In conjunction with this blog, I have also created an Instagram page called History Mysteries, or 'caleb_history_mysteries'. It will deal with a much greater range of subjects than this blog, such as Atlantis, Robin Hood, Egyptian myths, while also including, of course, King Arthur. I just started it yesterday, so there's only one post so far. I'd love it if you guys could have a look and see what you think. You can find it here.
I've also created a new Facebook page. This will bring everything together, being a page on which I share the Instagram posts, these blog posts, my YouTube uploads, and also a few unique posts. You can find it here.
Saturday, 7 July 2018
Monday, 25 June 2018
Geoffrey's source for the Roman era
As discussed in the previous post, it is a very common belief that Geoffrey of Monmouth derived most of his information about the Roman period of Britain from Nennius's Historia Brittonum, a British work from the ninth century. In that post, I argued that all the evidence indicates that Geoffrey absolutely did not use the information found in Historia Brittonum regarding Julius Caesar's invasions of Britain to create his own account in Historia Regum Britanniae. There is evidence of some slight textual relationship, but the two accounts are clearly very far removed from each other in whatever 'textual family tree' that might exist. Also notable is the fact that, when stripped down to the same level of detail as Nennius's account, Geoffrey's is by far the more accurate. This is illogical if Geoffrey took the information from HB and expanded on it, as is commonly argued. This evidence actually supports the idea that Geoffrey did have a genuine, otherwise-unknown, source that either predated or was simply more accurate than HB.
Now, we will look at the rest of the Roman period from Historia Brittonum, to see whether it is likely that it formed the origin of Geoffrey's account.
After describing Julius Caesar's invasion, here is what Nennius says about the Emperor:
"in honor of him [Julius] the Romans decreed the fifth month to be called after his name. He was assassinated in the Curia, in the ides of March."
This is nowhere to be found in Geoffrey's account. There is extra detail given after the end of the British invasion of 54 B.C.E., but this is not it. Instead, Geoffrey makes reference to Caesar's war against Pompey the Great.
After this, Nennius describes the successful Claudian invasion of 43 C.E., saying:
"He carried with him war and devastation; and, though not without loss of men, he at length conquered Britain. He next sailed to the Orkneys, which he likewise conquered, and afterwards rendered tributary."
Almost all of this is very general, and there is nothing here which is unique to Nennius and Geoffrey, so nothing notable to speak of. Nennius's next line is much more interesting:
"No tribute was in his time received from the Britons; but it was paid to British emperors."
This is not in Geoffrey's account. There are no 'British emperors' at all. If Geoffrey was taking information from Historia Brittonum and expanding it, one would absolutely expect there to be something about British emperors at this point. But there is nothing to that effect in HRB.
The next line in Nennius's account is as follows:
"He [Claudius] reigned thirteen years and eight months. His monument is to be seen at Moguntia (among the Lombards), where he died in his way to Rome."
None of this is present in Geoffrey's account.
Next we find a reference to an event which is not known from contemporary sources, but which is nevertheless not unique to Nennius and Geoffrey - it was known from at least as early as the sixth century. In Nennius's account, it begins as follows:
"After the birth of Christ, one hundred and sixty-seven years, king Lucius..."
Let's take a look at the year first. In HRB, the date of Lucius' death is given as 156 years 'after the Lord's incarnation', whereas Nennius has his baptism as being in 167. For what reason would Geoffrey have intentionally changed this information? Clearly he did not derive his information about dates from Nennius.
"...with all the chiefs of the British people, received baptism, in consequence of a legation sent by the Roman emperors..."
The Roman emperors have nothing to do with it in Geoffrey's version.
"...and pope Evaristus."
In Geoffrey's account, the pope is Eleutherius, not Evaristus.
How can it possibly be believed that Geoffrey created his account of this event as found in HRB from the information about it in HB? Such a conclusion is absurd.
After this comes a description of Septimius Severus's campaign in the north of Britain:
"Severus was the third emperor who passed the sea to Britain..."
Geoffrey calls Severus a senator, not an emperor.
"...where, to protect the provinces recovered from barbaric incursions, he ordered a wall and a rampart to be made..."
There is no rampart in Geoffrey's account, only a wall.
"...between the Britons, the Scots, and the Picts, extending across the island from sea to sea..."
The Scots are not mentioned in Geoffrey's version of this account.
"...in length one hundred and thirty-three miles: and it is called in the British language, Gwal."
None of this information is included in Geoffrey's HRB.
"More over, he ordered it to be made between the Britons, and the Picts and Scots; for the Scots from the west, and the Picts form the north, unanimously made war against the Britons; but were at peace among themselves. Not long after Severus dies in Britain."
The Scots are mentioned not just once but three times in Nennius's version of this event. Yet, once again, Geoffrey makes no mention of them at all.
After this, Nennius describes the usurpation of Carausius:
"The fourth was the emperor and tyrant, Carausius, who, incensed at the murder of Severus, passed into Britain, and attended by the leaders of the Roman people, severely avenged upon the chiefs and rulers of the Britons, the cause of Severus."
This implies that Carausius was already an emperor before he 'passed into Britain'. In reality (and this is accurately conveyed by Geoffrey of Monmouth), he was a Roman soldier who, after being summoned to the capital due to alleged misconduct, retreated into Britain and declared himself emperor there. Additionally, his rulership had nothing whatsoever to do with avenging Severus, and this inaccuracy is not present in Geoffrey's account. So really, Nennius's Carausius is about as different from Geoffrey's as can be (and let it be noted that Geoffrey's version is much more accurate).
After this description of Carausius, HB has this to say about Constantius:
"The fifth was Constantius the father of Constantine the Great. He died in Britain; his sepulchre, as it appears by the inscription on his tomb, is still seen near the city named Cair segont (near Carnarvon). Upon the pavement of the above-mentioned city he sowed three seeds of gold, silver, and brass, that no poor person might ever be found in it. It is also called Minmanton."
After the line 'he died in Britain', none of the information presented here features in Geoffrey's account.
Nennius's account continues:
"Maximianus was the sixth emperor that ruled in Britain. It was in his time that consuls began, and that the appellation of Caesar was discontinued: at this period also, St. Martin became celebrated for his virtues and miracles, and held a conversation with him."
