Introduction
Part I: A Legend and its Roots
1: The Kingmaker
- The Tale as It Was Told [by Geoffrey of Monmouth]
"One wayward genius carries almost the whole responsibility for this official history [i.e. of King Arthur]. He lived in the first half of the 12C and was known as Geoffrey of Monmouth (c1110-55), after a town on the SW fringe of Wales" (3-4). His family was either Welsh or Breton. In 1136 he published (in Latin) History of the Kings of Britain at Oxford. It is a mix of history, myth and fiction. Its story begins c. "1200 BC in the world of Greek and Roman epic. After the fall of Troy one of its princes, Aeneas, is said to have migrated to Italy with a party of refugees. Geoffrey tells us that Aeneas's ggson Brutus led a later group of Trojans to Britain. The island, then called Albion, was uninhabited, except for a few giants. The Trojans took possession of [it] and killed off the giants ... renam[ing it] Britain after their leader Brutus ... The settlers and their descendants were henceforth 'Britons,' and Brutus became their first King and founded the capital city by the River Thames. This was New Troy, later called London. Geoffrey goes on to describe the reigns of 75 kings; nearly all of them were products of his imagination [incl. Bladud, 8C BC Lier or Lear of Shakespeare fame]" (4, see entire list of kings in brits.html, link below).
Geoffrey describes Arthur's setting (4C AD) as a time when "Britain was being harassed by marauding barbarians [Irish, Picts, Saxons] ... After one Roman rescue operation (from other sources, c. 398 led by imperial general Stilicho, pic 58c), and a plea for another (from other sources, c. 410, see below), all aid from the Empire came to an end ... [unaccustomed to] self-reliance ... the Archbishop of London [appealed to] Aldroenus [of Brittany] offer[ing] the crown ... [for his] tak[ing] charge of defense ... Aldroenus declined ... but put forward his brother Constantine ... [who] scattered [Britain's] enemies ... [and later] married and had 3 sons ... Constans, who became a monk ... Aurelius Ambrosius ... Uther, destined to become the father of Arthur ... Constantine reigned in peace for 10 yrs, until he was finally murdered by a Pictish assassin" (5).
"The succession was disputed. A solution was devised by an ambitious noble, Vortigern ... central figure of a grandiose trajedy, sinister yet pitiable ... Vortigern ... visited the youth Constans in his monastery and advised him, as the eldest son of Constantine, to come out and be King. Constans agreed ... became a puppet in Vortigern's hands ... In response to some crafty prompting [by Vortigern], the [mercenary] Picts assassinated Constans ... [giving Vortigern] the crown ... [the other real princes go into hiding in Brittany] At this juncture 2 Saxon chieftains, the brothers Hengist and Horsa, [arrive from Germany, Vortigern cooperates with them, giving them land, welcoming their kinsmen] ... During [a] banquet Hengist's beautiful daughter, Renwein (or ... Rowena), came in ... [captivating] Vortigern ... who married her [in exchange for more territory ceded to the pagan Saxons, angering his other citizens, who now turn to Prince Vortimer, Vortigern's son by a previous marriage, who] attacked the Saxons in Kent and routed them in 4 battles ... [Rowena then] contrived to have [Vortimer] poisoned ... Vortigern [invites] the Saxons to return ... [but when they do, they stage a surprise massacre of Brits, sparing but disempowering Vortigern, invading England, destroying churches]" (5-7, this was in 449, see below).
"Vortigern fled to Wales and tried to build a fortress ... but the walls kept sinking into the ground. His soothsayers told him the only solution was to find a boy who had no father, kill him, and sprinkle his blood upon the stones ... [They found] Merlin [whose mother claimed his father was a spirit companion] ... Merlin saved his life by revealing that ... the instability of the walls was due to a subterranean pool with 2 dragons in it ... one white, the other red. They fought ... the white [at first winning] then the red [ultimately wins] Merlin interpreted: [red=Brits white=Saxons. Soon the rightful princes return, Aurelius was crowned King, and they track down and burn Vortigern's castle, killing him, drive out the Saxons, kill Hengist, rebuild churches, commemorate the massacre w/Stonehenge. After a short reign, Aurelius is poisoned by a son of Vortigern, succeeded by his brother Uther Pendragon, who must] cope with a Saxon revival ... but Uther [lusts] for Ygerna, the beautiful wife of Gorlois, Duke of Cornwall ... [and uses Merlin's magic to trap Gorlois and disguise himself as Gorlois, fathering Arthur w/Ygerna. Gorlois is later killed in battle and Uther marries her, reigning another 15 yrs, poisoned, Saxons still not subdued" (7-9).
Arthur now comes to power, subduing the Saxons in 3 battles; near the River Douglas, near Lincoln, in the Caledon Wood in Scotland, The Saxons promise to leave Britain, but renige, reattacking at Devon. Arthur again defeats them, displaying the Virgin Mary on his shield] affirming his role as a Christian champion [Arthur defeats Saxons, Picts and Scots (Irish)] Arthur's 'outstanding courage and generosity' and 'inborn goodness' won him the love of the vast majority of his subjects. After marrying a Roman-descended lady, Guinevere, he [conquers Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark] 12 yrs of peace ensued ... [but] when Arthur invaded Gaul he confronted [and defeated, killed] the tribune Frollo, who governed it for the Emperor ... 9 [more] yrs passed ... [spent] with consolodation ... 2nd peace ... organiz[ing] his Gallic conquests. He put his cupbearer, Bedevere, in charge of Normandy, his seneschal, Kay, in charge of Angou ... [but] envoys arrived from Rome, sent by Lucius Hiberius, Procurator of the Republic ... condemning Arthur's conduct [not paying tribute, seizing land in Gaul] demand[ing] submission and threaten[ing] war ... [Arthur defies them, claiming a right to rule Rome himself, based on various legal precedents] He took the offensive ... put his nephew Modred in charge at home, jointly with the Queen, and assembled an immense army in Gaul ... [they met the enemy Romans under Lucius SE of Paris] In a terrific struggle Arthur's other nephew, Gawain, played an impressive part. At last the Britons routed the imperial host on the fringes of Burgundy. Arthur [subdues] the pro-Roman Burgundians [then] prepares to cross the Alps and march on to Rome, with ultimate aim of attacking the Emperor who ruled the Roman East from Constantinople [thus once again unifying the world, Restitutor Orbis, but this time under British leadership] But news came from Britain that his deputy ruler, Modred, had turned traitor, setting himself up as King and persuading the Queen to live in adultery with him. Arthur headed for home. Modred, it transpired, had made an agreement with the Saxon leader Cheldric [Childeric], securing Saxon support in return for the cession of parts of Britain. Arthur drove Modred's army westward, routing him by the River Camel in Cornwall. The traitor was killed, but Arthur was severely wounded; mortally, according to Geoffrey. Nevertheless, he was 'carried off to the Isle of Avalon so that his wounds might be attended to,' handing over the crown to a cousin ... [in a later work, Arthur is being nursed by the enchantress Morgen at Avalon] After Arthur ... 5 more kings of Britain follow him. The Saxons are still contained until the last of these reigns ... with surprising help from African King Gormund, the Saxons win, limiting Brits to Wales, Cornwall, Brittany. The Saxons are left in possession of most of the country now called England (9-13).
- Truth or Lies or What?
"In 1155 a native of the island of Jersey [named] Wace published a paraphrase of Geoffrey's History in French verse, which he called the Roman de Brut, or Romance of Brutus ... Wace added the Round Table ... [and while admitting embellishment, explained that] the tales of Arthur are not all lies" (13). Medieval bards clearly medievalized earlier stories, which is "why the knights of the Round Table wear elaborate armor, engage in jousts, observe the rules of chivalry, and have courtly love affairs ... the realities of post-Roman Britain were not thought to be important" (14-5). As an analogy, the American "Wild West" [romance] was created by Hollywood, but is based on reality. "For 30 or 40 yrs the American West was wild" (15). Thomas Malory's 15C Morte d'Arthur is "the best-known Arthurian book in English" (17). Another is "Victoria's poet laureate [Alfred Lord] Tennyson's Idylls of the King" (17). Arthur is "a type of hero whose image haunted the world of late antiquity. He is the British version of that hero ... [Roland is the French. In the next chapter, we'll] step from the realm of Geoffrey's imagination into genuine history" (18).
2: The Unextinguished Light
- Troublers and Rescuers of the Empire
"On 24 Aug 410 an army of Goths marched into Rome and looted it ... not conqerors yet ... but unassimilated and menacing ... Goths [and] other alien peoples - Franks, Vandals, Alans, Suevi. Saxons and Burgundians were on the move, from the east came the most alarming barbarians of all, the Huns" (19). As the Empire wavered, many hoped for an Emperor to fill the role of Restitutor Orbis, or World Restorer. After all, "Romanitas meant civilization ... From the Stoic philosophy of the Greeks had come the ideal of a cosmopolis, a world unity ... Rome was not so much unity's creator as its custodian [Pax Romana]" (20). Earlier Restorers were Aurelian, Diocletian (284-305, persecuted Christians), Constantine the Great (c272-337). After Constantine, there were further barbarian encroachments and also dissention among Christians (Arianism, which "denied the full divinity of Christ" [22] v. Catholicism). "Orthodoxy triumphed at last under Theodosius, who was briefly sole Emperor in 395" (22). But conflicts simmered as the mostly Arian barbarians moved in among the Catholics and as Christians insisted on separating church and state ('Render unto Caesar...'), "a distinction unknown to paganism" (22, hmmm, so nostalgia for Rome could be pagan longing for reunion). Also, Constantine's move of the capital from Rome to Byzantium created a separate power center in Rome for the Bishop there. While, for a time, "The Empire was still well provided with public-spirited citizens, willing to affirm civilized ways through service, or teaching or leadership" (23), there were now 2 paths [church, state] and many chose the former. "The state inspired a dwindling enthusiasm; the drain of talent lowered its quality; and so it tended to drift downhill" (23). As the RCC was accused of ruining the Empire [by pagans], Augustine famously came to its defense [both v. pagans and Arians]. Still, the dream of a Restorer survived.
