Christina Bizzle
Arthurian Literature

Professor P. Battles

9 April 2010

 

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)

Any physical description is vague, at best, and readers are left to conjure up their own imaginary images of the Table for themselves. Layamon, in his translation and expansion of Wace's story, writes that a carpenter heard of the fighting between Arthur's knights and makes the King the Round Table. Here Layamon offers two additions to the physicality of the Table. The first is that the Table can seat more than 1,600 knights. The second is that the Table was portable and that Arthur can take it with him wherever he goes. Having such unclear definitions of the Round Table led a multitude of interpretations and descriptions from the authors following Wace and Layamon. A common thread that runs throughout all Arthurian literature is that no one, including medieval artists illustrating the stories, knew how many knights were supposed to be seated at the Table. Just as Wace did not give the Table dimensions or physical characteristics, he did not attempt to number the knights that sat at it. As mentioned before, Layamon claimed the portable table could comfortably seat sixteen hundred men. Chretién de Troyes made an effort to mention the number of knight at the Round Table, but "he counted up to ten then lost count and added another twenty-one or so" (Goodrich 281). The Prose Lancelot mentions multiple numbers, claiming that 250 knights sat at it during an August meeting but that 90 knights sat at it who were an added bonus with Guenevere's dowry (Goodrich 280). Where the extra 160 knights came from is never mentioned. Malory mentions that the queen brought 100 knights to the Table (no pun intended) when they were wed. These inconsistencies in numbers and the overall rarity of mentioning of physical use of the table has led researchers to consider different significances of the Round Table.

            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)

Therefore, in another abstract portrayal of the word, the 'Round Table' is not to be considered a substantial table, but the metaphysical group of specific knights. The Table is the knights, no matter if they are gathered at Camelot or separated on individual quests. A popular term used by Arthurian authors to describe the Knights of the Round Table is 'fellowship.' Malory, in particular, utilizes the term multiple times in Le Morte Darthur when characters are speaking of or addressing one of the knights of the Round Table. When Gareth, or Beaumains, first enters Arthur's court he mentions a fellowship when addressing the King, "Than this yonge muche man pullyd hym abak and easyly streyghte upryght, seynge, 'The moste noble kynge, Kynge Arthure, God you blysse and all your fayre felyshyp, and in especiall the felyshyp of the Table Round" (Malory 178). Tennyson represents the Round Table in a similar light, but favors the words 'brother' and 'brotherhood.' In many of the interactions between knights these words appear. In his story of "Pelleas and Ettarre," Pelleas considers killing Gawain for his ignoble deeds but then exclaims "'What! slay a sleeping knight? the King hath bound/And sworn me to this brother hood;' again,/'Alas that ever a knight should be so false'" (Tennyson 243). Fellowship or brotherhood can suggest anything from a friendly association of people with common interests to a guild or corporation. Therefore, given the flexibility of the meanings, it is evident how well the terms apply to the intricate relationships of Arthur's knights. They are friends, they are family, they are knights upholding the chivalric code, they are representatives of the Round Table, and in being so they are the Round Table.

            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)

Layamon similarly references Breton storytellers as the source for his story of the Round Table. In King Arthur's Round Table, Martin Biddle outlines the common storytelling belief by writing that the researchers "who give credit to the literal statement that 'the Bretons tell many stories [about the Round Table]' find it clear evidence of an ancient Celtic oral tradition in which, to a greater or lesser degree, the legend of the Round Table was already formed" (Biddle 12). The fact that both Wace and Layamon suggest that the stories already existed in oral tales would explain how the interpretations of the Table were so differing and sporadic throughout medieval literature. Both Loomis and Biddle explain that most medieval tables were straight boards set up on trestles that could be removed when not in use. Since the historical means of communal dining do not match the fictional ones described by Wace, it opens a genuine possibility for Celtic influence. According to Biddle, these scholars' theories are that, on the whole, Wace follows Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum extremely closely and, while Geoffrey does not mention the Round Table in his writing, he also noticeably suggests that he followed ancient Celtic tales. Therefore, it is possible that Geoffrey either used Wace's fable sources or directly influenced Wace's Brut through his own use of Breton oral stories. The reason for the Round Table's famous shape can also be explained through Celtic influences and tradition.  In an ancient Celtic custom warriors sat in circles around their king, or the bravest warrior of their group. Loomis agrees with the custom and, in her article Arthurian Tradition, proposed that the Round Table "originated in the Celtic seating arrangement in a banquet hall--a king on his couch, with twelve warriors on their couches around him" (Loomis 66). There are also specific themes recounted in Celtic stories that are found in Wace and Layamon's tales, such as the number of warriors and the dispute over precedence and worthiness. However, despite the supporting evidence provided, many historians disagree with the theory of Celtic influence altogether.

            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)

It is believed that this round, domed building was used in Arthur's time as a temple, "to shelter and to display a tomb and holy relics" (Goodrich 285). However, because the round, beehive-shaped building was set on a 'square stone platform,' Goodrich claims that structure is King Arthur's Round Table, at least according to Wace. To explain her reasoning she refers directly to the text Brut, where the Table is first mentioned. The exact text reads "Fist Artus la Roönde Table," which Goodrich translates into "Arthur made (or built) a tabled rotunda" (Wace v. 9747, Goodrich 286). In Goodrich's translation of the text, the Round Table is described to be "a rotunda upon a platform or foundation" (Goodrich 286). While this description does not exactly give a detailed portrait of Arthur's O'on, the domed rotunda and the square foundation do fit the bill. To further solidify her defense, Goodrich refers to art historian M. J.T. Lewis, who carefully studied Arthur's O'on in his book Temples in Roman Britain. Lewis concludes that, "Arthur's O'on had been a monument absolutely unique, without any parallel, in fact, in the entire Roman world, unlike any of their many free-standing monuments" (Goodrich 287). Therefore, because Arthur's O'on was so singular, so un-paralleled by any other medieval architecture, it is plausible that it really was King Arthur's Round Table.

            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

Dimensions of Arthur's O'on
Replica of Arthur's O'on
Dimensions of the Martyrium of San Stephano Rotondo in Rome
Outside View of the Martyrium


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.