This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at |http : //books . google . com/
■'^W^^WMrf'' T '' '"•-" %-\K^^nrffW^y''^^T^'
HARVARD COLLEGE
LIBRARY
BEQUEST OF
EDWARD STEVENS SHELDON
Qass of 1872
Professor of Romance Philology
z:i
oogle
Digitized
by Google
Digitized
by Google
STUDIES AND NOTES
IN
PHILOLOGY AND LITERATURE
Vol. X
The Arthurian Material in the Chronicles
especially those of
Great Britain and France
BY
ROBERT HUNTINGTON FLETCHER
PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE
MODERN language DEPARTMENTS OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY
By GINN & COMPANY, 29 Beacon Street, Boston
1906
Digitized
by Google
7-^ 1
1
v>
HARVARD COLLEGE LIBRARY
BEQUEST OF
f ROF. ED\MARD 8. SHELDON
NOV. 11, 1925
Digitized
by Google
i i
4
PREFACE
The general object of this book, as the title indicates, is to show
what Arthurian material is contained in the European chronicles,
especially in those of Great Britain and France. Somewhat more
than two hundred chronicles (including those mentioned on page
177) are here treated, and they range in date from the middle of
the sixth to the end of the sixteenth century. No one would claim
for the chronicles an importance in Arthurian literature proportion-
ate to their number and the length of the period to which they
belong ; nevertheless, their contribution seems to me well worth
considering, even apart from the fact that the Historia of Geoffrey
of Monmouth is to be reckoned among them. Some of my friends
tell me also that the study may be of interest to historians for the
side-light which it throws on the methods of the chroniclers.
I have interpreted the term " Arthurian material " as including
everything that appears in the pseudo-history of Britain from the
accession of Constans, whom Geoffrey introduces as the son of
the second Constantine and elder brother of Aurelius and Uther,
to the death (or disappearance) of Arthur. At first thought this
may seem to be beginning too early, but the discussion will make it
clear, I think, that the stories of Arthur's immediate predecessors
are too intimately connected with his own to be separated from it.
I have meant to make my investigations complete, as nearly as
circumstances allowed, for the chronicles of Great Britain and
France.^ I do not claim to have treated those of other countries
adequately, though I doubt if anything further of real importance to
the subject is to be found in them.
^ I have mentioned in the notes the unpublished manuscripts known to me
.which, to judge by the descriptions of them, may contain Arthurian material, but
which, for one reason or another, I have not been able to consult ; and for the
benefit of possible future investigators I have listed them all together under one
<entry in the index.
iii
Digitized
by Google
iv PREFACE
In the case of each chronicle I have aimed, first, to give a correct
general idea of what it says of the subject, and second, to mention all
particular features which are in any way important. As regards this
second aim, however, entire evenness and consistency of treatment
were scarcely to be hoped for. It must sometimes have happened
that I have failed to take note, in connection with one chronicle, of
some point (generally, I hope, a minor one) to which I have called
attention in speaking of another. Perhaps it is only fair to ask readers
to remember, apropos of this and some other aspects of the book,
that in work involving considerable minute detail it is even harder
than in other cases to avoid, in manuscript, imperfections which
become apparent enough in print.
From the nature of the case, in some parts of the study, especially
in the whole of the earlier portion, my work has consisted chiefly in
summing up and combining the conclusions of previous writers.
In the later sections, however, this has not been true, and the sub-
ject as a whole has never before received systematic treatment. I
have meant to give credit in the notes for suggestions which I have
adopted from others, but, as all students know, this is not always
possible. For help received from two standard works, namely Pott-
hast's Bibliotheca Historica Medii Aevi and the Dictionary of National
Biography^ a single general acknowledgment here must suffice, for
the most part.
The book was originally prepared as a doctoral dissertation, and
was submitted to the Faculty of Harvard University in May, 190 1.
In the following academic year it was corrected and enlarged by
research in London, Oxford, and Paris, and was entirely rewritten.
It was substantially complete in its present form and was put into
the hands of the publishers early in 1903. The subsequent delay in
bringing it out has been unavoidable. Certain relevant articles which
have appeared in the meantime are noticed in an appendix. Mr.
W. W. NewelPs important paper Doubts concerning Nennius {Publi-
cations of the Modern Language Association^ iQ^S* XX, 622 ff.), how-
ever, reached me too late to be considered.
The abbreviations which I have employed are, I believe, generally
conventional and easily understood. In references large Roman
numerals designate volumes, small Roman numerals books (Jibri),
Digitized
by Google
PREFACE V
" Ward " means the Catalogue of Romances in the British Museum
by H. L. D. Ward ; " Hardy," Sir Thomas Duffus Hardy's Descrip-
tive Catalogue of Materials relative to the History of Great Britain
and Ireland (Rolls Series) ; " Geoffrey," without further descrip-
tion, is always Geoffrey of Monmouth. In making citations from
his Historia I have ordinarily used three sets of numerals, which
refer respectively to book, chapter, and line of San-Marte's
edition.
In regard to the names of characters in the Arthurian story, my
general principle has been to reproduce in all cases the spellings
used by the writer under discussion ; but the printed proof shows
me that I have often failed to do so. In the index all variant spell-
ings, except those sure to be recognized at first glance, are entered
and referred to a normal form, generally the one most widely current
in the literature of the subject. For the names of the chroniclers I
have used sometimes Latin, sometimes vernacular forms, because
I am sure that in this case familiar usage is a better guide than
theoretical consistency.
I am under the greatest obligations to three of my teachers and
friends at Harvard. Professor Kittredge and Professor Schofield
have given me most generous assistance at all stages of my work,
and Professor Sheldon during the process of publication. I owe to
them all very many suggestions and emendations which cannot be
separately specified. Indeed, I could hardly explain the nature and
extent of my indebtedness to Professor Kittredge, in particular, un-
less possibly to some of those who have had the same privilege of
writing and publishing a book under his supervision. Professor
Schofield, besides, first suggested the subject to me, and parts of
the book were written in connection with his Arthurian seminary.
It is hardly necessary to add, however, that for all errors and faults
I alone am responsible. I am glad also to acknowledge great kind-
nesses received from Alfred Nutt, Esq., and special help from Pro-
fessor Robinson of Harvard. Other obligations are mentioned in
the notes. Of course I am indebted in the usual but very real
way to the authorities of the libraries where I have worked, chiefly
the Harvard University Library, the British Museum, and the
Bibliothfeque Nationale.
Digitized
by Google
vi PREFACE
My first preface would be incomplete without mention of the
name of Professor Richardson of Dartmouth College. Professor
Richardson has had no direct connection with this book, but it is
to him that I owe the beginning of my permanent interest in Eng-
lish studies, and he has been to me for years a constant friend and
helper in matters professional as well as nonprofessional. I am
very glad to have the opportunity of making him even this slight
acknowledgment.
R. H. F.
Hanover, N.H.
November 28, 1905
Digitized
by Google
CONTENTS
Chaptbr Page
I. The Beginnings of the Story i
I. The Undoubted Historical Facts ...... i
II. GUdas 3
III. The HUtoria Britonum of Nennius 8
II. The Intermediate Stage 31
I. The Annales Cambriae and Annals of St, MichaePs Mount 31
II. iEthelweard 35
III. William of Malmesbury . . ^ 37
IV. Henry of Huntingdon 41
III. Geoffrey of Monmouth • ... 43
I. life of Geoffrey 43
II. Outline of Geoffrey's Historia 46
III. Geoffrey's Sources: (A) The "Liber Vetustissimus." Geof-
frey's purpose in writing the Historia 49
IV. Geoffrey's Sources : (B) Nennius, Bede, and Gildas . . 57
V. Geoffrey's Sources : (C ) William of Malmesbury and Henry of
Huntingdon 66
VI. Geoffrey's Sources : (D) Celtic Records 75
VII. Geoffrey's Sources : (E) General History . . .80
VIII. Geoffrey's Sources : (F) Myths and Popular Stories. The Idea
of Arthur before Geoffrey 85
IX. Geoffrey's Sources: (G) Contemporary Manners and the Ro-
mantic Idea 108
X. Final Words on the Liber Vetustissimus 115
IV. The Arthurian Story after Geoffrey: Certain Early Prose
Versions 116
I. The Welsh Translations of Geoffrey and the Welsh Chronicles 117
II. Henry of Huntingdon's Abridgment of Geoffrey's History in
his Letter to Warinus 119
III. Benedict of Gloucester 121
IV. The Liber de Constructions Aliquorum Oppidorum TUronicae
Regionis in the Gesta Comitum Andegavensium of Thomas
de Loches 121
vii
Digitized
by Google
viii Contents
Chapter Pagb
V. The Arthurian Story after Geoffrey : Poetical Versions of
THE FIRST One Hundred and Fifty Years 125
I. Geoffrey Gaimar 125
II. Wace's Brut^ and other French Versions 127
III. Draco NormannicuSy and Gottfried of Viterbo's Pantheon . 145
IV. Layamon's Brut . * 147
V. The Latin Metrical Versions of Geoffrey's History . . .166
VI. The Story after Geoffrey : The Latin Prose Chronicles of
THE Twelfth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Centuries . 169
VII. The Story after Geoffrey: The Midple English and Con-
temporary Anglo-French Metrical Chronicles .193
I. Robert of Gloucester 193
II. The Anonymous Short Chronicle 198
III. Peter Langtoft, and Other French Chronicles 199
IV. Thomas Castelford 202
V. Robert Mannyng of Brunne 204
VIII. The Story after Geoffrey: The French Prose Chronicles
and their more Direct Derivatives (with other Vernac-
ular Continental Chronicles) 209
I. Minor Early French Chronicles 209
II. The Large Brut and its English Translation (with th6 French
and English Literal Translations of Geoffrey's Historia) . 214
III. Philippe Mousket 221
IV. Jean des Preis 222
V. The Scalacronica of Sir Thomas Gray 224
VI. The Version of Geoffrey's Story included in the Recueil of
Sire Jehan de Wavrin 225
VII. Pierre Le Baud's Histoire de Bretagne . . . . . 230
VIII. Alain Bouchart's Grandes Croniques de Bretaigne . . .231
IX. The Cronica Cronicarunt ........ 233
X. Jehan de Bourdign^'s Chroniques d^Anjou et du Maine . . 233
XL Vernacular Spanish Chronicles 235
IX. The Story after Geoffrey: Continental Latin Chronicles
OF the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries .... 237
V
X. The Story after Geoffrey : The Scottish Versions . .241 v
I. Wyntown and Fordun 242
II. John Major 243 |
III. Hector Boece and his Translators 245 \
IV. Other Versions (including Leslie and Buchanan) . 248 ^
jbyGoogLe
Digitized t
Contents ix
Chapter Page
XI. The Story after Geoffrey : The English and Latin Chroni-
cles OF England in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Cen-
turies .... 250
I. John Capgrave . 250
II. John Hardyng's Chronicle, and an Anonymous Chronicle in
Metre 251
III. The Metrical Version of the Story of Arthur's Reign in the
Marquis of Bath's Manuscript 253
IV. The Short English Chronicle of ms. Lambeth 306 . . .254
V. John Ross, and Nicholaus Cantaloupus 254
VI. Robert Fabyan 255
VII. John Rastell 259
VIII. Polydore Virgil 259
IX. Arthur Kelton 262
X. George Lily 262
XI. Bishop Cooper 263
XII. Richard Grafton and John Stow 264
XIII. Raphael Holinshed and William Harrison .... 267
XIV. William Warner, Michael Drayton, and the End of the
Chronicles 270
XII. Conclusion 272
Additional Notes 277
Index 285
Digitized
by Google
Digitized
by Google
ARTHURIAN MATERIAL IN CHRONICLES
CHAPTER I
THE BEGINNINGS OF THE STORY
I. The Undoubted Historical Facts
THE Arthurian stories, like the other great romance cycles of
the Middle Ages, rest, however slightly, upon the unquestioned
facts of a genuine historical period. With these facts, accordingly,
the present discussion must commence. They are exceedingly few,
because very little that could well be forgotten, especially as regards
the British interests, with which alone we are directly concerned,
has escaped the confusion and darkness of the time.^
Scarcely more than this, then, is certain. Even long before the
departure of the Roman legions from Britain in the beginning of
the fifth century, the Scots and Picts from the north, and the Ger-
manic pirates from the east, had begun to make persistent incur-
sions upon the people of the island. When the military forces of
the empire were finally withdrawn, the power of resistance seemed
to go with them; and, though the Britons recovered themselves
and fought with determination, they were unable to keep off the
invaders. Not many decades passed before the Germans perma-
nently established themselves, first in the southeast, and then all
along the eastern and southern coasts ; and from that time on they
1 A notable article on the period is that of Thumeysen in Englische Siudien^
1895, XXII, 163-179, "Wann sind die Germanen nach England gekommen?"
References will there be found to contemporary authorities.
Digitized
by Google
2 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
fought their way steadily forward, occasionally meeting with a
serious check, but seldom losing anything that they had won. In
comparison with this settled policy of conquest, the ravages of the
Scots and Picts soon ceased to have importance. It is to the cen-
tury of the struggle which began with the first actual Germanic
settlement that the Arthurian stories historically belong.
Some further details about the period may be accepted without
much hesitation, but they are only to be inferred from the chronicles
here to be considered, which may now be allowed to speak for
themselves.^
1 It will be convenient to give here a brief bibliography of the special books and
articles which deal with the history of the period and with its historians. Many
of these are thoroughly scientific, but others present most ridiculous theories.
G. and N. stand respectively for Gildas and Nennius. When these initials are
not followed by page numbers, the index of the book in question will indicate
where the relevant discussion is to be found. No additional bibliography will
hiereafter be necessary for Gildas, but for the special controversy about Nennius
references will be given later (pp. 8-9).
Anscombe, St. Gildas of Ruys^ 1893, pp. 29-67. — Anscombe, Stevenson, and
Nicholson, letters in London Academy y 1895, Sept. 14-Dec. 14. G. — d'Arbois de
Jubainville, Merlin est-il un personnage riel? {Rev. des Questions Hist.^ 1868, V,
559-568). G. — W. H. Babcock, Two Lost Centuries of Britain^ Philadelphia,
1890. — Beddoe, Races of Britain y Bristol and London, 1885. G. 35-36. — W.
Edwards, The Settlement of Brittany {Y Cymmrodory 1890, XI, 74-82). G. —
Elton, Origins of English History y 1882. — Freeman, Norman Conquesty I, 1 1, note,
etc. — Green, Making of Englandy New York, 1882. G. 19-25, etc., and in general,
chaps. 1-3. — Guest, Origines CelticcUy 1883, II, 154-157, 165-166, etc. — Haigh,
The Conquest of Britain by the Saxons ; a Harmony of the Historia Britonum^
etc., 1 861. — Algernon Herbert, Britannia after the RomanSy 1836. G. xiv-xx,
40 ff., etc.; N. xx-xxii, 21, etc.; id., Cyclops Christianusy 1849, 212-216. — A.
Holtzmann, in Germaniay 1867, XII, 268-274. — Kemble, Saxons in Englandy
1849, I, 10, II, 14 (another ed., 1876). — A. de La 'Qordeney VHistorien et le
ProphHe des Bretonsy Gildasy etc., Paris and Nantes, 1884; id.. La Date de la
Naissance de Gildas {Rev. Celt.y 1883, VI, 1-13) ; id.. Hist, de BretagnCy Rennes,
1896, 1, 230 ff., 384-390, 409-414. G. — Lappenberg, Anglo-Saxon Kings y English
translation, ed. 1845, PP- 100-104 (ed. 1881, I, 57-58) ; id., Geschichte Englandsy
ed. 1834, I, xxxviii. G. — Lipsius, in Ersch und Gruber's Encyclopddiey Sec. I,
Bd. 67, pp. 231 ff., Leipzig, 1858. G. — J. Loth, V Emigration bretonne en Armo-
riquey Rennes, 1883. G. 27, note, 44. — Abb^ Luco, Histoire de St. Gildas de Rhuysy
Galles, 1869. — P. Paris, MSmoire sur Vancienne chronique dite de NenniuSy Paris,
1865. — Petrie and Sharp, Monumenta Historiae BritanniaCy 1848, Introd. to G. and
Digitized
by Google
Gildas
II. Gildas
The first elements of the Arthurian story, scarcely recognizable
as such, appear in the earliest of the chronicles of Great Britain,
the De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae of Arthur's contemporary,
the almost legendary Gildas.^
Our absolute knowledge of Gildas is limited to what we can
gather from his own book. He was born in the year of the battle
of Mount Badjon, probably very soon after the beginning of the sixth
century;* was an ecclesiastic, probably a monk; crossed the sea to
Armorica, like other Welsh saints of the time ; and in Armorica, at
the earnest request of his friends, composed his treatise. It seems
quite safe to add that he was not only a thoroughly Romanized
Roman citizen, but a vehement partisan in the struggle for supremacy
which the conditions of the time, and a few hints of his own, justify
us in supposing to have taken place, among the Britons of the period,
between a Roman and a native faction. Some additional details
may also be accepted with various degrees of confidence. The
reverence which not only led to Gildas's canonization and has
N., pp. 59-68, 1 06-1 14. — Beale Poste, Britannia Antigua^ 1857. G. 5, 19 ff., 48-80 ;
N. 6, 17-48. — Rhys, Celtic Britain, London, 1882. — Rhys and Jones, The Welsh
People, 1900, p. 105. — P. Roberts, The Chronicle of the Kings of Britain (trans-
lation of Brut Tysilio) with Dissertations on the History attributed to Gildas, 181 1.
— San-Marte (A. Schulz), Die Arthur Sagen, 1842. G. 4-5; N. 5-6. — K.W.
Schoell, De Ecclesiasticae Britonum Scotorumque Historiae Fontibus, Berlin and
London, 1851. G. 1-20; N. 29-37. — Skene, Four Ancient Books of Wales, 1868.
G. 44 ff., 77 ff.; N. 37-40; id., Celtic Scotland, 1876. G. i, 117, I44> ISC^^SI* etc. ;
N. 146-148. — Stephens, Literature of the Kymry, 2d ed. G. 9. — Stubbs, Consti-
tutional History, I, 67, note. G. — Sharon Turner, History of the Anglo-Saxons,
1797; ed. of 1840, Paris, I, 99, 107, 117-119. G. — Thos. Wright, Biographia
Britannica Literaria, Anglo-Saxon Period, 1842. G. n 5-135' N. 135-142; id..
Essays on Archaological Subjects, 1 861, pp. 202 ff . ; id., Celt, Roman, and Saxon,
1852. G. 389. — Zimmer, Nennius Vindicatus, Berlin, 1893, pp. 287 ff.
1 The standard edition is that of Mommsen, in Mon. Germ. Hist., Auct.
AnHquissimi, XIII, Chron. Min., Ill, Berlin, 1898, pp. i-iio. The existing frag-
ments of Qildas*s other writings are also given there. For m?inuscripts, see also
Yi2j[&y, Descriptive Catalogue, I, 132-137,318. The most accessible English trans-
lation is that of Giles in his Six Old English Chronicles (Bohn Library).
2 The date of this battle is a much-disputed point.
Digitized
by Google
4 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
associated his name with scores of localities in Brittany, but desig-
nated him during the greater part of the Middle Ages as " Sapiens "
and ascribed to him the authorship of various books which, whether
real or imaginary, were certainly not written by him, is part of a
very ancient tradition. This tradition appears at its fullest in two
characteristic mediaeval "Lives," belonging respectively to the
eleventh and twelfth centuries; and their agreement in certain
points allows us, in spite of their generally extravagant tone, to
draw upon them to some extent for information. There are also a
few plausible entries in Welsh and Irish annals.^ On these authori-
ties we may hold it as quite possible that Gildas was the son of
some petty British king, perhaps of the lord of Alclud (Dumbarton) ;
that he was, for his time, a great scholar; that he preached elo-
quently in Ireland as well as in Britain and Armorica; that he
wrote his De Excidio not long before 547, went to Ireland about
565, and died about 570.
Gildas's main theme is the denunciation of the British people (and
especially the reigning princes) for their sins, — which, he declares,
have brought upon them all their past and present misfortunes, —
and the exhortation to repentance, which alone may restore to them
the favor of God. But he begins, by way of introduction, with a
brief sketch of the history of the island from the earliest period to
the "last victory," which has occurred in his own time. His frag-
mentary summary of events before the Saxon invasion is notable
chiefly for his excessive laudation of the Romans as the protectors
and benefactors of the Britons, and his equally unvarying deprecia-
tion of the Britons as destitute of any praiseworthy qualities. He
arrives at the Arthurian period after writing at length of the
intolerable devastations of the Scots and Picts.
At last, he says,^ in the midst of a brief interval of prosperity, came the
sudden report that these northern enemies were to make a new and more
1 These " Lives " are edited by Mommsen together with the De Excidio ; see
also F. Lot, Rom.y XXVII, 564-573 ; and for the manuscript of the life ascribed
to Caradoc, Hardy, I, 153, Nos. 437 ff. ; Annales Cambriae (see pp. 31 ff., below),
ann. 565 and 570; Annals of Ulster^ ed. Hennessy, Dublin, 1887, I, 62, ann. 569
(which is really equivalent to 570). ^ Chaps. 22 ff.
Digitized
by Google
Gildas 5
formidable invasion. At the same time a terrible pestilence devastated the
country. Then all the counsellors were blinded, together with the haughty
tyrant [whom he does not name], and they called in the abominable Saxons
[whom he has not previously mentioned]. [Here, and throughout the whole
of this part of the narrative, Gildas exhausts the superlatives of vituperation
in characterizing the invaders, both old and new, who are to him only fero-
cious beasts.] The Saxons came in three ships, answering the call, and
first established themselves, at the command of the ill-starred tyrant, in the
eastern part of the island. Their successful settlement brought others after
them. On the pretense that they were to engage in dangerous battles for
the Britons, they demanded rations. The granting of these stopped their
mouths for some time; but at last they complained that enough was not
given them, and threatened, unless they should be treated with more liber-
ality, to devastate the whole land. This, in fine, increased by fresh acces-
sions, they proceeded to do, laying waste the country almost everywhere,
from sea to sea. Some of the inhabitants were killed; some surrendered
themselves to slavery ; some fled to lands across the sea ; some hid in the
recesses of the mountains.
After an interval, when the spoilers had returned home, the remnants of
those who had not been brought under the yoke rallied, were joined by
many of the others,^ and, seeking the help of God, successfully attacked
the victors. This was under the leadership of Ambrosius Aurelianus, a
discreet (modestus) man, who alone of the Roman race had escaped the
disasters of that epoch. His parents, who had been rulers,^ had been slain.
His descendants, says Gildas, have greatly degenerated at the present time.
After this the struggle went on with varying success until the year of
the siege of Mount Badon. Here occurred the last slaughter of the barba-
rians, and one of the greatest of all. In spite of the cessation of the con-
flict with the foreigners, civil wars still continue.
Hereupon he turns to the main part of his subject.
In determining what facts may be accepted on Gildas's authority,
it is first necessary to form an opinion as to his trustworthiness.
Now certainly the general impression which he makes is not such
as to inspire confidence. No reasonable person can question his
sincerity, or fail to sympathize with him in his grief at the folly and
1 Such seems to be the meaning of Gildas*s reliquiae^ quibus confugiunt undique
de diver sis locis miserrimi cives (chap. 25).
^ Purpura nimirum indutis.
Digitized
by Google
6 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
iniquity of his people, who, as he believes, are madly and wantonly
wrecking their national existence and their eternal salvation. Even
his violent, chaotic style may be viewed with leniency as the fittest
expression of his despair. Yet it is impossible not to see that his
attitude is absolutely uncritical. His historical sketch is merely
used to point the moral of his argument, and his injustice to the
Britons is carried to the last extreme. It is even possible that he
was taking part in a controversy between the regular and the
irregular clergy.
In those details, too, where personal feeling plays no appreciable
part, Gildas is grossly inaccurate. This appears in several of his
statements about the Roman period. It also appears in his account
of subsequent events, especially in three points: — (i) speaking of
the first part of the struggle with the Saxons, he implies that the
latter had not appeared in Britain until they were summoned by the
native leaders ; (2) he asserts that very soon after their arrival they
overran the whole island ; and (3) he says that somewhat later they
returned home. Indeed, his observation that the battle of Mount
Badon, the last special event which he records, 0(^|»ri*irin the year
of his birth, is equivalent to tl^j^|fe^fion that he was not strictly
contemporary with any part ofSTne period included in his historical
sketch. He takes pains to note at the outset that his authority is
not written records, since all such have been destroyed, but oral
tradition as it exists across the sea, the insufficiency of which he
himself allows. Clearly he refers here to the reports, necessarily
very unjudicial, of the Britons who had fled to Armorica.
Yet, notwithstanding all this, no competent scholar has ever held
that Gildas's narrative is to be thrown aside as devoid of historical
value. For it is evident that the definite facts which he mentions
are only those of prime importance, which, however much they may
have been distorted, could scarcely have been wholly falsified ; and
even his obvious misstatements can be explained on the ground
that he is speaking in very general terms, with an exaggeration
inevitable to a despondent man of ardent temperament. Even
when he says that the Saxons returned home, he may very possibly
mean only that they retired to the eastern part of the island, after
pillaging more territory than they could then hold. It seems safe,
Digitized
by Google
Gildas 7
on the whole, to accept as true from Gildas's account as much as
this : that sometime toward the middle of the fifth century a king
of the Britons enlisted the German pirates as auxiliaries against the
Scots and Picts ; that, after the alliance was broken (as it was sure
to be before long) and the Germans had begun to appear in greater
numbers, the first notably successful stand against them brought
into prominence, perhaps as chief leader of the Britons, an able
general of Roman birth (or at least belonging to the Roman party),
Ambrosius Aurelianus ; ^ that after this the war went on with varying
fortunes for a considerable period, until a decisive British victory
at the siege of Mount Badon checked the progress of the invaders
for more than forty years ; and that, in the interval of relief, the
Britons, according to their former habits, carried on civil wars and
made no serious effort toward reform.
Gildas's characterization of Ambrosius is too laudatory to be
taken at its face value, especially in view of the fact that he is the
only leader of the Britons whom Gildas anywhere mentions with-
out dispraise. It seems almost certain that Gildas is repeating an
exaggerated tradition of the Roman party, which would naturally
ascribe to its leader more credit than was his due.
It is now time to consider a point of great importance, — namely
the fact that, although Gildas covers the whole period of the
Arthurian story, he does not even mention the one figure which
later became of overshadowing importance. That he does not
ascribe to Arthur anything of the fame and characteristics which
are afterward associated with him, need occasion no surprise ; but
the entire omission of his name raises a more vital question : Had
Arthur actually no historical existence ?
That such a conclusion is not necessary appears from various
considerations. Gildas is not attempting to write a complete his-
tory and he systematically omits almost all names. In any event,
Arthur, if he was an actual person, is to be connected, as appears
from N«nnius, with the period ending with the battle of Badon, and
1 As Professor Rhys thinks, he may very likely have held oAe of the chief
military offices in Britain as established by the Romans, which offices may very
well have continued in existence down to this time (see p. 29, below, with note i).
Digitized
by Google
8 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
that battle (to judge from Gildas's own words) was so well known in
his time that the specification of its hero would have been super-
fluous. Moreover, it was contrary to Gildas's declared purpose to
praise any distinctively British leader, since every sentence of that
sort would detract from the force of his relentless arraignment of
the entire nation.
As to whether or not there was an historical Arthur, then, Gildas
affords absolutely no evidence, and his whole record of the period
of the Arthurian story may be summed up as follows. He tells of
the calling in of the Germans by a tyrant whom he does not name,
very briefly indicates the general course of events during the entire
period, and supplies the figure of Ambrosius Aurelianus (his most
important contribution) and the fact of the victory at Mount Badon.
Even in this meagre list we almost ought to disregard the first
incident ; since in most later versions of the story it was Nennius's
account of that episode which was adopted, and Nennius says that
the Germans came by chance, not by invitation. Indeed, Gildas's
whole relation to the Arthurian story is purely accidental, due to
the fact that as the only contemporary historian of the epoch he
necessarily mentions incidents which were sure to be incorporated
in later accounts.
III. The His tori a Britonum of Nennius
Far more contributive than the work of Gildas to the Arthurian
tradition, and for the chronicles the real foundation of the whole,
is the second of the extant sources, — that strange compilation, the
Historia Britonum which goes under the name of Nennius.^
1 The standard edition is the critical one of Mommsen in the same volume with
his Gildas, pp. 1 13-219, which is noticed in Rev. Celt.^ XVI, 106-108, and in
other periodicals mentioned below. Other important editions are : that of
W. Gunn from the Vatican MS., London, 1819; that of Jos. Stevenson from the
Harl. MS., London, 1838; that of San-Marte in his Nennius und Gildas^ Berlin,
1844; J. H. Todd's Leabhar^ etc.. The Irish Version with English Translation^
Dublin, 1848; Hogan's Irish version from the L. na Huidre^ Todd Lect. Ser.,
Dublin, 1895. There is an English translation by Giles in Six Old English
Chronicles. For manuscripts, see Mommsen, and Hardy, I, 3i8£f. The following
Digitized
by Google
Nennius 9
The problems of authorship and composition raised by the
numerous and inconsistent manuscripts of this disordered collec-
tion of annals, chronicle, and tradition can never be fully solved ;
but a great deal of light has been shed upon them by the prolonged
discussion begun some years ago by Professor Zimmer. What may
now be considered as probably proved, so far as the present subject
is concerned, may be briefly stated.
Sometime in the seventh or eighth century, a Briton (of what
region cannot be certainly known), the son of a certain Urbgen, or
Urbgehen, put together extracts from a Life of St. Germanus (which
had apparently been composed in the south of Britain) and matter
relating to the genealogy and history of the Britons. He wrote
very briefly up to the period of the Saxon Conquest, when he entered
into details. In the year 679 there was compiled in the North
(whether or not by the same author, and whether or not as a part
of this same work) a genealogy of the English kings of the island,
especially those of the North, and a history of affairs there,^ which,
as it began, apparently, at about the year 540, may have been
intended as a supplement to the historical sketch of Gildas. If
not originally, at any rate as early as the seventh or eighth century,
these two documents were joined together, making a version of
which, if it ever existed by itself, no copy now remains. By 796,
or not long thereafter, a manuscript of this version ^ was taken,
together with supplementary sources, by some one (apparently
Nennius) who was a native of South Wales, on the borders of
Hereford and Brecknock-Radnor, as the basis of a new edition.*
are the most significant discussions: K. W. Schoell, De Ecciesiasticae Bri-
tonum Scotorumque Historiae Fontibus^ Berlin and London, pp. 29-37 ; A. de La
Borderie, VHist. Brit, attribute h Nennius, Paris, 1883 (see later, bibliography,
p. 51); HeegeVy l/der die Trojanersa^e der Britten, Munich, 1SS6; Zimmer, JVennius
Vindicatus, Berlin, 1893 ; d'Arbois de Jubainville, Rev. Celt., XV, 126-129 ; Momm-
sen, Neues Archrv, XIX, 285; Duchesne, Nennius Retractatus, Rev. Celt., XV,
174-197 ; Zimmer, Neues Archiv, XIX, 436-443, 667-669 ; Heeger, Gbtt. Gel. Anz.,
1894, 399-406 ; Thumeysen, Ztsch. f. deutsche Phil., XXVIII, 80-1 13 ; J. Loth,
Rev. Celt., XVI, 267-268 ; Duchesne, Rev. Celt., XVII, 1-5 ; Thumeysen, Ztsch. f.
celt. Phil., I, 158-168 ; F. Lot, Rom., XXVIII, 337-342. ^ Nennius, chaps. 57-66.
^ Perhaps, however, the two documents had not at that time been combintd.
8 Of which the Harl. MS. 3859 is the type.
Digitized
by Google
lO Arthurian Material in Chronic ks
Either by Nennius or by some predecessor of his in South Wales,
there was added to the book a list of mirabilia (or wonderful natural
phenomena) of the South Country, on the model of two which evi-
dently came with the manuscript from the North. Nennius was a
disciple of St. Elbodug, Bishop of Bangor, who was the great repre-
sentative of that party among the Britons which upheld the Roman
views in the bitter ecclesiastical controversy over the Easter cele-
bration and the tonsure. Some person (perhaps Nennius himself)
who lived in Anglesey and was under the spiritual direction of a
priest named Beulan, prepared an abridged version^ of Nennius's
work, at the desire or for the use of Beulan, or more likely for his
son, in the first half of the ninth century. From these Nennian
versions are derived all existing manuscripts of the Historia Britonum
(including those of the Irish translation) with the very important
exception of the incomplete Chartres manuscript, which in origin
antedates the time of Nennius.
The following is an outline (in the important parts, almost a full
translation) of the relevant sections of Nennius's story,^ — that is^
of the work which Mommsen has entitled Historia Brittonum cum
additamentis Nennii,
In the prologue, after alluding to the neglect of the Britons to
preserve records of their history, and after mentioning the Roman
authorities who evidently supplied part of the facts of universal
chronology and of the history of Britain to the end of the Roman
period with which the work begins, Nennius names, as his other
sources, the annals of the Scots and Saxons (which probably did not
furnish information about anything here to be considered) and
British tradition^ which must evidently refer largely to the Historia
itself in the form which it bore before his expansions.
His account of the Arthurian period commences baldly^ with the
statement that Guorthigirnus reigned in Britain and was in con-
stant fear of the Picts and Scots, of the Romans, and of Ambrosius
(whom, like Guorthigirnus, he has not before mentioned).
1 Called by Zimmer " the version of North Wales."
2 The comparatively small interpolations made after Nennius*s day are here
omitted. 8 Chap. 31.
Digitized
by Google
Nennius 1 1
Meanwhile, there arrived from Germany three ships filled with men
driven into exile, among them the brothers Hors and Hengist. Guorthi-
^rimus received them kindly and gave them the island of Tanet. [Here is
inserted a long narrative of the missionary visit and miracles of St. Ger-
manus. Resuming the main story, Nennius says^ that] Guorthigirnus
promised to give the Saxons [here first specified by that name] food and
clothing as they should need it, and in return they agreed to fight his
-enemies valiantly. But when the barbarians had multiplied, the Britons
were not able to feed them, and asked them to depart, "since we do not
need your aid." They took counsel also with their elders to break the
peace. Hengist, however, was a politic man. Seeing the inefficiency of
Guorthigirnus and the weakness of the Britons, he offered to send to his
countrymen in Germany for more men to fight for the Britons. Guorthi-
^mus assented, and there came sixteen ships filled with picked warriors,
who were accompanied by the beautiful daughter of Hengist. Hereupon
Hengist made a feast for Guorthigirnus and his men and his interpreter,
who was named ^ Ceretic, and bade the girl serve them with wine, and they
became drunk. Then Satan entered into Guorthigirnus's heart, and he
loved the girl and by his interpreter asked her from her father, saying,
** All that you demand I will grant, to the half of my kingdom." ^ Hengist
took counsel with his followers, and they all thought it best to ask in
exchange for the girl the region which " in their language is called Cantur-
^oralen, in ours Ghent." This the king granted them, though Guoyranc-
^onus'' was then reigning in Cantia and did not know that his kingdom
was being given to the pagans. Here Nennius leaves the incident with a
"bare " and so the girl was given to him in marriage and he slept with her
and loved her greatly."
After this [how soon Nennius does not state] Hengist said to Guorthi-
girnus:* " I am thy father and counsellor; and, that thou mayest not fear
any man or race, I, since my race is strong, will invite my son with my
brother's son,® to fight against the Scots. Give them the regions, in the
North, near the wall." Guorthigirnus assented, and Octha and Ebissa
J] who, of course, by direct implication are respectively Hengist's son and
1 Chap. 36.
2 Vacatur ; all the other verbs here are in the past tense.
* Evidently the writer had in mind Herod and Salome.
* Probably this is merely a title, meaning " governor " or " sub-king " ; but the
later chroniclers took it for a man*s name.
* Chap. 38. ^ Cum fratrueli sua.
Digitized
by Google
12 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
nephew] came with forty ships; and, when they had sailed round the
country of the Picts, they devastated the Orkneys and came and occupied
many regions beyond the Firth of Forth,^ up to the boundaries of the Picts.
And Hengist kept constantly summoning more ships to him, a few at a
time ; and when his race had grown strong they took possession of the
city of the Kentishmen.*
Now Guorthigirnus added to all his sins by marrying his own daughter,
who bore him a son. St. Germanus, hearing of this, called a great synod
to consider appropriate measures. Guorthigirnus [as Nennius tells at some
length] tried to face the matter out ; but he was put to shame, fled before
the face of Germanus, and was condemned by him and by all the council
of the Britons.
Afterwards' the king called to him his magi and asked what he should
do. They bade him go to the extreme limits of his kingdom and build*
a strong tower (arcem)^ " because," they said, " the race which you have
received into your kingdom will hate you and kill you by treachery and
seize the whole country after your death." So, with the magi, he sought
through many provinces, and at last in the region of North Wales {Guined)^
on one of the mountains of Snowdon (Herert), they selected the place for
the tower, which, they said, would be forever safe from the barbarians.
But when he had assembled masons and got together the wood and stone,
in one night all the material was carried off, and this happened three times.
Then the magi replied to the king's inquiries, that the work could never be
done unless he should find a child without a father, kill him, and sprinkle
the ground about the tower with his blood. So Guorthigirnus sent some of
the magi throughout all Britain, and after long journeying they came to the
field Elleti,* in the region Gleguissing.® Here boys were playing at ball.
1 Mare Frenessicum.
2 Venerunt ad supra dictam civitatem Cantorum,
. 8 Chap. 40.
* The Latin word is invenies.
5 Supposed by Roberts {Cambrian Popular Antiquities ^ pp. 58-59) to be the
village formerly called in Welsh Maeseleg, now Bassalig, in Monmouthshire,
mentioned by Geoffrey of Monmouth, viii, 4, 11.
6 Stevenson, dd loc.y says, the tract between the Usk and Rumney, named from
Glivisus, father of the Welsh saint Gundlxus. Lot, Rom., XXVIII, 338, says,
the region between the Teivi [Teifi] and the Usk; and he refers to J. Loth,
Mab., II, 212, note. Phillimore (Y Cymmrodor, XI, 47) says only that Gleguissing
certainly comprehended no region north of the Towy.
Digitized
by Google
Nennius 1 3
and one in anger at another addressed him ^ as a fellow (homo) without a
father. Then the messengers sought out the boy's mother and asked if he
had a father. She assured them with an oath that he had not ; that she
did not know how he had been conceived; and that she had never had
intercourse with any man. When the boy had been taken to the king and
was about to be killed, he inquired of Guorthigirnus why he had been
brought On mention of the magi, he asked that they be summoned ; and
when they came, he demanded who had revealed to them that his blood
jvas necessary for the tower. " I, O king," he said, " will tell you the truth."
Then he challenged the magi to say what was under the surface of the
ground. They answered, "We do not know." "There is," he said, "a
pond {stagnuni) in the midst of the place. Dig, and you will find it."
Men dug and came to water. Then successively, and each time after draw-
ing from the magi an acknowledgment of ignorance, the boy revealed that
the pond contained two vessels, the vessels a folded tent,^ and the tent two
sleeping snakes {vermes)^ one white and one red. Being uncovered, the
snakes began to fight. At last the red seemed weaker, but again he became
stronger and drove his adversary out of the tent ; then the one followed the
other across the pond,* and the tent vanished.* Hereupon the boy pro-
ceeded to interpret. " This mystery," he said, " is revealed to me. The
tent signifies thy kingdom ; the pond is this world ; the red snake is thy
dragon, and the white is the dragon of that race which has seized many
parts of Britain. It will hold almost all the island from sea to sea, but
afterwards our race will rise in might and manfully drive the race of the
Angles across the sea. Do thou nevertheless depart from this tower, because
thou art not able to build it, and seek through many provinces to find a
safe tower, and I will remain here." * And the king asked the youth * his
1 Here the narrative passes into direct discourse, and so it continues to the
end of the incident. ^ Tentorium complicatum.
' Alter alterum secutus. This clause evidently has no significance as to the
result of the fight ; it merely nieans that the snakes disappeared.
* For a closely related dragon story, which reappears also in the Bn^ Tysilio
(Roberts's translation, pp. 68-70), see the tale of Lludd and Llevelys, in the Mabi-
nogion (Loth, I, 178-182; Lady Guest, lU, 311-313).
* On the preservation of the name Dinas Emreis (Fortress of Ambrosius) in the
mountains of Snowdon, see Lady Guest, Mabinogion^ III, 317; F. Lot, Rom.^
XXVIII, 338; cf. also Rhys, Celtic Folklore, Oxford, 1901, pp. 218, 469 ff.,
487, 507.
* Adolescentetn. Puer is the word applied to him up to this point, except in the
single case already noted.
Digitized
by Google
14 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
name, and he replied, " I am called Ambrosius." " That is," interprets
Nennius, "he meant that he was Embreis the supreme prince."^ The
king inquired of his ancestry, and he replied, ** My father is one of the
consuls of the Roman race." Guorthigirnus.gave him the tower, with all
the kingdoms of the western part of Britain, and he himself with his magi
went to the northern part, to the region called Guunnessi,* and built there
the city which is called by his name Caer Guorthigim.
Meanwhile,* Guorthemir, the son of Guorthigimus, fought fiercely with
Hengist and Horsus (sic) and their race and drove them from the isle of
Tanet, and there three times reduced them to extremities.* They sent
messengers to Germany and called in many shiploads of warriors, and after-
wards they fought against the kings of ** our race," sometimes extending
their territories, sometimes having them circumscribed. Guorthemir fought
valorously against them in four battles, the first by the river Derguentid ; *
the second at the ford " which is called in their language Episford, in ours
Rithergabail," and there fell Hors with the son of Guorthigimus, whose
name was Categirnus. The third battle was in a place near the " lapidem
tituli''' which is by the Gallic sea, and there the barbarians were completely
defeated and fled to their ships. But after a short time, Guorthemir died.
He had bidden his servants bury him in the port from which the barbarians
had gone forth, on the shore of the sea, because, he said, " though they hold
elsewhere a port in this region they will forever be unable to establish
themselves." But his servants did not obey his command. And the
barbarians came back in force, since Guorthigimus was their friend because
of his wife ; and no one dared to oppose them, since they seized Britain not
by their valor, but by the will of God. " And who," asks Nennius, " can
resist that?"
After the return of Hengist, the barbarians made a plot, and sent legates
to Guorthigimus to propose perpetual peace. When Guorthigimus and his
counsellors assented, a conference was arranged, to which both .parties were
to come without arms. But Hengist instructed his men to bring each a
knife concealed under his garment, and at his word of command (eu Saxones
eniminit sax as) they killed all the counsellors of Guorthigimus to the
1 Id esty Embreis Guletic ipse videbatur.
2 Lot (Rom., XXVIII, 339, note) says that the place is unknown.
8 Chap. 43.
* Conclusit, obsedit, percussity comminuity terruit.
s There is no agreement as to the exact location of the places here named ;
but certainly they were all in the South.
Digitized
by Google
Nennius 1 5
number of three hundred. The king himself was allowed to redeem his life
with the lands of the East Saxons, South Saxons, and Middle Saxons.^
Now 2 St. Germanus preached to Guorthigirnus that he should repent
and abandon his incestuous life. Guorthigirnus fled to the region named
from him Guorthigirniaun,* to hide himself there with his wives, and from
there to the tower of Guorthigirnus in the region of the Demeti near the
river Teibi.* St. Germanus with all the clergy of Britain followed, praying ;
and in the night fire from heaven destroyed the tower with Guorthigirnus
and his wives. " This," says Nennius, " is the end of him, as I found it in
the book of St. Germanus. But others report differently"; some that, as he
wandered about, hated by all for his crime, his heart burst; others, that
the earth opened and swallowed him in the night in which his tower was
burned. He had three sons, Guorthemir and Categimus ; and a third,
Pascent, who ruled in the two regions of Buelt^ and Guorthigirniaun after
the death of his father, under the favor of Ambrosius, who was king among
all the kings of the British race. By his daughter also Guorthigirnus was
the father of St. Faustus.
Here follow the genealogy of the " present " ruler of the regions
named, back to and beyond Guorthigirnus, a mention of the return
of St. Germanus to the continent, and a long account of the ministry
of St. Patrick in Ireland, inserted as belonging chronologically at
this point. Then the narrative resumes : ®
At that time, the Saxons increased and grew strong in Britain. After
the death of Hengist, Octha his son came from the northern part of the
island to the kingdom of the men of Cantia, and from him are descended
its kings. Then Arthur fought against them in those days, together with
the kings of the Britons, but he himself was leader in the battles.^ The
first battle was at the mouth of the river Glein ; the second, third, fourth,
and fifth, on the river Dubglas, in the region Linnuis; the sixth on the
1 1 have supplied this last name from the Irish version. It is also given by
some of the later chroniclers who follow Nennius, and evidently belongs to the
authentic text. ^ Chap. 47. ^ Powis.
* The names Demeti (i.e., Demetians) and Teibi (i.e., Teifi) belong to the South ;
so the passage is in flat contradiction to the previous one which (correctly, accord-
ing to Lot) located the city of Guorthigim in the Nofth.
* Brecknock-Radnor. * Chap. 56.
'^ Dux belloi-um. The Vatican manuscript, which represents a late recension,
of ^bout 946, adds " although many were nobler by birth {nobiliores) than he."
Digitized
by Google
1 6 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
river Bassas; the seventh in the wood of Celidon; the eighth at the
fortress Guinnion, when Arthur bore the image of the Virgin Mary on his
shoulders ^ and a great slaughter was made of the pagans; the ninth at Urbs
Legionis ; the tenth on the shore of the river which is called Tribuit ; the
eleventh on the mountain Agned; the twelfth on Mount Badon, when
Arthur alone in one day killed nine hundred and sixty men ; ^ and in all the
battles he was victor. But the enemy continually received aid from Ger-
many, whence they brought kings to rule over those of them who were in
Britain up to the time of Ida, who was the first king in Beomicia.
Next'* comes the section containing genealogies of the kings of
the invaders and dealing with wars and other affairs in the North
from the middle of the fifth to the end of the seventh century.* In
a chronological computation at the end of this passage, mention is
made of a quarrel between Guitolinus and Ambrosius, said to have
occurred twelve years after the rule of Guorthigirnus. Next comes
a list of the twenty-eight cities of Britain, and then the account of
its tnirabilia. Of these the tenth or eleventh® (according as one
reckons) is said to be in the region of Buelt. In that province is a
heap of stones, and on the top is one stone bearing the print of a
dog's foot. This mark was made by Cabal, who was the dog of
Arthur the warrior,* when he hunted the boar Troynt. Arthur
afterwards collected the pile of stones under this one, and it was
called Ca:rn Cabal. Then the account adds that whenever the
stone is carried off, it reappears upon the heap the next day.'
There follows immediately the description of another wonder in
the region of Ercing.® This is a tomb situated beside the stream
1 Super humeros sues.
2 The manuscripts, needless to say, do not agree exactly as to this number.
« Chaps. 57-66.
* And for Mercia to the end of the eighth. This is the section which has
already been mentioned as constituting one of the originally distinct documents
at the basis of the whole composition.
6 Chap. 73.
* Arthuri militis.
7 This story contains the germ of that of the hunt of Twrch Trwyth, which
appears very fully in the tale of Kulhwch and Olwen (Loth, Mabinogion^ I, 185-
285 ; see also especially Lady Guest, II, 360, and Rhys, Celtic Folklore^ 1901,
p. 538). 8 Hereford.
Digitized
by Google
Nennius 17
called "the Source of the Anir," and Anir was the name of the
man who was buried there. He was the son of Arthur the warrior,
who himself killed him there and buried him. After this we are
told of the wonderful property of the tomb.^ With the mirabilia
the work of Nennius ends.
The Historia Britonum^ then, not only contains the earliest known
mention of Arthur, but presents a detailed story of the whole
Arthurian period. It is natural, in the first place, to compare this
story with that of Gildas.
In very general outline the two do not greatly differ, — that is,
Gildas's narrative, apart from his expressions of personal feeling,
might serve as a vague outline for the equally anti-Saxon narrative
of Nennius.^ Although Nennius, who lived some centuries later than
Gildas, does not, like Gildas, exaggerate the Saxons* conquests and
dwell upon their cruelty, he nevertheless substantially agrees with
his predecessor in making it appear that the barbarians furnished
no real aid against the Picts and Scots. The statement of Nennius
that the Saxons conquered only by the will of God, corresponds to
Gildas's prevailing idea that the invasion was a punishment for the
sins of the Britons. Again, Nennius makes Ambrosius, in his role
of magus^ express the impassioned belief of the Britons that their
overthrow was not final, while Gildas* had mentioned, doubtless
in accordance with a popular tradition, a limited time — three hun-
dred years — as the period assigned by prophecy to the Saxon
occupation. At the beginning of his account and elsewhere, Nennius
preserves, however vaguely, reminiscences of the civil wars between
various factions for which Gildas so bitterly blames his countrymen.
Indeed, it can be proved from resemblances in phraseology* that
one of the pre-Nennian authors of the Historia Britonum had Gildas's
work at hand when he wrote, and utilized it in some of his earlier
chapters.
1 For remaining local traces of this story, see Rees, Liber Landavensis^ cited
also by Zimmer, Nennius Vindicatus^ p. 114.
2 Their agreement as to the number of ships which brought the first invaders
(three) can hardly be regarded as significant.
• Chap. 23.
* Almost all of these are cited by Mommsen, pp. 21 ff.
Digitized
by Google
1 8 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
But the differences between the two accounts are far more impor-
tant than the agreements. The most obvious is the general one
caused by the greater fullness of Nennius. He seems to include all
the statements of fact that appear in Gildas, except that of the
pestilence concomitant with the last invasion of the Picts, and
he adds all the following material: the name of Guorthigirnus ;
entirely new characters and roles in Hengist's daughter (whom he
does not name) and in St. Germ anus, Hors, Hengist, Guorthigirnus's
interpreter Ceretic (who is of very little importance), Octha, Ebissa,
Guorthemir, Pascent, and above all Arthur, as well as his son Anir
and his dog Cabal ; the specification of Tanet, and later of Kent,
as the first abode of the Saxons ; the dissatisfaction of the Britons
with the Saxons before the latter had performed any overt acts of
hostility ; all the stories of Hengist*s plots (including the details of
his manner of securing reenforcements), the incidents of his feast
and the marriage of his daughter to Guorthigirnus and his treach-
erous slaughter of the Britons; the whole tale of Guorthigirnus's
tower, with all its incidentals ; the wars of Guorthemir, which take
the place, with much more detail, of what Gildas says of those of
Ambrosius; the legend about Guorthemir's burial; the legends of
Guorthigirnus's death ; the account of Arthur's wars in toto, except
for Gildas's mention of the siege of Mount Badon ; and, finally, the
mirabilia relating to Arthur. Nennius also differs from Gildas in
making no allusion to Ambrosius's descendants and in saying that
the Saxons came to Britain by chance.
There is a very notable divergence in the fact that, with Nennius,
Guorthemir practically replaces the Ambrosius of Gildas. To be
sure, Nennius speaks of Ambrosius also, but in subordinate and
inconsistent notices. Three times Ambrosius appears dimly in the
story as a powerful leader : where it is said that Guorthigirnus was
in fear of him ; where he is called chief king of the Britons after
the death of Guorthigirnus ; and where his strife with Guitolinus is
mentioned. Evidently the conception of the child of supernatural
attainments in the tower episode was originally a very different one ;
and confusion appears in that episode in that the child's mother
declares that he has no father, while he himself (agreeably, be it
observed, to Gildas's account) claims to be the son of a Roman
Digitized
by Google
Nennius 19
consul. From these facts it seems not unreasonable to surmise
that Nennius's story is that of the British faction in the island, as
opposed to the Roman faction of Gildas, — that Guorthemir crowds
out Ambrosius because he was the hero of this British faction, but
that Ambrosius's fame was too great to allow him to be passed over
without mention. The character of magician assigned to Ambro-
sius in Nennius is in harmony with this theory ; for it is an expla-
nation of a great chief's successes very natural to the minds of a
hostile party, especially after the lapse of time has afforded oppor-
tunity for legends to arise. ^ Evidence will soon be given that this
whole incident of the tower is one of the later additions to the
Historia,
It is clear, therefore, that the entire section of Nennius's work
with which we are concerned is independent of Gildas in origin ; or,
if not, that in the process of expansion and alteration it has been
completely transformed in substance and largely in spirit.
The contributions of the Historia to the Arthurian story being
thus indicated, the next step is to consider their sources. Unfortu-
nately, nothing more definite can be determined than that they rest
upon British traditions of uncertain age.
Nennius's own mention of British traditions may refer chiefly or
altogether to the version of the Historia which came down to him,
and the starting point of our investigation must therefore be the
unique Chartres manuscript, which alone represents the work at
a pre-Nennian stage of its development. The Chartres version is
unfortunately a fragment, ending at the point where Guorthigirnus
is falling in love with Hengist's daughter. As far as it goes, it
agrees closely, for our period, with Nennius's redaction^ so that we
cannot assume that it lacked anything which appeared in the latter.
Its heading, however, is important for our present purpose : ^ Inci-
piunt excerpta filii Urbgen de libro Sancti Germani inventa et origine et
genealogia Britonum,
1 Rh^s, it may be observed, thinks that a mythical Ambrosius was already
known (Hibbert Lectures on Celtic Heathendom^ pp. 1 51-152).
2 I have adopted a number of corrections and have omitted De aetatibus mundi
(which is really the title of chap. i). For the original, see Rev. Celt, XV, 174 ff.
Digitized
by Google
v'
20 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
The sources indicated in the latter part of this heading evidently
refer, not to the portion of the Historia which deals with our period,
but to other portions of the work. It seems, therefore, as if the
"son of Urbgen" meant to say that he took his account of our
period from a Life of St. Germanus. Now only two or three of the
incidents with which we are concerned have anything to do with
St. Germanus. . It follows, therefore, that the original " liber Sancti
Germani " did not contain most of them, and that they were either
inserted in the Historia by the son of Urbgen or had been added
to the Germanus book before it came into his hands. The whole
episode of Guorthigirnus's tower was either a specially late addition
or else had an origin quite different from that of the other incidents
in question.^ The mirabilia^ also, are pretty certainly accretions to
the original.
This is all we know of the development of the text, and it does
not really show that any part of the work is necessarily much older
than any of the others: for (i) we cannot tell the date of the son
of Urbgen, or of any version of the Historia previous to Nennius ;
(2) all additions (except for a clause or two) were made at least as
early as the time of the latter, that is, by about the year 800 ;
(3) even if the additions were made by Nennius himself, as seems
unlikely in the case of most of them, they may have been taken
from independent written records ; and (4) the age of an oral tra-
dition cannot be determined by the date at which that tradition
happens to be committed to writing.
What is to be said, therefore, of Nennius's material is that it
represents more or less inconsistent British traditions of uncertain
age, some of which ^ had probably been written down about a cen-
tury after the time of Gildas, and that the work was completed
^ This is evident from the following considerations : (i) the episode represents
Ambrosius in a character different from that in which he appears in the rest of
the narrative ; (2) it locates Caer Guorthigim differently ; (3) it is loosely con-
nected with what precedes ; (4) it calls the Saxons Angliy — a name which occurs
nowhere else in Nennius except in the account of Northern affairs, which, as we
have seen, may easily have come from a source different from that of the rest of
the work.
2 But not necessarily any of the portions with which we are here concerned.
Digitized
by Google
Nennius 2 1
about the year 800. The next question is, How far is the narrative
historical ?
It is not surprising that some writers have denied to Nennius
any credibility whatever. The story of Germanus^s miracles, of
Guorthigirnus's tower, and of Guorthemir's burial, the mirabilia^ and
many other sections, are clearly altogether fabulous; the account
of the Saxons* treachery in killing the British chiefs is a bit of
continental tradition ; ^ and the requirement of a boy's blood to mix
with the mortar is only a motive from Celtic (or, indeed, from uni-
versal) folklore." Then, again, Nennius is too much of a partisan.
There is also external evidence which counts strongly against him,
for we have in the Saxon Chronicle a very different and much more
straightforward account of this same period. This testimony from
the opposite party we must now briefly consider.
The early portion of the Chronicle^ which here concerns us, though
probably not written down before the eighth or ninth century,
doubtless represents traditions which go back to a time not far
removed from the events to which they refer. After mention of
the coming of the Germans and of their establishment in the island
(taken from Bede's account, which will soon be discussed), the suc-
ceeding entries of the Chronicle^ as far as they relate to the present
subject, are as follows :
455. In this year Hengest* and Horsa' fought against Wyrtgeorn* the
king, in the place called Agaelsthrep (and his brother Horsa was killed*),
and after that, Hengest succeeded to the kingdom, and J^z ^ his son.
457. Hengest and vEsc fought against the Britons at Crecganford, killed
four thousand of them, drove them to London, and won Kent.
465. In a fight of Hengest and Nj&z with the Welsh near Wippedsfleet,
the Welsh lost twelve leaders and the Saxons one, Wipped.
473. Hengest and M&z conquered the Welsh.
1 Widukind (Mon. Germ. Nist.y Script, III, ed. 1839, p. 419) recounts it as
having been practised by the Saxons against the Thuringians.
2 See Dr. Jamieson's History of the Culdees, pp. 20 ff., and Tylor, Primitive
Culture J 3d ed., 1891, I, 104-108.
* These names may have been taken from Bede, though I do not think they
were ; see below, pp. 24, 25.
* Probably from Bede.
Digitized
by Google
22 ' Arthurian Material in Chronicles
This is the last that is said of Hengest, and the next entry, at
477, tells of the arrival of -^lle and his three sons in three ships.
Under 508 it is stated that Cerdic and Cynric (historically the
founders of the kingdom of the West Saxons,^ and represented as
having come to Britain thirteen years before) slew a British king
called Natanleod ^ with five thousand of his men, from whom that
region was named Natan leaga. Except for the statement of a fight*
of Cerdic and Cynric in 527, and the conquest of the Isle of Wight
in 530, there is no mention of any further warfare with the Britons
until 552, after the end of our period.
Now while this narrative agrees substantially, or at least does
not disagree, with the much vaguer outline of Gildas, except that
it does not speak of Ambrosius, it does stand in striking contrast
to the story of Nennius. And we can have no hesitation which to
prefer. The authors of the Chronicle were probably biased ; they
must be expected to omit British names and victories, and they
have probably recorded here and there a purely legendary detail.
Still, it is manifest that they tried to set down only what they sup-
posed to be the plain truth. On their testimony, as well as on a
priori grounds, we are justified in rejecting Nennius's story of the
alliance of Vortigern with the Saxons against his own people (which
involves much of the narrative of Hengest's machinations), though
we need not necessarily refuse to believe that Vortigern was at first
very friendly to the Saxons and that he married a Saxon woman.
There is, however, in the outline of the Chronicle (apart from those
details which it may have taken from Bede) one point of apparent
contact with Nennius, — it specifies four battles as fought by Hen-
gist against the Britons, which may perhaps correspond to the four
assigned by Nennius to Guorthemir. Even here, however, there is
striking disagreement. There is no certainty that the places men-
tioned in the Chronicle are to be identified with those of Nennius.
Further, though the Chronicle, by not claiming a Saxon victory in
the first fight, seems to admit a defeat,* it substantially contradicts
* As recorded in the Chronicle, ann. 519, in an interpolation.
2 Leod = Welsh llwyd, " prince."
« In this part of the Chronicle a defeat is never recorded in plain terms.
Digitized
by Google
>;
Nenniiis 23
Nennius as to the result of the others, giving very definite, though
perhaps untrustworthy, details. Certainly the inherent probability
is that the Saxons rather than the Britons were victorious. It looks,
therefore, as if in Nennius the real facts had been inverted, and as
if his laudation of Guorthemir (like Gildas's praise of Ambrosius)
were, as we should expect, greatly exaggerated.
But it may reasonably be maintained that the Chronicle gives
indirect confirmation of the most important of all Nennius's
stories, that of the career of Arthur; for, during a long period
beginning with the year 527 it records no advance of the Saxons.
The most natural explanation, in which all historians agree, and
which is in harmony with Gildas's account, is that the power of
the invaders had been weakened by British successes. Even here
there is a discrepancy, however, in that Nennius makes Arthur's
victories end with the siege of Mount Badon, which must have
occurred long before 527. Still, this variation is not a very serious
matter, since both accounts are admitted to be highly inaccurate
in details.
While, then, the Saxon Chronicle indicates that the narrative of
Nennius is greatly distorted, it admits the conclusion that parts of
his main outline may have a basis in fact. There are other con-
siderations of like tendency. In the first place, it must be remem-
bered that, even though the Historia Britonum is only a record of
popular traditions, the popular traditions of an unlettered time do
not create something out of nothing, and are very tenacious of
striking facts. One may reasonably hold that Vortimer never thor-
oughly subdued the Saxons, and question whether Vortigern married
Hengist's daughter ; but it does not seem very reasonable to doubt
that Vortigern, Vortimer, Ambrosius, and Arthur were real men who
fought against the invaders.
In one point, indeed, — the remark that the Saxons first came
to Britain by chance, — Nennius's story seems to be more nearly
correct than that of Gildas ; though Nennius is evidently wrong,
like Gildas, in implying that none of them had ever come before
the time of Vortigern. The Historia also appears to receive some
confirmation in certain details from the Ecclesiastical History of
Bede. Of this latter, therefore, something must now be said.
Digitized
by Google
24 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Bede composed his great work in his Northumbrian monastery
in the year 731. He draws his brief account ^ of the period of the
Saxon invasion chiefly from Gildas. For the most part he copies
the latter's very words, making only slight alterations to improve
the style. All that is here necessary, therefore, is to specify those
points in which he departs from Gildas. In all of these which are
really important,^ he agrees with Nennius.' He gives to the king
who called in the Germans the name Vurtigernus ; says that the
leaders of the first comers are reported to have been two brothers,
Hengist and Horsa; gives their genealogy, and adds that Horsa
was afterwards killed by the Britons. Obviously, unless Bede was
drawing from that form of the Historia Britonum which existed in
his day, his evidence goes to substantiate at least these details of
Nennius's narrative.
Now while, in the absence of proof to the contrary, the possibility
that Bede used the Historia ^ must always be admitted, — and while
it is perhaps still less improbable that he may have got information
from the British population near his home,* — it is more natural to
suppose that he drew wholly from Saxon tradition. From that
source must have come his remark that a monument in the eastern
1 Bk. i, chaps. 14-23.
2 The less significant ones are the following: (i) Bede states directly, in
marked divergence from Gildas, that the Saxons actually fought and conquered
the Scots. This may have come to him from Saxon tradition, but it is an almost
necessary inference from the general course of events as described by Gildas
(and Nennius), though they themselves may deny it. (2) Bede*s statement that,
upon their break with the Britons, the Saxons allied themselves directly with the
Picts (see the discussion of Fordun, p. 243, below), he takes from a Life of St.
Germanus {Acta Sanctorum^ July, VII, 213; see Thumeysen, Englische Studietiy
XXII, 166) upon which he is drawing for an account of the saint (as appears
from an excerpt which he makes from it later, chap. 28). (3) Bede is the first of
the historians to mention the fact that Lupus was associated with Germanus, —
a detail which was taken into the story by Geoffrey of Monmouth. (4) Still
more remote from the present subject is Bede's statement as to what parts of
the country were occupied by the respective German tribes.
2 Mommsen's argument to this effect (N'eues Archiv^ 1894, XIX, 291 ff.) from
Bede's error in dating the fabulous story of King Lucius*s conversion, has not
been generally accepted.
* See Zimmer, Nennius Vindicatus^ p. 61.
Digitized
by Google
V
Nennius 2 5
part of Kent still bears Horsa's name;^ nor is it likely that the
authors of the detailed notices of the early battles in the Chronicle
were indebted to Bede for the names of Hengest and Horsa, the
leaders in those battles.
A little later,2 Bede gives, evidently from Saxon sources, informa-
tion which seems to reappear, in an incomplete and greatly altered
form, in Nennius. This consists of the genealogical table of the
^arly kings of Kent, who are thus named in succession : Hengist,
who with his son Oisc was first to come to Britain, invited by
Vurtigernus ; CEric, called Oisc, from whom the Kentish kings are
called Oiscings; Octa; Irminric ; ^dilberct. Now there can be
no doubt that Nennius's Octha is identical with Bedels Octa, and it
looks as if Nennius's Ebissa were really Bede's Oisc* This sugges-
tion assumes considerable corruption of the name, but Bede him-
self, it will be observed, gives an alternate form, CEric^ and the
Saxon Chronicle has ^sc. But if the supposition is correct, the
authors of the Historia Britonum made Hengist's son into his
nephew, and his grandson into his son ; for it must certainly be
assumed that, in a point relating so directly to the Saxons, their
^wn record is the more correct.* It follows that everything that
Nennius says of Octha and Ebissa is distorted and fabulous. The
narrative, indeed, is self-condemnatory when it states that these
early Saxon leaders not only conquered the North but settled there.*
So far, therefore, Nennius seems to have preserved, amid a great
deal of pure legend, some reminiscences of truth. It is now time
1 Cf. on the French Bruty p. 218, below. * Bk. ii, chap. 5.
8 So far as I know, this suggestion has not been made before.
* Among the genealogies of North British origin which make up the last part
of Nennius*s work, that of the Kentish kings gives the succession as Hengist,
Octha, Ossa, Eormoric (chap. 57).
* Why it does so is explained if we suppose that it was itself composed in that
region. For each section of the British population might naturally tend to asso-
ciate with its own locality the ravages of some of the first invaders of whom they
had recollection ; and while the connection of the first settlement, under Hengist,
with Kent, may easily have been too firmly established ^in every one's memory to
be broken, the same need not have been true of all the exploits of succeeding
kings. Nennius seems to return to the facts when he says that, upon the death
of Hengist, Octha came back to Kent •
Digitized
by Google
26 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
to consider directly that part of his story which is most vital to the
present subject, namely, his account of Arthur. On this small sec-
tion is based practically our whole actual knowledge, real or supposed,
of the facts about this hero, and an immense amount of ingenuity,
mostly misdirected, has been devoted to its interpretation. One
must certainly reject, at the start, all such unsupported suggestions
as that, for instance, which makes Arthur the son of Ambrosius, —
an attractive idea which has been adopted by more than one writer.
Nennius's accoimt of Arthur, with his similar catalogue of Guor-
themir's battles, differs notably from most of the rest of his narra-
tive in being concise and straightforward. It has every appearance
of having been originally set down by a man who was far more of
an historian and less of a fabulist than the author of the stories
about Guorthigirnus and Hengist. Of course, in the statement that
Arthur with his owA hand in a single battle killed more than nine
hundred men, a bit of legend has crept in; but the only other
notably suspicious features are the specification of the number of
the engagements as twelve, and the statement that Arthur was
always victorious. While, therefore, we cannot accept the passage
as absolute truth, we may reasonably conclude that it representis
what was believed to be true by a Briton of a rather judicial mind
some time before the end of the eighth century, and we may try to
interpret it on that basis. In the absence of evidence to the con-
trary, it must be allowed to indicate, in the first place, that Arthur
was the hero of the battle of Badon, of the historicity of which
Gildas's mention leaves no doubt.
The central point in the discussion of this account, — and that
which has evoked most controversy, — is the attempt to fix the
locality, or localities, in which Arthur performed his exploits. This
attempt is based, necessarily, on the identification of the names
which Nennius connects with his twelve battles. Now, as regards
these, the whole debate has not brought us any nearer to actual cer-
tainty than were the students in the time of Henry of Huntingdon,
who tells us,^ summarily, that "all the places are now unknown,"
though we need not?, perhaps, agree with the indolent archdeacon
1 £d. Arnold, Rolls Series, p. 49.
Digitized
by Google
Nennius 27
that this is due to the providence of God, who wished to show the
worthlessness of earthly glory. This being the state of the case
as regards the individual places, one must refuse assent to any of
the efforts which have been made (many of them very elaborate)
to trace strategically the course of Arthur's campaigns.^ It may
suffice here to say that there are two main theories, each supported
by certain unconvincing arguments independent of Nennius. One
of these theories is that Arthur belonged to the South and fought
most of his battles in that region, though this does not necessarily
imply that he may not have penetrated sometimes to other parts
of the country. The other theory, which has been especially
championed by Skene and Stuart-Glennie, is that his activity was
limited chiefly or altogether to the neighborhood of the Roman
walls in the North. Two facts are thought to favor this latter con-
tention : (i) the names of Guinevere, Modred, stnd other personages
of Arthurian story, and certain stories about them, are localized by
popular tradition and the old romances, in southern Scotland exclu-
sively, or almost exclusively^; and (2) the places mentioned in the
Welsh Arthurian poetry likewise belong to the North.* But these
1 The first of these attempts, as far as I know, was that of John Whitaker in
his History of Manchester, 1771-1775, II, 35-58. After his time, minute recon-
structions of the whole history of the Arthurian period, based often on an accept-
ance of ever3rthing said not only by Nennius, but by Geoffrey of Monmouth, and
nearly every other of the mediaeval English, Scottish, and French historical
romancers, were not uncommon for fifty years, and they have not altogether
ceased yet ; see, for example, John Milner, Antiquities of Winchester, 1839, I,
chap. 5, especially pp. 55 ff. ; Gentleman^ s Magazine, 1842, a series of articles begin-
ning Vol. XVII, p. 385, and continuing into XVIII (see index) ; Poste, especially
pp. 103-108; Haigh, especially pp. 279-295; Babcock, pp. 142-177; W. H. Dick-
inson, King Arthur in Cornwall, London, etc., 1900. As less fanciful or otherwise
more important, may be mentioned : Carte, History of England, I747»"I» 205 ; Gunn,
Historia Britonum, pp. 173-183; Stevenson, Nennius, pp. 48-49; Todd, L^abhar,
etc., pp. 109-111 ; Skene, Four Ancient Books, I, 50-60, and Celtic Scotland, I,
153-154; C. H. Pearson, in Bishop Percy's Folio MS.,ed. Hales andFumivall,
I, 403; Stuart-Glennie, Arthurian Localities in Merlin, ed. E.E.T.S., Part III,
1869 (also published separately, Edinburgh, 1869, with an argument by Pearson) ;
Guest, Origines Celticae, II, 187-189.
2 The fame of Arthur himself has of course left its traces also in the south of
England and elsewhere. » Cf. pp. 95 (note i), 203, 242 ff., below.
Digitized
by Google
28 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
arguments are by no means conclusive. The localization of names
does not prove that they may not have been imported from else-
where.^ Moreover, if Arthur's victories were confined to the North,
we can hardly understand the cessation of the Saxon advance after
the battle of Badon. The mirabilia of Nennius prove that Arthur
was already a traditional figure in the Southwest considerably before
800. And, finally, if Arthur were already famous in the North in
the eighth century, it might perhaps be expected that Bede should
at least allude to him. The matter is one which every studqnt
must decide for himself, and in any case it is of no great importance
to the present subject
That the author of the list of Arthur's battles knew nothing more
about them than he records, is very probable. That he, or ante-
cedent tradition, has obscured some of the facts, hardly needs ta
be stated. Either he has omitted the names of some engagements,
or else he is quite wrong in saying that Arthur was victorious in all
of those that he mentions. It is certainly possible that he does
not name the battles in their proper order. There is nothing ta
show that he meant to represent them as following in rapid succes-
sion ; they may very well have stood in his mind for a whole life-
time of fighting.
The most important point of all, if we could only decide it, is
perhaps that of Arthur's rank and office. Nennius says that he
fought, together with the kings of the Britons, as dux bellorum.
Now this is manifestly not equivalent to stating that Arthur was
himself by birth one of the kings and was recognized by the others
as overlord. Certainly the writer of the first of the Arthurian
mirabilia cannot have had any such conception when he called
Arthur simply miles. That Arthur was not of royal blood is directly
asserted by the tenth-century Vatican version of the Historia ; but
that is too late to have much authority. Taking everything together,
it certainly looks as if Arthur owed his position of leader chiefly to
his preeminent ability. It may be that his relation to the kings
1 If we should choose to accept Professor Rhys*s Arthur- Airem theory (Studies
in the Arthurian Legend., pp. 45-47), we should have a sufficient explanation for
the occurrence of some of the names in the North.
Digitized
by Google
Nennitis 29
was simply something like that ascribed to Miltiades among the
Athenian generals: they may all have given place to him volun-
tarily, as to the man most capable to command. It seems more
likely, however, that there is truth in the theory advanced by Pro-
fessor Rhys ^ and others, that Arthur owed some of his authority
to the fact of holding the office which had belonged to one of the
military chiefs under the Roman system of administration in the
island. These offices may well have been kept up by the Britons,
at least by the Romanizing party, after the departure of the Romans.
The idea of Arthur's position thus suggested is in harmony with
the opinion of those writers who conclude that Nennius's record of
Arthur's battles is not that of a series of campaigns systematically
planned, but that he went from one place to another, wherever he
was most needed for the help of his people. This would fit very
well with the theory ^ (inherently reasonable and suggested by what
Nennius says, though apparently by anticipation, of Octha and
Ebissa) that the Saxons, during their conquest, made use of their
fleets, as did the Danes later, in reaching points easy of attack, and
did not always march overland through the enemy's country.
The picture of Arthur which we get from such considerations
as these, is very different from that which was developed in later
romance and which has passed from romance into modern literature.
But if it has less splendor, it is at least as worthy of admiration.
For it represents Arthur as a bold warrior and an energetic general,
to whose preeminent abilities even jealous petty chieftains were
obliged to bow, and who, standing firm in the midst of a period of
distress and danger, for a long time, as William of Malmesbury was ,
to observe,* sustained the falling fortunes of his country.
Yet, even after so reserved a concession as this to romance and
enthusiasm, it is safer to end with a word of critical caution. There
is always the possibility that Arthur never existed at all, and that
even Nennius's comparatively modest eulogy has no firmer founda-
tion than the persistent stories of ancient Celtic myth* or the
patriotic figments of the ardent Celtic imagination.
1 Studies in the Arthurian Legend^ p. 7 ; Welsh People^ p. 105.
2 Advanced by Babcock. * Cf. p. 40, below. * Cf. pp. 96-97, below.
Digitized
by Google
30 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
From all that has been said, it has appeared that the elements of
probable definite fact which Nennius has added to Gildas's very
meagre outline of the Arthurian period are scarcely more than
these : (i) that the king^ in whose territory the Saxons began their
permanent conquest was Guorthigimus (Vortigem),' and that his
resistance to them, whether or not it was patriotic and determined,
was unsuccessful ; (2) that the earliest Saxon leaders were Hengist
and Hors (Horsa), among whose contemporaries and immediate
successors were Octa and Ebissa ; • (3) that among the various
British kings and leaders who fought against the invaders in the
following decades, there was a certain Guorthemir (Vortimer), who
may, or may not, have been the son of Vortigern;* (4) that the
most important of these leaders, and one of the most efficient, was
Arthur, the hero of the battle of Mount Badon, whose position as
general (and perhaps as successor of one of the Roman officials)
was probably due more to merit than to birth. These facts, with
those which Gildas furnishes, are apparently the real historical
basis for the whole Arthurian story as it appears in the chronicles.
But for that story Nennius\s fables have equal importance with
his facts. Geoffrey of Monmouth, as he was bound to do, adopted
both without discrimination as the basis of his version, and it was
Geoffrey who determined the form of the tradition. While it is
true, therefore, that the subsequent magnification of the figure
of Arthur vastly exceeds anything that was to be expected from
Nennius's account, that it is chiefly due to other sources, and that
it has thrown into the background, and in the romances has almost
crowded out, the bulk of what he records, — nevertheless, in the
works with which the present discussion is concerned, the Historia
of Nennius is the chief source of Arthurian story in its main out-
lines. This will come out with sufficient clearness as we proceed.
1 Perhaps only a tribal chief, though apparently the overlord of at least a con-
siderable part of the country.
2 Though some of the elements in his story may well enough be mythical, as
Professor Rh^s supposes {Arthurian Legendy p. 354).
* More properly, perhaps, Oisc.
* The resemblance between the names of the two is somewhat suspicious.
Digitized
by Google
CHAPTER II
THE INTERMEDIATE STAGE
I. The Annales Cambriae and Annals of St. Michaevs
Mount
Nennius, in his prologue, blames his countrymen for their failure
to preserve the historical records of their race, and this reproach
applies as well to the later Britons as to Nennius's predecessors.
