Count Conomor and King Mark

King Mark is the main villain in the tale of Tristan and Iseult, which is set in Arthur’s time. He is most often described as a ruler in Cornwall, with Tintagel as one of his residences. He is considered to have been a violent, treacherous villain; his many attempts to get at his nephew Tristan could be described as obsessive. A contemporary of Mark was the equally notorious and villainous Conomor of Cornouaille, Brittany. Their identicalness is explicitly supported by a statement in The Life of St Paul Aurelian, which mentions Mark the ruler of Cornwall. In this ninth-century record (which makes it substantially earlier than any of the tales of Tristan, or, indeed, most sources for this period), he is said to have also had the name ‘Quonomorus’, which is clearly Conomor.

The existence of a gravestone marking the burial place of a son of Conomor in Cornwall, as opposed to Brittany, also supports this argument. The fact that the gravestone is so substantial, being 2.6m in height, does indicate that this individual held some degree of power in the area. In turn, his father Conomor would have most likely been a very prominent individual. Mark, a ruler in Cornwall, and Conomor, a ruler in Brittany, being the same person makes sense of this inscription.

This conclusion continues to be supported by Breton tradition, which makes Mark the ruler of Cornouaille, Brittany, as well as Cornwall. Conomor was the prince of Poher, which is in Cornouallie.

Additional evidence can be found from the legends of Tristan. Gottfried von Strassberg, writing at the very beginning of the 13^th century, names Tristan’s father ‘Riwalin’ and makes him the ruler of ‘Parmenie’. In the earlier version by Thomas of Britain (from whom Gottfried got the greater part of his material), this is spelt ‘Armenie’. The capital of the region, Canoel, is said to be situated on the English Channel. As such, it is evident that ‘Armenie’ is a variant or corruption of ‘Armorica’. Later versions make Tristan’s father the ruler of Lyonesse, and though this has often been taken to have come from ‘Lothian’, a kingdom in the north of Britain, the earlier evidence just mentioned strongly supports the theory that it is used in these records to refer to Leon, in Armorica (whether or not the word itself actually derived from ‘Lothian’). Thus, Tristan’s father Riwalin, a ruler of Armorica in Arthur’s time, is very probably Riwal, a ruler of Armorica in the first half of the sixth century.  

However, in the Prose Tristan, written towards the middle of the 13^th century, Tristan’s father is named Meliadus. This Meliadus is said to have had a son, by a different wife to Tristan’s mother, called Meliadus the Younger. Though it is unclear why the identity of his father was changed, if we assume that Armorica is still the pertinent region, then this Meliadus is very probably Meliavus, (more commonly spelt ‘Meliau’ in modern sources) a ruler of Armorica in the first half of the sixth century. This Meliavus had a son named Melor – spelt ‘Melaire’ in a 13^th century Life, written by Albert Le Grand – who would probably be the Meliadus the Younger of the Tristan tale. Interestingly, Meliavus was the older brother of the aforementioned Riwal. The latter is said to have killed the former when Melor was seven years old. Though it is very far from certain, perhaps Tristan, our hypothetical half-brother of Melor, was regarded as the son of Riwal (Riwalin) in some records but the son of Meliavus (Meliadus) in others due to Riwal becoming his guardian after killing his father. This ties into the fact that Meliadus, in the Tristan legend, is said to have been killed soon after an event which is set when Tristan was eight years old. If this really was the case, then the legend requires Tristan to have had a subsequent guardian. Perhaps this was his uncle Riwal, who then become known as his ‘father’ Riwalin in the legend.

In a slightly later version of the account of Meliadus’s death, the knights who slay him are said to have been of his kindred. Perhaps this derived from the fact that it was Meliavus’s brother who killed him.

The record that tells of Riwal’s murder of Meliavus goes on to reveal that a sister of theirs was married to Conomor. Therefore, Conomor was the uncle of any children of Riwal or Meliavus – such as, most likely, Tristan. This heavily supports Conomor being King Mark, the uncle of Tristan in the legend. The only difference is that Tristan’s father was said to have married Mark’s sister, which means that it is not the same relationship as that claimed by the record concerning Conomor and the sister of Riwal and Meliavus. This could easily be attributed to a slight mistake on the part of those documenting the Tristan legend after hundreds of years of transmission.

We can see from this consideration of the sources that the evidence as a whole supports Conomor’s identification as King Mark, and we can therefore be reasonably confident that he held land in Cornwall as well as Brittany.