|
|
|
|
|
Arthur: The Creation of a King An Analysis of the Davidic Characteristics of the Character of King Arthur in Arthurian Literature by Yoram Schwell The Arthurian legends have developed over the many centuries since the first poems about Merlin's progenitors and the warrior kings were recited. This development can be traced, as the tales were adapted to fit the technology, dress, and politics of the time in which they were created. Even today people are modeling stories-lines, businesses, and even governments on the Arthurian ideal and the basic story. Many people look back to the legends of King Arthur and the Round Table as something to strive for. They view it as the ideal society. What people don't realize is that the Arthurian model is really a collection of characters and themes from previous eras; in particular, the Bible.
There are two types of similarities between David and Arthur. The first is in actions. Events that occurred in the Bible are repeated in Arthurian tales, sometimes with little or no changes beyond the names and the setting. The other type of copying is in theme. Besides specific deeds, certain Arthurian characters and ideas are based on one or more Biblical ones. While this is prevalent throughout the gamut of Arthurian legends I plan to focus on King Arthur. Many of the similarities between him and King David are quite obvious, and I will try to point out some less obvious trends as well. However, before we can look at what these similarities are, we need to examine why these similarities exist. The creators of the Arthurian tales and ideals needed to infuse the leader of their "crusade" with qualities that would inspire the masses. As Sandler points out: Arthurian authors throughout time had to make the fictional character of Arthur into a real one to which readers could relate. Arthur had to be a leader worthy of being remembered for thousands of years. He had to invoke the loyalty of his entire kingdom. And, of course, he had to have his flaws, which would not take away from his greatness or his status as one of the nine worthies, but rather serve to enrich his character. The best way for an author to do this was to use previously established models of what a king should be like. They chose David, perhaps the greatest king of all time as a model for their new hero. There are many possible reasons for this choice. Among them, as we will see soon, is the desire to be God's chosen, as David clearly was. Another reason, as we also see, is the similarity of their goals. Additionally, both kings were listed among the nine worthies for similar reasons. They were both great warriors and visionaries with their own personalities and flaws. Shoaf claims that David's flaws and sins were an important part of his character. Without his flaws he would have seemed super-human. He would not have been a good role model because he would have been on an unattainable level. His sinful acts, together with his good intentions, good deeds, and loyal following make him the ideal model for a king (Shoaf, 205-219). As I stated earlier, there are two kinds of similarities that exist between Biblical and Arthurian tales. The first is actual actions or "facts." As we trace the lives of these two figures we will see that the shapers of Arthur's life copied liberally from Biblical accounts of King David's life and surroundings. The earliest connection between David and Arthur occurs in their lineage. Both of them were of royal ancestry. Arthur was descended from Uther Pendragon and the Duchess of Cornwall, both royal figures. David came from the tribe of Judah, destined by God to rule Israel. In addition to his royal ancestry, David also has priestly progenitors. According to the Sifre, David is also descended from Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron, who was the father of the priestly clan (Ginzberg, IV:81 and notes there). The next similarity is found in their conception. King Arthur is clearly the product of illegitimate relations. This may have not been a big deal at the time when the story was told, but when backed by Biblical stories involving heroes of disreputable birth it is easier to accept a "bastard" king. David is also the result of dishonorable parentage. His great-grandmother, Ruth, was a Moabite. The entire affair surrounding her conversion and marriage to Boaz was surrounded in controversy. In fact the entire Davidic dynasty began with the seduction of Judah by his daughter-in-law Tamar. The reason why hero kings come from irreputable backgrounds will be discussed later. Moreover, according to some opinions, David's true parentage was hidden initially from his father (Ginzberg, IV:81). This is similar to Arthur being raised by Sir Ector. Neither one learned his true identity until his divine coronation as king.
Furthermore, in a list compiled in the book Avot DeRebbe Natan David is one of the few that the Bible lists as the "elect of God" (Ginzberg, IV:81 and note 1 in VI:245). This juxtaposition of David as divinely chosen (which is explicitly exhibited in II Samuel) to Arthur's divine right to rule gives Arthur more credibility. Perhaps this is another reason why David was listed among the nine worthies; because of his divine selection. Following along the timeline of David/Arthur's life we come to their actual designation as king. Both of them were appointed through supernatural means, showing Divine intervention and appointment.