- Britain Alone
We can now see that Geoffrey's King Arthur is a regional Restitutor.
Milestones (from B&N's History's Timeline):
55 BC: Julius Caesar conquers N Gaul, unsuccessfully attempts to invade Britain
54 BC: 2nd invasion of Britain by Romans under Caesar; Cassivellaunus submits to tribute
05 AD: Rome ack's Cymbeline, King of Catuvellauni, as king of Britain
43 AD: Romans under Aulus Plautius invade Britain; London founded
51 AD: Caractacus, British general, is captured and taken to Rome
54 AD: Claudius murdered in Rome, Nero takes over
61 AD: Boudicca, Queen of the Iceni, leads rebellion in Britain, defeated and killed by Roman governor Suetonius Paulinus
77 AD: Roman conquest of Britain; Julius Agricola is imperial governor (to 84)
122 AD: Hadrian visits Britain, begins construction of wall between England/Scotland
133 AD: Julius Severus, governor of Britain, sent to Palestine to crush revolt
197 AD: Clodius Albinus, governor of Britain, another claimant to the Imperial throne, is killed by Severus at the battle of Lyon
208 AD: Severus goes to defend Britain, repairs Hadrian's Wall
287 AD: Revolt by Carausius, commander of Roman British fleet, rules Britain as emperor until murdered by fellow rebel Allectus in 293
306 AD: Chlorus dies on a visit to Britain, son Constantine at once hailed as emperor by troops there, ruled Britain and Gaul for 6 yrs while another claimant, Maxentius, ruled in Rome, until defeated at Milvian Bridge 312
383-8: usurper Maximus kills Gratian, rules W, Roman legions begin to leave Britain, later killed by Theodosius
407: Last Roman troops withdraw from Britain, locals left to fend for themselves
425: Raids by Angles, Saxons, Jutes on Britain
432: St. Patrick [a brit] begins mission to Ireland
449: The Jutes under Hengist and Horsa conquer Kent in S Britain
451: Attila repulsed at Chalons in Gaul by Aetius (Romans), Franks, Alemanni
491: Saxon kingdom of Sussex founded [by Aelle, but really just warlords til early 7C]
538: Saxon kingdom of Wessex founded [by Cerdic]
c557: Saxon kingdom of Northumbria founded [hmmm, Ida in Bernicia c557, Aelle in Deira 569, Athelfrith in Northumbria 604]
571: Saxon kingdom of E Anglia founded [by Uffa]
c580: Saxon kingdom of Essex founded [by Sledda, initially subordinate to Kent]
584: Saxon kingdom of Mercia founded [by Creoda aka Crida]
597: St. Augustine lands in England
620: Vikings begins invading Ireland
Heptarchy (7): Kent 449, Sussex 491, Wessex 538, Northumbria c557, E Anglia 571, Essex c580, Mercia 584
Although Julius Caesar had invaded Britain earlier, Roman conquest began in earnest in 43 AD (Claudius visits, stays 14? days, bust found in river, see Romans), initiating decades of struggle v. British resistance leaders e.g. Boudicca (Queen of Iceni, rebelled AD 60). Romans later build Hadrian's wall to protection against northern tribes. South of the wall, Romanitas was installed, with senior leaders from outside but advised by "councils made up of wealthy [i.e. villa society] Britons and descendants of former chiefs and nobility ... From the early 3C on, all free male Britons were imperial citizens equal to any other" (27). In 3-4C "Roman Britain was more peaceful than most of the Continent. Its pop. was 2M or so ... In 286 an Admiral Carausius made himself independent ruler for a few yrs [later reconquered by Roman commander (later Emperor) Constantius Chlorus, father of] the great Constantine himself, who was proclaimed Emperor at York, thus beginning [his illustrious career, but] ... In 367 the imperial structure in Britain began to crack" (28). Under combined attack from the north (Picts) and west (Irish "Scoti") and east (Saxons from Germany, "Their chief weapon was a short sword, or seax, from which they took their name" 29, hmmm, v. 1md's 'Isaac's sons'), helped by unhappy Brits and slaves, "Britain was briefly torn from the Empire" (29). In 383 another Emperor was proclaimed in Britain (as Constantine had been), Spanish-born army commander Magnus Clemens Maximus (m. a brit). He conquered western Europe and even captured Rome, but was finally defeated by Emperor Theodosius (d. 395), who held the East. Maximus was later hero-ized by Brits (as yet another Restorer), with many a later prince claiming descent from him, his armies in NW Gaul created "Brittany" (from earlier Armorica). Theodosius' son Honorius succeeded his father at age 10, but was never able to rebuild the Empire. Roman troops kept Britain in line for awhile, but in 406 "the last convulsion began" (30). Three barbarian tribes from Germany (Vandals, Alans, Suevi) "crossed the Rhine and surged across Gaul" (30, see also br-hisc), cutting Britain off from the Empire. The Roman soldiers in Britain named their own (pretender) leader-emporer (after 2 false starts) Constantine (MBKQ P92, of low rank and ordinary talent, but a great name, no relation, son Constans [P93] left monastery to help), and he led "nearly all the remaining troops" (30) into Gaul, negotiating a settlement w/Honorius, but in 409 a Roman general under Honorius [Constantius] k. the pretender (via treachery), was rewarded by m. to Honorius' sister [Galla Placidia], and their son later became Emperor Valentinian III. Meanwhile, Britain had unprecedentedly broken away from the Empire, suffering in 410 a "fresh and terrible" seaborne Saxon assault (not much resistance, since most soldiers had gone to Gaul, despite the myth that Rome pulled its troops out). Brits appealed to Honorius for help, but instead got permission from him to arm themselves (formerly illegal) and go it alone. Rome had its own problems that year with the Goth sack (24 Aug 410). British militia successfully fought back the invaders and began to govern themselves, on the imperial model. Although Britain was still considered "Roman" (v. barbarian) by tradition and culture, external rule never returned (31).
[cf br-100db]
- Arthur's Forerunners
Geoffrey's context seems right in that Britain was essentially on its own after AD 410. He shows successors Vortigern (P94, Vortimer P95), Aurelius Ambrosius (P96), Uther (P97), and Arthur (P98). This "might not inspire much confidence [since] most of his earlier [kings] are fabricated; some are imaginary, some are grossly misplaced in time, and some are emperors falsely made out to have been British" (31). During this time, military leaders who fought invaders rose to power (i.e. outsiders noted them as tyrannus or those holding power w/o constitutional legitimacy, de facto v. de jure). The later welsh term gwledig meant 'landholder' or 'prince.' The most famous of these was Cunedda (Kenneth, DA4, ED1), who came from near Edinburgh to rule Wales. Others were Ceredig (FB1, DA6, possibly P89, EB1) who ruled "the country around the Clyde in western Scotland" (33) and Coel (i.e. 'Hen' i.e. P84, DA1), "active in the mountainous Pennine region of north-central England. Legend was to transform him into the Old King Cole of nursery-rhyme fame and make him the father of Helena, mother of Constantine the Great" (33). A 4th was Ambrosius Aurelianus (P96, DB4?, possibly Aegidius). "Border despots like Cunedda were probably only lightly Romanized ... more like the Celtic chieftains of ancient times. Yet even Cunedda, according to his pedigree, had a father, gfather, and ggfather with Roman names [i.e. Edern, Paternus, Tacit, MBKQ p67]. Ambrosius, in the deeply civilized South, certainly belonged to the more Romanized element and helped to keep Romanitas glowing" (33). Ashe discusses Sidonius Apollinaris (in order to better understand the classical education and mindset of Ambrosius, v. br-hisc's Ausonius), "a landed aristocrat who lived in [south-central Gaul]" (34) who wrote many letters still in existence. In the midst of mounting chaos, they clung to Romanitas as long as possible. "Britain had ... begun to be rather notable for producing [religious leaders] ... [most] from the higher ranks of society ... conversion of the masses was to be a slow process [but was growing] ... Even before the break with the Empire, Britain had given Europe the heretic Pelagius ... [who] stressed freedom and moral responsibility, and denied original sin ... his social outlook was left of center" (35). Pelagius had moved to Rome by 405 and "In 418, under pressure from the Emperor Honorius [and dispute w/Augustine 354-430], the Pope ruled that Pelagianism was heresy ... In most of the Christian world, Pelagianism faded out as a doctrine, though it survived as an attitude, as it does to this day. But it took fresh hold in the heretic's native Britain ... In 429 two bishops arrived to counter the trend, Germanus of Auxerre and Lupus of Troyes" (36). Geoffrey of Monmouth says the marriage of King Vortigern to Hengist's daughter occurred at this time [giving us one of a few chrono anchors]. By Germanus' 2nd visit to Britain c446, Pelagianism's influence was much reduced.