Absolutely none of this is in Geoffrey's HRB. This entire episode in the Roman era of Britain is excluded from Geoffrey's account. It is also significant that Maximianus was not real, once again showing how Geoffrey's account is more accurate than Nennius's, despite, so we are supposed to believe, being little more than an expansion of it.
After this, Nennius includes an abundance of accurate information about the usurper, Magnus Maximus. This is interesting, because it is generally held that Nennius's 'Maximianus' is a duplicate of 'Maximus'. But Geoffrey of Monmouth's 'Magnus Maximus' is actually called 'Maximianus'. So, did Geoffrey pick the name from one emperor in Nennius's account but apply to it the information about the following emperor? No, the far more logical conclusion is that Magnus Maximus was, in some records, mistakenly called 'Maximianus'. Thus, Nennius must have found information about a Maximianus who came after Constantius, but also information about Magnus Maximus. So he wrote about both, not realising they were the same person. In contrast, Geoffrey's source simply used one of those sources that referred to Maximus by the inaccurate 'Maximianus'. He clearly did not get his information from HB.
And then, in HB, we get the inexplicable Severus Aequantius, who doesn't feature at all in Geoffrey's account (nor in any other account, for that matter). Then we have Constantius, who reigned for 16 years, while Geoffrey writes about a Constantine (why would he have changed the name?) who ruled for 10 years.
As with the account of Julius Caesar's invasion of Britain, the only reason Geoffrey's account is generally similar to Nennius's is because they are both talking about real history. But significantly, HB includes a huge amount of material which is not present in HRB - much of which is actually inaccurate - or material which HRB contradicts. The conclusion that Geoffrey used Historia Brittonum as a basis for his account of the Roman era of Britain completely flies in the face of all the facts.
Now, we will look at the rest of the Roman period from Historia Brittonum, to see whether it is likely that it formed the origin of Geoffrey's account.
After describing Julius Caesar's invasion, here is what Nennius says about the Emperor:
"in honor of him [Julius] the Romans decreed the fifth month to be called after his name. He was assassinated in the Curia, in the ides of March."
This is nowhere to be found in Geoffrey's account. There is extra detail given after the end of the British invasion of 54 B.C.E., but this is not it. Instead, Geoffrey makes reference to Caesar's war against Pompey the Great.
After this, Nennius describes the successful Claudian invasion of 43 C.E., saying:
"He carried with him war and devastation; and, though not without loss of men, he at length conquered Britain. He next sailed to the Orkneys, which he likewise conquered, and afterwards rendered tributary."
Almost all of this is very general, and there is nothing here which is unique to Nennius and Geoffrey, so nothing notable to speak of. Nennius's next line is much more interesting:
"No tribute was in his time received from the Britons; but it was paid to British emperors."
This is not in Geoffrey's account. There are no 'British emperors' at all. If Geoffrey was taking information from Historia Brittonum and expanding it, one would absolutely expect there to be something about British emperors at this point. But there is nothing to that effect in HRB.
The next line in Nennius's account is as follows:
"He [Claudius] reigned thirteen years and eight months. His monument is to be seen at Moguntia (among the Lombards), where he died in his way to Rome."
None of this is present in Geoffrey's account.
Next we find a reference to an event which is not known from contemporary sources, but which is nevertheless not unique to Nennius and Geoffrey - it was known from at least as early as the sixth century. In Nennius's account, it begins as follows:
"After the birth of Christ, one hundred and sixty-seven years, king Lucius..."
Let's take a look at the year first. In HRB, the date of Lucius' death is given as 156 years 'after the Lord's incarnation', whereas Nennius has his baptism as being in 167. For what reason would Geoffrey have intentionally changed this information? Clearly he did not derive his information about dates from Nennius.
"...with all the chiefs of the British people, received baptism, in consequence of a legation sent by the Roman emperors..."
The Roman emperors have nothing to do with it in Geoffrey's version.
"...and pope Evaristus."
In Geoffrey's account, the pope is Eleutherius, not Evaristus.
How can it possibly be believed that Geoffrey created his account of this event as found in HRB from the information about it in HB? Such a conclusion is absurd.
After this comes a description of Septimius Severus's campaign in the north of Britain:
"Severus was the third emperor who passed the sea to Britain..."
Geoffrey calls Severus a senator, not an emperor.
"...where, to protect the provinces recovered from barbaric incursions, he ordered a wall and a rampart to be made..."
There is no rampart in Geoffrey's account, only a wall.
"...between the Britons, the Scots, and the Picts, extending across the island from sea to sea..."
The Scots are not mentioned in Geoffrey's version of this account.
"...in length one hundred and thirty-three miles: and it is called in the British language, Gwal."
None of this information is included in Geoffrey's HRB.
"More over, he ordered it to be made between the Britons, and the Picts and Scots; for the Scots from the west, and the Picts form the north, unanimously made war against the Britons; but were at peace among themselves. Not long after Severus dies in Britain."
The Scots are mentioned not just once but three times in Nennius's version of this event. Yet, once again, Geoffrey makes no mention of them at all.
After this, Nennius describes the usurpation of Carausius:
"The fourth was the emperor and tyrant, Carausius, who, incensed at the murder of Severus, passed into Britain, and attended by the leaders of the Roman people, severely avenged upon the chiefs and rulers of the Britons, the cause of Severus."
This implies that Carausius was already an emperor before he 'passed into Britain'. In reality (and this is accurately conveyed by Geoffrey of Monmouth), he was a Roman soldier who, after being summoned to the capital due to alleged misconduct, retreated into Britain and declared himself emperor there. Additionally, his rulership had nothing whatsoever to do with avenging Severus, and this inaccuracy is not present in Geoffrey's account. So really, Nennius's Carausius is about as different from Geoffrey's as can be (and let it be noted that Geoffrey's version is much more accurate).
After this description of Carausius, HB has this to say about Constantius:
"The fifth was Constantius the father of Constantine the Great. He died in Britain; his sepulchre, as it appears by the inscription on his tomb, is still seen near the city named Cair segont (near Carnarvon). Upon the pavement of the above-mentioned city he sowed three seeds of gold, silver, and brass, that no poor person might ever be found in it. It is also called Minmanton."
After the line 'he died in Britain', none of the information presented here features in Geoffrey's account.