The only historical record of Welsh authorship which remains to
us from a period of several centuries after Nennius is the brief series
of annals known as the Annales Cambriae^ jotted down in Latin by
an anonymous writer in the second half of the tenth century.^
This is the last important chronicle of British authorship with which
we shall have to deal.
The entries of the Annales Cambriae are few and scattering, and
there are only two which in any way concern the Arthurian tradition.
1 The part of the Annales relating to the period before the Norman Conquest
is printed in Petrie and Sharpe*s Mon. Hist. Brit.^ pp. 830 ff. (actually edited
by Aneurin Owen ; see Phillimore in Y Cymtnrodor, XI, 140), with remarks by
Hardy, pp. 92-95. The whole work is printed in a composite version from the
three manuscripts, in the edition by J. Williams ab Ithel, Rolls Series, i860.
A review of this edition by L. Jones in Archceologia Cambrensis^ 1861, p. 331,
points out very serious blunders. The oldest (uninterpolated) version was prop-
erly printed by E. Phillimore, with discussion, in Y Cymmrodor^ 1888, IX, 141-183.
This is reproduced by J. Loth, MaHnogionyWy 345-357. For further discussions,
see Ward, 1, 431 ; J. Loth, V Emigration bretonne^ pp. 30-31 ; Schoell, De Ecclesiae
Briionum Scotarumque Historiae Fontibus^ pp. 37-39 ; and especially Phillimore in
IVelsh Hist. Records^ Y CymmrodoTy XI, 134-148. There is a wrong argument by
Franz Piitz in Ztsch.f. franz. Spr., 1892, XIV, 186-192. The two later thirteenth-
century versions of the Annates have more Arthurian material than the original
version, but it is drawn from Geoffrey of Monmouth and therefore of no independ-
ent value.
31
Digitized
by Google
32 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Probably the writer had little or no more knowledge of the subject
than he shows, since he begins his records with a.d. 444, and reckons
all subsequent years from that date, as if he recognized the Saxon
invasion as the commencement of a new era.
The two entries which concern us are the following : ^
516. Battle of Badon, in which Arthur carried the cross of our Lord
Jesus Christ for three days and three nights on his shoulders, and the
Britons were victors.
537. Battle of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut fell.
The mention of the battle of Badon, and of Arthur as its hero,
adds nothing to the information furnished by Gildas and Nennius.
The statement about the cross is more significant. Its mere inser-
tion in this connection can be explained, as will soon appear, from
Nenhius, but it points to a legendary conception which we have not
yet encountered in so clear a form.
Nennius says that in Arthur's eighth battle he bore the image of
the Virgin upon his shoulders. This looks like a clumsy or unin-
telligent repetition of a statement that Arthur bore the image as a
device upon his armor. Geoffrey of Monmouth, in taking over this
section of Nennius, changes (or restores) the sentence. He writes *
that in the battle of Badon Arthur fastened to his shoulders his
shield Pridwen,* on which was represented the image of the Holy
Mary. William of Malmesbury also states * that Arthur had sewed
the image on his arms.^ Very much to the point, then, is the fact*
that the Welsh word for ** shield " {ysgwydd) differs only in a single
letter from that for shoulder {ysgwyd). If the story was originally
recorded or told in Welsh, as was doubtless the case, and contained
1 Besides translating, I have given the dates according to our own system.
2 ix, 4, 17-19. Possibly Geoffrey here preserves the genuine reading, which
may have stood in his copy of Nennius.
^ Cf. p. 95, below.
* See p. 40, below. Henry of Huntingdon (see p. 42, below), merely repeats
Nennius.
^ " Fretus imagine Dominicae matris, quam armis suis insuerat" (Gesta Regunty
Rolls Series, I, 12).
^ Pointed out by Williams (or rather, I suppose, by Aneurin Owen), p. xxiv ;
also by Skene, Four Ancient Books^ I, 55.
Digitized
by Google
Annales Cambriae 33
the word for "shield," a later transcriber or narrator, whosfe influ-
ence manifests itself in the existing versions of Nennius, may easily
have substituted "shoulder" by mistake. The theory is so prob-
able that it may be accepted as a fact, and evidently it is equally
good for the entry in the Annales^ though there the mention is of
the cross, not of the image.
Now clearly the statements of Nennius and of the Annales are
so similar that we must assume that they are both derived from a
common source, if we can only explain the differences : namely, —
the substitution in the Annales of the cross for the image of the
Virgin ; the addition of the mention of the three days and nights ;
and the transference of the episode from the eighth battle of Arthur
to that of Badon. An explanation is not hard to find. The Cam-
bridge MS. of Nennius ^ adds at the end of the account of Arthur a
legend which has been incorporated into the other manuscripts:
" For Arthur went to Jerusalem, and there made a cross of the size
of the true cross, and there it was consecrated, and for three whole
days he fasted, watched, and prayed before the cross of the Lord that
the Lord would give him victory over the pagans through this rood ;
which was granted. And he took away with him the image of the
Holy Mary, whose fragments are still kept at Wedel in great venera-
tion."* The Cambridge MS. is of the thirteenth century, but, while
the legend which it records may be developed from the very passage
of the genuine Nennius which we are considering, it may, on the
other hand, be older than the time of Nennius.^ In any case, it
seems probable that the compiler of the Annales^ or some prede-
cessor of his, finding, or thinking that he found, in his source
(whether or not' that source was Nennius) that Arthur carried the
image of the Virgin on his shoulders, and finding also in the legend
that victory over the pagans was granted him by virtue of the cross,
concluded — perhaps with a suggestion from a Christian figure of
speech — that it was more probable that what Arthur really carried
^ See Mommsen, p. 200.
2 Largely on the strength of this passage, Nennius's battle of the castle Guinnion
has been located by Skene and others at Wedale (in Stow).
^ There is no reason to suppose that the legend originated with the scribe of
the Cambridge MS., or that it does not antedate the compilation of the Annales.
Digitized
by Google
34 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
was th*e cross,^ and wrote it so in his jottings. Then the mention
of three days and nights might easily get in from the rest of
the Jerusalem legend. The transference of the episode from the
eighth battle to that of Badon, whenever it may have been made,
is explained on the general principle by which all the details of
lesser events tend to be attracted to greater ones.
There is no difficulty, then, in concluding that the statement in
the Annales is merely an amplified version of that given by Nennius.
The chief importance, in fine, of this first entry consists, as has
already been hinted, in showing that at least as early as the tenth
century Arthur had become for the Welsh an heroic legendary
figure. With the whole subject hereby suggested it will be more
convenient to deal later. ^
For the same reason we may here pass over the second entry
also, with the mere observation that it shows, already developed,
the tradition of a battle at " Camlann " in which Arthur was killed,
and together with him a warrior named Medraut. But special
notice should be taken that this is absolutely all the information
which it gives. Whatever the author may have had in mind, he
does not say that Medraut was Arthur's nephew, or a traitor, or
even that he fought on the opposite side.
This seems the natural place to mention a brief Chronicle of St.
Michael's Mount ^ (similar in form to the Annales Cambriae), which
was evidently composed by a Breton or some one with Breton sympa-
thies, and (since it ends in 1056) possibly in the eleventh century.
Its first entry, and that alone, relates to the Arthurian material :
CCCCXXI. Natus est S. Gildas. His diebus fuit Artus Rex Britan-
norum fortis, & facetus.*
1 How the legend of Nennius and Geoffrey was later expanded is shown by
Giraldus Cambrensis, who says (De Prin. Instr., Rolls Series, VIH, 126-127) that
Arthur had Mary's image painted on the inside of his shield, and that he used to
kiss its feet in battle. 2 gge pp. 96 ff., below.
8 Ed. Labbe, Nova Bibliotheca Manuscriptorum Libroruniy Paris, 1657, I, 349.
Delisle, in his edition of the Chronique de Robert de Torigni (Soc. de PHist, de
Normandie, Rouen, 1872, II, 208, note), says that the manuscript is 213 of the
library of Avranches. Migne reprints the chronicle. Patrol. Lat„ CCII, 1323.
* The two following entries are similar to statements in Geoffrey's history, but
disagree with it in date and otherwise :
Digitized byCjOOQlC
^thelweard 35
If this really precedes Geoffrey, it merely affords another bit of
testimony, only slightly different in character from others that we
possess^ and less important than those already considered, of the
fame of Arthur before Geoffrey's day.
II. -^THELWEARD
From the Britons, the task of preserving the historical records
of what was thenceforth to be England, was destined to pass, with
the possession of the island, to the Teutonic conquerors ; but with
the exception of the authors of the Saxon Chronicle and of one com-
paratively insignificant Latin writer, the very few and unimportant
English chroniclers of the first three hundred years after the death
of Bede were silent about the Arthurian material. The same is
true of the more ambitious annalists in whom the spirit of his-
torical composition began to revive at the end of the eleventh
and the beginning of the twelfth century, — Marianus Scotus,
Florence of Worcester, Simeon of Durham, and the latter's authori-
ties. It was not until the twelfth century was well under way that
the tradition received any real enlargement. So to the twelfth cen-
tury we may soon pass on. But some attention must first be given
to ^thelweard, the exceptional writer to whom reference has just
been made.^
Of -^thelweard's life we know with certainty nothing except that
he was descended from King ^thelred, brother of Alfred the Great.
It seems probable that he is identical with the powerful ealdorman
of the end of the tenth century,* whose relations with the well-
known ecclesiastic -^Ifric were so close.
DXIII. Venerunt transmarini Britanni in Armoricam, id est minorem
Britanniam.
D XX XIV. Occisus est Cauallonus Rex fortissimus majoris Britanniae.
1 See pp. 98 ff. below.
2 The text of i^thelweard is contained in Mon. Hist. Brit.^ pp. 499-521, with
discussions by Hardy, pp. 81-83, 122-123; see also Hardy, Cat., I, 571-574.
No. 1 160.
8 T. Wright {Biog. Brit. Lit., A.-S. Period) follows Nicolson in putting iEthel-
weard a century later.
Digitized
by Google
36 Arthurian Material in Chronic ks
In ^thelweard's very brief outline of the history of England
from the creation to the year 975, he twice summarizes the story of
the Saxon conquest. In the second instance he merely translates
from the Saxon Chronicle^ with an occasional insignificant explana-
tion or divergence. In the first, he follows Bede, but with varia-
tions. He says that the Britons, hard pressed by the northern
invaders, sent vast presents to the Saxons, of whose valor in piracy
they had heard, and asked their aid. This was done especially by
the advice of Vurthem, who was then held as king over all, and
whose authority all the nobility allowed. Two youths, Hengist and
Horsa, descendants of Woddan, came in three ships, were sent
against the Scots, and conquered them. Honored by the king,
they secretly sent home for their friends, informing them of the
fertility of the land and the sluggishness of the people. The Saxons
who came in answer to their summons were enthusiastically received
by the Britons, who rewarded their services against the northern
foes with gifts and honors. But at length the Britons, recognizing
the ability of these allies, partly feared and partly despised them,
broke the peace, and tried to drive them out. In the first battle
which ensued, the Saxons were victorious, and now they sent openly
to Germany for reinforcements, which came in great numbers. At
length they entirely conquered the Britons.^
It seems probable that ^thelweard wrote with knowledge of the
Historia Britonum, Bede does not say that the Britons were the
first to break the peace, but Nennius distinctly asserts that they
took counsel to do so. Very likely ^thelweard's remark that Hen-
gist's first message to Germany for reenforcements was kept secret,*
is an inference from Nennius's language, and there are also two
minor coincidences of phraseology.* If it is asked why ^thelweard
1 Here iEthelweaxd evidently notices that he has omitted a part of Bede*s
material which he meant to use, and so returns to it, thus interrupting the conti-
nuity of his narrative. In so doing he adds nothing to his original.
2 Cf. p. 217, below.
8 (i) iEthelweard says that the Saxons possessed astutiam^ and Nennius (37)
that Hengist was " doctus atque astutus et callidus " ; w^hile Bede does not
characterize leader or people at all. (2) Nennius says (37) that Hengist found
Guorthigimus to be a regent inertenty and iEthelweard makes the message sent
Digitized
by Google
William of Malmesbury 37
should have taken so much from Nennius and no more, the answer
must be that evidently, like many later writers, he regarded Nen-
nius's narrative as fabulous, and preferred to draw, when possible,
from Bede and the Saxon Chronicle,
We may infer, then, that ^thelweard took these details from
Nennius. It remains to explain the others not traceable to Bede,
— the mention of the vast presents which the Britons sent to Ger-
many, and the conception of the relations between Vurthern and
the nobility. Apparently these were due to ^thelweard's fancy,
which, we may conclude, applied to the period of the conquest con-
ditions with which he was familiar in his own time. This supposi-
tion is in harmony with the whole tone of his narrative and with
the practice of later English chroniclers. It is possible, however,
that -^thelweard found and used independent traditions, which may
have been either vague or detailed, floating or written. This is a
possibility which will have to be mentioned later in the discussion
of Henry of Huntingdon and William of Malmesbury. But in any
case ^thelweard adds nothing really significant to the Arthurian
story, nothing at all which seems to have perpetuated itself in later
versions ; and he does not even mention Arthur. His importance
lies wholly in the fact that he serves as a kind of link between Bede
and William of Malmesbury.
III. William of Malmesbury
We have now almost arrived at the period when the Arthurian
story was to emerge, through the history of Geoffrey of Monmouth,
from obscurity into world-wide popularity, which (increased by
other influences) was to remove it in large measure from the field
of history, real or supposed, to that of romance. This change,
however, was not to be accomplished without intermediate steps,
and we have still to consider the work of two chroniclers who,
while allowing themselves a freedom of imagination and a very
eclectic method in the choice of sources which dimly foreshadow,
to Germany speak of the inertiam populi as well 2& fecundiam terrae^ while Bede's
words are " insulae fertilitas ac segnitia Britonum." '
Digitized
by Google
38 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
and very likely actually suggested, the licentious procedure of
Geoffrey, yet tried in the main to reconstruct the story of the
Saxon invasion by judicial study of the existing authorities. One
of these men was the writer who not unreasoniably claimed ^ to be
the first worthy successor of Bede in the line of English historians,
— William of Malmesbury.
William of Malmesbury was born about 1095, probably in the
south of England, from a marriage between members of the Norman
and Saxon races. Brought up from childhood in Malmesbury Abbey,
he soon rose to a prominent position among the monks. He was
under the patronage of Earl Robert of Gloucester, brother of the
Empress Matilda, and was acquainted with other powerful nobles.
He had a special interest in Glastonbury Abbey, as is shown by
his compilation De Antiquitate Glastoniensis Ecclesiae^ but he never
permanently removed from Malmesbury, where he died about 1143.
The first version of his Gesta Regum Anglorum^ — the only one
among many works from his pen which concerns us at this point •
— was finished in 11 25, and the later recensions exhibit no changes
in the Arthurian material.*
William's account of the Saxon Conquest * is based primarily on
Bede, but he also uses the Saxon Chronicle and Nennius, and he
has a touch or two which can be traced to Gildas. His general
method, which is the most significant feature of his narrative, is to
weave together as much as he finds convenient of the information
which these writers afford. He aims to follow them closely, but it
is evident that his compounded story must differ materially from
that of any one of the originals. When they are contradictory, he
is generally obliged to exclude the versions of all but one. Thus,
he agrees with the Chronicle against Nennius in stating that the
Angles had the advantage in the last three battles with Vortimer
1 Gesta Regum, ed. Stubbs, II, 518, 567.
2 The standard edition is that of Bishop Stubbs, Rolls Series, 2 vols., 1887-
1889. For further discussion, see Morley, English Writers, III, 38-42.
8 For the discussion of other evidence furnished by William, see pp. 98-99,
103-104, 191, below.
* As far as appears from the account given by Stubbs.
6 Bk. i, §§ 4-8, pp. 7-12.
Digitized
by Google
William of Malmesbury ' 39
and in making Vortigern fight on the side of the Britons. These
particular instances show that he writes with some critical discrimi-
nation, and this appears again in his omission of Nennius's fabulous
story about Vortigern's tower and all the details of his marriage
with his daughter.
Sometimes, however, William uses his sources carelessly and incon-
sistently. Their disagreement causes him to fall into complete con-
fusion in regard to Octa and Ebissa and their relation to Hengist.^
Moreover, he constantly adds, evidently from his own imagination,
vivifying details, like the cavalry charge in the first fight of the
Saxons with the Scots. Very likely it is on no other authority
that he gives an entirely new version of the massacre of the British
chiefs, according to which Hengist makes them drunk and then
brings on a quarrel by taunting them. In the manner of Livy he
introduces an account of the reasons which influenced the British
council to call in the Saxons. Certain definite statements which he
makes of the length of periods may be based on the Saxon Chronicle^
but some other variations from Bede and Nennius are deliberate
changes made, as Stubbs says, in accordance with his " own impres-
sion about the fitness of things." Thus, in describing the resist-
ance of the Britons, William, though he adds no new information,
alters completely the order of events as given in his sources. He
represents Ambrosius and Arthur as fighting in conjunction during
the reign of Vortigern * and before the massacre of the chiefs, and
he says that Ambrosius was king after Vortigern's death.* Clearly
1 Cf. bk. i, chaps. 7, 8, and 44, and bk. iii, § 287 (II, 342) ; cf. below, p. 158,
p. 214, note 4.
^ This explanation involves the assumption of error or inaccuracy somewhere.
Between the coming of the Saxons and their first battle with the Britons Wil-
liam makes an interval of seven years, and in this Henry of Huntingdon (bk. ii,
chap. 3) agrees with him. Now the Chronicle says, six years ; but it is altogether
possible that both William and Henry may have had copies which varied from
those which have come down to us. Such errors as writing VI for V or vice
versa (the dates are 455 and 456) are very common in manuscripts. Or, both
William and Henry may have preferred to speak in round numbers, as William
seems again to do when he assigns twenty years as the length of the war thus
begun, though the Chronicle indicates eighteen (455-473). Cf. below, p. 159,
with note 12. ' i, § 8. * Here he is doubtless trying to follow Nennius.
Digitized
by Google
40 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
William is attempting to construct a continuous, reasonable, and
interesting narrative out of the fragmentary and inconsistent mate-
rials furnished by Bede and Nennius, and in so doing allows himself
the utmost freedom.^
William does not add anything new to the definite substance of
the Arthurian story, but certain points in his history of the period
challenge our attention. At his first mention of Vortigern he lays
such emphasis on the wickedness and worthlessness of that tyrant
as to make it seem probable that this conception was current in
his time, apart from the works of Nennius and Bede.^ We shall
later find evidence to the same effect in other chronicles.' He also
makes a very important statem^it in characterizing " the warlike
Arthur": "This is the Arthur," he says, "concerning whom the
idle tales of the Britons rave wildly even to-day, — a man certainly
worthy to be celebrated, not in the foolish dreams of deceitful
fables, but in truthful histories ; since for a long time he sustained
the declining fortunes of his native land and incited the uncrushed
courage of the people to war" (p. ii). He then goes on to speak
of the battle of Badon, following the account of Nennius. The
passage just quoted is specially noteworthy. It is one of several
pieces of evidence, which will be discussed later,* that, before the
time of Geoffrey of Monmouth, Arthur had attained in popular
estimation (chiefly, it seems, among the Britons) a much greater
importance than Nennius appears to ascribe to him.
William's significance, then, in the development of the Arthurian
material in the chronicles, with reserve of certain contributions
which remain to be mentioned,^ comes from his characterizations
of Vortigern and Arthur and especially from his method of using
his sources.
1 Cf. pp. 41, 261, 266, below.
2 This current conception, however, may have originated from the accounts of
these writers, at least in part.
» Cf. below, pp. 167, 183, 184, 200, 206, 213, 228, 251, 254. Contrast pp. 232,
note I, 234, 257, 258, 261.
* See pp. 98 ff ., below.
* See below, pp. 66 ff., 98-99, 103-104, 191.
Digitized
by Google
Henry of Huntingdon 41
IV. Henry of Huntingdon
The second of Geoffrey's more immediate predecessors, Henry of
Huntingdon, was probably born about 1084 in Cambridgeshire or
Huntingdonshire. His father was an ecclesiastic, apparently a
Norman, and Henry seems^ to have been brought up in the house-
hold of Bishop Robert Bloet of Lincoln. About 11 09 the bishop
appointed him Archdeacon of Huntingdon, and he held this office
till his death in (or about) 1155. The first edition of his Historia
Anglorum^ almost certainly appeared before 1133, and, though
there were later recensions, these make no change in his account of
the Arthurian period.^ It will appear later * that, when Henry dis-
covered in Geoffrey's History new material for the early part of his
work, he preferred to put it into an appendix rather than to incor-
porate it into his original text.
Fo^r purposes of genuine history, Henry's work is far inferior to
William's. He had good ability, but was too much of a worldling,
too indolent and too careless, to be thoroughly well-informed or
trustworthy, and he often involves himself in contradictions. He
doubtless thought that his lack of scholarly method (if he was con-
scious of it) was compensated for by the rhetorical moralizing in
which he often indulges.
In his account of the Arthurian period* Henry takes his material
wholly from Nennius, Bede, and the Saxon Chronicle, sometimes
adopting their very words, and (like William) often piecing together
fragments from several of them in such a way as to produce a very
complicated mosaic. He often enlarges upon his sources, and with
more freedom than William, partly or chiefly, it is evident, from his
own invention. His narrative is much longer than William's, and
he utilizes far more of the material which his sources afforded ^ ;
but his general method is exactly the same, and it will therefore
suffice to specify the most notable features of his version.
1 Ed. Arnold, Rolls Series, 1879.
2 See Arnold, p. xi.
' See pp. 119 ff., below.
* At the end of bk. i and beginning of bk. ii, pp. 36-49.
* Henry makes particular use of version E of the Chronicle.
Digitized
by Google
42 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Henry describes two of the battles with as much of vivid detail
as if he himself had been an eyewitness. In this he is doubtless
merely giving his imagination free play;* but it is just possible
that he is following ancient Saxon tradition when he locates the
fight of the Saxons against the Picts at Stamford. In one place he
is more critical (or should we say less ingenious?) than William,
since he rejects not only the tower story, but also the massacre of
the British chiefs. Like William, when he comes to that part of
the narrative which follows the death of Vortigem, he falls into
hopeless confusion ; but his rearrangement of the material is alto-
gether different from that of William, — a fact which might have
been enlightening to those modem enthusiasts who have thought
it possible to reconcile the accounts of Gildas, Nennius, and the
Chronicle. He inserts his mention of Arthur between two entries
from the Chronicle of the dates of 527 and 530 respectively, while
William, by introducing Arthur before the death of Hengist, seems
to put him forty years earlier. In recounting Arthur's exploits,
Henry follows Nennius almost word for word; but he calls him
" dux militum et regum Britanniae," while Nennius said only dux
bellorum. It is quite possible that Henry had, no reason for making
the change; but it is equally possible that he was influenced by
popular tradition. If so, the case is interesting and significant, as
showing that, before the time of Geoffrey, an Englishman could adopt
an idea of Arthur which made him not only preeminent among
Britons in his epoch, but actually supreme over the British kings.
1 Guest (Orig. Celt.., II, 164) thinks that he may have drawn from old English
war songs. But cf. Arnold, p. Iz.
Digitized
by Google
CHAPTER III
GEOFFREY OF MONMOUTH
An endless succession of chroniclers like William of Malmesbury
and Henry of Huntingdon would hardly have sufficed to give to
the British story of the Saxon Conquest any real literary interest.
But William and Henry had not ceased to work upon the revision
of their histories when the subject was taken up by Geoffrey of
Monmouthy who imparted to it a vastly greater popularity, and, for
literature, a vastly greater importance.^
I. Life of Geoffrey
Little is known of Geoffrey of Monmouth except what can be
gathered from a few incidental hints in his own writings.* He
1 The standard edition of Geoffrey, though the text is poor, and the discussion,
albeit of great merit, now largely out of date, is that of San-Marte (A. Schulz) :
GottfrucTs von Monmouth Historia Regum Britanniae mit lit.-hist. Einleitung und
Brut Tysylio in deutscher Uebersetzung, Halle, 1854. The text is merely reprinted
from Giles, Historia Britonum ex novem codd. MSS,, Caxton Society, 1844.
The editio princeps was by Ivo Cavellatus, Britannie utriusque Regum^ etc., Paris,
1508 (here the text is divided into nine books instead of twelve); again, more
accurately, Paris, 1517. Another edition by H. Commelinus in Rerum Britan-
nicarum ScHptores^ Heidelberg, 1587, pp. 1-92. An English translation by
A. Thompson, The British History ^ etc., 17 18; revised by Giles, 1842; also in
Giles, Six Old English Chronicles^ Bohn*s Library, pp. 89-292. Lists of the
manuscripts in Hardy, I, 341-350 ; and Ward, I, 222-250. I m^y note that I
have found that the following manuscripts in the British Museum are mere
abstracts or abbreviations of Geoffrey : Domit. A.x., No. 5 ; Nero, D.v., No. 3,
^o^* 393-395 (Hardy, I, 43, No. 108) ; Harl. 6069, No. 3.
2 The latest and fullest dis<;ussion of Geoffrey's life, and of the general ques-
tions connected with his history, is that of Professor W. Lewis Jones, Trans, of
the Hon. Soc. of Cymmrodorion, 1899, PP- 52-95 J also reprinted in a separate
pamphlet, 1899. ^^^ ^^^ known documents are here cited. Other important
43
Digitized
by Google
44 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
was born, probably, not far from iioo, and doubtless the Arturus
which he himself joins to his name means that his father was
so called. The Monumetensis which he also adds must signify that,
as Welsh tradition asserts, he was either born or bred at Monmouth.
Undoubtedly Geoffrey was by race a Welshman. Yet it has been
held^ that his writings show only a superficial acquaintance with
the Welsh language and that his education was chiefly in Latin and
French. This, it is maintained, is only what we should expect ; for
Urban (who was made Bishop of Llandaff in 1107) and his arch-
deacon Uchtryd, Geoffrey's uncle and foster father,^ must have
relied mainly upon Robert Earl of Gloucester and the Norman
interest, to which they owed their places. Perhaps Geoffrey was
actually brought up in the Benedictine priory founded by William I •
at Monmouth. Here he might well have come under the influence
of men who were specially versed in Breton traditions, since the
first head of the institution was a certain Wihenoc, evidently a
Breton, who brought over the monks from St. Florence, near Samur
in Anjou. Whether these suggestions are true or not, the mention
of a foster father shows, if the Gwentian Brut is to be trusted, that
Geoffrey lost his own father in his infancy.*
articles are those of Ward, I, 203-222, 278-286, and Madden (Archaological
Journal, 1858, XV, 299-312). Not now significant are those of Morley in English
Writers, III, 44 ff. ; Ebeling, Englands Geschichtschreiber, p. 12 ; Fabricius, BibL
med. et inf. Latinitatis, VII, 28-33 » ^- Paris, Mimoire sur Pane. Chron., etc., et sur
mist, des Bretons de Gau/reij etc., V^iis, 1865 ; Quarterly Review, June, 1826, No. 67,
pp. 285 ff. ; San-Marte, Zur Kritik der Hist. Reg. Brit., in Neue Mittheilungen
aus dent Gebiet hist.-antiquar., etc., Halle, 1857, IX, 49-75 ; T. Wright, Biog. Brit.
Lit., Anglo-Norman Period. Many of the books included in the general bibliog-
raphy, pp. 2-3, above, speak of Geoffrey more or less directly. A bibliography of
more special books and articles will be given later (pp. 50-51).
1 Ward, p. 205.
2 According to the Welsh Gwentian Brut (Brut y Tywysogion, the Gwentian
Chronicle of Caradoc of Llancarvan, with a translation by the late AneuHn Owen^
printed for the Cambrian Archaeological Association, 1863).
8 As Jones guesses (p. 10).
* The supposition that Geoffrey was brought «p in Normandy, though it has
been adopted by high authorities, rests on an almost certainly erroneous identifi-
cation of the " William son of Robert " to whom the Gwentian Brut says that
Geoffrey was chaplain.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 45
Geoffrey was an archdeacon, not at Monmouth, but probably at
Llandaff. It is a necessary inference that he did not receive the
appointment before 1140, the year in which his uncle Uchtryd was
promoted to the bishopric. Geoffrey's advancement was probably
due in part to the special favor of Earl Robert of Gloucester, to ^
whom he dedicated his Historia Regum Briianniae^ written about
1136.^ This work soon attained immense popularity and doubtless
brought Geoffrey considerable personal reputation. The Gwentian
Brut (never to be greatly trusted) says that many scholars and
chieftains sought his tuition. According to the same document,
William, son of Earl Robert, appointed Geoffrey his family priest
Geoffrey's real interest, as appears from the character of his writ-
ings, was in his own promotion rather than in the church. It was
doubtless for this reason that he dedicated to Bishop Alexander of
Lincoln his Prophecy of Merlin^ published shortly before the Historia
(in which it is also included); and it was probably about 1148,
after the death of both the bishop and Earl Robert, that he put
forth his poem the Vita Merlini^ with a dedication addressed appar-
ently to Alexander's successor. Bishop Robert, who had influence at
the court of Stephen. At last, after long waiting, he was appointed
bishop of the unimportant see of St. Asaph's. It is significant of
Geoffrey's aims, again, that he was consecrated as a priest only
eight days before receiving this office, and that (according to the
Gwentian Brut) he did not even visit St. Asaph's before his death,
which occurred in 11 54.
As a writer, Geoffrey was highly endowed. The ingenuity and
boldness, and in a very true sense the striking originality, with
which he handled the materials of his Historia, will soon be made
plain. As a master of elegant and rhetorical Latin style he had
few superiors in the Middle Ages. It is a decided proof of his versa-
tility that, in addition to his prose work, he should have composed
1 All the indications go to show that it was not published, nor written, before
1 135, and the latest date which can be assigned is 1137, or possibly the early part
of 1 138. See an article in Publications of the Mod. Lang. Assoc, of America, 1901,
XVI, 461-469, where I have given my reasons for rejecting the opinion that
Geoffrey ever made any regular revision of the Historia.
u-
Digitized
by Google
46 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
2l poem like the Vita Merlini, which, whatever faults, according
to modern taste, are entailed by its thoroughly mediaeval plan, is
nevertheless characterized by vigor, grace, and poetic feeling. It
is no mere accident which has given Geoffrey his distinguished
position as father of the real Arthurian tradition in English his-
tory and literature.
II. Outline of Geoffrey's Historia
In Geoffrey's Historia^ as in the chronicles which we have
already considered, and indeed in all that we shall deal with later,
the Arthurian story is only . one of many constituent elements.
Geoffrey's book is so important, however, that even those portions
which do not relate to the Saxon invasion must be considered in
outline.
After a description of Britain, Geoffrey begins with the story of
Brutus, the so-called eponymous founder of the British race. He
tells of Brutus's wanderings, of his wars in Greece, and of his trans-
portation to Britain of a colony of Trojans whom he finds in cap-
tivity among the Greeks, and to whom, as they are on th^ way,
he joins another, with its leader Corineus. From Brutus, Geoffrey
passes to an account of Brutus's descendants and later successors
who ruled the island down to the Roman period. This account
consists partly of mere lists of names ; and, indeed, of most of the
successive kings very little is said. The bulk of the narrative is
made up of romantic tales of war, love, and adventure. It contains,
for instance, the story of Sabrina (ii, 4-5), to which Milton alludes ;
of Bladud (ii, 10), magician as well as king; of Leir (ii, 11 ff.),
immortalized by Shakspere; of Ferrex and Porrex (ii, 16); of
Belinus and Brennius (iii, i-io), who conquered Rome; and of
Gorbonianus and his four brothers, who ruled in long-continuing
succession (iii, 16-18).
Coming to the invasion of Caesar (iv), Geoffrey recounts at length
the campaigns against King Cassibellaunus (i-io). He mentions
several kings of the next period, including Arviragus, who first,
fought against and then made alliance with the invading Emperor
Claudius (13-16) ; Marius, in whose time the Picts came to Britain
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 47
(i 7) ; and Lucius, under whom the island was converted to Chris-
tianity (19 ff.). Then he tells of various Roman rulers of Britain,
emperors and others, known to genuine history, including Constan-
tine the Great (v, 6-8) and Maximianus. The latter, he tells us,
invaded the continent, and gave the conquered province of Armorica
to a British prince, Conan Meriadoc, who peopled it with Britons
(v, 9-16).
This brings the story to the time of the Pictish invasions, which
Geoffrey describes at length (vi, 1-3).
Relief from the barbarians is afforded to the Britons by the coming of
Constantine (a descendant of Conan and brother of Aldroenus, King of
Brittany) to rule over the island (vi, 4-5). Upon his death, Vortigern,
Earl of the Gewissae, raises Constantine's son Constans from a monastery
to the throne, has him assassinated by a Pictish body-guard which he
has established ostensibly for Constans*s defence and usurps the kingdom
(vi, 6-9). Aurelius Ambrosius, and Utherpendragon, the brothers of Con-
stans, are taken for safety by their friends to Brittany. Now Geoffrey
proceeds to give the story of the reign of Vortigern and the coming of the
Saxons, practically in accordance with the account of Nennius, but with a
great many additional details (vi, lo-viii, 2). Among the divergencies
from Nennius need here be noted only the fact that the supernatural boy of
the tower episode is called Ambrosius Merlinus, or simply Merlinus, and
that book vii is made up of prophecies which Merlinus utters about -events
destined to happen in Britain from the then present moment to a period of
indefinite futurity.
After this, Aurelius and Uther come from Brittany, and bum Vortigern in
his last refuge, Aurelius having been crowned king by the nobles (viii, 1-2).
Aurelius makes war on Hengist, who is captured in single combat by Eldol,
Duke of Gloucester, the sole survivor (except Vortigern) of Hengist's
massacre of the British chiefs, and executed by him in accordance with
the sentence of EldoPs brother Eldadus, Bishop of Gloucester (viii, 3-7).
Aurelius compels Octa and **Eosa" to surrender; restores churches; and,
by the advice and with the indispensable aid of Merlin, has Uther bring
from Ireland the circle of stones which Merlin sets up at Stonehenge for a
sepulchral monument to the victims of Hengist's treachery (viii, 8-12). In
another war Aurelius conquers Pascentius, son of Vortigern; and when
Aurelius falls sick, Pascentius and Gillomanius, King of Ireland, are over-
come by Uther (viii, 13-14). Before the battle, Uther sees a wonderful
comet, which Merlin interprets as portending the rule of his descendants.
Digitized
by Google
48 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Aurelius is poisoned by a treacherous Saxon, Eopa, an emissary of Pas-
centius and Gillomanius. Uther then becomes king. He conquers the
Saxons under Octa and Eosa; strengthens the realm; falls in love with
Igerna, wife of Gorlois, Duke of Cornwall ; makes war on Gorlois ; by the
devices of Merlin gains admission to Igerna's castle in the form of Gorlois,
and begets Arthur. After the death of Gorlois in a sally from his castle,
Uther marries Igerna. He once more conquers Octa and Eosa, and is
finally, poisoned by the Saxons (viii, 1 5-24).
With book ix begins the reign of Arthur :
Anointed king at fifteen years of age, Arthur makes war on the Saxon
leaders, Colgrin, Cheldrich, and Baldulph, and, with the help of Britons
from Armorica led by his nephew Hoel, subdues them after several battles
(not twelve), of which the last is that of pagus Badonis (1-4). Cador,
Duke of Cornwall, destroys those of the enemy who escape from this final
conflict, while Arthur marches north and crushes the Picts and Scots
(5-7). After restoring his kingdom and dividing Scotland among its
rightful monarchs (Lot, who has married Arthur's sister Anna, and Lot's
brothers, Auguselus and Urianus), Arthur subdues Ireland and Iceland,
and accepts the submission of Gothland and the Orkneys (8-10). To his
court repair knights from all quarters of the world. All Europe fears him,
and he resolves to conquer it. On behalf of Lot, rightful king of Norway,
he invades that country, one of his young knights being Walvanus, son of
Lot. He subdues Norway and Dacia (Denmark). Then he sails to Gaul,
slays its tribune FloUo in single combat, is occupied for nine years in
subduing it, and divides it among his lords (11). Returning to Britain, he
assembles all his vassals on Pentecost at Urbs Legionum on the Usk, where
he is crowned for the second time, amid scenes of the greatest splendor
(12-14). On this occasion messengers come from Lucius of Rome, threat-
ening Arthur (somewhat tardily, it should seem) for his invasion of the
Empire. By the advice of his knights, he replies that he will come and
conquer Rome (15-20).
He sails with his army to Brittany, where in single combat with a giant
on Mont St. Michel he avenges the death of Helena, the niece of Hoel
(x, 2-3). Walgainus and two other envoys whom Arthur sends to Lucius
bring on a desperate partial engagement, in which Petreius Cotta, the
Roman leader, is captured. Next day the convoy in whose charge Arthur
is sending the prisoners to Paris, is attacked by a force of Romans, who are
at last defeated. Lucius tries to retreat in order to get reinforcements.
Arthur blocks his way, and in a last great conflict (in which Walgainus,
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 49
Hoel, and others of Arthur's knights, but especially Arthur himself, greatly
distinguish themselves) Lucius is overthrown and killed. In this battle are
slain Beduerus, Arthur's steward, and Cajus, his seneschal (4-13). Arthur
is preparing to march to Rome when he learns that Modred, son of Lot, to
whom he had entrusted Britain, has usurped the throne and made Ganhu-
mara, Arthur's wife, his queen (13). Taking only his British and insular
warriors, Arthur returns home. Modred has collected an army of Saxons,
Scots, Picts, and Irish, and meets him as soon as he lands. In the battle
that follows, Walgainus and many others are killed ; but Modred is driven
back, and Ganhumara, despairing of safety, becomes a nun. Arthur follows
Modred into Cornwall, and in a great battle Modred and most of the leaders
on both sides are killed. Arthur himself is wounded "letaliter," and is
carried to the isle of Avallon to be healed (xi, 1-2).
To Arthur succeeds his kinsman Constantine, who conquers the sons of
Modred and the Saxons (xi, 2-4). He is followed by Aurelius Conanus,
Wortiporius, and Malgo. Malgo subdues the islands and countries of
northern Europe {^-^)'^ In the reign of his successor, Careticus, the land
is devastated by Gormund, King of Africa. There is a glorious revival of
British power under Caduanus of North Wales, and especially under Cad-
uanus's son Caduallo, who, after extreme reverses, conquers the Saxon kings
and long rules at London as overlord of the whole island. Yet the recovery
is only temporary. Caduallo's son, Cadualladrus, having fled to Armorica
with many of the people, is forbidden by an angelic voice to return to the
island, becomes a monk at Rome, and dies in the odor of sanctity. It is
only the rule of Wales which he can delegate to his son Ivor and his nephew
Iny. So ends the supremacy of the Britons.
III. Geoffrey's Sources: (A) The "Liber Vetustissimus."
Geoffrey's Purpose in writing the Historia
Geoffrey's Historia was the first work in chronicle form to exalt
the figure of Arthur above the other British leaders whom Nennius
and Gildas had connected with the story of the Saxon invasion.
It was the first to introduce into chronicle, from popular tradition
and other sources, all those romantic features of the story of
Arthur's reign which, in literature, have entirely superseded the
1 " Sex comprovinciales Oceani insulas, Hybemiam videlicet, atque Islandiam,
Gbdlandiam, Orcades, Norwegiam, Daciam, adjecit . . . potestati suae."
Digitized
by Google
50 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
actual historic?il elements. As far as can be made out, Geoffrey
was also the first story-teller, whether popular or learned, to picture
Arthur in the light of a great world conqueror. It is abundantly
evident, therefore, why in a study of the Arthurian material in the
chronicles Geoffrey's work must occupy the most conspicuous place.
Geoffrey's creative genius manifested itself rather in development
than in sheer invention. Most of the raw materials already existed,
and his distinction lay in gathering them together from all quarters
and welding and transforming them into a unified whole whose total
effect was very different from that of any of its parts. The study
of Geoffrey's sources, therefore, is a far more complicated matter
than the mere demonstration of the details which he added to the
accounts of Gildas and Nennius.
The investigation must begin with the much-debated problem
raised by Geoffrey's own statements about his source.^
1 For the questions of the existence of the liber^ the credibility of Geoffre3r*s
History^ and his own attitude in writing it, reference may be made to the books
and articles in the following list, which is intended to be complete as regards
important modem discussions (I have purposely omitted the chroniclers who
are to be treated later) : John Price, Historiae Brytonum DefensiOy 1573; Leland,
Codrus sive Laus et Defensio Gallofridi Ariurii^ published in his Collectaneay
ed. 1774, V, 2 ; John Caius, De Antiquitate Cantabrigiensis Academiaey 1574, p. 53
(cf. Howes, Historical Preface to Stow's Annates y ed. 1631, and Stow*s own
Brief Proof pp. 6, 7) ; Camden, Britannia^ ed. 1 586, p. 360 (cf. Holland's trans-
lation, ed. 1637, pp. 632-6^3) ; 'Ussher, Britannicae Ecclesiae Antiquitates^ 1687,
Epist. Dedic. ; Sheringham, De Anglorum Gentis OriginCy Cambridge, 1670, pp. 8,
124-134; Stillingfleet, Origines Britannicacy 1685, especially pp. 7, 77-78, 269,
278, 318, 329, 334-344; W. Nicolson, The English Historical Library y 1696,
pp. 94 ff., ed. 1 7 14, Part I, pp. 36 ff. ; Aaron Thompson, The British History of
Geoffrey of Monmouthy 17 18, especially pp. vi-cxi; Wm. Wynne, Introduction to
the History of Wales written originally in British by Caradoc of Llancarvan^
Englished by Dr. Powelly \'j''l^\ Warton, History of English Poetry, 1774, ed.
Hazlitt, 1 87 1, I, 98 ff. ; Sharon Turner, History of the Anglo-Saxons y 1799, I, ed.
of 1840, pp. 168-176; Ritson, Three Ancient English Metrical Romances, 1803,
I, c ; W. Owen, Cambrian Biography y London, 1803, p. 145 ; de la Rue, Recherches
sur les Ouvrages des BardeSy Caen, 181 5 (cf. Athenaumy No. 425), and Essais
Historiques sur les Bardesy Caen, 1834, II, 155-158; Price, in Preface to 1824 ed.
of Warton (Hazlitt's ed., I, 69 ff.) ; Herbert, Britannia after the Romansy 1836,
pp. xxiv-xxxii ; P. Paris, Romans de la Table Rondey Paris, 1838. Cf. Ward, I,
215-216; Wright, On the Literary History of Geoffrey of Monmouthy in Essays on
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 51
Geoffrey begins his History by saying that, when he had happened
to turn his attention to the history of the British kings, he was led
to wonder that Gildas and Bede had said nothing of the kings who
held Britain before the incarnation of Christ, and nothing of Arthur
and very many more who succeeded after that time, although their
deeds were worthy of eternal fame and were celebrated by many
peoples "just as if they had been written."^ "While I was in this
frame of mind," he goes on, " Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, brought
to me a certain very ancient book in the British tongue * which set
forth, in unbroken order and in elegant style, the acts of all the
kings from Brutus, the first king of the Britons, down to Cadwala-
drus the son of Cadwalo. So, induced by his request, although I
had not made a study of elegant language, nevertheless in my rude
style I translated the book into Latin." Then he continues with
his dedication to Robert of Gloucester.
Again, in the letter to Bishop Alexander with which he introduces
the seventh book (Merlin's prophecies), he says that Alexander has
caused him to translate the prophecies from British {de Britannicd)
into Latin.
After he has mentioned the treason of Modred and Ganhumara,
he begins book xi thus: "About this, illustrious Earl (i.e. Robert
Archaological Subjects^ 1861, I, 206-209; Stephens, Literature of the Kymry^
1849, 2d ed. by D. S. Evans, 1876, pp. 296-308; San-Marte, pp. xiii £f. ; Hardy's
edition of Jehan de Wavrin, Rolls Series, 1864, 1, lix; de La Borderie, VHistoria
Britonum attribute d Nennius et VHistoriay etc., 1883, pp. 87 ff. (reviewed by
Loth, Rev. Celt.y VI, 118-121 ; G. Paris, Rom.y XII, 367 ; Reynolds, Y Cymmrodor^
VII, 155-165; y\}^<tm2,XQ^^^ Rev.de Br etagne et de Vendie^ January, 1884, pp. 23 ff.);
Ward, I, 214-217, 425; Heeger, Uber die Troj aner sage der Britten, Munich, 1886,
pp. 72-79 ; W. L. Jones, pp. 19-39. The following articles are concerned primarily
with the significance of the words Breton, etc., but that discussion often involves
Geoffrey's liber : G. Paris, Hist. Litt. de la France, XXX, 3-7 ; Zimmer, Gott. Gel.
Anz., 1890, pp. 785-832 ; id., Ztsch. f. franz. Spr. u. Litt., 1890, XII, 231-256,
especially pp. 255-256; and 1891, XIII, 1-117; Loth, Rev. Celt, 1892, XIII,
488 ff.; Franz Piitz, Ztsch. f. franz. Spr. u. Litt., 1892, XIV, 161-210, especially
pp. 161-162, 208-209; Lot, Rom., 1895, XXIV, 497-528, especially pp. 497-513;
and 1896, XXV, 1-32 ; E. Brugger, Ztsch. f. franz. Spr. u. Litt., 1898, XX, 79-162 ;
Lot, Rom., 1899, XXVIII, 1-48.
1 "A multis populis quasi inscripta jucunde et memoriter praedicentur."
2 " Quendam Britannici sermonis librum vetustissimum."
Digitized
by Google
52 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
of Gloucester), Gaufridus Monemutensis will be silent. But as he
found in the before-mentioned British work ^ and as he heard from
Walter of Oxford, he will briefly narrate in his humble style what
battles Arthur fought with his nephew."
Finally, he ends his work with this chapter : " I leave the history
of the kings of the people of Wales from that time (i.e. the time of
Ivor and Iny) to Caradoc of Llancarvan ; and that of the kings of
the Saxons to William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon.
But I advise them to be silent about the kings of the Britons, since
they have not that book in the British tongue which Walter, Arch-
deacon of Oxford, brought out of Britain,^ and which, as a history
truthfully written in honor of those princes, I have translated into
the present Latin version."
When these four passages are compared, the third seems to be
not entirely consistent with Aie others; for, while they give no
indication that Geoffrey drew from any source except the liber
vetustissimusy this one mentions further information, apparently
oral, derived from Archdeacon Walter. Still, the discrepancy is
not serious. As a matter of fact, if there is any truth at all in
what Geoffrey says about his sources, it is by no means the whole
truth, as will s^oi;i appear, ajid perhaps he did not notice that his
statements do not quite taUy.* On the whole, Geoffrey gives us
to understand that he translated his work from a British original,
supplemented by oral communications from Walter. His language
as it stands, however, does not indicate that Walter told him about
anything previous to the last battles of Arthur.
Now, to say nothing of the fact that the form and tone and con-
ception of Geoffrey's Historia are altogether different from anything
that we have any reason to suppose would have been written by a
thorough Welshman or Breton either before his time or long after,
his account of his sources is so incomplete, to say the least, as to
be absolutely misleading.^ Unless we are to assume that Walter
had independent knowledge about widely separated facts of the
1 Ut in Britannico praefato sermone invenit.
2 Ex Britannia advexit.
* This has been pointed out by many different scholars.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 53
story (a very improbable assumption), it is evident that Geoffrey's
libery if that was his only other source, could not have been very
old, as he says it was ; for the Historia contains elements that could
not have been put into any book very long before Geoffrey's own
time. Such, for instance, is the mention of siege machines and
Greek fire,^ which were not known in Western Europe before the
time of the Crusades; and such are certain apparent borrowings
from William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon, which will
here be discussed later. Again, if the liber had been very old, it
could not have been written in an elegant style,^ while Geoffrey
protests emphatically that he has added nothing to the diction.
It has been shown also, and will soon be pointed out here, that not
only are the framework of the Historia and part of its substance
taken from Nennius and Bede, but that in many places their words,
and those of Gil das, reappear, sometimes with no change whatever.
If, therefore, Geoffrey were following another original in these places,
that original, which according to Geoffrey was in the British tongue,
must have drawn from these sources; Geoffrey must have recog-
nized the fact, and in translating from British into Latin he must
have turned back to them and taken their language into his text.
In that case he would have seen that the manner in which their
accounts are combined in his own is absolutely destructive of the
authority of any one of them and entirely incompatible with any
consistent view of history. In short, it is impossible to doubt that
Nennius, Bede, and Gildas were direct and important sources of
Geoffrey's narrative. It is clear, then, th^t Geoffrey was guilty of
what seems to be rather gross misrepresentation, whether inten-
tional or not (a matter which must be considered later by itself),
and the question arises whether there is any element of truth in his
assertion, — whether he really had any British liber at all.
In the first place, if such a work ever existed, no investigator has
been able to find it, or if he himself thinks that he has done so, to
convince others that he is right.^ Ever since the publication of
1 i, 7. 2 Perpulcris orationibus (i, i, 14).
* De La Borderie*s claim that he had discovered the source cannot be said to
have been absolutely disproved, but it has gained very little credence. If estab-
lished, it would have shown that Geoffrey's liber gave him, besides details not
Digitized
by Google
54 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
the Historiay Geoffrey's statements have been the subject of much
controversy. Some of the earlier critics, however, betray a not
unnatural confusion of thought They ask not so m\ich whether
Geoffrey could have had such a book^ as whether his narrative is his-
torically true, believing that an affirmative answer would establish,
and a negative disprove, the existence of the liber. The more
intelligent investigations of modern scholars have merely confirmed
the opinion of Geoffrey's first outspoken opponent, William of New-
burgh,^ that the Historia consists largely of amplified British popu-
lar traditions and myths. Now there is no evidence that Geoffrey
may not have taken these elements, and possibly some others, from
some sort of book in the British tongue, to which his statements,
however misleading, may refer. This question can be more easily
decided after a detailed examination of the contents of the Historia.^
Such an examination will make clear that the liber could not in any
case have been a complete history, similar to that of Geoffrey in
plan and conception ; or that, if it was, GeoflFrey did not follow it
closely. Accordingly, the question of the liber is not of supreme
moment in the study of Geoffrey's material, because the liber^ if it
ever existed, was only one of many sources from which he drew.*
Still, the question of the liber is of great importance in any con-
sideration of Geoffrey's professional honesty and of the purpose
with which he wrote. For we must either explain why he should
have used such misleading statements, or look upon him as guilty
of deliberate fraud. The latter view, which was that of William of
Newburgh, has been very often held. As to the motives which
might have actuated Geoffrey in addition to the ordinary desire for
literary fame, it is quite possible, in the first place, that he was
belonging to the Arthurian part of his narrative, the idea of Arthur's conquests
in France ; how much more does not appear. I omit all discussion of Geoffrey
Gaimar's obscure reference to " the good book of Oxford " of Walter the Arch-
deacon (VEstorie des Englesy etc., ed. Hardy and Martin, Rolls Series, I, 275) ;
for it is generally supposed that that really refers to Geoffrey's History^ and in
any case the reference affords no tangible proof.
1 See pp. 101-102, below.
2 See p. 115, below.
8 Most modem scholars deny the existence of the British liber.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth S 5
directly stimulated to envy by the success of William of Malmes-
bury and Henry of Huntingdon,^ who were also prottgks of Earl n
Robert and Bishop Alexander, and whose histories certainly had
some influence on his work. William of Newburgh proposed as
efficient causes for Geoffrey's procedure, an inordinate love of lying
and a desire to please the Britons. This latter motive is intelli-
gible enough in a born Welshman, who may have wished to make
other nations believe that the annals of his race were glorious. \i
GeoflFrey wrote particularly for Robert of Gloucester ^ and the Nor-
mans, he may well have counted on their credulity about the past
history of their new home.
All these suggestions, however, are only explanations of a pre-
formed theory, and Geoffrey has never lacked defenders ; though in
the present state of our knowledge most of their arguments must be
abandoned, and it can at most be held that in making false or incor-
rect statements Geoffrey was innocent of evil intent. This excuse
is more forcible than might at first appear. In the first place, if
we conclude that Geoffrey had access to a British book of some
kind, his assertions were no more careless or unfounded than those
which have been made by many other writers, — for instance, by the
certainly well-meaning Bishop Percy. The argument is somewhat
strengthened by the improbability that two ecclesiastics would
stoop to unqualified mendacity in a matter not involving substan-
tial benefit to themselves. Moreover, it is perhaps fair to say that
if there was deliberate deceit. Earl Robert, as the patron of the
book, must have been implicated, and that this is not likely to have
been the case. If we assume, on the other hand, that there was no
British liber at all, it may be urged * that in the twelfth century the
iLot,^^., XXVII, 571.
2 Cf. Lot, Rom.y XXVII, 570. See also p. 1 14, below. The idea seems perhaps
substantiated by a phrase in the part of the dedication addressed to Gloucester
in the peculiar Bern MS., " codicemque ad tuum oblectamentum editum." But
Ward seems to me right in rejecting Madden's suggestion that Gloucester com-
missioned the history, though I do not see adequate grounds for Ward's own
conclusion that Archdeacon Walter made a rough cast of the whole work and
handed it over to Geoffrey for elaboration.
* As Stephens suggests and Jones argues.
Digitized
by Google
56 Arthurian Materialin Chronicles
fiction of drawing from a non-existent source was a mere conven-
tion, and was so understood. To be sure, GeoflFrey lays reiterated
emphasis upon his assertion, and for a long time it was very gener-
ally believed ; but he is not to be blamed for being unusually clever
or successful in a warrantable literary artifice.
There is still another line of defense, more recent than the others,
and not necessarily inconsistent with either, — namely, that Geof-
frey's appeal to his liber is chiefly a joke.^ This would mean that his
whole attitude, at times, was far from serious, and that he was willing
that readers of penetration should understand that his so-called
history was really a romance. Once or twice, indeed, a humorous vein
seems to appear through the polished surface of Geoffrey's rhetorical
Latin; especially in the first book, where he particularizes the
number of Corineus's ribs broken in the wrestling match, — two on
the right side and one on the left.* In such humor there must have
been a touch of irony, and Geoffrey may have intended to satirize
other books which laid ridiculous claim to ancient sources. If so,
the mood was only temporary, and, indeed, almost everywhere it is
evident that Geoffrey's artistic and patriotic instincts have crowded
all others out of his mind.
Whatever we may think, then, Geoffrey cannot be actually con-
victed of intentional fraud, and his character must have the benefit
of the doubt. We cannot assert positively that unworthy motives
mingled, at the inception of his history, with the natural and laud-
able ambition to produce a good piece of literature. The moment
was opportune and the plan and method were well adapted to their
end. For in his History Geoffrey did nothing less than to create
the historical romance of Arthur for the mediaeval world. Indeed,
considering the brilliancy of his idea and the immense success
which he achieved, one might almost hold that, even had his inten-
tions been other than honest, the result would excuse the means.
^ Suggested by Ward and developed at greater length by Jones.
2 i, 1 6, 34. Just possibly also in the places where he mentions a lord from
Oxford whom he calls Boso^ which may be formed from the Latin word bos — ox
(ix, 12; X, 4, etc.) ; very probably where he speaks of the liber as veraciter editus
(xU, 20, 7).
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 57
From this digression, and from the whole doubtful question of
the libery we now pass naturally to the investigation of those sources
of the History which can be definitely traced.
IV. Geoffrey's Sources : (B) Nennius, Bede, and Gildas
The outline already given indicates in a general way that ^
GeoflFrey's work is closely related to those of Nennius, Bede, and
Gildas. Ever since San-Marte published his edition of the Historia,
it has been evident that these are Geoffrey's chief extant written
sources, though he uses them very much less after the beginning of
the Arthurian period (or, more exactly, after the end of book vi)
than before. A systematic examination will show more definitely
the nature and the great extent of his indebtedness. It will show
that, starting with their accounts before him, Geoffrey either delib-
erately or unconsciously determined to follow the plan and order
which, roughly speaking, is common to them all (at least in the
Arthurian period) ; and furthermore, that he determined to make
every possible use of the material which they offered, even to the
most insignificant phrases.^ He begins, as they do, with a descrip-
tion of Britain, borrowed from them, and he practically ends with
Cadualladrus, who is the last king mentioned by Nennius ^ as ruling
over all the Britons. That he should so have followed them is not
strange ; for (whatever his object in writing) he must have wished
to make his book appear as much like truth as possible, and they
were the most widely recognized authorities. Besides, to invent the
history of a race for several centuries is a task of no little diffi-
oul'ty.® That Geoffrey did not draw in the same way from the
later chroniclers (especially from William of Malmesbury and Henry
1 As to the phrases, cf. especially i, 2. The most striking case of Geoffrey*s
audacity in adopting his material is that in xii, 18, where, as has often been
pointed out, he applies to his own wonderfully magnified Cadualladrus what Bede
(v, 7) says of the death of the West Saxon Cadualla.
2 Chap. 64.
* This idea, I observe, has already been expressed by C. H. Pearson in his
excellent running summary of the probable sources of Geoffrey's narrative
{History of England during the Middle Ages^ London, 1867, pp. 619-625).
Digitized
by Google
58 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
of Huntingdon) is equally natural, not only because they were his
contemporaries and perhaps his rivals, but also because of their
dependence upon Nennius, Bede, and Gildas in the Arthurian part
of their histories, where alone their material would generally have
been suited to his purpose.
Closely as Geoffrey followed these three authors, there were both
small details and great sections of their histories which, from the
nature of the case, he was obliged to omit, though chiefly in the
non- Arthurian portion. When they were inconsistent, too, he had to
choose among them, — for instance, in his inevitable adoption of
Nennius's patriotic partisanship of the Britons as against Gildas's
violent denunciation of them,^ an attitude which with Geoffrey is
exaggerated into a monstrous falsification of history. He intended,
also, to produce a work of a very different character from that of
Nennius, Bede, or Gildas, and he turned elsewhere for the great
bulk of his material, which he proceeded to dovetail closely to the
excerpts taken from them. The result is that such excerpts appear
only occasionally in his completed fabric. This must be borne in
mind in connection with what is now to be said of Geoffrey's manner
in drawing from Bede, Gildas, and Nennius.^
Most often he takes from one of the three the general idea of an
incident and expands it into a more vivid and minute account. In
such cases, sooner or later, he is pretty sure to bring in a sentence
or two almost verbatim, and sometimes, as in vi, lo (the story of
the first coming of the Saxons, from Nennius, 31), he scatters such
sentences all through the episode. He very seldom copies a sec-
tion without noticeable change, at least in phraseology, for he gen-
erally aims to improve the style; but a few such instances do
occur, especially^ when he is drawing from Gildas's lamentations.*
1 But Geoffrey shows traces of Gildas's influence in his last two books.
2 Illustrations of many of the following points are best found in the non-
Arthurian portions of the Historian because they are based so much more largely
on these three authors. But it is important to make Geoffrey's method as a
literary workman as clear as possible.
8 Not, however, in the Arthurian portion of the narrative.
* The fact that Geoffrey ever copied verbatim, or nearly so, may seem at first
sight somewhat strange, since such a course might then (as now) have laid the
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 59
Emphasis should be laid on the reconstructive skill and the capacity
for selection which Geoffrey often displays in adapting and combining
the statements of his sources. Sometimes, in particular, he recolors
or rearranges for the sake of better motivation. Sometimes, also,
he adds an explanation for an action which Bede, for instance, not
having any more real knowledge on the subject than he, has felt
obliged to leave in doubt.
This brief general description of Geoffrey's method in utilizing
these three narratives prepares the way for a detailed exposition of
his indebtedness to them in the Arthurian part of the story.
After drawing largely from Gildas's very words for an account
of the Pictish invasions, Geoffrey (book vi) makes over from Bede
(i, 11) the story of the reigns of Constantinus and Constans. Bede
says that Constantinus (whose origin he does not indicate) was
chosen emperor for the sake of his name; that he took his son
Constans from the monastic life and gave him the title of Caesar ;
that he made war in Europe and was killed there, and that his
lieutenant Gerontius put Constans to death. Geoffrey introduces
a new character. Archbishop Guethelinus, and gives an elaborate
account of his mission to Brittany to fetch Constantinus, now rep-
resented as the brother of Aldroenus, king of Armorica. He also
describes the coronation of Constantinus at Silchester, his victory,
and his reign, and makes Aurelius Ambrosius and Uther ^ his sons,
as well as Constans. He describes Vortigern as raising Constans
from a monastery to the throne,* and adds the account of Vorti-
gern's usurpation, with the flight of Aurelius and Uther to Brittany.
existence of his liber open to doubt. But if his attitude toward the liber was not
one of dreadful seriousness, he may not have noticed (or may have been amused
by) the inconsistency ; or he may have counted on the fact that most of those
whom his Historia reached would not have at hand copies of Nennius, Bede, or
Gildas, or at any rate might not think of consulting them ; or, finally, he may
have been shrewd enough to see that verbal similarities to the standard authori-
ties would excite respectful wonder rather than suspicion.
1 Another new character.
2 In representing Constans as crowned by Vortigern and not by an ecclesiastic,
Geoffrey perhaps got a hint from the remark of Gildas (chap. 21) that kings were
then anointed not per deum but for their crimes.
Digitized
by Google
6o Arthurian Material in Chronicles
This latter detail explains the statement which Geoffrey now takes
from Nennius (in whose narrative it was entirely enigmatical), that
Vortigern was in fear of Ambrosius.
It is to Nennius that Geoffrey turns for the main ideas, many of
the particulars, and even some of the language, in his account of
the reign of Vortigern ; and in all the rest of the Arthurian period^
apart from the general idea of the reign of Aurelius, he has only
comparatively insignificant touches from Bede and Gildas, namely :
(i) the name Aurelius, which they (in the form Aureli?inus), but
not Nennius, apply to Ambrosius; (2) the mention (vi, 10, 54-56)
of the Saxons' actual victory over the Picts,. which seems to come
from Bede (i, 5) ; (3) the statement that the Saxons were sent away
from Germany by lot, which looks as if it might be suggested by
Gildas (secundo omine auguriisque)^ but with which Geoffrey com-
bines Nennius's idea that they were driven out as exiles ; (4) pos-
sibly the statement that, immediately upon the arrival of the Saxons,.
Vortigern agreed with them that they should fight against the
northern barbarians in return for their living (Bede) ; ^ (5) the
notice (chap. 13) of the mission of St. Germ anus (Bede) ; (6) prob-
ably, in part, the suggestion of the animal figures in the prophecy
of Merlin, from those which abound in the latter part of Gildas's
work.^ One particular detail in the prophecy also comes from
Gildas. The latter said obscurely (chap. 23) that the Saxons came
to Britain under a prediction that they should possess it three hun-
dred years and devastate it for one hundred and fifty. Geoffrey
drags this in inappropriately (vii, 3, 48 ff.) by stating in that part
of the prophecy which immediately precedes the reference to the
Norman invasion that the German snake shall be in trouble for a
hundred and fifty years and bear sway for three hundred. In ix,.
12, 12, also, Geoffrey uses language not unlike that which he copied
from Gildas in i, 2, 16-17.'
To Nennius's story of the first part of Vortigern's reign, up to
the wars of Vortimer (Geoffrey, vi, 10-13 ; Nennius, 31-38), Geoffrey
1 This is Geoffrey's account, although he agrees with Nennius in saying that
the Saxons came by chance, not by invitation.
2 But cf. below, p. 87.
8 For a possible further suggestion from Gildas, see below, p. 81.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 6i
adds: (i) the conversation of Vortigern and Hengist about the
Saxons* gods ; ^ (2) Hengist 's pretence that he wished to send for
more Germans because Vortigern's enemies were actually threat-
ening Vortigern ; (3) Hengist's stratagem of getting ground for
a castle by the bull's hide trick; (4) The drinc heil! episode
at Hengist's feast ; (5) the name of Hengist's daughter, Rowen ;
(6) the figure of Childrich, with Geoffrey a subordinate Saxon
leader.^ He omits (i) the miracles of Germanus ; (2) the mention
of the Britons* requesting the Saxons to depart before any trouble
had actually broken out ; (3) the statement that Hengist perceived
the cowardice of the British race ; (4) the account, though not the
suggestion (vi, 13, 15), of the expedition of Oct a and Ebyssa
against the Scots ; and (5) all allusions to Vortigern's incest.
Many of these variations are merely accidental, but that is not
true of the omission of the Scottish expedition and of the reduction
of the role of Germanus to one of absolute unimportance. These
changes are evidently due to Geoffrey's desire to unify, and to
produce a vivid and dramatic narrative. He takes pains also to
develop the character of Vortigern and to bring out the craftiness
of Hengist. He would have gained in unity if, for instance, he
had left out St. Germanus altogether; but that was too material
an alteration to be expected of a mediaeval writer.
Geoffrey now changes the order of events, with excellent judg-
ment, by postponing the story of Vortigern's tower.^ He says that
the Britons, in disgust at Vortigern's infatuation with his wife's
kindred, chose Vortimer for king. He naturally omits the sugges-
tion that there were other kings at this time. His atcount of Vor-
timer's four battles differs only in insignificant details from that of
Nennius; but he adds a lively touch by saying that the Saxons,
after their last defeat, sent Vortigern to Vortimer, asking permis-
sion to depart, and that, while the negotiations were going on, they
1 Suggested by a passage in William of Malmesbury ; see pp. 69-70, below.
2 From the version in the Saxon Chronicle^ probably through Henry of
Huntingdon.
8 Perhaps taking the suggestion from William of Malmesbury's postponement
of the slaughter of the British chiefs.
Digitized
by Google
62 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
made of! and went to Germany. In this he affirms unmistakably
(as neither Bede nor Nennius had done, though Gildas had said
the same thing unplausibly) that the invaders were actually driven
from the country. He inserts also a description of the prosperity
of Vortimer's reign ^ and the story of his being poisoned by his
stepmother. To the legend of his burial he adds that he was actu-
ally entombed in Trinovantum^ (chap. 14). In the episode of the
massacre of the British chiefs (chaps. 15-16) he enlarges greatly
on Nennius (chaps. 45-46). He inserts at this place the statement
which he had before omitted, that the Britons planned to expel the
Saxons ; specifies the number of the Saxons as 300,000 ; and adds
the pretence of Hengist that he brought so many men because he
thought that Vortimer was still alive. He inserts also the figure
and the exploits of the valiant Eldol, who, before escaping, kills
many Saxons with a stake which he happens to find. Geoffrey sets
the number of Britons killed at ** about 460,** instead of 300, and
does not indicate just what regions Vortigern gave up, though he
does name some cities which the Saxons took.
Now comes the narrative of Vortigern's tower, with the finding
of Merlin (whom Geoffrey substitutes for Nennius's Ambrosius
Guletic) and the fight of the dragons (vi, 17-19; vii, 3). This
follows the source much more closely than any other passage of
considerable length in the whole Historia, But Geoffrey adds the
name of the boy who was disputing with Merlin (Dinabutius),' and
an account of how Merlin was conceived, with the philosophical
explanation (suggested by a certain Maugantius) that the father
might have been an incubus.* Geoffrey, more consistent than
1 Nennius does not say definitely that Vortimer was king. 2 i g. London.
• The printed texts have Dabutius, but, though this name, like almost all the
others, was much and variously corrupted in the various manuscripts and versions
of Geoffrey, their forms leave no doubt that he wrote Dinabutius. Dinabutius
appears, for example, in MSS. Tit, CXVII; Bibl. Reg. 13, D. v, and 14, C. i.;
Arund. 10; Bodl. Rawl. 150. Inevitably, some manuscripts have Dinabucius^ as
BibL Reg. 4, C. xi ; Cleop. A. i. ; the metrical Gesta Reg. Brit, (see below,
pp. 166 £f.). Wace reads Dinabus (nominative).
* This (San-Marte, p. 331) may have been drawn from Bede {JDe Element. Philos.y
bk. i), who is drawing in turn from Plato and St. Augustine ; or Geoffrey may
have taken it from current superstition.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 63
Nennius, is careful to omit the boy's claim to be the son of a
Roman consul (which, however, he has taken pains to use before
in speaking of the parentage of Ambrosius, vi, 5, 7). In general
he heightens the reality and effectiveness of the scene, though in
this passage Nennius is notably vivid. The rest of book vii con-
sists of the prophecies of Merlin, which are entirely independent
of Nennius. The account of the death of Vortigem (viii, 2) is
suggested by Nennius's first version (chap. 47), since fire is the
agent in both cases ; but Geoffrey takes the incident out of the
realm of the supernatural and speaks only of fire used by the men
of Aurelius and Uther. For the story of the reigns of these two
kings and the accession of Arthur (viii; ix, i) Geoffrey is inde-
pendent of Nennius as well as of Gildas and Bede, except for
the mere names Aurelius, Pascentius (as Vortigern's son), Octa,
Ebyssa, and Arthur. It is especially to be noted also that, in order
to make a continuous narrative, he follows a single vague hint
from Nennius instead of the more explicit indications of Gildas
and Bede, and makes Aurelius succeed Vortigem. His transfer-
ence of the activity of Octa and Ebyssa into the reigns of Aurelius
and Uther is also a decided innovation.
Geoffrey utilizes Nennius's list of Arthur's battles as a basis, but
merely as a basis, for his greatly expanded account of the first
part of Arthur's reign, which is occupied with exploits against the
Saxons. He introduces Colgrinus as leader of the Saxons, and,
soon after, Baldulphus and Cheldricus, all of whom are unknown to
Nennius. He omits Nennius's first battle, that of the Glein, and
condenses into one (ix, i) the four which Nennius put at the
Duglas. Evidently he takes the river for the Duglas in Lancashire,
for he makes Colgrinus flee from the battle into Eboracum. Then
Geoffrey inserts many details, including a retreat of Arthur to
London. For Nennius's sixth battle, at the river Bassas, he substi-
tutes (ix, 3) one at Lincoln, after which he introduces Nennius's
seventh, that of the Caledonian forest. In connection with this,
he inserts an account of the Saxons' surrender ; and then, passing
by four of Nennius's battles, he comes (ix, 4) to that of Badon,
which he identifies with Bath. Like William of Malmesbury,
Geoffrey connects with the battle of Badon the mention of Arthur's
Digitized
by Google
64 Arthurian Material in Chr0nicles
wearing the image of the Virgin, which Nennius brought in earlier.
Here Nennius terminates Arthur's campaigns, but with Geoffrey all
this is only the beginning. He takes Arthur at once into Scotland,
and there (ix, 6, 7) he brings in from Nennius's tnirabilia the account
of the two wonderful lakes and of the phenomena at the mouth of
the Severn, which he represents as a lake. This is the last use which
he makes of Nennius.
Just after the death of Arthur, in a section of which the first part
is closely connected with the Arthurian story, Geoffrey returns to
Gildas. Here we have a remarkable illustration of his freedom in
treating his sources. Gildas, as has been said, utters violent diatribes
against five Welsh chiefs(chaps. 28-30), whom he represents, evidently
in deadly earnest, as being alive at the time when he writes, and there-
fore as all contemporaneous and mere tribal leaders. Geoffrey intro-
duces four of these chiefs, but makes them successive rulers of the
whole British population. The first of them, Constantinus, he calls
the son of Cador, Duke of Cornwall, and has it that he owed his
elevation to the throne to Arthur's appointment. He transforms
(xi, 4) the two boys of royal blood whose sacrilegious slaughter (by
Constantinus) Gildas denounces, into the sons of Modred, and says
that they had continued the war against the Britons.^
Mention must be made also of the possibility that it was from
Nennius's and Bede*s inclusion of St. Germanus that Geoffrey took
the idea of introducing into his story the figures of Welsh saints,
some of whom appear in the Arthurian period.^ For this procedure
Nennius's use of biblical characters to fix the dates of some of his
events may have been supplementarily suggestive. It is possible,
moreover, that the name of Geoffrey's Archbishop Guethelinus,
who goes to Brittany to get aid and brings back Constantinus, the
father of Aurelius, was suggested by the Guitolinus whom Nennius
mentions as an enemy of Ambrosius.
From what has been said it is evident that Geoffrey was far
more deeply indebted for material to Nennius than to Gildas. If
we consider the Historia as a whole, his obligation to Bede, also,
was much greater than to Gildas; though this is not true of the
1 Cf. below, p. 158. 2 See below, pp. 77 ff.
Digitized
by Google
Ge0ffrey 0/ M^nm^utk 65
Arthurian period, where he could not have taken from Bede, with
a very few slight exceptions, anything that is not also given by
Gildas. This limitation in the use of Gildas was to be expected.
What was available in Gildas, except for occasional phrases and a
hint of the kings after Arthur, was almost entirely general descrip-
tion, which, though it lends itself especially well to verbatim
adaptation, is comparatively unimportant in the development of
the narrative. Probably that part of his Historia for which Geoffrey
is indebted to Bede is about the same in. bulk as that which he
takes direct from Nennius ; but this is by no means true of the
Arthurian period. Further, he does not transfer nearly so much
directly from Bede, while the significance of what he does take is far
less than in the case of Nennius. To Bede Geoffrey owes little but
the story of the Roman rulers from Caesar to Constans, perhaps the
suggestion of the story of Aurelius Ambrosius (which Bede copied
from Gildas), and the accounts of the battles in the reign of Cad-
uallo. From Nennius he takes the main data in the story of
Brutus ; the settlement of Brittany by Britons, which opened the
way for all that he says about the Armoricans after the time of
Constans ; the outline of the whole account of the reign of Vorti-
gern, with the tower and the supernatural boy; the basis for his
narrative of Arthur's campaigns against the Saxons ; and the
description of the wonderful lakes.^ In another sense Nennius
must be called Geoffrey's chief ascertainable authority; for in
every possible case except that of the Roman rulers, Geoffrey
follows his story in preference to any other.
Besides showing just how much Arthurian material Geoffrey
(and through him the later chroniclers) derived from Bede, Gildas,
and Nennius, the examination just concluded makes it clear what
processes — dismemberment, transference, adorning, and interpola-
tion — we must suppose Geoffrey to have used in dealing with his
other sources, many of which, if they were ever written, we no
longer possess in the form in which he had them.^
1 Possibly, also, the hint for Uther (see p. 89, below).
2 Before leaving this subject, something must be said of the cases in which
Geoffrey mentions Gildas by name. Besides three citations of Gildas as his
Digitized
by Google
66 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
V. Geoffrey's Sources: (C) William of Malmesbury and
Henry of Huntingdon
It has already been said that Geoffrey did not draw material from
the works of William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon
in any such way as he borrowed from Nennius and Gildas; but
also that it may have been their histories which first gave him the
idea of writing his own. This latter hypothesis is extremely prob-
able on a priori grounds, since the works of William and Henry
appeared only a few years before Geoffrey's, and he himself directly
mentions them as historians,^ — to say nothing of the possibility
that William's remark about Arthur's being worthy of celebration
in truthful histories may have struck Geoffrey's fancy.^ But there
are more definite arguments to the same effect.
In the first place, apart from the general resemblance which was
sure to exist between any two twelfth-century chronicles, the literary
authority (i, i, 3; vi, 13, 9; and xii, 6, 12: in the last two cases he probably
means Nennius), Geoffrey asserts: (i) that Gildas wrote at length of the quarrel
between Lud and Nennius about the change in the name of Trinovantum (i, 17,
14); (2) that he translated the Molmutian laws from British into Latin (ii, 17, 29;
iii, 5, 20), adding that King Alfred translated them into Anglo-Saxon ;'and (3) that
he wrote a book on the victory of Aurelius Ambrosius, which contained the
names and acts of the holy men who came back to Britain with Faganus and
Duvianus (iv, 20, 5) — a statement which passed current for centuries. Now, while
it is impossible that Gildas wrote anything about the missionary legend (which
did not exist in his day), and while it is unreasonable to suppose that he was the
author of the other works mentioned, it is possible that such works were extant
in Geoffrey's time and went under the name of Gildas. On the other hand, no
previous author is known to have referred to them, and there is no evidence that
any one before the etymologizing Geoffrey ever heard of a quarrel between Lud
and Nennius, or even of this Nennius himself. In making two of these allusions
Geoffrey adds a self -depreciatory remark about his own rude style (i, 17, 15-16;
iv, 20, 6-7), which at once suggests that his mood is humorous. It seems most
probable, then, that the works are creations of Geoffrey's playful imagination,
and the same is probably true of a certain book on the exile of the Welsh saints
(author unnamed) which he signifies his intention of translating (xi, 10, 12).
Geoffrey names Bede in i, i, 3 and xii, 14, 2, where he makes a very careless
mistake (cf. Bede, iv, 15). 1 In his last chapter.