"St. Ninian ... said to have been born near the Solway Firth, the deep inlet of the Irish Sea between England and Scotland, and to have studied in Rome in the 390s. On his way back through Gaul he met St. Martin of Tours, who had been friendly with Maximus, the British-backed Emperor proclaimed a few years before ... traditional[ly d432]. A Briton of ... greater fame was Patricius, aka St. Patrick ... b. c390, somewhere near the coast of Roman Britain ... His mission [to the Irish] lasted for nearly 30 yrs. He regarded his converts as Romans ... no political meaning ... [rather] to belong to what was still the worldwide civilization. The Church was becoming the custodian of a great deal that was durable in it" (37). Vortigern is probably the first 'over king' [literal meaning of term 'vortigern'] of all Britain, and is remembered [by the Welsh] as a traitor for allowing Saxons (Hengist, Horsa) in to help fight Picts, after which they [Saxons] turned on the Brits. His reign probably began c425 and he was pro-pelagian. The intense assault of the Saxons (blamed largely on Vortigern) leads us into the Arthurian era of stout (but tragically, ultimately unsuccessful) British resistance to it.
3: Arthur's Context
- Devastation
"The Saxons [Saxons, Angles, Jutes] did come ... ruthless pirates ... Unlike the Goths and other barbarians, they were pagan and practiced human sacrifice" (40). They spread from Germany toward Britain, mixing with Frisians along the way. "[Frisia] was a poor, damp, comfortless country, where much of the population kept above water by living on mounds of mud and refuse" (40). By 446, so many Saxons had come that "a group of prominent Britons addressed an appeal to the [Roman] general and consul Aetius ... last of the great Roman soldiers ... still a few yrs away from [his 451 Chalons] crowning victory over Attila's Huns ... [but] Aetius was in no position to help, and the Britons were abandoned to the barbarians ... The 440s seem to have brought a gradual and spreading loss of control [apparently being attacked by both Picts and Saxons] ... Britain slid into a nightmare period of revolt, raiding, and looting ... [an anguished Briton wrote] fire spread from sea to sea ... All the major towns were laid low ... inhabitants [from every class put to death, death and destruction on all sides]" (42). But the Saxons "were sacking [roving bands of marauders], not occupying ... Saxon territory was [still small compared to] the much larger British territory" (43). This continued during the 440s and 450s. Vortigern apparently died in dishonor (w/o succession), but there are references to a possible son Faustus entering the Church in Gaul and gson Riagath (Riocatus). Meanwhile, Gaul was similarly in chaos, being overrun by Goths.
- Recovery
By 460, the Britons had stabilized things and were reclaiming control. "Meanwhile, the Empire was at last truly breaking up in the West ... In 455 ... when we last hear of Vortigern, the Emperor Valentinian III [RE56 d455] was murdered ... by a Senator [Petronius Maximus] whose wife he had raped ... [who later m. Val.'s widow] Eudoxia [and named himself Emperor RE57 d455] ... She [called in] Gaiseric, the King of the Vandals ... [who sacked Rome, Senator/Emperor killed by rioters]" (45). Next emperor was Avitas (RE58 Sidonius' f-i-l, lasted months only 455-6), then Majorian (RE59 'a real loss' when deposed). "The Western emperors [at Rome] ... were increasingly at the mercy of Count Ricimer, an unscrupulous noble of barbarian parentage ... Outside of Italy disenchantment [and need for defense] was giving birth to a new development, the rise of men loyal to Romanitas but not to the Emperor. [General] Marcellinus ... [across] the Adriatic. In Gaul another general, Aegidius [his son Syagrius succeeded him], established himself at Soissons c457 [RE59 Majorian's 457-61, Aegidius ignored RE60 and 'ruled N Gaul independently' 48]. The Franks [there were] at odds with their King, Childeric ... In 461 Ricimer installed an Emperor who was blatantly a puppet [RE60 Libius Severus 461-5]" (48). The Briton version was Ambrosius Aurelius [Welsh 'Emrys'], and many Brits had by now colonized Armorica (NW Gaul). Ashe notes that Geoffrey's Ambrosius Aurelius resembles [may be one and the same?] Aegidius (Roman sympathizer whose parents 'wore the purple' [Senator?] and 'died in the devastation').
Note: DOKA (pp49-57) has several references to a Syagrius who lived in the later 5C (seems too late to be either of these, but possibly a descendent?). A Roman general named Aegidius established himself as an independent ruler of N Gaul c457. His son Syagrius succeeded him. Aegidius may be Geoffrey's model for Ambrosius Aurelius, son of parents who 'wore the purple and died in the devastation' (i.e. Roman sympathizers, possibly a Senator, 49). By 467, Aegidius has died and Syagrius "dominated the North [Gaul], at some point, interestingly, adopting the title 'King of the Romans'" (52). Possibly Syagrius received 'Arthur' on his arrival at the mouth of the Loire in France from Britain [to attack Saxons, smashing them near Angers, before being betrayed by Roman prefect Arvandus and then defeated by Euric the Visigoth c470]. Promised (by Syagrius) Roman troops who never came to help Arthur (Riotimus) would have come from Syagrius (56). Riotimus in Brittainy [Armorica], Ambrosius in Britain, Aegidius and Syagrius in N Gaul stood for Romanitas (57). The Franks had been on good relations w/Syagrius, but after Euric's victory, they turned against Syagrius "and in 486 their next king, Clovis, captured his capital, Soissons [Syagrius sought refuge w/Alaric II in Toulouse, but latter turned him back over to Clovis, who quietly had him killed]. Clovis rose to supremacy in N Gaul and drove the Visigoths back toward Spain. Gaul became the land of the Franks - eventually France [might have been a revitalized 'Rome' had Arthur succeeded]" (57).
Note: See also AMF discussion of these times in Romans (Silvanus, Arbogast, Stilicho, Alaric).
- A High King and a Birth of Nations
"By the River Clyde [far north, i.e. Scotland] the regional chief Ceredig (in Latin, Coroticus) ruled independently from a stronghold on the rock of Dumbarton ... [in the] 450s ... his warriors had crossed the [Irish] sea and fallen on an assembly of Irish ... Patrick ... wrote [two] letters of protest" (51). "This period in the 450s and 460s was the only time when [a 'King of the Britons'] could have existed, when the British High Kingship could have taken shape. And it did" (51). The next [Roman] Emperor after Ricimer's puppet was Anthemius (RE61, named 467 by Pope Leo I, 'a Greek noble of admired character and respected family' [52], Sidonius' 3rd Restitutor). In 468 Anthemius sought British help from their King Riotimus (or Riothamus, acc. to Jordanes' 551 summary of a now-lost earlier work) in opposing Visigoth King Euric in Spain (attacking Gaul). Saxon chief Odovacar [Odoacer] had since 464 been attacking Gaul. The Brits and Romans (under Syagrius, son of Aegidius) smashed the Saxons in Gaul (King Childeric saved some of them by enlisted them into his service 54). Ashe believes this King Riotimus was the English king on whom Geoffrey's Arthur was based. The imperial prefect in Gaul was Arvandus, and he wrote a (c470, treasonable) letter to Euric urging him to ignore Emperor Anthemius and attack Riotimus, promising Euric they could then share the spoils. The letter was intercepted and Arvandus recalled to Rome, convicted and banished. Euric, hearing of the letter (implying Rome would not intervene), took its advice and attacked Riotimus, routing the Brits, killing most, resettling some as slaves in Aquitaine (c470, here Riotimus vanishes from history, near French town Avalon). This was a kind of last stand for the Empire (at least for its culture and traditions; Anthemius was deposed and murdered 472, 4 yrs and 4 Emperors later, in 476 (93), "the line in the West came to an end" 57, when the last RE Romulus Augustulus was deposed by Odoacer). As it was, the Franks turned against Syagrius, their next King Clovis capturing his capital, Soissons, in 486. Clovis drove the Visigoths back into Spain and claimed Gaul for Franks (later France). In Britain, a breakup led to 7 separate kingdoms (i.e. the 'Heptarchy'). The Saxons pressed out from Kent in 473, attacking Sussex in 477, Isle of Wight in 495 (led by Cerdic), making steady gains (coming from Gaul, driven out by Franks). Alone among Rome's provinces, Britain had achieved self-rule before the barbarians moved in (59). Although Geoffrey of Monmouth's story contains myth, its also based on facts; Britain did become independent, Vortigern did reign, the Saxons did come, there was catastrophe, then resurgence (59) under the leadership of hero(s).
Part II: Arthur
4: The Old Welsh Trail
- A Mysterious Preface
Geoffrey of Monmouth dedicated his book to Robert, Earl of Gloucester, a bastard son of King Henry I. He acknowledges Gildas and Bede, also oral tradition, but especially thanks one Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, for presenting him with "a certain very ancient book written in the British language [i.e. Welsh or Breton] ... [which] At Walter's request I have taken the trouble to translate ... into Latin" (63). Gildas was a 6C British monk who angrily blamed (in his 540s The Ruin and Conquest of Britain) the brits' ruin (by Saxons) on their own moral failings (i.e. divine judgment). He's maddening to scholars, since most of his writing is sermonizing, with history taking 2nd place. He mentions the c500 Saxon-crushing battle of Badon (modern Badbury, Bath?). Bede was an 8C English scholar. Neither mention Arthur.
