when his arms had been crowned by the completest success abroad, found himself beset by treachery at home. His nephew Mordred seduced Arthur's queen Guenevere and raised a rebellion against him. Arthur thereupon turned homewards, and at his approach Guenevere fled from Mordred and hid herself in a convent; while Mordred, after being long chased from place to place, was at length brought to bay at Camlan (Cambula) in Cornwall' (Geoffrey).

Then took place that last and fatal battle of Camlan, which has left its echo in all the subsequent Arthurian romance. The later writers imagined the field, in the words of Malory, upon a down beside Salisbury not far from the seaside.' And the story went on to tell how Arthur, finding himself wounded to death, gave his sword Excalibur to Sir Bedevere, and bade him throw it into the water. And when he threw it there came an arm and a hand out of the water and met it and caught it, and so shook it thrice and brandished. And then the hand vanished away.' Anon came a little barge with many fair ladies in it, and among them a queen.' The barge came to take Arthur to the vale of Avalion, where men said that he still waited and (as they said of Charlemagne and of Frederick Barbarossa) would one day return, would once more place himself at the head of his countrymen, and lead them to victory. Avalion, once the mythical paradise of the Celts, came to be identified with Glastonbury, and in the middle ages men showed the inscription which had stood over the place where Arthur lay, and which expressed the history and the hope which in popular belief attached to his name

Hic jacet Arthurus,

Rex quondam, rexque futurus. We have here given the generally accepted and what may be called the orthodox theory of the historic Arthur. It is impossible to give the variants upon this which the speculations of different writers have suggested. One very important theory must not, however, remain unmentioned. According to this view Arthur was not a king in South Britain, or rather South Wales, as later writers, from Geoffrey downwards, have always supposed, but a king of the North Britons of southern Scotland and of Cumbria. The sites of all his battles, say these theorists, can be identified with places which lie in the region which now forms the south of Scotland and the English border. Thus Glein, they say, is Glen in Ayrshire (or it may be in Tweeddale). Dubglas, in Linnuis, far from being, as Geoffrey imagined, in

Lincolnshire, is Douglas in Lennox, a stream which falls into Loch Lomond; Coit Celidon is a wood on the banks of the Carron in Upper Tweeddale; Castle Guinnion is found in Wedale; Leogis, instead of being Caerleon, is (they say) at Dumbarton, that is to say, upon the Leven which flows from Loch Lomond into the Clyde. Treuroit may be identified with a place on the banks of the Forth near Stirling, where, we remember, Arthur's round table is still preserved. Agnet, or Mynyd Agnet, is a name for Edinburgh; and, finally, Badon Hill is not Bath on the English Avon, nor yet Badbury in Dorset, but Bowdon Hill, in Linlithgow, on the Scottish Avon. The history of Nennius, it is urged, is almost exclusively concerned with the doings of the invaders in the north of the island; his account ends with the accession of Ida to the Northumbrian throne.

The arguments by which this theory is supported may be studied to best advantage in Mr. W. F. Skene's 'Four Ancient Books of Wales,' and in Mr. Stuart Glennie's 'Arthurian Localities.'

If this theory should ever be established, the life of Arthur would form part of an epoch in history of which the memory has now been almost completely lost. For it must be noticed that the foes against whom the British king fought were Angles and not Saxons; and, in fact, the Angles did not come into Northumbria until after the death of Arthur. The armies over which Arthur gained his victories, then, supposing these victories to have lain in the north, were not those of the ultimate founders of the Northumbrian kingdom, but an earlier body of Saxon or Frisian invaders, whose very existence was at one time unsuspected by historians. Among the few traces which these Frisians have left behind them is Dumfries, the fort of the Frisians, as opposed to Dumbarton, the fort of the Britons. We have seen that, according to Mr. Skene, one of Arthur's victories was gained at Dumbarton.

