seriously misled by their concept of the Arthurian story. And this sadly is the situation with the Arthurian story today; everyone has their pet theory, encouraged by the publishers, and the vagueness of the sources allows much freedom of manipulation to produce a pseudo-historical reconstruction of one’s choice, regardless of accuracy; in other words, today Arthur can be anyone you want.

For anyone setting out on the Arthurian journey today, start with the primary sources, read good translations of Gildas, Bede and the Historia Brittonum and form your own opinion; do not be misled by the reconstructions of others. And certainly do not be misled by the suspect reviews on Amazon that award five stars to any garbled theory. Keep an open mind and read Tony Sullivan first.

* * *