|
The historical basis for King Arthur is a source of considerable debate among historians. Due to the poverty of British records in the period 450–550 CE, historian Thomas Charles-Edwards noted that "at this stage of the enquiry, one can only say that there may well have been an historical Arthur (... ) the historian can as yet say nothing of value about him". Historian David Dumville summed up his position by saying, "I think we can dispose of him () quite briefly. He owes his place in our history books to a 'no smoke without fire' school of thought ... The fact of the matter is that there is no historical evidence about Arthur; we must reject him from our histories and, above all, from the titles of our books." Some have suggested that Arthur was a mythological or folklore figure, that other mythological figures also may have become historicised: one suggestion is that Hengest and Horsa were originally Kentish totemic horse-gods, ascribed a historical role by Bede.〔; ; , chapters five and seven.〕 There is, however, no more early trace of this fictional Arthur than there is of a historical one. Arthur appears in a historical context as a British soldier (''miles'' in the original Latin) fighting alongside British kings against the invading Saxons in a Latin text of the 9th century, more than three centuries after his supposed ''floruit'' in 5th-6th century Sub-Roman Britain. The legendary king of the Britons of Arthurian legend develops from the 12th century after Geoffrey of Monmouth's influential ''Historia Regum Britanniae''. ==The name "Arthur"== (詳細はArtorius'' (ultimately of Messapic or Etruscan origin), or a native Brittonic compound based on the root '' *arto-'' 'bear' (which became ''arth'' in Medieval and Modern Welsh). Similar 'bear' names appear throughout the Celtic-speaking world. Gildas does not give the name ''Arthur'', but he does mention a British king Cuneglasus who had been "charioteer to the bear". Those that favor a mythological origin for Arthur point out that a Gaulish bear goddess, Artio, is attested, but as yet no certain examples of Celtic male bear gods have been detected. John Morris argues that the appearance of the name ''Arthur'', as applied to the Scottish, Welsh and Pennine figures by this name, and the lack of the name at any time earlier, suggests that in the early 6th century the name became popular amongst the indigenous British for a short time. He proposes that all of these occurrences were due to the importance of another Arthur, who may have ruled temporarily as Emperor of Britain. He suggests on the basis of archaeology that a period of Saxon advance was halted and turned back, before resuming again in the 570s. Morris also suggests that the Roman Camulodunum, modern Colchester, and capital of the Roman province of Britannia, is the origin of the name "Camelot". The name ''Artúr'' is frequently attested in southern Scotland and northern England in the 7th and 8th centuries.〔() (March 2011)〕 For example, Artúr mac Conaing,〔Senchus Fer Alban. ''History of the Men of Scotland'' ().〕 who may have been named after his uncle Artúr mac Áedáin. Artúr son of Bicoir Britone, was another reported in this period, who slew Mongán mac Fiachnai of Ulster in 620/625 in Kintyre.〔Bromwich, Rachel. 1975. "Concepts of Arthur". ''Studia Celtica'' 10/11: 163–181.〕 A man named Feradach, apparently the grandson of one Artuir, was a signatory at the synod that enacted the Law of Adomnan in 697.〔 Arthur ap Pedr was a prince in Dyfed, born around 570–580.〔Bromwich 1975:178〕 Given the popularity of this name at the time, it is likely that others were named for a figure who was already established in regional history or folklore by that time. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Historicity of King Arthur」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|