[The bibliography of the historic Arthur is small, but that of the mythic Arthur is almost infinite. Among Welsh poems of uncertain date he is mentioned by several anonymous ones published in the Myvyrian Archaiology,' as well as in the Historic Triads.' Gildas, in his' Historia,' as we have seen, without mentioning the name of Arthur, refers to one or two events which are connected with his history. Nennius's Historia Britonum' is our one authority who possesses any degree of trustworthiness, save, perhaps, the Annales Cambriæ,' where Arthur is only twice spoken of. The mythical history of Arthur begins (in literature) with the Historia Britonum' of Geoffrey of Monmouth, whose contemporary, William of Malmesbury, adds one or two minor

details not given by Geoffrey. In rhyme the history was repeated about the same time by Wace and Gaimar in Anglo-Norman, and by Layamon in English. In the course of the next century several new narratives were incorporated with the history of Arthur by Walter Mapes, Geoffrey de Borron, &c., until the romantic history acquired the completeness which we find in Sir T. Malory's 'Mort d'Arthure.' Of the development of the same myth in French romantic literature it is impossible to speak here. See Guest, Origines Celtica; Skene, The Four Ancient Books of Wales, introd., The Dean of Lismore's Book, introd., and Celtic Scotland; Glennie, Arthurian Localities; Burton, Hist. of Scotland, i. ch. 5; Probert, The Ancient Laws of Cambria (for a translation of the Historical Triads). Lady Guest's 'Mabinogion' is a translation of the Red Book of Hergest, also published by Mr. Skene in his 'Four Ancient Books of Wales.' De Villemarqué has published numerous Breton ballads upon Arthur, which are of doubtful authenticity.] C. F. K.

ARTHUR, duke or count of Brittany (1187-1203), for whose death King John was responsible, was the son and heir of Geoffrey, third son of Henry II, who was killed in a tournament at Paris 19 Aug. 1186. His mother was Constance, daughter and heiress of Conan le Petit, count of Brittany. He was born after his father's death, on 29 March 1189. The Bretons hailed his birth with enthusiasm, and the bestowal upon him of the name of their national hero excited in them new hopes of independence, which was at the time seriously threatened by the ambitious designs of the kings of France and England.

The death of his grandfather, Henry II, in 1189 gave the infant Arthur a momentous political position. The principle of strictly hereditary succession made him the heir presumptive of his uncle, Richard I, to the exclusion of John, Henry II's fourth son. In order to repress John's dangerous ambition, Richard was anxious to assert Arthur's claim. In October 1190 he opened negotiations for the young prince's marriage with a daughter of Tancred of Sicily, and in a letter to Pope Clement III, dated 11 Nov. 1190, he distinctly declared his nephew his heir in case he should die childless. From that date John, who was plotting to supplant Richard I, viewed Arthur as his most dangerous enemy, and, according to one account, in 1191 entered into alliance with Philip II of France, who was willing to employ any means to injure English influence in France, to dispossess Arthur of all his rights (Annales Monastici, iii. 26). But this scheme proved for the present abortive; in March of the same year Philip agreed that Arthur should do homage to Richard as duke of Normandy,

VOL. II.

and, so as to gain a more effectual control over him later, for the five years following abstained from molesting him. In April 1196 the king of France had obtained sufficient influence with the prince and his mother to insure their open support in one of his constantly recurring quarrels with Richard, and the Breton nobles aided his policy by refusing to acknowledge the king of England as Arthur's guardian. But in August 1198 Richard contrived to reverse the position of affairs, and Arthur entered into an agreement with him to follow his guidance in his relations with France.

Eight months later Richard died, and Arthur was left face to face with John, who was resolved to succeed his brother in both France and England, and was crowned king of England 27 May 1199. The nobles of Anjou, Maine, and Touraine immediately declared for Arthur, as the son of Geoffrey, John's elder brother. Constance sent the boy to Philip II, who placed him at Paris under the care of his eldest son Lewis, a lad of exactly Arthur's age. At the same time Philip took possession of several castles, forming part of the dominions claimed by Arthur, on the plea of protecting them from John. He shortly afterwards knighted Arthur, and formally invested him with Brittany and with all Richard's French dominions—Anjou, Poitou, Maine, Touraine, and Normandy. John arrived in Normandy without delay, and with an army endeavoured to establish his power in France. A conference between Philip and himself took place on 16 and 17 Aug., but no terms were made, and in the hostilities that followed in October the French king's forces were driven from Maine. But Philip's high-handed treatment of those who acknowledged Arthur's sovereignty occasioned a breach between himself and the Bretons, and William des Roches, the leader of Arthur's forces, arranged a pacification between John and his nephew. This step was an unhappy one. John is said to have imprisoned Arthur, and to have so illused him and his mother that they fled from him with all haste to Angers, a town already in Arthur's possession. On 22 May 1200, while the dispute was still unsettled, Philip and John met at Vernon, and Arthur did homage to his uncle for Brittany and other lands, which do not appear to have been specified; but he remained in Philip's keeping, and took part in the tournament held at the time to celebrate the betrothal of Prince Lewis to Blanche of Castile. For the greater part of the year John was in England, and Arthur was at peace, but Philip was busy preparing an attack on Normandy. In 1201

