| |
The Arthur - David Parallel
An
exploration of the creation of the character of
Arthur
in the image of King David
Ari Stavsky
 |
The origin of the character of King Arthur is a topic of endless, highly
contested debate. There are those who argue in support of an authentic
historical figure as the source of the legendary king. Among the faction
which denies his realistic existence, suggestions for the inspiration of the
fictional character have ranged from Caesar to Charlemagne. This paper
will attempt to establish the biblical figure of King David as the personality
after whom Arthur is modeled.
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia
Regum Brittanniae is the first elaborate chronological account of King
Arthur’s reign. As
“Geoffrey’s chronicle is the starting point and inspiration for subsequent
Arthurian tradition (Guerin 20)[i],”
his work will be examined for its establishment of the figure of Arthur in the
image of King David. The parallel
will first be presented, and the possible motivation for and symbolic
significance of this likening will then be explored.
The
Arthur in Historia bear a remarkably
striking resemblance to the character of King David recounted in the book of Samuel.
David’s reign is preceded by that of a sinful
king, Saul. Saul’s duration as
leader of the Israelites is highlighted by the Philistine invasion of Israel. During the course of this conflict he sins against God by
defying God’s commandment to wipe out the entire nation of Amalek, instead
sparing their king, Agag, as well as failing to sacrifice to God animals taken
during the war (Samuel I 9-15).
Arthur’s reign too follows that of a king who
failed to comply with the word of God, Vortigen.
The land of Britain is also threatened by invasion, from the Saxons,
during this rule. Vortigen, similar
to Saul, in inviting the non-Christian Saxons to dwell in Britain and marrying a
pagan princess, does not adhere to the mandate of his nation’s God (Historia
6).
The
book of Samuel relays the tale of a valorous, young David who slays the
mighty giant Goliath. The text
relates that
|
There
went out a champion out of the camps of the Philistines, named Golyat, of Gat,
whose height was six cubits and a span . . . and his spears head weighed six
hundred shekels of iron . . . David girded his sword upon his armor and he
assayed to go . . . So David prevailed over the Philishtian . . . Therefore
David ran, and stood upon the Philishtian, and took his sword, and drew it out
of its sheath, and slew him, and with it he cut off his head.
And David took the head of the Phillishtian and brought it to Jerusalem .
. . And it came to pass on their return, when David returned from slaying the
Philishtian, that the woman came out of the cities of Israel, singing and
dancing . . . (I Samuel 17:4 – 18:6).
|
| David beheads the giant Goliath after slaying him |
|
Geoffrey,
interestingly enough, narrates a similar story wherein Arthur slays the
frightful giant situated atop Michael’s Mount.
He retells the incident as follows:
|
In
the meantime Arthur had news brought to him that a giant of monstrous size had
come from the shores of Spain . . . The next night, therefore, Arthur . . . went
out privately from camp and hastened towards the mountain . . . at the sight of
the men, he (the giant) hastened for his club, which two strong men could hardly
lift from the ground . . . he gave the giant no respite till he had struck it up
to the very back through his skull . . . Arthur commanded Bedver to cut off his
head . . . After this victory they returned . . . to see which there was a great
concourse of people, all extolling this wonderful exploit of Arthur.
(10:3)
|
| Arthur battles the giant atop Mount St. Micheal |
|
Both David and Arthur set out alone to challenge a
giant of immense strength. Each
displays magnificent intrepidity in slaying the enemy, and in each text the
scene concludes with the beheading of the giant, and the return of the acclaimed
hero to crowds of followers celebrating his victory.
The likening of Arthur as a warrior in the image of David is further
developed by Geoffrey. Shortly
after the battle with Goliath, David is bestowed with the
majestic sword of the slain giant, about which he pronounces him “there is
none like it (I Samuel 21:8-11). “
Similarly, in his battles, Arthur is armed with
“Caliburn, which was
an excellent sword made on the isle of Avalon (Historia
9;4). “ David,
soon after capturing the throne from the house of Saul, successfully combats,
and defeats, the Philistines, Israel’s longtime enemy (II Samuel
5:17-25). Arthur
too defeats Britain’s incessant adversary, the Saxons, in his first military
enterprise (Historia 9;1-5).
Both David and Arthur distinguish themselves not as warriors alone, but
as a supreme sovereign who unifies the people of the land and creates a kingdom
of sustained prosperity as well. The
book of Samuel relates that David unites the
heretofore-divided lands of Judea and Israel and builds the city of Jerusalem
which becomes a center of wealth as well as the symbol of the
political supremacy of David’s reign.
