nothing of the Grail or of the Round Table, which first appears in Wace's Brut, completed in 1155.
Three questions now arise. Was there a historic Arthur on whom myths of a fabulous personage were fathered? Is Geoffrey in part rationalizing and amplifying in chivalric fashion an existing mythic story of Arthur? Does he omit some existing traditions of Arthur? These questions are probably to be answered in the affirmative. If the name "Arthur" is from Latin Artorius,6 it must have been introduced into Britain in Roman times; and hence the mythic Arthur need not have been so called unless the whole myth post-dates the possibly historic sixth century Arthur. If, moreover, the Latin derivation is correct, the supposed source in a hypothetical Celtic artor ("ploughman" or "one who harnesses for the plough") falls to the ground. Had the mythic personality a name resembling Artorlus? That is possible, and there was a Celtic god Artalos, who was equated with Mercury in Gaul. Artalos may be akin to Artio, the name of a beargoddess, from artos ("bear"), although Rhys connects It with words associated with ploughing, e. g. Welsh âr ("ploughland").7 Artalos would then be equivalent to Mercurius cultor; but the connexion of Artalos and Arthur is problematical.
In any case the story of Arthur is largely mythic, like that of Cúchulainn or of Flonn. Nennius appears to know a more or less historic Arthur; but If there was a mythic Arthursaga in his time, why does he not allude to It? Did the "ancient traditions" to which he had access not know this mythic hero, or was he not interested in this aspect of his "magnanimous Arthur?" Still more curious is it that neither Gildas nor Bede refers to Arthur. Geoffrey's narrative became popular and Is the basis of Wace's Brut, where the Round Table appears as made by Arthur to prevent quarrels about precedence, and it Is said that the Britons had many tales about it. Layamon {c. 1200), on the other hand, states that It was made by a cunning workman and seated sixteen hundred,