K

Arthur's mother died; in 1202 Philip affianced him to his daughter Marie, who was not six years old; and before many months had passed Arthur found himself forced by Philip to reopen the strife with John. The nobles of Poitou had risen in insurrection against the king of England, and Arthur was set at their head. John arrived in France and summoned his nephew, who had just been knighted for a second time by Philip, to do him homage at Argentan. He replied by marching with an army from Poitou to besiege the castle of Mirabel, where Eleanor, his grandmother, who had persistently supported John, was staying. On 1 Aug. 1202 John suddenly surprised the attacking force by night and captured Arthur. The prince was placed in the custody of William de Braose at Falaise, who treated him kindly. In the following year Braose is said to have delivered him 'safe in life and limb' to John, who removed him to Rouen. There, in the seventeenth year of his age, he was murdered, on 3 April 1203. His sister Eleanor, known as the Maid of Brittany, had also fallen into John's hands, and she was kept by him in close confinement in England.

Great uncertainty exists as to the manner in which Arthur met his death. We learn from an itinerary of the reign that John was at Rouen on 3 April 1203 (Archeologia, xxii. 126). There is therefore every probability, when this fact is combined with the current rumours of the time, that he was immediately responsible for the murder, but whether, as many writers have asserted, it was the work of his own hands, is doubtful. Of the contemporary chroniclers of the event, the author of the Annales Margam,' who alone gives the exact date of the occurrence, states that John, in a fit of frenzy, struck Arthur dead with a huge stone, and flung his body into the Seine, that it was recovered by fishermen, and subsequently buried secretly at the priory of Ste Marie des Prez, near Bec. Walter of Coventry, in his Memoriale,' says that Arthur suddenly disappeared, and that his burial-place is unknown. According to the circumstantial account of Ralph, abbot of Coggeshall, who wrote his 'Chronicon Anglicanum' soon after the death of John, Hubert de Burgh was ordered by the king, with the consent of his council, to put out Arthur's eyes and otherwise mutilate him, in order to incapacitate him for succeeding to the throne. Hubert, however, yielding to his appeal, spared the prince, although he announced to his master not only his death, but his burial at the Cistercian abbey of St. André de Gouffen. Later, the fact that

Early

Arthur was still living in concealment reached John, who apparently, so far as the chronicler knew, took no steps to authenticate it. Matthew Paris and Thomas Wikes both assert that John had Arthur murdered. French annalists and Breton historians have no hesitation in attributing the crime immediately to the king of England, and state that fifteen days after its commission the Bretons assembled in force at Vannes, and sent Peter, bishop of Rennes, to ask Philip II to summon John before his peers to take his trial on the charge. All mediæval historians are agreed that Philip acceded to this request; that John refused to appear, was pronounced by an assembly of his peers guilty of the murder, and that all his lands in France were declared forfeited. It was after this declaration that Philip invaded and conquered Normandy. In the proclamation made by Prince Lewis on his arrival in England in 1216 the murder of Arthur, for which John, it is there said, was tried and condemned by his peers, is reckoned among his chief offences. This is the only direct reference to the fact in a document of state (RYMER'S Fœdera, i. 140).

Later historians between the thirteenth and the sixteenth centuries have added a few un

authenticated details to the old stories of Arthur's death, most of which have been adopted by Holinshed. The account given by the abbot of Coggeshall forms the groundwork of Holinshed's, as of all the later narratives. It seems, therefore, uncertain whether Hubert de Burgh, whom the abbot alone connects with John's murderous project, was in any way concerned with it. The differences in detail which characterise the evidence we have cited from contemporary writers, lead to no more definite conclusion than that in April 1203 Arthur suddenly disappeared, and that his disappearance was contrived by John. Shakespeare, in his play of King John,' has closely followed Holinshed in his treatment of Arthur, with a few unhistorical variations, in which he followed an older and anonymous drama on the same subject. It should be noted that Shakespeare erroneously represents Arthur at the time of his death as a very young child, although he was actually in his seventeenth year, and makes him claim of John not only the English dominions in France, but the crown of England itself, to which Arthur himself never asserted his right.