- 12 plus 1 Battles
Geoffrey probably thought Historia Brittonum was by Gildas (a common mistake at that time, compiled 800-20, includes various texts from various sources, including HB and Annales Cambriae [Welsh Annals], compiling now generally ascribed to Nennius [a monk of Bangor in northern Wales], it DOES contain Arthur and his exploits). There is a version of the legend of Brutus the Trojan. Nennius has the 12 battles as follows: "The first battle was at the mouth of the river ... called Glein [Glen in S Lincolnshire?]. The [2nd-5th] upon another river ... Dubglas [Douglas] ... in the district Linnuis [Lindsey in N Lincolnshire?]. The 6th ... upon the river ... Bassas. The 7th ... in the Caledonian wood [S Scotland v. Picts], that is, Cat Coit Celidon [Culloden?]. The 8th ... in Fort Guinnion ... The 9th ... in the city of the [Roman] Legion [Caerleon for Geoffrey, but Nennius meant Chester in N Wales]. The 10th ... on the shore of the river ... Tribruit. The 11th ... on the mountain ... Agned. The 12th battle was on Mount Badon [Bath?]" (69). Nennius has Arthur as dux or war leader. Nennius mentions Vortigern (dc455) and St. Patrick (dc460). "Arthur's fall in a tragic [13th] battle at Camlann or Camlan [Camelot, v. Modred/Medraut] is a recurrent theme of Welsh tradition" (73). Unclear are dates, which place Arthur across the 5-6C and whether he was a king or war leader.
Note: An important [late 200s] reform of Diocletian was separation of military and civilian commands, "each province henceforth had both a military commander [the dux, or duke] and a civil governor. The provinces themselves were reduced in size and greatly enlarged in number [from about 50 to 100]" (tAR p80). The earlier Consol Syagrius (d382) would have been a civil governor, the later 'Duke' (d486) a military commander. Related?
- In Pursuit
"Until recently, modern attempts to get at the 'historical Arthur' all depended on this Welsh matter" (73, i.e. via Gildas, Nennius, Geoffrey, but discounting latter's 'mendacity') i.e. he was a local war leader, not a king, and never left Britain. [Elizabethan drama expert] E. K. Chambers' 1927 Arthur of Britain ['a sweeping survey of Arthurian literature'] suggested a new path for research; i.e. Arthur as a "legend-hung champion of a dying [Roman] order" (74). R. G. Collingwood in 1936 (Roman Britain and the English Settlements) accepted the 13 battles and theorized that [General] Arthur organized the [more numerous] brits and introduced a primitive cavalry (i.e. early knights, which the Saxons lacked) to win them. While some scholars saw Arthur as a northerner, others argued "if [he] was a major figure, he is more likely to have arisen, like Ambrosius, in the Romanized country near the Channel than in the remote, turbulent, thinly peopled North ... [after all] Arthur is actually a Roman name, Artorius ... An Artorius can be proved in Roman Britain, Lucius Artorius Castus, who held an army command in 184. Britons were still giving their children Roman names in the 5C ... [but] not much later" (77). Probably not a Celtic hero or fairy tale invented much later, also the name Arthur was popular after late 5C [at least 4 in princely houses of Wales and Scotland], so its likely there was an original hero.
- The Inconclusive Quest
Architectural research has shown a probable 5-6C princely stronghold at Tintagel (Arthur's according to Geoffrey of Monmouth). "At South Cadbury in Somerset, within sight [12 mi] of Glastonbury Tor, is a hill fort known as Cadbury Castle ... The Camelot of romance is a medieval dream city which never existed anywhere. But Cadbury could be Camelot in a mundane sense as the far-off reality behind it, the personal citadel of the original Arthur" (80-1). The Camelot Research Committee [author was Sec'y] excavated parts of the hilltop in 1966-70, led by Leslie Alcock. This confirmed that in the late 5C "someone with great resources ... reoccupied the [formerly pre-Roman] vacant hill and renewed its defenses on a grandiose scale ... Romanitas lingered in the mind of the master planner, but he worked with men whose practicality took a" (82) more national[ist], Celtic, pre-Roman form. It so happened that the musical Camelot was filmed during the excavations and consulted with the Committee, featuring a map of the site in one scene. But in 1977, criticism by David Dumville cooled the case for a real Arthur.
5: New Discoveries
- Lateral Thinking
"Early in 1980, BBC TV ran a series of programs on the archaeology of Britain during the early Christian era. The presenter was Michael Wood. His style was ebullient, with special effects such as swords flying through the air" (86). Wood basically denied a historical Arthur, and Ashe disagrees ('why the legend?') but thanks him for prompting his own reappraisal leading to "a fresh conception which I believe, in principle, is the answer" (87, i.e. presented in this book). He concludes that Geoffrey's Roman element is something genuinely new (and probably based on reality) added to the earlier [and more legendary] Celtic stories. A parallel figure is the Gothic King, Theodoric, who "conquered Italy after the Western Empire ended, and controlled it from 493 to 526" (88). Ashe noticed that Geoffrey tells Arthur's story twice, first in Merlin's prophecy (near the end of Vortigern's reign), then later in sequence. Significantly, the 2nd telling doesn't quite match the first, notably including Arthur's Camlann defeat. For Geoffrey, Arthur is primarily (by text bulk) a Gallic conqueror, and Geoffrey says 'so the story goes' to "persuade his readers that he has got the Gallic business from somewhere, not made it up" (91). The later romance writers also place Arthur in Gaul, including "the first of the great romancers, Chretien de Troyes ... [and] the chief German poet of the Grail, Wolfram von Eschenbach" (91). They deemphasize 'the Saxon-quelling battles in Britain ... [in favor of Arthur's] warfare in Gaul ... In the classic English version by Malory it [Gaul matter] divides into 2 wars, one against Rome, and the other, long after, against a rebellious Lancelot" (91).
- Closing In
Arthur's "grandfather Constantine [II P92 son of Constantine the Great] reigns after Maximus [General who killed (western) RE Gratian and seized power 383, but was overthrown and killed by (eastern) RE Valentinian 388, see Romans.html, link below] but not very long after. Constantine's reign ends prematurely and Vortigern soon takes over. When the bishops visit Britain in 429 Vortigern has been King for some time. Meanwhile, Constantine [II]'s sons, Aurelius Ambrosius and Uther, are growing up. The former ousts Vortigern. His own reign is brief and is probably meant to lie within the 430s. His brother Uther succeeds him and Arthur is born shortly after, coming to the throne at the age of 15 ... last[ing] about 25 yrs. He cannot be much past 40 when he departs for Avalon" (92). Geoffrey's background is "after the death of Valentinian III in 455. Roman Gaul was breaking up but not quite defunct ... [so] the Gallic campaigning must lie between 455 and 476" (93). Geoffrey 3 times mentions "Emperor Leo," which can only be Leo I, "who reigned at Constantinople from 457 to 474" (93). Geoffrey's "Pope Sulpicius" is probably Pope Simplicius, who reigned 468-83, overlapping w/Leo 6 yrs 468-74. The 3 Leo mentions are: 1) Gaul being under the jurisdiction of Tribune Frollo, ruling in the name of Emperor Leo, 2) a (general?) Lucius Hiberius pondering whether to engage Arthur or wait for reinforcements from Leo, and 3) on hearing of Modred's treason, Arthur cancelling his planned attack on Leo (93). Lucius may possibly be a reference to Glycerius, aka Lucerius, RE63 r473-4? So it seems clear that these events occurred, if at all, in the latter 5C.
- Face to Face
Ashe had nearly arrived at Riothamus as Arthur in his 1960 book From Caesar to Arthur, but had backed away. He now realizes "that the search for Arthur via the Welsh items [was] misconceived" (96). Geoffrey's 'Cheldric' ("Saxon overlord w/whom Modred makes his treacherous treaty") could easily be the Merovingian Frankish king Childeric, "whose pact with the Saxons preserved their remnants in the Loire Valley" (96). The British form of Riothamus is Rigotamos, meaning 'king-most,' so perhaps it was a title for Artorius, or Arthur? Two difficulties: 1) "For Geoffrey's Arthur the Romans were opponents. For Riothamus they were allies, however unreliable and, in the end, absent." But changes of this type in heroic literature are common. 2) Geoffrey's date of 542 for Arthur's end, but "before AD dating became standard, there was an older Christian method which began from another starting point, and differed by 28 yrs [i.e. 470 to 442] ... [Geoffrey then] 'corrected' 442 to 542 [to fit his assumed time frame]" (99). Interestingly, an author named Sharon Turner had long before suggested that Arthur = Riothamus in his 1799 History of the Anglo-Saxons! Riothamus is certainly real, attested by, among other things, a letter to him from Sidonius (see hisc and HoF for Sidonius, also Jordanes' Gothic History for Riothamus).