Geoffrey similarly describes how, after defeating the enemy and ensuring
peace throughout the land, Arthur “calling an assembly of
all the clergy and people, established peace and just administration of laws
(9:11).”
The end of Arthur’s reign as brought down in Historia
also places its origins in the story of King David.
David’s son Absalom rebels against his father,
winning the hearts of the people of Israel and turning them against his father. In an act of ultimate sedition, “Absalom
went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all of Israel,” sleeping
with the king’s women. He then
assembles an army of his followers and marches against David (II Samuel
15-18).
|
Analogously, while away on the Roman conquest, Arthur learns
that his nephew Mordred
had taken the queen in marriage, and “by tyrannical and treasonable
practices set the crown upon his head (Historia 10:13).”[ii]
Mordred then gathers
an army of followers and sets out to battle Arthur.
|
| Arthur lying wounded after the battle with Mordred. |
|
The notion that Geoffrey drew from the text of the
Old Testament in creating his epic history of the British is not isolated to
comparisons between the figures of Arthur and David.
Fiona Tolhurst suggests in a 1998 article that the Historia
Regum Britanniae patterns the British people in the image of the Israelites
throughout the whole of the work (70)[iii].
This is demonstrated most strongly in Geoffrey’s account of the
founding of Britain. The
Greek King Pandrasus enslaves the Trojans (7:4) just as Pharaoh
enslaves the Jews (Exodus 1:11).
God leads Moses and the Jewish people through the
desert for forty years before bringing them to the land of Israel.
Similarly, the reader is told that the
gods force Brutus and his people to wander exiled for many years before reaching
the promised land.
Additionally, Membritius tells the Britons
to demand that they “freely be allowed to go (Historia 14:21)
” just as God instructs Moses to request from
Pharaoh to “allow the Sons of Israel to freely leave his land (Exodus
7:2). The development of the British people depicted throughout the
earlier part of Geoffrey’s work clearly parallels, in certain distinct yet
definitive instances, the progression of the Hebrews (Tolhurst 70-71).
Geoffrey’s fashioning of the British in the image of the Hebrews is not
confined solely to the nature in which the nation progresses.
Geoffrey’s Brutus bears a close resemblance to the character of Moses. Moses is exiled from Egypt for many
years for killing an Egyptian officer. Dwelling
in a foreign land, he is chosen as leader of the Hebrews.
Moses returns to Egypt, demands the release of his people from Pharaoh,
and leads them out of slavery (Exodus
3-16). Brutus
is similarly exiled to Greece for many years where he becomes accepted as leader
and savior of the Trojans. He
returns to Italy, demands the release of the Trojan people, and leads them out
of persecution (Historia 1:3-6).
Brutus is clearly patterned in the image of Moses.
As Tolhurst argues, this is yet another indication of Geoffrey’s
intentional formulation of his characters in the likeness of Biblical figures.
The nature of Arthur’s conception further
exemplifies the parallel to King David. The book of Ruth concludes
by tracing David’s lineage directly to Peretz, the son of Yehuda, who was the
product of an incestuous relationship involving his father and Tamar, his
father’s daughter in-law (Ruth 4). Just as King David is of questionable origins, so too Arthur
is the product of an illegitimate relationship.
Geoffrey recounts that Uther, Arthur’s father,
invites all the nobility of the kingdom to a festival celebrating his victories.
Upon seeing Igerna, wife of Gorlois, Duke of Cornwall, Uther falls
passionately in love with her. Determined to lay with her, Uther summons Merlin who assists
the king in obtaining the opportunity to sleep with Igerna.
The product of this illegitimate union is Arthur (Historia
8:19).
Although the Arthurian legend evolved into certain forms wherein, due to
the nature of the genre, the David – Arthur parallel is necessarily absent,
Guerin points out that, where applicable, “it is not surprising that the order
of events of Arthur’s life remains essentially unchanged” from that seen in
Geoffrey (Guerin 20).[iv]
Moreover, later additions
and adaptations concerning the life of King Arthur as well parallel similar
incidents in the life of King David. The
perpetuation of this likening despite constant and continuous transformations of
the legend is clearly indicative of a deliberate intention to fashion Arthur in
the mold of David.
One such example involves Arthur’s designation as king. In the book of Samuel, God
instructs the prophet Samuel to travel to the house of Yishai, where “I have
provided me a king among his sons . . . and thou shall anoint to me him whom I
name to thee.” Samuel journey’s
to the house of Yishai where all of the host’s sons excluding David were
brought into the prophet’s presence. David,
the one deemed least likely to be chosen, is not present at first, but rather,
is left behind to tend to the sheep. Only
at the request of Samuel is he brought in from the fields.
