Christina
Bizzle
Arthurian
Literature
Professor
P.
Battles
The Round Table: Up Close and
Personal
Since it was first mentioned in
Wace's Roman
de Brut, the Round
Table has been an enigma that has enchanted audiences around the
world.
Inspired by the mystery of its origin and portrayal, hundreds of
authors have
taken a stab at harnessing the Table's magic for themselves.
However, none of
these authors have proved to be more important to the
development of the Round
Table than Layamon, Sir Thomas Malory, Alfred Lord Tennyson,
and, of course,
Wace himself. Each author took Wace's original mentioning and
developed the
Table to fit into their chronicles of King Arthur and his court.
This led to an
interesting circumstance. For, while there is a plethora of
references to
'Round Table's within the span of Arthurian literature, very
little of the
Round Table is described. The multitude of depictions of the
Round Table has
resulted in arguments between medievalists over what the round
table, as
portrayed in the literature, really was and what possibly
inspired its
creation. One daring scholar, Norma Lorre Goodrich, even goes so
far as to
propose that the Round Table wasn't even a table at all.
What
is the 'Round Table?'
What exactly is the 'round table?' The question
that has been plaguing Medieval historians for decades is still
without a
decided answer. Yet, through analyzing different Arthurian
texts, most
researchers agree upon three different explanations. The first,
and seemingly
most practical, theory is that the Round Table was an actual
piece of
furniture. However, among the references of the Round Table in
Arthurian
literature, the description of it as a physical table is the
rarest. Wace, the
very creator of the Round Table, only mentions it to describe
its purpose. He
writes that because the lords of his hall were arguing and
thought themselves
superior to one another:
Arthur
made
the Round Table, so reputed of the Britons. This Round Table was
ordained
of Arthur that when his fair fellowship sat to meat their chairs
should be high
alike, their service equal, and none before or after his
comrade. Thus no man
could boast that he was exalted above his fellow, for all alike
were gathered
round the board, and none was alien at the breaking of Arthur's
bread. (Wace
55)
A second, and more frequent, meaning
of the 'round table' is a chivalric gathering. In many of the
romances, King
Arthur 'holds' Round Table at one of his courts. These chivalric
meetings could
be held for serious discussions, such as war tactics, but are
more often seen
in a carefree light with many festivities. Accompanied by
jousts, tourneys, and
strange adventures, the Round Table symbolizes an abstract
occasion rather than
a physical piece of furniture. Sir Thomas Malory frequently uses
this manner of
speech in Le
Morte Darthur when
the King speaks, "'I assente me,' seyde the Kynge, 'as ye have
devysed, and
comly be Crystmas to be crowned--hereafter to reigne in my
asstate and to kepe
my Rounde Table with the rentys of Rome to rule as me lykys--'"
(Malory 149).
Malory also uses the phrase to imply a time of wealth and
prosperity, when the
King was free from the wages of war to relax and enjoy himself
by holding a
gathering:
In
Arthurs dayes, whan he helde the Rounde Table moste plenoure,
hit fortuned the
Kynge commaunded that the hyghe feste of Pentecoste shoulde be
holden at a cité
and a castell, in tho dayes that was called Kynkekenadoune,
uppon the sondys
that marched nyghe Walys. (Malory 177)
While
this
interpretation of the Round Table is absent from Wace's Brut, it
can be found throughout many
of the later Arthurian romances.
The most common interpretation of
the Round Table is that of King Arthur's chivalric institution,
itself. The
brotherhood of Arthur's knights is a crucial feature to every
story, and the
"Knights of the Round Table" is a term that can be found
throughout all
Arthurian literature. When the Round Table was founded by King
Arthur, a sense
of fraternalism was founded as well. In his article The Round
Table, Lewis F. Mott examines the
'brotherhood' of knights, and writes that:
In
the etymological sense of the word, they were companions and, as
brethren of one blood, they were 'to
support one another in life and avenge one another's death.'
After the first
feast at the Round Table, they desire to remain together
permanently, for
although many had not been acquainted before, they now love one
another as a
son loves his father. They lived together in peace like brother
german. (Mott
232)
While the differences between the
representation of the Round Table as a physical object and the
two metaphysical
meanings are large, there is no reason to limit the amount of
representations
of the Round Table in a piece of literature. Most of the
Arthurian authors,
including Wace himself, combine at least two different
references to the Round
Table in their works. Wace first introduced to the world a
physical Round
Table, even though he gives no specific dimensions to the piece
of furniture.