Nennius's account continues:
"Maximianus was the sixth emperor that ruled in Britain. It was in his time that consuls began, and that the appellation of Caesar was discontinued: at this period also, St. Martin became celebrated for his virtues and miracles, and held a conversation with him."
Absolutely none of this is in Geoffrey's HRB. This entire episode in the Roman era of Britain is excluded from Geoffrey's account. It is also significant that Maximianus was not real, once again showing how Geoffrey's account is more accurate than Nennius's, despite, so we are supposed to believe, being little more than an expansion of it.
After this, Nennius includes an abundance of accurate information about the usurper, Magnus Maximus. This is interesting, because it is generally held that Nennius's 'Maximianus' is a duplicate of 'Maximus'. But Geoffrey of Monmouth's 'Magnus Maximus' is actually called 'Maximianus'. So, did Geoffrey pick the name from one emperor in Nennius's account but apply to it the information about the following emperor? No, the far more logical conclusion is that Magnus Maximus was, in some records, mistakenly called 'Maximianus'. Thus, Nennius must have found information about a Maximianus who came after Constantius, but also information about Magnus Maximus. So he wrote about both, not realising they were the same person. In contrast, Geoffrey's source simply used one of those sources that referred to Maximus by the inaccurate 'Maximianus'. He clearly did not get his information from HB.
And then, in HB, we get the inexplicable Severus Aequantius, who doesn't feature at all in Geoffrey's account (nor in any other account, for that matter). Then we have Constantius, who reigned for 16 years, while Geoffrey writes about a Constantine (why would he have changed the name?) who ruled for 10 years.
As with the account of Julius Caesar's invasion of Britain, the only reason Geoffrey's account is generally similar to Nennius's is because they are both talking about real history. But significantly, HB includes a huge amount of material which is not present in HRB - much of which is actually inaccurate - or material which HRB contradicts. The conclusion that Geoffrey used Historia Brittonum as a basis for his account of the Roman era of Britain completely flies in the face of all the facts.
Tuesday, 15 May 2018
Geoffrey, Nennius and the Invasion of Britain
Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae is a cause of significant debate amongst Arthurian theorists. The author claimed to have been translating one particular 'ancient book written in the British tongue'. However, this claim has been seriously contested, and it is now felt by the majority of scholars that Geoffrey simply created his own account from the various different sources he had at his disposal, such as the works of Gildas, Bede, the Welsh Annals, the Historia Brittonum, and the genealogies such as those found in the Harleian MS 3859. On the other hand, there are those who insist that Geoffrey was telling the truth and that there did exist one particular source, now lost to us, which Geoffrey translated.
The first school of thought generally encapsulates the idea that Geoffrey did not possess any sources that we do not now have, which would mean that his Historia Regum Britanniae can offer no unique historical insights. In contrast, the second school of thought absolutely allows for the possibility that HRB contains some valid historical traditions not found anywhere else.
I am not going to settle this whole debate in one blog post, but what I will do here is address one particular claim regarding Geoffrey's sources. It is claimed that he clearly got his account of Julius Caesar's invasions of Britain in 55 B.C.E. and 54 B.C.E. from the account found in Historia Brittonum, commonly attributed to Nennius (such attribution is no longer widely accepted, but it will be used here, as it is throughout my blog, for the sake of simplicity). Is this a sensible conclusion? Is this a conclusion that really follows what the evidence shows, or it is a conclusion that has been reached simply because there is no other way of explaining Geoffrey's account without accepting that he had access to sources no longer available to us?
The account found in Historia Brittonum is very brief, so it will be quoted in full here:
Then Julius Caesar, the first who had acquired absolute power at Rome, highly incensed against the Britons, sailed with sixty vessels to the mouth of the Thames, where they suffered shipwreck whilst he fought against Dolobellus, (the proconsul of the British king, who was called Belinus, and who was the son of Minocannus who governed all the islands of the Tyrrhene Sea), and thus Julius Caesar returned home without victory, having had his soldiers slain, and his ships shattered.
But after three years he again appeared with a large army, and three hundred ships, at the mouth of the Thames, where he renewed hostilities. In this attempt many of his soldiers and horses were killed; for the same consul had placed iron pikes in the shallow part of the river, and this having been effected with so much skill and secrecy as to escape the notice of the Roman soldiers, did them considerable injury; thus Caesar was once more compelled to return without peace or victory. The Romans were, therefore, a third time sent against the Britons; and under the command of Julius, defeated them near a place called Trinovantum [London], forty- seven years before the birth of Christ, and five thousand two hundred and twelve years from the creation.
It is easy enough to compare this account with the account provided by Geoffrey of Monmouth in Historia Regum Britanniae. The reader can then see for himself whether or not it is logical to conclude that this was the origin of Geoffrey's version of events.
First, let us consider the invasion of 55 B.C.E.:
"Julius Caesar, the first who had acquired absolute power at Rome, highly incensed against the Britons, sailed with sixty vessels to the mouth of the Thames,"
Geoffrey includes plenty of numerical information in his book, but he does not include this.
"where they suffered shipwreck"
Geoffrey makes no mention of this.
"whilst he fought against Dolobellus,"
There is no Dolobellus in Geoffrey's account. The closest thing is Dorobellum, where Cassivellaunus holds council before attacking Caesar's army.
"(the proconsul of the British king, who was called Belinus,"
Belinus does appear, but he is only the general of the army, while the king is Cassivellaunus.
"and who was the son of Minocannus who governed all the islands of the Tyrrhene Sea),"
This certainly doesn't appear!
"and thus Julius Caesar returned home without victory, having had his soldiers slain, and his ships shattered."
Again, there no mention of any damage being received by his ships in Geoffrey's account.
Thus, in almost every single statement made by HB, it differs from HRB. Yes, they have general similarities, but that is simply because they are talking about the same historical event. Of course they have similarities. But in virtually all the details, the two accounts are completely dissimilar.
Now, let us look at the second invasion:
"But after three years he again appeared with a large army,"
According to Geoffrey of Monmouth, it was two years, not three.
"and three hundred ships,"
Again, Geoffrey does not include this numerical information, despite clearly being perfectly willing to put numerical information in his book.
"at the mouth of the Thames, where he renewed hostilities. In this attempt many of his soldiers and horses were killed; for the same consul had placed iron pikes in the shallow part of the river,"
'the same consul' is Dolobellus, yet he is not mentioned here in HRB, just as he was not mentioned earlier. The HRB attributes the stakes to Cassivellaunus.