2 Suggested by Wright, Essays on Archaological Subjects, I, 224.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 67
manner of Geoffrey's history as a whole is especially similar to that
of William. The latter often digresses from the straight path of
narrative to describe picturesque scenes, to quote letters and
speeches, or to give information about famous cities and persons.
Geoffrey does all of these things. He indulges his imagination to
the utmost in writing of the coronation of Arthur, pauses to describe
the city of Usk, repeats many speeches of the leaders in various
battles, and gives at length the letters of Lucius, Caesar, and Cassi-
bellaunus. Even Geoffrey's bare lists of kings are only a little
barer than some which William introduces,^ and Geoffrey's super-
natural incidents (such as Arthur's dream ^ and the appearance of
Uther's comet) are of a piece with the dreams and celestial portents
of which William's pages are full.
Moreover, there is one large section of Geoffrey's Work which
may be imitated more directly from both William and Henry. This
is the account of the Saxon wars of Aurelius, Uther, and Arthur.
Here some things are taken from Nennius, but the general character
of the narrative is quite different from anything in his work, and
exactly like that of the story of the Danish invasions as told by
William and Henry.' The barbarians, driven off once, reappear at
another time and place, now in the North, now in the South; the
use of fleets is made especially prominent ; the British kings have
to march hastily from one part of the island to another to oppose
the foe, and are forced to carry on continuous campaigns, now
advancing and now retreating ; the sieges of cities are mentioned,
and the faithlessness of the invaders, which Henry emphasizes,
is sometimes indicated. These wars are somewhat differently
described, it is to be noted, from the later aggressive ones of
Arthur, in which little is said of the strategic conduct of the cam-
paigns, and which bear some resemblance to the wars of the Nor-
man period, as related by William and Henry. Thus, consciously
or unconsciously, Geoffrey seems to have divided his history into
1 For example, i, 72. ^ x, 2.
8 Though the possibility ought to be mentioned that Geoffrey may have known
the accounts of the Danish invasions in Asser, iEthelweard, Florence of Worces-
ter, and Simeon of Durham.
Digitized
by Google
68 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
periods which correspond to those described by his two immediate
predecessors.
The influence exerted upon Geoffrey by William of Malmesbury
and Henry of Huntingdon was not confined to the general features
just mentioned. Certain particular episodes in their histories
appear to have given him suggestions of method or to have fur-
nished him with serviceable details. Especially important among
these episodes is Caesar's invasion, as described by Henry.^ In
the first place, Henry, so far as we know, is the only writer, before
Geoffrey, who introduces Lud (or, as he calls him, Liud) as a rela-
tive of Cassibellaunus. Nennius, through a series of clumsy errors,^
stated that Belinus, whom he puts in the place of the historical Cassi-
bellaunus, was the son of Minnocaunus. Henry makes Belinus and
Cassibella[u]nus brothers and substitutes Liud for Minnocaunus.'
It is impossible to maintain that Geoffrey knew Lud first or chiefly
from Henry, partly because Geoffrey makes Lud Cassibellaunus*s
brother instead of his father, but especially because, in introducing
him, Henry must have been drawing, in some way or other, from
a popular tradition which was equally accessible to Geoffrey. Lud
is undoubtedly an ancient mythological figure,* identical with
"Ludd of the Silver Hand" of Welsh literature. Henry may or
may not have been following tradition when he substituted Lud for
Minnocaunus. In either case, he had taken into his history a figure
which Geoffrey, when he found it there, must have recognized as
belonging to Welsh popular stories and very likely to fabulous
Welsh historical traditions, — and Geoffrey introduced this same
figure at the same point in his narrative.
More than this, Geoffrey's whole account of Caesar's invasion
resembles that of Henry in several respects. Henry indulges his
fancy for expanding the dry data of his authorities into an animated
narrative. He says that Caesar saw that the Britons must be con-
quered by stratagem rather than by valor ; he inserts a speech by
1 i, 12-14. ^ See Zimmer, Nennius Vindicatus^ pp. 271-274.
8 He gets the figure of Cassibellaunus from Bede, i, 2.
* This is certain, whether all Professor Rhy s's speculations about him are correct
or not {Hibbert Lectures^ pp. 1 19-130 ; cf. Loth, Mabinogion, I, 252, note 2, 265).
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 69
Caesar ; and he quotes a line from Lucan. Geoffrey also expands
greatly, gives a speech of Caesar,^ makes the Britons succumb only
to treason,^ and quotes a line from Lucan. This last point is
especially significant. There is only one other place in which
Geoffrey quotes* poetry, and that is only a few chapters farther
on.* The parallel is prettily completed by the fact that the only
other bit of poetry quoted in Henry^s first book (the only other
bit, indeed, which he quotes from any classical writer in books i-iv)
comes in directly after this episode. ** It looks very much as if
Geoffrey saw Henry's account and was seized with the idea of
bettering it, — as if he said to himself that he too could make a
romance out of a few bald facts, could invent a Livian speech, and
could quote Latin poetry.
Now there is certainly nothing impossible in the hypothesis that
it was when Geoffrey first read this particular passage — the only
very prominent one so imaginatively embellished in all Henry's
work before the end of the Saxon Conquest — that he conceived
the idea of writing a history of all the British kings in romantic
form and with material from popular stories. The argument is
strengthened by the fact that Geoffrey, though he adds details,
agrees with Henry in introducing ® King Coel of Colchester as the
father of Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great. Here, as
well as in the other case, he was doubtless acquainted with the
same traditions which Henry utilized, but it is still true that to
Henry belongs the priority, both in general method and in the use
of these particular traditions.
We come now to cases where Geoffrey took over some more
specific detail directly from William or Henry. The most certain
instance of all is a borrowing from William. In his account of the
coming of the Saxons, William, after mentioning Woden, says that
to him the Angles " quartum diem septimanae, et sextum uxori suae
* Though, to be sure, the circumstances are different.
* Though this idea doubtless belonged to British tradition.
* He has also some lines (apparently original with himself) in the first book.
* iv, 16 (a line and a half from Juvenal).
* Chap. 16 (a line from Virgil). * v, 6.
Digitized
by Google
^o Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Freae, perpetuo ad hoc tempus consecraverunt sacrilegio." GeofiFrey
makes Hengist say to Vortigern that to Woden our ancestors " dica-
verunt quartam septimanae feriam, quae usque in hodiernum diem
nomen Wodensdai . . . sortita est. Post ilium colimus deam inter
caeteras potentissimam, nomine Fream, cui etiam dedicaverunt
sextam feriam, quam de nomine ejus Fridai vocamus." Apart from
the mention of continuity, the fact that both authors select the
same two days, and those only, out of a possible six, seems a con-
clusive indication that Geoffrey drew from William.^ Layamon
later ^ took the very natural step of adding the names of the other
days also.
A less certain case of apparent borrowing from William is this :
Both in the Gesta Regum^ and in the Gesta Pontificum^^ William
quotes a letter from Albinus (Alcuin) to* king "Eielredus," in which
he refers to a heavenly warning in the shape of a shower of blood
{pluvia sanguinis) which has fallen at York. Geoffrey twice men-
tions such a shower. He says ^ that a pluvia sanguitiea fell in the
time of King Rivallo, and he includes a sanguineus imber^ among
Merlin's prophecies. Alcuin also mentions the change of a foun-
tain from water into blood, — an idea which Geoffrey uses twice in
the ProphecyJ But it is theoretically possible that Geoffrey may
have drawn direct from Alcuin's letter ; or the episode may have
been preserved in popular tradition and apocalyptic writings; or
Geoffrey may have known similar but not directly related stories.
It is possible that Geoffrey took from Henry the suggestion for
his statement ^ that when Uther was sick he made Lot commander
against the Saxons, and that Lot, after much fighting, was unsuc-
cessful. For, while Henry has nothing of Lot, he does say (drawing
from the Saxon Chronicle) at a point about corresponding,* that the
British King Nazaleod was killed by the Saxons in a great battle.
^ Geoffrey, vi, lo; William, i, 5.
2 See p. 151, below.
8 i, 70, ed. Stubbs, Rolls Series, I, 73.
* Prologue to bk. iii, p. 209, of Hamilton's edition, Rolls Series, 1870. The
whole letter is given in Mon. Germ. Hist.^ Epistolae, IV, ed. Diimmler, 1895,
pp. 42-43- ^ vii, 3, 29. 8 viii, 21.
^ ii, 16. "^ vii, 3, 116, 140. ® ii, 13.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 7 1
No other source of any kind for Geoffrey's episode is known,^ and
the resemblance between the last syllable in "Nazaleod" and "Lot"
was quite enough to strike his active imagination.
In the other instances which can be mentioned, Geoffrey's debt
to Henry consisted, if it is really a fact, in merely taking a hint
for a phrase or episode and applying it at a different place, wher-
ever it would prove most useful. In such cases it is not necessarily
to be supposed that the borrowing was conscious.
One of the resemblances of this kind is between a particular
sentence in Henry's account of Caesar's invasion and something
which Geoffrey says of the first battle between Arthur's men and
those of Lucius.^ Henry's words are : " Apparuitque virtus Romana,
dum sagacius ordinati cautius pugnant, obstinatius perseverant.
Fatigatis ergo Brittannis pericutiendo, Romanisque studentibus in
se protegendo, cum diu proelium durasset, fessis insulanis, Caesarei
recentes videntur." Cf. Geoffrey: "At Britones toto affectu deside-
rabant militiam : sed nee multum curabant in quem eventum inci-
derent, dum eam incipiebant. Romalni autem sapient ius agebant,
quos Petrejus Gotta, more boni ducis, nunc ad invadendum, nunc
ad diffugiendum, sapienter edocebat: et ita maximum damnum
caeteris impendebat."
Henry dates the death of Gortimerus in the reign of the emperor
Leo (457-474), while Geoffrey later speaks of the same emperor^
as ruling in Arthur's day, but has apparently the vaguest possible
ideas about him and his role in the history.* Geoffrey may have
taken the name from Henry and have known nothing else about
the man. This seems the more likely since Henry has no other
mention of Leo.**
It is possible also that Geoffrey^ was influenced by Henry in
reducing the number of men whom Arthur killed at the battle of
Badon. For Henry says 440, and Geoffrey 460, while the manu-
scripts of Nennius (which vary) have about double those figures.
1 There is no indication that he used or knew the Saxon Chronicle,
2 Henry, i, 14; Geoffrey, x, 4, 60-65.
* Or at least of an emperor of the same name.
* Henry, ii, 4; Geoffrey, ix, 11 ; x, 6; xi, i.
* Cf. below, pp. 82, 83. * ix, 4.
Digitized
by Google
T2 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
But the idea of reducing their originals by half may have come to
both Henry and Geoffrey independently.
There is a slight possibility that in telling how Vortimer's step-
mother Rowen had him poisoned with a drink (vi, 14) Geoffrey has
in mind Henry's story (v, 27, p. 167) of how St. Edward was stabbed
by his stepmother as she gave him a cup of wine.^ Again, while
the idea of a dragon standard must have been familiar to Geoffrey
as a Welshman, one may compare with the golden dragon which he
assigns to Uther (viii, 17) that which Henry gives to the West
Saxons (iv, 19). Henry speaks again of a dragon standard in vi,
1 3, without describing it. It may not be wrong to connect Cador's
occupation of the ships of the Saxons (ix, 5, 7 ff.) with a naval fight
of the time of Alfred described by Henry (p. 151).
Similar doubtful resemblances to episodes of William's history
are as follows: Geoffrey says (vi, 8, 10-13) ^^^^ Aurelius and
Uther were taken across the Channel (to Brittany) on the assassi-
nation of their brother Constans, and William tells (ii, 179) how the
English sent to Normandy for Ethelred on the death of Sweyn.
Geoffrey describes (vi, 4) how at an earlier period Constantinus
was summoned from Brittany, and William speaks (ii, 106) of
Egbert's being recalled home by messengers. William says (v, 41 1 )
that when Henry I learned that the sellers refused to take broken
pieces of good money, he ordered all to be broken ; and Geoffrey
includes the following sentence in that part of Merlin's prophecy
which refers to the time of the same monarch (vii, 3, 67) : " Findetur
forma commercii : dimidium rotundum erit." But of course in a
case like this Geoffrey may have learned the fact from some other
source than William. William says (iii, 229) that before the birth
of William the Conqueror his mother dreamed that ** intestina sua
per totam Normanniam et Angliam extendi et dilatari viderat," —
which is much like what Geoffrey says (viii, 14, 48) of the comet
which portended to Uther the career of Arthur: "Unus [radius]
longitudinem suam ultra Gallicanum clima videbatur extendere."
There is some resemblance also between William's account (iii, 281)
of how the king of France jested at the Conqueror in his sickness
1 William's account is more detailed (ii, 162).
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 73
and of the latter's threat in reply, which he fulfilled upon his recov-
ery, and Geoffrey's story (viii, 21-23) o^ ^^w Uther was sick for a
long time, how the Saxons therefore regarded him as a contemptible
opponent, and how he exulted over them when he had conquered
them. But the parallel is slight, especially since it does not include
the litter in which, according to Geoffrey, Uther had to be carried.
For the sake of completeness, another case, not belonging to the
Arthurian period, is to be recorded. William describes Normandy
(v, 397) as a country troublesome to the neighboring provinces in
something the same way in which Geoffrey speaks of Scotland (vi,
I, 18, etc.).
The most interesting of all these instances (also in the non-
Arthurian portion) demands more extended discussion. One of the
most surprising of Geoffrey's kings is Marius, who comes in (iv, 17)
just after Arviragus, whom Geoffrey takes from ascertainable sources,^
and before the Lucius who was famed in popular legend anterior to
Geoffrey as the first Christian monarch of the island. What Geoffrey
says of Marius is this : A certain king of the Picts, named Rodric,
came from Scythia and devastated Albania ; Marius met, defeated,
and killed him, and in honor of the victory set up a stone (lapidem)
in the province which was afterward called from his name Westi-
maria ; afterwards the surviving Picts asked wives from the Britons,
and, being scorned by them, went to Ireland, and brought wives from
there. Geoffrey has taken the general idea of the Pictish immigration
from Bede, altering the marriage feature so as to glorify the Britons,
and adding the name of the leader, Rodric. Both these modifica-
tions are so much in his usual manner that they need no other
explanation. The question is, where he got his king Marius, the
triumphal monument, and the idea of connecting with both the
Pictish immigration story, which properly belongs a good many
hundred years earlier. Now in the Gesta Pontificum ^ William says,
speaking of the desolate condition of the northern prdvinces of
England,' that among the Roman ruins at Carlisle is a banquet
1 See p. 86, below. 2 Prologue to bk. iii, p. 208.
« It is perhaps from this passage of William that Geoffrey took his description
of the devastated condition of northern England after the Saxon wars (ix, 8).
Digitized
by Google
74 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
hall, — triclinium lapideis fomicibus concameratum^ — over whose por-
tal is inscribed Marii Victoriae. William observes that the region is
called Cumbreland and the people Cumbri, and that he does not
know the significance of the inscription unless it be that a part of
the Cimbri came hither when they were driven by Marius from Italy.
It is within the range of possibility that a tradition about this
stone, though unknown to William, was in existence in Geoffrey's
time. But there is no evidence to that effect,^ and no evidence
that Geoffrey had ever seen the structure. He certainly character-
izes it very differently from William, who, to judge from the minute-
ness of all his description in this section, had seen it. It is possible,
then, that GeofiFrey may have taken his whole idea from William,
and the possibility becomes a strong probability when one consid-
ers that there is no apparent reason, except in William's silly guess,
why Geoffrey, or any one before him, should connect the Pictish
immigration story with the remains of a banquet hall in the midst
of city ruins, with the Roman period, or with any Marius. It is
true that the Cimbri had nothing to do with the Picts ; but, given
the mere idea of any immigration, Geoffrey's imagination was quite
sufficient for all the rest. The material came very opportunely to
his hand, for he wanted a king to fill, however inadequately, half
the time (after Arviragus) between the historical Claudius and the
supposedly historical Lucius, and he had not yet made any use of
Bede's and Nennius's accounts of the coming of the Picts. When
everything else fitted together so well, the chance to etymologize
the name Westmoreland was an additional piece of good luck for
Geoffrey, and the transformation of a banqueting room into a tri-
umphal stele a mere bagatelle.
To sum up, the natural presumption that Geoffrey derived the
impulse to write his history, in part at least, from the histories of
William and Henry, finds plausible confirmation in the following
facts : (i) he imitates pretty closely the general manner of William ;
(2) the general character of different parts of his narrative repro-
duces the varying tones of what may be called corresponding parts
1 The expanded versions found in later chroniclers who drew from Geoffrey
are of course not evidence.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 7 5
of William's aud Henry's ; (3) he might well have got from Henry
the suggestion for using two of the most important kinds of mate-
rial which he employs, — namely, popular traditions and romantic
fictions of his own based on the data of his written sources ; and
(4) he almost certainly took from William at least one or two
definite details, and, it is very likely, adapted several more from
both William and Henry. That both these historians are to be
counted in some not insignificant degree as among his sources
is therefore practically certain.
VI. Geoffrey's Sources : (D) Celtic Records
Since Geoffrey's work purports to be a history of Britain, we
may expect to find that his sources include not merely the works
of Gildas and Nennius, but also British documents and historical
traditions. Examination shows that this is really the case. It
shows, however, that here also Geoffrey followed his audaciously
eclectic method, using whatever he found as raw material, and
taking only a bit here and a bit there as he saw occasion.
We may first consider British historical and pseudo-historical
tradition outside of Gildas and Nennius. From this source it is
almost certain that Geoffrey drew much of what he says of the first
few kings of the Roman epoch. ^ There can also be no doubt that
he owes to such material something of his account of such a ruler
as Dunvallo Molmutius,^ the famous lawgiver, and, in the Arthurian
period, his mention of Budecius of Brittany, to whom Aurelius and
Uther are sent.' Again, though Geoffrey's ascription* of the
death of both Aurelius and Uther to poison is one of a large num-
ber of parallelisms which constitute something of a literary fault
in his work, and is of a piece also with the fact that in its most
important part, that of the warfare against the Saxons, Uther's
reign is necessarily only a doublet of Aurelius's, — nevertheless it is
^ iv, 1 1 -1 6; see Loth, Mabinogiotiy II, 283, note 2.
« ii, 17.
• vi, 8, 14; see San-Marte, p. 308.
* viii, 14 and 24.
Digitized
by Google
^6 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
quite possible that Geoffrey may have had in mind such a case as
the poisoning, at a brief interval, of two Welsh chiefs, which is
recorded in the Annates Cambriae :
943. Catel, son of Artmail, was poisoned, and Judgual and his son Elized
were killed by the Saxons.
946. Cincenn, son of Elized, was poisoned.
It can be shown also that Geoffrey took from Welsh records the
names of many of the less important personages which occur in
certain of his bare lists,^ — in spite of the constant corruption of
names in manuscripts and although the only basis for comparison
now accessible is found in the series of royal genealogies attached
to the Annates Cambriae,^ It should be distinctly understood in
what follows that the genealogies of the Annates are to be regarded
merely as representative of many similar ones which doubtless
existed. There is no reason to suppose that Geoffrey ever saw
these particular records, and, indeed, he disagrees with them else-
where in dates and other respects.
Most of Geoffrey's lists above referred to pretend to record suc-
cessive kings. The only list which refers to the Arthurian period *
pretends instead to enumerate the persons attending Arthur's coro-
nation feast, but it is evidently made up in large part in the same
way. It includes among those who came Beduerus and Cajus
(the famous Bedver and Kei of Welsh tradition), of whom Geoffrey
has already spoken, and the three brother kings, also before men-
tioned,* Auguselus, Urianus, and Lot, who are regularly given in
Welsh mythological genealogies^ as sons of Cynvarch.^ One of
the British kings is Stater,"' and in one of the genealogies ® appears
1 Especially ii, 8; ii, 16; iii, 19; xii, 6.
2 Printed by Phillimore, Y Cymmrodory IX, 176 ff., and thence by Loth, Mabi-
nogion^ II, 302-324. ^ jx, 12. * ix, 9.
* See, for example, Lady Guest, Mabinogiofty I, 1 23 ; San-Marte, pp. 379-380.
^ I have no hesitation in assuming that Auguselus is merely Geoffrey's Latin-
ized form for Arawn^ which Brut Tysilio restores. On Urien, see Thumeysen,
Ztsch.f. deutsche Phil., XXVIII, 83; and Rh^s, Arthurian Legend, pp. 238 ff.
■^ Our printed texts read Sater, but Stater was evidently Geoffrey's spelling.
It is so given in MSS. Bibl. Reg., 4. C. xi; Harl. 225 and 3773; Arund. 10;
by Wace and Layamon ; the French chronicle of MS. Harl. 636 ; etc.
8 No. 2, Loth, II, 305-307.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth yy
2l person of the same name. One of Geoffrey's heroes is Regin
map Claut, and the same genealogy has Regin with Cloten as his
great-grandfather. Kincar figures in both lists, and the genealogy
has an Arthur.^ Geoffrey names among the heroes Kimbelim map
Trunat, Chatleus map Catel, and Kinlich map Neton ; and another
of the genealogies ^ has Cinbelin map Teuhant,' Catlen map Catel,
and Run map Neithon. A few of the other names which Geoffrey
includes — distinctive names that could hardly have belonged to
more than one person — reappear in the genealogies, and therefore
were certainly figures of ancient tradition. This is the case, at
least, with Danaut map Papo.* It is interesting to notice that
Geoffrey has brought in Samuil-penissel, who, according to another
genealogy, was a son of this same Danaut, as a king several hundred
years before.^ Not from these genealogies but evidently from some
previous tradition, Geoffrey must have taken his Peredur, son of
Eridur, since he has already (much earlier)* introduced these two
names together, though in that case as those of brothers.'^
A feature of Geoffrey's account of the Arthurian period which
aids much in lending to it an appearance of historical fact is the
introduction of the names of certain Welsh saints, some of whom
without doubt, and all of them probably, were well known in Celtic
legend in his time and long before.
Of these saints by far the most important is Dubricius. . He is
first mentioned as being made Bishop of Urbs Legionum, at the
1 This Arthur is called the son of Petr, which is also the case in some of the
lists of the Liber Landavensis (Book of Llan Ddv^ ed. G. Evans, 1890) and in a
quite different form of the genealogy in a Jesus Coll. MS. (Vaughan, Y Cymm-
rodor, X, iii). It is an interesting hypothesis that this Petr may be the original
of Geoffrey's enigmatical Petreius Cotta, whom he puts in the time of his Arthur,
although making him a commander of the hostile Roman army (x, 4).
2 No. 16 (Loth, p. 313).
' The Tenuantius and Kymbelinus of Geoffrey (iv, 11 and 12).
* Genealogy No. 11 (Loth, p. 312). He appears also in the Annates at 595
(Loth, p. 236, note 4).
^ Geoffrey, iii, 19, 24; genealogy No. 19 (Loth, p. 317).
• iii, 18 (Peredurus and Elidurus).
' For a theory about another of these names, see Phillimore, in Y Cymmrodor,
IX, 176.
Digitized
by Google
78 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
time when Aurelius is restoring the churches.^ Geoffrey adds that
divine providence had chosen him for the office. Later,' Geoffrey
represents him as Primate of the island, and as most directly
responsible for the elevation of Arthur to the kingship.* It is he,
again, who exhorts the army before the battle of Badon.* He is
also called Legate of the Pope,^ and it is stated that he was so
holy that his prayer would heal any sick person. The last act in
his career is the second coronation of Arthur,* after which he volun-
tarily resigns his see and becomes a hermit.*
All this is directly taken or imitated from the Welsh traditions
about Dubricius. They appear to be consistent in calling him the
head (as a matter of fact, the first known head) of the British
Church,^ and the Lives of most of the saints of the fifth and sixth
centuries ^ (some of which certainly antedate Geoffrey) are full of
allusions to him. In especially close relation with Geoffrey's state-
ments are those of the Book of Llandqffi^ -which, was put together at
about the time of Geoffrey, but in materials belongs very much
earlier. Besides continual references to Dubricius, this document
asserts ^° (falsely) that he was made archbishop, and gives a brief
account of his life," which includes the statements that he became
a hermit and that the sick were healed by the laying on of his
hands. ^^ To what he learned from legend, therefore, Geoffrey has
merely added, inevitably, the connection of Dubricius with Arthur.
He has also, apparently, introduced one change which seems sur-
prising at first sight, — namely, the transference of Dubricius from
Llandaff, where the legends locate him, and which is said to have
been Geoffrey's own town,*' to Urbs Legionum. But this was a
necessary consequence of Geoffrey's selection of Urbs Legionum as
the capital of Arthurian Britain.
1 viii, 12, 43. « ix, I. « ix, 13, 3.
2ix, 12, 33. *ix, 4. «ix, 15.
^ It is interesting, however, to note the chronological divergence from Geoffrey
of the Annates Cambriae^ which place the death of Dubricius at 612. On
Dubricius, see Hardy, I, 40-44 ; and Diet. Nat. Biog., XVI, 82.
* E.g. almost all those that are soon to be mentioned here.
' See Haddan and Stubbs, Councils^ etc., I, 146-147, note.
10 Ed. Evans, pp. 79, 81. " p, gi.
11 Pp. 78-86. " Though possibly not at this time.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 79
Another very famous saint whom Geoffrey mentions, though much
more briefly, is Samson. He is characterized as being renowned
for the greatest piety, and is said ^ to have been made by Aurelius
Bishop of Eboracum, whence he is afterwards driven away by the
devastations of the Picts.^ Still later,' he is alluded to as having
been archbishop of Dol (in Brittany). It is only the first and last
of these statements that agree with the usual legends about Samson,
as represented, for instance, in the sixth-century Life.* It seems
most probable that Geoffrey took the association of the saint with
York from some less common stories, since Giraldus Cambrensis,*
at the end of the twelfth century, alludes to it as an erroneous
opinion of the people of that city.*
Samson's successor at Dol, says Geoffrey, ^ was Thelianus,® — evi-
dently the name of the famous St. Teilo in a Latinized form. The
origin of this statement appears in the life of Teilo in the Book of
Llan Ddv^ where it is said that when the Saxons were devastating the
island Teilo went to Armorica and was joyfully received by Samson.
In the prophecies of Merlin, Geoffrey makes use of another legend
about Samson, as is shown by an explanation of Alanus de Insulis.
Geoffrey says,^^ "The pastor of Eboracum shall dwell with six
others in the kingdom of Armorica." Alanus states ^^ directly that
this means Samson and that the reference is to the legend of the
seven saints of Brittany, — whose popularity is shown by plenty of
monumental testimonies still existing in that country.
2ix, 8, 3. 8ix, 15,4.
* Mabillon, A A. SS. Ord. S. Bened., Venice, 1733, I, 154-173; see de La
Borderie, HisU de la Brttagne^ I, 415 ff. ; Rev. Celt.y VI, 4, note 3 ; Evans, Book
cfLlan DdVi p. xxii ; Haddan and Stubbs, Councils^ 1, 149 ; YCymmrodor^ XI, 127.
* De Invect^ iv, 2, Rolls Series, III, 77.
* Of course, on the other hand, they may have taken it from Geoffrey.
7 Ik, 15, 5.
8 The printed texts have Chelianus, but this is certainly incprrect. The corrup-
tion of T into C in the manuscripts is very easy, and forms with T appear, for
instance, in MSS. Bibl. Reg. 4. C. xi, and 13. D. v. ; Harl. 225 and 3773 ; and
Arund. 10. * Pp. 97-117. ^^ vii, 3, 26.
11 Prophetia Anglicaha^ Frankfort, 1603, pp. 28-30 (pointed out by San-Marte,
pp. 339-341 ; see San-Marte*s discussion and his references ; add, also, among
others, Vincent de Beauvais, Spec. Hist.^ xx, 30).
Digitized
by Google
8o Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Similarly, a couple of lines later, Geoffrey makes use of a miracu-
lous incident included in the Life of Gildas ascribed to Caradoc.
Geoffrey says, "Praedicator Hyberniae propter infantem in utero
crescentem obmutescet." The Life of Gildas^ has it that one day
when that saint attempted to preach, he found himself unable to
speak, and that subsequently the impediment, as revealed by an
angel, was discovered (the modern mind can hardly understand
just why) to be the presence of Nonnita, the mother of St. David,
with whom she was then pregnant.
Later,^ Geoffrey introduces St. David by name, calling him the
uncle of Arthur, an idea which seems to come from the state-
ment of the legend^ that David was of royal race. The Pyramus
whom Geoffrey calls* Arthur's chaplain and Samson's successor
at Eboracum, is perhaps the person of whose chapel at Cardiff
Giraldus speaks.^ Attention has already been drawn to the possi-
bly significant similarity between the names of Geoffrey's important
archbishop Guethelinus ® and Nennius's Guitolinus, the opponent of
Ambrosius.''
It may be mentioned that the Pope Sulpicius to whom, says
Geoffrey,^ Walwanus was sent by Arthur, is perhaps an historical
personage, — Simplicius (a.d. 468-483).
VII. Geoffrey's Sources: (E) General History
Geoffrey, as his works show, was a true student. It is not sur-
prising, therefore, that he did not confine his borrowings to Welsh
material, but utilized the history of other peoples as well.*
1 Mommsen, p. 107. 2 ix, 15, 2 ; xi, 3, 8.
8 See Acta Sanctorum^ March, II, 38. The manuscripts of the Life of St.
David are catalogued by Hardy, I, 1 18-124.
* ix, 8; cf. p. 187, below.
5 Itin. KambriaCy i, 6, Rolls Series, VI, 64. • vi, 2-6.
^ I have not been able to trace the names of the other ecclesiastics whom
Geoffrey introduces: Tremorinus (so MSS. Bibl. Reg. 4. C. xi; 13. D. v. ; Arund.
10), viii, 10, 4 ; Eldadus, vi, 15, 44 ; viii, 9, 16; three other bishops, ix, 15, 8-9.
8 ix, II, 21.
' In connection with this source may also be consulted Section IX, pp. 108 ff.,
below.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 8 1
The most unmistakable instance of such borrowing is perhaps
his enlargement of Nennius's account of the parricide of Brutus from
the actual facts of the death of William Rufus.^ The most compli-
cated and composite instance is his long narrative of the reigns of
Belinus and Brennius.* But other cases occur in the Arthurian
period.
Reference has already been made' to the fact that Geoffrey
adopted from Bede the story of the death of Constantinus and Con-
stans, assigning the part of the historical Gerontius to Vortigern.
The combination is cleverly made. It not only produces a continu-
ous narrative out of unrelated materials, but it accounts for Vorti-
gern's succeeding to the throne, — a feature of the story which none
of Geoffrey's predecessors had explained.
Perhaps the name Flollo, which Geoffrey gives to the prefect of
Gaul,* comes in some way from the historical Rollo.
If the idea that Modred was Arthur's nephew and traitor to him
had not been developed before the time of Geoffrey,* it may have
been suggested to him* by the accusation which Gildas^ brings
against Maglocunus of oppressing the king his uncle with sword,
spear, and fire. Possibly Geoffrey may also have had in mind one
or two cases from the history of Roman Britain, — that of Constan-
tinus and Gerontius, or that of Carausius. Concerning the latter,
Geoffrey knew at least the bare statement of Bede® that he was
killed by the treachery of his friend Allectus. In his own version of
these two events * Geoffrey has misrepresented the facts, but he may
nevertheless have been perfectly aware what they really were.
Still another possible hint for the treason of Modred may have
been taken from the conduct of Bishop Odo, brother of William the
Conqueror. Odo, being left in charge of England, made all his
1 i, 3, 19-21.
^ See Publ. of Mod, Lang. Assoc, of Amer,, 1901, XVI, 469-474.
• Above, p. 59.
* ix, II. See San-Marte, p. 386.
* A question which cannot be decided.
• Or to some less conscious maker of tradition who came before.
' 33. See Sayce in London Academy ^ 1884, XXVI, 139.
H 6. 9 V, 4, 1-5.
Digitized
by Google
82 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
preparations to set out for Italy with a great retinue, to secure the
papacy for himself, so that the king had to return hastily and
arrest him.^
Again, the part which Geoffrey assigns to the Armorican Britons
under Hoel in Arthur's wars may have been suggested by the
participation of many subjects of the historical Count Hoel of Brit-
tany in William's conquest of England.^ The argument, however, is
weakened by the fact that Geoffrey makes the military alliance of
the Armoricans with the insular Britons go back to the beginning
of the reign of Aurelius.' Indeed, the point can hardly be deter-
mined without considering the other Breton elements in Geoffrey's
history, — the emphasis which he lays on the usefulness of the
Breton auxiliaries, who turn the tide in favor of Aurelius in an
important battle ; the Breton ancestry of Arthur's line ; the bring-
ing up of Aurelius and Uther in Brittany ; the glorification of Hoel,
especially in the battle with Lucius,* as equalled in prowess by
Gawain only ; the introduction of such a distinctly Breton tale as
the battle with the giant on Mont St. Michel. This problem of
Geoffrey's Breton material is a very difficult one. It is essentially
connected with the question whether the Britannia which he names as
the source of his liber means Wales or Brittany, and this in turn
involves the whole controversy over the matikre de Bretagne, Per-
haps, after all, in view of the close relations which had always existed
between the Welsh and their Armorican kindred, it was only to be
expected that Geoffrey would take pains to praise the latter.
For Arthur's invasions of France, whether or not they existed in
tradition before Geoffrey, a source has been suggested in actual
British history. About 470, while Leo the Great was Emperor of
the East, the Visigoths invaded Gaul, and the Emperor Anthemius
sent for aid to Riothimir, " king of the Britons," as Jordanes calls
him. Riothimir with twelve thousand men sailed from some place
1 See Ordericus Vitalis, vii, 8 (ed. Le Provost, III, 188-192).
2 Argued by Zimmer, GoU. Gel. Anz., 1892, p. 824. He goes into details which
are not very convincing and have been partly refuted by Loth, Rev, Celt, 1892,
XIII, 491-493, and Mabinogion, I, 151, note i ; II, 241-242.
" viii, 2.
* X, 10, 10, etc.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 83
not specified, and marched against the barbarians. The latter,
however, surprised and defeated him.^ Though the best recent
opinion holds that Riothimir was probably settled in Gaul, not in
Great Britain, so that his expedition does not make a real parallel
with Arthur's, nevertheless the most natural prima facie interpreta-
tion of Jordanes's account ^ would be to the contrary, and several
of the later chroniclers were puzzled by the apparent parallelism.*
That Geoffrey did take an idea from this source is an attractive
hypothesis, because it might help to explain why he so indefinitely
introduces an Emperor Leo at the time of Arthur.*
But it is impossible to argue with any assurance for any single
source for the episode of Arthur's attack on the Romans, or for the
whole conception of him as a foreign conqueror, — whether or not
it was original with Geoffrey, — because very likely several different
influences may have contributed to it. Now that the subject is
broached, it will be convenient to indicate these influences all
together.
As the earliest, it appears most reasonable to count a mythical
one.^ A common incident in ancient Irish and Welsh tales is the
visit of a (culture) hero to some country, sometimes, and probably
originally. Hades, whence he brings back something which is of
great benefit to his people. Taliessin's Spoils of Anwynn^ tells how
Arthur secured the cauldron of the monarch of Hades. Later, '^
Ireland, either because it was thought of as a land of mystery, or
1 Jordanes, De Rebus Geiicis^ chap. 45 (ed. Closs, 1888, pp. 160-161). For
discussions, see Lappenberg, Geschichte Englands^ I, 106; Herbert, Britannia after
the Romans^ p. 20 ; San-Marte, pp. 398-400 ; de La Borderie, Hist, de la Bretagne^
I, 251 ff. ; Loth, VEmigration Bretonne, p. 55, and Rev. Celt., 1892, XIII, 482.
2 Jordanes is our only authority here.
« Cf. p. 185, below.
* But cf. p. 71, above. Perhaps, also, if Geoffrey knew or remembered that it
was really Justinian who was (Eastern) Emperor at the time when he placed
Arthur (killed 542), he saw the diflftculty of claiming European conquests for
Arthur, and so substituted almost at random another name for the Emperor.
^ For this theory, see Rh^s, Arthurian Legend, pp. lo-ii.
• Skene, Four Ancient Books, I, 265.
7 As in the stories of Kulhwch and Olwen, and Branwen, daughter of Llyr
(Lady Guest, Mabinogion, III, 123-124; II, 307-308).
Digitized byCjOOQlC
84 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
because of the desire to rationalize the myth, takes the place of
Hades in the stories. When such expeditions came to be associ-
ated with Arthur, they might naturally give the suggestion for a
definite conquest of Ireland, which, actually, in Geoffrey's account
does precede all Arthur's other conquests outside of Great Britain.
Then from one foreign land to others was an almost inevitable step.
For the conquests of the northern countries, however, there may
possibly have been ^ a special traditional suggestion in the applica-
tion to Norway by the Welsh of their name for the other world ; *
or more probably in the history of the Northern wars in the British
Isles, particularly those of the ninth century, between the Vikings on
the one hand and the British or Irish on the other.'
The attacks upon Rome, in turn, almost followed as a matter of
course from the elevation of Arthur to the position of the great
British national hero, whose exploits were to be compared with
those of the greatest monarchs of history. For Rome was the only
world power in the time when he lived, and the supreme test of
his greatness was necessarily its overthrow. And in the speeches of
Arthur and his knights in books nine and ten, Geoffrey shows that
he has in mind the idea of retaliation for the earlier subjugation of
the Britons by the Romans. But more than this, attacks upon
Rome had formed a considerable part of the staple of history for
several centuries of the Christian era. Geoffrey (or the previous
tradition maker) had the examples not only of all the barbarian
chiefs like Attila and Alaric and a dozen others, but of the British
Maximus and the first and second Constantinus, of whose exploits
he knew from Bede, and whom he had himself mentioned. He
had also the examples of Pepin and Charlemagne, about whom
William of Malmesbury, as well as other chroniclers, had written.
Also he may have had in mind the Norman kings of England, who,
if they did not actually engage in vast foreign conquests, at least
1 As Rhys suggests, Arthurian Legend^ p. ii.
2 For possible arguments that the tradition of conquests by Arthur in Scandi-
navia existed before Geoffrey, see below, pp. 126-127, 141-142.
' Zimmer argues for this theory, with much definiteness, in Gott. Gel. Anz.^
1890, pp. 820-821.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 85
sometimes thought of doing so,* and were constantly making war
in France.^ For one incident of the campaign against Flollo he
may have drawn upon the history of one of these kings. At all
events, his remark* that Arthur's generosity (largitas) caused the
greater part of the Gallic army to go over to him, reminds one
of Roger of Hoveden's statement* that, when Henry I invaded
Normandy in 11 05, "almost all the chief men deserted. their lord
the duke and ran after the king's gold and silver."
VIII. Geoffrey's Sources: (F) Myths and Popular Stories.
The Idea of Arthur before Geoffrey
The sources which have so far been mentioned account for much
of Geoffrey's History^ both in outline and in details; but other
important sources remain to be considered. Among these the
most significant are the myths and popular stories, chiefly of the
Celts, but partly also of other races, from which Geoffrey drew.
To illustrate from the non- Arthurian part of the History: it has
been demonstrated with certainty, or with a very high degree of
probability, that Geoffrey must have found in Celtic myth or tra-
dition the characters, and at least in part the outlines, for his
1 Cf. Freeman, Reign of William Rufus^ I, 7.
2 It is not possible to explain satisfactorily where Geoffrey got the name
Lucius Hiberius (all seven of the manuscripts of Geoffrey which I examined have
Hiberius or Hiberus ; the printed texts read Tiberius) for the (Western) Roman
Emperor whom he actually opposes to Arthur. Geoffrey speaks somewhat
inconsistently of his oflftce; for he not only calls him sometimes Reipublicae pro-
curator (ix, 15, 14) and sometimes imperator (x, 4, 2, etc.), but sometimes implies
or states that he acts under the orders of the senate (x, i, i ; x, 13, 17), and
sometimes says that he is a colleague of the Emperor Leo (ix, 20, 5 ; x, 6, 4), who
is also stated (ix, 11, 33) to have been the superior of Flollo, procurator of Gaul.
Probably this is a case of carelessness on Geoffrey's part, or of vagueness in his
knowledge of history. Certainly his mention of two emperors at this time shows
that he supposed, or assumed, that the Western Empire was still in existence.
Cf. above, p. 83, note i; and below, pp. 122, 133, note 10; 167, note 19; 156, 196,
200, 229, 231, note 4.
8ix, II, 39-40.
* I, 162, Rolls Series.
Digitized
by Google
86 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
stories of King Bladud,^ Marganus,^ Arviragus,' and Guanius and
Melga,* as well as the figures of Caradocus and Conanus Meria-
docus,* to say nothing of the eagle which he represents as having
spoken at the foundation of Shaftesbury.®
At this point a cautionary observation may not be out of place.
Our knowledge of the traditions current in Geoffrey's time is so
slight that it is seldom possible to determine with certainty whether
he found, already developed, stories which he took into his history
without any great change, except that of adjusting them to his
narrative ; or whether he merely got the names and a few hints
from popular tradition, fabricated the connection between the
names and the episodes, and invented a large part of the detail.
There is no clear evidence to show, for instance, whether he was
the first to represent the Celtic gods Melwas and Gwynwas in the
role of the foreign ravagers Melga and Guanius, though extant
stories about Melwas prove that he had long before been made into
a man. On the other hand, the tale of Bladud doubtless came to
Geoffrey pretty straight from local tradition, and the question is
chiefly whether he was the first to put Bladud into a definite line
of kings. On the whole, considering what we know from other
sources about Geoffrey's methods, it is safe to ascribe to him a
very large share in the construction of his stories.
Again, from tradition not merely Celtic (or not Celtic at all)
Geoffrey takes the Leir episode;^ the eleven thousand virgins;'
1 ii, 10. See Sayce, Y Cymmrodor^ X, 207-221. It may be noted here that
Sayce was certainly right in suggesting that Geoffrey's real form for the name
of the king who appears in the printed texts as Hudibras was Rudhudibras. It
is so written in all the MSS. of Geoffrey which I have examined and in many
chronicles which draw from him. Many chronicles also have Ludhudibras,
2 ii, 15. See Rhjs, Celtic Britain, p. 118.
8 iv, 13-16. See Schofield, Publ. of the Mod. Lang, Assoc, 1901, XVI, 405 ff.
* V, 16; vi, 3. See Rh^s, Arthurian Legend, pp. 342-347; Lot, Rotn.^ 1895,
XXIV, 327-335 ; Paris, Rom., XII, 502.
^ V, 9-15. See San Marte, pp. 292 £f. ; Edwards, Y Cymmrodor, XI, 72, note 3 ;
Paris, Hist. Litt., XXX, 245 ; Bruce, Publ. Mod. Lang. Assoc, XV, 326 ff.
• ii, 9, 15 ; xii, 18, i. See San Marte, p. 463.
^ Gesta Romanorum, ed. Oesterley, No. 273, p. 672 (with references, p. 748) ;
San Marte, pp. 221 ff . ; Wright, Essays on Archaological Subjects, I, 216.
^ V, 16. Cf. Rh^s*s peculiar theory {Celtic Heathendom, pp. 165-166).
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 87
Gormundus, king of the Africans ; ^ and probably occasional hints
of Teutonic saga.^ His giant Goemagot comes ultimately from the
Bible, through the medium of widespread popular tradition.'
Elements from this miscellaneous body of tradition and story
appear in a subordinate way in Geoffrey's account of the Arthurian
period. There are apparently several reminiscences of the Bible.
Besides Eldadus's citation of examples from the Books of Samuel
and Joshua,* the valorous conduct of Eldol, who slew seventy Saxons
with a stake and escaped from the massacre of the other British
chiefs,* seems to be suggested by the exploit of Samson. We may
compare also the insistence, in the narrative of Job's disasters, upon
the escape of a single man from each company. The aninftil figures
in Merlin's prophecy^ have at least a resemblance to those in the
Book of Daniel.'' It is possible that the account of the murder of
Constantinus by a Pift* reflects that of Eglon in Judges, iii, 15-22.
Geoffrey includes the twelve peers of France among Arthur's
lords.' His long list of heathen kings who belong to the army of
Lucius ^^ is suggested by similar lists in mediaeval poetry." The age
of fifteen years which he ascribes to Arthur at the time of his
coronation ^^ is the conventional one for the beginning of a hero's
exploits in mediaeval tales. The duel of Arthur and Flollo in an
island reminds one strongly of the Norse custom of hdlm-ganga}^
The mention in the prophecy of Merlin of a snake encircling a
1 xi, 8-10; San-Marte, pp. 439-443; Lot, J^om.^ 1898, XXVII, 1-54; Zimmer,
Gott. Gel. Anz.y 1890, p. 823.
2 San-Marte, Arthur-Sage^ pp. 17-18. The theory is carried to a still greater
extent by F. Liebrecht, Gervasius von Tilbury^ p. 96.
3 i, 16. Cf. Bieling, Zu den Sagen von Gog und Magogs Berlin, 1882 (espe-
cially pp. 5, 21) ; Herrig's Arckivy LII, 89.
* viii, 7-8. ^ vi, 16. ® vii, 3-4.
■^ But cf . p. 60, above. 8 vi, 5, 1 5.
' ix, 12, 52 ; ix, 19, II. He had already introduced them in i, 13, 18. On the
peers, cf. Warton-Hazlitt, History of English Poetry, I, 108, and note i. See also
p. 187, below. ^0 X, I.
11 For example, in the Chanson de Roland^ vv. 32 15-3261.
^ ix, I, 10.
i« ix, II, 54 ff. We need not infer that Geoffrey was directly affected by Scan-
dinavian tradition or custom at this point. The whole account of the duel is in
the usual style of mediaeval romance.
Digitized
by Google
88 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
city^ is evidently tak^n from the story motive which appears in
the Saga of Ragnar Lddbrbk, Another conventional literary episode
is the prophetic dream which Geoffrey represents Arthur as having
when he is on the voyage to France to fight Lucius.^ It naturally
reminds one of the ominous dream which the prose Lancelot (and
from it Malory) assigns to Arthur at a later point in the story.
The incident of Hengist tricking Vortigern into giving him for a
castle as much land as he could enclose with a though is a very
widespread folk tale, elsewhere applied to Dido and to Ragnar LotS-
brdk ; but Geoffrey does not lay emphasis on the deception, because
he is interested in an etymology which he is developing. From
another folk tale, attached to both King Alfred and the Danish
Anlaf, comes the story of Baldulph's getting access to his besieged
brother in the guise of a harper.* Very hypothetical is Bugge's
equation of Arthur's campaign against the Saxons, beginning at the
siege of York and ending at the Battle of Badon,* with a story told
by Saxo Grammaticus (ca, 1200), — an equation which would identify
Cheldricus with Gelderus, Baldulphus with Balderus, and Cador
with Hotherus.* But, in any case, Bugge's conclusion that Geoffrey
invented the tale and that it reached Saxo very much distorted by
oral repetition, seems less probable than that both Geoffrey and
Saxo drew from a more ancient tradition.
The most important of all those among Geoffrey's characters
for whom he did not certainly derive either the name or the role
from Nennius or Bede — and one of the most important figures in
his whole History — is Uther Pendragon, whom he makes the father
of Arthur. An ingenious and attractive theory has been developed
1 vii, 4, 69.
2 X, 2, 9 ff. It has some resemblance to the dream of King Ivar in the Norse
Sogubroti chap. 3. Cf. R. Mentz, Die Trdutnc in den Karls- u. Artus-Epen^ Ausg.
«. Abh.y LXXIII ; W. Henzen, t/ber die Trdume in der altnord. Sagalitteratur^
Leipzig, 1890. * ix, i, 43 ff.
* vi, II, 25 ff. ^ ix, 1-4.
6 Bugge, Studier (wer de Nordiske Gude- og Heltesagens Oprindelse, I, 185-188
(Brenner's translation, Studien, etc., pp. 192-196). See Holder's ed. of Saxo,
Strassburg, 1886, pp. 71-74; Elton and Powell, The First Nine Books of Saxo
Grammaticus,, 1894, pp. 86-89.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 89
by Rhys, that Uther was originally a god of death or a corpse god.^
If so, he belongs to the mythical element in the History, It still
remains to explain, however, why Geoffrey inserted Uther at this
particular point and connected him with Arthur. Here also there
is an enticing hypothesis.^ Some texts of Nennius have at the
mention of Arthur (chap. 56) an interpolation which states that he
"was called mab Uter because he was cruel from his boyhood."
The proper interpretation of mab Uter^ as the following clause
shows, is " terrible warrior " ; but it might also be translated " son
of Uter." It is possible, then, that Geoffrey (or some one before
him) had a copy of the interpolated text, made the mistranslation,
whether by error or because it suited his purpose, and then equated
Uter with Uthr Ben. This procedure would have been just what
ivas needed to fiimish Arthur with a father and to fill the gap which
Nennius's narrative implies between Arthur and the Aurelius Ambro-
sius of Gildas. The expansion of the name into Uther Pendragon'
presents no difficulty, since Ben and Pen are linguistically identical,
and Fendragon means "Head Leader."*
1 Arthurian Legend^ pp. 255-256; cf. Celtic Heathendom ^ pp. 93-94, 269, 567.
Taliessin has a poem (Skene, Four Ancient Books^ II, 203-204) on Uthr Ben,
whose name means " the Wondrous Head." Rh^s therefore equates Uthr with
Bran of the Venerable Head, and ultimately with Urien, whose head seems to
have been cut off ; while the idea of a god whose head was the important or
only part of him was certainly common in European mythology. Taliessin*s
poem applies to Uthr the adjective ar&u^ "black," "dusky," or "livid." Equally
ingenious, though still more doubtful, is Rhjs*s identification (pp. 161 -162) of
Uther and Aurelius with the kings Ban and Bors of the romances ; but it is true
that both Uther and Ban are represented as djdng in consequence of drinking
from a poisoned well.
2 Which has been several times advanced ; for example, by Guest, Origines
Celticacy II, 159.
* Which occurs also in the twelfth-century Black Book of Caermarthen in
Arthur's dialogue with Glewlwyd Gavaelvawr.
* Rh^s, Celtic Britain, p. 133; Celtic Heathendom, p. 568; Welsh People,
p. 106. Cf. Gildas, chap. 33. Similar is the story of the begetting of Sigmund,
father of Siegfried, and Professor Schofield has pointed out (Publ, Mod, Lang,
Assoc, 1902, XVII, 284 ff.) striking similarities between the tales of Sigmund and
his sons and the career of Arthur as narrated in the prose romances.
Digitized
by Google
90 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
The most important episode which Geoffrey assigns to Uther,
his amour with Igerna, is certainly based upon a widespread folk
tale, which appears in the classic story of Jupiter and Alcmena, and
for which there is a close parallel in the Kathdsaritsdgara.^
ytja, passing to the more decidedly Celtic elements, mythical and
/jti^ditional, in Geoffrey's Arthurian story, it is important to remem-
ber that all the recent studies ^ concerning the mythical and Celtic
traditional elements of the Arthurian cycle, have a real, though
indirect, bearing on the argument. For, by showing that many
parts of the very diverse Arthurian stories are of mythical or tradi-
tional origin, they establish a strong antecedent probability that
the same is true of many other parts also. Apart from elements
which can be traced to their sources, it is self-evident that very
many of the details which appear, for instance, in the French Arthu-
rian Romances, are not pure literary invention, but go back to
popular traditions, so that Geoffrey, writing toward the middle of
the twelfth century, must have had plenty of that sort of thing to
draw from.*
The figure of Anna, whom Geoffrey represents as Arthur's sister
and Gawain's motfifer, was certainly traditional, and perhaps origi-
nally mythological. She is prominently mentioned in the geneal-
ogies of the Annales Catnbriae and elsewhere, though sometimes in
very different relations from those in which Geoffrey puts her.*
It is especially unfortunate that we cannot tell whether or not
Geoffrey was the first to connect with Arthur the very dramatic
incident of the duel with the giant, Helena's ravisher, on Mont
St. Michel. But the story is certainly much older than Geoffrey's
time, and it is hard to see why any one should doubt that, with
Helena in it, it goes back to very remote mythical antiquity; or
that Arthur as hero has taken the place formerly occupied by the
1 Tawney*s translation, I, 300 ff. I owe this reference to Professor Kittredge.
2 Such as Nutt*s Legend of the Holy Grail, and Rhjs*s Arthurian Legend, so
far as one cares to accept their conclusions.
* This is a safe proposition, whatever may be the outcome of the current dis-
cussions as to the matiire de Bretagne.
* Loth, Mabinogion, II, 305 ; Rh^s, Arthurian Legend, pp. 19, 336-337.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 91
more early-famed Kei and Bedver, who are here retained in sub-
ordinate roles and are still represented as principals in the similar
affair with Dillus Varvawc in the tale of Kulhwch and Olwen.^
Just at the close of the duel, Geoffrey alludes to the story of
another single combat between Arthur and the giant Ritho, — a
personage whom, with his very peculiar characteristics, Welsh and
Romance literature shows to have belonged to ancient tradition.^
The most significant thing to note here is the decisive evidence
which Geoffrey thus gives (though in fact we do not need it) that
he knew popular tales of which he made no extended use.
One of the most remarkable figures in Geoffrey's History is Mer-
lin, and, while no conclusion seems likely to be reached as to his
real existence, or as to the origin of his name,' there is no doubt that
he was known in Celtic tradition before Geoffrey's time.* Though
this tradition (as it has come down to us) represents Merlin as a
great bard, and Geoffrey, on the other hand, makes him a prophet
and magician, it seems likely that the prophetic character, at least,
had already been associated with him before Geoffrey wrote.*
1 For the whole incident, with parallels, see San-Marte, pp. 401-402 ; Rh^s,
Celtic Heathendom y p. 161, with references; Rhys, Arthurian Legend^ pp. 339 ff. ;
Branscheid, Quellen des Morte Arthure, Anglia^ 1885, VIII, Anzeiger, pp. 189-191,
etc. ; Le Roux de Lincy, Livre des Ligendes, 1836, p. 104, with references; Frey-
mond, Artus* Kampf tnit dem Katzenungetum (in the Festgabe fur Grdber^ 1899) 5
Guil. de St. Paier, Roman du Mt. St. Michel, vv. 455 ff. (ed. Redlich and Stengel,
Ausg. u. Abhandl.y 1894, XCII). P. Paris has pointed out, probably with too
much emphasis, resemblances to the story of Hercules and Cacus (Ovid, Fasti^ i,
545-580; Virgil, ^neidy viii, 185-279; Livy, i, 7). Cf. also p. 163, below.
2 See San-Marte, p. 40^ ; Rhys, Celtic Folklore, pp. 560-562 ; Triads, Nos. 54,
55, in Loth, Mabinogion, II, Nos. 1 31-132, pp. 289-290; Malory, i, 24; Li Cheva-
liers as Deus Espees, ed. Foerster, 1877, vv. 199-312, 2081 ff. Cf. Orvar-Odds
Saga, chap. 23.
* For one theory, see d*Arbois de Jubainville, Rev. des Questions Historiques,
1868, V, 559-568 ; Phillimore, Y Cymmrodor, XI, 47.
* On Merlin in general, see Lot, Les Sources de la Vita Merlini, 1900, reprinted
from Annales de Bretagne, XV.
* Note also that Wace, only twenty years after Geoffrey, knew Taliessin as a
prophet, ascribing to him a prediction of the birth of Christ (Brut, ed. Le Roux
de Lincy, vv. 4972-4993). In Welsh tradition Taliessin and Merlin are exactly
similar figures.
L^
Digitized
by Google
92 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
That prophecies similar to these given by Geoffrey, to whomever
they may have been ascribed, were current at an earlier day, Geof-
frey himself indicates by twice referring^ to the prophecy of the
eagle at Shaftesbury ; while Giraldus Cambrensis, who wrote only
fifty or seventy-five years after Geoffrey, in mentioning prophecies
of Merlin Silvestris, several times couples with them those of an
Irishman called Melingus.^ The previous connection of the idea
with Merlin is suggested by the fact that Geoffrey himself men-
tions,* without reciting it, a prophecy of Merlin to Arthur, while
William of Newburgh, in attacking Geoffrey's History^^ especially
includes the prophecies of Merlin among the things which Geoffrey -
took from the Britons and enlarged by additions of his own.
Moreover, Giraldus Cambrensis quotes many prophecies of Merlin^
taking it for granted that they are very old, and the majority of
these do not correspond to anything which Geoffrey gives.*
Merlin's first appearance in Geoffrey is as the supernatural boy
in the story of Vortigern's tower, which Geoffrey took from Nennius.
In Nennius, however, the boy is called Ambrosius, The change^
which does away with a confusing doublet of the warrior Aurelius
Ambrosius^ is a very happy one. There are at least two indications
that it was made by Geoffrey himself: (i) in the book of prophe-
cies and once in the last part of the preceding book Geoffrey calls
Merlin Ambrosius Merlinus ;^ (2) Giraldus Cambrensis, who falls
into the error of supposing that there were two different Merlins,^
ascribes to Merlin Ambrosius only prophecies which he takes from
Geoffrey, and to Merlin Silvestris (or Celidonius) only those which
1 ii, 9, 15; xii, 18, I. •
3 Expug. Hib.^ i, 16, Works, Rolls Series, V, 254 ; i, 30, p. 276; i, 33, p. 279.
* xii, 17, 7. * See pp. 1 01-102, below. ^ See p. 93, note i, below.
• vi, 19, 18 (in the passage that introduces the book of prophecies) ; vii, 3, 8. la
all other places (vi, 17 and 18 and 19 ; vii, i and 2 and 3 and thenceforth) Geoffrey
uses the form Merlinus. But in vi, 19, 13-14 he takes pains to explain : MerlinuSy
qui et Ambrosius dicebatur. It looks as if Geoffrey were making the identifica-
tion precisely in order to appropriate the tower episode to his Merlin. Cf. G.
Paris, Rom., 1883, XII, 370, n. 5.
■^ Itin. Kambriae, ii, 8, Works, VI, 133 ; Descr. Kambriae, i, 16, p." 196. This error
has been common ever since. It is a natural result of the great difference between
Geoffrey's portrayal of Merlin in the Historia and that in his Vita Merlini.
Digitized byCjOOQlC
Geoffrey of Monmouth 93
do not appear in Geoffrey's work.^ Giraldiis says that (with diffi-
culty, in a remote place) he found a copy of the predictions of
"Celidonius" in the British tongue.* But Geoffrey's Merlin is a
magician as well as a seer : he transports Stonehenge from Ireland,'
and he changes the shapes of Uther and his companions. It is
doubtful if this character had been ascribed to Merlin before Geof-
frey wrote. Probably the exploits just mentioned (and other sim-
ilar ones) belonged to Welsh tradition,* but there is no evidence
that Merlin had been associated with them.
On the whole, Geoffrey's extension of the role of Merlin beyond
that of the boy Ambrosius is not very considerable. Nennius
associates Ambrosius with Vortigern only ; Geoffrey carries Merlin
1 The passages taken from Geoffrey are as follows : De Invectt i, 4, p. 27
(Geoffrey, vii, 3, 58-59); id., ii, i, p. 46, De JurCy ii, p. 171, and Itin. Kambriaet
i» 5» P- 56 (Geoffrey, vii, 3, 27) ; De Prin. Inst.y ii, p. 216, and Expug. Hib.y ii, 31,
p. 374 (Geoffrey, vii, 3, 84); Top. Hib^y iii, 52, p. 201, and Expug, Hib.y ii, 28,
p. 366 (Geoffrey, vii, 3, 89-90) ; Expug. Hib.y i, -i^^y P- 279 (Geoffrey, vii, 3, 87-88).
Cf. Descr. Kambriaey i, 16, p. 197, and ii, 7, p. 216. Ward (I, 293-294) speaks of
the passages ascribed to Silvestris, which are as follows: Expug. Hib.y i, 3,
p. 230; i, 16, p. 254; i, 20, pp. 261-262; i, 30, p. 276; i, 2iZ> P- 279; i» 45» P- 300;
ii» I7» p. 339; ii» 3i» P- 374? ii. 3i» PP- 377-378; ii, 32, P- 381 ; Itin. Kambriaey
i, 6, p. 62 ; cf. Expug. Hib.y i, 38, p. 287. For instances not connected with the
Arthurian material, see p. 181, note 7, below.
2 Itin. Kambriaey ii, 6, p. 124 ; ii, 8, p. 133 ; Expug. Hib.y iii, praef., pp. 401-403.
' viii, IO-T2. That Geoffrey had any definite basis for most of the details
included in this episode no one has ever shown, though Rh^s has a theory to
account for some of them (Celtic Heathendom y pp. 187-194). But evidently tradi-
tions about the origin of the stones must have been current from the time when
people first ceased to know the facts. The mention of Ireland as the place from
which they came is very likely due in part to the supernatural character attributed
to them ; but it is perhaps connected with an actual fact of Irish topography, which
may have been known to Geoffrey or some predecessor. Geoffrey says that the
stones stood originally on Mount Killaraus in Ireland, and Giraldus Cambrensis
(Tb/. Hib.y ii, 18, Works y V, 100) notes that similar stones are still to be seen in
Kildare, near Naas. Rhys ( Text of the B ruts from the Red Booky p. xxxi) remarks
that Irish literature corroborates the supposition of the existence of a circle like
Stonehenge in Ireland.
* Cf. Schofield, Publ. Mod. Language Assoc, 1901, XVI, 417 ff. The rational-
izing Geoffrey suppresses the magic in this particular episode and represents Merlin
as employing special machinery.
Digitized
by Google
94 Arthurian Material in Chronic ks
on into the two following reigns, but does not have him appear after
the time of Uther. Yet, here, as elsewhere, Geoffrey gives evidence
of genuine literary skill. For some such figure, a being (whether
supernatural or not) Endowed with extraordinary wisdom, comes into
prominence in most epic stories, — Nestor, for example, by the side
of Agamemnon, and Naime de Bavi^re by the side of Charlemagne.^
As the Arthurian legend* developed, Aurelius and Uther sank into
comparative insignificance, and Merlin was intimately associated
with Arthur. In the prose romances especially he is constantly
brought into the foreground, so that his importance to the tradition
becomes as great as that of any character except the king himself.
Antecedent stories, originally mythic, may safely be inferred as
the sources from which Geoffrey took the names of some of Arthur's
knights who are celebrated in the later romances: Gawain;^
Cador, whom he makes Duke of Cornwall,'^ a personage prominent
in the triads and romances;* Eyentus^ (son of Urien), the Owain, O','^^^'^^^
or Yvain, of Welsh and French tales; Hiderus, son of Nu,' who is .^^^
Yder, son of the god Nudd of the Celtic pantheon ; and Er, son of
Hiderus,'' less well known to us. Geoffrey's very incidental manner
of mentioning these heroes indicates that he knew more about them
than the plan of his book allowed him to state, and took for granted
the same knowledge in his readers. This is doubtless especially true in
the case of Gawain, whose exploits as a warrior in Arthur's battles he
magnifies as much as the romances exalt his prowess as knight-errant.
Certainly mythical in origin is the idea of Modred's abduction
of Guenevere. In the romances, the abductor is generally Melwas,
originally an infernal divinity, and there is no proof that any one
before Geoffrey had substituted Modred for him. The antiquity
1 Cf. Maugis as helper of Renaut in Renaut de Montauban^ and cf. also the
angels in Chanson de Roland^ vv, 2452, 2525 ff., 2847-8, 3610 ff.
2 Cf. pp. 104-105, below. See Miss Weston's Legend of Sir Gawain, 1897.
8 ix, I, 34, etc.
* Cf. Lot, Rom., 1 90 1, XXX, 11-12, and see p. 106, below. ^ xi, i, 28.
^ X, 4, 56. The printed texts omit filius Nu, but it occurs in all the manuscripts
of Geoffrey that I have examined (though the spelling of the latter name varies)
and also in several chronicles which draw from Geoffrey. Cf. pp. 99, 103, below.
■^ X, 5, 32. The printed texts, but not the manuscripts, omit the proper name
Er^ which also occurs in various derivatives of Geoffrey's narrative.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 95
of the episode as connected with Melwas is evidenced not only by
its frequent occurrence but by its inclusion in the Life of Gildas
ascribed to Caradoc.^
It is clear, then, that plenty of popular traditions (many of them,
at least, of mythic origin) are worked into the Arthurian part of
Geoffrey's History, It is equally evident that in their first stage
these stories must have been entirely disconnected, and altogether
possible that before the time of Geoffrey they had not been asso-
ciated with Arthur at all. In other words, Geoffrey, unless he
really had a comprehensive liber^ must have brought together and
combined names and incidents from many diverse quarters. It
remains to point out the mythical and folklore elements in Geof-
frey's conception of Arthur as an individual. It will be most con-
venient to present the facts first, and afterwards to discuss the
theories as to their significance.
That Geoffrey removes Arthur from the story not by death ^ hut
by transportation to the isle of Avallon for the healing of his
wounds, is manifestly the result of a mythical story which he knew,
and of which more will soon be said.* Nor is any argument nec-
essary to prove that Arthur's possession of weapons with special
names,* — the shield Pridwen,* the sword Caliburnus, and the
1 See p. 105, below. Cf. Lot, Rom., XXIV, 327 ff., XXVII, 568 ; Rhys, Arthu-
rian Legend, pp. 25-38. Here is to be mentioned what seems to be an uninten-
tional preservation by Geoffrey of a fragment of an old story. He says (xi, i,
39 ff.) that when Arthur won his first victory over Modred, Guenevere fled from
Eboracum to Urbs Legionum, where she became a nun. He has not previously
mentioned Eboracum in connection with Guenevere or the war, and there is
nothing in his previous narrative to show why he thought of her being there.
Supporters of the Northern theory of the Arthurian cycle certainly have a right to
note this fact.
2 He leaves this point doubtful, perhaps for political reasons.
' See pp. 1 00-101, below.
* ix," 4. Cf . Arthur's list of his treasured possessions in the tale of Kulhwch and
Olwen (Lady Guest, Mabinogion, II, 258) ; what is said of the mantle in the Dream
ofRhonabwy (II, 406) ; the sword of Leite in Irish story (Rom., XXVII, 563) ; Talies-
sin's poem on the Spoils of Hades (Skene, Fottr Ancient Books, I, 264). See Brown,
The Round Table before Wace, in Studies and Notes, 1900, VII, 199, note.
* The printed texts read Priwen, but all the manuscripts of Geoffrey that I
have consulted have the d.
Digitized
by Google
96 Arthurian Material in Chronic ks
lance Ron, — is a remnant of mythical Celtic stories. In Geof-
frey's narrative these arms are a mere traditional survival, in which
he does. not take much interest. In this same place he mentions
Arthur's coat-of-mail and helmet without distinguishing them other-
wise than by saying of the former that it was worthy of so great
a king, and of the latter that it was adorned with the figure of a
dragon ; and later, in the fight with FloUo,^ when he has special
occasion to speak of Arthur's lance, he does not care or does not
remember to name it. The name of the sword, however, was more
thoroughly impressed upon him; for he gives it twice in other
places.^
The theory of the mythical origin of Arthur as a foreign conqueror
has already been stated.*
That Geoffrey's picture of Arthur, then, contains mythical and
folklore elements, is certain. On the other hand, as has been
shown, it has a definite historical or pseudo-historical basis. The
discussion is brought, therefore, to this question : Were the myth-
ical features added by Geoffrey, or by .popular tradition before his
time ?
This question must be answered in accordance with one of two
theories. The first holds that the mythical characteristics are only
the dibris of stories told originally about other figures, whether they
were transferred to Arthur by Geoffrey, or were attracted to him by
earlier and less deliberate development, after tradition had magni-
fied his exploits. The second assumes that, besides the historical
Arthur, there was an old Celtic god or " culture-hero " of the same
name, who, in the breakdown of Celtic mythology, became con-
fused with the famous warrior. This latter theory is by no means
new. It was set forth or taken for granted in several works a cen-
tury or more ago, and has since been upheld in various others.*
1 ix, II, 60.
2 ix, II, 75; X, 11, 16. On Arthur's arms, cf. p. 162, below.
8 See p. 83, above.
* For example, the Rev. Edward Davies's fantastic Mythology of the Druids ;
Owen, Cambrian Biography^ 1803, PP- ^3-i8- Cf. also Poste, p. 129; Babcock,
p. 135 ; Nicholson, Academy, 1895, XLVIII, 297 ; Herbert, Britannia after the
Romans y II, 21.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 97
Its chief exponent, however, is Professor Rhys, who has stated a
general principle which is the foundation of the whole hypothesis :
" In Irish and Welsh literature, the great figures of Celtic mythol-
ogy usually assume the character of kings of Britain and the sister-
island . . . and most of the myths of the modern Celts are to be
found manipulated so as to form the opening chapters of what has
been usually regarded as the early history of the British Isles." ^
This principle, in its general form, may pass without challenge, and
its application has been illustrated more than once in the present
investigation. The question is whether it applies to Arthur^ for whose
figure there is really an historical or pseudo-historical basis.
Professor Rhys's argument is somewhat extended.^ It is based
chiefly on an etymology of Arthur's name, and on the fact that
the tasks which he gets performed for Kulhwch in the Welsh tale
are largely such as would be suitable for a "culture-hero." But
Professor Rhys himself admits that very likely Arthur ought to be
regarded rather as a Celtic Zeus, and his theory certainly cannot
be regarded as proved for either character. Fortunately its truth
or falsity is of no great consequence in the present discussion. For
the later development of the story it makes no difference whether the
mythical characteristics were simply transferred to Arthur en masse
from some other personage, or slowly grouped about his nai||e one
by one. Yet it is safer on the whole to proceed in accordance
with the other theory, which is more in harmony with the facts in
parallel cases. We may assume, then, that these characteristics of
Arthur do not constitute the torso of a single colossal figure rescued
from the wreck of the Celtic pantheon,* but rather that they are
fragments of other figures brought together from many quarters
and combined into a whole to which Arthur's name was given.
The question remains, therefore, — Had they been assigned to
Arthur before the time of Geoffrey ? And with this is closely asso-
ciated another question, — Had Arthur already been represented
as the great national hero of the British race ? The answer in both
cases must certainly be in the affirmative.
^ Celtic Heathendom y pp. 11 9-1 20. * Arthurian Legend^ pp. 23, 25-38.
8 As Rh^s expresses it (Arthurian Legend^ p. 48).
Digitized
by Google
98 Arthurian Material in Chronic ks
That legends had begun to gather about the figure of Arthur
long before Geoffrey, is shown by the mirabilia of Nennius and by
entries in the Annales Cambriae and in the Vatican and Cambridge
manuscripts of Nennius.^ But there is other evidence of equal or
even greater importance.
Not without significance, in the first place, is the space which
Geoffrey allots to Arthur. The Historia covers a period, presum-
ably, of over fifteen hundred years, but more than a fifth part of
it ^ is devoted to Arthur's reign,* — more than twice as much as is
given to the eponymous Brutus, who comes next to Arthur in this
respect. Would Geoffrey ever have thought of exalting so highly
a character no better known than Arthur would have been from
the meagre account of Nennius t
Again, Geoffrey himself says flatly in his preface that the deeds
of Arthur were celebrated in the memory of many peoples.* The
force of this statement is decreased, not only because it is Geoffrey
who makes it, but because he couples with Arthur "other kings
after his time." Still, we have seen* that the language of Henry
of Huntingdon allows the inference that he knew Arthur as a king
supreme over the other kings of the island ; and that William of
Malmesbury, likewise writing before Geoffrey, testifies explicitly to
the extravagance of the British ideas about him.^ Still more
striking evidence appears in the picture of Arthur as a king and
knight-errant which William gives in his De Antiquitate Glastoni-
ensis Ecclesiae^ though the authenticity of this episode has been
questioned by high authority.* In the section De lUustri ArturOy
William says :
1 See pp. 15, note 7, 16, 28, 32-34, above. 2 ^g printed pages out of 174.
8 As much more to the period before the accession of Arthur, which I have
here treated as belonging to the Arthurian story.
* See p. 51, above. ^ See p. 42, above. ® See p. 40, above.
7 Migne, Patrol Lat, CLXXIX, col. 1701 ; also in Gale, I, 307. The passage
reappears in the enlarged version of William's work by John of Glastonbury (who
flourished about 1400), ed. Hearne, 1726, I, 76.
8 G. Paris, Hist Litt. de la France, XXX, 199; cf. Holtzmann, Germania, XII,
276-277. On the date of the De Antiquitate, see Stubbs, Introduction to the Gesta
Regum, pp. xxvii-xxviii. On the story in general, see Lot, Rom.,, XXVII, 568.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 99
It is narrated in the deeds of the most illustrious king Arthur ^ that when,
at a celebration of the birthday of our Lord at Karlium, he had adorned a
valiant youth, the son of King Nuth, called Ider, with military insignia, and,
for the sake of proving him, had brought him to the mountain of the Ranae
(now called Brentenol), where, as he had learned, there were three giants
most distinguished for their misdeeds, to fight against them, — this same
youth went ahead of Arthur and his companions without their knowledge,
boldly attacked the giants, and killed them in a marvellous fight. When
they had been slain, Arthur came up, found Ider overcome with the exces-
sive exertion, and fallen into a swoon, and together with his attendants
mourned him for dead. Therefore, returning home in the greatest sorrow,
he left there the body which he supposed to be lifeless until he could send
a vehicle to bring it away.
William (or the interpolator) then goes on to say that Arthur,
thinking himself the cause of Ider's death, made an endowment at
Glastonbury, when he arrived there, for twenty-four monks to pray
for the youth's soul. Later on, Arthur is mentioned^ at the head
of the benefactors of Glastonbury Abbey.*
Besides these references previous to Geoffrey's time, quite as much
importance ought to be assigned to a large number of passages in
various works, written not long after his History^ which represent
Arthur as a great hero or king or refer to traditional stories so
representing him.
Any one not blinded by preconceived contrary theories must admit
the force of the fact that in all the French romances, like those of
Crestien, which began to be written, to our knowledge, within less
than thirty years after Geoffrey's History (and in fact probably
earlier), Arthur appears in the characteristic romance position as
the mere centre of a great court of knights-errant. In any romance
cycle such a development requires a long time. It could not have
come so soon from Geoffrey's story alone.
More direct is the evidence of Wace in observations which he
inserts in his paraphrase of Geoffrey, observations which, though
made about twenty years later than the Historian clearly refer to
1 Cf. p. 231, below.
2 Migne, col. 1723 ; Gale, p. 326.
8 For another somewhat similar story told by William, see pp. 103-104, below.
Digitized
by Google
lOO Artkurian Material in Chronicles
conditions which had long existed. After telling of Arthur's con-
quests in the North, he says^ that, because his barons quarrelled
about precedence at feasts he "made the Round Table, of which
* Bretons* tell many a fable." Here Wace introduces a popular
tradition about Arthur as a great king, of which Geoffrey gives no
hint whatever, and says that with the " Bretons " (whether Armor-
icans or Welsh) it is a subject of many fabulous stories. Later ^
he indicates that Arthur was in his time, and apparently had long
been, the central figure of a whole cycle of romantic adventures :
" In this great peace that I mention — I don't know whether you
have heard of it — the marvels were proved and the adventures
performed which are so much told about Arthur that they have
Ms been turned into fables. Not all of them are false and not all true ;
I' not all foolishness and not all sense ; but the story-tellers have told
so much and the writers of fables fabled so much to embellish their
tales, that they have made the whole seem fables." Evidently
Wace makes this remark because, knowing the stories, he thinks
they should be mentioned in any complete account of Arthur's
reign, and he is evidently relieved to find a period in Geoffrey's
narrative to which they can plausibly and consistently be assigned.
Again, in speaking of the coming of Arthur to Avalon,' Wace pre-
serves the essential feature of the story, which Geoffrey omitted ; *
namely, that not only was his recovery there taken for granted by
the " Bretons," but that they believed he would return td them at
some later time. " He is still there ; the * Bretons ' await him ;
they say that he will come back and live again."
The idea that Avalon as the refuge of Arthur was something
more than an abode of mortals was fully expressed by Geoffrey
himself in the Vita Merlini^ some years after the publication of his
Historia, His description, though written in a conventionally
1 Ed. Le Roux de Lincy, vv. 9994 ff. ; cf. p. 142, below.
2 Vv. 10,032 ff.
* V. 13,685. For Layamon*s paraphrases of these statements of Wace, see
w. 22,955 ff., 23,053 ff., 28,610 ff.