Interestingly, Mike Ashley in MBKQ says: "It seems that [Arthur] was the latest in a series of British defenders who had been fighting against the Saxons and other invaders (notably the Irish and the Picts) since the fall of Roman authority in Britain in the year 410. The principal of these was Ambrosius Aurelianus who preceded Arthur, but who arguably may be the real Arthur. One wave of retreating British fled to Brittany in Gaul under their leader, who went under the title Riothamus but who was probably Cynan" (112, but which Cynan?). A later note for [DC4] Cynan (I) [Dumnonia fl420s, son or descendent of Eudaf Hen, gfather of Coel Hen's wife Ystradwal, see p67] says "He was probably part of the Cornovian migration that moved from mid-central Wales into Devon and Cornwall during the early and mid 5C. His descendents remained in that area, though some migrated further into Brittany in NW France, led by another Cynan known as Meriadoc, who may have been his son or gson. It is interesting that another Cynan, known to Gildas as Aurelius Caninus ruled N Dumnonia [i.e. Devon, Cornwall peninsula], somewhere on the route that Cynan must have taken, and it is possible that he was also a descendent" (115). I think one of these Cynans is aka "Conan 'the barbarian'" (hmmm, look into that movie/story).
- Arthur the Immortal
Welsh legend turned Arthur into a never-dying messiah figure who would someday return to defeat "English and Norman and all other non-Celtic overlords" (100). "The belief that a famous person is not truly dead is a recurring one. As a rule, the person is an impressive figure who raises hopes, then passes from the world amid disaster and unfulfilled promise. Modern instances are the Irish patriot Parnell, the Mexican peasant leader Zapata, even President Kennedy ... [or negatively] Nero and Hitler ... German Emperor Frederick ... Sebastian, King of Portugal [who] in 1578, at age 24, led a [doomed] army against the Moors" (101).
- Arthur in Brittany
Ashe looks at another historical book called Legend of St. Goeznovius (a Breton saint), written in 1019 by a man called William. Though much criticized as based on Geoffrey and ignorable, Ashe and Fleuriot have shown that both works draw on an earlier tradition and confirm many details (8 listed p105) of Ashe's thesis. William is also more matter of fact, less fantastical.
- Arthur in Chronicles
Several others in history have grappled with Geoffrey's implausible 542 date. Those who look into it agree that late 5C makes more sense. Jacques d Guise of the late 14C even wrote of Arthur as being of the time of the Goths, Huns and Vandals ['the Huns began to fade out as troublers of W Europe a yr or so after Attila's death in 453] and "having been King during the rule of General Aegidius in N Gaul, i.e. in the yrs 461-4" (109). A chronicle by Philippe de Vigneulles, compiled 1525, says: "Childerich, son of Meroveus, held the kingdom and began to reign in 470 [actually 456]. But according to Gauguin, he had not been reigning long when, by his libidinous conduct, he aroused the indignation and hatred of most of his princes and nobles; and he fled to Bassine [Basina, later m. her, son Clovis], a friend of his, the wife of the king of Thuringia. In his place was chosen Gillon the Roman [Aegidius], who was then established at Soissons. And this Gillon, they say, had many dealings with King Arthur of England. But after awhile the aforesaid Childerich, by the advice and aid of his friend Guinemault, who was one of the chief men of his realm, returned home and was restored to his realm and lordship" (109, interesting Merovingian tie-in, see link below). Gillon's son is Syagrius, showing that Gillon is Aegidius. So Aegidius had dealings with Arthur. These chronicles confirm Arthur reigned c454-70, contemporary w/Aegidius (461-4), Pope Leo (d461), Pope Hilarius (461-8), Emperor Leo I (469-70).
6: The Wellsprings of Romance
- On Home Ground
Riothamus is mentioned in Gaul, but not (by that name) in Britain (e.g. in Gildas, Bede, Nennius, or the Welch Annals). As a double-check, Ashe considers whether 'Riothamus' could refer to the other candidates; Vortigern, Vortimer, Ceredig [Coroticus], Uther, or (chief claimant) Ambrosius Aurelianus. Probably "Ambrosius was a general responsible to a High King" (114). It appears that Cadbury-Camelot was "the capital or residence of a King [i.e. Arthur]" (115).
- Once More the War Leader [i.e. Dux Belorum]
Maybe Arthur [Roman Artorius] wasn't his real name. Perhaps a nickname (e.g. 2 REs Caligula and Caracalla went down in history under nicknames). Its possibly '2nd Artorius,' i.e. a reference to the 1rst; Lucius Artorius Castus (mentioned earlier). Ashe fancies that perhaps a brit poet "read Sidonius's effusions and composed one in honor of his own leader" (116). Arthur could well have fought at least 7 of the 12 battles mentioned. 4 battle sites have defied identification, perhaps one or more were on the Continent. 'Agned' is possibly Angers, where the Loire Saxons were beaten. The last battles of Badon [Bath], then Camlann are more problematic, since both occurred after 470, when Arthur vanished (into Avalon in Burgundy). Its at least possible he survived to fight in these later battles. More likely, his famous name was later used in place of lesser known commanders who actually won those later battles. The Welch had a 2nd resurgence c500, so perhaps borrowed Arthur's name from the 1rst in their stories (seeing him as making the 2nd possible). A similar thing has happened w/St. Patrick, who would have to have lived to be 120 yrs old to fit all the stories. It could also be purposely conflating Arthur, whom they saw as their founder, with the later exploits of 'his' people. It could also be references to 'Arthur's men' [i.e. brave like him] long after his departure. It was common in those late-Roman days to refer to soldiers by their leaders' name; e.g. Honoraci, Theodosiani, Ambrosi, perhaps Artoriani? Ashe speculates that Arthur's remnant of men quarreled, eliminating them as a force, eventually the few left fighting to the death beside the River Cam (123).
- The King
Riothamus "is not a rival to a Welsh Arthur; he is an authentic figure in history with the Welsh Arthur as a bard-projected aspect ... When bards took up the folk memories [more than 100 yrs later, in 6C], they cast him in the mold of a society which, by then, was half barbarized itself. The fullness of the original was beyond their ken ... altering him as those German minstrels altered the great Theodoric. But the real Arthur-Riothamus grew up in a Britain where Roman culture survived ... He was the High King in whose reign Britain was, for a while, retrieved from disaster. He was the Briton to whom an Emperor [which? Val III d455, then the minors in the W, Marcian 450-7, Leo I 457-75 in the E] turned as Rome's last hope in the West" (124). An almost-Restitutor.
Part III: The Unfolding Myth
7: Saints, Bards, Heroes
- New Ways, New Lives
"By defining the context, we can begin to cross the gulf between the 5C and 12C, and trace legend-making on its way to the medieval explosion" (130). Procopius, a court official at Constantinople, writes of 3 populous nations vying for Britain; the Anglii, the Frisians and the Britons. By Frisians, he means "the original Saxons and their comrades the Jutes, named from their pre-British homeland in Holland" (130). In the face of invasion, "this breathing space was a legacy of the 'Arthur' phase, and it helped a whole network of British kingdoms to stabilize and survive. They included Dumnonia, or Dyfneint, in the SW; Gwent, Dyfed, Powys, and Gwynedd in Wales; Elmet in the Pennines; Rheged in Cumbria; Clyde, or Strathclyde, an enlargement of Ceredig's domain, in the far North; and beside it, Manau Guotodin [Goddoddin] around Edinburgh. Some of the rulers claimed power on the grounds of their descent, real or alleged, from officeholders in the imperial twilight" (131). Names include Constantine, King of Dumnonia, and Maelgwin, King of Gwynedd (preserved more Romanitas than most). This increased security encouraged strengthening of the Church (St. Illtud, whose students included Gildas, Maelgwn, St. Samson, had "the missionary impulse given to British Christianity by Ninian and Patrick ... their Irish pupils eventually outdid them" 132). Celtic Christianity was vital to "the making of legends, including Arthur's" (132). "The tide began to flow in [Saxon] favor in the 540s when an epidemic known as the Yellow Plague [see Justinian's Flea *] spread from the Continent with imported goods. It reached the British part of the island, but not the Saxon part" (133). Maelgwn was the chief victim. Saxon kingdoms lacked coordination (Ceawlin of Wessex, Aethelbert of Kent, Raedwald of E Anglia). By late 6C, Wessex broke out and by 7C Saxons had prevailed, but by then they had been largely Christianized, with "far less of their former heathen destructiveness" (134). They produced "Bede, the great scholar ...; Caedmon, the first English poet; Boniface, missionary to the Germans; Alcuin, the foremost political thinker of his day ... The first clear partnership of Saxons and Britons ... occurred at Glastonbury. When the W Saxons arrive, in about 658, their King Cenwalh was a convert ... [and] treated [Glastonbury] w/respect" (134). So the Arthurian reprieve allowed foreign conquest to be slowed, changing them in the process and easing the transition, averting total ruin.