"and this having been effected with so much skill and secrecy as to escape the notice of the Roman soldiers, did them considerable injury; thus Caesar was once more compelled to return without peace or victory. The Romans were, therefore, a third time sent against the Britons;"
This is the only example of an inaccuracy in the HB which is also present in the HRB, and is thus the only possible reason for concluding that they are in any way textually related. But this could very easily be attributed to a common source.
"and under the command of Julius, defeated them near a place called Trinovantum,"
Trinovantum is featured numerous times in HRB, but it is not mentioned here. Instead, Geoffrey gives Dorobernia (Canterbury) as the location of Cassivellaunus's defeat.
Once again, the reason they are similar is because they are describing the same event. The only detail that could possibly lead anyone to conclude that one was dependent on the other is the information about the 'third' invasion, as I mentioned earlier. But that is easily explained as deriving from a common source. The idea that HB was the actual source used by the writer of HRB for this event completely flies in the face of the facts concerning what HB says and what HRB says.
Of course, this conclusion presents a problem for those who subscribe to the idea that Geoffrey did not possess any historical sources that we don't now have. If Geoffrey did not use HB, then where did he get this information from? HRB is evidently textually related to HB to some degree (as is apparent by the claim of three invasions instead of two, and the inclusion of the apparently fictional 'Trinovantum'), but as has been clearly shown here, the account cannot have been taken directly from HB. So this would result in the conclusion that there was indeed a separate British account of this invasion which Geoffrey had access to.
Interestingly, as a final comment, it should be noted that when Geoffrey's account is stripped down to the same level of brevity as Nennius's, it is by far the more accurate version. Yet Geoffrey's account is supposed to be a later development from Nennius's. So, if we go along with the current consensus, we arrive at the incredible and frankly ridiculous conclusion that Geoffrey of Monmouth took Nennius's account, embellished it, and accidentally made it more accurate.
The first school of thought generally encapsulates the idea that Geoffrey did not possess any sources that we do not now have, which would mean that his Historia Regum Britanniae can offer no unique historical insights. In contrast, the second school of thought absolutely allows for the possibility that HRB contains some valid historical traditions not found anywhere else.
I am not going to settle this whole debate in one blog post, but what I will do here is address one particular claim regarding Geoffrey's sources. It is claimed that he clearly got his account of Julius Caesar's invasions of Britain in 55 B.C.E. and 54 B.C.E. from the account found in Historia Brittonum, commonly attributed to Nennius (such attribution is no longer widely accepted, but it will be used here, as it is throughout my blog, for the sake of simplicity). Is this a sensible conclusion? Is this a conclusion that really follows what the evidence shows, or it is a conclusion that has been reached simply because there is no other way of explaining Geoffrey's account without accepting that he had access to sources no longer available to us?
The account found in Historia Brittonum is very brief, so it will be quoted in full here:
Then Julius Caesar, the first who had acquired absolute power at Rome, highly incensed against the Britons, sailed with sixty vessels to the mouth of the Thames, where they suffered shipwreck whilst he fought against Dolobellus, (the proconsul of the British king, who was called Belinus, and who was the son of Minocannus who governed all the islands of the Tyrrhene Sea), and thus Julius Caesar returned home without victory, having had his soldiers slain, and his ships shattered.
But after three years he again appeared with a large army, and three hundred ships, at the mouth of the Thames, where he renewed hostilities. In this attempt many of his soldiers and horses were killed; for the same consul had placed iron pikes in the shallow part of the river, and this having been effected with so much skill and secrecy as to escape the notice of the Roman soldiers, did them considerable injury; thus Caesar was once more compelled to return without peace or victory. The Romans were, therefore, a third time sent against the Britons; and under the command of Julius, defeated them near a place called Trinovantum [London], forty- seven years before the birth of Christ, and five thousand two hundred and twelve years from the creation.
It is easy enough to compare this account with the account provided by Geoffrey of Monmouth in Historia Regum Britanniae. The reader can then see for himself whether or not it is logical to conclude that this was the origin of Geoffrey's version of events.
First, let us consider the invasion of 55 B.C.E.:
"Julius Caesar, the first who had acquired absolute power at Rome, highly incensed against the Britons, sailed with sixty vessels to the mouth of the Thames,"
Geoffrey includes plenty of numerical information in his book, but he does not include this.
"where they suffered shipwreck"
Geoffrey makes no mention of this.
"whilst he fought against Dolobellus,"
There is no Dolobellus in Geoffrey's account. The closest thing is Dorobellum, where Cassivellaunus holds council before attacking Caesar's army.
"(the proconsul of the British king, who was called Belinus,"
Belinus does appear, but he is only the general of the army, while the king is Cassivellaunus.
"and who was the son of Minocannus who governed all the islands of the Tyrrhene Sea),"
This certainly doesn't appear!
"and thus Julius Caesar returned home without victory, having had his soldiers slain, and his ships shattered."
Again, there no mention of any damage being received by his ships in Geoffrey's account.
Thus, in almost every single statement made by HB, it differs from HRB. Yes, they have general similarities, but that is simply because they are talking about the same historical event. Of course they have similarities. But in virtually all the details, the two accounts are completely dissimilar.
Now, let us look at the second invasion:
"But after three years he again appeared with a large army,"
According to Geoffrey of Monmouth, it was two years, not three.
"and three hundred ships,"
Again, Geoffrey does not include this numerical information, despite clearly being perfectly willing to put numerical information in his book.
"at the mouth of the Thames, where he renewed hostilities. In this attempt many of his soldiers and horses were killed; for the same consul had placed iron pikes in the shallow part of the river,"
'the same consul' is Dolobellus, yet he is not mentioned here in HRB, just as he was not mentioned earlier. The HRB attributes the stakes to Cassivellaunus.
"and this having been effected with so much skill and secrecy as to escape the notice of the Roman soldiers, did them considerable injury; thus Caesar was once more compelled to return without peace or victory. The Romans were, therefore, a third time sent against the Britons;"
This is the only example of an inaccuracy in the HB which is also present in the HRB, and is thus the only possible reason for concluding that they are in any way textually related. But this could very easily be attributed to a common source.