Yet, he also writes that once the Table was constructed Arthur
and his "fair
fellowship" sat down at it to feast, implying that the knights
represented the
Table as well. Layamon describes the creation of the Table in
more detail than
Wace and then, similarly, writes, "When all were seated, knights
to their meat,
then spake each with other, as if it were his brother; all they
sate about; was
there none without" (Layamon 211). Malory's King Arthur "held
Round Table,"
gatherings and feasts where he did not eat until something
amazing happened,
but he also emphasized that Arthur's knights were part of a
fellowship of the Round Table: "For ye ar
the knyght in the worlde that the felyship of the Rounde Table
desyryth moste
to have the company off" (Malory 297). This extreme variation in
portrayal of
the Round Table has done more than baffle medieval scholars and
historians, it
has also helped them by providing helpful hints at what
influenced the Round
Table's creation, or its historical origins.
Where
did the Round Table come from?
Through thorough examination of Arthurian
literature that includes the Round Table, researchers have
identified two
common and insightful reasons for the Table's creation. Evidence
of both Celtic
and Christian influences has been drawn from Arthurian
literature to argue the
different historical impacts on the Table. The Round Table of
early Arthurian
literature was created to equalize. A dispute between King
Arthur's noble
knights either causes Arthur to have a round table made or
causes a concerned
carpenter to volunteer his services and suggest the design of
the Round Table.
The argument that Celtic influences
are the backbone for the creation of the Round Table emerges
from oral
tradition. In her essay Transformations
of a Theme, Jean
Blacker-Knight writes that "the Round Table was likely part of a
common stock
of oral tales" (Blacker-Knight 68). This theory is often
supported by other
Arthurian researchers and Wace, himself, confirms the theory in
Roman de Brut when he writes:
Because
of
these noble lords about his hall, of whom each knight pained
himself to be
the hardiest champion, and none would count him the least
praiseworthy, Arthur
made the Round Table, so reputed of the Britons. (Wace 55)
On a completely separate track of
Round Table development, prose texts of the thirteenth century
attribute the
Round Table's origins to Merlin. In Robert de Boron's Merlin,
Merlin recounts a passage about
Christ's table of the Last Supper and Joseph of Arimathea's
Grail table. Uther
Pendragon requests Merlin to make a similar table to seat fifty
knights. Those
who do not support the theory of Celtic influence propose that
the Round Table
had a Christian origin and was modeled off of a holier
predecessor, the table
of the Last Supper. Biddle remarks that the dramatic situation
of the Last
Supper and Wace's portrayal are similar considering they both
contain arguments
(Biddle 15). In Wace's tale there is a disagreement among his
lords and barons.
Similarly, in the Bible, there is an argument between Christ's
disciples over
"which of them should be accounted the greatest" (Luke 22:24).
Viewing Wace and
Layamon's influence in this new light, the gap between early
Arthurian literature
and the thirteenth century prose narrows greatly. After
presenting the multiple
Celtic possibilities, Loomis comments that they "do not explain
the explicit,
full-fledged concept of the Round Table given first of all by
that most
courtly, Christian, and sophisticated Norman, the poet Wace"
(Loomis 774).
Loomis, also discredits the possibility of Celtic influence on
the round shape
of the table by comparing the text to historical knowledge of
life during the
medieval period. She points out that "there is nothing vague or
fantastic about
Wace's account" of the Round Table, something she describes that
could not have
been more "completely at variance not only with the ancient
pagan Celtic world
but with [Wace's] own twelfth-century day" (Loomis 772). In her
article, Loomis
proposes an alternative interpretation for the roundness of the
Round Table in
connection to the portrayal of the table of the Last Supper. She
informs her
readers that, unknown to many people, the table of the Last
Supper was commonly
portrayed as circular, semi-circular, or C-shaped in art of the
twelfth century
and earlier (Loomis 776).
In stories directly linking the
Round Table and the holy tables, such as Merlin and all of the
Grail stories,
the sense of equality is lost. Rank is assigned to knights, not
by honor or
strength, but by purity, piety, and devotion. The Round Table,
whether physical
or metaphysical, takes on a new meaning and, according to Mott,
it was "to
symbolize the Trinity, as the third of a group of tables, the
other two being
that of the Last Supper and a square one made by Joseph in the
desert to
receive the Grail" (Mott 233). Once modeled off of the table of
the Last
Supper, the Round Table began to develop recurring features
easily connected to
Christ's table; the knights' names on seats as a sign of
election and the
vacant or siege perilous. Tables with thirteen seats began to
appear in
Arthurian literature, representing the number of chairs present
at the Last
Supper. However, in all of these accounts, one seat must remain
empty in memory
of Judas' betrayal of Christ. The religious connection to the
vacant or
perilous seat is emphasized by its essential role in the quest
for the Holy
Grail. In Robert de Boron's Merlin, Uther Pendragon is informed
by
Merlin that the last seat must remain vacant until, after
Uther's death, it is
occupied by the knight who will achieve the Grail quest. In the
Didot-Perceval, the knight Perceval demands
Arthur's permission to occupy the empty seat, eliciting an
earthquake and
'enchantments' that will not cease until a knight surpassing all
others in
chivalry pursues the Grail (Lacy 464). Galahad becomes the
initiator of the
Grail Quest in Malory's Queste
del Saint Graal when
he sits in the Siege Perilous. The Gerbert continuation of
Chrétien de Troyes' Perceval takes a more fantastical
approach as fairies send the Siege Perilous to Arthur. The earth
swallows up
six knights who attempt to sit in it and they are restored only
once Percival
accomplishes the Grail quest (Mott 234). The Holy Grail and the
Round Table
become so intertwined in medieval literature that it is
impossible to remove
one without significantly affecting the other. The Holy Grail
quest is crucial
in adding defining characteristics to the Table, such as the
infamous Siege
Perilous, and without the Round Table to initiate the adventure,
there would be
no quest for the Holy Grail.