* Perhaps, as we have seen, for political reasons (see p. 95, note 2, above).
• * Vv. 912 ff., ed. Michel and Wright, pp. 36-37.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth loi
poetical style, shows clearly enough the direct descent of the story /
from the general Celtic conception of the Happy Other World. (
Even earlier, probably, than in Wace's Brut^ the belief among
the Britons that Arthur would return to vindicate their rights was
alluded to by Geoffrey Gaimar,^ and indeed by Henry of Huntingdon
in his letter to Warinus (1139).^ About 1190 Joseph of Exeter
refers to it in his Troy poem.* It is also mentioned by Giraldus
Cambrensis.* How strongly it was held among the Armoricans by
1 1 75 appears in the often-quoted passage in which Alanus de Insulis
says that denial of it in the country districts of Brittany would be
likely to .cost a man his life.^ Most significant of all is the account
of the begging journey of the monks of Laon to Cornwall, appended
to the autobiography of Guibertus of Novigentum. This proves
that as early as fl 146 the Bretons (of Armorica) used to quarrel
with the French ^bout Arthur, and that as early as 11 13 a belief
in his return was a more sacred thing to the men of Cornwall and
Devon than church, monks, or miracles.*
Evidence of the same general nature is furnished by William of
Newburgb in the long and violent attack which he makes upon
Geoffrey in the Frooemium to his own history of England, written
about 1 198.'' Geoffrey, he says, "disguised under the honorable
name of history, thanks to his Latinity, the fables about Arthur
which he took from the ancient fictions of the Britons and increased
out of his own head.^ ... I pass by all the things about the
Britons before the time of Julius Caesar which this fellow invented,
or adopted after they had been invented by others, and wrote down
for true. ... It is manifest that everything which this person
wrote about Arthur and his successors, and his predecessors after
^ See pp. 125 ff., below. ^ See p. 120, below. » '^^ 472-473.
* De Prin, Instruct.^ i, Worksy Rolls Series, VIII, 127 ; Spec. Eccles., ii, 9, IV,
48 ff. * Prophetia Anglicana^ etc., Frankfort, 1603, bk. i, p. 17.
• For the fullest discussion of the affair, with references, see Zimmer, Ztsch. f.
franz. Spr.y 1891, XIII, 106-112. On the expectation of Arthur's return to earth,
cf. also below, pp. 145, 165, 167, 188, 190, 197, 202, 207, 230.
■^ The latest edition is that of Howlett, Vols. I and II of Chronicles of Stephetiy
etc., Rolls Series, 1 884-1 885. See his Introduction.
8 Fabulas de Arturo, ex priscis Britonum fignientis sumptas et ex proprio auctas.
Digitized
by Google
I02 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Vortigern, was made up partly by himself and partly by others;
whether from an inordinate love of lying or for the sake of pleasing
the Britons, of whom the majority are said to be so brutishly stupid
that, according to report, they still look for Arthur as if he would
return, and will not listen to any one who says that he is dead. . . ."
He afterward says that the same Arthur, after he was mortally
wounded in battle,^ " disposed of his kingdom and went away to that
island of Avallon which the British fables create ; not daring, for
fear of the Britons, to say that he is dead whose return the stupid
Britons expect."
Even before the time of Geoffrey the fame of Arthur and some
of his knights had made its way to Italy, as is pretty conclusively
shown by the facts about Italian names brought forward by Rajna^
and by the sculpture on the cathedral of Modena discussed by
Foerster.'
Since, then, there can be no doubt that Geoffrey found the figure
of Arthur already endowed by popular tradition with mythical
attributes and exalted in some respects, at least, to the position of
the national hero of the British race, it becomes important to deter-
mine how much of his conception he may have taken from this
traditional source.
Now the evidence on this point is dubious. Almost none of the
extant mediaeval Welsh literature is free from the suspicion (often
a certainty) of having been composed later than Geoffrey's time,
and therefore, if it pretends to treat of Welsh historical figures, of
having been influenced by him. Nevertheless, we may reason back-
ward from this literature, much as we do from the French romances.
All its indications point to the conclusion that Geoffrey's work-
manship consisted in refining and magnifying the figure of Arthur
which previously existed in the popular imagination. Though
Skene's defense of the great antiquity of the poetry ascribed to
^ Letaliter vulneratum, Geoffrey's jown expression (xi, 2, 56).
2 Gli Eroi brettoni nelV Onomastica italiana, etc. (Rom.y 1887, XVII, 161-185,
355 «•)•
8 Ztsch.f. Rom. Phil., 1898, XXII, 243 ff., 526-529. Villemarqu^, Romans de la
Table Ronde, i860, pp. 23-24, mentions a bas-relief in a Breton church which may
possibly give evidence for an Arthurian "cult" in Brittany about iioo.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 1 03
bards of the sixth century has been disproved for most of the
poems, ^ yet it seems to be agreed that some of them antedate
Geoffrey ; and in all of these which mention Arthur and his knights
the pictures are chiefly those of brave warriors not distinguished
above many other Celtic heroes, nor is Arthur himself always made
to appear the superior of the rest.^ We have already seen that the
ninth- or tenth-century mirabilia of Nennius represent Arthur simply
- as a miles. Among the tales, only that of Kulhwch and Olwen can
be used for evidence, and the Red Book of Hergest, the manuscript
in which it occurs, is three or four centuries later than Geoffrey, so
that the story may contain many late features, even if, as Rh^s
supposes,* it was mainly composed as early as the tenth century.
Now, while it makes Arthur the head of an immense concourse
and court of knights — comprising nearly all the figures of Welsh
mythology — and speaks of his having conquered lands that seem
to include the greater part of the known world, the very compre^-
hensiveness of the lists of knights and countries indicates that
many of them, at least, may have been added very late ; and, in
spite of Arthur's glory, the tale still represents him as performing
(though generally by deputy) such trivial tasks as the collection of
scattered grain or the winning of certain dogs, — f olkloi:e common-
places which go back to the primitive condition of society reflected
in all the Welsh mythology. It is doubtless easy to lay too much
stress on the idea of primitiveness, because the Welsh imagination
as revealed in its stories always continued so naive, but the impor-
tant point is that the stories which Geoffrey knew must have been
pervaded with this element of what seems uncouthness to the mod-
ern Teutonic mind. Very similar is the evidence of the triads,*
but their age is so doubtful that they must be left out of account.
The story of Ider in William of Malmesbury,^ if it be authentic,
shows that even before Geoffrey wrote, Arthur had been represented
as the centre of a court of knights-errant. Elsewhere, in a passage
^ See, for example, Lot, Sources de la Vita Merlini.
2 See Skene, Four Ancient Books ; Rhjs, preface to the Dent edition of
Malory, I (1893), xx-xxiv. * Ed. Loth, Mabinogion^ II.
* Dent Malory, p. xxxv. ^ See p. 99, above.
Digitized
by Google
r04 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
of the Gesta Regum which is generally considered authentic,^ William
speaks of Gawain, giving various interesting details. In the prov-
ince of Wales called Ros,^ he says (some time not far from the year
1090, we must infer), was discovered the tomb of " Walwen, who,
being the son of Arthur's sister, was not unworthy of him. He
ruled in that part of Britain which is still called Walweitha,* —
a very valiant knight, but he was driven from his kingdom by the
brother and nephew of Hengist ; first getting satisfaction, however,
by inflicting great harm upon them. He shared deservedly in the
glory of his uncle, because they deferred for many years the ruin of
their falling country. The sepulchre of Arthur is nowhere known,*
whence ancient songs ^ fable that he will come again. But the
tomb of the other, as I have just said, was discovered in the time
of King William upon the shore of the sea, fourteen feet in length ; •
where it is said by some that he was wounded by enemies, and
shipwrecked ; by others, that he was killed by his countrymen at a
public feast. The truth, therefore, remains in doubt, but neither of
them was unworthy of his fame."
Geoffrey, then, did not invent the tradition that Gawain was the
son of Arthur's sister ; he found it already in existence. He found
also various tales about Gawain's death, — tales agreeing with his
account in locating the event on the seashore, but differing widely
as to the other circumstances."' Geoffrey's own version may very
likely have been made over by him to suit his ^immediate purpose.
William's account probably show^ a trace of the earlier Welsh
1 iii, 287, ed. Stubbs, II, 342.
2 In Pembroke (see G. Paris, Hist. Litt., XXX, 29).
8 Galloway, according to Paris.
* Nusquatn visitur.
^ Antiquitas naeniarum.
^ Probably this story rests on the actual fact of the discovery of some real
tomb which either William or common popular opinion* may have assumed (per-
haps on the basis of the stories which he mentions) to be that of Gawain. Pos-
sibly, however, as Holtzmann suggested (Germania^ 1867, XII, 277-278), the
grave may really have been, or have been thought to be, that of the Welsh king
Maelgwyn (Gildas's Maglocunus^ Geoffrey's Mdlgo\ and William may have con-
fused the names.
■^ This is certainly true of one class of these tales.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 105
conception in representing Gawain as an independent king.^ And
evidently the Welsh fancy before Geoffrey had associated Gawain
with the pseudo-historical account of the Saxon invasion.^
In certain Latin lives of Welsh saints, written not much later
than the time of Geoffrey, and based upon material which must
have been current in his day and earlier, appear the same primitive
or less exalted Welsh conceptions of Arthur and his knights which
have been already remarked upon. One of the most important of
these stories occurs in the Lifeof Gildas ascribed to Caradoc of Llan-
carvan, and therefore was recorded at just about the date of Geoffrey's
History^ whether before or after cannot be certainly determined.*
Here it is said * that Gildas was contemporary with Arturus, King
of all Great Britain, whom he loved as Arthur deserved, and tried
to obey. But his twenty-three brothers resisted "this rebel king,"
being unwilling to acknowledge a master, and made war upon him,
especially the eldest, Hueil, who often engaged in successful raids
from Scotland, and who was looked upon with favor by the people
as destined to be their future king. Arthur, however, met him in
battle in the isle of Minau and killed him. Gildas, who was then
in Ireland, heard of this, but he obeyed the scriptural precept and
prayed for Arthur. On his return to Britain he granted Arthur the
pardon which he sought.^
Here it is to be especially noted that, though Arthur is king of
the whole island, he is so only by usurpation. Properly he has
equals. He is not acceptable to all the people and appears, on
the whole, in a rather unfavorable light. A little later the writer
gives the Arthur-Melwas story : ^ When Gildas was driven from
the island on which he had been living, he went to the abbey of
Glastonia. This was at that time besieged by "Arturus tyrannus,"
1 Cf. pp. 187, 251, below.
2 For evidences of independent stories about Gawain or special praise of him,
see pp. 139, 144, 163, 187, 197, 201, 207, 213, 218, 229, 258, below; contrast p. 123.
8 Lot (Rom.y 1895, XXIV, 330) says about 1160. Cf. his remarks in Rom.^
XXVII, 565-566. * Mommsen's edition of Gildas, p. 108.
^ The cause of Arthur's quarrel with Hueil is stated in Kulhwch and Olwen
(Lady Guest, Mabinogion^ II, 263), where Hueil is briefly characterized (p. 260).
• Cf. p. 95, above.
Digitized
by Google
io6 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
because the "wicked king Melvas" of "the summer region,"^ after
violating and carrying away Arthur's wife Guennvvar, had transported
her thither for safer keeping. Arthur had searched a year before
discovering her place of concealment, and now he had collected the
whole army of Cornubia and Dibnenia. As the two kings are about
to engage in battle, the abbot of Glastonia, with all the monks and
Gildas, comes upon the field and advises Melwas to restore Arthur's
wife. This he does, with an apparent tameness which quite spoils the
story. Thus it seems that other kings were left in the island after all,,
and that in the mind of some one through whose hands the tale passed,
Arthur was king only of a small region in the southwest of England.
Again, in the life of St. Carannog (preserved in a manuscript of
about 1200)^ Arthur appears, as in Kulhwch and Olwetiy in the
light of a destroyer of monsters. Arthur and Cato (Cador) hold
sway in the region of the Severn, and reside at Dindrarthon.
Arthur, who is engaged in hunting a terrible serpent, gives infor-
mation as to the whereabouts of a supernatural altar belonging ta
St. Carannog. In return, he requires the saint to fetch the serpent,,
and the saint complies and tames him.*
A life of St. Iltutus in the same manuscript * gives a rather dif-
ferent picture of Arthur as a great conqueror and the centre of a
rich court. Iltutus, then a soldier, hearing of the magnificence of
Arthur, his relative, visits his court, where he finds a great num-
ber of warriors {militum) and receives gifts to his heart's content.
Still other lives of saints, which, though now preserved only in
later manuscripts, may go back in origin to a time anterior to
Geoffrey, represent Arthur in homely, undignified, and unworthy
1 Somerset.
2 MS. Cott. Vesp. A. xiv. 4, fols. 90-91 b\ Hardy, I, 46-47. Printed by
W. J. Rees, Lives of Cambro British Saints^ pp. 97-101. The date is given on the
authority of Lot, Nouvelles £tudes sur la provenance du cycle Arthurien^ Rom.^
1901, XXX, I. He says, following Phillimore, Y Cymmrodor^ XI, 128, that the
lives of this manuscript were composed about Tioa
8 It is interesting to note that this life represents Arthur as wishing to make
the altar into a table and as being miraculously prevented, —^ an idea which looks
as if it might be connected with the Round Table. Lot thinks this passage
"clearly interpolated."
* Fols. 42 b-t^2 ; Hardy, I, 92, No. 282 ; printed by Rees, pp. 158 ff.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 107
•situations, — as punished like a naughty child for interfering with
the saints ; ^ as taking the part of a ravisher,* or even as wrangling
over the color of cows.®
It is quite possible on the basis of the evidence to form an idea
of the conception of Arthur which Geoffrey found current among
the Welsh (and to a much less degree among the other peoples of
his day) and which he took for the foundation of his own. The
historical (or supposedly historical) tradition (partly represented by
Nennius) had undergone considerable changes. In the popular
estimation Arthur had become first a great king, and then a great
conqueror, though foreign conquests* may not yet have been
ascribed to him. He had been idealized as the national hero of
the British race, and his destined return for the deliverance of his
people was a matter of passionate faith both in Wales and in
Brittany. Mythical traits and bits of folklore had become attached
to him, and some at least of the earlier mythological figures of Cel-
tic belief had been subordinated to him.* Further, he was some-
times regarded as the centre of a group of distinguished heroes, a
comitaius or court,^ and this court doubtless had some of those
characteristics of knight-errantry"' which appear in the French
romances. Of course there was no firm consistency in such a body
of miscellaneous popular material. Current stories differed widely,
not only in details but in their general conception of Arthur.
Some traditions survived which were only compatible with the idea
1 Life of St. Paternus, published, for instance, by Rees, pp. 188-197 ; Hardy, I,
129, No. 387 (a misleading description). Cf., for the character of the story, MS.
Cott. Cleop. D. viii. No. 2, fol. 2 a.
2 Prologue to Life of St. Cadoc (Rees, pp. 23-24).
8 Life of St. Cadoc (Rees, pp. 48-49).
* Particularly the conquest of Gaul and Rome.
6 It is possible, but only possible, that these mythological traits were trans-
ferred to him (as Rh Js thinks) en masse from some ancient divinity with whom he
was identified.
« This is probable, whatever may be thought of the date of the Ider story in
William of Malmesbury. Compare Conchobar and his court in the epic tradition
of Ireland.
' In a rudimentary way, of course, without chivalric manners and French or
Norman costuming. Here again the Irish epic sagas should be borne in mind.
Digitized
by Google
io8 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
of a petty prince, and the Welsh imagination, following its inerad-
icable tendency, had no doubt connected the king with many
anecdotes of an undignified or trivial character.^
We can form some opinion of the change which Geoffrey intro-
duced into the story of Arthur's reign, as well as into all parts of
his narrative, from the astonishment with which his History was
received. It was doubtless Geoffrey who associated with Arthur
some of the traditional episodes and figures that were originally
unconnected with him. He may well have been the first to polish
away the naivete of the Welsh conceptions, to draw Arthur in the
colors of a king of his own day, and to add the wars of conquest in
Gaul and against the Romans.^ Certainly it was he who introduced
Arthur to the world as an important figure in universal history.
IX. Geoffrey's Sources : (G) Contemporary Manners and
THE Romantic Idea
The general tone which Geoffrey substitutes in his History for
that of the earlier British tales about Arthur is the tone, some-
what idealized, of the chivalrous society of the Middle Ages. The
change is not only important in itself, but it differentiates this part
of Geoffrey's narrative from all the others. Wherever, indeed, he
writes with much detail (of Brutus, Belinus, Cassibellaunus, or Cad-
wallo), he draws to some extent, like all mediaeval authors, from the
life of his own time ; but it is only here that he fully portrays a
knightly court and knightly manners.
It would not be true to say that Geoffrey completely transformed
Arthur and his warriors into a Norman king with a Norman court
of nobles.' Not even the latest romances went quite so far as that.
1 For further indications of independent stories about Arthur, see pp. 138, 145,
below.
2 As already observed (p. 53, note 3), if De La Borderie's claim to have discov-
ered Geoffrey's source should be admitted, the idea of conquests in France by
Arthur was long antecedent to Geoffrey. Zimmer gives a full statement of his
idea of the conception of Arthur before Geoffrey in Gdtt. Gel. Anz.^ 1890, pp. 521 ff.
3 For instance, the first seven chapters of bk. ix, besides being largely based
on Nennius, reflect mostly, as I have already said, the spirit of the period of the
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 1 09
Nevertheless, the strong influence of Anglo-Norman life on Geof-
frey's story is sufficiently evident. When Arthur has established
himself in his kingdom ^ he is represented as doing the things most
characteristic of the Anglo-Norman kings ; as ruling on a magnifi-
cent scale in the same general manner and in the same state as
they. His first act is to hold a Christmas feast at York.^ He is
especially affected by the sight of the havoc that has been made of
religion, and he calls together the clergy and people, appoints an
archbishop,' and restores the churches. He also reinstates the
nobles who have been expelled from their possessions ; in particular,*
the three brother kings of Scotland, who are thus represented as
his feudal vassals. At a later period ^ he distributes to the deserv-
ing, lands and castles in Britain, and makes very important eccle-
siastical changes. After conquering France he divides it * among
various nobles. All this is exactly the sort of thing which William
the Conqueror did when he had brought the country under control.
Ordericus Vitalis tells ^ how in 1070 William convened a great
assembly at Winchester and deposed unworthy churchmen ; and
earlier,' how he confirmed the chief Saxon nobles in their posses-
sions after they had taken the oath of allegiance. He says also ^
that when order was restored the princes and bishops began to
reestablish the monasteries, whose monks had all been driven away.
The division of a great part of the English lands among his own
followers was one of William's chief actions.
In expanding the Celtic conception of Arthur's household and
stating* that the bravest warriors from far-distant lands were
invited to join it, Geoffrey is not copying exactly from what he
Danish and perhaps the historical Saxon invasions ; the conquests of Northern
lands in chap. 10 are unexampled in Anglo-Norman history (the conquest of Eng-
land itself is not a real parallel) ; the list of heathen kings in x, i, is from mediae-
val poetry ; and the stories of the fights with the giants in x, 3, have lost little of
their originally mythical-traditional character.
1 Beginning with ix, 8. 2 jx, 8, 1-2.
* Geoffrey has previously (viii, 12, 39 ff.) represented Aurelius as bestowing
ecclesiastical honors, but Aurelius's reign as a whole is not greatly Normanized.
* Chap. 9. 8 ix, II, 90-94. ® iv, i.
5 ix, 14, 10 ff. ; ix, 15, 1-9. "^ iv, 6. ® ix, 11, i ff.
Digitized
by Google
no Arthurian Material in Chronicles
knew of the Norman courts, but he is doubtless giving an idealized
and magnified picture of them, influenced somewhat by the roman-
tic stories. One is reminded also of the host which William the
Conqueror got together from all possible quarters in preparation for
his invasion of England. The parallel is the more direct because
Geoffrey makes Arthur set out on his foreign expeditions forthwith.
The account of the great Pentecostal feast and of Arthur's second
coronation ^ could not have been written in England until after the
time of the Norman conquest.^ All the kings and lords of Arthur's
realms are present, and the whole picture is one of extravagant
courtly and chivalrous splendor and elegance, such as was unknown
among the Saxons and Britons.® The idea of having Arthur
crowned a second time * may have been suggested by the custom
which the Norman kings followed, of having the diadem placed on
their heads in the minster on the occasion of a great feast ; though
perhaps Geoffrey intended rather to indicate that the second coro-
nation was imperial, — a consequence of Arthur's conquests, — and
the first, while his position was doubtful and far less glorious, only
regal. But at any rate the ceremony in question used, with the
Normans, to precede the passage to the banqueting hall, just as it
does in Geoffrey's account.^ Since Arthur has just returned from
1 ix, 12-14.
2 Although it also contains elements of a very different character : the mention
of the gymnasium of two hundred philosophers who by means of the stars foretold
to Arthur coming prodigies (chap. 12, 11. 20 ff.) ; the mention of the twelve peers
of France (1. 52) ; the strange assertion that the Britons followed the Trojan cus-
tom of having men and women eat separately at feasts (chap. 13, 1. 24) ; the intro-
duction of games, including hurling of stones (chap. 14, 1. 5). This last feature,
though doubtless true to the habits of the lower classes, is hardly characteristic
of Norman knights. It reminds one a good deal of the sports described by Virgil
and other classic authors.
8 Here Geoffrey may have been influenced as much by what he had seen at the
castle of Robert of Gloucester or some other noble as by any particular ceremony
at the royal court.
* Cf. p. 167, below.
* See Freeman's picture of a great festival of William Rufus (Reign of William
Rufus^ II, 264). It may be noted that Geoffrey also represents Aurelius as crown-
ing himself a second time (viii, 12, 35).
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 1 1 1
his foreign conquests, there may be also a reminiscence of the cor-
onation of William I as king of England. Certain definite histor-
ical events of the Anglo-Norman period which Geoffrey seems to
have imitated in his History have been already noted. ^
The most interesting adaptation of Norman history in Geoffrey's
work is the process by which he makes over the old Celtic heroes*
Kei and Bedver into great Norman nobles.^ After conquering
France Arthur gives to Bedver his steward the province of "Neus-
' tria, now called Normandy," and to Cajus his seneschal the
province of Anjou. Bedver is buried ^ at Bajocae (Bayeux), which
Bedver the first, his great-grandfather,* had founded, and Cajus ^ at
Camus oppidunty which he himself had built.
The chief historical facts to be here taken into account are as
follows. The commonest Latin form of the name of the city Camus
(now Caen) was Cadofnus,^ sometimes written "^ Kaii Domus, After
1 1 32 the office of seneschal was one of the very highest at the
Anglo-Norman court ; and the seat of the Norman exchequer, prob-
ably as early as the time of Henry I, was at Caen. In France, the
office of seneschal was at least equally important, and was hered-
itary in the house of Anjou. Norman documents not much later
than Geoffrey's History identify the praepositus of Bayeux with the
steward of the Anglo-Norman court ; and, since all the great court
offices were hereditary, there is no reason to doubt that the connec-
tion went back to a still earlier period. William the Conqueror was
buried at Caen, a city which he had so extensively rebuilt that he
might almost be called its founder.
1 See pp. 81-82, 85, above.
2 ix, II, 90-92. The whole theory which follows was elaborated by Professor
G. W. Benedict in his dissertation on Sir Kay^ not yet published.
8 X, 13, 4-12. * Proavus.
^ Geoffrey has here Cheudo (so all the manuscripts which I have examined
except a poor one, Harl. 225, which reads Kaius), This may most satisfactorily
be explained as a scribal error due to the fact that Eudo was the name of the
seneschal of William the Conqueror (and also of William II) and that another
Eudo, abbot of Caen, died in 1 140.
* For earlier Catomagus. See Joret, Bulletin de la Soc, des Antiquaires de
Normandie, 1895, XVII, as cited in Rom.y XXIV, 632.
^ At least, after Geoffrey's day.
Digitized
by Google
1 12 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
These facts in themselves, without comment, almost furnish
the whole explanation. When Geoffrey wished, as in the develop-
ment of his picture he naturally must have wished, to find some of
Arthur's men to identify with the great lordships of his own time,
he naturally thought first of Kei and Bedver, who were especially
prominent in the old Celtic stories. The name AV/, or Kai^ in
Geoffrey's Latinized form Cajus, inevitably suggested Cadomus ;
Cadomus suggested the seneschalship, and the seneschalship (by
an easy natural transition from the Anglo-Norman to the French
court) suggested Anjou. This explains why Kei, the duke of
Anjou, is connected with Caen, a city in Normandy. Kei being
thus made a court officer, no other position more prominent than
the stewardship remained^ for Bedver, and the alliterative resem-
blance between Bedver and Bajocae was enough to clinch the asso-
ciation. Besides, it was almost a matter of course that either
Kei or Bedver should be made duke of Normandy, the most
important Anglo-Norman possession in France.
As to the burial of Cajus and Bedver, some other facts need
to be brought out. Geoffrey says that Cajus was carried severely
wounded ad Camum oppidum^ where he soon died, and that he was
buried in a cemetery of monks not far from the town.^ William
the Conqueror, after being fatally hurt, was carried to Rouen, and
it soon became necessary, because of the noise of the city, to remove
him to a monastery outside the walls. When he died he was buried
at Caen in a church which he had founded.* The circumstances
of his burial were so tragic as to fix the event firmly in people's
minds. All this is in rather close parallel with what Geoffrey says
of the death of Cajus. As for Bedver, his association with Cajus
throughout the story involved, almost as a matter of course, their
union in death. Geoffrey's gratuitous and rather surprising state-
ment that one of Bedver's ancestors* had founded Bayeux is
explained when we recall that, in contrast to Caen, Bayeux was
an ancient city.
1 Though the two identifications were more likely simultaneous.
2 " In quodam nemore, in coenobio eremitarum . . . humatus est" (x, 13, 10-12).
8 Cf. Ordericus Vitalis, vii, 16 (ed. Le Prevost, III, 250).
* It may be noted that in the Mabinogion Bedver*s grandfather is named Bedrag.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 113
Geoffrey has not only Norman ized the story of Arthur's reign ;
he has also surrounded it with an atmosphere of romance.^ In the
first place he has made of Arthur something not very different, in
view of the great difference of his position, from the hero of a
French Arthurian poem. Arthur's very existence, after a fashion
very similar to that of the most approved knights of chivalrous
stories, is due to the amour of a hero, using magic devices, with a
noble lady.^ In the romances, also, fifteen years is the usual age
for the commencement of the hero's exploits. Whether by inten-
tion or by accident, Geoffrey has so treated the whole Nennian
account of Arthur as to include it wholly at the very beginning of
his career and thus to make it seem like the enfances of a biograph-
ical romance. After this, Arthur in all his wars is rather the valiant
knight than the skilful general. He engages in a duel, fought in
conventional romantic style, and is gloriously victorious only after
having been almost overcome. His. most romantic adventure, that
of Mont St. Michel, may be a purely mythical survival, but it is
none the less significant in this connection ; for the same is trud
of many episodes in the romances, and Arthur's spirit in under-
taking and prosecuting it is thoroughly characteristic of a knight-
errant.
Geoffrey's Gawain, too, resembles a knight-errant (the Gawain
of the romances) far more than he resembles a great feudal duke.
His fame, like Arthur's, is measured by the slaughter he makes
with his own hand in battle. The same is true of all the other
lords. In the spirit of romance, also, is the requirement imposed
by ladies of the court, that the warriors shall prove themselves
valiant before they are esteemed worthy of love.^ So is the descrip-
tion of the inspiration which the ladies give to youths who contend
for honor in the sports.* The sports themselves, though seemingly
reflecting other influences,* take the place of a regular tournament.
1 Cf. also pp. 87-88, above.
2 The whole idea goes back to older stories where the father was not a mortal,
as in the lay of Tydorel. Cf. Bugge-Schofield, The Home of the Eddie Poems^ pp.
74 ff., where are discussed the stories of Cormac, Wolfdietrich, Helgi, and others.
Contrast p. 182, and note i, below. * ix, 14, 4.
8 ix, 13, 40 ff. * Cf. p. no, note 2, above.
Digiti
zQd by Google
114 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
And Geoffrey stops to note that Guenevere was the most beautiful
woman of the island.^ Altogether, then, Geoffrey has brought an
undeniably romantic element into his narrative, though in general
he is, in form and style, rather a chronicler than a romancer.
Here, again, it is not impossible that Geoffrey was only following
an idea already prevalent in Arthurian stories. It is certain that
his procedure was wholly in accord with the tendency of the times.
We cannot tell how far the Breton or Welsh minstrels had gone in
bringing the Arthurian story into harmony with the life and con-
ceptions of mediaeval chivalry. We cannot be sure that the French
had not already adopted Arthur from them, and even begun to
write metrical romances about his knights. But, however this may
be, at least Geoffrey was the first to introduce the romantic atmos-
phere into the chronicles, and the first to connect it with Arthur
in a work which won widespread and lasting popularity.
One important detail in Geoffrey's narrative of Arthur's reign is
not to, be explained in connection with any of the above categories.
This is his choice of Caerleon-upon-Usk ( Urbs Legionum) as Arthur's
capital. There is no particular evidence that this association existed
before Geoffrey's time, and it is generally assumed to be original
with him.^ There is some force in the argument tJ^at he may have
been glad to connect Arthur with a city very near to the domain
of his patron, Robert of Gloucester.^ Further, the description which
Giraldus Cambrensis gives of the Roman ruins of the city * shows
that these may well have made a great impression on Geoffrey, or,
for that matter, on any one who may have interested himself in
Arthur before Geoffrey wrote. ^
1 ix, 9, 12; 2 cf. p. 163, below.
8 Ward notes also {Catalogue^ I, 206) that the daughter of Geoffrey's foster-
father Uchtryd was married to the lord of Caerleon.
* Itin. Kambriae, i, 5 ( Works, VI, 55).
s There is an article, still of some interest, on Caerleon, by T. Wakeman in
Archaologia Cambrensis, 1848, III, 328-344. Wakeman states that, except for the
legend of the martyrdom of Aaron and Julius, the local history of the city during
the Roman period is a complete blank.
Digitized
by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth 115
X. Final Words on the liber vetustissimus
Having now completed our survey of the constituent elements of
Geoffrey's Historia^ we may give a final word, to the liber vetus-
tissimus. It is clear that any such work as Geoffrey describes, an
"old book in the British tongue," cannot have included material
from all the different categories which we have discussed. Such a
book is not likely to have contained all Geoffrey's excerpts from
Nennius, Bede, and Gildas ; it certainly would not contain the ideas
suggested by William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon,
nor those taken from late Saxon and Norman history and Norman-
English life. If there was any liber at all, these things must have
be^n added by Geoffrey. On the other hand, such a book might
conceivably have included pretty much all the Celtic material
(except, perhaps, legends local in England) ; that from mediaeval
folklore and saga ; the incidents suggested by ancient history ; and
— if we admit (what is possible enough) that the book may have
existed even if Geoffrey's characterization of it as " very old " be
false — it might have included the chivalrous and romantic ideas,
so far as they were true to the life of France ^nd Normandy before,
say, the twelfth century.
But all this is merely conceivable, not probable or even reason-
able. We cannot suppose that any such book recounted, as Geoffrey
says of the liber^ all the acts of the British kings consecutively from
Brutus to Cadwaladrus. And if there is no evidence that before
the twelfth century any Welshman or Breton had had the idea of
writing a connected history of his race from its origin, there is
scarcely a possibility that any Celt before Geoffrey had dreamed of
using materials in any such audacious way as the Historia exhibits.
If, then, the liber existed, Geoffrey has certainly exaggerated his
obligations to it. It could not well have contained much more than
a number of Celtic traditional stories, perhaps somewhat embel-
lished in a manner suggestive of Geoffrey's, and it can hardly have
been of greater importance to Geoffrey than his other chief sources.
But as a matter of fact, there probably was no liber at all.
Digitized
by Google
CHAPTER IV
THE ARTHURIAN STORY AFTER GEOFFREY: CERTAIN'
EARLY PROSE VERSIONS
The history of the Arthurian material in the chronicles after
Geoffrey is the history of the treatment to which Geoffrey's version
of the story was subjected by later writers. However much these
chroniclers have changed or curtailed his account, the Historia
stood alone in purporting to treat the whole period (in fact, the
entire history of Britain) at length, and it was almost universally
accepted as true or partly true. Hence any author who did not
choose to ignore the Arthurian tradition was almost compelled to
consider Geoffrey's narrative first of all.
On its appearance the Historia naturally caused great astonish-
ment, — how great may be judged from Henry of Huntingdon's
often-quoted letter to his friend Warinus,^ in which he says that he
was amazed when he came across the work.* The immense popu-
larity which it almost immediately achieved is shown by a passage,
also frequently quoted, in the preface which Alfred of Beverley,
writing apparently about 1150, prefixed to his History} Alfred
says that the hystoria Britonum (he never names Geoffrey) was such
a universal subject for conversation that any one who did not know
its stories was regarded as a clown.
1 Printed in the chronicle of Robert de Torigni {Chronicles of Stephen and
Henry II, ed. Howlett, Rolls Series, IV, 65 £f.),
2 Stupens invent.
8 Alfred's history is, in the earlier part, practically a mere condensation of
Geoffrey (see p. 171, below). The only edition is that of Heame, Aluredi Bever-
lacensis Annates, etc., Oxford, 17 16. For date, etc., see Ward, I, 211 ; Madden,
Archaological Journal y 1858, XV, 305-308; Wright, Biog. Brit., Anglo-Norman
Period, ^^. 155-158; letter of Bp. Lloyd in GutcVs Collectanea Curiosa, 1781, I,
263-269; Hardy, II, 169-174.
116
Digitized
by Google
We/sA Translations of Geoffrey 117
I.. The Welsh Translations of Geoffrey and the Welsh
Chronicles
First among all the chronicles after Geoffrey it is natural to con-
sider the Welsh translations of the Historia} The date of these,
indeed, is doubtful,^ and their very misleading statements about
their authorship afford no information as to the real facts ; but
by their language they stand in complete isolation from all other
forms of the narrative, while in substance their agreement with the
original is unusually close. Of the two classes into which the exist-
ing manuscripts are roughly divided, the so-called Brut Gruffydd ab
Arthur may be dismissed at once, since, as its title indicates, it is a
literal rendering of Geoffrey's work. The other, the Brut Tysilioy^
follows Geoffrey rather closely, but with considerable condensation,
with the addition of two or three distinct incidents in the non-
Arthurian portion, and with some minor divergences. The follow-
ing points deserve notice :
Eigr (Geoffrey's Igema) is called the daughter of Amlawdd the
Great;* Gwenhwyfar (Geoffrey's Guanhamara) is called the
daughter of Gogfran the hero;^ and Cador, father of the Constan-
tine to whom Arthur leaves the kingdom, is said to be the son of
1 The text of Gruffydd ab Arthur is given in The Text of the B ruts from the Red
Book of Hergesty ed. Rh^s and J. Gwenogvryn Evans, Oxford, 1890, pp. 40-256.
The text of both is included in the Myvyrian Archaiology of fVa/es, 1 801-1807
(later ed., 1870), II, 81-390. Of Tysilio there is an English translation by the
Rev. Peter Roberts, The Chronicle of the Kings of Britain^ in Collectanea Cambrica^
181 1, republished by M. Pope as A History of the Kings of Ancient Britain^ 1862 ;
there is also a German translation (from Roberts) by San-Marte in his edition of
Geoffrey, pp. 475-619. See Ward, I, 254, 258; F. Zamcke, yb^r^. /. rom. u.
engl. Lit., 1864, V, 249-264; ten Brink, id., 1868, IX, 241-270, especially pp. 262-
270, arguing against the hypothesis of du Meril (id., I, 1-43, reprinted in his
Etudes, 1862, pp. 214-272); Skene, Four Ancient Books, I, 23-24; Heeger, Tro-
janersage, pp. 79-80.
2 It can only be said that there is a manuscript of the Tysilio form written at
the beginning of the thirteenth century (Rh^s and Evans, Text of the B ruts from
the Red Book of Hergest, p. xiii).
' So called from the legendary personage to whom its authorship was long ago
erroneously attributed * San-Marte, p. 541. * P. 549.
Digitized
by Google
1 1 8 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Gorlois.^ All these statements may possibly be details of the old
British tradition from which Geoffrey drew, but it is quite as likely
that they are elaborations on his text.
It is stated that Arthur himself killed Medrod.^ This is inter-
esting because it coincides with what Henry of Huntingdon says in
an account to which we shall presently come ; * but it is so natural
an enlargement of Geoffrey's account that no argument can be
based on it Indeed, it may very likely be taken from Henry.
Otherwise the Welsh version of the last battle agrees substantially
with Geoffrey's, except that it gives the number of Medrod's
divisions as nine instead of three.*
A characteristic Welsh conception appears when Vortigern's
magi are made into the twelve chief bards.* It is also said that,
being ignorant of the real cause of the difficulty at the tower,
they decided to prescribe an impossible remedy ; * and Maygan, to
explain Merlin's birth, mentions not Apuleius and Socrates, but
the fall of man and the instrumentality of Lucifer and the devils.'^
These are points of agreement with the prose Merlin, They can be
explained on various hypotheses. They may be, and most prob-
ably are, due to influence from the Merlin, Or they may be details
of popular tradition which Geoffrey failed to insert, in which case
they would be from the same source as the statement in the Merlin,
Finally, since they are quite in the spirit of the Middle Ages, the
coincidences may be due to independent elaboration of Geoffrey's
narrative on the part of the Welsh author and of Robert de Borron.
Some of Geoffrey's rationalization disappears in the story of how
the Great Circle was moved. Myrddin by his [magic] art alone
draws the stones to the ships after the warriors have failed.^
It is said® that in Uther's battle with Octa and Eosa^° the Saxons,
not the Britons, were driven to a hill." This again is noteworthy
1 So Roberts ; San-Marte (p. 567) omits.
2 P. 567. 4 p. 566; Geoffrey, xi, 2, 19.
8 See p. 120, below. * Pp. 532-533.
* Cf. p. 146, below, on Gottfried of Viterbo.
' Cf. pp. 144, 189, 195, note 4, below.
® Pp- 538-539. Cf. p. 140, below.
* P. 541. 10 Geoffrey, viii, 18.
11 Here called Dannet ; Geoffrey has Damen (so MSS.).
Digitized
by Google
Henry of Huntingdon 119
as a correspondence with one or two later versions ; ^ but it is also
a natural alteration in the story, and may even be a rather stupid
misunderstanding of Geoffrey.
Other changes probably due to the author himself are the state*
ments that the Britons made Vortigern king the second time
because they knew no other capable person ; ^ that, in besieging
Gorlois, Uther lost most of his men and divided the rest into three
parts;* and that Lucius's final decision to retreat before Arthur
was by the advice of his council.*
A bit of moralizing is introduced in the remark that Dubricius
gave up his see because, after considering how long a preparation
had been made for a three days' festival, he was struck with the
perishable nature of worldly enjoyments.^ Further, the barbarity
of which Geoffrey makes Hirelgas guilty in cutting to pieces the
body of Boccus, in revenge for the death of Bedver,^ is qualified into
a statement that Hirelgas (Hirlas) dragged Boccus to the body of
Bedver and killed him there.''
Besides the Brut Gruffydd ab Arthur and the Brut Tysilio^ there
are various Welsh chronicle compilations, which, however, are brief
and of no importance in this investigation.^ «
II. Henry of Huntingdon's Abridgment of Geoffrey's
History in his Letter to Warinus
The letter of Henry of Huntingdon to Warinus® was written
some time after January, 11 39, when Henry, then on a journey to
Rome, found a copy of Geoffrey's History at the monastery of Bee
1 At least Robert of Gloucester ; see p. 196, below.
2 P. 530. 3 Omitted by San-Marte, p. 542:
* P. 562. 6 p. 354.
^ X, 9, 39.
^ P. 564. Cf. p. 139, note I, below (Wace) ; p. 160, note 6 (Layamon).
8 One of these, extending from Vortigern to King John, is printed by Rh^s and
Evans, Text of the Bruts from the Red Book of Hergest^ pp. 104-106 (see p. xxiv).
Another, coming down to 1639, is printed by Rees, Lives of the Catnbro British
Saints^ pp. 612-622. It includes a brief summary of Geoffrey's narrative, but
makes Modred Arthur's grandson, unless nepos is meant for " nephew."
• See p. 41, above.
Digitized
by Google
I20 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
in Normandy.^ As Geoffrey's work seemed to convict his own
chronicle of a serious omission, he made a summary of the Historia
to serve as a supplement to his narrative and sent it to his
otherwise unknown friend Warinus.
The summary has many minor divergences from Geoffrey's nar-
rative, such as calling liter Aurelius's son instead of his brother,
and omitting the story of Vortigern's tower ; but they are all to be
explained on the ground of condensation, Henry's general inexact-
ness of method, his (much rarer) exercise of critical judgment, or
the freedom of imagination which was characteristic of him. One
of Henry's episodes, however, is important, — namely, his account
of Arthur's last battle.
Henry disposes of the events just preceding, and of the begin-
ning of the conflict itself, by saying that Arthur with a few men
came upon Modred with many. [This is quite contrary to Geoffrey's
account] He then continues :
When Arthur saw that he could not retreat, he said, " Friends, let us
avenge our dead. I will now smite off the head of that traitor my nephew ;
after which, death will be welcome." So saying, he hewed a way through
the host, seized Modred In the midst of his men by the helmet, and sev-
ered his armored neck as if it had been a straw. In the act he himself
received so many wounds that he fell ; although his ^ kinsmen the Britons
deny that he was mortally wounded, and seriously expect that he will yet
come.^ He was a hero surpassing all the men of his time in valor,
generosity, and facetiae
Geoffrey's own picture of this, the culminating scene of his whole
work, is surprisingly bare and inartistic, especially after the spirited
accounts of battles which he has just given at great length. It is
easy to understand, therefore, why some of the chroniclers, even
among those who otherwise followed Geoffrey closely, turned at
this point to Henry's version in order to fill out their stories.^
1 Cf. Fletcher, Publ. of the Mod. Lang. Assoc, 1901, XVI, 461-463, and
references there given.
2 Henry, writing to Warinus, says tui. Robert de Torigni, in copying Henry,
has sui. . 8 Cf. p. loi, above. * P. 74.
5 Cf. p. 118, above; pp. 121, 175, below (MS. Cott. Cleop. A. i. i), 188, 198,
202, 213, 230, 252. The prose Lancelot and the romances based upon it also have
Digitized
by Google
Liber de Constnictione 12 1
There is, however, no reason to suppose that they knew the episode
from any other source than Henry's work ; and that Henry took
the details merely from his own imagination is made altogether
probable both by the great liberty of composition which he always
allowed himself and by the fact that he had not inserted the scene
in his own chronicle.
It appears, therefore, that to Henry belongs the distinction of
making the first considerable addition to Geoffrey's Arthurian nar-
rative, — or, at least, the first which was taken into later versions.
III. Benedict of Gloucester
Apparently the earliest writer to accept Henry's alteration in
Geoffrey's narrative was Benedict, a monk of Gloucester. Some-
time in the twelfth century he wrote a life of St. Dubricius,^ in/
which he included (very briefly) what Geoffrey says of that saint,
and an outline of Geoffrey's account of the whole Arthurian period,
beginning with Aurelius. The borrowing from Henry is his only
noticeable deviation from Geoffrey. He says: "After three
battles ... at last Arthur, measuring swords with Modred, was by
him fatally wounded. But forthwith rushing more vigorously on
Modred, he laid him low, and sent him with many of his men to
Cocytus. Thus they perished with mutual wounds."
IV. The Liber de Constructione Aliquorum Oppidorum
TURONICAE ReGIONIS, IN THE GeSTA CoMITUM
Andegavensium of Thomas de Loches^
The Arthurian portion of Geoffrey's History seems to be utilized
to a certain extent, and his method seems to be imitated, by a certain
the incident of the personal conflict with Modred, though the account is much
more elaborate. Derived from, or otherwise connected with that one, is the version
in MS. Coll. Magd. Oxford, No. 72 (see p. 188, below) ; cf. Publ. Mod. Lang. Assoc,
1903, XVIII, 85, note 3. Contrast p. 137, note i, below.
1 Ed. Wharton, Anglia Sacra, II, xxvi, 654 ff. Benedict begins to use Geoffrey
with chap. 3. Cf. Hardy, I, 42, No. 105.
2 I am under obligations to M. Ferdinand Lot for his kind assistance in this
section, though he is in nowise responsible for any statements here made.
Digitized
by Google
122 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
French author in the little book entitled De Constructions AH-
quorum Oppidorum seu Castrorum Turonicae Regionis^ which has been
incorporated into the Gesta Comitum Andegavensium of Thomas de
Loches.^ The date of the original version of this little book is
1 147, or not much later.^
After earlier fabulous material, mostly concerned with the foun-
dation of Amboise but including also a short account, quite in har-
mony with Geoffrey, of the British conquest of Armorica, the
author gives a brief narrative of Arthur's invasion of Normandy,
with the foundation of " Chainon " by Cheudo (Kay),' the great
battle with Lucius, and the campaign against Modred. The nar-
rative, though very summary and exhibiting some additions, has
every appearance of being based directly upon Geoffrey's History,^
The points of divergence are as follows :
There is incidental mention of the fact that in Arthur's time
Clodius was king in northern Germany, and he, it is added, " gladly
became very friendly with Arthur." Apropos of the division of
France, it is said that Oldinus was Arthur's standard bearer
(signifer) and Golfarius his sword bearer {ensifer)} Cheudo (Kay)
is made the founder, not of Caen, with which this work could not
concern itself, but of Chinon/ Like several later chroniclers, the
author combines Arthur's two invasions of France ; "^ at least, he
says nothing of any movements between the feast at Paris arid
the final battle against Lucius. The latter appears as a general of
the Emperor Honorius.® Arthur's losses in this conflict are said to
1 Last published by Marchegay and Salmon, Chroniques d*Anjou, I, 1856
(Introduction^ by £mile Mabille, Paris, 1871), Soc. de I'Hist. de France. I have
consulted also the earlier MS. mentioned by Mabille, Vol. XLVI of the Melanges
de Colbert^ in Bibl. Nat., fol. 165 ff., especially 200 ff.
2 As shown by the mention (at the end) of the departure of King Louis for the
[Second] Crusade. Mabille (p. xliv) puts the work about ten years earlier, because
the MS. reads 1 137, and he did not notice that this is an error, as appears from the
actual date of the Crusade. * See p. 1 1 1, note 5, above.
* Geoffrey's History is referred to, and was evidently consulted, by the reviser
whose version is the one included in the composition printed by Marchegay and
Salmon. * Cf. p. 184, below (Ralph de Diceto).
• Cf. p. 206, below. ^ See p. 183, and note 11, below.
8 Cf. pp. 83, 85, note 2, above.
Digitized
by Google
Liber de Constructione 123
have been due to the impetus et stultitia of Gawain.^ The name of
Cheudo's nephew is given not as Hirelgas but as Billeius. Arthur
is said to have died in Avalon " in a certain wood."
Into this story are inserted several anecdotes which help to
justify the title of the work by explaining the names of various
towns in Touraine. It was for the same purpose, indeed, or at
least on the same pretext, that the author brought in the story of
Arthur, which is headed in the older manuscripts, De Arturo Rege
Britanniae 6- Castro Caynonis, The first of these anecdotes informs
us that Bliriacus {.Blkre) was built by Billeius, to whom Cheudo had
given Amboise, and who had married Fausta, daughter of Placidia,
who in turn was daughter of Avicianus, a person later spoken of as
Count of Tours. Another of the anecdotes explains the name
Blesis {Blots) from the deceitful (blesis) words by means of which
a certain British youth named Commodus (or Ivomadus) persuaded
Boso Carnotensis ^ to give him the ground on which it was built.
Later it is said that Billeius had a daughter, Lupa, who lived in
Villa Lupa, and further details are given about her and her sons.
None of these above-mentioned characters can be proved to have
been known before the composition of the chronicle,' though it is
quite possible that they have their origin in ancient Celtic topo-
graphical heroes and divinities.* However that may be, it seems
most reasonable to suppose that the author of the chronicle was
stimulated by Geoffrey's success to follow his example in exploiting
in a history (largely at least of his own invention) etymologies
connected with his native region. After he had succeeded, by
mistake^ or by deliberate alteration, in connecting Kay with his
narrative, the popularity of Geoffrey's story was reason enough for
him to make as much use of it as he could. Neither the substitution
1 Contrast p. 105, note 2, above. ^ Cf. Geoffrey, ix, 12 ; x, 4, etc.
' So far as I have been able to find.
* As is argued by Alonso P^an in Notice sur le ChAteau d" Amboise^ Blois, i860.
He gives legendary details about Avicien that I have not discovered elsewhere,
but does not mention his authorities.
* In the manuscript of Geoffrey that he used, the substitution of Chinon for
Caen may already have been made by a scribe who thought that the Duke of
Anjou would have resided more suitably there.
Digitized byCjOOQlC
124 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
of the name Billeius for Hirelgas (even if it was not occasioned by
corruption in the manuscript) nor any of his other alterations or
additions need surprise us in a French author who was pursuing
such a method, perhaps understood the fictitious nature of his
original, and had an eye to the actual facts of history.
This chronicle is interesting, therefore, as an early and almost a
unique case, not of direct copying of Geoffrey but of imitation of
his method.^
1 The readiness of local historians to accept Geoffrey as historical is illustrated
by a chronicle preserved in a thirteenth-century manuscript at .Arras. Here
" Ligerus " comes first in the genealogy of the Counts of Boulogne-sur-Mer and
he is said to have been appointed by Arthur (see Mone, At^zeiger f, Kunde der
teutschen Vorzeit, IV, 346 ; Reiffenberg, Philippe Mouskes^ II, Ixii). " Ligerus "
is probably the "Leodegafius" whom Geoffrey (ix, 12, 50) calls "consul Boloniae.'*
Digitized
by Google
CHAPTER V
THE ARTHURIAN STORY AFTER GEOFFREY: POETICAL
VERSIONS OF THE FIRST ONE HUNDRED
AND FIFTY YEARS
I. Geoffrey Gaimar
At about the same time when Alfred of Beverleviuaugurated the
custom of inserting Geoffrey's narrative in serious prose chronicles,^
the example was set for the metrical chronicles by an Anglo-Norman
writer in the North of England, Geoffrey Gaimar.* The exact date
of his work is uncertain, but it was probably a little before 1150.'
Gaimar's chronicle was in two parts : (i) a History of the Britons,
which, as appears from statements at the beginning and at the end
of the part preserved,* was a translation of Geoffrey's work ; and
(2) the History of the Engles. The History of the Britons, how-
ever, has been lost, crowded out of existence, probably, by the far
superior version of Wace, which is substituted for it in all the manu-
scripts ; and we can judge of its character as a translation only by
the connecting introductory lines of the second part, which sum up
its contents in a few clauses.^ These lines are very meagre, but
they perhaps indicate that Gaimar (as was certainly the case in
1 See p. 116, note 3, above.
2 VEstorie des Engles, etc., ed. by Sir T. D. Hardy and T. C. Martin, Rolls
Series, London, 1888-1889. See Ward, I, 423-446; Martin, in Diet, Nat Biog.f
XX, 360-361 ; P. Meyer, Rom., XVIII, 314-318.
' See Vising, £tude sur le DiaUcte Anglo-normand du xii' SihUy pp. 33, 34 ;
Meyer, loc. cit. ; G. Paris, La LUtirature Fran^aise au Moyen Age, ed. 1890, p. 133 ;
Grober, Grundriss, II, i, 472; Suchier und Birch-Hirschfeld, Geschichte der fran-
zosischen Litteratur, p. 113.
* Cf. p. 53, note 3, above.
* See the first 45 verses. Cf. also v. 3573, and the epilogue (according to MSS.
LD), vv. 23, 125.
125
Digitized
by Google
1 26 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
the second part) treated his original freely, at least to the extent
of making additions. The History of the English itself, however,
has a place in the present discussion. In this part of his work
Gaimar has included a version of the Havelok story* which con-
tains certain incidental statements about King Arthur.
Gaimar says that Arthur came to Den mark,, conquered it, and
killed the king, Gunter, because he withheld tribute.^ This does
not coincide exactly with anything which Geoffrey of Monmouth
relates ; but is akin to his bare statement that after the conquest
of Norway, Denmark submitted to Arthur.' Gaimar's details are
also practically identical with the brief account which Geoffrey gives
of a much earlier conquest of Denmark by Gurgiunt Brabtruc,* —
a conquest due to the refusal of tribute which had been paid to
Gurgiunt's predecessor. Again, Gaimar, speaking ^ of the reigning
monarch of Denmark, Odulf, who had treasonably become king by
sending for Arthur and so bringing about the death of Gunter,^ says
that he was the brother of King Aschis, who " met his death for
Arthur when Modret did him such wrong." ^ This latter statement
agrees with Geoffrey's mention of Aschillius, king of Denmark, as
among those killed on Arthur's side in his last battle.^
If we were to conclude that all these details are borrowed by the
Havelok story from Geoffrey's Historia^ we should have another strik-
ing testimony to the immediate vogue of the latter. It seems per-
haps more probable, however, that the idea of Arthur's conquest
formed a part of the Havelok tale before the time of Geoffrey.*
For both the independent Anglo-Norman version of Havelok and
the short version inserted in the Lambeth manuscript of Robert of
Brunne's Chronicle^^ (both of which go back to a common original
with Gaimar's form) agree with Gaimar in mentioning Arthur's
interference in Denmark; though the Lambeth interpolation has
it that Arthur had previously taken tribute, and that it was another
1 On the versions of the Havelok story, see Max Kupferschmidt, Die Havelok-
sage bei Gaimar y etc., Bonn, 1880; E. K. Putnam, Publ. Mod. Lang. Assoc. ^ 1900,
XV, 1-16. * iii, II. 7 Vv. 524-526.
2 Vv. 410 ff. 6 V. 527. 8 xi, 2, 53.
* ix, II. « Vv. 513-516. ® Cf. p. 84, above.
"^^ Printed by Madden, Havelok^ pp. xvii-xix.
Digitized
by Google
Waces Brut 127
British king who attacked and killed "Counter." Evidently the
original of these two versions must have contained the idea of
Arthur's interference, and one certainly cannot assume without
further evidence that this original was of later date than Geoffrey's
History, In any case, it is altogether probable that the mentions
of Modred and Aschis are due to Gaimar and taken from Geoffrey
of Monmouth, in which case, if Arthur already appeared in the
story, they are quite insignificant. Gaimar's order of events can-
not in any way be interpreted as consistent with Geoffrey's. He
seems to have borrowed the names without considering whether
his use of them was in accord with any rational system of chro-
nology. It must be added that neither Aschis, Modred, nor Arthur
is named in the English metrical romance of Havelok^ which is sup-
posed to be derived from a form of the story anterior to that from
which the other extant versions come; but this English metrical
romance is widely divergent from the others throughout.
II. Wage's Brut and other French Versions
One of the most interesting of all the reproductions of Geoffrey's
History is the Brut of the Norman poet Wace.^
Wace's poem, with some of those which follow it in this chapter,
differs from nearly all the chronicles in one important respect.
These poems are only paraphrases of Geoffrey's Historia^ and the
authors, while doubtless supposing their original to be, at least in
general, authentic, were in spirit poAs rather than historians.^
1 The only edition is that of Le Roux de Lincy, 2 vols., Rouen, 1 836-1 838.
2 This is no less true because of a suggestion or two which Wace gives of a
wish to have a good authority (vv. 4932, 10,038) ; or because of a trick of manner
by which he occasionally expresses ignorance about the causes or means of things
which he mentions, as when he says that he does not know where Eldol got the
stake with which he defended himself against the Saxons (v. 7446) ; that he does
not know where Merlin's fountain of Labenes (the Galabes of Geoffrey, viii, 10)
was, and has never been there (v. 8219) ; or that he is not informed of the nature
of Hoel's sickness (v. 9501). Cf. also vv. 8356, 9196, 9464, 10,572, 11,395, 11,438,
i2,S95» I3'i5i» 13.484-
Digitized
by Google
128 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
The biography of Wace must be chiefly reconstructed from the
information which he himself gives us in his poems. ^ He was born,
apparently, about the same time as Geoffrey of Monmouth (not far
from hoc), in the island of Jersey, whether of noble or of common
parentage is uncertaiij. Educated partly at Paris, but chiefly at
Caen, he lived for a long time in the latter city, studying and writ-
ing. He was clerc lisant (an office the exact nature of which remains
unexplained) before 1135. ^^ ^^55 ^^ finished the work which he
called Geste des Bretons^ but to which the scribes give the name
Brut, Layamon says^ that a dedication (lacking in the extant
manuscripts) was addressed to Queen Eleanor, wife of Henry II.
At any rate, Wace later had a regular position at the court while
it remained in Normandy; and the composition of his Roman de
jRoUj begun in 1160, seems to have been due to the king's commis-
sion, the later withdrawal of which caus.fid^him to stop before the
work was finished. He died, probably, not jlong after 11 74.
In general Wace*s Brut is merely a free paraphrase of Geoffrey's
History, It follows exactly the same order and observes practically
the same proportion ; in brief, it closely reproduces, in the main,
the substance of its original. But Wace was very far from being a
servile translator, and the great differences which distinguish his
race, character, occupation, aim, language, and literary form from
those of Geoffrey reappear as fully as was to be expected in his
work. They are manifested partly in certain general character-
istics, partly in an infinitude of .minutiae- which Wace adds merely
as a poet and a literary artist. For any light upon the origins of
1 On Wace's biography and the Brut, see Wace's Roman de Ron, ed. H. Andre-
sen, 1877-1879, I, Einleitung ; ed. Pluquet, Rouen, 1827, Notice, I, vii-xxii; Miss
Kate Norgate, Diet. Nat, Biog., LVIII, 404; G. Paris, Rom., 1880, IX, 592 ff.,
especially 592-597, reviewing Andresen ; Ward, I, 260 ; Grober, Grundriss, II, i,
635; Morley, English Writers, III, 55; Br^quigny, Notices et Extraits, V, 21-78;
De La Rue, An Epistolary Dissertation upon the Life and Writings of Robert Wace
(Archaologia, 1796, XII, 50-79); id., Essais Hist, sur les Bar des, Caen, 1834, II,
158-165; E. du 'iAivCi, Jahrb. /. rom. u. engl. Lit., 1859, I, 1-43, reprinted in his
Etudes, 1862, pp. 214-272 ; Wace the Trouv^re, Retrospective Rev., 1853, II, 92-99 ;
L. Abrahams, De Roberti Wacii Carmine, etc., Copenhagen, 1828 ; G. A. Kloppe,
Recherches sur le Dialecte de Guace, Magdeburg, 1853.
2 Ed. Madden, vv. 42-43 ("he^a«/^ it to ^Elienor"),
Digitized
by Google
Waces Brut 129
the organic material of the Arthurian tradition, such characteristics^!^
and details are of no consequence ; but in the literary study of the
development of the tradition they assume significance. It is desir-
able, therefore, before taking up Wace's important changes and
additions, to give attention to these others.^
In the first place, Geoffrey's History and Wace's Brut stand for
very different literary styles. Geoffrey put his romance into the
form of an ostensibly truthful Latin chronicle. Thus he had to
preserve an appearance of veracity, to maintain dignity of style,
and to cultivate rhetorical elegance. Wace, though he took the
story seriously enough, and was doubtless willing to be believed,
employs the form of the French metrical romance. Geoffrey's
sympathy with his subject was not less keen than that of Wace,
and his humor was probably greater ; yet the form of his work was
sometimes a hindrance to him, while Wace had adopted a style and
manner that were peculiarly well adapted to the material. ^^_
The most pervasive general contrast between the two styles is in \
viyidness of narrative. Geoffrey had plenty of imagination, both V
dramatic and romantic, but Latin periods were not the aptest instru- '
ments for its expression. Besides, if his work was to have the air /
of truthful history, he could not, in general, lay claim to the detailed
personal knowledge of an eyewitness or a contemporary. He could
not venture to vivify and visualize the whole story. Perhaps a
personal limitation entered into the case. What little we know of
Geoffrey indicates that, while he was by no means a pedant, he was
rather a student than a man of action ; he got his ideas rather
from reading than from experience. Except for a case or two like
his minute description of Arthur's second coronation (which may
well be taken in large part from life), and even in his accounts of
battles, where he most warms to the subject and seems to wish to
be thoroughly dramatic, he writes almost always, not of details but
in general terms. And he is not always convincingly practical.
^ The discussion here, as in other cases, is chiefly based on that part of the
narrative with which this study is directly concerned, — Geoffrey, vi, 6-xi, 2, and
Wace, vv. 6615-13,706 ; but here, as elsewhere, the general results are true of the
other portions as well.
Digitized
by Google
130 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
His battle speeches, too, even when they are delivered in the thick
of the fight, are ornate orations, which no general could really have
delivered and no soldier would have stopped to listen to.
With Wace, on the other hand, the quick-moving conversational
octosyllabic couplet scarcely allows the effect of dullness, even in
the least interesting parts of the narrative. And Wace himself is
never afraid of seeming to know too much, — rather of not seeming
to know everything. He sees whatever he writes about, and for the
most part makes his readers see it too. He does not content him-
self, for instance, with describing the course of a battle from the
point of view of a pseudo-scientific strategist : he names the various
parts of the equipments of the knights and soldiers, pictures how
they crashed together in the shock of the charge, how they struck
and fell. He gives the impression that he is not merely imitating
other metrical romances, but is reproducing what he has himself
witnessed and been fired by.^
One might illustrate this increase of vividness on the part of
Wace by citing a large proportion of the fifteen thousand lines
of his poem ; but a few instances must suffice. As to the more
particular details of warfare, — he speaks of foragers ; ^ describes
Arthur's smallest movements in the fight with the giant ; * and tells
how Arthur had his men advance to battle slowly, not allowing
them to straggle at all.* In beginning his account of Hengist's
first treacherous proposals to Vortigern,^ he gives a lifelike setting
by observing that one day Hengist found the king disposed to listen.
In the same passage he makes Hengist say that he will send to Ger-
many for his wife and children. Geoffrey spoke only of the warriors
who were important for the immediate purposes of his narrative and
whose deeds were dignified enough for the pages of history; but
Wace's imagination was, or could afford to be, more practical. In
telling of the escape of " Elduf '* from the Saxons after his valiant
1 For example, vv. 1 2,946 ff . But the difference is probably partly due to the
difference of sources. Geoffrey presumably drew chiefly from comparatively crude
Celtic stories, while Wace had the advantage of starting with Geoffrey's 0¥m far
more suggestive narrative.
2 V. 12,611. * Vv. 9538-9539-
8 Vv. 11,921 ff. 6 V. 7009 (Geoffrey, vi, 11, 10).
Digitized
by Google
Wace's Brut 131
defense, he takes pains to explain how it was possible : Elduf got
away on his horse, which was very good.^ When Merlin's mother
was asked about her son, says Wace,^ she held her head down and
thought a little before answering. In describing the duel between
Arthur and Flollo,' Wace expands Geoffrey's vague remark that the
people were watching, by telling how the Parisians stood upon
the walls and both sides prayed for the success of their respective
champions. Longer passages of the same character occur. Thus
in the account of the flight of the Saxons before Cador,* we are
told how they went two by two or three by three as best they could,
how they had thrown down their arms, and how Cador followed,
shouting his battle cry. Most prominent, though not necessarily
most important, in this connection, are certain notably extended
passages of original details added by Wace. When Arthur's host
is embarking for the campaign against the Romans, Wace inserts a
splendid picture of the scene, with plenty of nautical terms,^ — the
memories of his boyhood serving him well. Not less spirited, though
shorter, is the account ^ of the joy with which Arthur's soldiers are
received on returning from their long sojourn in France.^ A similar
addition is the description of the bustling activity of the servants
at Arthur's second coronation.®
Equally original, though perhaps with rather more direct sugges-
tion from Geoffrey, is the account of the coming of Gawain and
the other envoys to the army of the Emperor ; ® or again, that of
^ Vv. 7455-7456 (Geoffrey, vi, 16, 8).
2 Vv. 7598-7599; cf. vv. 11,056-11,057.
* Vv. 10,281 ff. (Geoffrey, ix, 11, 55).
* Vv. 9616-9627 (Geoffrey, ix, 5).
* Vv. 11,472-11,521.
* Vv. 10,431-10,452.
' Cf. p. 203, below. The interpolation of the statement that aunts kissed their
nephews (as well as wives their husbands, etc.) in one of the manuscripts is surely
due not to Wace but to some jocose cynic after him, and reminds one very much
of the " world of kisses " which the First Folio makes Desdemona give to Othello.
8 Vv. 10,610-10,634. The much longer addition (vv. 10,823-10,900) about the
jugglers, music and musical instruments, dice playing, and the presents given by
Arthur, is perhaps an interpolation in Wace's text.
® Vv. 12,092-12,109.
Digitized
by Google
(/
132 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
the pursuit of the envoys by the Romans after Gawain has killed
Lucius's nephew,^ beginning as it does with the extremely effective
es vousy so useful to the mediaeval French romancers.^
Another feature of Wace's style which contributes greatly to its
vividness is his largely increased use of direct discourse. Some-
times he merely inserts an ejaculation or brief cry, as in Gawain's
apposite exhortation to his companions when they have got into
trouble in the Emperor's camp, — " ales monter ! " ' Such an undig-
nified kind of naturalness was entirely out of the range of Geoffrey's
aristocratic chronicle style. More often, however, Wace gives a
whole speech in the very words of the speaker. Sometimes he
enlarges a speech of Geoffrey's, as in Lucius's message to Arthur ; *
sometimes he changes a piece of narrative into this form, as in the
plea of the Scots for mercy ; ^ occasionally, as in Gawain's address
after the message of Lucius, he invents the whole passage.'
Wace also manifests personal feeling about the events and char-
acters of his story. Sometimes he expresses sorrow or disgust, as
at Vortigern's desire to marry Roven ; "^ he stops to curse the slayer
of Bedver ; ^ he occasionally applies abusive epithets to the enemies
of the Britons. He makes appeals to the reader, not only by the
device of employing the second person of the verb (especially veissiks)
to introduce a description,* but more directly, as when he asks, speak-
ing of Hengist's treachery, " Who would have feared a traitor ? " ^° or
observes, "You never saw such a fight ! " " or, of the death of Ambro-
sius,^^ "The gentle king wished to recover, as any of you would."
1 Vv. 12,168-12,188; cf. also vv. 1111-1178, 6178 ff., 13,887-13,926.
2 I have noticed only two or three cases in which Wace omits some of the
details given by Geoffrey, with a consequent loss of vividness. An example may
be seen in p. 137, note i, below. Another is the account of the poisoning of
Vortimer by Roven (Geoffrey, vi, 14, 5-7 ; Wace, v. 7340). On the other hand,
his version of the poisoning of Aurelius (Geoffrey, viii, 14; Wace, vv. 8459-8485),
while it omits one or two of Geoffrey's statements, is on the whole rather more vivid
than the corresponding passage in Geoffrey ; and perhaps the same may be said of
his narrative of the poisoning of Uther (Geoffrey, viii, 24 ; Wace, vv. 9195-9232).
8 V. 12,161. "^ V. 7163. 11 V. 13,192.
* Vv. 10,919-10,988. 8 V. 13,034. 12 Vv. 8475-8476.
fi Vv. 9712-9758. ® V. 7953.
« Vv. 11,043 ff- ^° V. 7401 ; Geoffrey, vi, 15.
Digitized
by Google
Wace's Brut I33 ^
( How thoroughly representative Wace is of his environment appears '
, in the fact that he applies to the narrative almost universally (while
' Geoffrey did so only partially and in the more vivid portions) the
I manners and customs of his own time. This is true, for instance,
of his descriptions of battles and warlike operations. He makes
Vortigern's fortress a feudal castle, which Aurelius destroys by
filling the moat with wood and setting this on fire.^ He says that
Uter, on going away, intrusts the care of his army to a baron. ^ He
speaks of particular duels in the course of a main battle.^ He calls*!
even the pagans "chevaliers." Mediaeval customs which he inserts
or emphasizes are the feudal submission of one man to another ; the
pledging of his land by a lord ; the appointment of viscounts and
provosts ; the use of the dais for king and barons at a feast. He
omits Geoffrey's statements about other chiefs than the principal
one in Ireland,* evidently because he was familiar only with the
idea of one king for one country. 'He calls Petreius a rich baron,
instead of a senator,^ and he regularly retranslates Geoffrey's archaic
consul by quens or conte. When he does retain the antique customs
mentioned by Geoffrey, he explains that manners were different in
those days. Wace has also the mediaeval bigotry towards pagans,^
something which scarcely appears in Geoffrey. He introduces a
few touches of the descriptions of love which are so pronounced a
feature in a. writer like Crestien de Troyes."^ In one case he shows
ttat his taste is less reserved (more Gallic, perhaps) than Geoffrey's.*
Once or twice he manifests the disregard for thd fact of time char- ^
acteristic of romances.® His omissions or assumptions sometimes
make it clear that he is less of a scholar than Geoffrey, or is writing
for a less learned audience.
Wace was not destitute of the critical instinct. He amends cer-
tain vague or inconsistent statements ; ^° he modifies his original
iVv. 7837ff. 2 V. 8953. 8 V. 13,133.
* V. 9938; Geoffrey, ix, 10, 8. * V. 12,310; Geoffrey, x, 4.
* But he seldom expresses it, and then in a conventional way.
' Vv. 8882 ff., 11,050. Geoffrey just mentions the customs of chiyalric love
(ix, 13, 40). 8 Vv. 11,690 ff., 11,814 ff. ; Geoffrey, x, 3, 34 and 38.
* V. 10,439 (the army has been gone nine years).
"^^ As follows : (i) He does away with all Geoffrey's confusion about the Roman
commander Lucius (cf. p. 85, note 2, above) by calling him always "emperor"
Digitized
by Google
1 34 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
for the sake of naturalness or probability;^ and in one or two
details he contradicts Geoffrey flatly, merely to give variety to the
narrative.^ Not infrequently Wace adds an explanation for some^
action or fact which he thinks Geoffrey has not made perfectly.^
and omitting all mention of the superfluous Leo. (2) At the time of the message
from Lucius, Cador, according to Geoffrey (ix, 15, 45) states that five years have
now passed since the Britons have engaged in war ; but from his previous narra-
tive it appears that this is the very summer in which they have returned from
Gaul, where they have apparently been fighting all the time. Wace (v. 11,031)
makes Cador's remark altogether indefinite as to the length of the period
(cf. p. 231, note 4, below). {3) Wace drops out of the story Bedver's unplausible
ancestor, Bedver the first (x, 13, 5). Some other possible incidents might be
cited, but perhaps they are due to scribal errors in manuscripts of Geoffrey.
Wace fails to correct one of Geoffrey's inconsistencies in v. 10,729, and is guilty
of one of his own in vv. 9994 ff. (compared with w. 10,739 ff.).
^ (i) Geoffrey implies (vi, 10, 55) that the Saxons defeated the Picts with-
out difficulty; Wace (vv. 6983-6994) describes the battle as hotly contested.
(2) Geoffrey seems to mean (vi, 17, 14) that the messengers sent for Merlin went
all together; Wace says (v. 7543) they " vunt ensamble doi et doi." (3) Geoffrey
says (viii, 20, 4) that Gorlois went out of his castle to fight the superior attacking
force ; Wace says (v. 8979) that he defended himself, but mentions no sortie.
(4) Geoffrey says (ix, 5, 9) that Cador filled the captured ships of the Saxons
with some of his best soldiers; Wace substitutes (v. 9614) archers and peasants.
Geoffrey makes no use of the stratagem, but with Wace it bears good fruit in the
result. To this end Wace omits all suggestion that the Saxons fled in any other
direction than toward Totness, where the ships really were, while Geoffrey, for-
getful of the actual situation, says that their last stand was in Tanet. (5) In giving
the lament of Helena's nurse, Geoffrey (x, 3) forgets that he is not pronouncing
a funeral oration and has the woman pour forth her eloquence at great length ;
Wace (v. 11,672) makes her speak more simply. (6) Geoffrey says (x, 4) that the
six thousand knights who came to the rescue of the envoys had heard of their
flight. This would have been impossible, for the envoys had been getting away
from Lucius's camp as fast as their horses would carry them. Wace says (v. 1 2,286)
that Arthur had sent the six thousand to reconnoitre, so that their arrival was
altogether accidental (cf. p. 144, below). It is possible also that Wace aimed in
general to reduce the extravagant numbers, whether vaguely or definitely stated,
which Geoffrey employs in reporting the strength of his armies. But Wace's usage
is not uniform in this respect.
2 He says (vv. 8397-8398) that Aurelius quickly chased away the marauding
Pascent. Geoffrey (viii, 13, 10) settles the matter by the stock device of a battle.
Similar cases are Geoffrey, ii, 15, 22; Wace, vv. 2138 ff. ; and Geoffrey ix, 6;
Wace, vv. 9650-9659.
Digitized
by Google
Waces Brut 135
clear.^ Sometimes, to be sure, no such explanation is needed,
but more often it is desirable or suggestive. Thus; (i) Arthur
retreated to London because there he could get the help of his
commons.* (2) The Norwegians were unwilling to receive Lot as
their king because they thought thatj being a foreigner, he would
give their lands to others.* (3) A reason is given for the fact that
Helaine's nurse remained on the giant's mountain when the giant
was not there.* (4) A reason is given (perhaps unnecessarily) for
the warlike advice of the youths to Gawain.* (5) Arthur sent
his prisoners to Paris because he was afraid that he might lose
them if he kept them in the camp. (6) The disappearance of
Roven from the narrative (which Geoffrey had taken as a matter
of course) Wace explains by saying that she, as well as all the
other women, was burned with Vortigern in his fortress.^ (7) Wace
tells us that Yvain, AguisePs nephew, to whom, on AguisePs death,
Arthur gave the kingdom of Scotland, was AguisePs rightful heir.''
This satisfies Wace's sense of feudal propriety and follows nat-
urally from the fact that no son of Aguisel is named in the
narrative. (8) The statement that those Saxons of the army of
Octa and Ebissa who escaped to York chose for their king Colgrin,
a friend of Octa and his cousin,^ is introduced to explain the
appearance of Colgrin as king soon after, which Geoffrey not
unreasonably leaves his readers to account for as they choose.
1 Cf. pp. 183, 213, below.
2 V. 9368.
' V. 10,070.
* Vv. 11,802 ff.
* Vv. 12,086-12,090.
« For similar explanations in other chronicles, see p. 183, below. Since Nennius
also says the same thing (see p. 15, above), it is just possible that it appeared also
in Geoffrey's original text. It does not appear in the manuscripts of Geoffrey
which I have examined. There are two or three other instances where one is
inclined to wonder at first if Wace may not have used Nennius ; but the coinci-
dences can easily be explained as due to chance, corruption, or something of the
sort, and are not enough to overthrow a strong antecedent probability to the
contrary.
' Vv. 13,597 ff. ; Geoffrey, xi, i, 28.
8 Vv. 9151-9152.
r
Digitized
by Google
136 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Occasionally Wace makes changes merely in order to improve
the literary effect,^ Some of his additions are mere incidental bits
of " general information " : for example, the mention of Febus as
one of the Saxons' gods ; ^ the bizarre etymology of the name Essex
and the other -sexes ; ' the remark that Crete (or Egypt ?) had power
over one. hundred cities.*
Wace occasionally omits things which he does not understand
or does not care for. This is true of certain legendary elements
which in Geoffrey's narrative have lost their significance.^ Thus,
in repeating Vortimer's directions about his burial, Wace says
nothing of the copper pyramid.* He omits the details of the fight
of the dragons (which give Geoffrey an opportunity for mystical
interpretation), and also the prophecies of Merlin (except those
about Vortigern), since, he says, he does not comprehend them."'
In telling of Arthur's dream of the fight between the dragon and
the bear, Wace drops out some less important details.^ He also
omits Geoffrey's statement that Arthur imposed silence on all those
who looked on the head of the giant®
Geoffrey sometimes tries to describe the order of armies in
battle, but he never succeeds in giving a consistent or compre-
hensible account. Wace leaves out these statements ^° or greatly
1 (i) Geoffrey says (viii, 2, 5) that after the election of Aurelius his men wished
to attack the Saxons first, and he dissuaded them. This is a natural mcident, but
Wace (v. 7792) preserves the continuity of the narrative by omitting it. {2) To
the account of the Battle of Badon, Geoffrey (ix, 3) prefixes a short speech of
Arthur. Wace (vv. 9552 ff.) reserves this until the critical moment of the fight,
and then inserts it with many expansions but without representing Arthur as stop-
ping in order to make it. (3) In the episode of the Battle of the Convoy, Geoffrey
(x, 5, 24-36) does not proceed in direct chronological sequence; but Wace
(vv. 12,584-12,633) gains a great deal in vividness and force by so rearranging.
