The King Arthur Character does not significantly predate "The History of the Kings of Britain"

Maintaining focus will help remedy that tendency somewhat. Although the voters will evaluate this debate according to their own counsel, I am hopeful that Con’s technical difficulties are not graded too harshly. I am willing to ask that some consideration is made for this. It has also occurred to me that some elements of this discussion will necessarily consist of technobabble that may be obscure for some readers. Therefore, I feel that I should explain myself better to these readers than I have so far. I think this step is important for our discussion, and so I must sacrifice the bulk of this round to providing this important background information. Historical BackgroundGeoffrey Arthur of Monmouth: This cleric is important to our story, because I believe that the King Arthur legend began with him. He wrote the “History of the Kings of Britain” sometime around the year 1136, which first names King Arthur as a side-character in a larger narrative history of the kings who had rule over Britain to his day. Since Arthur’s character was still somewhat lacking in detail, the story was picked up and embellished by Chrétien de Troy, and later completed in the masterpiece, “The Romance of Arthur,” which was credited to an unknown and obscure writer named Sir Thomas Mallory. The Arthurian tales that come after Geoffrey of Monmouth are known to researchers as “Galfridian,” after the Latin version of Geoffrey’s name, and those which came before Geoffrey are called “Pre-Galfridian. ” Geoffrey wrote the “History of the Kings of Britain” which I will reference often. A PDF copy of this important book can be obtained for free, at this link: . http://www.yorku.ca...Britain is not England: Many Americans can be forgiven for not recognizing this fact. “British” refers to the indigenous peoples of the Island, while “English” refers to those Anglo-Saxon migrants who began to settle on the island after the collapse of Rome. In other words, the British are to the English as the Native Americans are to the Colonists. The British supported Rome, were nominally Christian, and unorganized and illiterate compared to the Germanic peoples that settled the Eastern half of the Island. The Angles (who ruled over the regions that became known as Angle-Land, or England), did not support Rome, and were Odinists (worshipping the god Odin, a variant of Wotan) until the establishment of the Gregorian Mission in 596. The Angles had a complex government based on family rule, and they produced poetry and managed complex economic systems. Importantly, King Arthur was described by Geoffrey (who was Welsh, and therefore, British), as British, and not English. The idea of an English King Arthur strikes many citizens of the modern day UK as outrageous. The period of Anglo Saxon rule ended with the advent of the “Danelaw,” when Danish Vikings destroyed most of the culture on the Eastern portion of the Island. The withdrawal of the Danes finally allowed the British to prosper politically and culturally. Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org...Dark Ages:The Dark Ages in this region lasted from the withdrawal of Roman garrisons from the Island, around 410 CE, and continued during the “Migratory Period,” which lasted until about 700 CE. The Migratory Period refers to the mass migration of Germanic peoples westward following the collapse of Rome. The Dark Ages on the Island ended at around the year 800. There were no “British Golden Ages” during this time, although there were times of relative prosperity among the Anglo Saxon kingdoms, and especially within the Central Kingdom of Mercia. The final of these periods of Merican prosperity seems to have ended the dark ages in this region, but all such cultural, economic and military gains were erased by the subsequent Danish Viking invasions. Regional Political Climate:The region was in anarchy following the withdrawal of Rome. This political and cultural chaos lasted until the Anglo Saxon settlements began to exert lasting influence, finally culminating in the period of Mercian Supremacy, during the “Seven Kingdoms Era” (also called the Heptarchy) of English history. The Seven Kingdoms consisted of Mercia, East Anglia, Wessex, Sussex, Wales, Northumbria, and Kent. These seven kingdoms were interspersed with smaller protectorates, which had limited political or military power. Of the Seven Kingdoms, only Wales can be seriously considered as fully “British. ” During the final years of Merician Supremacy, for example, the Mercian King had direct rule over most of the Island, with his son-in-laws overseeing every other important nation except Wessex and Wales. My Take: My purpose for providing this short history is to demystify some of the argumentation, and to make a very simple point: There was no recorded British Golden Age during the British Dark Ages. Therefore, there was no opportunity for a British overlord of King Arthur’s stature to emerge, and enter the areas literary traditions. There was also no opportunity for British literature post-Rome to advance the legend of King Arthur, or any other literary figure for that matter. Although there are recorded instances of the name “Arthur” appearing in regional literature dating back to c.830, there is no compelling reason why we must believe that these bare references are recounting the same character as the King Arthur described by Geoffrey. Nowhere is this personage called “King,” and he is never credited with any particular period of rule. In fact, the Pre-Galfridan Arthurs are wholly unrecognizable as the King that modern readers know. According to the research of Thomas Greene, the Early Arthur is universally described as if he were a supernatural, rather than human, protector of Britain. This tradition seems to hold that Arthur was the leader of a war-band of heroes that included former pagan gods, and who did battle against werewolves, giants, witches, cat-monsters and other supernatural threats. [Source: “Concepts of Arthur” by Thomas Green. Website: . http://www.arthuriana.co.uk...]To catalog each instance of the name Arthur appearing before 1000CE would be far to character consuming to manage here. Therefore, I encourage all interested readers to analyze Thomas Green’s research into the Pre-Galfridian legends at their leisure, here: . http://www.arthuriana.co.uk...My argument, therefore, remains unchanged. I have researched this topic extensively, and I have found no description of any King Arthur, or any figure that resembles King Arthur, before Geoffrey. Although there do exist instances of the name “Arthur” being used, none of these meet the minimum necessary conditions required to positively identify them as being early descriptions of King Arthur. I believe that this minimum level of complexity requires that King Arthur be at least a King of some note, as well as obviously human. I do not believe that these conditions are met by the Pre-Galfridian literature. I maintain that the Arthur legend evolved into the version that modern readers understand, and that this evolution “modernized” at Geoffrey. There may be good reasons however, to second guess this assumption, and say that Geoffrey invented his character entirely on his own, and only lent him the name “Arthur. ” I agree with much of the research done by Thomas Green that this character evolved from understood myths, and was written into historical traditions later in its development. I believe that the modern concept of Arthur began with the popularity of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain and did not exist in that familiar form more than 100 years before Geoffrey’s time. Unless some counter examples exist that I am unaware of, I must conclude that Geoffrey provided the earliest blueprint for this character.