There are well-known difficulties in attempting to understand the “Matter of Britain ”—the body of history, tradition and literature associated with the legendary past of Britain and, in particular, with Arthur. Any attempt to investigate the period between the end of Roman rule and the Norman Conquest quickly reveals why it was traditionally described as part of the “Dark Ages”. Although that term is now generally avoided by historians, it still conveys one of the researcher’s principal difficulties: the scarcity and uneven survival of contemporary written evidence.
Why So Few Early Medieval Manuscripts Survive
Warfare, political instability, the destruction or dispersal of religious communities and the physical deterioration of manuscripts may all have contributed to their loss. Britain’s damp climate can hardly have assisted the preservation of fragile documents, but the problem was not merely one of survival. In some periods and regions, comparatively little was written down, while much of what was recorded was preserved only if later generations considered it worth copying.
Literacy after the End of Roman Rule
The early Anglo-Saxon settlers did not initially inherit the extensive literate administration that had supported Roman government.
Although runic inscriptions and other evidence demonstrate that writing was known and used, it did not fulfil the same widespread administrative functions as writing had under Roman rule. No body of everyday written material comparable to the Vindolanda tablets has yet been discovered among early Anglo-Saxon settlements. Among the Britons, Latin literacy survived most visibly within the Church, although it cannot be assumed that religious communities were its only custodians.
The post-Roman kingdoms may gradually have absorbed or adapted elements of Roman organisation, but much of the imperial system had already fragmented by the time Anglo-Saxon power became established. The end of Roman government removed the military support, taxation, funding and central authority upon which Roman administration depended. Elsewhere in Western Europe, elements of Roman law, government and literacy survived to differing degrees, but there too continuity varied greatly between regions.
Later Chronicles and the Problems of Evidence
Much of the information relating to post-Roman Britain therefore comes from traditions written down long after the events they purported to describe.
Ecclesiastical writers and later chroniclers attempted to interpret inherited stories within their own religious, historical and political frameworks. Much of what they recorded has also disappeared. Some texts now survive only in later Anglo-Saxon or post-Conquest copies, while others were preserved in Continental libraries and subsequently returned to Britain. Scribal error, reinterpretation, interpolation and political influence consequently make the extraction of reliable historical information extremely difficult.
There was undoubtedly a considerable cultural difference between the Anglo-Saxon and Romano-British worlds, but the degree of separation varied according to place and period. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle contains relatively little explicit recognition of continuing Romano-British civilisation, yet archaeological evidence presents a more complicated picture of coexistence, adaptation and regional change.
The Survival of the Roman Landscape
The landscape must still have contained the remains of Roman towns, villas, roads and fortifications.
Some were reused, while others were abandoned, dismantled for building materials or occupied in ways that bore little resemblance to their former Roman functions. Early Anglo-Saxon communities did not generally require Roman-style urban centres, but it would be misleading to suggest that the Roman landscape was simply ignored.
The early ninth-century Historia Brittonum, traditionally attributed to Nennius, contains a list of the cities of Britain. The identities of several remain disputed, while the number and spelling of the names vary between manuscripts and editions. By the time the work was compiled, some Roman centres had long since declined, although their ruins, names and associations might still have remained familiar.
Places such as York, Winchester and London survived or re-emerged as important royal, ecclesiastical, commercial and administrative centres. Trading settlements had also begun to develop from the seventh century onwards. Alfred the Great’s fortified burhs, established or strengthened in response to Viking incursions during the late ninth century, contributed significantly to the later growth of English towns. They represented an important stage in urban development rather than its beginning.
The underlying Roman landscape nevertheless continued to exert a powerful influence. Medieval chroniclers lived centuries after the end of Roman government, but the visible remains of towns, roads, walls and fortifications gave substance and plausibility to stories about Britain’s ancient past.
Climate, Plague and the Historical Arthur
External natural events may also have affected the period in which the historical Arthur, if he existed, is usually placed. Scientific evidence indicates severe climatic deterioration beginning in AD 536, followed by further disruption after another major eruption around AD 540. Tree-ring and ice-core evidence now strongly supports volcanic causes for these events, although the locations of the eruptions remain uncertain.
Contemporary writers in the Mediterranean world described a dimmed sun, while later annalistic sources record crop failures, famine and disease in parts of Europe. The first pandemic of plague conventionally associated with Justinian began in AD 541, although its extent and effect in Britain remain uncertain. These environmental and epidemiological events may have disrupted migration, agriculture and political development. Any direct connection between them and the historical or legendary Arthurian world, however, remains speculative.
Modern Scholarship and the Search for Arthur
During the past 150 years, a vast number of books and papers concerning Arthur have been published by eminent scholars and historians. These works are invaluable to readers without specialised knowledge of Medieval Latin, Welsh or Old English. Nevertheless, some interpretations appear influenced by a desire to reconstruct an idealised Celtic past, just as Geoffrey of Monmouth has been accused of constructing a national history suited to the interests and expectations of his own age.
Using Online Sources with Care
The advent of the internet has greatly improved access to primary texts and modern research concerning Arthurian history and literature. It has also provided a platform for material that has not been subjected to scholarly review. Assertions are frequently copied from one website to another until repetition gives them the appearance of established fact.
This is not to suggest that online resources are without value. Digital editions can be searched far more quickly than printed volumes, while reference works such as Wikipedia can provide useful starting points for locating texts, authors and bibliographical information. They should not, however, be treated as substitutes for primary sources or reliable scholarly editions.
A Living Study of the Matter of Britain
It is very easy in historical research to select or interpret the evidence in a manner that supports a preconceived hypothesis. In an attempt to avoid this, these notes are intended to remain a living document, open to revision when new evidence emerges or when previously accepted conclusions can no longer be adequately supported.