2 V. 6931. * Vv. 7477 ff. ■*¥. 11,377.
s For similar instances, cf. pp. 140, 155, 160, 196, 201, 216, 218, 227, below.
6 Geoffrey, vi, 14 ; Wace, v. 7355.
■^ Geoffrey, vii, 3 ff. ; Wace, vv. 7719 ff. Cf. pp. 189, 194, 200, 208, 218, 225,
251, note 2, below. ^ Vv. 1 1,528 ff.
® Geoffrey, x, 3, 73; Wace, v. 11,951.
10 Geoffrey, xi, i, 34-36; Wace, vv. 13,513 ff. Geoffrey, xi, 2, 18-26; Wace,
V. i3»659.
Digitized
by Google
IVaces Brut 137
changes them. He omits also various names or other geographical
details relating to England, especially Welsh names, though he
sometimes changes his method by explaining where a place is, his
object being, of course, to be intelligible to his French-speaking
readers. He regularly translates the Latin names, — almost always
into French, but sometimes, in the case of a well-known town in
the south of England, into English. This method, together with
corruptions which have got into the manuscripts, often makes
his lists of lands and countries look quite different from those of
Geoffrey. On the other hand, he frequently inserts names where
continental geography is concerned.^ ^
We come now to Wace's more important alterations of Geoffrey's
narrative.
In the first place, it is evident that he knew — and to some
extent he introduces into his poem — a conception of Arthur, and
in a less degree of his knights, which is essentially that of the
chivalric romances, and which Geoffrey, while he felt or fore-
shadowed its influence, did not by any means fully represent.^
Wace says nothing to necessitate the conclusion that he got from
any other source than Geoffrey the idea of Arthur as a world
conqueror and a great emperor ; but he makes it as plain as pos-
sible that he knew plenty of other stories about the hero and his
knights. He refers directly to these stories as having already
assumed in his own time very extravagant proportions at the hands
of conteurs^^ and he refers to their substance again when he says
that while Arthur was in France many marvels happened, and he
overthrew many a proud man and kept in restraint many a felon.*
This is added to Geoffrey's statement that Arthur spent nine years
1 It ought to be mentioned that Wace omits Geoffrey's account of Aurelius's
reputation in Gaul (Geoffrey, viii, 3, i-ii; Wace, vv. 7849 ff. ; contrast p. 166,
below); and more strangely, even the meagre details which give some color to
Geoffrey's description of Arthur's last battle, saying, for instance, that he does
not know the names of those who fell. As a result, Wace's account of the battle
is exceedingly inadequate (Geoffrey, xi, 2; Wace, vv. 13,662-13,682). Contrast
p. 120 (and note 5), above, and cf. pp. 180, 216, 232, 233, 247, below.
2 Cf. for the general subject, pp. 108-114, above.
* Vv. 10,032 ff. See p. 100, above. * Vv. 10,402-10,404.
Digitized
by Google
/
^
138 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
in conquering France.^ Reference has already been made to Wace*s
allusion to the Breton expectation of Arthur's second coming,^ on
the probability of which he refuses to pronounce.
The spirit of these independent stories has influenced the tone
of some of Wace's statements,® though for the most part he follows
Geoffrey's representation of Arthur closely enough. It sounds, for
instance, like the romances when Wace calls Arthur // tons rois^^
or says that his men remarked enthusiastically that never before
was there so valiant a king in Britain.^ In almost every case
he takes pains to expunge from the story certain suggestions of
barbarity or lack of chivalrousness on the part of Arthur or his
knights which occur (survive ?) in Geoffrey's version. Thus Geof-
frey says that, after driving back to Ireland the Irish invaders sine
pietate laceratos^ Arthur turned again to destroying the Scots and
Picts, incomparabili saevitiae indulgens ; Wace says merely that he con-
quered the Irish quickly and drove them back to Ireland.^ Geof-
frey states that after vanquishing the Norwe^gians in battle, Arthur's
army destroyed cities and did not cease to " indulge its cruelty '^
till the country was subdued ; Wace uses not much milder terms,
but only in connection with what happened before the battle, when
such conduct might be excused as a necessity of war."' Geoffrey,
who, in his quiet study, thinks of war only as a scene of pomp, and
of conquest only as a thing of glory, delights in observing that
Hoel devastated Gascony with sword and flame; Wace, indeed,
suggests the same thing, but indirectly.^ Geoffrey says that, in the
battle with Lucius, Arthur killed a man or a horse at every stroke ;
Wace omits all mention of injuring horses, which was not strictly
in accordance with the ideas of chivalry.* Wace says that Arthur
1 ix, II.
2 Vv. 13,685-13,697. See p. 1 01 (and note 6), above.
8 Cf. pp. 105, 107, above; pp. 163 £f., 167, 186 ff., 196, 199, 201, 206, below.
* V. 13,301.
* V. 9833.
6 Geoffrey, ix, 6, 20-22 ; Wace, vv. 9695 ff.
'7 Geoffrey, ix, 11, 27; Wace, vv. 10,083-10,085.
8 Geoffrey, ix, 11, 86; Wace, vv. 10,371 and 10,384-10,386.
^ Geoffrey, x, 11, 26; Wace, v. 13,298.
Digitized byCjOOQlC
Waces Brut 139
had the body of the dead emperor cared for with great honor ;
Geoffrey merely mentions his scornful sending of it to Rome.^
That Wace knew Gawain from other sources than Geoffrey ^ is
shown by the praise of him which he adds at the first mention of
his name.* In one striking instance Wace introduces the charac-
teristic romance conception of Gawain.* When, in the council of
Arthur's lords, Cador has made his speech in favor of war, Gawain
(according to Wace) replies, praising peace. The pleasures of love,
he says, are good, and for the sake of his amie a young man performs
feats of chivalry. Geoffrey mentions no speech by Gawain.^
Wace's idea of Merl in^ is more like that of the later romancers
than is Geoffrey's.* Wace represents Merlin as a great magician
of unique power and position, which are recognized as a matter of
-course by the other characters. He has no suggestion of Geoffrey's
remark that, when Aurelius was advised to send for Merlin, he did
not already know of him ; and states that the king at once sought
him at his fountain. Geoffrey represents messengers as dispatched
to all parts of the country in quest of him.'' According to Geoffrey,
when Uther was perplexed at the appearance of the comet, he sent
for wise men, among them Merlin ; but Wace mentions Merlin
alone, implying that, with him to rely on, no others were needed.®
So much for Merlin's position. As to his power, Geoffrey hesitates
to admit into his narrative a wholly supernatural figure 5 but Wace
has no scruples of the sort. So when Geoffrey, doubtless following
some old magical tale, tells how Merlin transformed his own appear-
ance and that of Uther and Ulfin, he makes Merlin observe that
1 Wace, V. 13,395; Geoffrey, x, 13, 17. The single exception which I have
noted to this procedure of Wace, is that he follows Geoffrey in saymg that, in
revenge for the death of Bedver, Hirelgas mutilated the body of Bocu, king of
the Medes (Geoffrey, x, 9, 39; Wace, v. 13,114). Contrast p. 119, above (Brut
7ysilio)y and p. 160, note 6, below (Layamon).
2 Cf. p. 105 and note 2, above.
* Vv. 10,106-10,109. ^ Cf. p. 161, below.
* Vv. 11,043 ff- * C^- PP- "8» i67» i8o-
■^ With Geoffrey this means not mystery, as the same statement does later with
Layamon, but merely that Merlin has relapsed into insignificance since his last
exploit. 8 Geoffrey, viii, 15, 4-5; Wace, V. 8515.
Digitized
by Google
140 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
his arts are unknown to that time, — meaning, apparently, that
they belong to the mysterious past. But Wace merely takes up the
expression " new arts " (by which Geoffrey seems to intend, new to
Uther) and employs it in a non-significant way, omitting all sugges-
tion that it was strange that Merlin should have such power.^
Again, when Merlin moves the great stones from Ireland, after all
Uther's army have failed in the attempt, Geoffrey rationalizes the
scene and makes Merlin a sixth-century Edison, who merely has
far more ingenious mechanical devices than any one else. Wace,
however, says that Merlin mutters something which enables the
youths to handle the stones: "I do not know," observes Wace,
"whether he said a prayer 6r not." ^
It is quite possible that Wace developed these ideas from the
material in Geoffrey alone, — that the conception of a thoroughly
supernatural wizard was perhaps for any twelfth-century French
romancer a necessary substitute for the anomalous Merlin of Geof-
frey. If so, Wace's change is merely another instance of the
natural development of Geoffrey's story in the hands of a man of
Wace's race and time. But it is also possible that, as in the case
of Arthur, Wace knew independent stories about Merlin.
In the second place, there are certain definite details added by
Wace which either are, or may seem to be, derived from something
else than Geoffrey's narrative. On closer consideration, however,
most of them prove to be merely elaborations due to Wace himself.
Such are several statements that one person was cousin to another ; *
the remark that the Emperor Lucius was born in Spain,* which is
evidently an inference from his surname Hiberius ; the statement
that Arthur and Genievre could not have an heir,^ which, indeed, is
scarcely an enlargement on the mere fact that according to Geoffrey
1 Geoffrey, viii, 19, 60; Wace, v. 8930.
2 Geoffrey, viii, 12, 23-24; Wace, vv. 8354 ff.
' The knight Borel to Holdin (v. 10,422) ; Houdin to Gavain (v. 13,220) ; and
Genievre to Cador, who brought her up (v. 9888). Cf. pp. 159, 218, 225, 251,
266, below. In the first cases the knights are very closely connected in the
narrative. * V. 12,852.
^ V. 9895; cf. pp. 155, 215, below. Wace may have been influenced by similar
incidents in Breton lays or other popular stories.
Digitized
by Google
Waces Brut 141
they did not have any. It is interesting, however, as showing that
Wace either did not know, or else disregarded, the Welsh traditions
which give Arthur a son.^ More important in the history of the
story is Wace's seemingly superfluous addition,^ in the episode of
the flight of the envoys from Lucius's camp, of a fifth Roman, a
cousin of Marcel, who is severely wounded by Gawain.
Certain other of Wace's additions are somewhat more doubtful.
Probably, however, his statement that Artliur^s helm was that which
Uther had formerly worn, is derived from Geoffrey's observation
that it was adorned with the figure of a dragon.' One cannot be
at all sure that Wace has any authority for naming the mount of
Tenedic as the place where Cheldric was killed,^ especially since he
implies that Cheldric was fleeing toward Totness, and Geoffrey that
it was toward Tanet. Wace's statement that Modred had already
loved the queen before he was left in charge of Britain^ may be
from independent tradition, but may as easily be an inference of
his own.
Perhaps traditional (but not due to Wace) are certain interpo-
lations in one of the early manuscripts : ( i ) the name Dinabuc for
the giant of Mont St. Michel ; (2) the statement that Modred was
brother to Genie vre,^ which is interesting in comparison with the
idea which appears in the romances that Modred was the offspring
of incest between Arthur and his sister.^
But after all scrutiny there still remain a few real additions made
by Wace to Geoffrey's story, and certainly, or almost certainly, from
independent traditional sources.
In speaking of the northern kings who submitted to Arthur when
he assumed the role of a foreign conqueror, Wace introduces*
" Romarec de Guenelande " or " Venelande." It seems probable that
Romarec was a figure of popular saga, more especially because
Layamon says that it was his son who first began to quell the fight
^ Sometimes called Llacheu. He appears in the triads (Loth, Mabinogion^ II,
230) ; the Dream ofRhonabwy (id., 1, 3 1 2); Ulrich's LanzeUt ; the prose Perceval^ etc.
2 Vv. 12,262-12,279; cf. pp. 144, 156, 213, 229, below.
^ Geoffrey, ix, 4, 17; Wace, 9523. * V. 11,458.
* V. 9628 ; Geoffrey, ix, 5, 17. "^ Cf. p. 1 19, note 8, above ; pp. 188, 242, below,
* V. 11,460. 8 V. 9947.
Digitized
by Google
142 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
at Arthur's banquet.^ There is no proof, however, that any one
before Wace had associated him with the Arthurian story.^ Such
a previous association, if established, would be an important point,
as giving another indication* that probably before the time of
Geoffrey the idea of Arthur's conquest of lands outside the British
Isles, at least in the North, was in existence.
Much more significant are Wace's additions about the Round
Table. Into the passage which tells of the great prestige of Arthur
he inserts the statement that, because each of the barons thought
himself better than the others, Arthur made the Round Table, " of
which the * Bretons ' tell many a fable," so that none could boast
of sitting higher than any other.* Twice afterwards ^ he speaks of
the table, saying once that the knights who were in the court and
formed the king's bodyguard belonged to it, and in the second case
that the praise of its knights was great throughout the world. This
certainly indicates that Wace knew previous stories about it, which
may be considered substantially proved by the nearly certain fact ?
that round tables were a very ancient pan-Celtic institution. The
antiquity of the thing being admitted, there is no reason to doubt
that its close association with Arthur goes back to a stage of the
tradition anterior to Wace and Geoffrey.
What has been said of Wace's Brut may be briefly summarized
as follows. Wace paraphrases Geoffrey, but with all the freedom
natural to a mediaeval French poet, a freedom which leads to the
insertion of plenty of mediaeval local color, and the infusion of much
vividness into the style and the presentation. He almost always
corrects Geoffrey's inconsistencies and obscurities, and in general
he tries to make everything clear to his readers. Thus he adds a
great many minor details of various kinds, which are not substan-
tially important but which contribute very largely to Wace's entire
change of the literary form. He introduces something of the
1 Vv. 22,787 ff.
2 Dr. A. C. L. Brown thinks that he had been thus associated; see his sugges-
tions in The Round Table before Wace, Studies and Notes, 1900, VII, 201.
' Cf. p. 84, above. ^ Vv. 10,555, ^Z^^IS-
* Vv. 9994-10,007. 6 Demonstrated by Dr. Brown, op. cit.
Digitized
by Google
Other French "Rrxits 143
chivalric idea of Arthur and his knights, and the conception of
Merlin as a magician. This may be partly (or, in the case of Merlin,
wholly) his own development from Geoffrey's story; but it is far
more probable that he drew to some extent from other Celtic
Arthurian stories. From such he almost or quite certainly took
some additional touches about Gawain, the mention of the Britons'
expectation of Arthur's return, and the institution of the Round
Table. And from some source not traceable he brought in the
very unimportant figure of Romarec of Guenelande.^
To be mentioned in connection with Wace's poem are certain
other much less important French metrical works of about the
same date, all of which are preserved only in part.
First may be mentioned the fragments of an anonymous version
of Geoffrey in monorhymed laisses of alexandrines, in tfie style of a
chanson de geste, of which about three quarters (some twenty-five hun-
dred lines) belong to the Arthurian period.^ Quite in the regular
chanson de geste manner are its descriptions of battles ; the praise
given by Bors and Gerins to the stroke by which Gawain kills
Marcel ; ' the descriptive formulas applied to some of the charac-
ters — odla chere doree to Aurelius * and Bedver,^ and pleine de cortesie
to Goneoure ; * and the frequent emphasis of the felonie of the
^ For the later influence of Wace, see pp. 148, 195 (note 6), 203, 215, 226,
below. One of the scribes who set out to copy Wace (MS. Bibl. Reg. 13, A.
xxL, fols. 40 ^113, 13th century; see Hardy, II, 428, No. 584; Ward, I, 264)
seems very soon to have conceived the idea of emulating or improving his origi-
nal ; for after the first fifty-two lines he begins to abridge and entirely alters the
phraseology, making also, apparently, a little independent use of Geoffrey.
Beginning with the begetting of Arthur, fol. 77b* (Wace, v. 8963), he copies much
more exactly, but even after this he abridges somewhat and alters the phraseology
to a slight extent. He does not introduce any notable new features.
2 MS. Harl. 1605, No. i (see Hardy, I, i, 357, No. 837 ; Ward, I, 272-274).
149 lines are printed by Michel and Wright, Vita Merlini, pp. Ixxxv-xc. See
O. Wendeburg, Uber die Bearbeitungvon Gottfried von Monmouth's Historia Regum
Britanniae in der Hs, Brit. Mus. liar 1. 1605 ; Grober, Grundriss, II, i, 637. Michel
gives about 115 lines in the Collection des Documents inidits sur VHist. de France^
Rapports au Ministre^ Paris, 1839, pp. 195 ff. Cf. also the fragment, likewise in
alexandrines, published by I. Bekker in Roman von Fierabrasy pp. 182-183, and
reproduced in Le Roux de Lincy*s edition of the Brut^ I, 392-395.
« Fol. 40 a. *FoLi3a. '^¥61:^6 a. « Fol. 33 «.
Digitized
by Google
144 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Britons* enemies. Not organically significant is the long and appar-
ently original description of the pictures (biblical scenes) worked
on the pavilion of the ship which carried Arthur to fight against
Lucius.^ Of Constantine's assassination the author says only that
it was committed by one of his knights.^ The characterization* of
Gauuan as **le hardi . . . meillor cheualer," etc., is probably not
altogether derived from GeofTrey.* A possible connection with Wace
is suggested by the fact that in two cases when he enlarges on Geof-
frey, this version does the same, though what it says is different.
Where Wace added the episode of the fifth Roman, MarcePs cousin,
wounded by Arthur^s envoys,^ this version has instead five other
Romans ; ^ and it explains * the coming of the six thousand Britons
to the aid of the envoys ' by saying that Arthur reflected that the
Romans might say things that would provoke Gawain to violence.
Aside from these points, the fragment follows Geoffrey pretty closely.
There remain also 258 lines of a French verse rendering of the
story of Vortigern's tower,* covering only what was intended for
the introduction, as far as the beginning of the prophecies. Its only
noteworthy difference from Geoffrey is the statement that Merlin's
father visited his mother in the form of a bird, which, when inside
the chamber, became a man.*
The four thousand and more lines which are left of the so-called
Munchener Brut,^^ another anonymous paraphrase of Geoffrey, bring
the story down to a point in Geoffrey's second book, — not, there-
fore, to the Arthurian period. This Brut is more diffuse than Wace,
and drawS also from other sources than Geoffrey.^*
^
1 Fols. 35-36. 2 Fol. 13 a. 8 Fol. 33 a. * Cf. p. 105 and note 2, above.
5 Cf. p. 141 and note 2, above. « Fol. 40 b, ^ cf. p. 134, note i, above.
8 Ed. La Villemarqu^, Archives des Missions Scientifiques et Littirairesy ist Ser.,
V, 90-96, also in his Myrdhinn ou l^Enckanteur, 1861, pp. 422 ff. ; see Ward, I, 384 ;
Grober, Grundriss, II, i, 913. » Cf. p. 118 and note 7, above.
I*' Edited by Hofmann and Vollmbller, Halle, 1877. About nine hundred lines
are printed in Le Roux de Lincy's Wace (I, Ixxxv-cxv). Grober, Grundriss, II, i,
473, is inclined to identify the Miinchener BrutyAt\i Gaimar's History of the Britons.
" P. Paris (Hist. Litt. de la France, XXV, 338 ; Romans de la Table Ronde, II,
36, note) notes that the author of the Roman de Merlin alludes to a translation
of the story into French verse by " Martin of Roecestre." Of this nothing seems
to be known.
Digitized
by Google
Draco Normanniciis and Pantheon 145
III. Draco Norman nicvs, and Gottfried or Viterbo's
Pantheon
Two exceptions, perhaps the most striking of all, to the fidelity
which generally marks the paraphrases of Geoffrey, are afforded
by Latin metrical chronicles which appeared within about half a
century after the Historia, These works may be briefly dismissed,
because in the Arthurian portions they belong to the domain rather
of romance than of history, and also because they exercised little
or no influence upon later authors.
The first, written about 1170, and reasonably ascribed to the
rather prolific fitienne, a monk of Bee, is a fragmentary and dis-
ordered record of Norman and French affairs, bearing the suitably
fantastic title Draco Normannicus} Apart from many references
to that portion of Merlin's prophecies which applies to the first
half of the twelfth century,^ the relevant material concerns Arthur
himself. The chronicle says* that when Henry II was fighting
and conquering in Brittany, Count Rollandus * sent to Arthur, then
staying in the antipodes,-^ a letter, as a result of which Arthur wrote
to Henry describing himself as fatorum lege perennis^ magnifying
his own glory beyond measure, outlining his previous career as it
is told by Geoffrey, and bidding Henry leave the Britons in peace.
Arthur is already on the way to help them, he says, with his
immortal and invincible army and fleet, resting, or intending to
rest, his legions in Cornwall.* Henry is not at all disturbed by
the message, and nothing ever comes of it.
fitienne's conception of Arthur is more exalted than would pre-
sumably follow from Geoffrey's account,"^ and this must apparently
be set down to his knowledge of other stories of the king, — the
more so (i) since Arthur is made to belong especially to the
1 Ed. Hewlett, Chronicles of Stephen, etc., Rolls Series, II.
2 Chiefly in bk. i, vv. 172-428; others in bk. ii
« ii, 945 ff.
* Possibly an historical character.
6 Cf. pp. 167, 188, below.
« On Arthur's return to earth, cf. pp. 100 ff., above.
^ Cf. pp. 98-108 (with note i), above.
Digitized byCjOOQlC
146 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Armorican Bretons ; (2) since the idea of his future return is not
only mentioned but greatly emphasized ; and (3) since Avalon is
equated with the antipodes and becomes a typical Celtic earthly
paradise, described with much poetic beauty. In this description
fitienne apparently imitates Geoffrey's Vita Merlini} Either from
this latter (by misinterpretation of the name "sisters " which Geof-
frey there applies to the nymphs of the island) or from independent
tradition, fitienne takes the idea, which later appears regularly in
the romances, that Morgana, the only one of the ladies whom he
names, is Arthur's sister.
The second of the two poems is the no less jumbled Pantheon of
universal history written about 1186 by the distinguished and con-
ceited Italian courtier of the Hohenstaufen, Gottfried of Viterbo.^
The relevant passage is Particula xviii, entitled De Anglis et Saxo-
nibusy which gives in 564 lines an astonishing version (or rather
metamorphosis) of that part of Geoffrey' s story included between
the beginning of the reign of Constans and the establishment of
Aurelius and Utherj/Zwi- Uther's amour. The features original with
Gottfried could be indicated only in a very full summary. It must
suffice to mention the points which may perhaps be ascribed to
something else than his imagination, working, whether directly or
indirectly, upon Geoffrey's narrative.
The Saxons, according to the German story previously accepted
by Gottfried,® are identified with the Macedonians. Acquaintance
with the prose Merlin^ or something akin to it, may possibly be
implied in the statement^ that the motive of the magicians in
bidding Vortigern find a boy without a father was to hide their
ignorance. Interesting in connection with a later version, the
Petit Brut of Rauf de Bohun,^ is the statement that one of the
1 Cf. pp. 165, 188, 190, 230, below.
2 Ed. Migne, PatroL Lat., CXCVIII, 871 ff. For the passage in question, with
comments, see San-Marte, Beitrdge zur bret. u. celt.-germ. Heldensage^ 1847,
pp. 189-209. On Gottfried and his works, see Waitz, in Pertz, Mon, Germ, Hist,,
Script., XXII, I ff.
8 See his Particula xv (in San-Marte, l.c.).
* Which is like that in the Brut Tysilio (see p. 118, above).
* See pp. 2 10-2 1 1, below.
Digitized
by Google
Layamotis Brut 147
dragons of the tower flew away, and Uther fought and killed it.
And apparently there is a relation to German etymological stories
as to the name of the region where the Saxons had lived when this
latter is called Angria,^ though this certainly does not show that
Gottfried was following any example in transferring this name to
Geoffrey *s Rowen.^
A striking feature of Gottfried's version is the fact that he quite
loses sight of the distinction of race between the Britons and the
Saxons. Geoffrey of Monmouth did not inveigh against the Sax-
ons in anything like the manner of Gildas ; but he did exalt the
Britons at their expense, and his patriotic feeling was so pro-
nounced that some critics have supposed that he wrote his History
in exultation over the conquerors of his race, now themselves
brought into subjection by the Normans. Gottfried, on the other
hand, does not seem to realize that the Britons and the Saxons
were different peoples, and he sometimes uses one name when he
means the other.
IV. Layamon's Brut
This forgetfulness of the historical in the romantic elements of
the Arthurian story was not confined to foreigners. It is equally
characteristic of the English chroniclers and chronicler poets who,
after an interval of about half a century, began in large numbers
and in various manners to follow the example set by Henry of
Huntingdon and Alfred of Beverley in copying from Geoffrey or
Geoffrey's imitators. These chroniclers appropriated Arthur and
the other British warriors as their own national heroes.
None of them takes more pride in the glorification of -^thur than
the most thoroughly Saxon of them all, the priest-poet Layamon.*
1 San-Marte, Beitrdge, p. 192.
2 For a coincidence of detail between Gottfried's version and Layamon*s, see
p. 152, note 13, below.
8 Indeed, in v. 14,242 Layamon himself uses the name "Bruttes" where he
seems to mean English, but this case is perhaps unique with him, and probably
due to carelessness.
Digitized
by Google
148 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Of Layamon nothing more is known than the very scanty facts
which he himself gives in the first ten lines of his Brut} He was
a priest, the son of Leovenath, and lived at the church of Ern-
ley, near Radestone (Arley Regis, or Lower Arley, in northern
Worcestershire), on the banks of the Severn. Here he "read
books," — that is, the church services, being evidently the parish
priest. Fortunately his duties left him plenty of time for indulging
his love of literature.
The language of Layamon's poem indicates that it was begun
not long before the end of the twelfth century, and its composition
may well have occupied him for several years. As to his sources,
he says that he journeyed widely among the people to find books
to help in writing of the deeds of the English. He names three
books which he found and used: (i) Wace*s poem, on which his
own, in fact, is directly and almost entirely based ; ^ (2) what must
be the English translation of Bedels Ecclesiastical History ; and (3)
another which is evidently to be identified with Bede's Latin text.
Investigation has proved, however, that if Layamon made any use
at all of Bade, which is doubtful, it was only in a single (non-
Arthurian) episode. This does not indicate any attempt on his
part to deceive his readers. He wants them to know that he took
all possible pains to secure authorities ; but evidently when he got
to work he found that details from Bede's story would not combine
well with Wace's, and so fell back upon the latter. The question
naturally arises whether Layamon made any use of Geoffrey. The
probability is that if he had done so he would have mentioned him
among his other sources ; and most of his apparent agreements with
1 The only edition of the Brut is that of Madden, 3 vols., 1847. Among criti-
cal articles only a few call for mention here : Wulker, Ueber die Quellen Laya-
mons, in Paul and Braune's Beitrdge, 1876, III, 524-555 ; Diet, Nat. Biog,, under
Layamon ; H. Krautwald, Layamon' s Brut vergliehen mit Wace's Roman de Brut
in Bezug auf die Darstellung der Culturverhdltnisse^ Breslau, 1887; M. Kolbe,
Schildy Helm^ und Panzer^ zur Zeit Layimons^ Breslau, 1891. Interesting, but
sometimes over-sentimental, is Morley's appreciation {English Writers^ III,
206-231). References to earlier notes are given in Madden's Preface. For
manuscripts, etc., see Hardy, I, 352-354.
2 Cf. p. 143, note I, above.
Digitized
by Google
Lay anions Brut 149
Geoffrey as against Wace can be explained away.^ However, it is
possible that Layamon may have thought, or believed that his
readers would think, that Geoffrey was untrustworthy ; and there
are some coincidences in details which lend a little support to the
idea that Layamon did directly or indirectly know Geoffrey's work,
or parts of it, or else had a manuscript of Wace which had been
altered by the scribe on comparison with Geoffrey.^ However,
these agreements are very few and slight and may be due to chance
or corruption. Of course one is not justified in assuming that he
knew Gaimar's paraphrase of Geoffrey, or any other.
Layamon's treatment of Wace's narrative is freer than Wace's
treatment of Geoffrey's. Indeed, Layamon 's poem is more than
twice as long as Wace's, — 32,241 lines' against 15,300. Layamon
is perhaps the greatest English poet between Cynewulf and Chaucer.
He enters fully into the spirit of the story, and when his imagina-
tion is fired he is ready enough to compose verses of his own.
Such are the mocking speech of Arthur on the occasion of the sur-
render of Childrich, in which he compares Childrich to a fox and
vividly describes a fox hunt ; * the shorter but equally vivid speeches
a little later, in which Arthur likens Colgrim on Bath Hill to a goat
and himself to a wolf, and the Saxon warriors lying dead in the
Avon to bright-scaled fishes ; ^ and again, his taunts at the bodies
of Baldulf and Colgrim, whom he has killed.* It is not only in
speeches, however, that such additions occur. Of the coronation
of Constans, Wace says substantially only this : ' The people were
in doubt which of Constantine's sons to make king. Not daring to
take Constans from his monastery, they would have chosen one of
the others; but Vortigern leaped forward and said that Constans
was the rightful heir, and that he would take upon himself the sin
of his election. Thereupon he went to Winchester, easily persuaded
Constans to renounce his irksome life and agree to exalt Vortigern,
1 As Wiilker has shown.
2 See Fletcher, Publ. Mod. Lang. Assoc, 1903, XVIII, 91-94-
* To be sure, these are properly half lines, but they average nearly as long as
those of Wace.
* Vv. 20,827-20,898. ^ Vv. 21,431-21,456.
6.Vv. 21,297-21,348. 7 Vv. 6623-6688.
Digitized
by Google
1 50 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
took him back to London, and with his own hands crowned him^
despite the horror of the other barons. Layamon expands the whole
passage and adds much lively detail.^ The Britons, he says, had
already chosen Ambrosius in a hustings at London, when Vortiger
arose and advised them to wait for a fortnight, after which he
would have good advice to give. They assented. Vortiger went
to Winchester, where he got leave of the abbot to speak with Con-
stans. He persuaded Constans to agree to his plan, disguised him
in a knight's cape and sent him away, while he himself remained
behind, talking with a swain whom he had dressed in Constans's
habit. " Monks went upward, monks went downward," and finally
came to the abbot and said they believed that Vortiger*s long con-
versation with Constans meant mischief. The abbot replied that
Vortiger was advising Constans to continue a monk. At last Vor-
tiger went away. The monks came up and found only the dis-
carded clothes. The abbot leaped on his horse, overtook Vortiger,
and bade him restore Constans. Vortiger threatened to hang the
abbot if he would not release Constans from his vows. The abbot
dared not disobey, and he received twenty plow-lands as the price
of submission. Vortiger enjoined silence on his attendants and
kept Constans secretly in London. At the day set the council was
about to choose Ambrosius, when Vortiger sprang to his feet, gave
his own version of what he had done, produced Constans, and
crowned him, no one daring to oppose. In contrast to Wace,
Layamon similarly expands the accounts of the assassination of
Constans, Vortimer, and Uther.^
Perhaps more purely original than any of these latter episodes
is Layamon's invention of the scene when Arthur is informed of
the treachery of Modred. Wace, after telling what Modred had
done, merely states baldly, like Geoffrey, that Arthur heard of it.*
Layamon begins the whole episode* by saying that a young knight
came to Arthur from Modred. Arthur welcomed him, thinking
that he brought good tidings, but all night long could not find out
1 Vv. 12,972-13,270.
2 Vv. 13,511 ff., 14,898 ff., 19,660 ff. Cf. p. 132, note 2, above.
• Vv. 13,437 ff. * Vv. 27,992 ff.
Digitized
by Google
Layamons Brut 151
from him how things were going. The next morning Arthur rose
from bed as if exceeding sick. The knight asked him how he did,
and he related a dream which vividly foretells for the reader all
his subsequent misfortunes.^ When he finished, the knight said,
" Lord, if it had happened — and may God forbid ! — that Modred
had taken thy queen and thy land, yet thou mightest avenge thee
and slay all thine enemies." Arthur replied that he never supposed
that Modred and Wenhaver would betray him, and then the knight
stated the fact bluntly. Here Layamon's art fails him, and he
makes no adequate use of the fine situation which he has prepared ;
but up to this point his treatment is admirably dramatic.
Such long original passages are rare, however. The bulk of Laya-
mon's additions to Wace c6nsists of minor supplementary or modi-
fying statements here and there throughout the poem.^ Among
these are the following:
The observation that Vortiger had half of Wales in his possession ; ^ his
stipulation that in return for his services Constans should make him his
steward;* the definition of the "rich garments" in which, according to
Wace,* Vortiger clothed Constans, as the cloak of one of his knights;^
Vortiger's statement to Constans that it is from chapmen that he has learned
that enemies are going to come, and the mention among them of the kings
of Rusie and Frise ; ' Constans's reservation of the name of king when he
puts everything into the hand of Vortiger;*^ a speech of Vortiger to the
Picts whom he called the king's bodyguard ; * the statement that the Saxons
of Hengist and Horsa were the fairest men who ever came to Britain ; ^®
Hengist's assertion that one out of every six is obliged to leave Germany ; ^^
the addition,^^ in the account of the Saxon names of the days of the week,
of those called after ** "[junre," " Satumus," " the Sunne," the moon, and
" Tidea " ; ^ Hengist's respectful characterization of his wife ; " the remark
that it was a wise man who cut the bull's hide for Hengist, and that he
made it as thin as twine ;^ the expansion of Wace's vague remark that
1 Cf. Arthur's similar dreams in the prose Lancelot and versions derived from it.
2 Compare Wace*s treatment of Geoffrey in this respect.
* V. 13,021. ^ Vv. 13,313 ff. ; cf. Wace, vv. 6709 ff.
* V. 13,067. 8 V. 13,360. " V. 13,861. " V. 14,144.
6 V. 6678. 9 Vv. 13,382 ff. 12 Vv. 13,929 ff. " Vv. 14,211 ff.
* V. 13,097. ^^ V. 13,797. ^* Cf. pp. 69-70, above.
Digitized
by Google
152 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Wancastre (Layamon, pwong-Chastre) was later called Langcastre by men
who did not know the etymology, into the explanation that the change was
due to the Danes ; ^ the invention of another feast, to which the Christians
did not come, as the scene of Hengist*s suggestion that he send for Octa
and Ebissa;^ the statement that Vortimer offered twelvepence for the
head of each heathen ; * the observation that after Vortimer drove out the
Saxons, Vortiger wandered about the land for five years, reviled by 51II ; *
Vortimer's invitation to Germain and Leois to come to Britain ; ^ details in
the account of Rowenne*s poisoning of Vortimer ; ^ of Vortiger's message to
Hengist upon the death of Vortimer ; ^ a very vivid expansion of Wace's
observation ^ that at the Stonehenge slaughter Hengist seized Vortiger by
the mantle (apparently only to hold him), into a description of how Hengist
pulled on the mantle with his ** grim grip " until the strings broke, and how
the Saxons set on the unhappy king and wished to kill him, but Hengist
defended him and would not allow it ; ^ the substitution (for Wace's profes-
sion of ignorance as to who brought Elduf his club) ^^ of the statement that
it had been brought by a sturdy churl of Salisbury ; " the entirely new idea
that after the massacre, Vortiger, by means of his treasure, got together
sixty thousand Britons and Scots, who brought all West Wales under his
sway ; ^^ Vortiger's agreement with Merlin that, if the story of the magi is
proved false, they shall be killed, which, Layamon says, was carried out ; 1*
Merlin's explanation that the immediate cause of the fall of the tower was
that the dragons attacked each other at midnight ; 1* great improvement in
1 Vv. 14,241 ff. « V. 14,684. * Vv. 14,806 £f.
3 Vv. 14,423 ff. * Vv. 14,792 ff.
• How she sent frequent messengers with presents, asking to be allowed to live
with Vortiger, which Vortimer granted at Vortiger's request; how she came to
Vortimer, pretending to be about to fulfill his condition and become a Christian ;
how he made a feast ; how Rowenne got a cup of wine, drank half of it, wished him
health, and put in the poison while he was laughing merrily at her strange Saxon
speech (vv. 14,898 ff.) ; how at night she and her men had their horses saddled and
stole away to Thwongchester.
7 V. 15,082. 10 V. 7446.
8 Vv. 7430-7431. 11 V. 15,290.
9 Vv. 15,272 ff. 12 Vv. 15,402 ff.
1^ The death of the magi is mentioned also by Gottfried of Viterbo, but by no
other witness before Layamon. It is so natural an idea that it may easily be due
to chance. Certainly no direct connection between Layamon and Gottfried is to
be supposed. See vv. 15,858 ff., 1 5,988 ff. 1* V. 15,942.
Digitized
by Google
Layamons Brut 153
the description of the investigation at the tower ; ^ the change to direct dis-
course (as a speech of Aurelius) * of Wace's account of how order and
religion were restored after the victory over the Saxons;* great gain in
vividness in the description of the Irish king's blustering and mocking rage,
emphasized with an oath by St. Brandan, when he hears that Aurelius wants
to take stones out of Ireland ; * additional details in the story of the poison-
ing of Aurelius * (such, for instance, as Appas's assertion that Uther sent
him) ; the mention of the Irishmen's custom (at which Layamon cannot
refrain from expressing his wonder) of taking off their breeches before a
battle;* the statement that Uther put his spear, as well as the dragon
standard, in the church at Winchester ; "^ the specification of churls among
those whom Uther summoned to his great feast at London;^ the bold
defiance of Gorlois when Uther bids him return to court ; ^ the characteri-
zation of Ulfin as an old man ; ^^ the substitution, for Wace's brief statement
that Uther's men attacked Gorlois's castle because he was not there to
restrain them,^^ of an account of how the king's barons took counsel and
planned the assault ; ^ a change in the conclusion of the Ygerne episode ; ^*
the transformation into effective direct discourse ^* of Wace's statement that
Octa and Eosa bribed their guards to let them escape ; ^ the statement that
they went to Saxony ^^ before making Uther trouble in Scotland ; great expan-
sion of the story of the elevation of Arthur to the throne ^^ (including the
mention of Brittany as the place from which he was brought; the descrip-
tion of the effect of the summons upon Arthur, who becomes alternately
red and white; an assurance to the reader that his years had been well
employed ; an account of the journey to Britain, with geographical names) ;
similar expansion in the first battle of Arthur (at the Duglas), with a speech
by Arthur and a simile comparing him with the howling wolf who comes
from the wood behung with snow and thinks to bite whatever beasts he
will ; ^* the vivifying of the pictiu*e of Baldulf disguised as a harper, telling
^ Layamon makes it clear that the whole episode occupied some time. He
also says that Vortiger took Merlin to his house to ask about the meaning of the
event, instead of their sitting down beside the pond (as in Wace, v. 7725).
2 Vv. 16,916 ff. » Wace, vv. 8168 ff. * Vv. 17,307 ff. « Vv. 17,662 ff.
• Vv. 18,028, 18,059. For the custom, see Madden, III, 367, and his references.
7 V. 18,220. 8 V. 18,503. 9 V. 18,584. 10 V. 18,707.
" Wace, vv. 8969 ff. 12 Vv. 19,082 ff.
1' Vv. 19,220 ff. Uther sends tokens to Ygerne of what they had said to each
other. She still refuses to believe, and the knights surrender the castle without
her consent. 1* V. 19,306. ^^ Wace, vv. 9065 ff.
w V. 19,355. ^^ Vv. 19,826 ff. 18 Vv. 20,072 ff.
Digitized
by Google
154 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
how all the Britons took him for a fool and struck him with wands ; ^ the
mention of Childrich's castle at Lincoln ; ^ the very harrowing increase in
definiteness in the description of the ravages committed by the perjured
Saxons when they landed at Totness, with their boastful song of how, if
Arthur dared to fight, they would make a door mat of his bones, binding
them together with golden ties ; * further details in the account of the battle
of " Bath " (especially the remark that the Saxons fled across the Avon in
, getting to the hill) ; * a minute account of the bats or " clubben swilJe graete "
with which Cador armed the churls whom he put in ambush in the Saxons'
ships and of his directions to them how to lay on when the enemy should
come ; ^ the statement that Arthur held a hustings at Exeter before his
invasion of Ireland;* the description of how the warriors got ready for
the expedition, preparing their bumies, rubbing their -horses, and making
ready darts and shields and spears ; the description of how Arthur enter-
tained the captured Gillomar at a feast, with the specification of the amount
of tribute which the latter agreed to pay, including the relics of St. Colum-
kille, St. Brandan, and St. Bride ; ^ the description of the tribute which the
king of the Orkneys was to give, — sixty ship-loads of good fish brought
every year at his own cost to London ; ® details about the surrender of
Aeschil of Denmark and the tribute exacted from him ; • a note of the
number of warriors whom Arthur took to France from his various subject
realms ; " a detailed description of the first battle of Arthur against FroUe,
with a speech by Arthur ; " the statement of FroUe that he has lost fifty
thousand men ; ^* the observation that if FroUe had supposed Arthur would
accept his challenge to a duel, he would not have made it for a ship full of
gold ; the statement that Arthur's shield was made of elephant's bone ; the
vivid description of how Arthur and Frolle came to the island in their
boats ; ^ emphasis on the great fear of Frolle throughout the episode ; the
envy of the women at Arthur's coronation feast ; " the remark that when
the king was at the banquet it was Dubriz who, for his convenience, changed
his heavy state crown for a lighter one ; ^ the alteration of Wace's statement
that Arthur's knights reviled the ambassadors who brought the message
from Lucius,^* into a description of how the knights would have torn them
1 Vv. 20,303 ff. 7 Vv. 22,357 fif. w Vv. 23,845 fif.
a V. 20,679. ® Vv. 22,543 ff. w V. 24,534.
» Vv. 20,955 ff. • Vv. 23,291 ff. 16 V. 24,563.
* Vv. 21,266 fif. w Vv. 23,359 fif. M Wace, vv. 10,989 fif.
5 Vv. 21,504 fif. " Vv. 23,477 fif.
« V. 22,255. ^ V. 23,618.
Digitized
by Google
Layamons Brut 155
to pieces if Arthur had not interfered ; ^ the limitation of the men whom
Arthur called for his council (the boldest and wisest) ; ^ a number of changes
in the episode of Arthur's fight with the giant on Mont St. Michel ; * the
statement that Arthur, in pity for the people, challenges Lucius to settle their
quarrel by a duel ; * the alteration of a good many comparatively insignificant
details in the campaign against Lucius ; the presence of Arthur's spies in the
camp of Lucius ; * the statement that Modred promised the people of Win-
chester " free law " evermore if they would fight for him ; ^ the hanging of
the citizens by Arthur when Winchester is taken/
As was to be expected, Layamon not only adds details to Wace's
story, but very often omits details which Wace mentions. Of these
omitted features, which are generally of no importance to the sub-
stance of the narrative, the following are typical :
Aurelius's speech to Eldof, as he is going to attack Vortiger ; ® the citation
of the case of the Gabionites as an analogy for sparing the conquered
Saxons ; • the statement that Uther had his men rest during the night before
fighting the Irish ; ^^ the description of Igeme's beauty ; ^^ the statement that
Gorlois expected help from the king of Ireland ; ^ the observation that
Arthur and Wenhaver could not have an heir ; 1* the statement that at the
time of Arthur's second coronation the queen was crowned in her chamber ; ^*
all description of Lucius ; ^* all mention of Mount Giu in various places ; ^^
the statement of the deaths of several of Arthur's knights in the last battles
(for instance, that of Aguisel on the landing in England)/^
For the greater part of these omissions we need not assume any
deliberate choice by Layamon ; the details naturally fell out as he
1 Vv. 24,842 ff. 2 V. 24,880.
' Vv. 25,720 ff. (of. p. 135, above). Layamon adds to Arthur's company the
knight who brought the tidings, and six swains. The giant bears twelve swine on
his back. His bestiality is emphasized. The incidents of the combat are alto-
gether changed. * V. i6,i8o; Wace, vv. 7823 ff.
* V. 26,263. » Wace, V. 8153. 12 y. 18,620.
« V. 27,148. w V. 18,005. " V. 22,244. Cf. p. 140, above.
« V, 28,392. 11 V. 18,530. 1* V. 24,455.
7 V. 28,407 ; cf. vv. 28,442 ff. " V. 27,338.
16 Wace, vv. 1 1,152, etc. (cf. p. 137, above). Layamon does name it in v. 25,354.
17 Wace, V. 13,509. Layamon also fails to make any clear discrimination between
the Armoricans and the insular Britons: see vv. 16,474 ff.; Wace, vv. 791 5-7916,
7990. Cf. p. 82, above.
Digitized
by Google
1 56 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
made over the narrative. But occasionally the omission improves
the literary effect. Thus, by dropping the illustration from the
Gabionites Layamon does away with the repetition of one Biblical
story immediately after another.^ Again, he leaves out the account
of Gawain*s killing a second Roman, the cousin of the first, in the
flight of the envoys from Lucius's capip.^ He seems generally to
avoid all mention of the Senate in connection with Lucius, appar-
ently in order to make it clear that the Emperor was the supreme
power at Rome.*
It is obviously unnecessary to add any prolonged exposition of
Layamon's manner as contrasted with that of Wace.
One of Wace's chief gains over Geoffrey is in realism and vivid-
ness ; yet it is in precisely the same respects that Layamon most
improves upon Wace. There is perhaps nothing in Layamon more
realistic than Wace's description of Arthur's embarkation for
France *; but Wace seldom has a passage of just that sort. The
difference is chiefly one of race and position. Wace is a medi-
aeval French court poet ; Layamon is a direct descendant of the
men who wrote Bkowulf and the ode on Athelstan's victory. Wace
calls up clearly before his mind the things which he writes about,
and describes them in as pleasing a way as possible ; Layamon
lives among them and takes his readers along with him. Wace is
elegant and vivacious ; Layamon is intense.
In all other respects, also, Layamon is a thorough Saxon, and he
makes the story over into a Saxon epic. He is not afraid of home-
liness and simplicity, and they appear often enough in his poem,
but in the Homeric manner. His warriors are not only fearless
and self-reliant, but of unrestrained impulses, emotional, boastful,
and cruel. Arthur's grim irony has already been referred to.^ So
^ Here it may be noted that, in giving his version of the Agag incident, Layamon
draws independently from his knowledge of Scripture ; but in so doing he makes
a blunder, calling SauPs city Jerusalem (vv. 16,629 ff.).
2 Wace, vv. 12,262 ff. ; Layamon, v. 26,591. Cf. p. 141, above.
8 Cf. p. 85, note 2, above.
* See p. 131, above.
*» P. 149, above. Cf. also what Arthur says to the captured Petreius (vv
26,831 fif.).
Digitized
by Google
Layamon s ^xmX. 157
Aldolf, when he has captured Hengist, cries,* " It is not so merry
for thee, Hengist, as it was at Amesbury, where thou slewest the
Britons;"* and then to Aurelius, "Let thy men play with this
hound, shoot him with their arrows."* Layamon refers not infre-
quently to the Germanic custom of singing songs in anticipation or
celebration of a triumph, as in the exultant strains of Uther's men :
"Her is Vder Pendragun, icume to Verolames tun."* He intro-
duces the idea of gri^; * defines Vortiger's place with Constans as
that of steward ;* makes Ebissa Octa's " wed-brother " ;^ says that
Octa and his men surrendered to Aurelie naked, in order to empha-
size their humiliation ; * and, in describing one of the wonderful lakes
in Scotland,*^ invests it with that atmosphere of weird unearthliness
which marks, for instance, a famous passage in Bkowulf}^ Once Lay-
amon expresses incidentally a Saxon hatred for the Normans."
Like Wace, Layamon is often subjective and breaks out into
exclamations of personal feeling.^* The mediaeval priest in him
often becomes apparent. All who are not Christians are idolaters,
and worship Tervagant, Apollo, Mahun, and "the Worse," — all
devils of essentially the same nature.** With his heroes, he exults
in the thought that their fallen enemies are doomed to hell.** He
says that Arthur has his men spend the night in prayer for him
before his duel with Frolle.**
• There are certain kinds of detail in which Layamon pretty
regularly differs from Wace. The forms of his proper names are
commonly not the same. Sometimes this is merely due to his
nationality; sometimes he alters them on purpose. When he
knows the English form he generally substitutes it ; and he often
brings the spelling nearer the native Welsh (as Wenhaver for
1 V. 16,527. w Vv. 1357 fif.
« Cf. V. 21,623 (Cador to Childrich). " Vv. 7115-7116.
' V. 16,553. ** I^ V. 28,333, for example.
• V. 19,576; cf. also vv. 22,077, 22,701. i« Vv. 1 140, 5353, 5406, 13,909-13,911,
« V. 13,803. 13*948, i4»585» 16,790, 27,321.
• V. 13,067. 1* V. 19,562, and often.
7 Vv. 14,469* i4»505» 18,236. ^ Vv. 23,730-23,751.
8 V. 16,759.
• Vv. 21,739 £f. He peoples it with nickers and elves.
Digitized
by Google
1 58 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Genievre)} Occasionally he inserts an English geographical name.
In numbers, especially the numbers of men in armies, Layamon
does not feel at all bound to keep to his original: he generally
alters the numbers given by Wace,^ and often inserts a number
where Wace has none. In describing orders of battle, again, he
commonly follows his own invention ; * and he occasionally adds
such descriptions without any suggestion from Wace.* He is
equally free in his narratives of battles, as where he speaks of
streams of blood dyeing the grass,^ and the like.
Layamon is not infallible, and in one case, at least, he makes a
mistake which affects the substance of the story. Wace, following
Geoffrey, gives two forms of the name of Octa's relative — Ebissa
and Eossa, Layamon takes them for different persons, and often
introduces them together, — Octa, Ebissa, and "Osa."®
None of the alterations by Layamon which have so far been
mentioned appear to be derived from independent traditions. The
same is true of certain other additions which may seem at first
sight more significant. His occasional insertion of additional names
of foreign lands in the lists of kings {Rusie, for instance') was
easy enough for any independent paraphraser who knew a little
geography. It is in all probability from his own invention that
Layamon sometimes gives also the name of the king of such a
country, — as when among the vassals who came to Arthur's great
feast he includes ® Kinkailin of Frislonde, The same explanation
will account for the names which he assigns to characters pre-
viously nameless, as well as for some entirely new figures. Such
cases are the following names : — Cadal^ given to Constantin's
assassin ; ® Eliy to the reeve of Merlin's city ; ^^ Conaan^ to Merlin's
grandfather ;" Meleon^'^ to one of Modred's sons ; ^^ and Ridwa&elan^
1 This comes, of course, from his residence on the Welsh border.
2 For example, Layamon, v. 15,103; Wace, v. 7380; Layamon, v. 15,270;
Wace, vv. 7438-7439- ® Cf. p. 39 (and note i), above.
8 Vv. 16,362 ff., 27,248 ff., etc. ' 7 V. 13,323. 10 V. 15,597.
* V. 21,710, etc. 8 V. 24,383. 11 V. 15,678.
6 Vv. 16,411 ff. 9 V. 12,945.
^2 A character bearing the name Melion is the hero of one of the Old French
Lays. 18 Vv. 28,742, 28,753 5 ^f. p. 64, above.
Digitized
by Google
Lay anions Brut 159
substituted ^ for Hiresgas as the name of Bedver's nephew.^ New
personages are Maurin^ represented * as Arthur's relative and his
informant about Baldolf's plan ; Patrice, a rich Scottish thane, who
gives news of Childrich's arrival ; * Borel, one of the Saxon war-
riors;^ and Esscol^ (the son of Aelcus, as Layamon calls ^ Geof-
frey's Malverus of Iceland). In two instances it is with fine litei^-
ary effect that Layamon supplies a new role : — when to the Picts
who assassinated Constans he gives a leader and spokesman, whom
he calls Gille Callcet;^ and when in the story of Vortigern's tower
he introduces a chief magus, Joratn,^
Similarly without significance is Layamon's expansion of Wace's
statement that Guinevere was Cador's near cousin into the infor-
mation that her mother was of Cador's kin.^° So, doubtless, the
entirely new idea (so easy to infer) that Kaei was Arthur's rela-
tive.^^ Whether or not the idea, of assigning a definite length
(twenty-five years) to Vortiger's reign was original with Laya-
mon,^^ it is certainly of no importance. Most probably Layamon's
citations of prophecies of Merlin, which, except in one or two cases,
do not come from Wace, are based, whether directly or indirectly,
on Geoffrey's version.^*
The elimination of these minor details clears the way for the
discussion of certain matters which are organically more important.
There is a fundamental difference between Wace's general con-
ception of Arthur and his knights and that of Layamon, — a differ-
ence, again, dependent on the authors' nationality. For Layamon,
Arthur is in no sense a hero of romance, the centre of a knight-
errant court. He is a very real monarch, like the famous conquering
1 V. 27,593. « V. 22,495.
2 Cf. pp. 123-124, above. "^ V. 22,471.
* V. 20,241. 8 Vv. 13,564 ff.
* V. 20,354. ^ Vv. 15,521 ff.
* V. 21,233. Borel is the name of a Briton in vv. 26,862 and 27,004.
^0 Vv. 22,227 f^- ; Wace, v. 9888. Cf. p. 140, above.
^^ Vv. 25,710, 27,517. It is possible that the foster-brotherhood between Arthur
and Kay in Malory indicates an old Celtic story of relationship between them.
^2 Cf. p. 39, above; pp. 195, 217, 232, note i, 233, 251, 254, 258, below.
13 See Fletcher, Publ. Mod. Lang. Assoc.., 1903* XVIII, 93-94.
Digitized
by Google
i6o Arthurian Material in Chronicles
kings of history, although the greatest and most magnificent of
them all.^ It is doubtless for this reason that Layamon omits the
improbable and rather undignified narrative of Arthur's fight with
the giant Rito, merely alluding to the fact of such a contest.^ On
the other hand, he greatly emphasizes Arthur's power and glory
by dwelling on the tribute and the hostages that he receives from
the kings who suljmit to him.* Layamon felt no more compunction
than Geoffrey in representing Arthur as cruel to his foes ; as, for
instance, where * he expands the statement which Wace ^ had put
into the king's mouth, — that he would go and conquer Ireland, —
into a description of how he would waste it with fire and steel and
kill the people.^ An entirely new element, integral to Layamon's
conception, is that of Arthur's sternness to his own men. When
the council is called together to consider Lucius's message, the
nobles sit in great awe, and no one dares to speak, for fear the
king will punish it.'' When Arthur wishes his men to do anything,
he issues orders, which sometimes must be obeyed on pain of death.®
When he appears disturbed after his dream on the Channel, no one
dares ask him what the trouble is before he speaks himself ; ^ and
after he has told the dream, no one dares give it other than a good
interpretation lest he should lose his limbs. ^° The long delay of the
messenger in reporting the treason of Modred must be due chiefly
to fear.^^ The most conspicuous instance of Arthur's severity to his
own subjects is the barbarous punishment which he inflicts on the
whole kindred of the man who began a bloody brawl at one of his
feasts : the men are put to death and the women's noses are cut
off.^^ Likewise, according to Layamon, Arthur's valor is of a more
1 V. 22,979.
2 Wace, vv. 11,956-11,987; Layamon, vv. 26,121-26,122. Cf. p. 91, above.
8 For example, vv. 22,375-22,676. * Vv. 22,267 ff- ^ V. 9901.
* Cf. vv. 22,615 ff. Layamon does omit (v. 27,660) the single instance of notable
barbarity which Wace retained from Geoffrey, — namely the account of the muti-
lation of Boccus's body by Bedver's nephew (cf. p. 139, note i, above) ; but this
might easily seem to Layamon unworthy of a brave warrior, even though his sturdy
Saxon nature was not shocked by the conventional cruelties of a campaign.
^ Vv. 24,891 ff. 9 V. 25,559. " Vv. 27,992 ff.
8 Vv. 25,461, 26,013. ^^ V. 25,631. 12 Vv. 22,837 ff.
Digitized
by Google
Layamofis Brut i6i
absolute, though a more natural, kind. He never suggests, like
Geoffrey and Wace,^ that Arthur is afraid in a fight, and he repre-
sents him as the most formidable of all warriors, the only one
dreaded by the giant of Mont St. Michel ; ^ but he omits all men-
tion of Arthur's impossible exploits in the last battle with Lucius.*
Wace, like Geoffrey, says that Arthur tried to take the giant of
Mont St. Michel unawares, before he could get his club ; * but Lay-
amon says that Arthur woke him and gave him warning, lest he
should afterwards be upbraided.^ To Wace the giant was a mon-
ster outside the pale of chivalrous laws ; but Layamon will not
admit that his hero needed to take unfair advantage.
Layamon also changes the character of Arthur's reign completely.
Wace, in a well-known passage already quoted,® speaks of the mar-
vels and adventures performed during the peace which preceded
Arthur's expedition to Norway and France. Layamon says noth-
ing of marvels, and entirely rationalizes the passage. Arthur, he
says,'' lived in peace ; no man fought with him ; and greater pros-
perity cannot be imagined than that which he and his people
enjoyed. Layamon omits also the romantic element in the pic-
tures of Arthur's knights. He leaves out of Gawain's speech in
answer to Cador ® all the suggestion of romantic love which Wace
had put into it. Similarly, in paraphrasing the account of the cus-
toms of Arthur's court which Wace, following Geoffrey, inserts in
the description of the coronation feast, he speaks,® not of amies^
but of brides, as the reward of approved prowess. In two or three
places Layamon omits the names of knights who are more or less
celebrated in the Arthurian cycle.^° He alludes only incidentally
to the death of Aguisel " and does not mention Ywain, his succes-
sor ; ^* he leaves out Yder ; " and while he records the death, in the
1 Wace, V. 11,956; Layamon, vv. 26,025, 26,119. Cf. p. 232, below.
2 Vv. 26,075 ff- * V. 11,874. • Vv. 10,032 £f. ; see p. 100, above.
' Vv. 27,802 ff. 5 V. 26,033. "^ V. 22,723.
8 Vv. 24,955 ff- 5 cf- above, p. 139.
^ W., V. 10,791 ; L., V. 24,674. Cf. p. 205, below,
w Cf. p. 136, above, with note 5. ^^ V. 28,342.
12 Contrast below, pp. 199, 201, 207, 225; cf. 219.
w W., V. 12,336; L., V. 26,655.
Digitized
by Google
1 62 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
battle of the convoys, of the Borel insignificant in romance, he
omits the names of the other knights killed with him (Er, son
of Ider; Hiresgas, and Aliduc), merely referring to them as three
other highborn Britons.^
Layamon's Saxonizing of the story does not, of course, imply its
complete rationalization. To the picture of Arthur, especially,
Layamon has added certain characteristically Teutonic touches of
supernaturalism. As soon as Arthur was born, he says, elves
took him and enchanted him with powerful magic. They gave
him gifts, to be the best of all knights, to be a rich king, to live
long, and to be the most generous of all men.^ This naturally
reminds one of the coming of the Norns at the birth of Helgi.
Again Layamon says that elves dug one of the wonderful lakes in
Scotland.^ To Wace's statement that Arthur's sword Calibeorne
was made in Avalun,* Layamon adds that his burnie was the work
of Wygar, an elfish smith,^ and his spear of the smith Griffin and
made in Kairme[r]^in * (Merlin's city). The similarity of these
passages to what is told of the legendary Wayland is obvious.''
Besides mentioning Pridwen and Ron, Layamon gives a name,
Goswhity to Arthur's helm,^ whether he is here translating a British
name or borrowing from Teutonic saga.
Layamon has a thoroughly supernatural conception of Merlin ®
which is at least as romantic ^° as it is Saxon and more pronouncedly
so than Wace's. When Aurelius's messengers seek Merlin, he tells
them ^^ that on the preceding day he foreknew their coming, and
that against his will they could not have found him. When Uther
wishes to get Merlin's help in his affair with Ygerne, it is not merely,
as with Wace,^2 a question of summoning him. ^ No one knows
where Merlin is except a hermit, whom Ulfin has to find. Then the
hermit goes to a wilderness in the West, where he has long dwelt,
and where he often receives visits from Merlin. There he finds
1 W., V. 12,588; L., V. 27,008. 9 Cf. p. 139, above.
2 Vv. 19,254 ff. Cf. p. 195, note 4, below. 10 Cf. p. 140, above.
8 V. 21,998. 6 V. 23,783. 11 Vv. 17,051 ff.
* V. 21,137. 7 Cf. also p. 213, below.
6 V. 21,133. ^ V. 21,147. ^2 V. 8908.
Digitized
by Google
Layamons Brut 163
Merlin, who tells by his miraculous power everything about the
king's movements.^ The mention of Merlin's life in the forest is
altogether coincident with the idea in Geoffrey's Vita Merlini^ and
it is impossible not to suppose that Layamon was influenced by
Welsh tales about Merlin Silvestris.
There are other instances (some of them certain, others highly
probable) in which Layamon drew from traditional lore, Celtic in
origin and romantic in nature. This is probably true of his exalta-
tion of Gawain as the truest man on earth,^ and may be of his
observation * that Modred and Wenhaver became hateful in every
land, so that no one would offer a good prayer for their souls.* It
may be that in representing the giant on Mont St. Michel as having
fallen asleep, Layamon is thinking of some mythical tale of the
general type of that in Kulhwch and Olwen where Bedver and Kai
take Dillus Varvawc.^ Perhaps also his observation that some
books say that Karlium was bewitched points back to popular
stories (whether or not based on Geoffrey's*). The battle between
Arthur and Lucius, he says, was the third greatest that ever was
fought, as all the writings say that wise men made."' The mention
of writings and of the number three suggests a Welsh triad. This
impression is rather strengthened by the extravagant tone of the
remark immediately following, — that at length no warrior knew
where to strike, because of the quantity of blood, so that they
moved the armies to another place. But as there is no evidence
that the battle with Lucius was ever heard of before Geoffrey, no
ultimate source earlier than his History can be assumed. Laya-
mon 's statement that Arthur was called from Brittany to be made
king ^ implies (as nothing in Geoffrey or Wace does) that he was
brought up there. But probably Layamon is here merely following
the analogy of the cases of Constantine, Aurelius, and Uther ;
especially since he may well have wished to make good Wace's
1 Vv. 18,762 £f. « Cf. p. 1 14, above.
2 V. 25,487. "^ V. 27,481.
«V. 25,511. »V. 19,834.
* Cf. pp. 175, 197, 198, 201, 207, 210, 219, 229, 252, 270, below,
s Cf. p. 91 (with note i), above.
Digitized
by Google
164 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
omission in failing, like Geoffrey, to say anything of Arthur from
his birth to his accession.
Much the largest of all Layamon's additions is his account of
how the Round Table was initiated : ^ At a Yule-tide feast of
Arthur there were present seven kings' sons with seven hundred
knights ; and when the banquet was served, they began to quarrel
about precedence. From words they passed to blows, until finally
the son of Rumareth of Winetland, who was there as a hostage,
advised Arthur to take his native knights and arm. Meanwhile
he himself seized three knives and killed seven men, including the
knight who began the disturbance. At. this, bloodshed became
general till Arthur returned with his knights and quelled the
tumult, inflicting the punishment already referred to. After this,
according to Layamon, " it says in the tale " that the king went to
Cornwall. Here there came to him a carpenter, who stated that,
having heard of the fight, he had come from beyond the sea and
would make a table at which sixteen hundred men and more could
sit without one being higher than another, but which Arthur could
carry with him wherever he went. Timber was brought and the
man completed the work in four weeks.
The thoroughly Celtic character of this episode is evident, and
Dr. A. C. L. Brown has demonstrated that it must have had its
origin in an ancient Celtic tale.^ Very likely the story was not
connected with Arthur at first, but there is no reason to suppose
that it had not been associated with him long before Layamon.
Layamon localizes more definitely than either Geoffrey or Wace
the scene of Arthur's overthrow ; for while they merely said that it
was on the Tambre,' he specifies Camel ford as the particular spot.*
The most natural inference is that he is following a local tradition.
Still more important is the fact that points of unquestionable
contact in details with the Morte Arthur of the prose Lancelot
occur in Layamon's version of the last battle, especially with
regard to the disappearance of Arthur. When the conflict is over,
says Layamon,, Arthur has fifteen fearful wounds, into the least of
1 Vv. 22,737 £f. 2 studies and Notes, VII, 184 £f. « Cambula (Geoffrey,
xi, 2); Camblan, var. Tanbre, Tamble (Wace, v. 13,659). * V. 28,534.
Digitized
by Google
Layamofis Brut 165
which two gloves might have been thrust.^ Of all his two thousand
men, only two knights are left alive. Probably in consequence of
this last statement, Layamon represents Constantine, Arthur's suc-
cessor, as a boy who comes to him after the battle.^ Earlier in the
poem, in speaking of the " Bruttes' " belief in Arthur's return, Lay-
amon has remarked by anticipation that Arthur himself said when
he was wounded in Cornwall that he should go to Avalon to
Argante the courteous,* doubtless the Morgan te, queen of Avalon, of
Geoffrey's Vita Merlini; * that she would heal his wounds with herbs ;
and that when he should be well he would come again. Layamon
repeats the statement,^ putting it again into Arthur's mouth, and
adding to Argante the epithet "queen " and " elf." "And upon the
word,*' he continues, " there came from the sea a little boat, driven
with the waves, and two women in it, wondrously fair, who took
Arthur and put him quickly in the boat and departed. No man
born has ever been able to speak truthfully any more of Arthur,
though Merlin prophesied that he should return."*
The exact origin of the detailed story of Arthur's end, and the
precise relation which Layamon's version of it bears to those found
in the Prose Lancelot and cognate romances,'' we shall never know.
We can say only this : — Shortly after Geoffrey's History was pub-
lished (if not before) the story, sadly beautiful with the passionate,
hopeless aspiration of a conquered race, was widely current, with
constantly increasing variations, and Layamon drew his material
from one of its forms.
We may now sum up our examination of Layamon's Brut, It
is for the most part a paraphrase of Wace's Brut^ with possibly a
few insignificant touches from Geoffrey. But Layamon treated
his original with the greatest freedom. He doubled its bulk by
additions, mostly literary and original with himself. These rarely
1 V. 28,578. 2 V. 28,590. 8 V. 23,061.
* Cf. p. 167, below; L. A. Paton, Studies in the Fairy Mythology of Arthurian
Romance (Radcliffe Monographs), Boston, 1903, pp. 26 ff. ^ V. 28,610.
® Cf. pp. loi, above, 188, below.
7 Cf. Vita Merlini, ed. Michel and Wright, p. 37. See p. 146, above ; pp. 188,
230, below. See also Fletcher, Fubl. Mod. Lang. Assoc, 1903, XVIII, 84 ff.
Digitized
by Google
1 66 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
consist of entire episodes ; they are almost always details. In his
whole treatment he shows that he was a real poet of vivid imagina-
tion, and a thorough mediaeval Saxon. For the courtly French
tone of Wace's poem he substitutes the less elegant but more
sturdy Saxon tone. To this general atmosphere corresponds his
conception of Arthur and his warriors, from which is altogether
eliminated the romantic knight-errant idea of Wace. Yet Laya-
mon's Merlin is really more supernatural. than Wace's, and he shows
some other signs of slight influence from current romance or Welsh
stories, besides certainly taking from them his important accounts
of the institution of the Round Table and of Arthur's disappearance.
From the general stock of Teutonic saga he adds the connection of
Arthur and his arms with the elves.
Layamon's Saxon nationality, language, and conceptions pre-
vented his work from attaining to any contemporary fame. Unlike
. Wace's it exercised little if any influence on the development of the
Arthurian stories, whether in chronicle or in romance. But it is
beyond question one of the most admirable members, ancient or
modern, of the whole Arthurian cycle.
V. The Latin Metrical Versions of Geoffrey's History
The Latin metrical translations of Geoffrey's History are chiefly
important as evidence of its popularity. The best known of these
is the Gesta Regum Britanniae^ formerly ascribed to Gildas. The
author, who may have been a certain William of Rennes, wrote
about the middle of the thirteenth century, for Cadiocus, Bishop of
Vannes in Brittany,^ and was certainly a loyal Briton (whether Breton
or Welshman) with a very pronounced antipathy to the English.*
The poem has considerable literary merit. The author treats his
original with some freedom,* understands the value of direct discourse,
1 Edited by Michel for the Cambrian Archaeological Association, 1862 (see
Hardy, I, 177). 2 Vv. 16, 4923; see pp. viii ff.
* He sometimes speaks of the Britons as "our" side. See also vv. 4912 ff.,
4868-4884.
* See, for example, his expansion on Aurelius (vv. 2536 ff.) ; contrast Wace
(p. 137, note I, above).
Digitized
by Google
Latin Metrical Versions of Geoffrey 167
and shows real dramatic instinct. For example, he makes effective use
of the device of a reproachful personal address to one of his charac-
ters, — as to Vortigern on the occasion of his marriage with Rowen.^
He pictures strikingly the grief of the women and children as the
Roman warriors set out against Arthur,^ and gives an original
description of the battle with Modred by the river "Cambula."^
Like Layamon the author is influenced by versions of the story
more developed than that of Geoffrey.* He exalts Arthur to a
loftier position, above all other earthly heroes ; ^ Caliburn and Prid-
wen seem ^ to be more prominent in his mind than they were in
Qeoffrey's; he distinctly alludes to the belief that Arthur is not
dead.'' He follows romance ideas when he says ^ that it was accord-
ing to his custom that Arthur assumed the crown at his feast in
York,® and he mentions the mass as a regular part of the cere-
monies. He has also a thoroughly supernatural conception of
Merlin.^^ It is by magic songs that the bard makes the stones of the
Great Circle manageable ^^ and changes Uther's form.^^ Moreover,
when Arthur is getting the worst of it in his duel with FroUo,
Merlin inspires him with strength.^* The author's mention^* of the
antipodes in connection with Arthur seems to point to the Draco
Normannicus or something similar ; ^^ and he describes the earthly
paradise, the memorabilis insula^ to which Arthur passes, with its
regia virgo^ ^* in terms which correspond closely with the Vita Mer-
liniy^ Apparently, from an entirely non-Celtic tradition (one which
is best known, at any rate, in connection with Hercules) he adds ^^
the idea that for the begetting of Arthur it was necessary that his
father should remain with Ygerna three days and nights.^®
1 Vv. 2244 ff. Cf. p. 40, above. ^^ cf. p. 139, above.
2 Vv. 3561-3587. 8 Vv. 4188 ff. 11 Vv. 2746, 2772. 12 V. 2918.
* Cf. p. 137, above. ^ Vv. 2976 ff. ^^ V. 3339. Cf. p. 161, above.
« Vv. 3664-3665. " V. 4155. 16 Cf. p. 145, above.
■^ V. 4209. Cf. p. 1 01, above. i^ Vv. 4213-4234. ^^ Cf. p. 165, above.
8 Vv. 3249-3255. ® Cf. p. no, above. ^^ Vv. 2923 ff.
1® The author transfers the name of Brutus *s soothsayer (Geoffrey, i, 11) to
Arthur's (v. 3599; Geoffrey, x, 2). He calls Leo princeps (v. 3882; cf. p. 85,
above). He inserts (v. 3928) a mention of an historical comet which is recorded
in some of the Latin chronicles. Minor differences from Geoffrey occur in
vv. 3354 and 3376 ff.
Digitized
by Google
1 68 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
There is an anonymous unpublished Epitome Historiae Britannieae
from Brutus through the reign of Henry III, in Latin rhythmic
hexameter verses, arranged in couplets with feminine rhymes.^ It
follows Geoffrey as far as he goes, is very brief in the Arthurian
period, and nowhere makes any changes in Geoffrey's story.*
1 MSS. Harl. 1808, fols. 3itf-44a and Cott. Claud. D. viL 11, fols. Y^a-zoa,
Hardy, III, 197, No. 322.
2 There is a fragment of another twelfth-century rendering of Geoffrey into
Latin hexameters in MS. Cott. Vesp. A. x, fols. 45^52^5 (Hardy, I, 357, No. 836).
But although it enlarges on Geoffrey, the six hundred and fifty lines which
remain extend only to Ebraucus (bk. ii). MS. Harl. 1808, fols. 46^-55, contains
an insignificant series of extracts from various Latin authors about the city of
York (cf. p. 278, below), especially its ecclesiastical interests. The greater part
is in heroic verses, and includes an adaptation from Geoffrey on the restorations
of York by Aurelius and Arthur.
Digitized
by Google
CHAPTER VI
THE STORY AFTER GEOFFREY: THE LATIN PROSE
CHRONICLES OF THE TWELFTH, THIRTEENTH,
AND FOURTEENTH CENTURIES
The impulse toward the study and composition of chronicles
which began to manifest itself in England early in the twelfth cen-
tury was in full accord with the conditions which then prevailed in the
scholastic portion of society; and when it had once got under way,
it developed into one of the most important features in the literary
history of the epoch. Many of the monasteries adopted before long
the custom of collecting and preserving annals, and in course
of time no small number of these compilations were put into defi-
nite shape and regularly published. Some individual writers, also,
unconnected with monastic institutions, though in almost every
case holding an ecclesiastical position, engaged in the same work.
From the end of the twelfth century until well into the fourteenth,
the number of Latin chronicles was very large, and they continued
to be written after 1400.^ These chronicles differ very considerably
in character and in extent. Though almost all are arranged in the
same annalistic form, some consist of a brief series of bare entries,
while others narrate events in much detail and are of great bulk.
Some make no pretence to originali4y, but merely copy from pre-
vious authorities ; others are the productions of real historians,
capable of weighing evidence and pronouncing shrewd judgments.
By the nature or limitation of their contents, some of these works
have nothing to say of the Arthurian story, either because they
treat only of a particular monastery, or because they begin with the
Saxon kingdoms. Most of them, however, aim to trace either the
1 For the more important of these chronicles reference may be made to
Morley*s English Writers^ Vols. Ill £f., and for mention of more to Gross's
Sources and Literature of English History y London, 1900.
169
Digitized
by Google
170 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
history of the world from the Creation, or the history of England
from the earliest times (one or two from the beginning of the
Arthurian period) down to the date at which they were composed ;
and of these there are few that do not include something, at least
a sentence or two, relating to the Arthurian tradition. As a rule^
they take their Arthurian material, and often their whole account
of the Arthurian period, directly or indirectly, from Geoffrey.
Those which have nothing to say of the Arthurian period (or draw
what they say wholly from the Saxon, non-Arthurian account of it)
must here be left out of account. The others may be roughly
divided into the following classes : ^
1. Those which have only a few (sometimes but one or two)
brief or comparatively brief entries relating to the Arthurian
material, inserted at what the author takes to be the proper chrono-
logical point, in the midst of his other notices, or brought in inci-
dentally. Because of the very general character of these entries, it
is not always evident whether the authors are drawing direct from
Geoffrey or not ; but what they say is almost invariably in harmony
with his account except for dates. This, the most numerous class,
is represented by Ralph de Diceto.
2. Those which, while they break up the stofy and combine it
with other material, include most of its essential substance as
related by Geoffrey either :
a. In summary (represented by Sigebert of Gembloux, as inter-
polated by the monk of Ursicampum) ;
b. For the most part in rather full detail. (This is a small class.
It is represented by the various versions of the Flores Ilistoriarum,
which, indeed, greatly condense and alter Geoffrey in the last part
of the story, and to a less extent throughout.)
3. Those which take from Geoffrey everything (or almost every-
thing) that they say about the whole period covered by his History^ —
a. Giving a summary, long or short, of his narrative (a numer-
ous class, represented by the Memoriale of Walter of Coventry) ;
^ This classification (at best only approximately exact) relates merely to the
treatment of. the Arthurian material. On almost any other basis a very different
classification would have to be made.
Digitized
by Google
Latin Prose Chronicles 171
b. Copying Geoffrey's narrative almost or quite verbatim (repre-
sented by Bartholomew de Cotton).
4. Those which draw from Geoffrey in much the same way as
Class 3a, but make use also of other sources of comparison, sub-
stantiation, slight additions, or altogether new material. (A rather
numerous class, represented by Alfred of Beverley.)
It should be distinctly stated that some writers in almost all
these classes occasionally depart from Geoffrey, at least in slight
details. We shall also meet with instances of omission and expan-
sion, and even with some noteworthy additions.