"and under the command of Julius, defeated them near a place called Trinovantum,"
Trinovantum is featured numerous times in HRB, but it is not mentioned here. Instead, Geoffrey gives Dorobernia (Canterbury) as the location of Cassivellaunus's defeat.
Once again, the reason they are similar is because they are describing the same event. The only detail that could possibly lead anyone to conclude that one was dependent on the other is the information about the 'third' invasion, as I mentioned earlier. But that is easily explained as deriving from a common source. The idea that HB was the actual source used by the writer of HRB for this event completely flies in the face of the facts concerning what HB says and what HRB says.
Of course, this conclusion presents a problem for those who subscribe to the idea that Geoffrey did not possess any historical sources that we don't now have. If Geoffrey did not use HB, then where did he get this information from? HRB is evidently textually related to HB to some degree (as is apparent by the claim of three invasions instead of two, and the inclusion of the apparently fictional 'Trinovantum'), but as has been clearly shown here, the account cannot have been taken directly from HB. So this would result in the conclusion that there was indeed a separate British account of this invasion which Geoffrey had access to.
Interestingly, as a final comment, it should be noted that when Geoffrey's account is stripped down to the same level of brevity as Nennius's, it is by far the more accurate version. Yet Geoffrey's account is supposed to be a later development from Nennius's. So, if we go along with the current consensus, we arrive at the incredible and frankly ridiculous conclusion that Geoffrey of Monmouth took Nennius's account, embellished it, and accidentally made it more accurate.
Friday, 29 December 2017
The Historical Origin of Lancelot
Lancelot is one of the most famous figures of the Arthurian legend, yet he is also one of the most commonly used examples of an element from the Romances that is 'definitely fictional'. This is based on the fact that he is first mentioned in the late 12th century. He appears in no prior sources - at least, not by that name. It seems incredible that a real figure (evidently a very significant one) would, if real, have gone completely unmentioned until the late 12th century. However, could it be that he did appear prior to that, but was simply not referred to as 'Lancelot'? It would only be possible to assess the plausibility of such a suggestion by simply looking to see if there is any character who, though obviously not possessing the same name, fits smoothly into the profile of the character in sufficiently numerous respects.
This article will present the case that the historical origin behind Lancelot was, in fact, one of the few figures from Dark Age Britain about whom there is definite, contemporary evidence. The historical figure in question is the powerful king of Gwynedd, Maelgwn.
The reasons for drawing such a conclusion start with the simple fact that, as discussed in this article, all the knights of the Round Table that can be identified as real or at least semi-legendary individuals from earlier records can be identified as kings or at least princes (as per Historia Brittonum; Arthur led 'the kings of Britain' against the Saxons). So it stands to reason that if Lancelot was real, he would have been a king or a prince. Furthermore, Lancelot was supposed to have been extremely powerful, being one of the greatest knights of the Round Table. So, if he was based on a real king in Arthur's time, said king must have been very powerful. Maelgwn was, indeed, extremely powerful. Gildas explicitly describes him as one of the most powerful leaders in his day, and the Historia Brittonum refers to him as 'the great king'. Similarly, Geoffrey of Monmouth describes him with the following:
"After him succeeded Malgo, one of the handsomest of men in Britain, a great scourge of tyrants, and a man of great strength, extraordinary munificence, and matchless valour."
So in this sense, Maelgwn certainly fits the shoes of Lancelot.
In conjunction with this, the available sources tell us that Maelgwn was allied to Arthur. In the Welsh Triad concerning Arthur's courts, it says that Maelgwn was the 'chief elder' at one of them. So, he was in Arthur's service. Supporting this is the Dream of Rhonabwy, which makes one of Maelgwn's sons a companion of Arthur.
So thus far, Maelgwn fits the very basic profile of Lancelot. He was a very powerful king, and he was one of Arthur's allies. Furthermore, he was serving Arthur away from his own land. Maelgwn was not from Arthur's own kingdom in the south of Wales (as I place Arthur). This matches Lancelot inasmuch as he, too, was supposed to have come to Arthur's court from outside, as opposed to being from a family already in that area.
So, definitely in broad terms, it is clear that Maelgwn matches Lancelot very well. But now for some more specific details:
As mentioned earlier, one of Maelgwn's sons is said to have been one of Arthur's knights in the Dream of Rhonabwy. This son is named Rhun, and he is mentioned in a Triad as 'one of the three fair princes of the Island of Britain'. Though not very detailed, this brief description surely corresponds to Lancelot's son Galahad, supposedly the 'perfect knight'. And like Galahad, Rhun was illegitimate. His mother, Maelgwn's mistress, was Gwallwen daughter of Afallach. Given the tendency for initial 'g's to be dropped from names in Welsh (as in 'Withur' and 'Gwythyr'), I think it's not too improbable that 'Gwallwen' would have been recorded as 'Wallwen' and then this was substituted with 'Ellen', or 'Elaine' - a name much more familiar to the Romance writers. Elaine was the name of Galahad's mother, Lancelot's mistress, in the Romances. Also, she was the daughter of Pellinore, and I would argue that he and Afallach are one and the same. That is a case to be left for another time, but if valid, it would significantly strengthen the case for Maelgwn and Lancelot being the same person - it would mean that they both had illegitimate relations with similarly named daughters of the same man.
To get back to Maelgwn himself, he was said to have spent some time in a monastery and he supposedly ended up dying in a church. Given that he was said to have become high king after Arthur's death, the fact that he ended up in a church and died there ties in with the concept that Lancelot was the mighty warrior who helped to restore order to Britain after Arthur's death, before becoming a monk and living out the rest of his life like that.
Furthermore, Maelgwn is explicitly described as attacking south east Wales on more than one occasion. Given that this is where I believe the majority of the evidence points to being Arthur's homeland, it seems reasonable to suppose that at least one of the records concerning Maelgwn waging war on south east Wales could relate to the stories of the war between Lancelot and Arthur. In fact, in one of these records, Maelgwn is specifically said to have taken a daughter of Cadoc's (unnamed) officer. This immediately brings to mind the story of the war between Lancelot and Arthur, which war involved Lancelot's affair with Arthur's wife. There is also a late version of Taliesin's condemnatory poem against Maelgwn that refers to how he 'betrayed the race of Arthur', which, again, sounds suspiciously like Lancelot.