[Roger of Hoveden's Chronica, ed. Stubbs; Walter of Coventry's Memoriale, ed. Stubbs, with introduction to vol. ii.; Ralph of Coggeshall's Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. Stevenson, pp. 137142; Annales de Margam in Annales Monastici,

ARTHUR (1486-1502), the eldest son of Henry VII, was born at Winchester on 19 Sept. 1486. His mother was Elizabeth of York, the eldest daughter of Edward IV, whom his father, after he obtained the crown, had married in fulfilment of a promise that he had made in exile. The marriage was intended to have the effect of putting an end to the wars of the Roses by uniting the rival houses of York and Lancaster, and the firstborn was naturally an object of great solicitude. He was baptised in Winchester Cathedral the Sunday after his birth, and was named Arthur after the famous British hero whose fabulous exploits fill the pages of Geoffrey of Monmouth. His descent was traced by industrious genealogists from Cadwallader and the ancient British kings; so that while on the mother's side he was the undoubted heir of the house of York, the defects of his father's title were compensated by a pedigree carried back to the fabled Brutus. În 1489, when only three years old, he was created knight of the Bath. His education was looked to with peculiar care. His first master after he had learned the elements of letters was one John Rede, who, it seems, was also his chaplain (WOOD's Fasti Oxon., ed. Bliss, i. 3); but after a time-apparently when he was in his tenth year he was placed under the tuition of the blind poet laureate, Bernard André, who gives a glowing account of his proficiency. Before he was sixteen he had not only studied the leading grammarians, but was familiar with all the best Greek and Latin authors, whose names the enraptured tutor proudly enumerates in his life of Henry VII.

But the interest of his brief life turns altogether upon the story of his marriage with Katharine of Arragon. Negotiations had already taken place with a view to that marriage as early as 1488, when he was not yet two years old, Ferdinand and Isabella perceiving that, notwithstanding the uncertainty of the succession in England created by the recent civil wars, Henry might be a valuable ally against France, and one that it was desirable to win, while on the other hand the friendship of a recently united Spain was an equally important object to secure on the part of England. The marriage project, of course, was no more at first than a prospec

tive link between the two kingdoms in a comparatively remote future; but, as Lord Bacon remarks, 'the very treaty itself gave abroad in the world a reputation of a strait conjunction and amity between them, which served on both sides to many purposes that their several affairs required, and yet they

continued still free.' Ferdinand was too great a politician to conclude the arrangement definitely till he was sure that no future Simnels or Warbecks could do much to shake Henry's throne. Henry, on the other hand, was continually on his guard lest by virtue of the treaty he should make himself a mere catspaw to carry out the designs of Ferdinand. At length, however, all difficulties were removed. Katharine landed at Plymouth on 2 Oct. 1501, and was married to Arthur, at St. Paul's, on 14 Nov. following. Three times had the prince gone through a form of marriage with her already before her arrival in England, the Spanish ambassador acting as her proxy-all to satisfy the doubts of Ferdinand lest there should be some evasion on the part of England. Now all was secure; and though Arthur was weak and sickly, and the English council objected to the cohabitation of the young couple on this account (Arthur having only just completed his fifteenth year), Henry wrote to Ferdinand that he had risked his son's health for the love he bore to Katharine. The prince and his bride were sent down to the borders of Wales to keep court at Ludlow, where, in less than five months, the bridegroom died on 2 April 1502. A touching account is given by a contemporary pen of the manner in which the news was received by his bereaved father and mother.

[Gairdner's Memorials of Henry VII; Bergenroth's Spanish Calendar, vol. i. and supp. to vols. i. and ii.; Leland's Collectanea, iv. 204, 250-7, v. 373-4; Somers Tracts, i. 26-31; Letter of Henry VII to Ferdinand and Isabella in the Duke of Manchester's Court and Society, i. 59.] J. G.

