As for the "real King Arthur," if we had any idea who he really was and when he really lived, we might be able to specify the details of his world. A variety of cultural groups struggled for dominance and survival in post-Roman Britain, each influenced by the remaining Roman culture in differing ways. We would have to know exactly to which group Arthur belonged and when in order to begin to connect the social and political structure of his specific society and the details of its material culture with the man himself.
Moreover, those centuries after the western Roman Empire collapsed are still called a "Dark Age" for one very good reason: we know so little about them. Very little documentary evidence survives from that time, and thus the exceedingly difficult task of understanding "daily life" is largely dependent on archaeological study. The picture this gives us, while fascinating and full of promise, is sketchy at best.
But if we can't know what life was like in Arthur's time or if, indeed, there was a "real Arthur" at all, is there any value to be had in studying this elusive figure?
Absolutely.
The specter of King Arthur haunts the middle ages so completely that he cannot, and should not, be ignored. For hundreds of knights and kings, for thousands of writers, artists, and troubadors, for millions of ordinary people, Arthur was--and is--what a king should be. Because that paragon changed from century to century and from country to country, by examining it closely we can see how it reflected and, at the same time, influenced the world from which it sprang. In this way Arthur becomes more than a literary figure, a myth, or the object of an impossible historical quest. He becomes our ally in the search for the past.
For the historian, this may be the most valuable truth of Arthur.
This feature was originally published at the Medieval History Site in March, 1999, and was revised in June, 2004.