And then finally, there is name of his kingdom to consider. Lancelot's father was supposed to have been the king of a place called 'Benwick', as it is called in some records. Others spell it 'Genewis' or 'Gomeret'. There are a number of sources which suggest that this may be a reference to either Gwynedd or Vannes (spelt Gwened in Breton). The names are identical (especially as 'Gwynedd' was spelt 'Gwened' in Old Welsh), so even if Vannes was actually the intended location, this still fits the theory, for it makes perfect sense that a French writer could have seen a reference to 'Gwened' (i.e. Gwynedd, Maelgwn's kingdom) and logically but incorrectly assumed that it was talking about Vannes. Hence, 'Lancelot' (Maelgwn) was transported over to France.
So, to summarise, the sources tell us that Maelgwn was a very powerful king who was allied to Arthur and serving him away from his own land. This fits the basic profile of Lancelot, who was a very powerful 'knight' in Arthur's service, serving him away from his own land. The name of Lancelot's kingdom could quite possibly have come from the name of Maelgwn's kingdom. Maelgwn and Lancelot both had an illegitimate son with a woman whose names could plausibly share an origin (and whose fathers, I would argue, are identical). These illegitimate sons were both known, at least in some records, for being extraordinarily virtuous in some way, and they both served as knights of Arthur. Lancelot is recorded as fighting a war against Arthur over a woman, Guinevere, while Maelgwn is recorded as waging war against what I believe to be Arthur's kingdom, taking a daughter of one of the officers there. Finally, Maelgwn and Lancelot both spent time in a religious setting towards the end of their lives and then died in a church.
This article will present the case that the historical origin behind Lancelot was, in fact, one of the few figures from Dark Age Britain about whom there is definite, contemporary evidence. The historical figure in question is the powerful king of Gwynedd, Maelgwn.
The reasons for drawing such a conclusion start with the simple fact that, as discussed in this article, all the knights of the Round Table that can be identified as real or at least semi-legendary individuals from earlier records can be identified as kings or at least princes (as per Historia Brittonum; Arthur led 'the kings of Britain' against the Saxons). So it stands to reason that if Lancelot was real, he would have been a king or a prince. Furthermore, Lancelot was supposed to have been extremely powerful, being one of the greatest knights of the Round Table. So, if he was based on a real king in Arthur's time, said king must have been very powerful. Maelgwn was, indeed, extremely powerful. Gildas explicitly describes him as one of the most powerful leaders in his day, and the Historia Brittonum refers to him as 'the great king'. Similarly, Geoffrey of Monmouth describes him with the following:
"After him succeeded Malgo, one of the handsomest of men in Britain, a great scourge of tyrants, and a man of great strength, extraordinary munificence, and matchless valour."
So in this sense, Maelgwn certainly fits the shoes of Lancelot.
In conjunction with this, the available sources tell us that Maelgwn was allied to Arthur. In the Welsh Triad concerning Arthur's courts, it says that Maelgwn was the 'chief elder' at one of them. So, he was in Arthur's service. Supporting this is the Dream of Rhonabwy, which makes one of Maelgwn's sons a companion of Arthur.
So thus far, Maelgwn fits the very basic profile of Lancelot. He was a very powerful king, and he was one of Arthur's allies. Furthermore, he was serving Arthur away from his own land. Maelgwn was not from Arthur's own kingdom in the south of Wales (as I place Arthur). This matches Lancelot inasmuch as he, too, was supposed to have come to Arthur's court from outside, as opposed to being from a family already in that area.
So, definitely in broad terms, it is clear that Maelgwn matches Lancelot very well. But now for some more specific details:
As mentioned earlier, one of Maelgwn's sons is said to have been one of Arthur's knights in the Dream of Rhonabwy. This son is named Rhun, and he is mentioned in a Triad as 'one of the three fair princes of the Island of Britain'. Though not very detailed, this brief description surely corresponds to Lancelot's son Galahad, supposedly the 'perfect knight'. And like Galahad, Rhun was illegitimate. His mother, Maelgwn's mistress, was Gwallwen daughter of Afallach. Given the tendency for initial 'g's to be dropped from names in Welsh (as in 'Withur' and 'Gwythyr'), I think it's not too improbable that 'Gwallwen' would have been recorded as 'Wallwen' and then this was substituted with 'Ellen', or 'Elaine' - a name much more familiar to the Romance writers. Elaine was the name of Galahad's mother, Lancelot's mistress, in the Romances. Also, she was the daughter of Pellinore, and I would argue that he and Afallach are one and the same. That is a case to be left for another time, but if valid, it would significantly strengthen the case for Maelgwn and Lancelot being the same person - it would mean that they both had illegitimate relations with similarly named daughters of the same man.
To get back to Maelgwn himself, he was said to have spent some time in a monastery and he supposedly ended up dying in a church. Given that he was said to have become high king after Arthur's death, the fact that he ended up in a church and died there ties in with the concept that Lancelot was the mighty warrior who helped to restore order to Britain after Arthur's death, before becoming a monk and living out the rest of his life like that.
Furthermore, Maelgwn is explicitly described as attacking south east Wales on more than one occasion. Given that this is where I believe the majority of the evidence points to being Arthur's homeland, it seems reasonable to suppose that at least one of the records concerning Maelgwn waging war on south east Wales could relate to the stories of the war between Lancelot and Arthur. In fact, in one of these records, Maelgwn is specifically said to have taken a daughter of Cadoc's (unnamed) officer. This immediately brings to mind the story of the war between Lancelot and Arthur, which war involved Lancelot's affair with Arthur's wife. There is also a late version of Taliesin's condemnatory poem against Maelgwn that refers to how he 'betrayed the race of Arthur', which, again, sounds suspiciously like Lancelot.
And then finally, there is name of his kingdom to consider. Lancelot's father was supposed to have been the king of a place called 'Benwick', as it is called in some records. Others spell it 'Genewis' or 'Gomeret'. There are a number of sources which suggest that this may be a reference to either Gwynedd or Vannes (spelt Gwened in Breton). The names are identical (especially as 'Gwynedd' was spelt 'Gwened' in Old Welsh), so even if Vannes was actually the intended location, this still fits the theory, for it makes perfect sense that a French writer could have seen a reference to 'Gwened' (i.e. Gwynedd, Maelgwn's kingdom) and logically but incorrectly assumed that it was talking about Vannes. Hence, 'Lancelot' (Maelgwn) was transported over to France.