ARTHUR, ARCHIBALD (1744–1797), librarian and professor of moral philosophy at the university of Glasgow, was the eldest son of Andrew Arthur, a considerable farmer, and was born at Abbot's Inch, in Renfrew, 6 Sept. 1744. He entered the university of Glasgow in his thirteenth or fourteenth year, and in due course took his degree of M.A. Both before and after his appointment to a professorship he lectured with success in logic, botany, humanity, and church history. In October 1767 he received from the presbytery of Paisley his preacher's

license, not, however, without some opposition on the ground of want of orthodoxy in the doctrines of the church of Scotland. He was soon afterwards appointed chaplain to the university of Glasgow, and assistant minister with Dr. Craig of that city. He was also chosen librarian to the university, and held the office until nearly the close of his life. For some years he was usefully employed in compiling a complete catalogue of the books, arranged in two parts, one under an alphabet of authors, and the other according to the position of the volumes on the shelves. The catalogue was printed in 1791, and described 20,000 volumes. It gave much satisfaction. Arthur was appointed assistant professor in moral philosophy through the influence of Dr. Thomas Reid, who was obliged to give up his full professorial duties on account of increasing years. This took place in May 1780, and Arthur taught the class for fifteen years in return for part of the salary. On the death of Reid he was elected full professor, but held the office only for one session, dying on 14 June, 1797. He never married, and died worth a considerable sum of money, which he left to his brothers and sisters. They devoted part of it to the publication of his posthumous 'Discourses on Theological and Literary Subjects,' which were edited, with a pompous memoir, by his friend William Richardson. The theological discourses include one on the argument for the existence of God, another on the goodness of God, and others on objections to David Hume, and similar topics; among the literary discourses are two upon theories of beauty, one on the arrangement of ancient and modern languages, and others on the study of ancient languages as a necessary branch of liberal education. They are fairly well-written and well-reasoned essays. Arthur had a shy and hesitating manner, but possessed liberal opinions to which he always had the courage to hold firm. A. F. Tytler (Life of Lord Kames, iii. 89), in a note upon a letter of Dr. Reid, remarks: 'Mr. Arthur, a man of learning, abilities, and worth, filled the chair of moral philosophy

with a reputation which did not disappoint the hopes of his respectable predecessor.' The Discourses give a very favourable idea of his talents, the justness of his taste, and the rectitude of his moral and religious principles.'

His works are:-1. 'Catalogus impressorum Librorum in Bibliotheca Universitatis Glasguensis, secundum literarum ordinem dispositus. Impensis Academiæ, labore et studio A. Arthur,' Glasguæ, 1791, 2 vols. folio. 2. 'Discourses on Theological and Literary

Subjects, by the late Rev. A. Arthur, with an account of some particulars in his life and character, by William Richardson, M.A., Professor of Humanity in the University of Glasgow,' Glasgow Univ. Press, 1803, 8vo.

courses; Edinburgh Review, iv. 168; Reid's [Memoir by Richardson, prefixed to DisWorks, by Sir W. Hamilton, 1846.] H. R. T.

ARTHUR, SIR GEORGE, baronet (1784-1854), lieutenant-general, the youngest son of John Arthur, of Norley House, Plymouth, entered the army in the 91st Argyllshire Highlanders on 25 Aug. 1804. Having been promoted to a lieutenancy in the 35th foot, he served with that regiment in Sir James Craig's expedition to Italy in 1806, and in the following year proceeding to Egypt with the force under the command of General Fraser, he was engaged in the attack upon Rosetta, and was severely wounded. In 1808 he served as a captain in Sicily under Sir James Kempt, and in 1809 in the expedition to Walcheren, where, in command of the light company of his regiment, he was employed in the attack upon Flushing, and was again wounded, he with his single company taking prisoners five officers and three hundred men. For his services on this occasion Captain Arthur was thanked in general orders, and was appointed on the field deputy assistant adjutant-general. On his return to England he received the freedom of the city of London and a sword. A similar distinction was conferred upon him by his native town of Plymouth. He subsequently served as military secretary to Sir George Don, the governor of Jersey, and having obtained his majority in the 7th West India regiment in 1812 joined that regiment in Jamaica, and was shortly afterwards appointed assistant quartermaster-general of the forces in that island. Major Arthur was subsequently appointed, in 1814, lieutenantgovernor of British Honduras, which office he held with the rank of colonel on the staff, exercising the military command, as well as the civil government, until 1822. During this period Colonel Arthur suppressed a serious revolt of the slave population of Honduras. His despatches on the subject of slavery in the West Indies attracted the attention of Mr. Wilberforce, and of Mr. (afterwards Sir James) Stephen. Returning to England on leave of absence in 1822 for the purpose of furnishing the government with further information on the subject of emancipation, Colonel Arthur was appointed, in 1823, to the lieutenant-governorship of Van Diemen's Land, together with the command of the military forces in that colony, then our principal penal settlement. The ill-regulated