Upon his appearance, Samuel pronounces, to the surprise of all including
the lad, that David is the one who has been chosen by God to lead the nation of
Israel (I Samuel
16:1-14).
|
Malory records a similar occurrence.
The challenge to remove the sword from the stone is
announced, accompanied by the declaration that “who pulleth out this sword of
this stone and anvil is right wise King born of all England (Malory 12).”
The Archbishop proclaims that “He is not here that shall achieve the
sword, but God will make him known (Malory 13)."
Clearly, the challenge of the sword is God’s instrument to indicate his
chosen king. Arthur,
unaware of the monumental impact of his actions, is able to remove the sword
from the stone, and is informed by Ector that he has been chosen as king by God.
Similar to David, Arthur is not seen, by himself or anyone else, as one
fit for this designation, yet, he is the one chosen by God.
|
| A young Arthur removes the sword from the stone. |
|
The
addition of Arthur’s incestuous relationship with his sister resulting in a
son who rebels against the king is yet another example of the intentional
objective to maintain and continue the parallel between Arthur and David.
The earliest recording of this incident can be found in the prose version
of Robert de Baron’s L’Estoire de Merlin. Arthur
engages in an incestuous relationship with his sister Morgan.
Later texts that introduce this incident denote the
product of this union as Mordred, who ultimately attempts to usurp the throne
from Arthur (Guerin 22).”
The
origin of this incident can again be traced back to the story of King David.
David sights Bathsheba, the wife of his officer
Uriah, bathing on her roof, and, attracted to her, sends his men to seize her,
and engages in sexual intercourse with her.
The prophet Natan rebukes David, proclaiming that “God will raise up
evil against thee out of thy own house,” clearly alluding to Absalom’s
rebellion against his father soon thereafter (II
Samuel 11-12). Similar to Mordred’s revolt against Arthur, Absalom’s act
of defiance is clearly a result of the King’s sinful illegitimate
relationship. Although there are
distinct differences between the two occurrences, there is certainly enough
explicit correspondence to assert a definitive correlation.[v]
Until
this point we have been solely concerned with establishing that a clear and
defined parallel does indeed exist between King Arthur and King David. As it is evident that Arthur is certainly fashioned in the
image of David, one must then explore why
he was modeled in this manner. Moses
Gaster explains that medieval literature is marked by “a
surprising poverty of invention. The situations and incidents told of one hero
are repeated ad nauseam by every subsequent poet."[vi]
He explains that writers often created new tales with the same basic
story line as well known existing stories.
In this manner, it was possible to furnish new tales with “local
character (967).”
This
suggestion, however, does not adequately address the issue at hand.
The motivation for the likening of Arthur specifically in the image of
David still remains a pertinent question. With
regard to Historia as a whole,
Tolhurst explains that “Geoffrey identifies the British as the chosen people
of God (70).” As such, it is
logical to pattern their history after that of the Hebrews.
In order to give validity to the British people as a nation destined for
greatness by God, Geoffrey recounts their history in a similar manner to that of
the Hebrews, a nation similarly chosen by God.
This correlation stands to increase their stature in the eyes of the
reader.
Tolhurst further asserts that establishing their history in
this vein “provides moral justification for the Briton’s loss of control of
the island to the Saxons.” For,
inasmuch as Geoffrey wished to depict the unique greatness of this nation, he
was also restricted by historical reality.
By likening the British to the Hebrews, he can account for their fall
while maintaining their divine right to rule Britain.
The British, just as the Hebrews, lose control of their land because God
deemed it so, and they will regain power, just as the Hebrews, when God sees fit
(71-72).
Guerin states that “the Historia
presents Arthur as the tragic but glorious emblem of Britain’s lost Golden age
(18).” Indeed Arthur is the
greatest of all British kings. His
reign is marked by sustained prosperity, and he is successful in all his
military efforts. That said, King
David stands as the perfect model to which Arthur can be likened.
Like David, Arthur is a king who “emblematizes the golden age of his
realm (Guerin 20).” David’s duration as
ruler of Israel is permeated by signs of Divine favor and national well being,
as is Arthur’s. Both David’s [vii]
and Arthur’s sins mark the beginning of the downfall of their nation .
Additionally, as Arthur is representative of the lost “golden age” of
Britain, he, just as David, also symbolizes the hope for a messianic redemption.