So, to summarise, the sources tell us that Maelgwn was a very powerful king who was allied to Arthur and serving him away from his own land. This fits the basic profile of Lancelot, who was a very powerful 'knight' in Arthur's service, serving him away from his own land. The name of Lancelot's kingdom could quite possibly have come from the name of Maelgwn's kingdom. Maelgwn and Lancelot both had an illegitimate son with a woman whose names could plausibly share an origin (and whose fathers, I would argue, are identical). These illegitimate sons were both known, at least in some records, for being extraordinarily virtuous in some way, and they both served as knights of Arthur. Lancelot is recorded as fighting a war against Arthur over a woman, Guinevere, while Maelgwn is recorded as waging war against what I believe to be Arthur's kingdom, taking a daughter of one of the officers there. Finally, Maelgwn and Lancelot both spent time in a religious setting towards the end of their lives and then died in a church.
Monday, 2 October 2017
The book is finished!
At last! After almost three years of writing! It is done! I have finally finished my book!
King Arthur - The Emperor's Son is ready to be sent to a publisher...
King Arthur - The Emperor's Son is ready to be sent to a publisher...
Tuesday, 2 May 2017
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 13th 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.
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 13th 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 13th 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 13th
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.
Friday, 31 March 2017
Gildas and the Fall of the Round Table
The arrangement of the Knights of the Round Table is one of the elements of the Arthurian Romance tales which seems 'obviously' fictional. In reality, though, such an arrangement is referred to in the very earliest mention of Arthur - that is, Historia Brittonum (the reference to Arthur in the earlier Y Gododdin may or may not be authentic). But to realise this, we first need to understand what, exactly, the arrangement of the Knights of the Round Table was actually supposed to have been.
One of the knights, in these later legends, is Uriens of Gorre. And who was Uriens? He was Urien, a historical king of the north of Britain. Another knight is Ywain the son of Uriens. Historically, this was Owain, the son of Urien. Owain was thus a prince and later became a king, though he could perhaps have been a minor king in his own right under his father. Another knight was Gawain, the supposed cousin of Owain. His father was, so legend tells us, the king of Lothian. Thus, Gawain was a prince of that region. Another famous knight is Percival. He was known in Welsh tradition as Peredur, and he was very probably the same as the historical northern prince Peredur ap Elidur.
Moving further south, we have Sir Cador, who was actually the king of Dumnonia in the sixth century. Then there is Sir Constantine, the son of Cador and therefore a prince (and later a king) of Dumnonia. Furthermore, there is Sir Caradoc Vriechvras, often considered to have been Caradoc ap Ynyr. This figure was a king of Gwent in the late fifth, early sixth century.
When these same individuals are mentioned in the earlier Hsitoria Regum Britanniae as being at Arthur's court, the majority of them are, indeed, called kings. Many other kings are mentioned in this account as well. So, if the legendary 'knights' of Arthur's court in the later Romances who can be identified as real (or at least semi-legendary) individuals of the sixth century are all kings or princes (maybe minor kings in their own right) of various parts of Britain, then what conclusion can we draw about the nature of the arrangement of the Knights of the Round Table?
This arrangement, evidently, was an alliance of the kings of Britain. Specifically, it was an alliance of kings led by Arthur. This is exactly what the Historia Brittonum has always described:
"Then it was, that the magnanimous Arthur, with all the kings and military force of Britain, fought against the Saxons."
One of the only 'fanciful' elements of Arthur's court in the later Romances is the physical Round Table itself, but that is merely aesthetics. It is not of any substantial interest, though obviously, if there was an alliance of kings, they must have gathered somewhere. Another element that makes it seem fanciful is the use of the term 'knights'. If this term had not been used in the Romances, but they were simply referred to as 'the kings of Arthur's court', then much of the apparent fancifulness completely disappears. That this kind of organised arrangement of rulers is perfectly reasonable to believe in is shown by Gildas's almost-contemporary reference to Vortigern and the 'council' deciding to invite the Saxons over to Britain. Admittedly, the rulers who made up this council may not have ruled over a very widespread area (we have no way of knowing for sure either way), but it is nonetheless a demonstration of the same kind of principle involved in Arthur's legendary court.
Additionally, we know from Julius Caesar's account of the invasion of Britain that the British tribes, even during times of great internal strife, were perfectly capable of putting aside their differences and joining together under one united leader to fight against outside invaders. That is what happened in 54 B.C.E., when various tribes of the south east of Britain united under Cassivellaunus. Therefore, the idea that various tribes of Britain would unite themselves under one leader (namely, Arthur) upon a large-scale invasion of Anglo-Saxons is not only within reason, but is likely.
However, there is another major element of Arthur's court in the Romances which seems to be totally fictional. This is the Code of Chivalry which the members of Arthur's court were supposed to live by. Surely this is just an invention of French writers, inserting the ideals of the time into the Arthurian story?
Perhaps partly. But many of the fictional elements in the Arthurian Romances are not really fictional, but just aesthetically anachronistic. For example, Arthur and his men are often presented as wearing armour which actually did not come into being for hundreds of years. Yet, they undoubtedly had armour of some kind. Likewise, there are grand castles in the stories, even though there were no 'castles' of this sort in Britain until hundreds of years after Arthur's time. Yet, they did have fortifications of some kind.
The same principle could easily apply to the Code of Chivalry. It may be anachronistically styled in the stories, but that does not mean that it is fundamentally fictional. In other words, Arthur's court may well have established a particular code of conduct, but the Romance writers simply filled in the details with their own anachronistic ideas of what this meant (just as they had filled in the details of 'armour' and 'castles' with their own understanding of those concepts).
Regardless of any potential historical origin, the literary development certainly shows this to be the case. In Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae, which was written before the Romances, we are told that Arthur introduced "such politeness into his court," or "such a code of courtliness" (according to the translation by J. A. Giles and the translation by Thorpe, respectively). Then mention is made of Arthur's "munificence," or '"generosity." So the suggestion above does, in fact, seem to be what happened. There was information about Arthur having this 'code of courtliness', but without any detail as to what was actually involved, and so the later Romance writers simply provided the details based on their own ethics and philosophy.