There are many other similarities here which I will skip. However, it bears stating that both kings were young and inexperienced, and that both needed to fight their own people as well as formidable enemies (images) before they could assume full control over their respective countries. Another tale taken from the Bible and put right into Arthurian lore is the story of David and Goliath.
David uses Goliath's sword in a later story. Its presentation to him by a priest of Israel is similar to the presentation of Excalibur to Arthur by the Lady of the Lake (Sandler). Both of them were great soldiers. Both of them were also very human. They both sinned in sexual matters. Dealing with their sin was a major point of difference between them.
The stories end very differently. In David's struggle with Avshalom the rebel is killed, much to David's distress, but life continues. Mordred's rebellion ends Arthur's life and reign. The reason for the different ending is the focus of the king. David gave credit for his successes to God and repented when he sinned. Arthur viewed himself as the supreme ruler of England and, while regretful of some of his actions, did nothing to correct them. This difference affects the outcome of the entire story. Both kings were referred to as everlasting kings. The Shitah Hadashah calls David "the first and the last of the Jewish rulers." This is very similar to "rex quondam, rexque futurus" (Shoaf 209). However, David's eternal rule was through his dynasty. He fulfilled his mission as a king. The rest would be done by his descendents. Arthur did not accomplish his goals. He left his kingdom in ruin, reeling from the result of his sin. Arthur needs to return to finish the job. Now that we have seen some of the many similarities between King David and Arthur's actions and origins, as well as some of the differences in the story, we can look at the similarities and differences in theme. The creators of King Arthur were trying to create a new order out of the chaos of the time. David had a similar goal. Both kings united their nations. Arthur's Britons, united under the Round Table, became a force to be reckoned with. David joined the tribes under his banner and for the first time in many years there were secure borders. The Philistines and other nations were removed from the land. Nations were forced to pay tribute, much as Rome had to do to Arthur. Both men were known as "Men of Blood" (Shoaf, 219-20). Although this bloodshed prevented David from building the Temple, it was a necessary part of preparing the land and the people for the Temple's eventual building. This is very similar to Arthur, who needed to give the knight's a violent goal focused towards justice. Both men wanted to create a new order, a centralized system of laws and justice. David's was religious and Arthur's was civil, but both were different from the lack of organization from before. Perhaps this is why both rulers came from illegitimate births. Whether the hero is Moses, David, Arthur, or Rocky he must always come from an underdog position. He needs to win the inner struggle as well as the fight. In these cases the hero is creating a new order. Just like the new order is coming from unimaginable chaos, so too the leader of the new world comes from the antithesis of what the new represents. The entire population is changing its ways and path, from war to peace. The leader is certainly no exception. His background, like his nation's, is wrong in the new system, but their joint future is one of right. The creators of King Arthur saw in King David the ideals they wanted to instill in their new creation. They saw that those ideals, and their fulfillment, require a combination of divine will and a full-fledged hero. The obvious leader to model was David. If the readers saw the similarities it was all the better. Let them associate their new role model with one of the greatest leaders of all time. It certainly couldn't hurt to make the an old hero more modern. In creating Arthur they brought David, with all his flaws, within reach of the Medieval masses, and by connection, within our reach as well. He is someone we can relate to and strive to emulate. His responsibilities change with the times, but his ideals remain the same: unity under justice. |
A careful comparison of the Arthurian tales against stories from the Bible will show many similarities. The reason for this, according to Moses Gaster, is that the authors of the early tales were clergymen. They wrote for each other and to honor each other by comparing their colleagues to Biblical characters (Gaster967). Additionally, the majority of the literate people living during the Medieval period were familiar with the Bible, especially tales of King David. As Shoaf points out, the legends of David have been popularized by Bible readings in Church as well as paintings and stained glass windows. There have also been psalters, pictoral typologies, and several non-Biblical accounts of David's life (Shoaf 212). For an in-depth study of the numerous Biblical sources of Arthurian Legends please see 