- Saga-making
During the 6C, the lands of the Britons ceased "to be a single identity ... [dividing into] Welsh, Cornish, and Breton [areas and languages]" (135-6). The terms 'Cymry' and 'Cymric' later came to used to mean 'fellow [Briton] countrymen.' "The Cymric kingdoms had no towns of any importance, and, so far as is known, no coinage. Most of the people subsisted on the land" (136). Gildas angrily denounced their tendency toward costly intramural clashes (weakening them vis a vis the Saxons and others). "The first major school [of bards] was in Rheged ... included 2 poets of lasting fame, Taliesin and Aneirin" (136). "Through the bards' poetry, their oral storytelling and popularization, the Arthur of the Welsh took shape" (137). "The earliest long poetic work has the earliest mention of Arthur by that name ... [were written about] a prince of Manau Guotodin who [c598] assembled a force from various parts of Britain ... [and] attacked the Angles at Catraeth ... now Catterick in Yorkshire. The Britons, outnumbered, fought bravely and nearly all were killed ... The bard Aneirin was present and composed a series of laments for the fallen which were gathered together under the title Gododdin" (137). "After Aneirin the poems with Arthur in them are mostly anonymous, or ascribed wrongly to Taliesin" (138). "Besides Welsh poetry there was Welsh storytelling ... [often] a fusion of 2 periods, the 1rst vaguely before the Roman conquest, the 2nd running from the late 4C to the 7C ... The 2nd came to be dominated by Arthur ... the collection known as the Mabinogion includes several early ones. Also we have a tantalizing body of 'triads' - plot summaries grouped in threes [for easy bardic recall]" (140). Some of Arthur's cohorts in the stories may also have represented real people: Cai (Roman Caius), Bedwyr or Bedevere, Medraut or Modred, Gwalchmai or Gawain, his wife Gwenhwyvaer, meaning 'white phantom' or Guinevere (141). "As early as the 9C, Cornish matter was becoming intertwined with Welsh ... a memorial stone ... can still be seen near the little port of Fowey [in Cornwall], and is the only known object from more or less Arthurian times with the name of one of the characters on it. The inscription reads ... 'Drustanus [i.e. Tristan] lies here, the son of Cunomorus' ... The father is on record as having ruled in Cornwall, and Castle Dore, where Radford discovered foundations of early buildings, is not far off. Storytellers asserted ... that Cunomorus was the same person as a King called Mark - i.e. Marcus - ... This was the genesis of the love-triangle legend of Tristan, Iseult, and her husband Mark" (141-2). Storytelling "developments of the same sort were under way in Brittany" (143) which would later flow into Arthurian literature.
- Arthur and the Saints
Unlike the bards, the Welsh churchmen [writing at the monastery of Llancarfan in S Wales, founded by St. Cadoc] treat Arthur "in a spirit which is at best unsympathetic and sometimes hostile" (143). They were interested mainly in writing hagiographies of their saints, which often featured "a proud layman [being] taught a lesson by the saint ... Arthur figures as the layman in several such" (143). Only much later [9C] did Nennius imply Arthur's "fidelity to the Church ... [as] he carries Christian emblems and wins battles by celestial aid" (143). Arthur also appears in the Llancarfan biographies of St. Cadoc, St. Illtud, St. Carannog, St. Padarn, St. Gildas [portrayed as 'rapacious' in 3 of them (146)]. The life of Gildas was written by a monk named Caradoc shortly before Geoffrey's History. It includes "the first known version of a story that passes into romance [i.e. the rescue of Guinevere, held hostage at Glastonbury by King Melwas of Somerset, by Lancelot] ... also the first certain connection of Arthur with Glastonbury" (145).
- Arthur on the Map
Ashe discusses a few sites in England connected with Arthurian legends. 2 are mentioned by 9C Nennius (Builth Wells, Ercing), 2 more in 1113 by the cleric Hermann of Tournai (Dartmoor). "Since 1113 the process has gone enormously further. Arthur's name and fame are perpetuated at well over 100 spots ... Some are products of medieval or modern fancy, prompted by romance [or tourist dollars], yet many look like outgrowths from a senior body of tradition" (148).
- Arthur Among the Gods
As mentioned, "the tolerance of Celtic Christians toward the old [pagan] religion enabled bits of its mythology to survive in their legends" (149). Examples: Beli, Bran, Nodons [Nudd, Lludd 'of the silver hand' and dau Creiddylad, "seen as prototypes of Shakespeare's Lear and Cordelia ... [and bro of] chieftain Cassivellaunus, who led Brit resistance against Julius Caesar" 149]. In contrast, Arthur or Artorius has no godlike past in these pagan myths and "cannot be deprived of his human and historical origin" (150). Ashe discusses the legend of Arthur's immortality and eventual return, perhaps connected with legends about Bran's head [Bran means 'raven'] and Plutarch's description of the Brits' early belief (82 AD, interestingly correlated to a Roman belief which Virgil described as a return of their god Saturn). Also related is Cervantes' mention of Brit belief that Arthur turned into a raven (153). Ashe then retells some local legends related to Arthur's resting place[s] in caves and related legends, some involving other European heroes (e.g. German Emperor Frederick). A 10C cryptic Welsh poem The Spoils of Annwn describes a raid by Arthur's band "in quest of a magic caldron ... a forerunner of the Grail stories. Its imagery is pre-Christian. Annwn is a region of water-crossings and islands and eerie fortresses" (156). "The Roman geographer Pomponius Mela, writing a little before Plutarch, tells of 9 priestesses on the Ile de Sein off the coast of Brittany. They cured the sick and were reputed to possess magical powers" (156, hmmm, similar to Geoffrey's Morgan, lady of Avalon).
Picture captions explain that the young widow of Henry V fell in love with Owen Tudor at Leeds Castle (pictured), Tudor a Welsh prince who claimed Arthurian descent. Their gson was the future Henry VII, who named his eldest son Arthur.
- Fantasies
"Stories like Plutarch's and Pomponius's have inspired theories of a more fundamental kind. Ancient, even non-Celtic myth has been detected ... attaching itself to Arthur's name, surfacing in Welsh legend and medieval romance ... [4 theories]" (157). He thinks they're interesting but most claim exclusive truth, preferring "the effect of pondering several together ... a feeling that the legend is richer, more complex, than any one theorist has allowed. A reading of the romances amply confirms that view. But even before the romances the same impression is given by the single Welsh story of Arthur that survives in its entirety from the period before Geoffrey, 'Culhwch [pronounced 'Kilhoook] and Olwen'" (159-60, 3+ page discussion of it).
8: Majesty
- Arthur Rediscovered
"As a country united under one sovereign, England grew from the early kingdom of Wessex, the realm of the West Saxons. The Wessex dynasty's founder was Cerdic, who dominated a few Saxon settlements near the Hampshire coast" (164). Alfred the Great and his son Athelstan further consolidated the realm, by then properly called 'England.' Wm the Conqueror's 1066 invasion brought 3 centuries of "French-speaking nobility and kings with Continental domains" (164) to England, during which time many Bretons returned to their ancestral island, bringing their tales of Arthur with them, comparing notes with the Cornish and Welsh, leading to his rediscovery. The Saxons hadn't been interested, considering Arthur an enemy. Several scholars mention Arthur, including Wm of Malmesbury (1125), Caradoc of Llancarfan, Henry of Huntingdon [hmmm, genealogical tie-in] and, of course, Geoffrey of Monmouth (165-6). Geoffrey "wanted to give the Welsh and Bretons a glorious past ... to flatter the ruling Normans (or some of them) by making them inheritors of a splendid kingdom, with historic claims beyond England ... Generally he kept clear of the mythical and fairy-tale themes. Some of these were to find their way into [later] romance all the same, notably the quest for [the holy grail] ... Geoffrey supplied the framework for romance rather than the main impulse ... The Round Table [was] first mentioned by his French adapter, Wace [of course, egalitarian!]" (166). "During the 12C, tales of Arthur and his people were spreading everywhere ... Much was due to minstrels and storytellers from Brittany ... Another source was Ireland ... Thus began what came to be called the Matter of Britain. Medieval storytellers recognized this as one of 3 main bodies of material, the others being the Matter of Rome and the Matter of France" (167-8, interesting, these also show up as genealogical 'trunks' in my ahnen-s files). "The Matter of Rome meant classical legend and history, Greek as well as Roman - the siege of Troy, the wanderings of Aeneas, the founding and fortunes of Rome itself. The Matter of France meant the deeds of Charlemagne and his peers, headed by Roland, and their wars against the Saracens c800. The Matter of Britain meant chiefly Arthur with all he implied. It was a complicated and powerful mixture, growing from the Celtic rediscovery, the flowing-back of traditions after a long effacement, their diffusion through Christendom ... combined with current interests - chivalry, love, religion" (168). Geoffrey offered Englishmen a competing body of noble founding myths to those of Rome and France. The Arthurian stories, like their competitors, were spread throughout the known world. After Geoffrey and Wace, most early romance was in French, later adapted to English, German, then to Italy, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Scandanavia, each making contributions.