In fact, there is a slight hint of this code of courtliness and 'munificence' of Arthur's in, once again, the Historia Brittonum, the earliest definite record about Arthur. As seen in the line quoted earlier in this article, the account describes Arthur as 'magnanimous' - the same kind of quality attributed to him in the later account by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Granted, this description only appears in one surviving manuscript of the HB, so we cannot know for sure if it was in the original. In any case, Arthur's munificence and code of courtliness definitely appears prior to the Romances, though without any of the details, and possibly gets a reference in the earliest Arthurian source.
But that is just the literary development. Is there any evidence that these records actually preserve a true memory of the reality in sixth century Britain? Well, given the lack of archaeological evidence for chivalry, the only way to test this idea would be by comparing the earliest accounts of Arthur's court with the earliest record of sixth century Britain - that is, the work of Gildas, a prominent sixth century preacher. He does not give a very detailed description of the events that occurred in his century, but the information he does give is very interesting indeed.
After speaking of the battle of Badon (Arthur's decisive victory against the Saxons, according to later records), he says the following:
"kings, public magistrates, and private persons, with priests and clergymen, did all and every one of them live orderly and according to their several vocations."
Though not explicitly referring to an 'alliance' of kings, this is consistent with the concept in that it shows that there was order among kings at that time. Then Gildas goes on to say that when
"a new race succeeded, who were ignorant of this troublesome time, and had only experience of the present prosperity, all the laws of truth and justice were so shaken and subverted, that not so much as a vestige or remembrance of these virtues remained among the above-named orders of men."
This is some very significant information. It reveals that, during the generation who lived during the battle of Badon (hence, the time of Arthur's rule), not only did kings live orderly, but they lived according to certain virtues, certain laws of truth and justice, which were abolished by the generation that lived after the battle.
So how does this relate to the Arthurian legends? Well, the Romances identify the uprising of Mordred, the nephew of Arthur, as causing the downfall of the Round Table and, therefore, the Code of Chivalry linked to Arthur's court. The much earlier Welsh Annals places the battle of Camlann - the climactic battle between Arthur and Mordred according to the later records - 21 years after the battle of Badon. Gildas, meanwhile, seemed to state that he was writing 43 years after Badon. Therefore, this 21-year gap between Badon and Camlann results in a comfortable middle ground after Badon, in which the new generation could have crushed the laws of justice, and before the time of Gildas's writing, in which he referred to this.
In fact, it is possible to correlate the timing of the two events even more strongly than that. In Historia Regum Britanniae, Geoffrey describes how, one or two years after Arthur achieved his victory at Badon, he ruled his kingdom in peace for 12 years. Then the next section describes how Arthur helped Lot gain his rightful place as king of Norway (almost certainly a mistranslation of 'Llychlyn', which is a word used variously for Scotland and Scandinavia). At this point, Geoffrey makes the remark that Gawain is 12 years old. In other words, then, Gawain was born one or two years after the battle of Badon. This is an enormously significant detail, for the account also claims that Gawain and Mordred were brothers. The age difference is not given, so we cannot conclude more than that they were similar in age.
The grand sum of this is that the Arthurian material paints a picture in which someone who was of the generation who lived during the peace established after the battle of Badon (that is, Mordred) rose up in rebellion, causing a civil war and the collapse of an orderly arrangement of kings and princes and a code of courtliness which they had, until that rebellion, lived by. This is completely, totally consistent with the statements of Gildas.
But that is just the literary development. Is there any evidence that these records actually preserve a true memory of the reality in sixth century Britain? Well, given the lack of archaeological evidence for chivalry, the only way to test this idea would be by comparing the earliest accounts of Arthur's court with the earliest record of sixth century Britain - that is, the work of Gildas, a prominent sixth century preacher. He does not give a very detailed description of the events that occurred in his century, but the information he does give is very interesting indeed.
After speaking of the battle of Badon (Arthur's decisive victory against the Saxons, according to later records), he says the following:
"kings, public magistrates, and private persons, with priests and clergymen, did all and every one of them live orderly and according to their several vocations."
Though not explicitly referring to an 'alliance' of kings, this is consistent with the concept in that it shows that there was order among kings at that time. Then Gildas goes on to say that when
"a new race succeeded, who were ignorant of this troublesome time, and had only experience of the present prosperity, all the laws of truth and justice were so shaken and subverted, that not so much as a vestige or remembrance of these virtues remained among the above-named orders of men."
This is some very significant information. It reveals that, during the generation who lived during the battle of Badon (hence, the time of Arthur's rule), not only did kings live orderly, but they lived according to certain virtues, certain laws of truth and justice, which were abolished by the generation that lived after the battle.
So how does this relate to the Arthurian legends? Well, the Romances identify the uprising of Mordred, the nephew of Arthur, as causing the downfall of the Round Table and, therefore, the Code of Chivalry linked to Arthur's court. The much earlier Welsh Annals places the battle of Camlann - the climactic battle between Arthur and Mordred according to the later records - 21 years after the battle of Badon. Gildas, meanwhile, seemed to state that he was writing 43 years after Badon. Therefore, this 21-year gap between Badon and Camlann results in a comfortable middle ground after Badon, in which the new generation could have crushed the laws of justice, and before the time of Gildas's writing, in which he referred to this.
In fact, it is possible to correlate the timing of the two events even more strongly than that. In Historia Regum Britanniae, Geoffrey describes how, one or two years after Arthur achieved his victory at Badon, he ruled his kingdom in peace for 12 years. Then the next section describes how Arthur helped Lot gain his rightful place as king of Norway (almost certainly a mistranslation of 'Llychlyn', which is a word used variously for Scotland and Scandinavia). At this point, Geoffrey makes the remark that Gawain is 12 years old. In other words, then, Gawain was born one or two years after the battle of Badon. This is an enormously significant detail, for the account also claims that Gawain and Mordred were brothers. The age difference is not given, so we cannot conclude more than that they were similar in age.
The grand sum of this is that the Arthurian material paints a picture in which someone who was of the generation who lived during the peace established after the battle of Badon (that is, Mordred) rose up in rebellion, causing a civil war and the collapse of an orderly arrangement of kings and princes and a code of courtliness which they had, until that rebellion, lived by. This is completely, totally consistent with the statements of Gildas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)