For convenience, a list is here given of the chronicles which con-
cern us in the present study, with an indication of the group to
which each belongs according to the classification above.^ When
a chronicle can be dismissed with a brief note, such a note is
appended. In other cases a reference is given to the page of this
volume at which further treatment will be found.
Ca. 1 1 3 5 . Ordericus Vitalis (monk of St. Evroult in Normandy), Historia
Ecclesiastica. Class i . Ed. Le Prdvost, 1838-55. Bk. xii, chap. 47 (IV, 486).
An excerpt from the story of Vortigern's tower and the prophecies, taken
probably from Geoffrey's earlier independent edition of the prophecies.^
Ca. 1 1 50. Alfred of Beverley (treasurer of St. John's Church), Annates
sive Historia. Class 4. Ed. Hearne, Oxford, 1716 (see Ward, I, 211).
Alfred distrusts Geoffrey, prefers when he can to follow the authority of
Bede and Gildas, and abandons Geoffrey altogether at the invasion of Gor-
mund (Geoffrey, xi, 10). He often pauses (as at p. 'jd) to discuss the credi-
bility of the account, and he omits things which, to use his own words (p. 2),
exceed belief, — especially, the fight of the dragons, most of the prophecies,
and the account of Arthur's coronation feast. See p. 183, below.
1 162. Richardus Cluniacensis, in the second and third redactions of
his Latin universal Chronic te^ includes the prophecies of Merlin, which he
had omitted in his first redaction. The first redaction ends with 1 1 53, the
second with 1162, the third with 1171. A fourth redaction, extending to
1 1 74, is thought not to be Richard's own. See E. Berger, Richard le
Poitevin, Paris, 1879, PP- S^j ^o {Bibl. des Ecoles franq. d'Athlnes et de
1 The list includes also the few continental chroniclers who mention the
Arthurian story.
2 See Fletcher, Publ. Mod. Lang. Assoc, 1901, XVI, 465-468.
Digitized
by Google
172 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Rome, VI). Portions of Richard's Chronicle, not including the portion
in question, may be found in Mart^ne et Durand, Amplissima Collectio,
V, 1 159 ff. ; Muratori, Antiquitates Italicae, IV, 1080 ff. ; Bouquet, Recueil,
VII, 258-259; IX, 22-24; X, 263-264; XI, 285-286; XII, 411-417.
Ca, 1 175 (between 11 55 and 1200). The interpolated version of Sige-
bert of Gembloux's Chronicon of about 11 11, made by a monk of Ursi-
campum. Class 2a. Ed. Gul. Parvus, Paris, 1513.^ The genuine work of
Sigebert, which naturally contains no Arthurian material, was soon and
frequently altered and continued. The monk of Ursicampum used a text
which had already been slightly interpolated (between 1138 and 1147) by
a monk of Beauvais. His form became the standard, and hence ** Sige-
bert " is sometimes quoted by later chroniclers as an authority for the
Arthurian tradition. See L. C. Bethmann's edition in Pertz, Mon, Germ.
Hist,, Scriptores, VI, 282, and especially 292, 461-3, 469-70. Cf. pp. 179,
182, 183 (note 11), 185, below.
Ca, 1 1 75 (between 11 60 and 1200). Ralph Niger. Chronica, Class
I. Ed. Robert Anstruther, Caxton Soc, 185 1.^ In the second Chronicon,
p. 137, in an addition perhaps by a later hand : — a mere reference to the
Historia Britonum and Merlin's transportation of the Stones.
Ca. 1 187. Chronicle of the Abbey of Coggeshall, arranged by Abbot
Ralph. Class I. Ed. Joseph Stevenson (Rolls Series), 1875, p. 146. See
pp. 189 (note 3), 190, below.
Ca. 1 190. Ralph de Diceto (Dean of St. Paul's), Opera Historica,
especially Abbreviationes Chronicorum. Class i . Ed. Stubbs (Rolls Series),
2 vols., 1876. Also, Opuscula (Class 3a), II, 222-31. Cf. pp. 184, 187,
below.
Ca. 1 192. Gesta Regis Henrici II, which goes under the name of Bene-
dict, Abbot of Peterborough. Class i. Ed. Stubbs (Rolls Series), 1867,
II, 159. Cf. p. 192, below.
Ca. 1 1 87-1 220. Giraldus Cambrensis, Archdeacon of Brecknock, courtier,
and man of affairs. Class i. Works (Rolls Series), 8 vols., 1861-91 (I-
IV, ed. by J. S. Brewer; V-VII, by J. F. Dimock; VIII, by G. F.
Warner). See pp. 92-93, above ; pp. 180-181, 185, 189-190, below.
Ca. 1 195. Roger of Hoveden (courtier of Henry II), Chronica, Class
I. Ed. Stubbs (Rolls Series), I, 64. Cf. pp. 186, 192, note 2, below.
Ca. 1 195. A monk of Winchester, perhaps Richard of Devizes, Chron-
icle in MS. Corpus Christi, Cambridge, 339, partly embodied in Annates
de Wintonia oi ca. 1295, ed. Luard in Annates Monastici (Rolls Series),
1 See sig. c iii to fol. 27b. 2 See £>ici. Nat. Biog., XLI, 63-64.
Digiti
zed by Google ^
Latin Prose Chronicles 173
II (1865). Class I. See pp. xiff. ; also Diet. Nat. Biog., XLVIII, 197;
Stevenson, Chronicon Ric. DivisiensiSy 1838, Preface; Wright, Biog,
Brit. Lit., Anglo-Norman Period, pp. 360-2. Cf. pp. 183, 185, below.
Ca. 1200. Gervase of Canterbury (monk), Gesta Regum Britanniae.
Classes 4 and i. Ed. Stubbs (Rolls Series), 2 vols., 1879-80. See II, 106.
Ca. 1205. The same, Actus Pontificum, Class i. See II, 334.
The same, Mappa Mundi. Class i. See II, 414. See p. 191, note 2,
below.
Ca. \2oo, Plores Historiarum, complied Sit St, Albsins. Class 2b. Ed.
Luard, Matthaei Parisiensis Chronica Majora (Rolls Series), I (1872).
This edition reproduces Matthew Paris's form (ca. 1253), indicating also
the readings of the almost identical older form. Practically identical (except
as noted below) for the Arthurian period is the Flores Historiarum (the
"Matthew of Westminster" version), ed. Luard (Rolls Series), 1890.
For discussions of the complicated questions of the composition of this
work, see Matth. Par., Historia Anglorum, ed. Madden (Rolls Series),
1866-69, ^» xii ; m> xiii ff.; Hardy, III, xxxvi-lxxxv, 79-82, 11 4-1 16, 317-
326, 399-445 ; Matth. Par., Chron, Maj., ed. Luard, I, xxx-lxxxiv, espe-
cially xxxiii ; The Flowers of History, by Roger de Wendover {ca, 1 236),
ed. H. G. Hewlett, 1886-89, III, Introduction ; Flores Histi, ed. Luard,
I, x-xi ; Coxe, Roger de Wendover, Chronica, etc., 1841-44, I, Preface;
Mon. Hist. Brit., ed. Petrie and Sharpe, 1848, General Introd., p. 7 ; Diet.
Nat. Biog., under the names ; English Writers, III, 340-1, 346. Cf. pp. 183,
184, 185, 187, 189, 191 (note 2), below.
Ca. 121 o. Annates Prior atus de Dunstaplia, compiled by Prior Richard
de Morins. Class i. Ed. Luard, Annates Monastici (Rolls Series), III
(1866). Draws from Diceto ; see 392, 523, 535 (Diceto, 393, 523, 542).
Ca. 121 1. Gervase of Tilbury (courtier of the Emperor Otto IV,
though English by birth), Otia Imperialia (in strictness not to be called a
chronicle). Classes i and 3a. Ed. (incompletely) by Leibnitz, Scriptores
Rerum Brunsvicensium, Hanover, 1707: I, 916-17, 921, 931-8. Also in
Stevenson, Radulphus de Coggeshall, etc., pp. 419-441 ; see pp. xxiii-v..
Selections, ed. Liebrecht, 1856. In the summary of Geoffrey, Gervase
often inserts observations of his own about contemporary conditions or
similar matters. See pp. 186-187, 188-189, below.
Ca. 1235. Annals of Margan. Class i. Ed. Q2Xe,Hist. Angl. Script.,
II, 1-19, especially lo-ii. See p. 191, below.
Ca. 1250. Albericus Trium Fontium. Qassi. Ed. P. Scheffer-Boichorst,
in VexXz, Mon. Hist. Germ., Scriptores, XXIII, 674-950 : see p. 669. See
p. 191, below.
Digitized
by Google
1 74 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Ca. 1256. Vincent of Beauvais (courtier of Louis IX), Speculum His-
toriale (part of his immense Speculum Majus). Class 2a, as regards Mer-
lin, Ambrosius, Uther, and Arthur ; merely copying the Arthurian entries
from the version of Sigebert interpolated by the monk of Ursicampum. Ed.
1474 ; also Venice, 1494 (the edition here referred to). Bk. xvi, chaps. 5,
6; XX, 30, 55, 56; xxi, 74, covering Geoffrey vi, 17; xi, 2. See John
Ferguson, Account of a Copy of Speculum Majus ^ Glasgow, 1885, espe-
cially notes, pp. 1-6 ; Daunou, Hist. Litt, de la France^ XVIII, 449-
519.
Ca, 1258 (?). Thomas Albus, Chronicon (MS. Harl. 3723). Class i.
See fol. 45. Cf. Hardy, III, 149, No. 253.
Ca, 1270. Henricus de Silegrave (perhaps Abbot of Ramsay), Chroni-
con. Class I, with comparison of William of Malmesbury. Ed. C. Hook,
Caxton Soc, 1849; seep. 11.
Ca. 1275. Martinus Polonus, Bishop of Gnesen, Cronica Summorum
Pontificum Imperatorumque^ etc. Class i. Ed. Taurini, 1477. A single
entry under Emperor Leo, fol. 32b : " Per hec tempora fuerunt viri famosi
milites tabule rotunde ut dicitur." Cf. p. 142, above.
Ca. 1290. Adam de Domerham. Historia de Rebus gestis Glastoniensi-
bus. Class I. Ed. Hearne, 2 vols., 1727. See p. 191, note 4, below.
Ca, 1290 (?). Peter Ickham (?), Chronicon de Regibus Angliae, Class
3a. See Diet, Nat. Biog,, XXVIII, 411, and Hardy, III, 271-2, No. 488,
with notes. Makes a littie use also of William of Malmesbury. Also, in
the Saxon part of the story, inserts from Geoffrey a brief outline of Hen-
gist's career. Cf. pp. 183, 185, 187, 188, below.
Ca, 1 29 1. Annals of Waver ley. Class i. Ed. Luard (Rolls Series),
Annates Monastici, II, 129 ff. (see II, xxix ff.). Entries under the years
543, 1278, 1283. See pp. 191, note 4, 192, note 3, below.
Ca, 1292. [" Martinus "] Minorita, a monk of Suabia, Flores Temporum,
Class I. Edited in Eccard, Corpus Hist. Medii Aevi, 1723. Ann. 458,
col. 1590.
Ca, 1293. Chronica ascribed to John of Oxnead. Class i. Edited by
Sir Henry Ellis (Rolls Series), 1859 5 see p. 2.
Ca. 1293. Brother Walter of Coventry, Memoriale, Class 3a. Ed.
Stubbs (Rolls Series), 1872-3; see I, Preface, especially pp. xix-xx. See
pp. 183, 187, 192, note 2, below.
Ca, 1298. Bartholomew de Cotton, monk of Norwich, Historia Angli-
cana. Class 3b. Ed. Luard (Rolls Series), 1859. Luard does not include
the part dealing with the Arthurian period, but his statements (pp. xix,
Digitized
by Google
Latin Prose Chronicles 1 7 5
xxvi-vii) indicate that it does not deviate from GeofiErey. See also ann.
1294, p. 239.
Ca. 1298. Chronicle of MS. Cott. Cleop. A. i. i, fols. 3-207. Class 4.
Hardy, III, 258, No. 466. Gives Geoffrey's story very fully, sometimes
almost verbatim^ but sometimes substitutes and sometimes draws from
Henry of Huntingdon (for example, the account of Arthur's last battle : cf .
p. 120, above), Bede, Gildas, Nennius, and even Paulus Diaconus (who
used Bede). See pp. 183, 186, note 5, below.
Ca. 1306. Johannes Beverus, monk of Westminster, Chronica (MSS.
Harl. 641, no. 4, fols. 8a ff., and Cott Titus D. xii., fols. 3 ff.). Class 3a.
Hardy, III, 281, No. 507 ; II, 473, No. 621 ; I, 359, No. 842. The author
sometimes employs his own judgment in making trivial additions, and he
sometimes inserts Latin verses, especially on the faithlessness of women,
apropos of Guenuara (Titus D. xii., fol. 21b). Cf. p. 163, above.
Ca. 1307. William Rishanger, Annales Regum Angliae (fragmentary).
Class I . See ann. 449, 516. Edited (together with the form of the Chronica
Monasterii S. Albani ascnbed to Rishanger, which also is of Class i ;
see p. 107) by H. T. Riley (Rolls Series), 1865 ; see pp. xxv, xxxiv. Cf.
pp. 182, 191, note 2, 192, note 4, below.
Ca, 1308 (originally). Annales of the Priory of Worcester. Class i.
Ed. Luard, Annales Monasticij IV, 353 ff. (see pp. xxxv ff.). Consult ann.
468, 1 216, 1285. See p. 192, note 3, below.
Ca, 13 14. Chronicon Monasterii de Hales (MS. Cott. Cleop. D. iii.,
fols. 1-56). Class 4. Hardy, III, 352, No. 580. Cf. pp. 182, 185, note 8,
187, note 8, 191, note 2, below.
Ca. 1352. Ralph Higden (monk of the Benedictine Abbey of St
Werburg's at Chester), Poly chronicon. Class 4, chiefly. Edited (with
Trevisa's English translation of 1387) in the Rolls Series, 1865-86 (I, II,
by C. Babington, III-IX, by J. R. Lumby). Cf. pp. 1 81-182, 185-186,
191, note 2, below.
14th or 15th century (?). John Brompton (?), Chronicon. Class i, but
drawing wholly from Higden. Ed. Twysden, Scriptores Xy 1652, I, cols.
1 1 53, 1 195. See Diet. Nat. Biog.^ VI, 405 ; Oxo^&y Sources and Literature
of English History ^ p. 270, No. 1727.
Ca. 1350. Johannes Historiographus, Chronicon. Class i. Ed. J. P.
de Ludewig, Reliquiae Manuscriptorum omnis Aevi, Halae Salicae, 1741,
vol. XII ; see chap. 38, p. 134.
Ca. 1350 (?). Canon of Lanercost in Northumberland, Larga Angliae
Historia (MS. Cott Claud. D. vii., no. 14). Class 4, making some
Digitized
by Google
176 Arthurian Material in Chronicler
use of William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon. Cf. pp. 180,
183, note 3, below.
Ca. 1350 (?). Nicolaus Gloucestriae, Chronicon^ MS. Cott Calig. A.
iii., fols. 1 2-1 45b. Class 3b. Hardy, I, 512, No. 838. Cf. pp. 180, 189,
note 5, below.
Ca, 1350. Entries, of uncertain authorship, in MSS. of Robert of Aves-
bury, Historiae Edwardi III, Class i. Ed. Heame, 1720; see p. 259.
Cf. p. 189, below.
Ca. 1366. Thomas, monk at Malmesbury (?), Eulogium Historiarum,
Classes 3a and 3b. Ed. F. S. Haydon (Rolls Series), 1858-63 ; see book v.
Up to the beginning of the story of Vortigern's tower it follows substantially
the version of the French Brut (cf. pp. 187, 191, note 2, below). The same
author's Chronicon brevius is of Class i.
Ca, 1395. Thomas Sprott, monk of St. Augustine's, Canterbury. Ed.
Hearne, Oxford, 17 19. The first, or annalistic, part is of Class i ; see ann.
469, 488, 1 195. The second part is of Class 3a, but omits much of the
important sections of the story. Cf. pp. 183, note 8, 187, 191, note 2,
below.
Ca, 1400. Henry Knighton, Chronicon, Class i, but drawing from
Higden. Ed. Lumby (Rolls Series), 2 vols., 1889-95 ; see I, 149-50, 314.
See p. 191, note 2, below.
Ca. 1400. Richard of Cirencester, Speculum Historiale de Gestis Regum
Angliae, Class 4, but drawing chiefly from " Matthew of Westminster."
Ed. J. E. B. Mayor (Rolls Series), 2 vols., 1863-9; see Preface^ II, viiiflE.
Cf. pp. 179, note 3, 183, 184, below.
Ca. 1400. Thomas Otterboume (?), Chronica Regum Angliae. Class
3a, but using also Higden to a slight extent. Ed. Hearne, Duo Rerum
Anglicarum Scrip tores ^ Oxford, 1732 ; see Diet. Nat, Biog.^ XLII, 341.
Ca, 1400 Q). Chronicon de Origine et Rebus Gestis Britanniae et
Angliae (MS. Coll. Magdalen, Oxford, No. 72). Class. 4, drawing largely
from Higden. Hardy, II, 472, No. 620. Cf. p. 187, below.
Ca. 1 4 14. Thomas of Elmham, monk and treasurer of the monastery (?),
Historia Monasterii S. Augustini Cantuariensis. Class i. Ed. Hardwick
(Rolls Series), 1858 ; see pp. xix-xxiv. Consult ann. 1288, sec. 81, p. 265.
See p. 191, note 4, below.
Ca. 1420. Thomas Walsingham, monk, Historia Anglicana, ed. H. T.
Riley (Rolls Series), 1863-64. Class i. Copying Rishanger. Also
Ypodigma Neustriae^ in Camden's Anglica^ etc., 1603, p. 492; ed. Riley
(Rolls Series), 1876, pp. 176, 220-221.
Digitized
by Google
Latin Prose Chronicles 177
Ca, 1460. Thomas Rudborne (monk of St. Swithun's, Winchester), His-
toria Major Wintonensis. Class i . Ed. Wharton, Anglia Sacra^ I» 1 87 ; see
book ii, chap, i ; cf. DicL Nat. Biog., XLIX, 378. See p. 1 85, note 9, below.^
1 The following is a list, arranged in classes, of the less important (generally
anonymous and altogether unimportant) unpubUshed chronicles which I have
consulted : —
Class I
Cotton MSS. : Jul A. L, no. i, fols. 2-42 (Hardy, III, 167, No. 287 ; III, 363,
No. 599) : see fol. 20a. — Jul. A. xi., fol. 23 (Hardy, III, 41, No. 67). — Cleop. D.
ix., no. 3, fol. 35. — Galba E. iii., fols. 2-3ib (Hardy, II, 533, No. 698) : see fol. 2,
ann. 524. — Vesp. B. xi., no. 4, fols. 72a-79a, Chronica S. Martini de Dover
(Hardy, II, 263, No. 362). This does not contain the brief mention of Arthur
which Leland {Collectanea^ Heame, 2d ed.. Ill, 50) says that he took "ex chronico
Dovarensis monasteriL" — Dom. A. i., no. 10, fols. 138-15$ (Hardy, III, 226, No.
397) : see fol. 139b 2.
Brit. Mus. Bibl. Reg. MS. 13 D. i. (Hardy, III, 25, No. 33) ; see ann. 454.
Harl. MSS. — 1808, no. i, fols. i-8a (Hardy, II, 148, No. 213) ; also fols. loa-
17b, 98-105. — 37,251 : see fol. 6b. — 7571, no. i : see fol. 12b.
Class 2b
MS. Bodl. Rawl. B. 177, no. i.
Class ja
Cotton MSS. — Tib. A. ix., fols. 42-51. — Nero A. iv., no. i. — Nero A. viii.,
no. 3. — Nero A. ix., fols. 25-73. — Faust. B. vL, fols. 38b-4ob (Hardy, I, 575,
No. 1 161 ; see Ward, I, 374). — Vesp. E. iv., no. 5, fols. I04-I07b (Hardy, I, 560,
No. 1 1 38).
Harl. MSS. — 902, fols. 14-46. — 1808, fols. 59-65 (Hardy, II, 264, No. 365). —
3860, no. I (Hardy, III, 196, No. 321). — 5418, fols. 1-77 (Hardy, II, 495, No. 647) :
see fols. I ff. Fols. 1 7 £f . are of class 2a.
Bodl. MS. 355, no. 3, fols. 32b ff. ; but see fol. 45b.
Bodl. Rawl. MSS. — B. 150, no. 4, fols. 8 ff. (Hardy, III, 164, No. 281). Seems
to resemble the chronicle of Johannes Beverus, and has Latin verses at intervals,
some of them, at least, the same as his. — B. 167, no. i (Hardy, II, 38, No. 51).
Class j3
Cott. MS. Dom. A. iv., no. 2, fols. 58--241.
Class 4
Cotton MSS. — Jul. D. iv., fols. 2-124 (Hardy, III, 387, No. 649). — Claud. D.
vii., no. II, fols. 9a-i3b. — Titus D. iv., fols. 15-75 (Hardy, I, 674, No. 1275).
A late composite account, making use of several chroniclers. — Dom. A. iv.,
no. I, fols. 2-56.
Brit. Mus. Bibl. Reg. MS. 13. C. i., fols. 147-152.
Digitized
by Google
178 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
In discussing more at large the works thus briefly catalogued, we
may begin with the attitude of the chroniclers toward Geoffrey's
Manuscripts not belonging to the above classes: Harl. 6148, no. 18, fols. 67b-
68a. Statements about Arthur from William of Malmesbury and others. — Harl.
7571, no. 2, fols. 85-89. A history of King Arthur, consisting of quotations
from Gildas and Geoffrey, with interpolations.
My investigations have shown that the following do not contain Arthurian
material : —
Cotton MSS. — Jul. A. i., no. i (Hardy, III, 167, No. 287); also fols. 44-50
(Hardy, HI, 293, No. 526). — Jul. D. ii., fols. 3-20 (Hardy, III, 74, No. 142). —
Jul. D. v., no. 2 (see Hardy, III, 351, No. 576). — Jul. D. vii., fol. 61 (Hardy, II, 84,
No. 121). — Cleop. D. ix., no. i, fols. 1-21 (Hardy, III, 233, No. 414). — Tiber.
E. i., fols. 2i7-2i8b (Hardy, I, 84, No. 265). — Claud. C. ix., no. i, fols. i-i4b
{Hardy, II, 397, No. 538). — Claud. D. vii., nos. 2 and 13, fols. 2ob-2ib. — Nero
A. iv., fols. 77-11 1 (Hardy, III, 199, No. 331). — Nero A. vi. — Nero A. viii., fols.
1-37 (Hardy, II, 280, No. 376). — Nero C. vii., fol. 215 (Hardy, II, 213, No. 295).
— Vesp. A. xxii. — Vesp. D. iv., fol. 126 (Hardy, I, 667, No. 1265). — Vesp. D.
xiii., fols. i-58b (Hardy, II, 199, No. 271). — Vesp. D. xix., no. 6, fol. 53 (Hardy, III,
57, No. no). — Vesp. E. iv., no. 8, fol. I39a-i4ib. — Domit. A. ii., fols. 130-143
(Hardy, III, 293, No. 527). — Domit. A. xv., fols. 1-7 (Hardy, II, 189, No. 252).
Harl. MSS. — 64, fol. 123. — 902, fols. 48-68 (Hardy, I, 674, No. 1273).
Brit. Mus. Bibl. Reg. MSS.— 4, B. vii., fols. 200-218 (Hardy, II, 448, No. 592).
— Bibl. du Roi, 4932, no. 2, fols. 24 £f. (Hardy, III, 217, No. 375). — 4936, no. i
(Hardy, III, 102, No. 199). — 6041. A, no. 2 (Hardy, II, 528, No. 687, and III,
124, No. 222).
Sloane MS. 289, no. i (Hardy, III, 61, No. 115).
Bodl. Rawl. MS. B. 177, fols. 192 ff. (Hardy, III, 277, No. 497).
Coll. Magd. Oxon. MS. 53, no. 10 (Hardy, III, 221, No. 385).
I have not consulted the following MSS. Perhaps of some importance are : —
Marquis of Bath's MS., mentioned by Furnivall in his ed. of Arthur, etc.,
E.E.T.S., No. 2. — Marquis of Salisbury's MS., Hatfield House, B. d. 15 (Hardy,
II, 167, No. 224). Probably of little or no importance are: — Cotton MSS.:
Galba A. vii. 4, fols. 47-87 (Hardy, II, 64, No. 88); Faust. A. viii., fols. 1 19-21 2
(Hardy, III, 84, No. 157); Vitell. A. viii., fols. Ii3-i32b (Hardy, II, 286, No. 389);
Vitell. A. X., fols. 1-17 (Hardy, III, 382, No. 643); Vitell. A. xvii., fols. 1-16
(Hardy, II, 397, No. 539); Vitell. C. viii., fols. 1-17- (Hardy, II, 88, No. 124);
Vitell. E. xvii., no. 4, fol. 189 (Hardy, III, 282, No. 508) ; Titus A. xiii., no. i.—
Titus D. xix., fols. 105-108 (Hardy, I, 623, No. 1225). — Harl. MS. 3775 (Hardy,
III, 17, No. 19). — Arund. MSS.: 310, fol. 188 (Hardy, III, 200, No. 333); 326,
fols. 10-22 (Hardy, III, 62, No. 118). — Sloane MS. 289, fols. 110-134 (Hardy, II,
474, No. 622). — Addit. MS. Bodl. II. D. 11 (Hardy, III, 150, No. 257). — Brit.
Mus. Bibl. du Roi MSS. : 4861, no. 8 (Hardy, III, 223, No. 392) ; 4893 (Hardy,
Digitized
by Google
Latin Prose Chronicles 179
narrative. We have seen that Henry of Huntingdon accepted it
almost without question, at least to the extent of copying it in
abstract, and that Alfred of Beverley, more judicially minded in a
timid way, regarded it as in great part true but as much exagger-
ated and needing to be checked by other authorities. By the year
1200, practically the whole substance of Geoffrey's story, in out-
line, had been adopted by one or two important writers ; and from
that time until the Latin chronicles ceased to be composed, it was
generally accepted as a basis for British history to the end of the
Arthurian period. Yet it was seldom accepted without reserve.
Even the monk of Ursicampum three times remarks that the
Historia Britonum does not agree with other authorities and is
perhaps not to be credited.^ The earlier compilers for the most
part limited themselves* to taking from it a fiew brief notices. The
same is true of a considerable number of chroniclers to the end.
And even those who follow Geoffrey closely* often omit his most
romantic and obviously fabulous episodes and many of his minute
details. Sometimes a chronicler who makes much use of Geoffrey
rejects his account of the coming of the Saxons in favor of that of
II, 402, No. 54$) ; 4934, no. i (Hardy, II, 282, No. 381) ; 4938 (Hardy, III, 161,
No. 272). — College of Arms, London, MSS.: X, fols. 39-114 (Hardy, III, 344,
No. 567); Norfolk liii (Hardy, I, 555, No. 1129). — Lambeth MSS.: 371, no. 18
(Hardy, III, 43, No. 73); 527, fols. 1-43 (Hardy, III, 197, No. 324) ; 371, no. 16,
fol. 32b (Hardy, III, 201, No. 337). — Pub. Record Office, London, MS. Liber S.
August. Cant. (Hardy, III, 383, No. 644). — Univ. of Cambridge MSS.: I. i. 6. 24
(Hardy, III, 145, No. 243); LI. 2. 14 (Hardy, III, 263, No. 471). — Corp. Christ.
Coll. Cant. MSS.: 59. 14 (Hardy, III, 46, 291, Nos. 85, 520); 138 (Hardy, III, 145,
No. 246); 194 (Hardy, III, 165, No. 282); 301, 7 (Hardy, III, 361, No. 596); 369,
3 (Hardy, III, 43, No. 75); 427, 3 (Hardy, III, 161, No. 273); 438, 4 (Hardy, III,
360, No. 595) ; 469, 4 (Hardy, I, 500, No. 1062). — Trin. Coll. Cant. MS. R. 14. 9. i
(Hardy, III, 25, No. 34). — Coll. Emman. Cant. MS. serie 2a. 16 (Hardy, III, 207,
No. 349).— -Trin. Coll. Oxon. MS. X, fols. 1-182 (Hardy, III, 198, No. 326, and
III, 283, No. 509); Coll. Jesu Oxon. 11 1. 10 (Red Book of Hergest), col. 516
(Hardy, III, 366, No. 605). — Other chronicles mentioned by Hardy : I, 360, No.
844; I, 585; III, I49» No. 254; III, 312, No. 555; III, 291, No. 518.
1 Ann. 470, fol. 1 8a; ann. 491, fol. 21b ; ann. 542, fols. 27b-28a.
2 This, however, is often a necessary result of their plan and method.
* For example, Richard of Cirencester, though he happens to draw from
"Matthew of Westminster" instead of directly from Geoffrey.
Digitized
by Google
i8o Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Bede. Sometimes the narrative of Arthur's reign is abbreviated, —
particularly toward the end,^ or (as in the Chronicon of Nicholas of
Gloucester*) in the story of the last battle. Sometimes one of the
chroniclers even speaks contemptuously of Geoffrey with reference
to these sections, as is the case with the Canon of Lanercost.'
Moreover, even from the first, there were some writers who formed
a still juster estimate of the real character of Geoffrey's narrative.
Mention has already been made of the vehement denunciation of
Geoffrey by William of Newburgh, who seems to hit the truth very
nearly when he accuses him of inventing his history on the basis
of ancient fables. Another outspoken opponent was Giraldus Cam-
brensis. Once or twice he mentions the Historia^ coupling it with
Geoffrey's name, as a thing of naught* One of these cases is famous.
Giraldus says that a certain Meilerius, of the region of Urbs Legi-
onum, being possessed by devils, was by them endowed with the
capacity of discovering any falsehood with which he was brought
into contact. When the Gospel of John was laid on his lap, the
devils vanished ; but when Geoffrey's History was substituted, they
returned in greater numbers than ever.^ In other places * Giraldus,
in referring to statements of his adversaries that the claim of
St. David's is among the fictions about Arthur, evidently does not
object to the implication against the Arthurian stories.
Nevertheless, Giraldus certainly accepts many of Geoffrey's state-
ments, including: — the story of the begetting of Merlin by an
incubus and the naming of Kairmerdin from him (with a refer-
ence to the Britannica historia) ;'' Merlin's removal of the Great
1 This, indeed, sometimes happens in manuscripts of Geoffrey's History itself.
2 Fols. 99b, I oca. Cf. p. 137, note i, above, and contrast p. 120.
8 Fol. 27a, col. I.
* Cf. Descr. Kambriae, i, 7, Opera^ VI, 179. But here he seems to do
Geoffrey injustice (cf. Geoffrey, xii, 19; ii, 4-6).
5 Itin. Kambriae^ i, 5, pp. 57-58. This incident furnishes a parallel to what
Wace says about Merlin's spirits (cf. also pp. 139-140, above) ; for Giraldus states
that through the help of the devils the man could predict the future.
® De Invect.y iv, 2, p. 78 ; De Jure et Statu M, E.., dist. vii, p. 328 ; Spec,
Eccles.^ dist. iii, p. 149.
' Itin. Kambriae^ i, 10, p. 80; ii, 8, p. 133.
Digitized
by Google
Latin Prose Chronicles i8i
Circle from Kildare to Salisbury Plain ; ^ Arthur's conquest of
Ireland;^ the famous court of Arthur at Urbs Legionum, with
the coming of the Roman legates thither,* and the former eccle-
siastical supremacy of the city;* Dubricius's transference of the
primacy to St. David;* the idea that David was Arthur's uncle;*
some prophecies of Merlin."' Still, there is no certainty how many
of these incidents Geoffrey had from previous tradition, or, if
he really invented them, how many had passed into general cur-
rency before Giraldus's time. In using some of them Giraldus
may not have been drawing from Geoffrey, or may not have been
aware that he was doing so. It is unfortunate that in the uncer-
tain state of the question Giraldus's evidence cannot be certainly
interpreted. Where, however, he cites the "Britannica historia"
(namely, in the incident of the birth of Merlin, and in the ac-
count of the peopling of Ireland), there is no doubt that he is
using Geoffrey.
It is not until a hundred and fifty years later, in the middle of
the fourteenth century, that we find, in Ralph Higden, another his-
torian who expresses great distrust of Geoffrey. Higden's attitude
is similar to that which we shall meet in many of the sixteenth-cen-
tury chroniclers who wrote in English. As he himself says,* it is
only where Geoffrey's account appears extravagant that he ques-
tions it, — that is, from the beginning of the Arthurian period.
That the less romantic earlier portion might be equally false seems
not to have occurred to him. Accordingly, though he sometimes
puts Geoffrey's statements side by side with contradictory ones
1 Top. Hib.y ii, i8, p. loo. * Top. Hib.y iii, 8, p. 148.
' Itin. Kambriaey i, 5, p. 56; cf. Descr. ICambriae, i, 4, p. 169.
* Itin. Kambriacy i, 5, p. 56; De Jure^ dist. ii, p. 170.
5 Itin. Kambriae^ ii, i, p. loi, and places already cited ; also De Invect.^ ii, i,
p. 46. ^'De Vita Sancti Davidis^ i, p. 378.
■^ See pp. 92-93, above. For instances not connected with the Arthurian
material see: Geoffrey, i, 16, 13 and 21 ; Giraldus, De Invect., ii, i, pp. 44-45;
De/ure^ dist. ii, pp. 169-170 ; Descr, Kambriaey i, i, p. 165 ; i, 7, p. 178. — Geoffrey,
ii, 5 ; Giraldus, Descr. Kambriae^ i, 5, p. 171. — Geoffrey, iii, 9; Giraldus, Descr.
Kambriae^ ii, 2, p. 207. — Geoffrey, iv, 17 ; Giraldus, De Prin. Instruct.^ dist. i,
p. 95. — Geoffrey, iii, 11; Giraldus, Top. Hib.y dist. iii, chap. 8, p. 148; Expug.
Hib.y ii, 6, p. 319. * VI, 160.
Digitized
by Google
1 82 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
from other authors, and often draws from Alfred of Beverley's sum-
mary rather than directly from Geoffrey, yet he includes almost all
the substance of Geoffrey's narrative up to the Arthurian period.
Indeed, he includes an outline of everything as far as the time of
Arthur himself, — discarding the story of Vortigern's tower as being
found (he says) only in "the British book," expressing doubts as
to the removal of the Stonehenge rocks from Ireland, and omitting
the magic elements from the account of Uther's amour, which he
converts into a lawful marriage.^ For Arthur's reign,^ however, he
cites what is said by Henry of Huntingdon of the twelve battles,
William of Malmesbury's eulogy, and material from other sources ;
and then remarks that many wonder how the exploits which Geof-
frey alone ascribes ' to Arthur can be true, since they are not
mentioned by Roman, French, or Saxon historians. Probably, he
concludes, the British praise Arthur extravagantly, just as every
other nation exalts its particular hero.
Higden was perhaps the most popular of all the mediaeval English
chroniclers ; but how impossible it was for such views to resist the
current of uncritical enthusiasm among the majority of his compa-
triots, is evidenced by the fact that Trevisa (who, after a quarter of
a century or more, translated his work into the vernacular) makes
vigorous objections. Arthur is often over-praised, says Trevisa,*
but so are many others : " Sof sawes bee)> nevere fe wors [jey madde
men telle magel tales."*
Of the actual divergences from Geoffrey's story in chronicles
which for the most part follow it, some are evidently due to inex-
actness of statement in condensing, to carelessness, or to wilful
exaggeration. There are a good many minor variations of this sort,
— such as the statement of the monk of Ursicampum^ that it was
Constans whom the Romans persuaded to build a wall ; of Rishan-
ger® that Arthur was crowned at Stonehenge; oi the Hales Chronicon'^
1 Cf. pp. 184, 233, 242, 247, below. 2 V, 328-338. 3 V, 339.
* Stowe, in his " Brief e Proof e of Brute " (Annales, ed. Howes, 1631, pp. 6-7 ;
repeated by Howes in his Historical Pre/ace)^ says that John of Whethamstede
opposed Geoffrey, but I cannot find anything to that effect in the editions of
Whethamstede's Registrum Abbatiae hy Heameandby Riley (Rolls Series, 1872).
s Fol. 9a. 6 Annales, ann. 516. "^ Fol. 7a.
Digitized
by Google
Latin Prose Chronicles 183
that Hoel was son of Loth and Anna and brother of Walwanus
and Modredus; of Walter of Coventry^ that from the slaughter of
the British chiefs Vortigern and Eldolf fled to Kambria, and that
in one battle Arthur killed two giants and three hundred and seventy
men.^ MS. Cleop. A. i. i. even confuses Vortimer with Vortigern.
By a rather stupid blunder FroUo is called " Thomas FuUo," in
several chronicles,* apparently* by a misreading of Geoffrey's
^^Flolloni Romae tribuno,^^^ Evidently from Geoffrey's statement®
that at the death of Constans, Aurelius and Uther were children
and that Vortigern took the crown because he saw no one equal to
himself, Richard of Cirencester unjustifiably concludes that Vorti-
gern easily became king because almost all the other British chiefs
were youths and children. Whether by error or by inference, the
writer of one unimportant chronicle says that it was in Ireland that
Arthur killed one of the giants.'' Alfred of Beverley and others infer
that, in order to marry Hengist's daughter, Vortigern put away his
first wife.^ It is a matter of course that some chronicles, like that
ascribed to Peter Ickham,^ blame Vortigern directly for the death
of Constantine.^^
More important is the confusion, which occurs iii some of the
early chronicles, between Arthur's two campaigns in France,^^ — a
confusion which in the Flores Historiarum led to much greater con-
densation and more omissions than appear in other parts of its
version of the story. With the compiler of the Flores^ indeed, this
must have been a deliberate emendation.
1 Pp. 9, 10. 2 cf, p^ 231, note 4, below.
* This error occurs in Peter Langtoft, in one of the French compilations (see
p. 212, below) and in a few of the Latin chronicles (e.g., in that of the Canon of
Lanercost, fol. 26b 2; also MS. Bodl. Rawl. 150, fol. 22b).
* As P. Paris pointed out in his discussion of Langtoft (see p. 199, note 8, below).
* ix, II, 33. « vi, 8 and 9. "^ MS. Harl. 3860, no. i.
8 Sprott's surprising remark (p. 92 ) that the three ships which first came to
Britain in the time of Vortigern were manned respectively by Angles, Saxons,
and Picts^ is doubtless due to a scribal error like that in Trevisa (v, i ; V, 265),
where Pictes is written for lutes^ which is correctly given later in the same line.
» MS. Calig. A. X. i, fol. i8b. 10 Cf. p. 40, above.
11 Monk of Ursicampum ; monk of Winchester (Rich, of Devizes ?), ann. 519 ;
Flores Hist.y ann. 536-542 (I, 239-242). See also p. 122, above, p. 212, below.
Digitized
by Google
184 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
The author of the Flores makes another emendation, seemingly on
moral grounds,^ when, by omitting all mention of Uther's getting into
Igerna's castle before the death of Gorlois, he, like Higden later,^
makes it appear that Arthur was a legitimate child.* In this, how-
ever, his example had little influence.
The desire to make the narrative clearer or supply better motiva-
tion,* is the cause of occasional slight alterations of Geoffrey's story,
like that in the Flores where it is said ^ that Vortigern tried to build
his tower because the Britons had sent for Aurelius and Uther.
It is interesting to note in one of the earliest of these chroniclers,
Ralph de Diceto, an extension, already practised by the French
author of the work on the foundation of the towns in Touraine,®
of Geoffrey's method of applying to the Arthurian period the con-
ditions of his own time. Ralph says "^ that Arthur gave Anjou and
Touraine to Cheuno (Cajus), that he might have the double honor
of being both seneschal and standard-bearer, an idea on which
Ralph enlarges.
Very rarely one of the chroniclers adds a touch which appears
to go back, whether directly or not, to some tradition older than
Geoffrey. The character of extreme immorality which the author
of the Flores gives to Vortigern at considerable length,® while it
■ does not correspond verbally with the description by William of
Malmesbury,® is so like it in effect that it seems to come from a
similar source. The same idea reappears in Richard of Cirencester.
How rapidly some features of Geoffrey's own story passed into tra-
dition, appears when the compiler of the Flores observes that some
identify the fountain by whose means Uther was poisoned with one
which St. Alban caused to spring out of the ground.^^ The same
author localizes another episode of the narrative when, in dividing
the double battle in which Hengist is captured into two conflicts
fought in different years, he locates the second on the river Don.^^
1 Cf. pp. 119, 161, above, pp. 196, 205, 233, 245, 270, below.
2 See p. 182, above. ^ Cf. p. 122, above.
8 Ann. 498, pp. 228-229. ^ Opusculay II, 241, based on Geoffrey, ix, 11.
4 Cf. p. 134, above. 8 \^ jg^.
* Ann. 464. * Cf. p. 40, above. ^^ Ann. 516, p. 233.
11 Ann. 487-489, p. 220 ; Geoffrey, viii, 5-6. Cf. p. 261, below.
Digitized
by Google
Latin Prose Chronicles 1 8 5
The localization of Arthur himself, which has left its traces over
the whole of England, and certainly began before the time of Geof-
frey,^ is indicated by Giraldus when he mentions * Arthur's Chair
in a mountain chain in the southeast of Wales.
It was inevitable that those chroniclers who combine Geoffrey's
story with the statements of previous historians should modify
Geoffrey in the process. Higden, recognizing the incompatibility
of the accounts of Constantine, the father of Constans, as given
respectively by Bede and by Geoffrey, was led to suppose that they
referred to different persons, and therefore to make two Constan-
tines out of one, a procedure which was to be followed by one or
two of the later English chroniclers.^ The author of the Flares^ in
introducing " Nathanliot " from the Saxon version of the story
(through Henry of Huntingdon),* finds himself compelled to repre-
sent him as leader of Uther's army, taking the suggestion from what
Geoffrey says of Lot,^ which the Flares^ however, reproduces after
telling of the death of Nathanliot. The monk of Ursicampum sug-
gests the possible identity of Arthur with Riothimir.® Geoffrey
himself in his Cherdicus^ and again apparently in his two Cheidricusts^
probably preserves, though in disguise, the figure of the Saxon king
Gerdic. The monk of Winchester seems to try to explain the suc-
<:essful establishment of the latter by the fact of Arthur's absence
on the continent, and he says that during that time the Saxons
made fortifications on all the high hills.'' The Chronicon called Peter
Ickham's® states summarily that Arthur made tributaries the Angles
who remained. Other chronicles, including that of Higden,® make
1 For example, Arthur's Chair in Cornwall is mentioned in the account of the
journey of the Laon monks (see p. loi, above).
2 Itin. Kambriaey i, 2 (Opera, VI, 36).
' Holinshed (see p. 268, below) ; contrast Stow (see p. 266, below).
* Ann. 508, p. 230. * viii, 21.
* Ann. 470, fol. 1 8a; cf. pp. 82-83, above.
^ Annales de Wintonia^ ann. 519.
8 MS. Calig. A. X., fol. 20a. Some other chronicles (for example, that of the
Monastery of Hales, fol. 7b) make the statement, evidently following this
Chronicon.
^ The earliest that I have observed is that of MS. Cleop. A. i. i. For Higden,
whose version Is a little abbreviated, see v, 6 (V, 330). He refers to previous
Digitized
by Google
1 86 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
a more detailed attempt to reconcile the conflicting authorities, — an
attempt which was later followed by some of the English writers.
Cerdic, it is said, often fought with Arthur, and though frequently
defeated, at last wearied him out, so that in the twenty-sixth year^
after Cerdic's arrival, Arthur gave him Hampshire and Somerset
and took his oath of allegiance.^ " It is also said in chronicles of
the Angles " that Mordred, wishing to reign, but fearing Cerdic
alone, gave him certain districts, and Cerdic was crowned at Win-
chester and Mordred at London. This all seems to be suggested
by Geoffrey's mention of the alliance between Modred and the
(apparently) second Cheldrich.^ The necessity which the annalis-
tic form of almost all the chronicles imposed of assigning definite
dates to every part of Geoffrey's narrative, forced their authors to
apply to the History a standard to which it was never meant to con-
form, and naturally the results arrived at were diverse.* Some manu-
scripts^ date the events by regnal years. Generally, however, this
treatment was purely incidental ; the Latin chroniclers seldom
tried to make plain, as most of the English ones did later, how
many years Arthur and the other kings ruled.
The chronicles, especially the later ones, show a slight tendency
at times to enlarge on the romantic element of the story,* though
this is perhaps less marked than was to be expected in an age
when the Arthurian romances enjoyed such unbounded popularity.
Probably the conceptions of the romances are in the mind of Roger
of Hoveden when he adds "^ the name of Arthur (for the Britons) to
the list of great national heroes to whom his source had compared
King Edgar, and in that of Matthew Paris when, in his smaller
work, the Historia Anglorum^ he says, with reference to the greatness
of the court of Henry II, that it seemed as if the times of Arthur
were come again.® Gervase of Tilbury, speaking of Arthur's solemn
and incomparable court at Caerleon, has it that there were present
works as his sources, and two of his manuscripts specify " in chronicis Dunensis.*
Rudbome also includes the account, book ii, chap. i.
1 Cf. p. 159, above. 6 por example, Cleop. A. i i.
2 Cf. pp. 251, 258, below. « Cf. p. 138, above.
8 xi, I, 12. 7 I, 64.
* Cf. p. 159, above. » Ann. 1176 (I, 397).
Digitized
by Google
Latin Prose Chronicles 187
the Twelve Peers of France,^ who, as he tells us just before, were
instituted when Arthur was at Paris.^ The natural tendency of tra-
dition to associate famous names is illustrated when the chronicle
ascribed to Peter Ickham* states that Gildas was Arthur's chaplain.*
The scribe of one of the late manuscripts of the Eulogium Historic
arum has inserted, at the mention of the twelve years' peaceful
sojourn in Britain, a eulogy of Arthur, exalting him and the knights
of the Round Table above all the others in the world. It was
inevitable that some writers ** should represent Arthur as having
already crossed the Alps when Modred's treason called him home.*
Gawain is often painted in much the same colors as in the romances.
Walter of Coventry, for example, speaks of him as without a peer.'
Not only does the Flares Historiarum copy from William of Malmes-
bury a mention of the discovery of Gawain's body,^ but Matthew
Paris adds,^ evidently with reference to the same set of traditions,
that Arthur gave Gawain his principality. ^° The Round Table
is not infrequently mentioned, especially in the later chronicles.
Gervase of Tilbury says ^^ that Arthur established it in insula Fatata,
More essentially in the spirit of the French romances are the state-
ment of Sprott that when Arthur was in France he held the Round
Table for forty days,^^ and the notice in the Magdalen College MS.
72, which says that Arthur established the Table by the advice of
Merlin,^' and gives at some length the laws which were prescribed
for its members. As early as Ralph de Diceto there occurs an
attempt to etymologize the name of Arthur's sword connecting it
with a stream of magic properties in Western Britain;^* and the
name which Ralph gives to the stream, Calibi, suggests Merlin's
1 ii, 17, Leibnitz, I, 936; cf. p. 87, above. ^ Leibnitz, I, 936.
* So, at least, Wharton's copy (MS. Harl. 4323), at the end of the account of
Arthur's reign.
* Contrast Geoffrey's Pyramus (see p. 80, above).
6 Like the author of Brit. Mus. MS. Bibl. Reg. 13. D. I
« Cf. pp. 202, 252, below. ''P. II. Cf. pp. 104-105, above.
8 Ann. 1087 (II, 23). It is mentioned also in the Chronicon of the Monastery
of Hales, fol. 8a. « Hist. AngL, I, 33.
10 Cf. p. 105, above. " P. 936. ^^ p. 9^. is p. 47.
1* I, 96. See also the entry from the other MS. under the year 516.
Digitized
by Google
i88 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
fountain Galabes,^ though possibly it may be connected with the
Latin chalybs^ because of the association with the sword. The
chronicle ascribed to Peter Ickham, which devotes but one small
page to Arthur's reign, gives a considerable part of that page to the
account of Arthur's fights with the two giants.^ The Magdalen
College MS. says that Modred was Arthur's son by a concubine.'
The idea of Arthur's second coming, mentioned not by Geoffrey
but by Wace and Layamon, is not infrequently alluded to by the
Latin chroniclers as a foolish British superstition.* A very inter-
esting and decidedly extended story of Arthur's disappearance,* —
quite different from anything related elsewhere, though having in
parts an ultimate connection with versions like those of Layamon
and the Prose Lancelot^ — is given in the Chronicon of the Monastery
of Hales, This tells how Arthur, as he sits weary and wounded
after the battle, is treacherously stabbed with a poisoned spear by
a warrior, whom he kills ; how he is carried to Venedotia and dies
there ; and how, in a dark and violent storm which accompanies
his obsequies, his body is inexplicably lost to sight.® The Hales
Chronicon quotes also from Henry of Huntingdon's letter in describ-
ing the last battle and Arthur's personal conflict with Modred."^
Seemingly from the version of this latter episode which appears in
the Prose Lancelot is taken the account in the Magdalen College
MS.v- As early as wi1;h Gervase ot Tilbury,' and also in Thomas
Sprott,® occurs that form of the story of Arthur's immortality which
locates his resting place in the recesses of Mount Etna.^° Gervase
1 Geoffrey, viii, lo, 14.
2 These are also made prominent in the brief abstract of Geoffrey in Cotton
MS. Vesp. E. iv., no. 5, fol. 107b.
8 Cf. p. 141, above. * Cf. p. loi, above.
5 Printed in Publications of the Mod. Lang, Assoc. ^ 1903, XVIII, 86-87.
6 Cf. pp. 164-165, above. "'.Cf. p. 120, above.
8 Otia Imperialia, ii, 1 2, Leibnitz, I, 92 1 ; Liebrecht, p. 1 2. ^ P. 96.
1^ Cf. p. 145 (with note 5), above. The story is repeated in a slightly different
form, a few years after Gervase, by Caesarius' of Heisterbach {Dialogus Miracu-
loruniy ed. Strange, 1851, xii, 12). Caesarius refers again to Arthur as a subject
of popular stories (iv, 36). Another fuller thirteenth-century form is found in
fitienne de Bourbon ; see A. Graf, Mitiy leggende, e super stizioni del medio evo„
II, 303 ff., who discusses the story at length.
Digitized
by Google
Latin Prose Chronicles 189
also states that members of what modern scholars call, the Wild
Hunt had told foresters in Britain and Brittany that they were of
the household of Arthur.^ The first indication of influence by the
Grail story ^ appears in the jottings at the end of Robert of Aves-
bury, which trace Arthur's descent back to Joseph of Arimathea.
They also carry back to Fetrus, consanguineus Joseph^ the race of
Loth, husband of Arthur's sister, and name as their sons not only
Walwanus, but also Agrauains, Gweheres, and Gaheries.
Skeptical as the chroniclers might show themselves about* attrib-
uting supernatural exploits to laymen, most of them were credulous
enough to a certain point when it came to the question of a prophet
and professional magus. Hence the great majority of them accept
Merlin, at least in his prophetic role. Many of them insert at the
proper places mentions of parts of his predictions which they sup-
pose to have been fulfilled, sometimes ^ predictions which are not
given by Geoffrey and must probably be counted among the many
which were composed and ascribed to Merlin after and in conse-
quence of Geoffrey's History, While few of the chronicles include
the prophecies as given by Geoffrey in toto^^ the Flores Historiarum
makes an exception,* and Matthew Paris adds a detailed interpre-
tation of the first part.^ The compiler of the Flores takes it for
granted that Merlin is a thoroughly supernatural person ; for he
says that before giving Ambrosius advice about the Stonehenge
monument, Merlin went into an ecstasy.^
Besides the account of the Arthurian period which they took
from previous sources, the chroniclers record several interesting
episodes testifying to the belief of their own contemporaries in the
Arthurian tradition. Of these, the most important is the sup-
posed discovery of Arthur's body at Glastonbury. Giraldus Cam-
brensis gives the longest account of this affair. In his De Frincipis
1 ii, 12, Leibnitz, I, 921-922; Liebrecht, pp. 12-13.
2 For later mentions, cf. pp. 211, 230, 252, below.
' For example, the Coggeshall Chronicle, p. 146.
* Cf. p. 136, above.
* I, 198 ff. Also Nicholas of Gloucester, fols. 8oa ff. Cf. p. 220, note 3, below.
« As far as Geoffrey, vii, 3, 117. Cf. p. 225, below.
^ Ann. 490, p. 222.
Digitized
by Google
190 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Instructioney^ written about 1 194, he tells how the body, which was of
gigantic size, was found in " our days " at Glastonbury between two
stone pyramids, buried deep in a hollow oak, with a cross of lead in-
scribed " Here lies buried the renowned king Arthur with Wenneve-
reia his second wife ^ in the isle of Avallonia." And in fact, the
body of a woman lay in the same tomb, with a lock of yellow hair
still well preserved, which crumbled away when a clumsy monk tried
to handle it, — a pretty incident which affords plenty of opportunity
for sentimental symbolistic fancies. The reasons for looking for the
body, says Giraldus, were partly visions which religious men had
had, and above all else the fact that Henry the Second had told the
monks, as he had heard from a British historical poet,* that they
would find the body there, interred at least sixteen feet deep ; for
Arthur wished to be safely hidden from the Saxons. In his Speculum
Ecclesiae,^ written twenty-five years later, Giraldus repeats the story
with additional details, some of which relate to Modred and may
have been drawn from Geoffrey. He also emphasizes the fact that
the search for the body was due to King Henry. It is interesting
to note how in these passages Giraldus rationalizes the story of
Arthur's disappearance. In the earlier account, he explains that
Morganis, a noble matron and the lady of those regions, a blood
relative of Arthur, took him to Glastonbury for the healing of his
wounds ; and in the Speculum Ecclesiae he ridicules the Britons for
considering Morganis as dea quaedam phantastica^
Different in important details is the account of the discovery
given in the Coggeshall Chronicle,^ written at about the same time
as Giraldus's JDe Principis Instructione. This dates the event in 1191
(after the death of King Henry), and says that it was caused by
the burial of the body of a monk who had earnestly desired in his
lifetime to be placed in that particular spot. In later chronicles
there appear at least two still different versions, which need not
1 VIII, 126-129.
2 The idea that Arthur had two wives corresponds substantially with stories
which appear in the triads and seem to go back to the mythical part of the tradi-
tion. See Loth, Mabinogion^ II, 227 ; Rhys, Arthurian Legend^ pp. 35-37.
^ Ab historico cantor e Britone antiquo. * Cf. pp. lOi, 146, above.
* ii, 8-10; IV, 47-51. 6 p, 203.
Digitized
by Google
Latm Prose Chronicles 191
be seriously considered, since one (in the Annals of Margan) repre-
sents that Modred also was buried in the same tomb, and the other
(included by Albericus Trium Fontium) adds some Latin hexame-
ters (inspired evidently by Joseph of Exeter) said to have been
found with the bodies.
The questions which of the two older accounts is correct and
how it is to be interpreted, are not important to the present sub-
ject.^ But certainly, it is less difficult to believe that the whole
thing was a trick of King Henry, and that he had the bodies
discovered (and in all probability previously placed) under the
pyramids in order to persuade the Welsh that Arthur was really
dead, than to believe that bones buried at so great a depth were
really found by accident.^ A passage in William of Malmesbury's
D^ Antiquitate Glastoniensis Ecclesiae^ shows that as early as the first
half of the twelfth century the Glastonbury monks had invented the
story that Arthur and Guenevere were buried between the pyramids.
King Henry, Giraldus says, had the bodies magnificently rein-
terred. According to some of the later chroniclers, that other king
who found Welsh national sentiment so troublesome, Edward I, had
still another splendid monument erected for them.*
Not only was Arthur's body thought to have been found, but it
also was believed that some of his possessions were still in existence
1 Cf. Ztsch./.franz. Spr.y XII, 231-256; Rhys, Arthurian Legend^ pp. 328-347 ;
Y Cymmrodor^ IX, 180, note ; Pearson, in Stuart-Glenhie's Arthurian Localities^
pp. 135-136-
2 See for the whole incident, San-Marte*s Gottfried^ pp. 417-430. Giraldus's
first version is copied by Higden (vii, 23 ; VIII, 60) and from Higden by Knighton
(chap. 12, I, 149-150). The Coggeshall version reappears in the Flares (ann.
1 191 ; II, 379). The discovery, or the fact of the burial, is merely mentioned by
Matthew Paris (Hist. Angl.^ at 1191 ; II, 27), Gervase of Canterbury (II, 19), Rish-
anger (Annales^ ann. 516), Higden (V, 332), Chron. Monast. de Hales (fol. 8a),
Eulogium Historiarum (at mention of Arthur's death, II, 363, and again. III, 90),
Sprott (first part, inn. 1195), Leland (Assertio Arturii^ fols. 22-23), and various
others. " Matthew of Westminster," ann. 542, I, 269, expands the statement that
Arthur wished his body to be hidden from the Saxons. Cf. p. 197, below.
' Gale, I, 306.
* Elmham, viii, 81, p. 265 ; Adam de Domerham, II, 588-589. The Annals of
Waver ley (at 1277) disagree.
Digitized
by Google
192 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
in the twelfth and following centuries. His sword Caliburn was
said to have been given to Tancred by King Richard I when he
was passing through Sicily on his way to the Holy Land. This
statement was made by Benedict of Peterborough* only a year or
two after the event, and is repeated in several of the later chron-
icles.* Others report® that one of the tokens of the complete con-
quest of Wales by Edward I was the surrender to him by the Welsh
of Arthur's crown, which they had long kept in great honor. The
same king Edward is associated in still a third way with the Arthu-
rian story; for in 1301, when presenting to the Pope his claim to
supremacy over Scotland, he cited from Geoffrey's narrative the
cases of submission of kings of the Scots to those of England,
prominent among which was that of Auguselus to Arthur.*
1 Ann. 1 191, II, 159.
2 Roger of Hoveden, III, 97 ; Walter of Coventry, I, 433.
* " Matthew of Westminster," ann. 1283, 1, 269 ; Annals of Waverley, ann. 1283 ;
Annals of Worcester^ ann. 1284.
* Rishanger's Chrcmica^^. 201, whence it is copied by Walsingham in his Hist,
Angl. and Ypodigma Neustriae, Edward's whole letter is printed in Rymer's
Foedera^ ed. 1727, 11,883-884 (wrongly numbered 863-864).
Digitized
by Google
CHAPTER VII
THE STORY AFTER GEOFFREY: THE MIDDLE ENGLISH
AND CONTEMPORARY ANGLO-FRENCH
METRICAL CHRONICLES
Down to the end of the thirteenth century, the knowledge of history
was practically confined (in England, as elsewhere) to the religious
and noble or wealthy classes; in England, that is, to those who
could read works written in Latin or French. But the develop-
ment of Norman-English nationality, and the reemergence of the
Saxon population and the English language, if slow were yet con-
stant, and by the year 1300 there were many persons outside the
monasteries who were glad to learn in the English tongue some-
thing about the past of their country and their race. It was per-
haps a matter of course that the first chronicles written for them
should be in verse rather than in prose.
In considering these works, it is necessary to remember always
that while in form they resemble rather those of Layamon and
Wace than the Latin prose chronicles, yet as regards substance
they are to be classed with the latter, since they are complete his-
tories of England reaching from Brutus down, generally, to the dates
at which they were severally composed.
I. Robert of Gloucester
The earliest of these chronicles was written somewhere in the
southwest of England probably a little before the end of the thir-
teenth century, and goes under the name of Robert of Gloucester.^
1 Ed. W. A. Wright (Rolls), 2 vols., 1887 ; see Preface, especially pp. xv-xviii
and xix-xxxiii. See also letters in the Athenaum for 1888 by W. H. Cooke,
May 12, p. 600; June 30, p. 828; with replies by Wright, May 19, p. 630, and
193
Digitized
by Google
194 Arthurian Material in Chronic ks
As to the author and authorship, however, only this much is certain,
that up to the death of Henry I the two recensions represented by
existing manuscripts are substantially identical, except that there
are considerable additions in the so-called second version, which,
after Henry I, is much briefer than the other ; and that the con-
tinuation in the first recension, from Henry I, was written after
1297 by a certain Robert, who was probably a monk, but whom
there is no reason for connecting with Gloucester.
No one can claim for this first distinctively English chronicle a
high degree of literary merit. It is composed in irregular doggerel
couplets, and the author does not try to conceal the fact that he is
addressing the common and little-lettered people, — as when he
omits the greater part of the prophecies of Merlin, on the ground
that they are not easily understood by the unlearned.^ Yet his
lack of inspiration may easily be exaggerated. He sometimes uses
his own judgment in changing the order of events as given in his
sources.^ Once in a while he has a really poetic phrase.* Like
Layamon, he is deeply interested in his subject, as he shows by
occasional appeals to his readers* or outbursts of personal feeling.*
He visualizes many scenes by expanding and vivifying the descrip-
tion ^ or adding a slight touch, — as when he says that the men of
Merlin's town dared not refuse to give him to Vortigern's messen-
gers,'' or that, when Arthur had unhorsed " Fullon," he had to turn
his own steed before he could begin the attack with the sword.'
Occasionally he has a suggestion of dramatic power ^ or grim irony *^
that reminds one of Layamon. He is thoroughly patriotic, but, like
Layamon, on the side of the Britons," though he distinctly states
July 14, p. 64. See also, Hardy, III, 181, and Morley, English Writers^ III, 337 ;
and especially two German dissertations on Robert, tjber die Quellen^ etc., one by
W. Ellmer (Halle, 1886, pp. 14-19, 27, 37), the other by K. Brossmann (Striegau,
1887, bibliography, and pp. 11, 44, 47).
^ V. 2820; cf. p. 136, above. ^ gee instances noted by Ellmer.
8 Cf. V. 2783 with Geoffrey, vi, 19, 26. * For example, v. 2308.
^ For example, on the massacre of the British chiefs, and vv. 2953, 4505.
« For example, vv. 2281 ff., 4221 ff. '^ V. 2732. 8 y. 3827.
^ For example, w. 2762 ff., Merlin's trial of skill with the magi.
10 As vv. 4541-4542, on Guenevere's avoiding Arthur.
11 Cf. vv. 2578, 3272.
Digitized
by Google
Robert of Gloucester 195
that it is from the Saxons that the English of his own time are
descended.^
As far as Geoffrey's History extends, this chronicle is chiefly a
paraphrase of it. But in the first two thousand lines, before the
Arthurian period, the author makes some use of the early Latin
chronicles, of tradition, and of one or two other sources. In the
Arthurian portion also,^ he introduces similar slight additions from
Henry of Huntingdon,' or from his own stock of general informa-
tion.* He adds a few dates, as when he says ^ that Hengist had
been in the land forty years when he was killed.® In forms of
proper names,'' slight misinterpretations and other instances of
carelessness, abbreviations, expansions, and other minor changes
natural in the recasting of the story, his chronicle exhibits varia-
tions from Geoffrey quite, similar to those in the other paraphrases.*
1 Vv. 2696-2697. On all these points cf. vv. 2264-2269, 3217.
2 Vv. 2259-4596.
' As, the fight of Constantine with the Picts and Scots (v. 2260 ; cf. p. 42, above) ;
the list of kings of the Saxons (vv. 3425 £f.) ; the seven years' period (v. 2577 ; cf.
p. 39, note 2, above).
* As, the identification of " Frie " with Venus (vv. 2433-2434) ; the statement
that Europe constitutes one third part of the world (w. 3761-3762) ; or that the
demons which have intercourse with women are called elves, and that sometimes
they come to men in the form of women (v. 2753 ; cf. pp. 118, 162, above).
* V. 2995; cf. p. 159, above.
* The idea (see ten Brink, Hist, Eng. Lit, Eng. transL, I, 276) that the author
drew from Wace and Layamon is probably erroneous, as the few coincidences
(Robert, vv. 3353 ff., Wace, vv. 8995 ff. ; Robert, w. 2522-2528, La3ramon,
vv. 14,339-14,353 ; Robert, vv. 2671-2672, Layamon, vv. 15,256-15,259) may easily
be due to chance ; though the author of the second continuation, beginning with
Henry I, certainly made use of Layamon (see Wright, pp. 783 ff., xxxiii-xxxviii).
' Cf. EUmer, pp. 23-26.
* Thus, he says that Vortiger in vain bade the ecclesiastics crown Constans
(v. 2314) and that Vortiger had planned that all should happen as it did (vv.
2369 ff.). He inaptly changes Geoffrey's statement (vi, 13, 30) that the pagan
newcomers had married daughters of the Britons, by saying that some fathers
were Christian and the mothers heathen (v. 2563). For Maugantius he has
"clerkes" (v. 2747). He says carelessly (v. 3080) that Ambrose was another
name for Uther (but cf. the prose Merlin, where, at the beginning of chap. 2, it
is said that Constans's sons are Moine, Pandragon, and Uter, — a case of com-
plicated confusion which Paris, in the introduction to the Huth Merlin, says is
Digitized
by Google
196 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Worthy of mention as illustrating general tendencies in the history
of the story are: his change in the account of Uther's fight with
the Saxons, making it much more advantageous for the Britons;* his
change, in the interests of morality, of Merlin's sympathy for Uther
in his love for Ygerna, into regret for the king's folly ;^ his consist-
ent application to Lucye of the title "senatour of Rome,"® and his
elimination of Geoffrey's confusion about Leo.* He drops out some
of the traditional elements of the narrative which for him have lost
their meaning:^ viz., Geoffrey's emphasis on the special help of the
Armoricans in the wars; the description of the second and third
wonderful lakes in Scotland ; ^ the account of Arthur's feast at York,
and the ecclesiastical promotions then and part* of those at the cor-
onation feast;"' the statement that the duel with "FuUon " was on
an island;^ all mention of the fight with Ritho;® the coming of
Hiderus's force to help the Britons, and the names of other warriors
in later battles. He substitutes " an vatte barn " *° for the pigs which
Geoffrey said the giant was roasting — probably in the wish to
remove a triviality ; and says that it was because Arthur was weary
that he commanded Bedwer to cut off the giant's head." He calls
Bedwer and Kay kings.*^
Like Layamon and Wace, but to a greater extent, Robert is influ-
enced by the conceptions of the Arthurian romances.** He thinks
of Merlin altogether as an enchanter,** and takes pains to say sev-
eral times that his prophecies were fulfilled.*^ Now and then his
original with the author of the Merlin). He adds checkers to the games which
the youths played at Arthur's feast (v. 3965). He changes Geoffrey's account
of Arthur's dream and the explanations, perhaps partly by misunderstanding
(vv. 4146 ff.). He says that the German "Chelrik" brought Saxons to Britain
(v. 4522).
1 Vv. 3251 £f. ; Geoffrey, viii, 18. Cf. p. 118, above.
2 V. 3319; Geoffrey, viii, 19, 58-59. Cf. p. 184, above.
8 V. 3988, etc. 10 V. 4212.
* Vv. 4146 ff. ; cf. p. 85, note 2, above.
6 Cf. p. 136, above. ^^ V. 4243.
* Cf. p. 216, below. 12 Vv. 4403-4405 ; cf. p. 105, above.
7 V. 3980. 18 Cf. p. 138, above.
8 V. 3820. 1* Vv. 3109, 3 1 24-3 1 25.
« V. 4345- ^^ Vv. 2816, 3461, 3849.
Digitized
by Google
Robert of Gloucester 197
phraseology has something of a romance coloring, as when he says
of Uther's feast,^ "mony was fe vayre leuedi fat icome was ferto."
He seems to assume that Gawain is well known,^ and calls him
"flour of corteysye."* He speaks several times of the Round Table.*
He states directly that Guenevere was guilty and not a victim of
Modred's violence.^ Geoffrey had perhaps implied this by omitting
any suggestion that Guenevere resisted Modred, and by speaking of
her fear of Arthur and her flight from him when he returned to Eng-
land; but Robert asserts, like a true mediaeval monk, that it was at
her advice that Modred committed treason.^ Robert also greatly
magnifies Arthur. He is the "beste bodi fat euere was in J?is
londe,"^ and never had any peer in prowess^ or in courtesy."® He
Says^^ of "Calibourne," not that it was made in Avalon (that he
omits, ^^ doubtless as an incredible falsehood), but " nas nour no such
ich wene." He even has a decided reverence for the sword, and
calls it " sire." ^^ It is a personal grief to Robert when Arthur's end
approaches.^* But he characterizes ^* the hope of Arthur's return,"
which he ascribes to Britons and " Cornwallisse of is kunde," as
unreasonable, because Arthur's bones have been found at Glaston-
bury and lie there in a fair tomb. Later, at the proper chrono-
logical point,^® he mentions the discovery of the bones and assigns
it, evidently erroneously, to the burning of the abbey. ^"^
It is in the account of Arthur's last battle that Robert differs
most significantly from Geoffrey. He says ^® that, with the possible
exception of that of Troy, there was never any greater battle in the
world, for there was scarcely any prince on earth who was not either
there in person or else sent men. He declares that it was because
Modred's men outnumbered Arthur's that most of the latter were
1 V. 3280. 10 V. 3616.
^ V. 3773 ; cf. p. 104, above. ^^ Contrast p. 162, above.
8 V. 4351 ; cf. V. 4532. 12 V. 3841.
• Vv. 3881, 3902, 3916. 1* Vv. 4528, 4552.
s Cf. p. 163, above. 1* Vv. 4585 ff.
• V. 4503. 1^ Cf. p. loi, above.
7 V. 3334. 16 Vv. 9852-9853.
8 V. 3480. " Cf. pp. 189-191, above.
• Vv. 3747 ff. 18 Vv. 4491 ff.
Digitized
by Google
198 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
killed, and with this turns to the description given by Henry of
Huntingdon in his letter to Warinus,^ which he follows closely.
After Arthur has smitten off Modred's head, Robert exclaims:
"fat was is laste chiualerye fat vaire endede ynou." A great poet
this simple Englishman is not, but certainly he is genuine and
intense.
II. The Anonymous Short Chronicle
As popular as possible in tone and method, like the English met-
rical romances of Horn and Havelok^ is the chronicle, of the time of
Edward II, which summarizes the history of England from Brutus
to the death of Gaveston in about five hundred tetrameter couplets.^
The narrative down to the death of Arthur goes back ultimately
to Geoffrey, but the divergences are so considerable as to indicate,
even when allowance is made for the modifications certain to be
introduced by a strolling poet, that the direct source is some inter-
mediate version. Occasionally the author expands an incident which
was likely to appeal to his audience ; but much more distinguishing
features of his treatment are curtailment and omission. It is not
easy to see, however, why he should have left out such an episode
as Uther's amour, unless it was lacking in his source, as was the
case in some of the Latin chronicles. He makes very great altera-
tions in the Arthurian period. He omits Aurelius altogether, and
dismisses Uther with six lines. He brings in Arthur before the
British Lucius and "Fortiger,"* evidently because his brief mention
of the latter makes a good transition to the account of the Saxon
period which follows. His narrative of Arthur's reign occupies
only forty-six lines, eight of which are taken up with a per-
sonal description of the king; and of definite events he merely
mentions the wars with Luces and Moddred, with the latter's vio-
lence to Genevre, not specifying whether or not it was against her
1 Cf. p. 120, above.
2 Ed. Ritson, Anc. Eng, Met. Rotn.^ 1802, II, 270, from MS. Bibl. Reg. 12. C.
xii., no. 8. Other manuscripts are Auchinleck, and Univ. of Camb. Ff. v. 20.
See Hardy, III, 310, 395, and Skeat, Lay of Havelok, E.E.T.S., p. ix.
8 In this there is a slight resemblance (doubtless accidental) to William of
Malmesbury*s account (cf. p. 39, above).
Digitized byCjOOQlC
Peter Langtoft 199
will.^ He states that Arthur lived ten years after returning to Eng-
land ^ and winning it back from Moddred, and that he, like Uther,
was buried in Glastonbury.* His popularization of the story, then,
has wrought a complete alteration of some of its most essential
features, especially in the interest of the common notion that great-
ness is measured by success.
It was inevitable that this chronicle should reflect romance ideas.*
The author's incidental mention of Merlin^ assumes his current
fame as a prophet, and he takes special pains to mention the
prowess of Eweyn,* though he does not name Gawain or any of
the other knights. He alludes also to the great adventures which
happened, and magnifies Arthur as a king whose equal never has
been known and never can be.
III. Peter Langtoft, and Other French Chronicles
Only a few years after the completion of the "Robert of Glouces-
ter " Chronicky another one of almost exactly the same plan and
general character was prepared for the benefit of French-speaking
people by a man who, like Gaimar, was a resident of the North of
England, and who calls himself "Peres de Langetoft."® Of his
personal history nothing is known except for a statement made by
his paraphraser, Robert Manning,® that he was a canon of (the
Augustinian priory of) Bridlington, doubtless the village of that
name not far from Langtoft in the East Riding of Yorkshire. His
work, like many of the Latin chronicles, ends with the death of
Edward I, in 1307, which may therefore be accepted as approxi-
mately the date of its composition.
As. an historian, Langtoft is scarcely worthy of attention —
though the number of manuscripts of his work attest its great, if
1 Cf. p. 163, above. 2 Cf. p. 254, below.
8 Contrast p. 254, below. * Cf. p. 138, above.
^ Y. 335. « Contrast p. 161, above.
•^ Ed. T. Wright (Rolls Series, 2 vols., 1866-68), I, 264.
8 See especially I, xi-xii, xxi-xxii. Cf. Hardy, III, 298 ff. ; P. Paris, Hist,
litt de la France^ 1869, XXV, 337-350, especially pp. 339-341, 652-654 ; Morley,
English Writers^ III, 347.
® Chronicle^ ed. Fumivall, vv. 16,703-16,704.
Digitized
by Google
200 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
short-lived, popularity; every one who has studied him has spe-
cially remarked on the barbarousness of his language; and for
the history of the development of the Arthurian story his chronicle
affords few new facts. Nevertheless, it has some points of real
interest.
It begins with an abbreviated but close paraphrase of Geoffrey's
History^ which, though commonplace enough, is not altogether des-
titute of poetical elements, — such as an effective use of direct
discourse;^ occasional dramatic treatment^ of a good scene; a
touch of vividness in narration,' or a sarcasm ; * a good simile,^ or
(rarely) an allusion to nature.^ The only episodes entirely omitted
in the Arthurian period, are Vortimer's wars'' and Merlin's proph-
ecy.^ No special notice need be taken of most of the inevitable
minor modifications and mistakes in the making over of the story;*
but Langtoft's treatment of details is freer than that of his prede-
cessors and some of his alterations deserve mention. He says that
Vortiger was of the "false blood of the Welsh," that he in person
assassinated Constantine,^*^ and that he recovered his kingdom by
war. He alters considerably Uther's use of his disguise ^^ and the
details of the battle at Verolamium, so that Uther is made to have
a personal encounter with Octa.^^ He specifies " Kardoyl " as
destroyed by Octa and Eosa.^' He confuses the actions of Arthur
and Cador ;^* says that Arthur had his dragon carried before him;^®
changes Leo from an emperor into a pope, in connection with
which may be noted his constant mistranslation of senatus by " sen-
atour " and his ascription of senatorial rank to Lucius.^* Some
of Langtoft's emendations are anachronistic ; as, — his constant
application of the title " sire " to his heroes ; the invocation of the
aid of St. George for the Britons ; ^"^ Arthur's appeal to the authority
1 For instance, pp. ii8, 194-196.
2 As, Uther's conversation with Ulphin and Merlin, and p. 108.
8 As pp. 172, 214. * P. 216. ^ Pp. 142, 208.
* P. 108. "^ P. 106. 8 P. 114; cf. p. 136, above, with note 7.
* Including the introduction of "Sir Thomas FroUoun" (cf. p. 183, above).
10 P. 96. Cf. p. 183, above. ^ P. 138. '^Y.i^,
18 P. 142. 1* P. 154. 16 P. 204.
!• P. 176. He also calls Lucius Emperor (for example, p. 202). i'^ P. 204.