However, according to Biddle,
discovering the exact source of the Round Table is not
important. For, while
there is a great possibility that The Round Table has its
origins in a distinct
tradition, be it Celtic, Christian, or undiscovered material,
"there is no
question but that in the thirteenth century writers of romance
clearly thought
of Arthur's table and the table of the Lord as similar if not
identical
objects" (Biddle 16). Even if the connection between the Round
Table and the
table of the Last Supper is unfounded in the twelfth century,
there is no
denying that it exists in thirteen century literature and is a
crucial
characteristic. Yet, despite the endless articles and examples
provided, there
remain some people who disagree with both the Celtic and
Christian theories. In
The Legendary
History of Britain,
J.S.P Tatlock recognizes Loomis' explanations of the Last Supper
as the Round
Table's model, but disagrees by mentioning that "there is no
hint of Christian
knowledge or feeling here in either Wace or [Layamon],--quite
the contrary"
(Tatlock 475). He reasons that because there are no Christian
associations with
the texts it is unpractical to connect the two. Tatlock
continues to explain by
saying that "since a solid curved table would be more difficult
and costly to
make than the temporary table on trestles," the Round Table may
have been
attributed to King Arthur "to exalt his aristocratic grandeur"
(Tatlock 475).
Therefore, while most scholars believe the Round Table is
centered on Celtic or
Christian tradition, some see evidence to believe the Table was
simply meant to
be an egotistic reflection of a powerful king.
The
Table is a building?
In her quest to discover the true
identity of the Round Table through the book King Arthur, Norma
Lorre Goodrich combines both the Celtic and
religious origins to develop a questionable theory that goes
beyond those of
many Arthurian historians. Goodrich systematically explains the
reasoning of
her claims and supports them with references to literature and
the opinions of
other researchers. As a result, Goodrich guides her readers
through three
claims about the Round Table, resulting in the proposal that the
Round Table
was a building and not a table at all.
Goodrich begins by examining
Merlin's interactions with Arthur and his ancestors as told by
Geoffrey of
Monmouth. According to Geoffrey, Merlin built a monument or war
memorial for
Aurelious Ambrosius from stones taken out of Ireland. These
stones were
supposedly used as a part of a temple set in the territory of an
Irish king
called Gillomanus. Goodrich writes that "the Arthurian scholar
Laura Hibbard
Loomis tells us that Gillomanus means 'Servant of the Stones,'
or pagan priest" (Goodrich 282). Through re-examination of the
literary source
and Loomis' interpretation of it, an idea is suggested that
"when Merlin built
the Round Table for Uther, it was of stone and not of wood. Nor
was it for any
such prosaic use as dinner" (Goodrich 282). Another Arthurian
historian, Stuart
Piggot, is referenced in the defense of the newly proposed stone
material.
"Even in Arthur's day," Goodrich writes, " the king seems to
have been able to
muster unbelievably large numbers of skilled craftsmen for
stonework and
metallurgy" (Goodrich 282). Both Piggott and Goodrich suggest
that the medieval
society of King Arthur's time was more technically advanced than
is generally
thought with the many depictions and descriptions of swords,
armor, crowns,
treasure hoards, chariots, ships, and 'alveolate walls,' which
were used for
housing the dead. Ancient Celtic art is referenced that displays
the mastery of
such technological advancements, and implies that the Celts were
great builders
of stone, even if modern physical justification is difficult to
find.
Goodrich next raises a question that
alters the path of her research. She inquires, "Have we been on
the wrong track
all these centuries looking for round dining tables and
measuring odd board
feet?" (Goodrich 283). Since Wace's addition to Geoffrey of
Monmouth's story
was so concise and vague in description, suspicion has been
raised as to what
he really meant by the phrase 'Round Table." During the
estimated lifetime of
King Arthur, somewhere between the years 468 and 483 A.D., the
martyrium of San
Stefano Rotondo was in the process of construction. This
martyrium, a chapel
and tomb in which a body and other relics were housed, was
"built on a table or
has an entablature instead of an arcade level" (Goodrich 283).