- Growth of a Mystique
"Royal sponsorship had its place in all this. Wace presented a copy of his [Geoffrey-based] poem to Eleanor of Aquitaine, wife to Louis VII of France and then Henry II of England, founder of the line of kings known as Angevins [i.e. Dukes of Anjou] ... A more active patron was Eleanor's dau by her 1rst marriage, the Countess Marie de Champagne. Under her aegis and direction the poet Chretien de Troyes wrote a series of verse romances ... Why the royal interest? One motive was political ... Henry's monarchy had a parvenu [i.e. lacking historical substance] air. The French king had a mystique ... the heir of Charlemagne ... whom the Matter of France commemorated ... In 1187 the name Arthur was given to Henry's gson ... [but] His uncle King John prevented [his accession], and most of the Continental empire was lost. Yet the Matter of Britain continued to weave its spell. It was richer in content than the Matter of France ... The Crusades had opened up contact with the affluent and civilized East ... A rebirth of philosophic debate, and also of heresy, was giving religion new dimensions" (169-71). Arthur morphs away from mere war leader to chairman of the noble Camelot 'enterprise.' "On the whole, Arthurian romance was an upper-class taste. The ballads of Robin Hood and his Merry Men were to some extent a retort, from lower down the social scale ... [a major theme is the cult of] Courtly love ... worked out ... at 'courts of love' presided over by Eleanor of Aquitaine. Its stress on the extramarital ... Lancelot-Guinevere ... Tristan-Iseult ... In both it is the woman who is unfaithful to a spouse [hmmm, reflecting a dream of female liberation?]" (172). Some scholars see hints of free, equal Celtic queens, incomprehensible to 12C Englishmen. The Holy Grail stories of Robert de Boron, Wolfram von Eschenbach and others mix in pre-Christian elements. "Through all the main versions runs a strange, esoteric Christianity, drawing pagan imagery into a kind of initiation" (173). "The Grail made its entry into romance ... before anyone explained what it was" (173, Boron suggested the Last Supper chalice, Dan Brown the womb of Mary Magdalene). "Joseph [of Arimathea] does not appear in the abbey's earliest accounts of itself ... the author [of Perlesvaus originated that, claiming] to have learned 'the whole story' at Glastonbury Abbey ... [but] It is far from clear who thought of him first, or why" (174, i.e. who told the author of Perlesvaus?). "In 1191 the monks [of Glastonbury] announced that they had found his grave [there] ... a Welsh or Breton bard had divulged the long-kept secret to Henry II ... 7 ft down [was] a stone slab, with a cross of lead underneath ... [latin inscription] 'Here lies buried the renowned King Arthur in the Isle of Avalon'" (175). Is it real or a hoax (a 'publicity stunt' by Henry II)? "The problem is complex and has certainly not been cleared up" (176). Later years saw Christians growing more suspect of the pagan and magic elements in the Matter of Britain. "Writers tended to drift on to the safer ground of allegory" (177).
- The Royal Theme
"With the dubious elements expunged or revised, it was all the easier for monarchs to take the Matter of Britain seriously and exploit it for their own prestige" (178). Edward I and III both showed interest. "Though Joseph [of Arimathea] remained elusive, the abbey produced a pedigree showing that Arthur was descended from him, thereby linking the monarchy with Christ" (178, i.e. the one shown in br-glas). "All too probably Geoffrey's account of the Arthurian empire encouraged [Edward III] to try conquering France. The project unleashed the Hundred Years' War and came near success. The English kings' French domains did not expire finally till 1453. By then England was a well defined nation-state, with a ... population that blended Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Norman strains ... bishops ... vied for precedence, and the English claimed it on the ground that ... Joseph of Arimathea ... had got to Glastonbury before any Christians got to France or Spain. The Matter of Britain was generally less creative after the 13C. However, the finest of the poems composed in English, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, belongs to the 14C" (178-9). The original author is unknown, though Sir Thomas Malory had finalized the "standard English form of the Arthurian legend ... [by] about 1469" (180, published by pioneer Wm Caxton in 1485). His new "serious intent [was to] point a sad contrast between the Arthurian golden age and the reality of England in the Wars of the Roses, with rival kings scheming and fighting" (180). "Caxton's timing was excellent [or maybe caused]. In the same year [1485] the theme sprang to life again in a new monarchical myth. Henry Tudor defeated Richard III and became Henry VII. He was fractionally Welsh, claiming descent from Cadwallader, a much revered King of Gwynedd whom Geoffrey makes out to have been the last sovereign in the British line ... Tudor propagandists presented him not only as the healer of the long civil strife but, through his ancestry, as the restorer of a true 'British' monarchy rooted in the Arthurian past. In effect he was fulfilling the dream of the Return [faded w/Arthur II's early death] ... revived under Elizabeth I [via Edmund Spenser's] vast allegorical poem The Faerie Queene ... That was the climax. Afterward the myth became entangled with politics in a narrower sense and the Stuart kings' notions of their divine right. Their opponents replied by exploding Geoffrey as a historian ... ceased to inspire major authors, and in the 18C it virtually faded out" (181). "It came back with the poets of the Romantic movement. Blake, Wordsworth, and Scott rediscovered it, and a series of Victorians followed - Matthew Arnold, William Morris, Swinburne, and above all Tennyson in his Idylls of the King [see br-pier] ... [This time it was] allegory rather than history [but predictably] acquired, yet again, a contemporary royalist quality ... The Idylls are about a spiritually inspired monarchy, embodying the highest in human nature, triumphant over the baser promptings. Arthur as Restitutor in Britain, where he masters the barbarians ... symbolizes the human soul in its noblest aspiration ... Guinevere's infidelity ... becomes a fatal example, and at the end everything falls apart in cynicism and despair. All is lost, yet with no implication that the experiment was misguided to start with. Spiritually inspired monarchy is still an ideal worth cherishing" (182). Tennyson "happened to be writing during England's last serious upsurge of republican feeling, caused by Victoria's neglect of her duties in mourning for Albert. The [republican] movement foundered in 1872, smashed by public rejoicings when the Prince of Wales recovered from typhoid ... Everything was now ready for the Crown to renew its glamor, and, through the poet laureate [Tennyson], Arthur played his part" (183).
9: The Modern Quest
- The New Matter of Britain
"Arthur's changing fame in our own time dates from 1927 ... the year of E K Chambers's book Arthur in Britain, which started the academic pursuit of the 'historical Arthur' ... Those who followed Chambers in their various ways - Collingwood, Jackson, Alcock, Morris, and others - showed that the realities, if any, did lie in the post-Roman Britain where Geoffrey put them" (184). A common complaint is what "might be called the literary objection ... 'Looking for historical facts behind [the inspiring stories] is a mistake ... sterile, irrelevant ... spoils [them] by contrast with a smaller and meaner reality.' In the words of T H White, author of The Once and Future King and last of the 100% conservatives, Arthur was not 'a distressed Briton hopping about in a suit of woad in the 5C'" (184-5). Another conservative was John Steinbeck. "A new Matter of Britain has taken shape ... In 1938 and 1944 Charles Williams published Taliessin through Logres and The Region of the Summer Stars ... R C Sheriff's 1955 play The Long Sunset ... John Arden's 1972 dramatic essay The Island of the Mighty ... [portrayed] Arthur standing for order in the old imperial sense, and succumbing to resurgent Celticism and tribalism" (185). More recent novelists are Rosemary Sutcliff, Mary Stewart, Marion [Zimmer?] Bradley [The Mists of Avalon, a feminine and pagan version].
- Possibilities
Arthur as Riothamus isn't the whole solution, but it transforms the debate (187). "The man called Riothamus undoubtedly did exist. The question is whether the legend originated from him, whether he was the 'real Arthur' (so far as anyone was), whatever later heroes may have been incorporated into the figure of the King" (187). A key is that Arthur's presence in Gaul is not pure fantasy, as had been assumed. Ashe suggests paths for further study. "The British High Kingship ... was a short-lived institution, lasting only from about 425 to 470. During that time the Britons had 2 confirmed high kings, Vortigern and Arthur-Riothamus, plus maybe one pretender, Vortimer. Still, they were ruled for awhile somewhat as the Irish were, and the High Kingship in Ireland, which is far better recorded, might shed an indirect light on its British [but fellow Celtic] counterpart" (188). More than just continued "digging at 'Arthurian' sites" (189).
- The Golden Age
"Why the spell? Why the rebirth, 4 or 5 times throughout the centuries?" (189). What does the Arthurian legend offer that "is not offered by other novelists" (189, i.e. other topics). Ashe defines the 'spell' as "the long-lost glory or promise which is not truly lost" (190). "Arthur's kingdom embodies the notion of a far-away golden age. That does not imply an impossible [utopian] prosperity and contentment. It does imply a time when individuals who deserved admiration were at the center of things; a time of greatness ... of hope [i.e. the reign of right, of Truth, Beauty, Justice, Nobility, Goodness, ...]" (190). Even the few iconoclastic [i.e. debunking] authors "acknowledge the magnificent image by trying to break it" (191). So the 1rst key element is the hauntingly beautiful ideal community, society, civilization. The 2nd is its inexorable doom. The 3rd is the eternal hope for revival, the 'Once AND FUTURE King' (very interestingly parallelling the 3-fold biblical message of perfect Creation, Fall, Redemption, hmmm, kind of a secularized gospel?). "Through insight or accident [i.e. he was 'not very engaging' 190], Henry [VII] touched a deep chord in human nature. He exploited a British myth to harness a universal impulse ... [that] a long-lost glory or promise can be reinstated for a fresh start, with intervening corruption swept away. There can be a return" (191, Ashe further details this theme in his book Camelot and the Vision of Albion). "We can see the impulse at work in the 16C Christian reformers, who professed to be restoring the lost purity of the Church as the apostles knew it; in the 18C French revolutionaries, who proposed to bring back the natural goodness of humanity by destroying the institutions which had corrupted it; in the 20C Indian activists led by Gandhi, who roused the masses with talk of a buried India of sages and village communes and cottage industry, and preached self-rule through its rebirth in a village resurrection. These historic movements, and others [see br-crm], show apocalyptic energies being unleashed by a mode of thinking which the Return of Arthur symbolizes. This is not the place to discuss why such visions have the power to stir human hearts, or whether the leaders of the movements were right or deluded. The facts are the facts" (191-2). Ashe wonders if the myth could be misused by nefarious forces (fascism, elitism), but is comforted that "no conceivable movement or govt could entrap it in a program ... a comment on the limitations of movements and govts. The undying King is a strangely powerful reminder that there is Something Else. By nurturing that awareness, and a questing spirit, his fame may have its effect on human thinking. It may influence history again, outside movements and govts; and not only in Britain" (193).