Digitized
by Google
Peter Langtoft 201
of Solomon for the statement that the Romans are proud and
treacherous;^ the specification of the arms of the barons and "ras-
kayle " at the siege of Gorlois's castle;^ the mention of laborers as
being about their tasks when the Saxons came to Bath,* and of the
provost of Paris as surrendering the keys;* the substitution for
Geoffrey's names in the list of nobles at Arthur's feast of the names
of lordships important in Langtoft's own day.^ Interesting to note
as a survival of the chanson de geste mannerisms is the characteriza-
tion of two warriors as having flowing beards. * With Langtoft also
appears the loss of originally mythic-traditional elements of the
story in the omission of Ritho and in the statement that Arthur
himself cut off the giant's head J Possible borrowings from current
popular versions of Geoffrey's story or its derivatives, are the state-
ments that the white dragon had the better of the red one ® and that
Arthur founded the church of St. Aaron at Caerleon,* and, among
the frequent specifications of the burial places of kings, that of
Augusele at Wybre in Wales. ^^
Needless to say, Langtoft shows the influence of romance ideas."
He assumes Merlin's character as an enchanter, ^^ although he
expresses skepticism about the eagle's speaking at Shaftesbury.^*
He exalts Wawayn^* as being courteous, ^^ and especially well
acquainted with Latin, ^^ and says^" that, though the history does
not state who gave Lucius his death wound, it is attributed to
Wawayn ; he mentions Iwain in a manner which implies fuller
knowledge of him ; ^* spells the name of Arthur's queen, according
to northern fashion, "Gaynore," and once pauses to curse her.^®
1 P. 204. 2 p. J 36.
8 P. 150. * P. 166.
5 P. 170; cf. p. 205, below. • Pp. 172, 184; cf. pp. 143-144, above.
^ P. 192 ; cf. p. 136, above, and note 5. ^ P. 114.
» P. 168; cf. Geoffrey, ix, 12, 18. ^ P. 220.
11 Cf. p. 138, above. ^ P. 124.
18 P. 32. 1* Cf. p. 105, above.
15 P. 198. * 16 P. 194.
1'^ P. 216. The same statement is made positively in the prose Merlin^ p. 471
(ed. Sommer). The Morte Arthur in the Thornton MS. ascribes the deed to
Lancelot.
18 Pp. 218-220; cf. p. 161, above. 1* P. 218; cf. p. 163, above.
Digitized
by Google
202 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
While he rationalizes Arthur's exploits at the battle of Badon ^
(reducing the number of men whom he kills from four hundred and
seventy to seventy), he nevertheless thinks of Arthur as the greatest
of all kings.^ Caleburne, though he omits the reference to Avalon,
is the best sword that was ever made in Britain.* He exaggerates
the greatness of Arthur's feast,* and says that when the news of
Modred's treason comes, he has already got across the Alps, and the
horns are sounding for dinner in Pavia/ His account of Arthur's
last battle is not only shorter than Geoffrey's, but very different,
and evidently influenced by Henry of Huntingdon.® Langtoft says
directly that Arthur struck Modred, and implies that it was Modred
who gave him his death wound. He mientions the British belief in
Arthur's return, and in surprising contrast to his usual rationalistic
attitude, declares "^ that he does not know whether Arthur is really
dead or not.*
IV. Thomas, Castelford
In the early fourteenth century, the diversity of English dialects
(to say nothing of other causes) was likely to restrict to a local
reputation almost any literary work, however successful ; and it is
only a quarter of a century after Robert of Gloucester that we find
another writer — from the North, like the French Gaimar and
Langtoft — undertaking to do for the English-speaking people of
his region what Robert had done for the South. The resulting
chronicle exists in a single manuscript, which has never been
printed, but has been described with considerable fullness.® It
1 P. 152. ,2 Pp. 188, 240, 246. 8 p. 1^2. * P. 174.
^ P. 216; cf. p. 187, above. * Cf. p. 120, above. "^ P. 224; cf. p. loi, above.
8 In connection with Langtoft may be noted the genealogy of the kings of
England as far as Edward I in French verse which Hardy (III, 328, No. 560) men-
tions as existing in MS. Trin. Coll. Cant. R. 4. 26. I have not seen it. It may be
added that the Chronique rimie attributed to Geoffrey of Paris, a writer of the
early fourteenth century (Bouquet, Recueil des Historians de la France^ XXII), con-
tains an incidental reference to Arthur as a typical royal hero of romance (v. 6641) ;
and that several such occur in Guil. Guiart's Branche des Royaus Lingnages^ pub-
lished in the same volume (vv. 14, 12,386, 15,718).
^ M. L. Perrin, Ueber T. Castelford"* s Chronik von England (Gottingen disser-
tation), Boston, 1 89 1. The chronicle is mentioned by Miss L. Toulmin Smith,
Bibliographer, March, 1882.
Digitized
by Google
Thomas Caste If ord 203
was written in the neighborhood of York, and apparently finished
in the year 1327. At the beginning is inscribed the name of Thomas
Castelford, who was probably the author, and who, according to
Leland and later biographers, was a monk of Pontefract. It is
more extended, comparatively, than the chronicle of Robert of
Gloucester, as it consists of nearly forty thousand lines — about
twenty-eight thousand on the period covered by Geoffrey.
According to Dr. Perrin, this earlier portion follows Geoffrey
almost verbally. Yet its bulk is obviously much greater, and in the
section which precedes the Arthurian period, as well as in that
which follows it, the author makes various insertions, largely of
legendary material, taken partly from known sources.^ The same
is true in the Arthurian period ; but, as far as one can judge from
Dr. Perrin 's summary, the additions are of little importance for the
question of traditions independent of Geoffrey. They consist partly
of expansions of the incidents represented as taking place at York,
— the sieges of that city by the Saxons^ and by Arthur ;* Arthur's
feast there,* with a mention of the legend of Samson's going to
Brittany, and an expanded account of the story of Queen Ginevra
at York,^ which Geoffrey only suggests.* This greater detail in
regard to York is characteristic of the chronicle throughout, and
is evidently due to the author's local interest. Probably, therefore,
there is no new traditional material in his expansion of the story
of the exploits of Uther in the North,"^ though several names not given
by Geoffrey are introduced.^ One may infer from the summary
that the author knew Wace's Brut^ since he mentions not only
the Round Table,* but also the rejoicing of the people on Arthur's
return from France. ^*^ In fact, the only traditional element which
does not seem to be taken from Geoffrey or Wace is the inevitable
statement that Arthur was buried at Glastonbury.^^
1 Perrin, pp. 36-39. 2 Vv. 18,617-18,665.
8 Vv. 19,850-19,856. * Vv. 20,621 ff.
fi Vv. 23,775-23,785. • xi, I, 39; cf. p. 168, note 2, above. ^ Vv. 18,815 ff.
* Dr. Perrin does not tell what they are. That the order in which Vortimer's
battles are named (vv. 14,457 ff.) is different from Geoff rey*s may be due to
Nennius (chap. 44). ^ Vv. 21,125-21,140.
10 Vv. 21,119-21,124; cf. p. 131, above. ^^ Vv. 24,011-24,012.
Digitized
by Google
204 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
V. Robert Mannyng of Brunne
The third, and perhaps the last, of the more ambitious Middle
English metrical chronicles is that of Robert Mannyng, often
designated by the name of his birthplace, the village of Brunne
in Lincolnshire.^
For the facts of his life no source of direct knowledge exists out-
side of his own writings, but in these he has given more informa-
tion about himself than was usual with mediaeval authors. In his
Handlyng Synne he says that in 1303 he had been for fifteen years
in the priory of [Gilbertine canons at] Sempringham, which was
only six miles from his birthplace. It is possible that he was not
himself a canon, but only a lay brother.^ It was at another priory
of the same order, however, — that of Sixhill in Lincolnshire, —
that he composed his chronicle, which he wrote during the reign of
Edward III and finished in 1338.'
Robert distinctly states that he writes, " not for the learned, but
for the laymen "; not for story-tellers and harpers, but in as simple
English as possible, for the love of simple men that cannot under-
stand any other.* He wishes, he says, to furnish them with a
means of amusement when they sit together in fellowship.^ This
human sympathy is the more noteworthy when one considers the
austerities of the life which he had chosen.*
In the latter part of his work, Robert chiefly paraphrases Laftg-
toft ; but for the first part he uses Wace's Brut^ as far as it extends,
1 The first part of Robertas work, the paraphrase of Wace, has been edited by
Fumivall, Rolls Series, 2 vols., 1887. It was previously printed as far as the
birth of Christ by Zetsche in Anglia^ 1886, IX, 43-194. The second part, the
paraphrase of Langtoft from the end of Wace, was edited by Heame, 2 vols., 1725
(2d ed., 1810). See Morley, English Writers^ III, 356; Hardy, III, 304.
2 As Dr. Fumivall thinks.
8 See Handlyng Synne^ ed. Fumivall, Roxburghe Club, 1862, p. 3, vv. 57-76
(quoted by Fumivall in his edition of the chronicle, p. iii) ; Chronicle^ I, i, 5, ed.
Fumivall; II, 341, ed. Heame, 1725; A. W. Zetsche, Uber den I, THl der Bearbei-
tung des " roman de Brut " durch Robert Mannyng^ Reudnitz- Leipzig, 1887, PP- '""S*
* Vv. 71-134. • Described by Dr. Fumivall, pp. vi-xii.
6 Vv. 9-10, 143-144. ' Cf. p. 143, note i, above, and p. 226, below.
Digitized
by Google
Robert Manny ng 205
for the reason, as he himself says,^ that Langtoft leaves out much
that Wace includes. He follows Wace'very closely, though perhaps
with a little more freedom than Robert of Gloucester shows in han-
dling Geoffrey's narrative ; but he obviously had Langtoft's version
at hand, since he occasionally draws a detail from it. There is no
evidence that for the Arthurian period he made use of any other
chronicle than those two, though he remarks that he knows Geof-
frey's.^ Of his general manner of treating Wace's account, little
more need be said. He shows himself a compatriot of Layamon
and Robert of Gloucester. His occasional expansions of Wace's
lines and his incidental slight additions prove that he clearly
pictures situations in his own mind, as, for instance, when he
describes the last fight with Lucius and other battles,* or Arthur's
armor,* gives verbatim Uther's lament for his brother,^ or pictures
a game of "chekers."* His occasional touches of Saxon homeli-
ness'' and of mediaeval bigotry,* and his partisanship for the ancient
Britons, whom he sometimes designates by first personal pronouns,®
may be mentioned in passing. There are inevitable additions in
unimportant details: such as, — the statement that Hengist took
an amount of land of which each side was equal in length to his
thong — a change, evidently, in the interest of plausibility;^*^ the
statement that Merlin was only twelve years old at the time of
his first appearance ;^^ his giving Arthur a horse at Mount Badon;^^
his speaking of a legate distinct from Dubricius;^* the substitution
of names of nations of his own time for those given by Wace.^*
Robert shows a moral tendency in making over Wace's statement
about the love of knights for their amies so as to exclude those who
1 Vv. 61-64.
2 V. 10,595. It is evidently Geoffrey to whom he refers in vv. 58-59. On his
sources in general see Zetsche's dissertation, pp. 1-23; M. Thiimmig, Anglia^
1891, XIV, 1-76, especially pp. 1-6; O. Preussner, Robert Mannyng^s tjberset-
zungy etc., Breslau, 189 1. Zetsche's argument (pp. 10-37) that he used the
Miinchener Brut scarcely deserves mention.
8 Vv. 13,541 ff., 8465 ff. * V. 10,027. 6 Vv. 9071-9072.
• Vv. 1 1,397 ff. ; cf. w. 7018 ff., 8845 ff-» 10,130, 10,291-10,292, 10,866, 1 1,025, etc.
^ V. 13,182, etc. 8 Vv. 11,971-11,974, etc. • Vv. 9976, 13,581.
10 Vv. 7510-7512. 11 V. 8232. 13 V. 10,099.
18 V. 11,083. ^* V- io»S49; cf. p. 201, above.
Digitized
by Google
2o6 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
have wives.^ Apparently by confusion, he identifies the castle which
Arthur built in France with Kay's tower, and calls it Chymoun,^
Robert identifies the wood of Calidon, where Arthur fought one of
his battles, with "ffsykertoun,"* possibly following a current inter-
pretation of Geoffrey's story. He expands an early mention of Vorti-
gern,* ascribing to him the same Very bad character that is insisted on
by several of the chroniclers from William of Malmesbury down.^
Robert gives rather more direct evidence of familiarity with the
romances than any of his predecessors.* In describing the fight
of the dragons,^ he introduces two alliterative lines in a metre alto-
gether different from that which he ordinarily uses :
Wyppyng wyj> wenges, ouer-wepen & went,
Cracchyng wif clawes, rubbed & brent.**
This may be taken from some other poem, but if so, there is nothing
to show that that poem dealt with Arthurian material. But the
" weye that he wiste gayn " by which Arthur gets ahead of Lucius *
is a characteristic romance " property." In expressing his exalted
conception of Arthur he says :
pan of myrfe most was in halle,
Glad-chered, louely, & lordlyest of alle . . .
Ilka day come tydynges newe,
Gestes of ioye, wyf knyghtes trewe . . .
Was no f yng so noble of fewes
As men reden of hym & schewes.^**
Caliburne, with Robert, has assumed, both literally and figura-
tively, wonderful proportions. Its blade is ten feet long and more
' Vv. 11,347 ff. (cf. p. 184, above). 2 Vv. 14,007-14,012 (cf. p. 122, above).
8 V. 9932. * Vv. 7032-7040. * Cf. p. 40, above.
8 It is interesting to note in this connection that for " Beus of Oxenford,"
whose name appears in the Petyt MS. (v. 12,536), the scribe of the Lambeth MS.
has been misled into writing " Beofs of Hamptone " (cf. p. 217, below). The most
extended cases of use of romances occur in the non-Arthurian parts of Robertas
poem (cf. p. 138, above).
^ He says that the sympathy of all the people was with the red dragon, which
was finally killed, though the white dragon languished on for only four days.
8 Vv. 8197-8198. » V. 13,309. 10 Vv. 9751 ff.
Digitized
by Google
Robert Mannyng 207
than seven inches broad ;^ it "neuere for armes wolde scurne";^
and its name is Irelgas's battle-cry.* But, instead of saying that it
was made in Avalon, Robert observes: "In Ramesey & ojer stedes
}>e merke is ymade." ^ He refuses to believe the " Bretons lye "
that Arthur is not dead and will return.* As a matter of course, his
skepticism does not extend to Merlin, whose character as a wonder-
worker he assumes from the outset, remarking, for instance, that it
is by "coniurisouns" that he transported the Great Stones.^ In say-
ing of Merlin's fountain, "Baynes hit highte by olde tales, " ® Robert
may merely be thinking, across a scribal error, of Wace's name ^ for
it, Labenes, That the Round Table had come to be as thoroughly
associated with Arthur in his day as it is in ours, Robert shows
when he says that it was to see the Table that some of the foreign
barons came to Arthur's feast. ^
The explanation that if Arthur had longer delayed following
Modred into Cornwall the traitor would have been better prepared,
looks like a reply to the emphasis laid in the prose romance on
Arthur's refusal to wait for reenforcements. The statement that
Modred's illicit relations with the queen preceded Arthur's cam-
paign against Lucius® may easily have been inferred from Wace's
account. ^^ But the novel remark that when Arthur had been in
France, Iweyn ^^had opposed Modred's treasonable practices, whether
or not it is original with Robert, certainly rests on the popular fame
of Iwain. Robert says that, after the death of Wawayn and Agu-
sel, Arthur never gladly ate meat,^^ and of Wawayn he observes,
"Mykel honur of hym euer^ men seys."" In mentioning "Rone-
wen's " coming he makes an interesting allusion to other popular
stories about the episode :
But J?is lewed men sey and singe
& telle fat bit was mayden Inge.
Wryten of Inge, no clerk may kenne,
Bet of Hengiste dough ter, Ronewenne.^*
1 Vv. 10,035 ff- • V. 8752. » Vv. 12,039 ff.
2 V. 10,886. "^ V. 8217. 10 Cf. p. 163, above.
» V. 13,682. 8 V. 11,361. " Vv. 14,205 ff. Cf. p. 161, above.
* V. 14,301 ; cf. p. loi, note 6, above. 12 Vv. 14,119-14,120.
s V. 8903 ; cf. vv. 8748 ff. (cf. Wace, vv. 82 15-82 16), 9386.
1* V. 10,678; cf. p. 105, above. 1* Vv. 7533 ff.
Digitized
by Google
2o8 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
When explaining that he leaves out Merlin's prophecies because
they are not comprehensible before the event,^ he says that they are
written in the books of Blase, Tolomer, and Sire Amytayn, who
were Merlin's masters. His knowledge of Blase must have come
directly or indirectly from the prose Merlin, Twice ^ in praising
Arthur at length as the greatest of Christian kings,, he expresses
great dissatisfaction that, while his deeds have been celebrated in
all foreign lands, especially in French books, little or nothing has
been written about him in English.
1 Vv. 8213 ff. ; cf. p. 136, above. 2 Vv. 10,589 if., 10,967 ff.
Digitized
by Google
CHAPTER VIII
THE STORY AFTER GEOFFREY: THE FRENCH PROSE
CHRONICLES AND THEIR MORE DIRECT DERIVA-
TIVES (WITH OTHER VERNACULAR CON-
TINENTAL CHRONICLES)
More important than the English metrical chronicles are those
written in French prose, partly because they are much more numer-
ous and extend over a much longer period, partly because they
include the exceedingly popular Brut
I. Minor Early French Chronicles^
The earliest French chronicles that here concern us, all doubtless
composed in England, were probably for the most part brief and
insignificant. One,^ written on a roll, which comes down to the
time of Edward I, begins with an exceedingly concise outline of
the whole of Geoffrey's History^ accompanying it with an elaborate
1 Some chronicles which probably or certainly belong here I have not seen.
One occupies five leaves in Cambridge Univ. MS., Gg. i. i, no. 50, fols. 484b ff.
It is mentioned by Paul Meyer, in an article entitled De quelques chroniques
Anglo-Normandes qui ont porti le nom de Brut (Bull, de la Soc. des Anc. Textes
franfais^ 1878, IV, 104-145). I have not here retained the classification adopted
in that article because it seems to me that the question whether or not one of
these chronicles has been called Brut is unimportant. Other manuscripts are
Heralds' College MS. E. D. N., no. 14 (mentioned by Madden, The Ancient
English Romance of Havelok, pp. xxiv, liv) ; Barberini 2689 (Hardy, III, 206,
No. 348) ; Phillipps 1932 and 887 (Hardy, III, 373, No. 623). Neither the French
chronicle of the Layamon MS. (Calig., A. ix. 3) nor the equally brief outline in
Vesp. E. iv. 6, fols. I07b-ii2a, contains any account of the Arthurian period.
Apparently the same is true of MS. Coll. Trin. Cant. R. 14. 7. 6. (Hardy, III, 251,
No. 454). See also Meyer, Bulletin, 1879, V, 98 ; 1891, XVII, 70 ; Stengel, Ztsch,
f. rom. Phil., X, 278-285 ; Meyer, Romania, XVI, 154-155.
2 Brit. MS. Addit. 11713.
209
Digitized
by Google
2IO Arthurian Material in Chronicles
but still less complete genealogical tree. In the Arthurian period
it is rather less curtailed than elsewhere. It has eight lines about
Arthur, including the common inference that "Wenheure" was
equally guilty with Modred,^ and it states that Arthur was buried
at Glastonbury.
About 1300 or 1307, or more likely some twenty or twenty-five
years earlier,^ was put together another very short chronicle.* The
first part, Le Livere de Reis de Brittanie^ begins with a series of
much-abbreviated excerpts from some of the more romantic portions
of Geoffrey's History} On the Arthurian period it has only a single
clause, — about Vortigern's "receiving" Horsus and Hengist. The
second part, Le Livere de Reis de Engleterre^ which originally ended
with 1274, is concerned only incidentally with the history before
the Saxon period. Its brief account of the coming of the 3^xons
partly follows that of Bede, since it represents the Britons as send-
ing to the Saxons for aid ; but it takes from Geoffrey's form of the
story a mention of Vortigern's marriage with Hengist's daughter
and the accompanying " waisseyl " incident.
The chronicle of MS. Bodl. Tanner, 195, fols. 129-138, is a slight
list of little more than names, coming down to the accession of
Edward II. As far as Geoffrey goes, it follows him with practically
no difference.
Apparently based originally on the same work as the Livere de
Reis de Brittanie^ is the very strange compilation^ prepared in 1310
for Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, by Rauf de Boun, who called
1 Cf. p. 163, above.
2 See Meyer's article above (p. 209, note i).
8 Edited by John Glover, Rolls Series, 1865. The work included in the Char-
tulary of Malmesbury Abbey (MS. Publ. Record Office, Incen's Records, Miscel-
laneous Books, no. 24; Hardy, III, 198, No. 325) is, as Meyer inferred, the same
in substance, though with differences in phraseology (see fol. 37b). The first of
the two pieces printed by Glover has also been edited by John Koch, Li Rei de
Engleterre^ Berlin, 1886, on the basis of MS. Cotton Calig. A. ix., which omits
the portion (regarded by Koch as an interpolation) dealing with the Britons and
begins at a place corresponding to p. 8, 1. 17 of Glover's text. See also Stengel,
Deutsche Litteraturzeitungy 1886, p. 994, and Ztsch.f. rom. Phil.y X, 278.
* Though with considerable differences in the story of Leir.
^ MS. Harl. 902, fols. i-i ib.
Digitized
by Google
Rauf de Boun 2 1 1
it the Petit Brut, But in its present form it is altogether different
and, at least in the first part, much fuller than the Livere, It has
been well described as "a collection of historical notices chiefly
derived from apocryphal sources, and put together in so confused
and ignorant a manner, in defiance of chronology, as to baffle all
ingenuity to reconcile them to each other." ^ Its account of the
pre-Saxon period is based on Geoffrey's, but with various accretions,
especially, as in some of the Latin chronicles, with regard to the
foundation of various cities, and with most remarkable transforma-
tions ; and it omits the whole of the actual Arthurian epoch. But
after it has begun the story of the Saxon kings and has spoken of
two Adelufs, father and son, it states that on the premature death
of the latter, his younger brother Uter succeeded him.^ Then, after
telling how Uter fought with " le dragon serpent " in Westmoreland
(the incident is perhaps suggested by Geoffrey's account of how
Marius defeated and killed the Pictish Rodric there*), it relates
at great length his amour with the wife of the Duke of Cornwall,
calling the latter "Bodemound." Of Arthur it speaks in very gen-
eral terms, naming Percival and Gawayne among his knights,
referring to the romance of the Grail,* and mentioning Arthur's
conquest of Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. It speaks at some length
of his three sons, Adeluf III, Morgan le Noir, whom Arthur loved
the best, and Patrike le Rous, and Arthur's division of the island
among them. It apologizes for not recounting his exploits more
at length on the ground that he owed them to his love, la dame de
faierie (an evident allusion to Morgan the Fay or some similar
lady of romance) and that it is not " amiable de mettre fayere en
escripture." "But this king Arthur reigned twenty-one years, and
he died at the castle of Kerlionus, and his body was carried to
Glastinbery."
At several points in this unique narrative, the author refers for
corroboration to "I'autre Brut." But as no other known document
has anything similar to the stories here given, there seems to be no
means of telling whether the worthy Rauf, determined to please his
1 Madden, Haveloky p. xx. ^ qi^ p^ ^-^^ above.
2 Fol. 4b. * Cf. p. 189, above.
Digitized
by Google
212 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
patron at all hazards, amused himself by giving free rein to his
imagination, or really had some authority now lost. His mention
of liter's killing the dragon is a point of resemblance to Gottfried
of Viterbo's version of the story, especially since in both the term
" serpent " is also applied to the dragon.^
Here, for convenience, may be mentioned the short manuals of
English history which were drawn up during the period under con-
sideration for many of the noble English families, sometimes in
French, sometimes in Latin or English. In one of the few pub-
lished specimens^ the rhumt of the Arthurian period exhibits the
confusion already mentioned * between the campaigns against Flollo
and against Lucius. In another,^ which deals only with the rela-
tions between England and Scotland, is given an outline of Arthur's
conquest of the latter country.
A very confused composite account of the Arthurian period with
practically no new individual features occurs in another chronicle
which comes down to Edward 11.^ In the early portion it is mostly
an abbreviated paraphrase of Geoffrey combined with an increasing
amount of material from other sources. In the Arthurian period,
while it includes most of the substance of Geoffrey's account, it
turns aside to speak of the Roman emperors, it draws much
from Henry of Huntingdon (including some material which he
took from the Saxon Chronicle), and it has points from Nennius.
Thus it often repeats itself, and it presents one of the most hope-
less and inconsistent tnklanges conceivable. It has the "Thomas
FuUo " absurdity.^
Much more interesting and important is the Polistorie del Eglise
de Christ de Caunterbyre^ which comes down to the year 13 13. For
1 Cf. p. 147, above.
2 Edited by Thomas Wright, Feudal Manuals of English History^ 1872, No. 5,
p. 125 (but Wright omits everything to the beginning of the reign of Arthur).
\ Cf. p. 183, above. * Wright, No. 6, p. 156.
6 Brit. Mus. MS. Bibl. Reg. 20. A. xviii., no. i (Hardy, III, 393, No. 666).
^ Fol. 65a. Cf. p. 183, above.
"^ Described by G. Paris, Hist. Litt. de la France^ XXVIII, 480-486. It is
worthy of note that in certain proper names where many copies and paraphrases
of Geoffrey go astray, this chronicle generally has the correct forms. The MS. is
Harl. 636 ; see Hardy, III, 350, No. 576.
Digitized
by Google
Polistorie del Eglise de Caunterbyre 213
the most part this chronicle follows Geoffrey, as far as he goes, rather
closely, sometimes almost in a literal translation, with only an occa-
sional slight omission or amplification. Points worthy of specifica-
tion are : the author's animosity against Vortigern ; ^ a conversation
repeated between Ambrosius and Tremonnus, who is identified with
St. David ;^ a mention of the Round Table;' the occasional intro-
duction of a distinctively feudal or chivalrous touch, as when after
mention of Arthur's distribution of honors it is said: "Mult li
mercient cum per resun le devoyent disaunt : A teu seignur
deyt humme biene servir, ke les seons ne veut oblier ; mes avaunt
requeste avauncer." Interesting is the introduction of a detail
which seems to have originated with Wace, — the death of the fifth
Roman, the cousin of Marcel, at the hands of Gawain, in the retreat
of Arthur's envoys from the camp of Lucius.* The author adds
that no one could resist Gawain's blows, and gives some verses
which he says were inscribed on Gawain's sword to the effect
that it was made by Gaban when Christ was fourteen years old.*
Gaban is evidently a personage similar in character to Wayland
the Smith and Layamon's Wygar and Griffin.® Beginning at this
point, the author departs somewhat more than before from Geoffrey,
once or twice trying to motivate better the details of the story.''
He mentions the Round Table, and his praise of Gawain. is not
based altogether on Geoffrey.® The same is true of his account of
the campaign against Modred, which has points of resemblance
with the version in the famous Brut^ to which w^ are about to
come, — such, for example, as the mention of the ports Whytsand
and Sandwych. But it does not agree with that version. It men-
tions Arthur's banner, and says that he killed Modred with his
own hand.'
1 Cf. p. 40, above. * Fol. 21b 2.
2 Fol. i6a 2. * Fol. 24a 2 ; cf. p. 141, above.
* Printed in Publications of the Mod. Lang. Assoc.,, 1903, XVIII, 90.
• Cf. p. 162, above. 8 Cf. p. 105, above.
^ Cf. p. 134, above. • Cf. p. 120, n. 5, above.
Digitized
by Google
214 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
II. The Large Brut and its English Translation (with
THE French and English Literal Translations
OF Geoffrey's History)
One of the books most widely circulated in England in the four-
teenth and fifteenth centuries was the chronicle which came to be
known, and still is known, as " the Brut '* ^ par excellence. This
work seems originally to have been composed about 1272, though
most of the existing manuscripts continue the history for sixty
years later. Its authorship is unknown, as some of the manuscripts
expressly state ; for one cannot take seriously the " Douglas of
Glastonbury " named in one copy of the English translation ^ and
by Caxton on the title-page of his edition. The manuscripts fall
into two general classes,* but their differences occur almost alto-
gether after the Galfridian section, and in the Arthurian period
consist chiefly* of the insertion by the second redaction (in the
1 On the Brut and its very numerous manuscripts should be consulted, besides
the above-mentioned (p. 209, note i) discussions of Meyer and Madden (the
latter of which is largely repeated by Skeat in his Lay of Havelok^ E.E.T.S.,
pp. xiii ff.), — the British Museum class catalogue (in the Manuscript Room) of
works on the History of Great Britain and Ireland, Part II, pp. 505-517; \Vm.
Hardy, Recueil des Croniques^ Qtc.y par IVaurin, Rolls Series, 1864, 1, Ixii, note 2 ;
Madden, Notes and Queries^ 1856, 2d Series, I, 1-4; F. S. Haydon, Eulogium
Historiarum, Rolls Series, II, Ixx-lxxi. Mention may be made of an article by
the Abbe De La Rue in Essais Historiqlies sur les Bardes^ Caen, 1834, II, 165.
2 MS. Harl. 4690.
8 The first redaction is represented, for example, by Harl. 200 ; Domit. A. x. ;
Addit. 18462, no. 2; Addit. 351 13; Cleop. D. vii. The second, by Cleop. D.
iii. 3; Addit. 18462, no. i; Bibl. Reg. 20. D. iii. ; Bibl. Reg. 20. A. iiL But
sometimes manuscripts of the same class differ much in phraseology. Tor
example, Addit. 18462, no. i, is often curter in expression than Cleop. D. iii. 3.
On the Eulogium Historiarum, which follows the Brut in the first part of the
Arthurian story, see p. 176, above.
* Minor points of difference are the following : — The first redaction, in speak-
ing of Uter's last victory, enlarges a little upon his joy over it. The second
redaction has substituted Mont St. Bernard for Mont St. Michel in the adven-
ture with the giant, — an alteration which may perhaps be due in part to influence
from the romance story of Arthur's fight with the great cat, localized near a Swiss
lake (see Freymond, Artus^ Kampf mit dem Katzenungetuni). The second redac-
tion makes Otta and Ossa brothers (cf. p. 39, above). Some MSS. of the second
Digitized
by Google
The Large Brut 2 1 5
midst of the account of Arthur's expedition into Scotland) of a
prophecy made to him by Merlin about a lamb, a wolf, and other
animals, in the usual style of the apocalyptic utterances which were
popular for centuries after Geoffrey's successful use of them, if not
before. Similarly, prophecies said to have been made by Merlin
about Henry III, Edward I, and Edward II are inserted at the
end of the accounts of their respective reigns.
To trace the exact pedigree of the Brut is probably impossible.
Perhaps the work was influenced in some degree by Wace's version,^
though I have noted only four or five seemingly or possibly sig-
nificant cases of agreement: namely, — both mention Anna's mar-
riage to Loth when she is first named ; ^ both mention definitely
the choice of Colgrin as leader of the Saxons on the death of Octa
and Eosa; both observe at the first appearance of Guenevere'' that
she and Arthur had no heir ; both speak of the institution of the
Round Table and its cause ;^ and, after the end of the Arthurian
period, both have the episode of the capture of Cirencester by the
sparrow stratagem.* These coincidences may not prove much ; but
on the other hand, the Brut is so much more condensed than Wace's
poem that many striking parallelisms could not be expected.
At any rate, after some introductory material, the Brut begins
to follow the story of Geoffrey's History from the commencement,
whether or not the writer is drawing directly from Geoffrey, and
continues to paraphrase the story^ as far as Geoffrey carries it. The
differences, in a general way, are similar to those which occur in
other extended paraphrases, like Langtoft's for instance. But the
redaction (Addit. 18462, no. i, fol. 39a; Bibl. Reg. 20. A. iii., fol. i6ob) insert
after the mention of Arthur's great feast a passage of considerable length which
recounts in a manner far from clear how Arthur seated at the Round Table some
knights for whom there seemed not to be room. By an interesting confusion or
emendation, one manuscript (Addit. 18462, no. i) says that after the last battle
Arthur had himself carried to Saleme.
^ Cf.^p. 143, note I, above.
2 Geoffrey, viii, 20. The manuscripts of Geoffrey which I have examined agree
with the printed text in not mentioning the fact here.
* Geoffrey, ix, 9 ; cf. p. 140, above.
* At a point corresponding to Geoffrey, ix, 1 1.
* Wace, w. 14,005 ff. ; cf. Geoffrey, xi, 8.
Digitized
by Google
2 1 6 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
narrative is much abridged in several places, — especially in the
description of the battles of Bath and of those against Lucius, and
in the actual duel with the giant. ^ Further, many incidents, etc.,
are omitted altogether. The chief omissions are the following : —
the stratagem of "Bladulf " in getting into York ;^ the account of the
second and third wonderful lakes in Scotland ; ^ the expedition to
Norway, and, indeed, all the previous foreign conquests except those
of "Gutlande" and "Irland"; the account of the coronation fes-
tivities, except the banquet ; practically all the speeches made by
Arthur's men apropos of the Emperor's message ; Arthur's dream
on the Channel ; the whole story of the embassy to the Emperor
and the two first battles, which result therefrom; the battle with
Modred at Winchester.
Constant characteristics of the French mediaeval writers are vivid-
ness and liveliness of narration and lack of historical perspective.
These qualities are even more strikingly evident in the author of
the present chronicle than in Wace. He describes everything in
terms appropriate to his own time. To him all warriors are feudal
knights and men-at-arms, and all cities are walled towns of burghers,
like Winchester and London. He conceives English geography in
the age of Brutus as identical with that of the time of Edward I or
Edward III, — regarding the land as divided into Northfolk and
Southfolk and all the other Saxon counties fifteen hundred years
before the Saxons set foot on it. To explain Arthur's great feast
he says that he wished to be crowned king of Glamorgan, — being
evidently unable to think of Caerleon as anything more than the
capital of a Welsh county. With delightful naivetd he remarks that
it was contrary to sacred law for Modred to take his uncle's wife.
Neither can he adopt any other point of view than that of a
Catholic Christian, looking for direct judgments of God in every-
thing that happens, and feeling intense satisfaction when he thinks
himself justified in declaring that a king was good and of good
habits, or that the interests of the faith were advanced. He takes
1 Cf. p. 202, above.
2 This omission was necessitated by the statement that Colegryne left him in
charge of the city and himself went to Cheldryk for aid.
Digitized
by Google
The Large Brut 2 1 7
pains to say that when Constantine came from Brittany, all the
" Saracens " were killed except those who turned to God. He repre-
sents Arthur as encouraging his men on the ground that the
Romans are allied with heathen, and that God will help the Britons
because they have the right ; and he observes that Lucius trusted
more in his strength than in God Almighty, as appeared afterward.^
He gives a prayer of Arthur before the battle. His national preju-
dices sometimes crop out, as when, after having said that the eagles
in Loch Lomond gave warning whenever enemies attacked the land,
he adds that it was because the Scots were great ravagers.
From the scientific point of view, this bias is disastrous enough,
but literature and romance as evidently gain by it. For, as has
already appeared in the case of Wace and others, it enables the
author to enter with all his heart into his narrative, to call up the
details to his mind's eye, to explain doubtful points, and to express
the personal emotions aroused in him by events and characters.
To this attitude, then, manifesting itself in these ways, are due the
pervading difference of general effect arid most of the very numerous
differences in detail between the Brut and the original. But, in
addition to the particular points already mentioned, certain others^
generally explicable from these same considerations, ought to be
noted.
Dates are added, both of the Christian era and of the respective
reigns.^ As a matter of course, the numbers given, in whatever con-
nection, generally differ from those in the manuscripts of Geoffrey,
and proper names, as in almost all versions of the story, are much
corrupted. Constantine kills "Gowan," the oppressor, and Uter kills
Pascent with his own hand.'^ Vortigern is called, as in some pre-
vious versions. Earl of Westsexe, which, however, amounts to the
same thing as Geoffrey's description of him. It is definitely stated
that Engist's first message to Germany for more Saxons was secret.^
Engist's brother is Horn, — a case of scribal confusion with another
romantic story.* It is said that he had built a fortress which he
1 In his defeat. The author does not tell us whether the same reason is to be
given for Arthur's overthrow. ^ Cf. p. 159, above. * Cf. p. 213, above.
* Cf. p. 36, above. * Cf. p. 206, note 6, above.
Digitized
by Google
2 1 8 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
called Horncastle,^ and that Vortimer, in wrath at the death of
" Catagren," destroyed it. The scene of Vortigern's infatuation with
Ronewen is made somewhat more vivid. The now thoroughly in-
trusive figure of St. Germanus is dropped out. Vortigern's resto-
ration to the throne is on condition that he shall never allow Engist
or any of his race to reenter the land.^ When Vortigern is taken
by the Saxons, some of them wish to burn him alive. Almost the
whole of Merlin's prophecy is omitted.' It is Engist who divides
the land into seven kingdoms, for purposes of defence against the
Britons, it is said, — an idea quite different from that sometimes
given in the chronicles ; and the name England is derived from
Engist, Merlin and the other " child " with whom he is quarrelling
are said to be twenty-four years old. For moving the great stones
Merlin receives whatever reward he will. "Aurilambros" is killed
in the second year of his reign. Only one castle of Gorloys is men-
tioned, — "Tyntagell," — and it is not explained how he and Uter
could both be in it at the same time and in the same form without
trouble. Arthur is often said to act by the counsel of his men, — for
instance, in allowing the Saxons to depart for Germany, in deciding
to conquer France, and in being crowned king of Glamorgan. In
the account of Arthur's distribution of fiefs, Auguselus and Urien
are not mentioned,* but Gawen appears.^ Aloth (Loth) is called
son of Elyn, a feature which perhaps goes back to ancient Celtic
mythology.® The Round Table is introduced, inevitably, but the
reason for its construction is said to have been that all the knights
were so good that none was worse than another.'' Certain provinces
of France are specified as given by Arthur to Holdinus, who is
called his chamberlain, to Dorell his nephew, and to Richard his
cousin, — the last, at least, a new character for the chronicles. It
is after the banquet is finished that Arthur takes counsel as to his
reply to Lucius. Both Key and Bedver are sent to explore the
1 Presumably this idea was developed from the monument in Kent to which
Horsa's name had been given, mentioned by Bede (cf. pp. 24-25, above).
2 Cf. p. 244, below. 8 Cf. p. 136, above.
♦ Cf. p. 136, above. ^ Cf. p. 105, above.
^ In Celtic mythology, no doubt, all the Helens, including the one of Mont
St. Michel, were originally identical. "^ Cf. p. 142, above.
Digitized
by Google
The Large Drxxt 219
mountain where Arthur is to fight the giant, but before Arthur him-
self leaves the camp. It is specified that the Emperor's departure
from Rome is in the month of August, — an idea which may be
developed from his previous demand that Arthur shall present
himself at Rome before the middle of that month, or may be due
to a misunderstanding of the name of the town Augustodunum^
which Geoffrey meiltions in connection with the campaign. To the
Emperor his messengers report that Arthur's state is greater than
his own or that of any other king in the world. In the battle with
Lucius, Arthur kills five kings, besides a multitude of others. Modred
is reported as sending to Cheldrik for aid, not as asking him to
get it. In coming from France, the place of Arthur's embarkation
is specified as ^yhytsand, and that of his landing as Sandwych.
Arthur sends the body of Gawen, as well as that of Auguissel,
into Scotland, — an idea evidently connected with the Northern
set of stories of which Gawain was the hero. No mention is made
of Eventus (I wain). ^ Gunnore is blamed by implication, and it
is said that after her flight to the nunnery (which is effected in
secret with four men) she was never seen among the people.^ It is
definitely stated that Arthur died, though mention is made of the
British hope. The author's vividness of imagination sometimes
manifests itself in a practical touch, as when he says that on the
return to England of Childrick and his Saxons after their first de-
feat by Arthur they took all the armor that they could find, — a pre-
caution quite necessary at that stage of the ?tory, since they had
given up all that they had ; or again, when he states that the men
of Bath defended themselves well.
In a more striking way, then, than most of the other chronicles,
the French Brut shows how in those centuries when the journal-
ist's imagination and the romancer's instinct for situations were
adjudged by the tacit vote of popular approval as no less valua-
ble for the historian than the scholar's judgment and conscience
and devotion, one of the most popular versions of a most popular
narrative, existing side by side with the original, could exhibit
variations great and small at every turn. There was no standard
1 Cf. p. 161, above. * Cf. p. 163, above.
Digitized
by Google
220 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
of comparison by which the unfelt complications could be simplified
and the statements of the anonymous writers subjected to critical
examination.
It was doubtless inevitable that prose chronicles in England
should be written in French sooner than in English, and it was at
least natural that what seems to be the earliest prose form should
be a translation of a work so popular as the French Brut} As to
the date of this translation, to which frequent original additions
were made, there is no definite evidence, but it probably belongs
to the beginning of the fifteenth century.^ It is frequently referred
to by later writers as "the English Chronicle." It was made from
the second redaction of the French, and followed its original very
closely indeed, though various modifications crept into different
manuscripts." Its vogue and importance were vastly increased by
the fact that Caxton selected it for publication. His edition^
entitled The Cronycles of Englond^^ appeared at Westminster in
1480. In all the early part (until after the Arthurian period) it
follows the manuscripts of the usual type, and therefore corresponds
almost exactly, except for unavoidable divergences in numbers and
names, with the ordinary form of the second French redaction.*
Accordingly, though it is a fine example of sturdy English, there is
no reason to dwell upon it, nor do the later printed editions, as
regards the Arthurian material, depart from the first in anything
but trivial details.®
1 For the MSS. of the English translation see the Brit. Mus. manuscript class
catalogue, volume concerning the Hist, of Great Brit, and Ireland^ Part II,
pp. 449, 451. The chronicles from which extracts were printed by Boddeker in
Herrig's Archiv^ 1873, L^^* 10-29, ^.re merely copies of this English translation. .
2 So Madden ; otherwise Wm. Hardy, ed. of Wavrin, I, Ixii, note 2.
8 Thus, MS. Galba E. viii. (fols. 29-148) differs in phraseology from the others
which I have examined; and Harl. 63 abbreviates throughout and inserts occa-
sional Latin verses, besides including Merlin's prophecies, in Latin.
* See Gross, Sources and Literature of English History^ p. 272, No. 1733.
^ Such as Cleop. D. iii. 3.
® Nearly an exact reprint is the edition of William de Mechlin, London, 1482,
and only a little less close is that of Gerard de Leeu, Antwerp, 1493. '^^^ edition
by the Schoolmaster of St. Albans, 1483, inserts at the beginning a fructus
temporum^ and, throughout the text, much material about other countries than
Digitized
by Google
Philippe Mousket 221
III. Philippe Mousket
In the extensive Chronique rimke^ written before 1244^ by the
Fleming Philippe Mousket, there are occasional mentions of
«*Artus'* as the type of a great king;* allusions to the Breton
expectation of his return ; * mention of Gawain ; ^ and a few cita-
tions of Merlin, not always derived from Geoffrey/ Merlin is said
to have been buried at " Malebierge." ®
England ; otherwise it also is very nearly a literal reprint. It was reproduced with
very slight changes by Wynkyn de Worde at Westminster, 1497-8, by Julyan
Notary, London, 1504, and by Richard Pynson, London, 1510.
In this connection may be mentioned two English prose chronicles catalogued
by Hardy (I, 356-357, Nos. 834, 835), and said by him to be translations of Geof-
frey. He notes of the first, which is the work of " Maister Gnaor," that it abounds
in interpolations.
Reference may here be made, also, to the two known mere translations of
Geoffrey's History into Old French. One is included in the vast historical com-
pilation of MS. f. 17177 of the Biblioth^que Nationale, fol. 73a (see P. Meyer in
Bull, de la Soc. des Anc. Textes franf.^ 1895, PP* ^3 ff-)- This translation occasion-
ally abbreviates a little (very greatly after the end of Arthur's reign), and it stops
apparently unfinished, at the coming of St. Augustine. The other is that made in
1445 ^y ^ certain Wauquelin of Mons, in Hainault, for the Count of Chimay (Hardy,
I» 358 ; Ward, I, 251-253), which appears to be a very free rendering, padded out in
the usual French style of the period. The work mentioned by Ernest Langlois
(Notices et Extraits des MSS. de la Bibl. Nat., etc., 1890, XXXIII, Part II, p. 74)
and by P. Meyer (as above, p. 90) is really a copy of part of Wavrin, beginning
with book ii. It was used by Hardy (though he almost overlooked it) in his
edition of Wavrin (see his Introd., I, ccxvi, note, and Notes and Emendations,
pp. 505 ff.).
As far as appears from the account of the Fleur des Hy stories of Jehan Mansel
de Hesdin (a writer of the end of the fourteenth century) given by P. Paris (Les
MSS. Francois de la Bibl. du Roi, I, 6i ff.), the authentic manuscripts lack the
British part, and I have found that the same is true of some, at least, of the copies
of the work as abridged and rearranged (see II, 314 ff., 322 f. ; V, 314 f., 418).
1 Ed. Reiffenberg, 2 vols., Brussels, 1836-8, among the Chroniques Beiges of
the Belgian Royal Academy ; also in part by Tobler (in Pertz, Scriptores, XXVI,
718 ff.) and in Bouquet, Recueil, XXII, 34 ff. See Grober, Grundrissj II, i,
762-3; B. C. Du Mortier, Compte-Rendu des Siances de la Commission royale
d^Histoire, ist Series, IX, Brussels, 1845, PP' 112 ff.
2 So Grober, II, i, 763. ^ Vv. 19,124 ff., 19,454 ff., 20,543 ff.
« V. 8862-8877, etc. « Vv. 22,579-22,580.
* Vv. 24,627-24,628, 25,201-25,204.
Digitized
by Google
222 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
IV. Jean des Preis
A work destined to be frequently referred to by the later Eng-
lish chroniclers was the immense Mer des Histoires^ more properly
Ly Myreur des Histors^^ which covers the history of the world from
the Deluge to 1340. It was composed, apparently near the end of
the fourteenth century, by the Fleming Jean des Preis (or d'Outre-
meuse, born 1338), a bourgeois of aristocratic descent, who was
clerk in the Court of fichevins at Li^ge.^ In this compilation Jean
reduced into vernacular prose * a great number of chronicles, chan-
sons de geste,^ and romances. He includes a large amount of roman-
tic Arthurian material, much of which was never admitted into any
other extant chronicle.* He inserts it fragmentarily, after the fash-
ion usual in works like his, wherever the various episodes seem to
him to belong in his annalistic (though very extended) narrative.
In substance this material is as follows : —
Merlin reigned as king in Great Britain, in great honor, about
the year 478 a.d.* Here the tower episode is mentioned. At the
same time [apparently] and later, reigned Uter,^ father of Artus.
The mention of Uteres death introduces a summary outline (pre-
mature as regards Arthur's exploits) of Geoffrey's whole Historic^
with slight variations.^ Here it is said that the Round Table,
which Merlin had made, had sixty seats,® and that in Artus's last
battle he killed Mordret with his own hand, Mordret wounded him.
1 Edited by A. Borgnet and S. Bonnans (among the Chroniques Beiges of the
Belgian Royal Academy), 6 vols., Brussels, 1864-1880, with an introductory
volume by Bormans, Chronique et Geste de Jean des Preis, 1887. This chronicle
was later continued by Jean de Stavelot, but his work does not concern the
present discussion. See also Grober, Grundriss, II, i, 1080-1081.
2 See Bonnans, especially pp. xcii-xciii.
8 Without inventions of his own, according to Bormans.
* G. Paris, Mediceval French Literature, p. 130.
s This is not the place for any attempt at a study of his sources. Bormans,
p. Ivii, mentions as lost sources the early thirteenth-century Chronique des Vavas-
sours (continued by Bishop Hugues de Pierrepont), the Chronique of Enguerrand
de Bar, and the Chronique of Jean de Wamant. See his discussion, pp. xcv ff.
6 Bk. i, vol. II, pp. 165, 171. 8 II, 188 ff.
7 II, 165, 182, 188. 9 II, 198.
Digitized
by Google
Jean des Frets 223
and every knight of the Round Table was killed except two.^
In the later and less incidental Arthurian passages Artus*s con-
quests are made to extend far and wide. They include * the king
of Persia, the Emperor Lucidar (Geoffrey's Lucius), the king
of " Saynes " (who is killed, and his daughter and kingdom given
to Artus's friend Paris of France), the Vandals, Syria, Jerusalem,
and Egypt,* the Danes, who were devastating Saxony,* and
Justin, son of the Emperor Anastaux, when he invades Britain.*
There is special praise of Tristan, who is called king of Lonnois.*
Several tournaments are described at some length, — one made by
Uter at Carlon for knighting Artus and Paris,' and others at
Lutesse (Paris) and London.® In connection with the tourna-
ments are named various Arthurian ladies and knights, among the
latter Ywain, Keux, Blioberis, and Erech. A second account of
the end of Artus*s reign, inconsistent enough with the first, is as
follows:® — Tristan is assassinated by King March, who is there-
fore put to death by Artus's knights. March's natural son Galopes
incites the Emperor of Rome to invade Britain. The Emperor is
defeated and flees to Rome. Artus follows, and the Romans accept
him as Emperor. Then comes the news of Mordrech's treason, and
the last campaign. Artus, defeated and wounded in the final battle,
goes with Gawain in a boat to the isle of Avalon, to the castle of
his sister Morgaine, for the healing of his wounds : " et welt-ons
dire que c'est feierie, et encors les ratendent les Brutons qui quident
qu'ilh dole revenir." ^^ AH the knights of the Round Table are
now dead except Lanchelot del Lac, who, assembling his people,
and taking with him his vassal king Carados of Little Britain,
besieges and captures London. He executes the guilty Genevre,
and also Mordrech by shutting him up with the corpse of
Genevre, which in his hunger he eats. Lanchelot bestows the
crown on Constantin, son of Carados, and himself becomes a
hermit." Later there is mention of his coming to Paris at the
age of one hundred and seventy-seven years and speaking of his
former exploits.^'
12
1 II, 198-199. * II, 216. 7 II, 182. 10 II, 243.
211, 203 ff. 611,217-218. 8 II, 210 ff., 236-237. 1111,244.
811,214-215. «II, i8iff. »II, 24iff. ^211,357.
Digitized
by Google
224 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
At much later points in his narrative Jean introduces the story
of Ogier the Dane, drawing from his own Geste d^Ogier, and there
he gives occasional Arthurian romance material, with exploits of
Artus.^
V. The ScALACRomcA of Sir Thomas Gray
Another French chronicle is the Scalacronica of universal and
British history put together about 1355 by the warlike Sir Thomas
Gray while he was a prisoner at Edinburgh. This must here be
judged from a few extracts only (which include the author's pro-
logue) given by Stevenson in his edition of its last part ^ (beginning
after the Arthurian period) and from a few notes included by Leland
in his Collectanea,^
As to his immediate source, Sir Thomas states in his prologue
that he translated out of rhyme, but this remark need hardly be
accepted, since the whole prologue is of a fantastic character, and
since Sir Thomas, as he says himself, based the later books on
various prose historians. He mentions also Walter of Oxford (he
says Exeter)^ but this doubtless means only that his source preserved
Geoffrey's references to Walter.
Apparently the work follows the general course of Geoffrey's
narrative, drawing from various versions of it, and with just such
minor divergences and accretions (partly of a local nature, partly
taken from romantic ri/acimenti) as have already been so often
noted here. Thus Leland quotes : " Sum Chroniques say that Uther
vanquisshid Otta and Oza at Wyndegate by Coquet Ryver";
" Arthure was crouned at Wynchestre " ; * " Arthure gave to Loth,
Anguisel, and Urien (the 3. Sunnes of Kahu) more Landes than
their Auncetors had ... to Loth Lownes and his eldest Sister." ^
(Geoffrey names only one sister of Arthur, though he implies
1 Bk. ii, IV, 3, 20-21, 36-37, 50-51, 55-58; bk. iii, V, 125 ff.
2 For the Maitland Club, 1836; Prologue^ pp. 1-4; extracts, pp. 317-319 (on
the author see pp. xii ff ,).
8 Ed. Lond., 1770, Part II, pp. 509-51 1 ; reprinted by Stevenson, pp. 259 ff. The
manuscript of the Scalacronica is in the library of the University of Cambridge.
* Geoffrey, ix, i, Cflcestria; cf. p. 229, below. ^ Cf. pp. 232, 247, below.
Digitized byCjOOQlC
Jehan de Wavrin 225
another.) "Arthure married Genouer, Cosin to Cador of Corne-
wail,^ and Doughter to the King of Briscay," — a monstrous romance
or ballad idea.* According to Leland it was Hywain^ who killed
Mordrede in the last battle, after which Arthur was "deadely
woundid, and cam to Avalon with Hiwayne." The only narrative
passage printed by Stevenson, that relating to the battle of Bath
and Arthur's conquest of the Picts, is more abridged than Geoffrey's
text.* There is inserted, however, a lively new detail, borrowed
from the author's acquaintance with actual warfare, of how Arthur
took archers to fight the Irish, mounting them behind his men-at-
arms. The account of the wonderful lakes leads to the insertion of
other marvels, briefly described. But Sir Thomas is not a lover of
the supernatural. He leaves out Merlin's prophecies, because, he
says, they are not credible.^ Nevertheless, he defends the histo-
ricity of Arthur ; to use Leland's words, in " a hole Chapitre spek-
ing agayne them that beleve not Arthure to have beene King of
Britaine." Later, he mentions the discovery of Arthur's tomb and
Richard's gift of Calibourne to Tancred.®
VI. The Version of Geoffrey's Story included in the
Recueil of Sire Jehan de Wavrin
At least as early as the first quarter of the fifteenth century, per-
haps no later than 1390, there was composed in French and in
France, by a writer of whom nothing is known except that he may
have been a Bourbonnais, a version of Geoffrey's narrative which
was embodied, with only slight verbal changes, by Sire Jehan de
Wavrin in his voluminous Recueil^ or complete history of Great
Britain,'^ begun about 1455, just a century after Gray's Scalacronica.
Of Wavrin himself it is enough to say that he was an illegitimate
son of a noble house, a brave warrior, who saw much service with
both the court and the Burgundian parties ; that after the peace of
1 Cf. p. 140, above. » cf. p. 161, above. * Cf. p. 136, above.
2 Cf. p. 266, below. * ix, 3, 30-ix, 9, 7. ^ Stevenson, pp. 37, 63.
■^ Edited by William Hardy, Rolls Series (see I, Ixviii ff., 3). My references
are all to the first volume of this edition. On Wavrin see also Morley, English
Writers. VI, 154.
Digitized
by Google
226 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Arras in 1435 ^^ settled at Lisle as lord of Forestel and Fontaine,
and. from that time chiefly devoted his energies to his history. As
to the version of Geoffrey's story which he appropriates, there are,
according to Hardy, certain features which clearly distinguish it
from all others, but of these the only ones relevant to the present
discussion are frequent allusions to the " Master of Histories " as
an authority, and a commentary (inserted line by line) on the
prophecies of Merlin.^
Examination proves beyond a doubt that this work is based
directly upon Wace in the pre-Arthurian portion,^ but that when it
reaches Const an tine, the father of Constans, it turns to Geoffrey,
whom it thenceforth follows^ with only occasional touches from
Wace. The deviations from the sources, however, both in sub-
stance and in spirit, are decidedly greater than in any other of the
real paraphrases of Geoffrey's story which have so far been
considered.
In the first place, the whole manner of the narration illustrates in
a still more marked degree all those characteristic mediaeval French
tendencies which have already been dwelt upon in the case of Wace
and of the Brut, The style is that of the French prose romances.
The author is prolix, vivaciously and delightfully garrulous and
chatty, like a man who has all the time in the world himself and
never imagines that his readers may be in a hurry. He abounds
in figures and imaginative touches. Like a modern novelist, he
takes us with him into the confidence of his characters, as when he
says that Aurelien could not rest so long as he knew that there was
any pagan left in the island ; ^ or describes how Englist reflected
on the easiest and safest way to deceive the Britons.^ He shows
great vividness in description, — he speaks of the pity and horror
caused by the cries of the wounded and dying ; ® of the weeping of the
women and children abandoned by the departing Saxons ^ and of
1 Cf. p. 189, above.
2 Cf. p. 143, above. Cf. also the treatment in the Eulogium Historiarum
(p. 176, above) and Robert Mannyng (p. 204, above).
8 Even to the inclusion (though with characteristic expansion) of Geoffrey's
addresses to Bishop Alexander and Earl Robert (pp. 226, 436-438).
4 Book iii, p. 305. ^ p, 212. « P. 302. ^ p, 207.
Digitized
by Google
Jehan de Wavrin 227
" Vorcimer's " people when they knew that he must die ;^ he dwells
on the way in which the valiant knights fight ; ^ he explains the
stratagem by which the besiegers of Gorlois's castle entice him into
issuing out ; ' he says that the giant, when mortally wounded by
Arthur, roared so abominably that it seemed as if all the winds had
got together into that place,* — and so on ad infinitum. He identi-
fies the customs of the Arthurian period with those of his own time :
— it is for artillery that Vortiger ^ and Gorlois ® look when they
wish to defend -^their castles ; Greek fire is the cause of Vortiger's
destruction ; "^ " Vorcimer " is buried in St. Paul's at London, with
his ancestors, the other kings of Britain ; ^ Arthur is the heir of the
royalty of the fleurs-de-lys ; ® all the battles are fought like those of
the fourteenth fcentury, with archers, men-at-arms, and knights. ^^
Lucius has the men whom he sends out for an ambuscade choose
their own leaders ;^^ Arthur's war-cry is " Bretaigne";" his men are
the " royalists " ; ^' and before engaging in any enterprise he takes
counsel of his barons.^* The speeches of the heroes are altogether
modern,^*^ and almost universally begin with the colloquial " Hee ! "
The desire to rationalize an old mythic element no longer under-
stopd appears when we are told that it was because ** Vorcimer's "
people respected him so much that they did not obey his direc-
tions about his burial,^® or that Arthur himself cut off the giant's
head."
A marked characteristic of the author is his orthodox piety."
The Britons are always loyal Catholic chevaliers ; Arthur's exalta-
tion above other kings is especially due to his valiant enterprises in
behalf of Catholic interests;^® Vortigier's sins seem to be enhanced
by the fact that they are fallings away from la saintefoy catholicque,^
The author is also somewhat given to moralizing. ^^ Altogether, it
seems very probable that he was a churchman.
1 p. 208.
8 P. 211.
15 Pp. 346, 425, etc .
2 Pp. 408, 440,
etc.
»P.325.
i« P. 210; cf. p. 136, above.
^ PP- 339-340.
10 P. 348, etc.
" P. 399.
* P. 399.
11 P. 410.
18 Pp. 205, 327, etc.
6 P. 289.
12 P. 43,.
"P. 338.
« P. 335.
w P. 445-
25 P. 220; cf. pp. 207, 324.
' p. 293. 1* Pp. 386 ff., 401, etc. 21 Pp. 209, 299, 401, 434 ; cf. p. 208.
Digitized
by Google
228 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
His personal interest in the story sometimes manifests itself in
rather prolonged reproachful addresses ^ : — to Vortiger,^ "Englist,"
Pascent, or Mordreth. His abhorrence of the Saxons is extreme,'
but he is as unconscious as Gottfried of Viterbo of racial differ-
ences, and even applies to the Britons the name Anglois.^
He characteristically introduces an element altogether new to
the story by often referring to Dame Fortune as the arbiter of the
affairs of men,^ once or twice almost directly coupling her name
with that of Jesus. Similarly, he introduces Cupid as the author of
Uther's love, which he describes with the warmth and in the con-
ventional language of amatory secular literature.*
The other points of interest can best be made apparent by run-
ning hastily through Wavrin's narrative of the Arthurian period and
noting its chief variations from Geoffrey, so far as they have not
been already mentioned.
Wavrin, or rather, his source, greatly expands the. account of the
first battle of the Saxons and Britons against the Picts, telling
especially of Englist's valor ; Englist had long coveted the lofty
rock on which he built his castle ; his feast is described at greater
length, and we are told that he has Ronixa repeat merry ballads in
her own language for the entertainment of Vortigier.'' By a strange
confusion it is said that in the second of Vorcimer's battles. Pas-
cent, fighting on the side of Vorcimer, and "Kartigern" on that of
Vortigier, jousted against and pierced each other, but Pascent, it is
added, recovered, through the excellent medical aid that he had.
It is definitely stated that the third of these battles was least mem-
orable. Vorcimer gently rebukes Vortigier before the barons.
Other Britons besides Eldol are made to escape from the massacre.
It was the Saxons who had initiated Vortigier into the pernicious
pagan error of augury to which he finally had recourse^ — "and we
ourselves," observes the author, "daily see the treachery of the
Anglois, who are descended from the Saxons." On hearing Merlin's
prophecy, Vortigier believes that in him is an angel of paradise, and
1 Pp. 195, 197, 201, 216, 324, 436. 6 Pp. 304, 324, 348, etc.
2 Cf. p. 40, above. ^ Pp. 334, 336; cf. p. 258, below (Fabyan).
* Pp. 301, 360. "^ Cf. p. 152, note 6, above (Layamon).
* P. 204. 8 Pp. 219-220.
Digitized byCjOOQlC
Jehan de Wavrin 229
repents that he consulted necromancers; similarly, later, Gavain's
valor causes the enemy to believe that he is more than a human
being.^ Eldol asks and is allowed to lead the van in Aurelien's first
battle against Hengist. It is the master-workman at Stonehenge,
not Tremorien, who tells Aurelien of Merlin ; Uther, by the advice
of Merlin, sends messengers to Gillomith before proceeding to the
Stones. There is great expansion in the narrative of Pascent's
exploits in Germany, and somewhat less in the account of Uther's
first battle against the Saxons. When Gorlois's men find Uther
in the form of their master with Ygerna, they think that the
real Gorlois, who was killed before their eyes, must have been a
demon, sent to lead them to destruction.^ Uther has a twelve
years' interval of peace — apparently borrowed from the account of
Arthur's reign. The manner in which Uther's well is poisoned is
described. Misreading Cilcestriaey the author has made Arthur's
coronation take place at "Cloucestre."* He misunderstands some of
the details of the battle of Bath. He calls Duke Cador king;* says
that Caerleon was on the Thames; that Quintilien had been made
governor of Gaul by the Senate, not that he was the Emperor's
nephew; makes Boso kill a second one of his pursuers, Cabellus.^
Arthur, he says, had sent Gavain to Pope Sulpicius to be made a
clerk, but the pope, foreseeing in the spirit of prophecy that he
would be one of the most valorous knights in the world, sent him s
back. Leo is Lucius's companion, the Emperor of Italy.® There
was hardly a Briton who was not wounded in the great battle with
Lucius.
The author's source tries to explain why Geoffrey of Monmouth,
whom, by a misunderstanding of Geoffrey's address to Earl Robert,^
he makes an earl, said nothing (another mistake) about the cam-
paign against Modred; and suggests that it was because Geoffrey
himself was of the family of Modred. To this Wavrin adds that
he thinks the reason was rather the abominable nature of the crime.
It is especially noteworthy that the author tries to clear Queen
1 P. 427 ; cf. p. 105, above. ' ^ Cf. p. 141, above.
2 P. 341. 6 Cf. p. 85, note 2, above.
* Cf. p. 224, above. ^ Geoffrey, xi, i.
^ P. 446.
Digitized
by Google
230 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Geneviere of all blame.^ Her marriage with Modred, he says, was
due to his compulsion;^ she hopes for aid from Arthur, and it is
because she is falsely informed that he was killed in the first battle
with Modred that she flees to Urbs Legionum to become a nun.
There she ends her days chastely and in great patience.'*
In the account of Arthur's last battle and death, the author
clearly follows some current romance or traditional form. The
battle was the most terrible ever fought. Arthur himself pierces
Mordreth with his lance, so that a ray of light is clearly seen to
pass through the body of the disloyal traitor; but before falling
dead, Mordreth returns the blow and beats his uncle to the earth.
So far the resemblance to Henry of Huntingdon's account is obvi-
ous,* though the piercing, and that with a spear, and the wound by
Modred, are divergences, and points of similarity with the version
in the prose Lancelot, The rest of Wavrin's narrative, also, is much
like the Lancelot, At the end, he says, only Arthur and nine knights
are left alive. They go to a hermitage, where six of the knights die
forthwith of their wounds, and the seventh a little later, as Arthur
embraces him. Making his will, Arthur leaves the kingdom to Con-
stantine, who is his nephew.^ While the other two knights, Gifflet
and Constantine, are asleep, he vanishes mysteriously, but some say
that he was carried to the isle of Avalon. " But the history of the
Graal speaks otherwise, an4 some say that, Gifflet alone of his com-
panions remaining, the two went to the sea-shore, where Arthur
gave Caliburne to Gifflet, entered into a boat which he found ready
there, and was borne away so rapidly that almost at once he was
out of Gifflet 's sight."*
VII. Pierre Le Baud's Histoire de Bretagne
At about the beginning of the sixteenth century, Pierre Le Baud,
precentor and canon of Laval, composed, at the express command
of Anne of Brittany, a history of her native province.' In his
second chapter,^ Le Baud begins a rather complete summary of
1 Cf. p. 163, above. * P. 441. ^ cf. p. 140, above, p. 252, below.
2 P. 436. * Cf. p. 120, above. ^ P. 447. Cf. pp. loi, 146, above.
7 Edited by the Sieurd' Hazier, Paris, 1638. ^ p. 20.
Digitized byCjOOQlC
Alain Boucliart 231
Geoffrey's work, which he follows closely, with occasional additional
material, unrelated to the present discussion, drawn from other
authors. The only point which need be noticed is that he often
names, together with Geoffrey, " the author of the deeds of Artur
le Freuxy autrement nommk le Grandy'' which evidently must have
been a work of a romantic nature.^
VIII. Alain Bouchart's Grandes Croniques de Bretaigne
Another history of Brittany, composed at about the same time
as Le Baud's, but much more notable as regards Arthurian mate-
rial, is the Grandes Croniques of the Breton noble Alain Bouchart,
published in 1514.^ This begins with a somewhat condensed ver-
sion of Geoffrey's whole story, largely interpolated in some places,
but not in the Arthurian portion. The latter diverges from Geoffrey
to a greater extent than the other sections, but the parallelism is
generally very close, and the natural conclusion is that the author
is chiefly following some work which in the main almost exactly
reproduced Geoffrey's.'* He occasionally draws (whether directly
or indirectly) from the monk of Ursicampum's interpolated version
of Sigebert, and to a slight extent from other authors, whom he
names, principally, it seems, for ostentation. Many of his minor
differences from Geoffrey are to be explained as mistakes in read-
ing or interpretation, or as attempts to furnish an explanation ; * and.
1 Cf. what William of Malmesbury says of the source of his story about Ider
(p. 99, above).
2 Edited by H. Le Meignen, Nantes, 1886 (Soci^t^ des Bibliophiles Bretons).
8 The printed catalogue of books in the British Museum is certainly wrong in
saying that Bouchart draws from Caxton.
* Such are: — the change of Satumus into Neptune (fol. 41 a i) ; the state-
ment that Chedric was not present at the battle of Badon (49 a 2 ; cf. Geoffrey,
ix, 4, 44) — doubtless to explain why he seems to appear again later (cf. p. 186,
above, and p. 234, below) ; that Loth's province was London (49 b 2) ; that Arthur's
coronation feast occurred five years after his return from France (51 b i), — evi-
dently to explain Cador's speech later (cf. p. 133, n. 10, above); that Lucius had
been sent by Leo to reconquer France (52 a i ; cf. p. 85, note 2, above) ; that
Arthur killed 476 Romans in the last battle with Lucius, — a remark resting evi-
dently on confusion with the battle of Badon (cf. p. 183, above) ; that it was by
Digitized
by Google
232 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
besides, there are the usual insignificant modifications in details.^
Perhaps more important is the statement that the white dragon
conquered the red.^
The author mentions the Round Table,* and expresses uncertainty
as to whether Arthur is really alive or dead.* A decided change in
the thread of the story appears when for the whole of Geoffrey's
narrative of events between the duel with the giant and the last
battle with Lucius is substituted an account of an embassy in
the person of Guerin de Chart res, sent by Arthur to Lucius.*^ A
still greater change is that which represents Arthur's victory over
Flollo — who is called a giant * — as due to the interposition of the
Virgin,* who blinds Flollo by covering Arthur's shield with her
mantle.^ As authority for this statement is adduced the Memoriak
hystoriarum. Since the robe was furred with ermine, says Bouchart,
Arthur, and after him the other kings of Britain, have worn the
ermine in their arms.® A local French touch appears in the same
place : because of this victory Arthur built a chapel to the Virgin
in Paris on the site where Notre Dame now stands. A distinctly
Breton twist is seen when we read that it was that one of Arthur's
sisters whose name is mentioned by Geoffrey and others, namely
Anna, here called Emine,^*^ who is married to Budic and so becomes
the mother of Hoel. She is also, very reasonably as regards some
the valor of Urianus that Modred was defeated in the first battle (55 b i ; cf.
Geoffrey, xi, i, 28) ; that Modred fled to Cornwall by sea (cf. Geoffrey, xi, 2, 10).
1 Such are : — the statement that it was what the masons had built in eight
days that fell down in one night (42 b 2) ; that Eldol wished to kill Hengist on
the field, but Gorlois opposed (44 b 2) ; that the poisoning of Uther was effected
by an embassy, which bribed his seneschal (48 a i) ; the supplying of (inconsist-
ent) dates, — 450 for Arthur's coronation (48 a 2), and 412 for his last war (52 a;
cf. p. 159, above) ; the statement that it is in the morning that Arthur goes against
the giant (53 a 2). Not essentially more important is the assertion that at their
death the assassins of Constans distinctly exonerated "Vortigerus" from hav-
ing planned the crime (40 a 2 ; cf. p. 40, above).
2 Fol. 43 b 2. * Fol. 55 b 2. « Fol. 50 b 2.
8 Fol. 52 a I, etc. ^ Fol. 53 b i.
■^ To whom also Arthur is made to appeal at Badon for the protection of the
Catholic faith (fol. 49 a 2 ; contrast p. 161, above).
8 Fol. 51 a I. ^ Referred to previously (fol. 5 b 2).
i<^ Fols. 47 b I, 48 a I. Bouchard calls her " Anne ou Emine."
Digitized
by Google
Jehan de Bourdigni 233
aspects of the story, represented as older than Arthur.^ It is made
to appear, besides, that Uther did not get access to Ygerna until
after the death of her former husband and her marriage to Uther.
This in itself might have been due to the great condensation at this
point, but in effect it represents Arthur as of legitimate birth. ^
IX. The Cronica Cronicarum
The compilation properly described by its title as Cronica Croni-
carum Abrege was published at Paris in 1 52 1.* Its history of Britain*
is a very brief and generally unmodified risumS of Geoffrey's. In
the Arthurian period it is especially abridged. It mentions the
Round Table, and expresses doubts of the possibility of Arthur's
expedition against " Flolon."
X. Jehan de Bourdign6's Chroniques d'Anjou et du Maine
Brittany was not the only province of France to find a native
historian in the beginning of the sixteenth century; for in 1529
Jehan de Bourdign^, an Angevin priest, published the Hystorie agre-
gative des Annalles et cronicques DanioUy etc.^ The author is said to
have searched carefully for original documents, but naturally the
first part of his work, which extends fragmentarily from the Deluge
to Clovis, is almost entirely fabulous. After having spoken of
Julius Caesar, he says * that, although he has heard of many notable
% Angevins whose exploits as recounted seem sufficiently probable,
from then to the time of " Vortegrinus," king of Great Britain and
"occupateur du pays d'Anjou," he will omit them, for fear of arous-
ing incredulity. He then begins with Vortigern and recites the
Arthurian story, giving dates "^ which he has inferred, as he does
elsewhere, but otherwise for the most part following Bouchart's
version ; though he sometimes abbreviates (especially when he omits
all account of Arthur's first invasion of France)® and sometimes
1 Cf. p. 224, with note 5, above ; p. 242, below. ^ For Jehan Petit.
2 Cf. p. 184, above. * Fol. 5 b.
^ Ed. Angers, 1842, with an introduction by le Comte de Quatrebarbes and notes
by Godard-Faultrier. "^ Cf. p. 159, above.
6 Chap. 10, p. 45. 8 Cf, p. 137, note i, above.
Digitized
by Google
234 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
inserts a bit of material irrelevant to this discussion, or makes an
unimportant inference of his own. That he is ready to alter the
narrative to suit his own ideas, appears^ when, improving on
Bouchart, he represents Childeric as escaping from the slaughter
of the Saxons, evidently because he identifies him with the king of
France of whom he speaks later. ^ He omits the story of Vortigern's
tower, but he mentions it, with a " livre compost de la vie et faicts
de Merlin le prophbte anglois " and a prophecy of his which is
evidently Geoffrey's. On the occasion of Arthur's wedding, he
mentions ^ a tourney at which were present many knights, including
"le paragon des hardis chevaliers, le trbs preux Lancelot du Lac,
angevin, filz adoptif de la dame du Lac pres Beaufort en Anjou,
lequel y fist des proesses merveilleuses."
But the most original thing in Bourdign^'s version of the story is
the manner in which he connects it with Anjou and his own history.*
It has already been stated that he incidentally speaks of Vortigern
as " occupateur of Anjou." Where Bouchart says that Vortigern gave
to Hengist possessions near London, Bourdignd asserts that the
gift was "la ville d'Angiers et le consulat d' Anjou." An adequate
reason for this alteration it is impossible to find, but the explanation
is easy. Bourdign^ was anxious to supply the lack of authentic
history of his country as well and in as interesting a way as pos-
sible, and he has chosen to interpret the name Angloys^ which
Bouchart, like the other chroniclers, sometimes applies to Hengist 's
people, as meaning that they were Angevins. He has taken pains
to prepare the way for this ; for, where Bouchart ^ makes Hengist
say to Vortigern " nous sommes Angloys de la terre de Saxonie, qui
est une des regions de Germanic," Bourdign^ puts it,® "Saxons de
la region de Germanie." How Vortigern happened to be suzerain
of Anjou, Bourdignd does not tell us.
The association of Hengist with Anjou naturally causes Bour-
digne to look upon him with more favor than the other chroni-
clers. Thus, in speaking of Hengist's final treachery, he calls
1 P. 60; cf. p. 231, note 4, Jlbove. 2 Chap. 15, p. 70. ^ Chap. 13.
* Of course this connection may have been made by some predecessor of
Bourdigne's.
5 Fol. 40b 2. « P. 47.
Digitized
by Google
Spanish Chronicles 235
it an act of vengeance for the ingratitude of the British nobles,^
though he has previously followed Bouchart in saying that it was
not seemly for the heathen Saxons to get so much power in a
Christian land.
Bourdignd had the authority of the orthodox version of the
Arthurian story for making Kay, whom he calls "Gayus," count
— he says, ^rj/ count — of Anjou. But he enlarges greatly the
role of Gayus. He states, doubtless to establish a connection with
his previous story, that Gajrus was descended from the Dukes of
Saxony, which race, however, as a true Christian, he held in great
abhorrence. Bourdignd declares that he had greatly served Uter ;
ascribes to his arrival the victory in the battle of " Douglas," where
he vainly tried to induce Colgrinus to stay and fight with him ;
associates him with Cador in the latter's ambush for "Badulcus"
{which is made the direct cause of his elevation to the lordship of
Anjou); says that he was the messenger whom Arthur sent to
demand aid from Hoel ; and otherwise magnifies his importance.
After speaking of Gayus's death, Bourdignd informs us that he
ivas succeeded by his infant son Paul,^ of whose subsequent brief
history Bourdign^ goes on to speak in a way which shows that he
is drawing from a single obscure mention by Gregory of Tours ' of
a certain Count Paul of that period. Bourdign^ can have no other
reason for connecting this person with Kay than the desire to
weave together the few bits of material which he was able to find.
His whole method of composition is strikingly similar to that fol-
lowed four hundred years earlier by his anonymous countryman
who compiled the book on the building of the towns in Touraine.*
XI. Vernacular Spanish Chronicles
Of Arthurian material in vernacular chronicles of Europe other
than those of France, I have found nothing except a single entry in
a brief series of Spanish annals written at Toledo and extending
1 Cf. p. 261, below. 2 Chap. 15, p. 70.
' Book ii, chap. 18 (Recueil des Historiens de la France, II, 170).
* See p. 123, above.
Digitized
by Google
236 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
from the birth of Christ to 1219.^ Here, under the year 542, it
is recorded:
Lidid el Rey Zitus con Modret su sobrino en Camblenc, Era DLXXX.