Is it possible
that Wace was careless in his use of the expression 'Round
Table?' Norma
Goodrich seems to think so and suggests that the searchers for
the Round Table
should look for stone buildings, instead. She cites Reverend Dr.
William
Stukeley who, in 1720, published a pamphlet and illustration
depicting a
building he discovered in Stirlingshire named "Arthur's O'on" by
the locals.
They thought it was a huge outdoor furnace or kiln or, possibly,
a giant oven
for baking the bread of an army. It was described to look
"exactly like an
enormous stone beehive" from the outside (Goodrich 284).
Arthur's O'on was demolished and its
stones were used to make a dam twenty-three years after Stukeley
painstakingly
drew his pictures of the structure. However, from these careful
illustrations,
historians were able to understand the architecture of the
building and even
recreate it. From the description of the structure, a comparison
can be drawn
between Arthur's O'on and the martyrium of San Stefano Rotondo
(See Figures
1-4). Stuckeley and many other scholars strongly believe
Arthur's O'on had a
similar, holy, purpose as the San Stefano Rotondo. According to
Stukeley, the
building was:
An
unattached circular beehive-type structure, built of forty
courses of ashlar
blocks...these blocks of hewn stone were set without mortar upon
an elevated,
square stone platform. The stone platform itself seems to be set
upon an
earthen mound. The worshiper entered the edifice by means of an
unroofed
portico of two stone slabs, a smaller upon a larger, the width
of the doorway.
The door opening was enclosed by a true arch constructed of
voussoirs,
wedge-shaped blocks pointing toward the center or top of the
arch. (Goodrich
285)
The abundance of possibilities
regarding the Round Table provide ample ground for scholars to
debate. While
there are three different possibilities of the Table's
significance or
representation, the majority of medievalists consider that all
three can be
correct. This is believed, largely, because all significant
medieval authors
who wrote about the Round Table combined more than one use of
the phrase. Most
scholars believe the Round Table was meant to be represented in
a metaphysical
way however, some historians propose plausible theories that the
'Round Table'
was a physical structure, and Norma Lorre Goodrich even suggests
that it was a
holy martyrium or chapel. Regardless of what the beliefs of the
medieval
scholars are, and how many of their peers support their beliefs,
there is no
denying the impact the legend of the Round Table has had on the
world.
Inspiring replicas and Round Table festivals that include
jousts, feasts, and
mock battles, the Round Table has engrained itself into the
culture of not only
the medieval world, but the modern world as well.
Appendix: Illustrations
Works Cited
Biddle,
Martin.
King Arthur's Round Table: an archaeological investigation.
New
York: Boydell Press, 2000.
Blacker-Knight,
Jean.
"Transformations of a Theme." The Arthurian Tradition:
Essays in Convergence.
Ed. Mary Flowers Braswell
and John Bugge. Tuscaloosa: University ofAlabama
Press, 1988. 68-69.
Ditmas,
E.
M. R. "The Cult of Arthurian Relics." Folklore 75
(1964): 19-33.
Goodrich,
Norma
Lorre. King Arthur. New York: Franklin Watts, 1986.
Kibler,
William
W. "Round Table." The New Arthurian Encyclopedia. Ed.
Norris J.
Lacy. New York:
GarlandPublishing, Inc., 1991.
---.
"Wace."
The New Arthurian Encyclopedia. Ed. Norris J. Lacy. New
York:
GarlandPublishing, Inc., 1991.
Loomis,
Laura
Hibbard. "Arthur's round Table." PMLA 41 (1926):
771-784.
---.
"The
Round Table Again." Modern Language Notes 44 (1929):
511-519.
Loomis,
Roger
Sherman. "Arthurian Tradition and Folklore." Folklore
69.1 (1958):
1-25.
Malory,
Sir
Thomas. Le Morte Darthur. Ed. Stephen H. A. Shepherd.
New York:
Norton &Company, Inc., 2003.
Mott,
Lewis
F. "The Round Table." PMLA 20 (1905): 231-264.
Sparer,
J.
Douglas. "Arthur's Vast Design." Victorian Poetry 21
(1983): 119-131.
Tatlock,
J.S.P.
The Legendary History of Britain. Berkeley and Los
Angeles:
University of California
Press,
1950.
Tennyson,
Alfred
Lord. Idylls of the King. Ed. J.M. Gray. New York: 2004.
Troyes,
Chrétien
de. Arthurian Romances. Trans. Carleton W. Carroll. New
York:
PenguinGroup, 2004.
Wace,
and
Layamon. Arthurian Chronicles. Trans. Eugene Mason.
London:
Everyman's Library, 1962.