As the legend has it, Arthur, mortally wounded by Mordred, is carried off
to the island of Avalon where he is to recuperate and, someday, return to lead
the British people back to their glory.
|
|
This
story has its roots in Geoffrey. Near
the end of Historia, an angel
addresses Cadwallader, the exiled Briton leader, forbidding him from attempting
to recapture the land: “For God was not willing that the Briton’s should
reign any longer in the island, until the time came of which Merlin
prophetically told to Arthur (Historia
12:20).”
Similarly,
the Messiah, who, it is believed, will one day bring redemption to the Jewish
nation and lead them back to the promised land, is said to be a direct
descendent of King David.
Given
Geoffrey’s objective in creating the character of Arthur, it is not in the
least surprising that he chose David as a model for his British hero.
The greatness of the King of the Israelites, his military prowess,
sustained fortune, favor
in the eyes of God, and association with the notion of messianic redemption, are
all attributes Geoffrey wished to endow Arthur with.
Thus, David is the most fitting and logical character upon whom to model
Arthur.
Ostensibly, David and Arthur are two distinct literary characters, sharing
little more than the title of king. One is the ruler of the Kingdom of
Israel, placed in the biblical era of The First Holy Temple, the other, the
legendary monarch of the people of Britain. However, upon closer analysis
of their respective texts, it is clear that there exists between them a deep
thematic relationship. In creating and adapting the figure of Arthur,
medieval authors have continuously turned to King David for inspiration and
direction. While an exploration into the motivation for such a modeling
is, by and large, purely speculative, a recognition of this method of
literary construction can furnish the reader with a more comprehensive
vision of the broad literary horizon.
[i]
Guerin, M. Victoria. The
Passing of Arthur: New Essays
in Arthurian Tradition. “The
King’ Sin: The Origins of the David- Arthur Parallel.”
Garland Publishing, Inc., New York: 1988. 15-30.
[ii]
The parallel here is not completely
analogous, as it is David’s own son who rebels against him, while Mordred
is Arthur’s nephew. Later
versions of the legend have Mordred the product of Arthur’s incestuous
relationship. This supports the notion that this parallel is not merely
coincidental, but rather methodically created and purposely carried on by
later writers, who, it seemed, altered Geoffrey’s version in a deliberate
attempt to perpetuate this theme.
In regard to why Geoffrey himself would not create this incident in
complete congruence with the story of David, Victoria Guerin has suggested
that Geoffrey may have altered his story in order to subdue certain issues
that may have detracted from his portrayal of Arthur as the noble King of
Britain (Guerin 16).
[iii]
Tolhurst, Fiona. “The Britons as Hebrews Romans and Normans: Geoffrey of
Monmouth’s British Epic and reflections of Empress Matilda.” Arthuriana 8:4. 1998. 69-87.
[iv]
Guerin points out that after Geoffrey, as the legend passed from Britain to
Continental Europe, Arthur himself was no longer the focus of the majority
of Arthurian literature (Much was written concerning the adventures of the
knights). Additionally, popular
Arthurian literature of the time placed Arthur in an infinite time period by
focusing on individual challenges of the knights, while ignoring the overall
chronology of Arthur’s reign. For
example, see the romances of Marie de France and Chretien de Troyes. Therefore,
since the historical events of Arthur’s life were absent, the David-Arthur
parallel fell out of view (Guerin 21).
[v]
The most obvious discrepancies are: 1) Arthur’s relationship is incestuous
while David’s is merely adulterous 2) Arthur’s sin is almost always
brought down as unbeknownst to him while David’s was certainly deliberate
3) Arthur is ultimately destroyed by Mordred – as a direct result of his
wrongful relationship, while David survives the altercation with Absalom and
returns to rule. Ironically,
Arthur, whose sin, because he didn’t realize the identity of the woman,
seems less severe, is destroyed, while David is not.
A discussion of the differences of Arthur’s sin in comparison to
David’s with regard to the nature of the sin (points 1 and 2) and its result (point 3),
is out of the scope of this study.
[vi]
Gastor, Moses. Publications
of the Anglo Jewish Historical Exhibition.
“Jewish Sources of the parallels to the early English Metrical
Romances of King Arthur and Merlin.”
Office of The Jewish Chronicle, London: 1888.
231-252.
[vii]
David, as told above, is rebuked by the prophet Natan for his sin with
Bathsheva. He is warned that
from that point on there will constantly be strife and conflict in his
house. Although he survives Absalom’s rebellion and dies as ruler
of Israel, the peace he enjoyed as ruler before his sin is never restored.
Soon after his death, his son Solomon is banished by God for
practicing idolatry, and he is followed by a series of evil kings, wherein
there is an ever-present instability in the house of David.
The truly sovereign kingdom of David is never restored.
|