- Appendix: The Blood Royal: A Fancy
Ashe cites eminent genealogist Sir Iain Moncreiffe's book Royal Highness which discusses "the [current] royal family's Welch line of ancestry, which goes back through the Tudors to King Maelgwn of Gwynedd and through him to Cunedda, overlord of Wales in the early 5C" (195). A curious gap in tradition is that Geoffrey's "Arthur has neither son nor daughter. His cousin Constantine succeeds him. Sons are mentioned in other places, but bafflingly. Llacheu ... Amr ... Modred ... It is strange to find a King with an amply described family and several male offspring, yet none with whom the question of inheritance is so much as raised. Was his heir a senior son whose memory the Welsh chose to suppress?" (196). The author shows some evidence for the following descent:
Following are some pics from the book:
Barletta Colossus. The best representation of a late Roman Emperor in the pose
of Restitutor Orbis is of Marcian. He ruled in Constantinople in the early part
of the reign indicated [c454-70] for Riothamus. Credit: Hirmer Verlag Munich
Hmmm, NG VHotW p132 (FHL) shows him as Valentinian I r364-75
Hmmm, JJN's Byzantium p252h as Theodosius the Great [r379-95] or Valentinian I
("a late 4C bronze statue outside the Church of San Sepolcro, Barletta, Italy?).
- Roman Britain
- Post-Roman British Independence
Geoffrey of Monmouth shows rulers Constantine III, Constans, Vortigern (name means "overking", called "bad" by Geoffrey of Monmouth, m. 429 dau of Saxon chief Hengist 36, when Saxon brothers and chiefs Hengist and Horsa come to Britain, they name their gods Woden, Freya, ... Vortigern is disappointed but still enlists their help, m. earlier a dau of Maximus, first acknoweledged high king of Brits, reigned c. 425-?, still living 455, pro-Pelagian, in 5C blamed for Saxon (and Angles, Jutes) invasion (446 citizen appeal to general Aetius, last of the great Roman soldiers, still fighting for Valentinian III (murdered 455), a few yrs yet before his defeat of Attila's Huns, looting raids continued into the 450s), to which Arthur responds as British hero, Vortigern's son Faustus b. 405-10, grandson Riagath or Riocatus), Aurelius Ambrosius (son of Constantine, in 460s fighting successfully to contain Saxon barbarians 50), Uther (son of Constantine), Arthur (mythical? his earlier 'British kings' are imaginary, misplaced in time, or Romans mistakenly said to be British, says Ashe p. 31, b. c. 430s, enthroned c. age 15, reigns 25 yrs, early 40s when he "departs for Avalon" 92, all guesses). No doubt many leaders were simply warlords or military bosses who gained notoriety and power by fighting barbarian invaders. Ashe discusses Cunedda or Kenneth, Ceredig (Coroticus), Coel (mythical Old King Cole, father of Helena, mother of Constantine), Ambrosius Aurelianus. Geoffrey's Aurelius Ambrosius, Arthur's uncle, is based on him. One gentleman (Roman prefect, bishop of Clermont, saint) named Sidonius Apollinaris, living at Auvergne, is well-known due to his many contacts and writings. The heretic (so ruled 418) Pelagius had come from Britain (Ashe: "his social outlook was left of center" 35). By 446 Britain was solidly Catholic. St. Ninnian, British missionary to country folk, studied in Rome 390s, d. 432. St. Patrick, b. c. 390.
DoKA p? (MBKQ p? says Helena probably not Coel's dau) explains:
Here's Constantine's descent acc. to Michael Grant's Constantine the Great (Scribner, 1993, 267pp, FHL), p231:
Other books by Geoffrey Ashe:
- From Caesar to Arthur 1960
- A Guidebook to Arthurian Britain
- Avalonian Quest
- The Quest for Arthur's Britain
- Camelot and the Vision of Albion
Here's a BIG theme, and one of my reasons for being interested in late-antiquity, early medieval period, esp. Rome/Britain; a then AND current and ongoing struggle is between Anglo-Saxon way (conservative, liberty-based, US, Britain, might even say Welsh-Celt v. Saxon, then later Anglo-Saxon v. Norman) v. Roman (EU, leftist) top-down, centralized, authoritarian, imperialist way. As DOKA clarifies, this is a big subtext of Arthurian romance mystique, romanitas v. barbarism, glorious just empire v. chaotic tribes, etc. This is also in br-oei, AMF (notes in Roman), "To the French, the Merovingian period has too often been seen as the first time (of many) when crude and faithless Germanic hordes would invade and occupy Gaul, plunging this civilized and urbane world into 3 centuries of darkness. For some German scholars of the past, the Merovingians represented the triumph of new and vigorous peoples over the decadent successors of Rome" ix "To many modern French, who identify w/the Roman cultural tradition as opposed to Germanic conquest and occupation, the Gallo-Roman aristocracy of the Merovingian period were a disappointing lot [they adopted Roman culture but resisted Roman imperial interference]" 227 (Before France and Germany BFG, Patrick Geary pp ix, 227, French/German conflict), Western Civ (Athens, Jerusalem, Germany, ?) v. rest. This conflict is very much with us today and part of the Culture Wars w/in America and the West (the Left sides w/Rome, glorious centralization, rule by elites, they resent 'Anglo-Saxon' freedom, decentralization, markets, individualism, Christianity ...).
Rodney Stark questions the belief (strongly present in DOKA) that the fall of Rome was a trajedy on a giant scale. Stark believes this is part of the 'liberal history lesson,' which presents the fall as caused by Christianity and the beginning of the Church-led 'Dark Ages,' broken only by the recovery of [secular] classical values in the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Stark sees Roman brutal oppression (slave labor, imperialism) as holding back progress toward 'big 3' science, capitalism, democracy (i.e. respectively, intellectual, economic, political freedom) or 'freedom, capitalism, and Western success' (see br-rs). Their 'science' was really just 'lore' (theory OR practice, but not integrated), their 'capitalism' was really just feudal or 'villa' based, with lords oppressing slave workers, and their 'democracy' was just a few elites in the Republic and even that was brutally repressed in the Empire. His attitude toward the fall of Rome: good riddence! Hmmm.
* Note on William Rosen's book Justinian's Flea (Viking [Penguin], 2007, 367pp, Mustang) on the terrible outbreak of bubonic plague in 542 in Egypt E of Alexandria (Pelusia). "The coda to [Justinian's, led by general Belisarius, ended 539] conquest of Italy was written by Procopius: 'It is not at all by the wisdom of men or by any other sort of excellence on their part that events are brought to fulfillment, but that there is some divine power which is ever warping their purposes and shifting them in such a way that there will be nothing to hinder that which is being brought to pass [i.e. by God].' In little more than 2 yrs, Justinian had restored the core of his empire, and, despite the renewal of conflict with Persians on the Syrian border, had a reasonable expectation of another several decades on the throne, had every reason to believe that his territorial gains would stand, with his church and his [famous law] code, for centuries [i.e. he was looking alot like a Restitutor Orbis]. Even as Justinian's star seemed permanently in the ascendant ... [his PM John of Cappadocia was forced into exile, placing] him out of the reach of the microorganism that had reached a level of virulence that was about to stagger the entire Mediterranean world [killing about 25M out of 100M? on earth]" (160-2, hmmm, apparently God didn't want the Roman Empire restored? Had other plans?).
See also Romans, Brits and Merovingians.
 Boudica statue on bank of Thames beside Parliament in London, from Ancient Rome, Nigel Rodgers, Hermes House [Anness Pub Ltd], 2006, own, 512pp, p58 |
 another view, from Illustrated Reference Book of Ancient History, ed. James Mitchell, Windward (W H Smith), 1982, Mustang, p74 |
"an early 5C ivory panel of Stilicho [c365-408], the regent of the W for child-emp Honorius. Though a competent general, [his] devious negotiations w/Goths finally led to his death and left Rome at their mercy ... [and his wife] Serena, niece of emp Theodosius I [and their child]
from Ancient Rome, Nigel Rodgers, Hermes House [Anness Pub Ltd], 2006, 512pp, p126
ivory panel of Aetius, "the last Roman general worthy of the name, presiding as consul over the games in Rome"
from Ancient Rome, Nigel Rodgers, Hermes House [Anness Pub Ltd], 2006, 512pp, p248
Chlorus (CRE p209)
MBKQ = Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens, Mike Ashley, Carroll & Graf, 1998, own.
CRE = Chronicle of Roman Emperors, Chris Scarre, Thames & Hudson, 1995, Mustang.
tAR = The Ancient Romans, Don Nardo, Lucent, 199?, FHL.
HoF = The History of the Franks, Gregory of Tours, 6C [Penguin 1974], own.
