by Anthony Hays
But the Britons themselves, and perhaps Arthur among them, eschewed some Roman practices. Building methods differed. Clothing styles differed. A new culture emerged, Christian and stubbornly defiant in the face of the Saxon invasion.
You will not find Galahad or Lancelot in these pages. Their appearance in the Arthurian romances came far too late historically to accord them any role in the present work. While that may disappoint some readers, a writer has to make decisions. As to Guinevere and arguments that she too is a figment of the romancers? Her reality seems, according to early stories, to hold a bit more substance. I, along with Ashe and others, tend to lend more credence to the stories of Arthur’s and perhaps Guinevere’s exhumation by the monks at Glastonbury in the 1100s. In fact, some authors, such as P. J. F. Turner, claim that Arthur was married to two different women named Guinevere.
The invention of “Caesar’s Stone” as the origin of the “sword in the stone” legend might not be as farfetched as would first appear. That the Britons venerated places is well known. That they believed that mystic power from sacred places flowed into them and strengthened them is equally obvious. I refer specifically to the so-called Brutus Stone, said to be the spot where the founder of Britannia, Brutus, first landed, and the London Stone, an altar set up in Cannon Street to honor the goddess Diana. One legend holds that Vortimer wanted to be buried near the spot (rock) where the Saxons first made landfall in Kent (Adventus Saxonum). Is it then such a great leap to think they might assign great tradition to the stone that Caesar first stepped on? I think not.
For the inevitable errors, I apologize and take complete responsibility. They are mine and mine alone.