Chapter 16
By the beginning of the fifth century Britain was largely a Christian province. Therefore the likelihood is that Arthur would have been a Christian, there is certainly no mention of any British leader not being Christian. Gildas denounces his five kings for various sins but paganism isn’t among them. The name itself appears nowhere until his alleged time. Then at the end of the the sixth century we have a number of Arthurs in the royal pedigrees. They tend to be in two areas: southern Scotland or south west Wales, both heavily settled by Irish immigrants in the fifth century.
The first possible etymology is from the Latin Artorius meaning ‘plowman’. This has been described as ‘phonologically perfect’.1 He is never referred to in this form, however, and is usually in the Brythonic form Arthur or Arthurus.2 A correct Latin version would have been Arturus or the more classical Arcturus.3 In fact ‘Arturus’ is found in the earliest Latin reference in the Historia Brittonum. Arcturus or Arthurus is a perfectly acceptable derivation from Artorius. However it also had significant meaning. The first half, ‘Art’, means bear and the second half, guardian. This would refer to a well-known star in the constellation of Bootes next to the constellation of Ursa Major – The Great Bear; hence ‘Guardian of the Bear’. Any Romano-Briton asked what or who is Arturus would thus be likely to reply: ‘the brightest star in Bootes, the Guardian of the Bear’.
Not everyone in Roman Britain would have spoken Latin. The first appearance of the name may occur in the supposed sixth-century poem Y Gododdin. There is a problem in that the ending, ‘-ur’, is not common in Bythronic languages. However ‘Arth’ is commonly accepted as ‘Bear’, a rough, unmannerly or fierce person.4 We are reminded of Gildas’s description of Cuneglasus: ‘You bear…ruler of many … you tawny butcher.’
The ending ‘ur’ may have come from ‘gwr’, meaning ‘man’, which would translate Arthur as ‘Man of the Bear’ or ‘Bear-man’. However the ‘-wr’ and ‘-ur’ sounds are different and in Welsh poetry Arthur is always rhymed with -ur endings. So the Latin etymology appears more likely. Nevertheless, to both Roman and British ears, Arthur and Arturus would have the same meaning: Bear-man. Thus it could be a nickname, rather like a general acquiring the name Taurus, or Roman emperors adopting the name Ceasar or Augustus.
So on one hand we can dismiss any similar-sounding Welsh names such as Arthwys, as these come from a separate and well-documented root.5 On the other hand we are confronted with the possibility it may have been a nickname. For example, the Emperor Caligula was actually named Gaius Caesar, but was nicknamed ‘little boot’ and the name stuck. Of course that’s rather convenient. That means he could be anyone and many names have been put forward, although none with sufficient evidence such as a reference connecting the real name with the nickname. There is no consensus from academics about the etymology.
Some favour a native derivation,6 although others see a Latin derivation from Artorius as more likely.7 Later medieval works such as Dialogue of Arthur and the Eagle describe him as ‘bear of men’ and ‘bear of the host’. A thirteenth-century copy of Historia Brittonum comments that Arthur in Latin translates as ‘horrible bear’. He may have been named that at birth, acquired it as a nickname or been given it as kind of warrior name. There is a spate of Arthurs in the historical record for the late sixth and early seventh century: Arthur son of Aedan Mac Gabhrain of the Gaelic kingdom Dal Riada, killed in battle around 596; Artur ap Bicuir is recorded as killing an Ulster chieftain in 624; Arthur ap Pedr of Dyfed, grandson of Vortipor; an Irish Artur, grandfather of Faradach recorded in a law text of 697.8 Some have suggested this is due to a historical Arthur a generation or more earlier making the name popular.
Let’s consider the logic of that. First of all, Artorius was a perfectly common name throughout Roman times. Second, we have extensive examples of Celtic forms of Roman names. Third, these dates all seem far too late to be linked to any possible British Arthur fifty years either side of AD 500. Lastly, there are no British, or later Welsh examples as one would expect. These are all connected to Irish genealogies. We certainly do have various examples of Roman names such as Tacitus and Constantinus changing to Tegid and Custennin respectively. Or Gaius to Kai. It’s also important that we have no known further uses for 600 years until it was revived by the Norman romances.
There are theories linking Arthur to various gods. One example is Artio, a Gaulish bear goddess from Switzerland. Artaius, another Gaulish god, was linked to the Roman god Mercury but is considered to have been derived from the Gaulish ‘artos’, meaning bear. The Celtic god, Matunus, derives from the Celtic ‘matu-’, also meaning bear. There is no evidence to connect any of these with the Arthur of the Historia or any of the other later legends. There are similarities in Sarmatian and Alan tribal legends concerning swords, ladies in lakes and magical cups, but again there is no credible link. For example, one story has Sarmatians honouring a sword stuck in the ground. But there is no explanation of how this story evolved and travelled across several hundred years, with no evidence, to appear in the twelfth century. The simplest explanation is conveniently ignored: the first person to introduce the sword in the stone (actually an anvil on a stone) was Robert de Boron writing sometime around 1195–1210. He simply copied the story of St Galgano (1148–1181), who was canonised in 1185 and whose tomb did indeed contain a sword buried in rock. Interestingly, the sword can be viewed today and an analysis of the metal in 2001 found the sword is compatible with the era. Either that, or he made it up, but it’s not our place to prove a negative or spend time disproving wild speculations.
The fact remains the Arthur of legend stems from Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain and later French romances. These in turn derive from a tradition that portray Arthur as living in Britain sometime either side of 500. The earliest of these references place him between the life of St Patrick and Ida of Northumbria. Whether he was fictitious or not, regardless of the intention or knowledge of the author of the Historia, that is when he is alleged to have lived. None of the legends place him in Roman Britain. There is an interesting Cornish legend that has him protecting Cornwall from the Vikings in the eighth century, but it’s fair to say the bulk of the legends and all the earliest references place him in Britain at the end of the fifth century. Additionally, while there is an undoubted mythical and magical element, the core of the stories regard him as very human.
In summary, the name Arthur is a perfectly acceptable and common Roman name. The fact that it doesn’t seem popular before or since suggests it wasn’t commonly used by the Britons. Although the fact that it was used by those with Irish connections is interesting. Having said all that, and I know this will be frustrating, it is also quite possible it was used as a type of Celtic nickname, bear-man. We can say many of the ‘Arth-’ type names in genealogies are in no way connected to or derived from Arthur. Thus, many of the theories proclaiming a favoured identification based on an ‘Arth-’ sounding name are flawed. There is no evidence the name is derived from a god or mythical figure.
The most likely explanation is that it is a Roman name. That doesn’t mean he was Roman, or even Romano-British. Nor is it beyond the realms of possibility it was a Brythonic nickname. It doesn’t mean he was historical, even if several centuries later people thought he was. Conversely, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If I were to speculate I would be torn between Ambrosius Aurelianus, placing a young Arturus in a position of command, and a Romano-British warrior either being called Arthurus or acquiring the nickname ‘the Bear’. This makes the passage in Gildas so intriguing when he describes Cuneglasus as ‘The bear’.