Men^ndez y Pelayo states ^ that there is a passing allusion to the
Round Table in the Gran Conquista de Ultramar^ translated by
order of Sancho IV, and that the prophecies of Merlin are mentioned
in Ayala's Crbnica del Rey Don Pedro,
1 Published in the Espaha Sagrada of Henrique Florez, Madrid, 1767, XXIII,
381-400.
2 Fitzmaurice-Kelly, Hist, de la Lit. Espahola^ Spanish translation by A. Bonilla
y San Martin, Madrid, [1901,] p. xxvii.
Digitized
by Google
CHAPTER IX
THE STORY AFTER GEOFFREY : CONTINENTAL LATIN
CHRONICLES OF THE FIFTEENTH AND
SIXTEENTH CENTURIES
Except for vernacular works in France, the Arthurian material
seems to have received very little recognition from the Continental
chronicles. As one looks over the universal histories written in Latin
in Germany, France, and Italy, one is impressed with the fact that,
for their compilers, the England of the middle ages was a distant
corner of the world, whose affairs possessed but slight interest for
them, — inhabitants as th^y were of those countries where the abro-
gation of the political system of the Roman Empire was accepted so
slowly. For all the early part of English history, when they notice
it at all, they often content themselves with a few brief sentences
from Bede,^ sometimes supplemented a little, however, from the
stories, Arthurian or non- Arthurian, of Geoffrey.
The earliest of these writers ^ have already been included with the
Englishmen in Chapter VI. And this was fitting, not only for con-
venience of classification, but also because of the universal and un-
national character of the Latin culture of the period from the twelfth
to the fourteenth century. Authors like Vincent of Beauvais, for
instance, were for a long time well known and influential in England.
But the decisive awakening of the modern spirit in the fifteenth
century involved revolutions in literature as well as in all other
phases of activity, so that while encyclopaedic Latin histories
1 As early as the eighth century, Paulus Diaconus (bk. xiii [xiv]) took from
Bede the account of the summoning and the arrival of the Saxons {Mon. Germ.
Hist.y Auct. Antiquissimi^ II, 200; Migne, Patrol.^ XCV, 961).
2 Ordericus Vitalis ; Sigebert of Gembloux, as interpolated by the monk of
Ursicampum ; Gervase of Tilbury ; Vincent of Beauvais ; Albericus Trium Fon-
tium; Martinus Polonus; "Martin us" Minorita; Johannes Historiographus.
237
Digitized
by Google
238 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
continued to be produced as much as ever on the Continent, in Eng-
land they almost came to an end, and the Continental ones can
best be dealt with separately.
As regards the present subject, there is no particular change in
the character of these chronicles. The following list, then, contains
a sufficient account of those among them which I have found to
contain Arthurian material.
Ca. 1422. Andreas, Presbyter of St. Magnus at Ratisbon, Chronicon
Generate, This has merely the entry about Arthur which appears in Mar-
tinus Minorita (Pez, Thesaurus^ 1 721-1729, IV, iii, 362).
Ca. 1450. Antoninus (Forciglioni), saint and archbishop of Florence,
Chronica (an immense universal history). He takes most of the Arthurian
entries from Vincent of Beauvais, whom he cites. See Ft II, tit 10, chaps.
I £E. (ed. 1543, Chronica Antonini, II, fols. xxxixa, b, xla, xlib).
Ca. 1463. Flavius Blondus Forliviensis (antiquary, historian, and sec-
retary to several popes), Historiae ab Inclinatione Romanorum Imperii,
From Bede (or Gildas) is derived an entry with regard to the first com-
ing of the Saxons at the invitation of " Vortigerius " (ist ed., Venice, 1483,
fol. b. V. a). From the same source, though with free treatment, comes
an entry of considerable length on the appearance of Ambrosius Aurelius,
who, it is said, was finally killed, after many batdes. The devastations of
the Saxons compelled the Britons to emigrate. But Geoffrey, the writer
continues, differs greatly from this, and he proceeds to give a summary
of Geoffrey from Vortigern's marriage down to the accession of Arthur
(fol. cii. b).
1474. W. Rolewinckius, Fascicutus Temporum^ — an awkwardly com-
posed summary of general history whose success was enormous. " Merlinus
de incubo genitus claret in britannia spiritu prophecie, cuius instinctu Wor-
tigonus rex britonum valde dilatauit fidem Christi. Huic successit Vterpan-
dragon f rater eius qui fuit pater arthuri" (ed. 1474, Coloniae, fol. [35a]).
There are also three or four lines about Arthur (fol. [35b]).
Ca. 1474. Magnum Chronicon Betgicum, by an unknown Augustinian
monk near Nussia (Pistorius, Rerum Germanicarum Scriptores, Ratisbon,
1726, vol. Ill ; see preface). This takes (pp. 17-18) from Vincent a brief
summary of Arthur's reign to the battle of Bath, and another on Merlin and
his prophecy, but as to Merlin's birth says : " Haec f rater Bemhardus pene
supra fidem." Bernhardus is unknown to me.
i486. Jacobus Philippus Foresti, Bergomensis (an Italian chronicler),
Suppiementum Cronicarum. On Merlin (ist ed., Venice, i486, fol. i8ob)
Digitized
by Google
Continental Latin Chroniclers 239
there is an entry similar to that in the Fasciculus Temporum^ but with more
Galfridian details than occur in the first edition of the Fasciculus, There
is also one short entry (fol. 183a) on Arthur, his arms, his aid to the church,
his conquests, and the British expectation of his return.
Ca, i486. Joannes Nauclerus (Chancellor of the University of Tiibin-
gen), Memorabilium omnis Aetatis et omnium Gentium Chronici Commen-
tarii. After a line or two on the Saxon conquest (ist ed., 15 16, II, 63a),
the author observes (doubtless following Blondus) that Geoffrey writes
otherwise, and gives a brief summary of Geoffrey's account from this point
down to Merlin's prophecy. Under the year 478 (fol. 69a) he copies from
Blondus the passage about Ambrosius, etc. Then he gives from Geoffrey
an outline of Arthur's reign, but expresses doubts about the chronology, and
after more from Geoffrey, and after quoting Foresti on Arthur's arms, etc.,
he ends with another expression of doubt.
Ca. 1500. Johannes Trithemius (Abbot of Spanheim), Compendium^
sive Breviarium . . , de Origine Gentis et Regum Francorum (in his Opera
Historica^ Frankfort, 160 1). In book i (p. 39) occurs a general entry of
some length about Arthur and his conquests in the North of Europe, with
an expression of distrust There is also mention of Merlin and Utherpen-
dragon.
1506. Raphael Maffei, Volaterranus (Italian cyclopaedist), Commentarii
Rerum Urbanicarum libri xxxviii^ Rome, 1506. In the section on Geog-
raphy (book iii, fol. 29) Maffei gives in two and a half pages an oudine of
the whole of Geoffrey's History, including the Arthurian period. He men-
tions the Round Table.
1 52 1. Frater Laziardus, Epitomata a Prim^va Mundi Origine , Paris,
152 1. The author takes his Arthurian material chiefly from Vincent of
Beauvais, but shows independent knowledge. At fol. 103b he gives the
story of ** Vuertigerius' " tower, and a little about the prophecies, Aureliils,
and Uter. He names as an authority a certain Ricardus. He omits the
exploits of Arthur, " quia prolix^ sunt et alibi inveniuntur ad plenum." At
fol. 1 1 8a he has another brief mention of " Vertigerius."
1534. The Dutch Amand de Zierickzee in his Chronica compendio-
sissima ab Exordio Mundi usque ad Annum Domini 1534^ published at
Antwerp in 1534, gives a brief summary of the Arthurian section of Geof-
frey's Historia, questioning its reliability.^
1 See the extract printed by ReiHenberg, Chronique ritnie de Philippe Mouskesj
II, Ixiii-lxiv. I am not sure that Reiffenberg is right in saying that Amand
takes this material from Gervase of Tilbury.
Digitized
by Google
240 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
1 548. For Paulus Jovius, Descriptio Britanniae^ see p. 262, below.
Ca, 1 564. Chronicon Monasterii Mellicensis, in Pez, Scriptores Rerunt
Austriacarum^ vol. I, Leipzig, 1721. Under the year 464 (p. 191) occurs
the entry about Arthur which appeared in Martinus Minorita.
? Robertus, canon of S. Marianus Altissidorensis, Chronologia . . . Histo-
riam Rerum in Or be Gestarum continens . . . ad 1200, Trecis, 1608. Fol. 61
mentions Ambrosius Merlinus " sub Vorciguo rege."
For convenience of classification, mention may here be made of
the late fifteenth-century rendering of Geoffrey into Latin prose by
the Italian Ponticus Virunnius.^ This is a mere condensation, with
no significant variations from its original, up to the beginning of
the Arthurian period. After this there are only a very few lines of
incoherent jottings, based upon Geoffrey, except for the statement
that from Bedver's son is descended the Venetian family of " Bed-
uara," — for which family the book was written.^
1 Edited by Commelinus in Rerum Britannicarum Scriptores^ 1587, pp. 93-112
(see Hardy, I, 57-58, No. 163).
2 Examination shows that there is no Arthurian material in the following
chronicles, which on a priori considerations might be expected to contain some-
thing of the kind : —
Aeneas Sylvius, Historia Rerum ubique Gestarum y Venice, 1477.
Albertus Stadensis, Annates, 1256 (Pertz, XVI, 283 ff.).
Benedictus, monachus S. Andreae, Chronicon (Migne, CXXXIX).
Chronicon Incerti Auctoris, 1167 (in Pet. Stevart, Insignes Auctoresy 1616,
P- 717)-
Hermannus Comer, Chronica Novella, 1435 (in Eccard, Corpus Hist. Medii
Aevi, II, 431-1344).
Joannes Enenkl, or Einenkel, Universal- Chronik (in Pez, Scriptores Rerum
Austriacarum^ II, 537).
Theod. Engelhusius, Chronicon, 1420 (ed. J. J. Maderus, 167 1 ; also Leibnitz,
n, 977 ff.).
Johannes Marignola, Chronica, 1362.
Martinus Fuldensis, Chronicon, 1378 (Eccard, I, 1641-1732).
Otto Frisingensis, Chronicon, 11 46 (Argentorati, 151 5).
Romualdus II, archiepisc. Salemitanus, Chronicon, 11 78 (in Muratori, Rerum
Italicarum Scriptores, VII, 8 ff.).
Hartmann Schedel, Chronicon, 1493.
Sicardus, episcopus Cremonensis, Chronicon, 1213 (Muratori, VII, 530 ff.).
Siffridus, presbyter Misnensis, Epitome, 1307 (Pistorius, 3d ed., I, 1022 ff.).
Digitized
by Google
CHAPTER X
THE STORY AFTER GEOFFREY: THE SCOTTISH
VERSIONS
An altogether new phase in the history of the Arthurian tradition
appears in the Scottish chronicles, which, in extant forms, began to
be composed toward the end of the fourteenth century. Heretofore
we have been concerned almost altogether with versions of the story
told by those who in fact or in sympathy were countr)mien of the
heroes whom the tradition celebrates, and who were usually ready
to exalt their fame. But in the Scots, we come to the traditional
enemies of the races among which the Arthurian story arose and
chiefly flourished, — a nation which, like the Saxons, were repre-
sented as contributing only by their defeats to the glory of Arthur
and his predecessors, and which, unlike the Saxons, had not found
opportunity or desire to forget that the defeats were theirs by going
over to the side of the victors. We might naturally expect, therefore,
to find the tone of the Scottish accounts different from that of all the
others, and we must of course expect to find the record of British
affairs subordinated to the Scottish history; but we could hardly
have looked for the striking change in the attitude toward Arthur
which has actually taken place.
The change is this : Loth and his son Modred have been regularly
adopted as Scottish heroes; Arthur's illegitimacy^ is emphasized;
Modred is declared to have been the lawful heir to the British
throne, so that in the war with Arthur (when that is not omitted) he
is in the right, at least by implication, and Arthur, instead of being
a paragon, is sometimes represented as one of the worst of kings.*
1 Cf. p. 184, above.
2 It must be noted that the Brut ascribed to Barbour by W5mtown is not known
to exist. Cf . J. Nichol in Murray's Minor Poems of Sir David Lyndesay^ E.E.T.S.,
Part v., 187 1, p. xiii; Bradshaw, Trans, of Cambridge Antiquarian Soc.y 1866,
241
Digitized
by Google
242 Arthufian Material in Chronicles
I. Wyntown and Fordun
It is true that these ideas do not appear at all in the interminable
work on universal history entitled The Orygynale Cronykil of Scot-
land^ which was composed in the Scottish dialect about 1420 by
Andrew of Wyntown, Prior of St. Serf's Inch. Wyntown, though dis-
trusting such features as Merlin's prophecies,* takes from Geoffrey
(immediately, as it seems) his outlining allusion to Arthur's conquests
and last campaign.' He departs from Geoffrey only in mentioning
the Round Table and in laying emphasis on the " Dowchsperys."
But the ideas mentioned had already appeared in germ in the Latin
narrative of the discriminating father of systematic Scottish history,
John of Fordun, a work written about 1385, and properly to be
entitled Chronica Gentis Scotorum}
Of Arthur's reign Fordun says almost nothing, doubtless because
it was not directly connected with Scottish affairs. But he does say
distinctly that the succession to the kingdom belonged by right to
Anna, the sister of Arthur and the wife of Loth, and to her children,
because of Arthur's illegitimacy ; ^ and he explains that the Britons
actually chose Arthur for fear of the Saxons. He also notes the
obvious but thitherto neglected fact that Geoffrey's statements about
the relationship between Anna and Arthur are not consistent.' He
explains Loth's connection with Scotland by saying that he was
descended from Geoffrey's (pre-Arthurian) Fulgentius.^ He takes
pains to dispute the romance idea, which he records as existing,'
that Modred was illegitimate.
reprinted in his Collected Papers ^ 1889, PP- 5^ ff- The Chronica of Mailrosy ed.
Stevenson, Bannatyne Club, Edinburgh, 1835, aims primarily to continue Bede,
and begins only with the year 731.
1 Ed. by David Laing, 3 vols., Edinburgh, 1872-79; for date, see p. xxxiv.
2 II, 9.
' II, 11-13. The direct use of Geoffrey seems to be shown by the occasional
brief outlines of sections of Geoffrey's story in earlier parts of the work. Wyn-
town refers his readers for a full account of Arthur to the work of Huchown, now
lost ; and for the stories of Vortygeme, Utere, and Awrelius, to the Brut. '
* Ed. W. F. Skene, Edinburgh, 187 1-2 (vol. I, text; vol. II, translation); for
date, see p. xiv. It is better known as the Scotichronicon^ from the name given
to its later (much enlarged) form. « Chap. 25 ; cf. p. 233, above.
* Bk. iii, chap. 24, p. 109. "^ Cf. p. 141, above.
Digitized
by Google
John Major 243
Fordun*s account of the rest of the Arthurian period shows, like
the earlier part of his work, that the fabulous stories which he took,^
doubtless from current traditions, as the genuine history of Scotland,
had been largely built up, for the period extending from the time of
Caesar to that of Arthur, on the basis of those parts of Geoffrey's
narrative which could be connected wit-h Scotland, or at least that
those sections of Geoffrey had been intimately combined with Scottish
stories, with perhaps an occasional hint from Bede. What For dun
relates (always incidentally to the main thread of his narrative) of
the British kings from Vortigern to Uther, is simply an often-inter-
rupted story of wars and alliances entered into between them and
the Scots. Practically, he represents that during the whole epoch
the Britons and Scots fought in union against the Saxons and Picts.
According to him, both Vortimer and Aurelius concluded special
treaties with the Scottish sovereigns,^ and this was finally true of
Uther also, though at first he made war on the Scots and tried to
take Westmeria from them. Evidently this is all based ultimately
on Geoffrey, — who says nothing (at least explicitly) of any conflict
carried on by Vortimer or Aurelius against the Scots, while he does
say that Uther made an expedition against Alclud,' — with a sugges-
tion, probably, from Bedels statement of a direct alliance between
the Saxons and the Picts.*
II. John Major
The Latin History of Great Britain by John Major, or Mair,* differs
from the work of Fordun in its treatment of the Arthurian period as
a result partly of its combination of much material taken direct
from Geoffrey's story with that of the Scottish version represented
by Fordun, partly of differences of temperament in the two authors
and of aim in their books, and partly of changes in judgment which
the passage of a century and a half had brought about in the Scottish
scholastic mind. As to form, it should be added also that, instead
1 While also making as much use as possible of Bede.
2 Pp. 99, 102, 103. 8 viii, 19, I ff. * See p. 24, note 2, above.
5 Published in 152 1. It is this first edition to which references are here made.
On Major, see Diet. Nat. Biog., XXXV, 386; Morley, English Writers, VII, 264.
Digitized
by Google
244 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
of combining British with Scottish affairs in one continuous narrative,
Major separates them, giving for every period, first a section about
the southern part of the island, then one on the Scots.
It is Geoffrey whom Major takes as his main authority, and he
gives in brief outline practically the whole of Geoffrey's story, with
occasional slight differences suggested by sources which cannot be
definitely determined : as, for instance, in the details about Ronouen ; ^
in saying that Arthur conquered the Germans as well as the Gauls,^
and, like the Brut^ that Vortiger's restoration to the throne was made
conditional on his not recalling Hengist.' The influence of the
Fordun version is evident in the mention of alliances of the British
kings with the Scots, and of Arthur's illegitimacy and Modred's right
to the throne.* Other Scottish elements not adopted by Fordun
appear in the statement that the alliance included the Christian
Picts; that Loth was also father of Thametes, who was mother of
St. Kentigern ; and that Arthur's royal seat was at Edinburgh ; and
in the account^ of how Arthur returned the body of -the slain
Anguischel with honor to his country (which, however, is summarily
stated by Geoffrey). The mention ^ of Arthur's holding the Round
Table in Cornwall reminds one of the southern elements of the story,
and the reference to Arthur's inclusion among the Nine Worthies is
a decidedly popular touch.* But ideas identical or related with some
which we have already encountered are : — the excuse which Hengist
gives to Vortiger for coming back ; "^ the statements that after the
massacre of the British chiefs the Saxons took possession of all the
kingdom except Wales, that Hengist bade that it be thenceforth
called by his name, and that he divided it into seven kingdoms, and
destroyed all the churches and other signs of Christianity.
The personal element in Major's work consists in his comments
on the more fabulous portions of Geoffrey's narrative. This learned
scholar and divine does not reject the magic incidents, but tries
instead to explain them. He does, indeed, disbelieve the story of
the moving of the great stones® and Merlin's prophecy;^ but he sug-
gests two supernatural explanations for the birth of Merlin, besides
1 Fol. 24. 4 Fol. 28b. 7 Fol. 24b.
2 Fol. 29a. s Fol. 29b. 8 Fol. 27a.
8 Fol. 24b; cf. p. 218, above. « Cf. p. 253, below. ^ Fols. 27a and 28a.
Digitized
by Google
Hector Boece 245
the rationalizing one that his mother's account was false; and his
criticism of Uther's amour takes the moralistic turn of condemning
Merlin for his part therein.^ Major expresses the opinion ^ that the
exploits of Arthur, Gawain, and others are mere figments, if not per-
formed by demoniacal art. But in the case of so great a king, he says,
" I cannot assent to the belief of Bergomensis ' that he was himself
a magus.**
III. Hector Boece and his Translators
A few years after Major's history, appeared one naturally to be
grouped with Fordun's, to which it bears in character and effect*
something the same relation which the work of Geoffrey of Monmouth
bears to that of Nennius. This is the Scotorum Hisioria of the learned
Hector Boece, first Principal of the University of Aberdeen, published
in 1527. To discuss fully its extended treatment of the Arthurian
material would demand much more space than the importance of
the result would warrant. The main fact to be noted is that it is
Boece who carries to an extreme the peculiar tendencies suggested
by Fordun.
Boece differs from Fordun in that he makes no direct use of
Geoffrey's History^ but draws, evidently, from some later and expanded
form of the story. But in the Arthurian period he approaches more
closely than elsewhere to Geoffrey, doubtless because the Galfridian
tradition was fuller at this point than any tales which he could find
about his own country. In dwelling, like Fordun, on the alliances
contracted by Aurelius and his successors with the Scottish kings,
he lays emphasis on the utility of the assistance rendered to the
former by the latter. He differs from Fordun's version, and to a
certain extent agrees with Major's, in that during the earlier years
he represents the Picts as parties to the alliance, not as opposing it.
He is thoroughly patriotic, in mediaeval fashion, and on almost all
possible occasions makes it appear that it is the Scots who distinguish
themselves and the Britons who are cowardly and treacherous.
1 Fol. 28a; cf. p. 184, above. 2 FoI. 30a.
' I have not found this idea in Foresti's work, which Major here cites by the
proper title.
* I do not know that Boece made any use of Fordun.
Digitized
by Google
246 Arthurian Material in Clironieles
Boece's divergence from all previous recorded versions is scarcely-
less marked in details than in general spirit, and a rapid enumeration
of some of the more striking points of divergence from GeoflErey
seems necessary.
Vortimer is first introduced as a colleague of Hengist in an expedi-
tion against the Scots. The first settlement of the Saxons is said to
have been in tlie North, ^ and Vortigem does not give them Kent
until he begins to fear an attack from Aurelius. Vodinus, bishop of
London,^ reproves Vortigem for his marriage with Roxiena, and is
therefore seized and put to death by Hengist. Hengist's excuses
for his return after the death of Vortimer are that he wishes to help
to avenge the latter's death, that he ought to look after Roxiena's
son, and (as in Major) that he and his men want their lawful posses-
sions in Kent. When Vortigern has fallen into the hands of the
Saxons, he and all the Britons are compelled to leave England and
go to Wales, on pain of death ; and the same is later said of Uther
when he -has been conquered. The incidents in Aurelius's Saxon
and Scottish wars, while most of them are included, are utterly dis-
arranged and recolored, and the same is true of those in the wars of
Uther and of Arthur. Uther is sick at the beginning of his reign ;
he makes Nathaliodus, a man without birth or fame, his commander,
and this leads to the defection of Gothlois of Cornwall and the ces-
sion of half of the island to the Saxons. Another element from the
original Saxon Chronicle version is the introduction of Cerdic and
Cynric in their proper persons. Bedels Hallelujah Victory is asso-
ciated with Uther.^
We come now to those details which touch the heart of the matter.
Most significant of all is the .treatment of Arthur's reputation. His
revels in York are described in a most hostile spirit, and the opinion
is cited that he was the first to celebrate Christmas with disgraceful
orgies. Nothing whatever is said of any conquests of his outside
the island. One of the main motives of Boece's narrative is the idea
which appears so fully in the prose romances, — the hostility of Loth
1 Cf. p. 25, above.
2 Cf. p. 266, below.
8 Cf. pp. 257, 261, 270, below.
Digitized
by Google
Hector Boece 247
to the Britons ; but this is represented by Boece as being due to the
faithlessness of the latter. Loth is portrayed as king of the Picts.
His wife is called elder sister of Aurelius, not (as in Fordun and
Major, and in the orthodox version generally) the [younger] sister
of Arthur.^ Uther^s refusal to acknowledge Modred as rightful heir
to the throne leads to wars between the Picts and the Britons, —
wars which give way to an alliance when Arthur recognizes Modred
as his future successor. It is because Arthur's barons persuade him
to annul this agreement that Modred renews hostilities, and the (single)
battle between the two kings, in which both are killed, is fought on the
Humber. The Scottish king, Eugenius, an ally of Modred, remains
master of the field and takes prisoner Queen Guanora (here first men-
tioned in Boece), whom the Picts hold in lifelong captivity. A local
tradition about her tomb is mentioned.
Boece's work met with an enthusiastic reception, partly, no doubt,
because it was the first Scottish history to be put into print. King
James soon ordered two translations into Scottish to be made, — one
in prose, by John Bellenden, which appeared in 1536,^ the other by
William Stewart,' in metre. Bellenden treated his original so freely
that the result is almost an independent work ; but with regard to the
Arthurian period it is enough to note his tendency to supply reasons
for the actions of his characters, to soften the records of cruelty,
by whomever committed, and occasionally, — as in the account of
Arthur's last battle,* — to abbreviate and condense.
Stewart's version, likewise, differs somewhat in details from its
original, in the fact of condensation and otherwise, but demands no
extended discussion. The author's final comment about Arthur,^
however, is more extreme in tone than any single passage in Boece.
He classes the fables which exalt Arthur's fame more than he himself
1 Cf. p. 224, above.
2 A new edition, Edinburgh, 1821, by Thomas Maitland, The History and
Chronicles of Scotland, An English translation by Harrison was included in
Holinshed's Chronicles (see p. 267, below).
8 The Bulk of the Croniclis of Scotland, ed. W. B. TumbuU, Rolls Series, 3
vols., 1558.
* Cf. p. 137, note I, above.
5 II, 261-262.
Digitized
by Google
248 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
has done with those of ** Fyn-Mak-coull " and " Robene Hude," and
concludes : *
Considdering all his infelicitie,
Haif e to richt and lat affectioun be,
I hald him for the maist vnhappie king
0£E all the Britis that did in Britane ring.
For-quhy he wes so faithles and wntrew
To king Modred, befoir as I 30W schew,
And maneswome als, the hand of God thairfore,
As ressone wald, it tuechit him full soir.
Britis bifore quhilk wes of sic renoun,
Sensyne tha tynt baith thair kinrik and crOun ;
As plesis God, till all men weill is kend,
Falsheid come neuir till ane better end.
IV. Other Versions (including Leslie and Buchanan)
The short chronicle of Scotland written in Scottish prose of about
1500 which appears in the Royal MS. of Wyntown ^ contains a single
Arthurian entry,' stating that Arthur was supported against the
Saxons by King Conrane of Scotland, whose nephew aided Modred,
King of the Picts, against Arthur in the battle where Arthur was
slain with all his nobility. This information is related to the asser-
tions of Boece, and its importance is in about direct ratio to its
length. But there are still one or two more significant histories of
Scotland to be mentioned.
In 1578, to support the cause of Queen Mary and the Catholic
religion, John Leslie, Bishop of Ross, published at Rome his Latin
history De Origine^ Moribus^ et Rebus Gestis Scotorum,^ which was
somewhat inaccurately translated into Scottish in 1596 by Father
James Dalrymple, who describes himself as a monk in the Scottish
cloister at Regensburg.^ Leslie merely follows Boece until after the
1 Vv. 27,977-27,988.
2 Printed in Laing's edition of Wyntown, III, 321-338.
' P. 323. * Reprinted in 1675.
6 The Historie of Scotland, etc., ed. by Father E. G. Cody, Edinburgh, 1888-95,
2 vols.
Digitized
by Google
Leslie and Btichanan 249
«nd of the Arthurian period, but he abbreviates greatly. He does
not even mention Vortimer, and as regards Arthur he does little
more than repeat Boece's expressions of incredulity at the stories
about him. But it is interesting to notice that he expresses the
opinion that Arthur was the builder of a stone house formerly
existing not far from the river Carron,^ which Boece, while mention-
ing a vulgar ascription of it to Caesar, was inclined to assign to
Vespasian. He adds also a popular idea or two about Arthur,*
saying that the number of his knights was twenty-four, and that he
himself has seen what, "unless our ancestors have erred," is the
veritable Round Table at Winchester (where we of the twentieth
-century may see it too if we choose).
Of the important and very popular Rerum Scoticarum Historia of
-George Buchanan, published in 1582, it is enough to say, at this
stage of the discussion, that its account of the Arthurian period chiefly
follows Boece, but with great condensation and some omissions and
other changes of details due to the author's independence of judg-
ment in comparing authorities and to his attempt to reason for
himself as to the causes of actions.
1 Ed 1578, p. 95. « P. 146.
Digitized
by Google
CHAPTER XI
THE STORY AFTER GEOFFREY: THE ENGLISH AND
LATIN CHRONICLES OF ITNGLAND IN THE FIF-
TEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES
With the passing away of the interest in the rude rh3rmes of the
early fourteenth-century chroniclers, English writers seem to have
lost for a time all ambition to record the history of their country
in their own language. Doubtless the reading public of the period
following was satisfied for the most part with the translation of the
Brut, Nevertheless, in the first half of the fifteenth century we
again encounter English compilations, and at the end of that century
begins a series of English historians whose works (thanks, in great
measure, to the printing press) did far more to popularize English
history among the people at large than those of all their predecessors
put together.
I. John Capgrave
Decidedly significant from the historian^s point of view is the
chronicle of John Capgrave, the learned head of the Augustinians in
England, who, using the annalistic form, made an attempt, sometime
in the first half of the fifteenth century, to compose in English prose
a really critical history of the island.^ But among his two or three
notices of the Galfridian story he includes for the Arthurian period
only a single summary sentence about Arthur.^ Later, under the
proper dates, he mentions the discovery of Arthur^s body and
Edward's letter to the Pope.'
1 The Chronicle of Englandy edited by Rev. F. C. Hingeston, Rolls Series, 1858.
2 P. 87, ann. 5651-453. « Pp. 140, 172.
250
Digitized
by Google
John Hardyng 251
II. John Hardyng^s Chronicle; and an Anonymous
Chronicle in Metre
The chronicle of England which was composed in rough seven-line
stanzas, probably about the year 1436, by the sturdy Northern squire
John Hardyng,^ shows, more than any other, direct influence from the
romances.
The first part of this work consists in a condensed and interpo-
lated version of Geoffrey's story. Most of Geoffrey's incidents, with
the exception of several of the least credible ones, are reproduced
or mentioned ; ^ but the divergences in details, in some of which
Hardyng agrees with the Brut^ show that the source is not primarily
Geoffrey's narrative. As points of difference from Geoffrey, the
following may be especially mentioned : —
The assassination of Constantine is ascribed to Vortiger's instigation.^
The whole account of the career of Constaunce * is confused, disagrees with
Geoffrey in particulars (as in saying that Constaunce was a fool ^), and is
clumsily put together from two different versions, one of which represents
Constaunce as being deposed. Vortiger is made to marry Rowan lawfully.
Dates are given.^ liter's first victory over Occa and Oysa is put "beside
Dane hill." Arthur is said to be especially tall.^ Uter's arms,® called those
of St. George, and Arthur's banners® are described. Cador is called
Arthur's brother " of his mother's syde." ^^ Loth is said to live at Dunbar,^^
— a Scottish touch. Arthur is said to have given Westsex to Cordryk after
the battle of Bath ; ^^ Arthur is said to have made Gawayne lord of Low-
thyan ; i^ and is made to conquer almost all Western Europe.^* Arthur's cam-
paign between the fight at Mont St. Michel and the great battle with Lucius
1 Edited by Sir Henry Ellis, 4to, Lend., 18 12. See Did. Nat. Biog.^ and
Morley, Eng. Writers^ VI, 156.
2 The chief exceptions in the Arthurian portion are : the story of Eldol's
exploit (p. 113) ; the account of Vortigem's tower and Merlin's prophecy (p. 114),
to which Hardyng alludes, but with a doubt of its authenticity (cf. p. 136, above) ;
the story of the bringing of Stonehenge from Ireland (p. 1 16), as to which Hardyng
merely says that it was erected at Merlin's advice.
8 Cf. pp. 40, 184, above. ^ p, 121. n p. 124.
* Pp. 106-108. 8 p. 117. 12 Cf. p. 186, above.
* Cf. p. 257, below. • P. 122. 18 p. 126; cf. p. 105, above.
® Cf. p. 159 and note 12, above. 1° Cf. p. 140, above, i"* Cf. p. 223, above.
Digitized
by Google
252 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
is omitted ; ^ the latter is made to take place in " Romany," after Arthur
has actually crossed the Alps and passed through Tuscany ; ^ and the
author distinctly states that Arthur himself killed Lucius.^ Arthur gets
to Rome and is crowned Emperor in the Capitol. Arthur in person kills
Modred and receives his death wound from him.^ Calibum is said to have
been of such virtue that it killed whomever it struck/ It is with a wise
maiden that Gwaynour flees to Carlion.' Constantine is definitely repre-
sented as Arthur's nephew/ There is a categ(^cal statement of Arthur's
death and burial. In the final eulogy of Arthur, Gwaynour, whose beauty
has previously been greatly lauded,® is especially blamed,* and with her
" fals Fallas " or Deceit.
But the most significant changes consist in the insertion (briefly^
in two sections) of practically the whole outline of those facts of the
Grail legend ^^ which are most closely connected with Joseph of
Arimathea and Arthur^s knights." In connection with this are given
the natnes of many of the knights of the Arthurian romances,^* and^
in various places, there is much detail about the Round Table^
Hardyng says^' that it was to comfort Ygeme that Uter^* set the
Table at Wynchester, which Joseph of Arimathea made for the
brethren of the St. .Graal only; that Loth was the first knight of
the Table " (another Scottish touch) ; that, upon his marriage with
Gwaynore, Arthur filled up the depleted ranks of the knights, upoa
which the laws of the order are given at length ; " that Arthur's feast
lasted forty days ; ^"^ that in the battle at Winchester were killed all
the knights of the Table except Launcelot " (for at Winchester, says
Hardyng, the Round Table began and ended, and there it hangeth
yet) ; that when Arthur had been buried, Launcelot and others came
1 Cf. p. 136, above. ^ Cf. p. 230, above.
2 Cf. p. 187, above. 8 p. 124.
• P. 144; cf. p. 201, and note 17, above. ® P. 149; cf. p. 163, above.
• P. 146; cf. p. 120, above. 10 Cf. above, p. 189, and note 2.
6 P. 146; cf. p. 162, above. u Pp. 83, 131-136.
• Cf. p. 219, above. 12 p. ^yj. i^ p. ,20.
1* As far as is known, and as is said by Paris in his introduction to the Hutk
Merlin^ Borron was the first to connect Uther with the Table. See chap. 3 of
the ordinary Merlin^ ed. Sommer.
"P. 120. "P. 128.
i« Pp. 124-125; see above, p. 187. ^^ P. 146.
Digitized
by Google
Marquis of Bath 's Matiuscript 253
to his tomb. And the names are given of more than a score of towns
where Arthur sometimes held the Table.^
Together with Hardyng^s Chronicle may be mentioned a fragmen-
tary one of probably about the same period, also written in seven-
line stanzas, which in its present form extends only from Gurgunt
to Stephen.^ The style is that of the old mystery plays ; each king
speaks in the first person. Arthur occupies twelve stanzas, begin-
ning, " The first worthy I am of the faith cristian." ' Most of the
exploits attributed to him by Geoffrey are briefly outlined, and many
of the late popular details, some of them drawn from Hardyng, are
included.
III. The Metrical Version of the Story of Arthur's Reign
IN the Marquis of Bathes Manuscript
This manuscript is written for the most part in Latin and is unpub-
lished, but the story of Arthur's reign is recounted in vigorous short-
lined English verse.* It is based chiefly, with condensation, on the
** frensch boke," that is, the Brut There are some poetical touches,
such as the observation (enlarging a little on the Brui) that the
head of the giant whom Arthur killed was more horrible and great
than that of any horse,* and the vivid description of the battle against
Lucius.® The poef s religious feeling takes the form of occasional
exhortations to his readers (or hearers) to pause and say a pater-
noster. Frollo is said to fight with an axe,^ and the mortal wound
which Arthur gives him is from the shoulder down, not in the head.
Arthur's tomb at Glastyngbury is mentioned. For his sword, the
name "brounsteelle," which appears also in romances, is given.® The
Round Table is mentioned, with the cause of its institution.
1 P. 126.
2 In the sixteenth-century MS. Bodl. Douce, 341 (see Hardy, II, 197, No. 265).
* Cf . p. 244, above.
* Ed. Fumivall, Arthur; a Short Sketch, etc., E.E.T.S., 1864.
* Vv. 393-394. « Vv. 457 ff . 7 V. 85.
8 In the English translation of the Brut it is written, by corruption, Tabourne.
Digitized
by Google
2 54 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
IV. The Short English Chronicle of MS. Lambeth 306 ^
The two-page version of the Arthurian period here givea is
comparable to nothing but that of the short anonymous Middle
English metrical chronicle. " Urtager " is called Earl of " Esex. '*
The length of Constaunce's reign is given as three years.^ No men-
tion is made of any treachery on Urtager 's part, and it is said that
after he became king, he and Coslyn, the Bishop of London, sent
Aurylambros and liter into Litell Brettayne. Engest is represented
as having conquered all the land except Wales and as dividing it
into eight kingdoms. " Ingrene " was of the lineage of ** Cornebyus
of Troye," — evidently an inference from the fact of her residence in
Cornwall, — and it was from her name that Uter took that of Eng-
land.' There is no allusion to Modred, and it appears that Arthur
ended his life in prosperity.* " Where he is beryed the story make
V. John Ross and Nicholaus Cantaloupus
A belated Latin work, which certainly does not deserve to be
included among the serious Latin chronicles, is the Historia Regum
Angliae of John Ross of Warwick, written about 1485.^ Its first
part is based directly on Geoffrey's narrative, or more likely on
incomplete excerpts therefrom ; but nothing could be more discur-
sive or fuller of interpolations of all sorts, great and small ; and
Ross is interested more in the stories of the foundation of his own
city and in Greek philosophers than in the history of Britain. His
fragmentary notices of the Arthurian period are vague and inaccu-
rate. His laudation of Arthur,^ who, he says, freed Britain from
the Romans, is unqualified, at the opposite extreme from his brief
characterization of Vortigern.® He illustrates strikingly the pop-
ular tendency to connect heroes of the story with definite places
1 Ed. James Gairdner, Three Fifteenth-Century Chronicles^ Camden Soc, 1880,
pp. 9-1 1. s Contrast p. 199, above.
2 Cf. p. 159, above, with note 12. ^ Ed. Heame, Oxford, 1716, 1745.
8 Contrast p. 218, above. ^ p. ^g.
♦ Cf. p. 199, above. '* P. 56. Cf. p. 40, above.
Digitized
by Google
Robert Fabyan 255
in the island. He states that Welsh records say that Constantine
rebuilt Caerleon,* and asserts that Uter founded "castrum Pen-
dragon " in the North.^ He includes a Glastonbury fabrication
which had been noticed by William of Malmesbury, to the effect
that Arthur had given to that abbey the territory of Bremmerch.'
In this connection may be noticed the tradition, recorded earlier
in the century by Nicholaus Cantaloupus, in his De Antiquiiate et
Ofigine Universitatis Cantabrigiae, that Vortumerus defended the
scholars of Cambridge from the Saxons, — a statement accom-
panied by a transcript of the charter said to have been given to
the university by Arthur.*
VI. Robert Fabyan
Coincident, roughly speaking, with the beginning of the sixteenth
century, and a direct result of the new national consciousness and
of the whole set of influences which the Renaissance exerted in
England, is the appearance of that last and most important class
of English chronicles to which reference has already bqen made, —
those prose works, usually of considerable extent, whose authors,
setting out, almost all of them, in an essentially modern, though not
fully developed, spirit of judicial criticism, such as had character-
ized some of the Latinists like Higden, attempted to get together
what seemed to be the credible facts, — in the later portion, from
their own knowledge ; in the earlier, from all the best previous
authorities.
In one respect, however, the passage of time since Higden^s day
had made the task of these later historians more difficult, as regards
the period here considered. There was no methodical criticism —
and indeed no opportunity for it — to demonstrate that the now
manifold series of chronicles which dealt with the Arthurian tradi-
tion in its post-Galfridian form really drew ultimately from a single
source. Consequently most of these writers, unlike Higden, treated
1 P. 53- ^ P- 58.
8 P. 65. Cf. pp. 98-99, above. William's form of the name is Brentimaris.
* Edited in Heame's Thomae Sprotti Chronica^ I7i9> PP« 267-269.
Digitized
by Google
256 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Geoffrey's book not as practically the sole authority for this current
form of the tradition, but as only one (although the chief) among
many or several authorities. But this fact may be over-emphasized ;
for as a rule these chroniclers tend, even if not always on the best
grounds, to look with some distrust on the incidents which are not
mentioned by Nennius or one of the other pre-Galfridian historians.
The first work of this class, written about 1493, though not pub-
lished until 15 16, was the New Chronicles of England and France^
by Robert Fabyan, an opulent draper and very prominent citizen
of London.^
Fabyan does not entertain a high opinion of Geoffrey's trustwor-
thiness. He more than once speaks of him' as among the unau-
thentic historians whose testimony cannot be accepted without cor-
roboration, and he shows no particular respect for his statements in
the frequent discussions which he introduces as to the respective
weight of conflicting evidence. Nevertheless, up to the end of the
reign of Vortigern, he includes, sometimes with changes in details
due to his collateral employment of other versions, most of the essen-
tial substance of Geoffrey's work. From the death of Vortigern
the case becomes very different. As possible sources for Fabyan 's
divergences from Geoffrey in the Arthurian period, aside from
indeterminable ideas, we need mention, from among the large num-
ber of authorities to which he constantly refers, only Bede, William
of Malmesbury, Higden,* " the English Chronicle " (doubtless the
translation of the Brut\ " Guydo de Columpna " * (by whose name,
Fabyan, following a long persistent error, probably means to indi-
cate a form of the Mer des Histoires), and "an old chronicle of
1 Ed. Sir Henry Ellis, London, 181 1 ; see Morley, English Writers ^ VII, 267.
The French material is given in occasional distinct sections.
2 It ought to be remarked, by way of caution, that the following brief accounts
of Fabyan and some of his successors, as well as those above given of some of his
predecessors, are necessarily in a sense inadequate, even as regards the limited
aspect of their work here under consideration; because, with their somewhat
prolix style, these writers sometimes elaborate details in a manner which is often
quaint and interesting, but which must here pass without notice.
8 For example, p. 75. * In Trevisa's translation, according to Ellis.
6 Cited, p. 18.
Digitized
by Google
Robert Fabyan 257
unknown author," which may be assumed to have been related to
the Brut
Up to the death of Vortiger, the following points deserve men-
tion. Fabyan inserts ^ the Bede version of the prosperity of the
Britons in the early part of Vortigern's reign, of the consequent
sin of the land, and of the summoning of the Saxons. Like Boece,
he connects Bede's Hallelujah Victory with Vortimer.* He gives
as alternative to the other* an expanded version of William of
Malmesbury's story of the Stonehenge massacre ; and in greatly
abbreviating the narrative of Hengist's earlier machinations * he evi-
dently draws partly from the same source. He presents in more
detail an idea included by Hardyng, saying that Constant was put
into a monastery because of his stupidity,*^ though others assert (he
remarks) that it was of his own choice, from pure devotion. He
adds that, according to most writers. Constant reigned five years ; •
that, on the usurpation of Vortiger, many Britons went to Armorica
to the help of Aurelius and Uther ; • that, after the Saxons had
grown strong, Vortiger had to side with them, because the Britons
forsook him ; '^ and that in his last extremity he victualled his castle
well, knowing that he had not enough strength of knights to trust to.*
The inconsistency of Fabyan's sources leads him to ascribe to
Vortimer other battles besides the four.
The most important changes are due to Fabyan's critical attempt
to make the narrative plausible. He merely refers to the story of
Vortigem's tower and Merlin,* and later he omits all suggestion of
magic in mentioning the transportation of the great Stones,® while
he alludes to the story that Uther won his lady by Merlin's enchant-
ment, only to say that it " is nat comely to any Cristen Relygyon to
gyue to any suche f antastycall illusions any mynde or credence." ^° He
modifies Vortimer's success, saying that he took from the Saxons
most of their territory, and then often grieved them with such navy
as he had. From this he passes on, alleging as his source "the olde
cronycle," to an attempt at explaining Vortiger's restoration to the
^ P. 62 ; cf. p. 40, above.
8 P. 68.
• P. 69 ; but cf. p. 75. 10 P. 75.
ip.
59.
*P.
60.
2 p.
65;
see
p.
246,
above.
»P.
58.
«P.
66.
•P,
59.
Digitized
by Google
258 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
throne. During Vortimer's reign, he says, Vortiger had been kept
in Chester under " tutors," but he demeaned himself so well that he
won the favor of the Britons.^
Beginning with Aurelius, Fabyan very largely rejects the Galfridian
story in favor of that of the Saxon sources. He gives the outline of
most of Geoffrey's account of Aurelius and Uther, but sometimes
with entire confusion of details.^ Just as he had mentioned Hen-
gist's division of the land into three parts (he supposes that the Saxon
conquest of the whole country was achieved, temporarily, at a single
stroke), he insists that the Saxons were never thoroughly crushed
nor driven away,® and that Hengist died in his bed after ruling"
twenty-four years,* in spite of the British books.
Coming to Arthur,^ Fabyan expresses his regret that he cannot
speak at length on credible authority of the hero's great exploits, half
apologizing to the Welshmen for his brevity of treatment.^ So he
gives only a summary, mostly from Higden, of Arthur's early wars,
alluding to the statement of some authors that the Saxons were trib-
utary to Arthur for the lands which they succeeded in holding.'
He goes on to remark that Arthur long fought against them, espe-
cially against Cerdic.® He then mentions Arthur's expedition against
the Romans, refusing to accept it. He gives without question the
story of Modred's union with Cerdic, and a brief outline of the usual
(Galfridian) narrative of Arthur's campaign against him; but he local-
izes the last battle at Glastonbury, and insists on Arthur's death and
his burial in "the vale of Aualon, besyde Glastynbury."* His inclu-
sion of the mention of Gawyn's death may be taken as indirect testi-
mony to the vogue of the Gawain stories. ^^
Fabyan's attitude is so relentlessly that of the searcher for truth that
it is pleasant to mention, in leaving him, the single instance of poetic
feeling that he evinces in all this first part of his work. Just before
stating that it was at the instigation of the devil that Vortiger asked for
Ronowen from his father, he observes, in the very manner of Wavrin,
that the king was wounded with the dart of the blind god Cupid.^^
1 Pp. 65-66. 6 p. 79. 9 cf. p. 189 ff., above.
2 Pp. 68-70, 74-75- * Pp- 79, 81. 10 Cf. p. 105, above.
8 Pp. 68, 69, 79. "7 Cf. p. 186, above. " P. 61 ; cf. p. 228, abovcv
* P. 69. Cf. p. 159, above. « p. go.
Digitized
by Google
Polydore Virgil 259
VII. John Rastell
The seriousness and real merit of Fabyan's chronicle did not pass
without recognition, and it became a standard model for almost all
those of the following century. Indeed, though the succeeding his-
torians adopted Fabyan's method of careful independent investigation
of sources, yet, for the early period of the history, several of them based
their works directly upon his. Of these more immediate followers,
the earliest is John Rastell, who in 1529 published The Pastime 0/
People^ or The Chronicles of Divers Realms^ and especially England?-
Rasteirs adherence to Fabyan's version of the Arthurian story is
very close, but in some ^places he is a little less critical. For if he
omits (very likely by accident) the story of Vortiger's tower, he men-
tions the statement that Hengist died in his bed only as an alterna-
tive account after saying that he was killed in battle against Aijrelius.
Fabyan did just the reverse of this. Rastell represents that it was
after Arthur heard of Cerdic's death that he returned to oppose
Modred, — as if Arthur had been afraid to do so earlier. He also
gives considerable discussion to the print of what was supposed to
have been Arthur's seal (which had been previously mentioned in
the chronicles), then kept at St. Edward's shrine in Westminster,
about the border of which, he says, was written, Arthurus patricius
Brittanie Gallic et Dade imperator. As to the credibility of the whole
account of Arthur's exploits, after observing that Geoffrey's " long
story " does not agree with other writers, so that some think he com-
posed it "for affeccion," he expresses himself thus: — "But yet, all
this not withstandyng, I wyl nother denye the seyd story of Arthur,
nor exort no man presysly to affyrme it; but to let euery man be at
his lyberte to beleue ther in what he lyste." ^
VIII. Polydore Virgil
However sincere may have been the efforts of Fabyan to arrive at
historical truth, he labored under one disadvantage, which his con-
temporary compatriots certainly would not have admitted as such,
1 Ed. Dibdin, 181 1, in the same large quarto series with Hardyng and Fabyan.
2 P. 107.
Digitized
by Google
26o Arthurian Material in Chronicles
namely, that of being an Englishman. To attain an attitude of still
more deliberate skepticism was reserved for a scholar of Italian birth,
the well-known Polydore Virgil. Polydore's foreign origin is the cause
of another fact which differentiates his work still more, externally,
from the other great English chronicles of the century, — the fact
that it is written in Latin.
Polydore Virgil held, for most of his life, various ecclesiastical and
other offices in England under the fickle favor of Henry VIII. It
was at the suggestion of that monarch that he prepared his Anglicae
Historiae Libri XXVI^ which occupied him for many years, and
appeared in 1534.^
The most significant thing about Polydore's work, for the present
discussion, is his general attitude toward the Arthurian story and
the whole Galfridian narrative. This is often misrepresented. The
vigorous defence of Geoffrey which was undertaken by Leland,^
Price,' Stow,* Howes,* and others,* in the first century following the
appearance of Polydore's history, was originally called forth by him,
and was largely directed against him in a spirit of spiteful national
prejudice and in neglect of the fact that he was by no means the
first to deny Geoffrey's authority. As a matter of fact, Polydore
not only merely followed the lead of Fabyan and his successors in
this regard, but he does not flatly reject Geoffrey's narrative, though,
to be sure, this seems to be chiefly from unwillingness to speak out
too boldly. He does not attack Geoffrey by name, but quotes, with
disguised approval, part of William of Newburgh's arraignment of
him,'' taking care to say that he does not endorse William's opinion
but merely repeats what has been said before. He even thinks it
wise to refer to Merlin, at the proper place,® though naming him only
as a figure of the belief of the " vulgus." While he states plairfly
1 At Basle. The edition to which references are here made was published in
the same city in 1 570.
2 Assertio Inclytissimi Arturii, I544» and Codrus^ sive Laus Arthuri (see p. 50,
note I, above).
' Hi$toriae Brytannicae Defensio^ ^573'
* A Brief e Proofe of Brute ^ in his Annates ^ ed. 1631, pp. 6-7.
^ Editing Stow (see Historicall Preface).
^ See, for example, John Caius*s animadversions against Polydore in De Anti-
^uitate Cantebrigiensis Academiae^ ed. 1574, p. 52. "^ P. 17. ^ p^ ^7,
Digitized
by Google
Polydore Virgil 26 1
that nothing is more obscure than the early affairs of Britain, he
begins his historical narrative with an outline of the Galfridian
account of the pre-Roman kings, expressing his unwillingness to do
so and his belief that the story is full of errors,^ and making as he
proceeds frequent additions and corrections. For the Roman period,
he draws mostly from classical historians, and once or twice notes
the evident incredibility of the "historia nova."^
For the first part of the Arthurian period,' Polydore follows Nennius
(minus his supernatural incidents), Bede, and Gildas ; but with inter-
pretation and descriptive expansion of his own which sounds at first
to a modern reader scarcely less ridiculous than the fables which he
rejected, — rationalization on an irrational basis, it might be called.
Thus, he tells how " Vortigerius " was chosen king by the Britons
because he was chief of all in authority, birth, and valor,* and says
that the Saxons, when hard pressed by the Picts in their first battle,
redoubled their efforts on reflecting that their success would deter-
mine their reputation with the Britons. It is notable that Polydore
represents Vortigem as thoroughly patriotic,* at least in the begin-
ning of his reign, and excuses his partiality for the Saxons on the
ground of their services to him.® His moral bias' becomes evident
occasionally, as when, accepting the story of Vortigem's union with
Hengist's daughter, he characterizes it as setting the worst example
within the history of mankind. His account of Aurelius and Vorti-
mer, whom he seems to make contemporary (Aurelius as general,
and Vortimer as king), is entirely confused, — a natural result of
the effort to harmonize Gildas, Nennius, and other authorities.^ He
makes Ambrosius kill Hengist in the battle of the Don • and himself
fall in battle shortly after. He includes Uther, but the chief works
that he ascribes to his reign are the Hallelujah Victory ^° and the
Battle of Badon.
When he comes to Arthur, Polydore makes it clear that he accepts,
in a modified form, the current idea of his greatness. For although.
1 Pp. 18-19. • Cf. p. 234, above.
3 See p. 32. ' Cf. p. 183, above.
« Pp. 54 ff. • Cf. p. 40, above.
4 Cf. p. 266, below. » Cf. p. 184, above.
6 Contrast p. 40, above. ^ Cf. p. 246, abov*.
Digitized
by Google
262 Arthurian Material in Chronic ks
in giving a brief outline of the Galfridian story of Arthur's reign, ^ he
specially observes that it is only a tradition of the common people,
remarkably exaggerated, yet he decides that the king was " noe
doubte suche a mann as, if hee hadd lived longe, hee surelie woulde
have restored the whole somme beeing almoste loste to his Britons." ^
IX. Arthur Kelton
One of the most indignant replies to Polydore was that of Arthur
Kelton' in his little Chronyde with a Genealogie dedaryng that the
Brittons and Welshemen are lineally e dyscended from Brute, printed in
London in 1547, and now exceedingly rare. Kelton, whose energetic
patriotism can scarcely be over-emphasized, resolves the question into
a dispute between the Romans, with " Polidorus " for their leader, on
one side, and " us Welshmen " on the other. Nothing could be more
unimportant than his wildly rambling doggerel tetrameter stanzas.
He cites as authorities Geoffrey and other chroniclers (some of whom
I have not been able to find), but has only two or three casual men-
tion^ of Arthur, though he describes, at a length of several lines, the
discovery of his body. The genealogy at the end has, for the two
extremes, Osiris and Edward VI, but it includes by name only the
most important of the intermediate monarchs, following (Geoffrey's
list for the period which it covers.
X. George Lily
A work popular in its time, as numerous editions show, but now
insignificant, written, by the accidents of the author's life, in Latin,
is the Chronicon of George Lily, Roman Catholic divine, and son of
the famous grammarian William Lily. It appeared first at Venice
in 1548, in the same volume with a Descriptio Britanniae, Scotiae,
Hybemiae, et Orchadum, ex Libro Pauli fovii Episcopi Nucer, De
JmperiiSy et Gentibus Cogniti Orbis, etc. The Descriptio Britanniae^
1 P. 60.
2 I quote from the English translation made soon after the appearance of
Polydore's history (ed. Sir Henry Ellis, Camden Soc, 1846, I, 121).
8 See Did, Nat. Biog., XXX, 359. * Fols. 5, 6.
Digitized
by Google
Thomas Cooper 263
gives in brief outline the Galfridian account of Vortigern's reign and
of the wars of Arthur against the Saxons, and mentions the discovery
of his tomb. Lily's part begins with a few pages ^ about English
and Scottish names, and a eulogy, addressed to Paulus Jovius, of
various English scholars of the sixteenth century.^ His chronicle*
is entitled A Brute , , . omnium in quos . . . Britanniae Imperium
translatum Brevis Enumeraiio} Lily perhaps shares Polydore's skep-
ticism about Geoffrey's story, though, in view of the brevity of his
treatment, this is not a certain inference. At any rate> he omits
everything from Brutus to Julius Caesar, and in the very summary
and much curtailed outline of the story with which he begins his list
of monarchs, he has scarcely more than a mention of Vortigern,
Arthur, and the intermediate British and Saxon kings.
XI. Bishop Cooper
Polydore Virgil was the last of the significant Latin chroniclers.
In the year following the appearance of Lily's book, was published
another of those English works which go back directly to Fabyan, —
the widely-circulated Epitome of Chronicles begun and carried down
to the birth of Christ by Thomas Lanquet, and completed by
Bishop Thomas Cooper of Winchester. The entries that concern
the Arthurian period are few and brief, and they are almost entirely
taken from Fabyan.^ There is a marked tendency to omit all magic
elements, to which the bishop sometimes refers as being of the
common voice of the people. Cooper, indeed, distrusts the whole
Galfridian story ; and, in beginning the early history of Britain,®
Lanquet, also, warns his readers that it is very doubtful, adding that
he will not dissent from the common opinion, but will follow Geoffrey
as nearly as possible.
1 Fols. 42b ff. 2 Fols. 45-54. * Fols. 57-125.
* The later independent editions are called Chronicon sive Brevis Enumeration
etc. It is reprinted in Gruter's Chronicon Chronicorutn politicum^ 161 4, vol. I.
5 Perhaps the only exception is the remark that the histories of the Scots say
that the Picts and Scots were allied with the Britons (fol. 143b).
« Fol. 27b.
Digitized
by Google
264 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
XII. Richard Grafton and John Stow
Among all the English historians from the beginning, there are
scarcely any two who would have been more reluctant to have their
names associated than the well-known printer Richard Grafton and
his professional and personal antagonist, the antiquarian tailor John
Stow. But in effect their rivalry has proved a reason for conjoining
them hardly less sufficient than active collaboration wobld have been.
The most popular historical books in England in the last part
of the sixteenth century were the brief outlines prepared first by
Grafton, and afterward, when their success suggested imitation, by
Stow. Grafton's little Abridgement of the Chronicles of England first
appeared in 1562 or 1563, and was frequently reissued. It is essen-
tially a series of dated annals, generally brief, extending from Brute
to the year of publication. Each edition was newly revised, and
differs from the others in many minor details. In all the early por-
tions, at least, the book is based primarily on Fabyan, though it
sometimes borrows from other chroniclers, ancient or recent.
Stow first put forth his Abridgement of the English Chronicle in 1565.
It ultimately surpassed its rival in favor, and was often republished
during a period of fifty years. The various editions are not always
identical, nor even in agreement in all details.^ They are seldom at
variance with Geoffrey.
It is interesting to note that the personal hostility of Grafton and Stow
does not prevent them from borrowing occasionally each from the other.
Not many particular features of these abridgments need to be
registered. Toward Arthur, Grafton adopts an attitude of moderate
skepticism similar to that of Fabyan, while Stow gives only a very
scanty outline of the whole of Arthur's reign. Both are interested
in the establishment of the Round Table and in the question whether
it was held at Windsor or at Winchester.^
1 The second, that of 1 567, represents a somewhat shorter redaction, but the
other editions which I have examined all belong to the earlier and larger form.
2 In the edition of 1571 Grafton refers to and makes use (fol. 12a) of what
seems to be an interesting lost chronicle " written by a Monke of Saint Albons,
but his name by some indiscreete persons is tome out of the booke." Compari-
son shows that he does not mean the St. Albans edition of Caxton.
Digitized
by Google
Grafton and Stow - 265
Less important is Grafton's minute Manuell of the Chronicles of
Englandefrom the Creadon of the Worlde to this Yere , , . ijds, which
in the really English portion (down to the Norman Conquest) is
scarcely more than a list of kings, with a note of the length of each
reign. Through the period covered by Geoffrey, it agrees almost
entirely with him.
Neither Grafton nor Stow was willing to stop with these minor
works, and, in the preparation of a more extensive history, Grafton
again had the start. His Chronicle at Large appeared in 1569. For
the most part it agrees substantially with his Abridgement in whatever
that includes, and it is almost as dependent upon Fabyan for the
Arthurian part of the story as was Cooper. For while, in the earlier
portions, Grafton makes use of Cooper and others of the many author-
ities whom he names, when he comes to our period^ he takes almost
his whole account from Fabyan, often nearly verbally. The only
points of divergence ate: — the insertion (with slight changes) of
Geoffrey's narrative of the death of Vortimer, of Vortiger's surren-
dering his land, and of Pascent's deeds, — these as alternatives to
Fabyan's versions; the omission of Fabyan's rejecting allusion to
the story of the building of Stonehenge ; the use of Nennius (from
whom Fabyan differs slightly) for the names of Arthur's twelve
battles ; the statement that Arthur built Windsor and there founded
the Round Table, with mention of " Frosard " as authority, and the
observation that some think it was rather Winchester,* because " there
is the Table " ; the mention, from Hardy ng, of Arthgall of Warwick,
with the addition of the names of two of his successors in his lord-
ship, and one or two other local details.
Stow's larger work, The Chronicles (later called Annates *) of Eng-
land^ was issued in 1580. It generally agrees in dates and otherwise
with his Abridgement. He bases his account of the Arthurian period
on Cooper, but he draws also from many others of his predecessors
— the Saxon Chronicle^ Bede (from whom he takes a good deal),
William of Malmesbury, Geoffrey, Hardyng, Fabyan, Grafton, and
^ Ellis's ed., 1809, I, 73 ff.
2 An opinion which he himself adopts in later versions of his Abridgement.
* This is the title in Howes's ed. of 163 1, to which references are here made.
Digitized
by Google
266 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Ross, as well as some others who cannot be identified. The result
is one of the most heterogeneous narratives in the whole history of
the tradition. It will suffice to pass over most of the details and
mention some of the especially notable features.
Stow omits ^ all mention of Geoffrey's story of Constantinus and
Constans, because he follows the historical narrative represented by
Bede. Of Vortiger's accession he says only that the Britons thought
good to appoint some king, and so unanimously elected Vortiger.*
He includes, briefly, most of the events of the reigns of Vortiger
and Vortimer as they appear in the Galfridian story, but in the
whole narrative he omits supernatural incidents, so that he has noth«
ing, for instance, about Vortiger's tower. Whenever he has occasion
to mention a place (Thong Castle, Stonehenge, or another), he shows
his antiquarian instinct by entering into a digression upon it. He
includes the incident of Vodine, Bishop of London,* which appeared
first in Boece. After giving, with some confusion, Bede's account
of.Aurelius Ambrosius, he introduces from William of Malmesbury,
though professedly only on William's authority, the statement that
Aurelius and Arthur fought together against the Saxons.* He men-
tions the story in The Chronicles of the Britaines of the removal of
the Stonehenge circle from Ireland "by the industrious meanes
of Merlin."^ On Uther he gives only a ten-line summary.® Like
Sir Thomas Gray,^ he says that Guinever was Cador's cousin and
daughter to the king of Biscay. At the beginning of Arthur's reign
he makes a statement® of the relations with Scotland not identical
with anything in the extant Scottish histories, — namely, that Lotho
and Conradus, Arthur's allies, envying his prosperity, made war upon
him, but he conquered them and put Anguisel over them. He men-
tions the establishment of the Round Table, and says that it was
held at Winchester (like Grafton) and at Camalet (here first appear-
ing in the chronicles). He stops to discuss the remains of Camalet
and to speak of a silver horseshoe found there, and of Arthur's Table
in Denbigh. He speaks of the greater part of Arthur's doings at
1 Contrast Higden (p. 185, above) and Holinshed (p. 269, below).
2 P. 50; cf. 261, above. » P. 51. * P. 53. « P. 53.
® P. 53. '^ See p. 225, above. 8 p. 54.
Digitized
by Google
Holinshed and Harrison 267
home, but for his foreign conquests merely alludes to his " warres
beyond the seas (where he wrought many wonders, as some haue
written, but farre vnlike to be true)." Then he passes to a summary
statement of Modred's alliance with Cerdic, and Arthur's last cam-
paign. He definitely dates Arthur's death on May 21, 542.
XIII. Raphael Holinshed and William Harrison
In 1577, three years earlier than Stow's large history, appeared an
even more ambitious work, the Chronicles of England^ Scotland^ and
Ireland^ by Raphael Holinshed, which formed a part of an immense
compilation of universal history planned, but never completed, by
the publishers.
Some of the material of the work as printed was prepared by the
industrious chronologer William Harrison.^ Besides the account of
the Arthurian period in his translation of Bellenden's translation
of Boece,^ he gives in the preliminary Description of Britain^ a very
brief outline of the succession of early British kings, intended to
show that they had been supreme over Scotland. The Arthurian
section of this outline shows in an interesting way how strange a
version could now be compounded, especially by one who was
inclined to give heed to the various Scottish stories. Constantine,
it is said, kills Dongard, and subdues all Scotland. There is no
mention of Constans. Vbrtiger gives various regions in Scotland to
Hengist, who, desiring the whole kingdom, is banished, and con-
spires with the Scots against Aurilambrose, the right heir. He is
taken prisoner in battle by Eldulph de Samor, and his head is struck
off at the command of Aurilambrose. The Scots are vanquished,
but Octa, son of Hengest, is spared, and receives Gallowaie. Uter
. conquers the Saxons and Scots. Arthur succeeds. His noble acts,
says Harrison, have been stained by vulgar fables, but he subdued
the Saxons with the help of the Scots and Picts. When the Scots rebel
1 Harrison wrofte also a Great Chronology^ never published. See Morley,
English Writers, VIII, 368.
* V, 136-162, of the six-volume quarto ed. of Holinshed, 1807-1808.
' I, 201-202. The Description was also edited, in part, by Fumivall for the
New Shakspere Society, 1877-8.
Digitized
by Google
268 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
and besiege Howell in York, Arthur defeats them and establishes
Angusian and his brothers. At Arthur's royal feast Angusian (as
in Geoffrey) bears his sword. It is strikingly illustrative of the
difference between the spirit of the sixteenth century and that of
the twentieth that this outline of the Arthurian period could appear
without explanation in the same work with Holinshed's version of
the history of that time.
Of Holinshed's life little is known except that he began his literary
career as a translator in a printing office and describes himself in his
will as steward to Thomas Burlet of Bramcote. His personality is
attractive, — none the less so because one of his prominent charac-
teristics is credulity. It was not possible for a writer at the end of
the sixteenth century to accept in toto traditions like that of Arthur
without question, but Holinshed was very far from possessing the
temperament of Polydore Virgil, and often seems to take pains (not
so much in our period as elsewhere) to record impossible marvels.
Among the long list of authorities cited by Holinshed ^ occur the
names of Alfred of Beverley, Bede, the Chronica Chronicorum, the
Chroniques de Britaine, Caxton's Chronicles, Fabyan, Gildas, Geoffrey,
William of Malmesbury, Henry of Huntingdon, Boece, Hardyng,
Fordun, Stow, Nennius, Polydore Virgil, and Cooper. As borrowings
from most of these sources occur in the narrative of the Arthurian
period, and as this covers about thirty printed pages (six or eight
times as much space as the corresponding section of Stow), we must
confine our attention to the more important features. First, as to
Holinshed's attitude toward Geoffrey.
In a good deal of the pre- Arthurian story, Holinshed follows Geof-
frey, sometimes rather closely, but in the Arthurian period he does
so only very little. Several times he expresses directly an unfavor-
able opinion of Geoffrey's book. In a confused passage^ in which •
he tries unsuccessfully to say (following the erroneous version in
Higdeh ®) that the Constantine of Bede is a different person from
Geoffrey's, he observes that "there is not so much credit to be
yeelded to them that haue written the British histories, but that
in some part men may with iust cause doubt of sundrie matters
^ I, ix. 2 p, ^^2. 8 See p^ jg^, above.
Digitized
by Google
Raphael Holinshed 269
conteined in the same." Geoffrey's statement that the Saxons were
driven from the land he characterizes as unlikely,^ referring his readers
to William of Malmesbury and other old authentic historiographers
to whom we "male vndoubtedlie and safelie giue most credit."
Though he follows Fabyan in speaking of Hengist's return,* he
glosses in the margin : " He might easilie returne, for except I be
deceiued he was neuer driuen out after he had once set foot within
this lie." He alludes to the story of Vortigern's tower as " not of
such credit as deserueth to be registred in anie sound historic,"*
and, in mentioning * Uther's expedition to Ireland, he omits Merlin
and the magic element. After noticing the story of Arthur's wars in
France, he concludes -} " For so much as there is not anie approoued
author who dooth speake of anie such dooings, the Britains are
thought to haue registered meere fables in sted of true matters."
Geoffrey is not the only author whom Holinshed views with sus-
picion. He rejects Henry of Huntingdon's story of the destruction
of Vortigern by fire from heaven,* and he occasionally notes and dis-
cusses the inconsistencies in his other sources. Evidently he desired
to be critical ; but how little that quality accorded with his natural
mental disposition appears from his introductory observations about
Arthur,' whom he calls, at his accession, " a yoong towardlie gentle-
man, of the age of 15 yeeres or thereabouts." "Of this Arthur," he
goes on, " manie things are written beyond credit, for that there is
no ancient author of authoritie that confirmeth the same : but surelie
as may be thought he was some woorthie man, and by all likelihood
a great enimie to the Saxons, by reason whereof the Welshmen
. . . haue him in famous remembrance."
The other more notable points in Holinshed's narrative are as fol-
lows. He includes, drawing, it should be borne in mind, from many
sources, chiefly not from Geoffrey : the story of Constantinus and
Constantius ; Vortigern 's scheming and accession, — with the state-
ment that he garrisoned the Tower of London ; the coming of the
Saxons, summoned by the council " after they [the council] had
throughlie pondered all things " ; the early plotting of Hengist, with
ip. 559. «P. 564. «P.576. 'P. 574.
2 P. 560. * P. 565. « P. 564.
Digitized
by Google
2/0 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
the wassail incident ; the story of Vortimer ; Vortigern's restoration
and the massacre ; a long statement of the establishment of the
Saxon kingdoms ; some material about St. German us, with the Hal-
lelujah Victory ; ^ the coming of Aurelius and Uther ; more Ger-
manus legend ; Aurelius's whole reign, in very brief summary ; some
account of Saxon affairs ; most of the story of Uther, following
Fabyan's version of Arthur's birth, which makes him legitimate ; ^ an
outline of Arthur's reign, through the northern conquests ; Arthur's
last campaign, chiefly according to Geoffrey ; the discovery of Arthur's
body. Near the end, Holinshed makes a rationalizing observation
which illustrates the Elizabethan manliness of feeling which attracts
one strongly to him. He says of Gawain that, " like a faithfull gentle-
man, regarding more his honour and loiall truth than neerenesse of
bloud and coosenage, [he] chose rather to fight in the quarell of his
liege king and louing maister, than to take part with his naturall
brother in an vniust cause."® With true knightly sentiment he
defends the reputatipn of " Guenhera," * mentioning the Melwas
myth as we know it in the Life of Gildas.
XIV. William Warner, Michael Drayton, and the End of
THE Chronicles
Holinshed and Stow are the last writers who have any strong
claim on our attention. The only later works which need even be
mentioned are two poems partly and incidentally of chronicle char-
acter, the Albion* s England of the London attorney William Warner,
published in 1586, and the Polyolbion of Michael Drayton, which
appeared, with prose annotations by the learned John Selden, in
1613.*^ Different as these productions are in nature, each includes
an outline (divided, in the Polyolbion^ into widely scattered fragments)
of a large part of the Galfridian narrative, not based altogether upon
Geoffrey, but too brief or too poetical to differ very notably from him
1 Cf. p. 246, above. * P. 576.
2 Cf. p. 184, above. * P. 580 ; cf . p. 163, above.
^ Albions England^ ed. 161 2, chap. 19, pp. 88-91. The book contains also
a prose epitome of the history of England (see pp. 357-358). Polyolbion^ ed. of
1622, reprinted by the Spenser Society, 1889- 1890.
Digitized
by Google
The End of the Chronicles 271
or to have any special importance. As to prose, there was no break
in historical composition at the end of the sixteenth century, but the
succeeding works have ceased to be chronicles and have become
histories. The spirit of criticism, besides, was developing, and in
these histories the pre- Saxon period of the story sank into a still less
prominent place than with Grafton and Stow. Geoffrey's credibility
was attacked by some and defended by others, but even those who
maintained it adopted his narrative only in very condensed outlines.^
The Arthurian tradition had ceased forever to have any large impor-
tance outside its legitimate sphere of romance and poetry.
1 Here it may be noted that the fabulous English compilation of MS. Harl.
2414 and the slight summary of the Arthurian story in MS. Sloane 1090 are both
of the seventeenth century and therefore too late to have any value.
Digitized
by Google
CHAPTER XII
CONCLUSION
The history of the Arthurian tradition in the chronicles, as it has
been traced in the foregoing pages, may be briefly summarized as
follows : —
About the middle of the sixth century, Gildas, a British ecclesiastic
who had fled to Armorica, wrote, as introduction to a violent denun-
ciatory epistle, a very brief sketch of the history of Britain. Though
entirely incidental in character and warped by extreme prejudice,
this sketch gives the only nearly contemporary account of the Arthu-
rian period. It outlines in a few words the general course of events,
— the coming, devastations, and conquests of the Saxons, the paral-
ysis of the Britons at first, their subsequ^t uprising and resistance,
which ultimately (when Gildas wrote) had checked the invader, and
their continuance in civil wars. It names Ambrosius Aurelianus and
the Battle of Badon.
During a long period which began, perhaps, not very much after
the time of Gildas, there was gradually put together by other British
authors, — of whom the last important one, at the end of the eighth
century, was Nennius, — the very composite Historia Britonum, This
work practically includes in a general way all the facts of the Arthurian
period mentioned by Gildas, and it supplies also the name Vortigern
for the unlucky prince whom Gildas represented as ruling when
the Saxon invasion commenced, and the characters and names of
Vortimer, Hengist, Horsa, Octha, and Ebyssa. For the last four of
these, as well as for the first, some corroborative testimony is fur-
nished by the Saxon accounts of the period given by Bede and the
Chronicle^ — accounts which are otherwise altogether at variance with
Nennius. The bulk of the Historia Britonum^ so far as it concerns
our discussion, is made up of fabulous tales about Hengist's treach-
erous plots and his marriage of his daughter to Vojrtigern, and of
272
Digitized
by Google
Conclusion 273
the story of Vortigem's tower and the supernatural boy Ambrosius.
Much more straightforward and plausible is the summary catalogue
of the twelve victories of Arthur, dux beilorum, of which the last is
identified with the battle of Mount Badon. Legendary stories about
Arthur are also briefly recorded in two mirabilia.
Among the few Saxon chroniclers of the next three hundred years,
^thelweard briefly retold the story of Bede, with perhaps a few
touches from Nennius and a few from his own imagination. William
of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon, with whom the chronicles
of England reemerged into real importance in the first quarter of the
twelfth century, employed much the same method as ^thelweard,
but with far more license, — combining and rearranging at will the
narratives of Nennius, Gildas, Bede, and the Chronicle. Their signifi-
cance is mostly limited to the fact that they may have given the first
stimulus and some general suggestions to Geoffrey of Monmouth.
With Cxeoffrey, a literary artist of great genius and remarkable
good fortune, there came into being, a few years later, the romance
which passed for centuries as the History of the Kings of Britain,
and which determined — and indeed largely created — the form of
the Arthurian story found in the chronicles. Geoffrey based his
narrative as much as possible on the work of Nennius, and neces-
sarily to a far smaller extent on Bede and Gildas; but he utilized
the whole stock of his reading and knowledge wherever and however
he thought most convenient. He drew especially from Celtic myths
and traditions, including those which he found connected with Arthur,
and which as connected with him had been already mentioned in the
Annales Cambriae at the end of the tenth century and by William of
Malmesbury. Geoffrey drew also from Celtic records, lay and eccle-
siastical ; from his knowledge of general history (sometimes borrow-
ing directly from William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon),
and from the life, manners, and romantic literature of contemporary
Norman England and France. He wrought together all these diverse
elements into a consistent and continuous narrative. To begin the
Arthurian period, he appropriated from Bede the figures of the Roman
Constantinus and Constans as the founders of the royal line in which
he placed Aurelius (Gildas's "Ambrosius Aurelianus") and Arthur.
Nennius furnished him with nearly the complete outline for his
Digitized
by Google
2/4 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
account of Vortigern's reign, and he added (or developed) Merlin and
his prophecies. He invented (or took from sources now unknown)
the whole history (consisting chiefly of successful wars against the
Saxons) of Aurelius and the Uther whom he adapted as the brother
of Aurelius and father of Arthur. His most significant work was to
add to his greatly expanded version of Nennius's sketch of Arthur's
victories at home, the narrative of his foreign conquests ; ^ to portray
both the king and his knights in the colors of contemporary chivalry
and courtly romance; and to recount at some length the treason
of Modred against Arthur as husband and as king, and Arthur's
vengeance, fatal also to himself.
The national epic material of one of the most romantic peoples in
the world had thus been put into a definite form supremely appro-
priate and apparently authoritative. In this form, — the ground
having doubtless been already prepared by many less systematic
tales on the same subject, — it was made current by popular story-
tellers, and swept over mediaeval Europe almost in an instant, so
that Arthur and his knights were adopted not only as English but
as Christian heroes. That the material continued for centuries,
partly as a result of Geoffrey's influence, to hold a place of unsur-
passed importance in romantic literature, is a fact with which we are
not here directly concerned. But whether or not Geoffrey had so
intended, his book was taken seriously by the historians. Not only
did the French, English, and Latin metrical chroniclers of the two
following centuries, — who, whether they wrote for the upper classes
or for the populace, were rather poets or rhymers than historians, —
continue to paraphrase Geoffrey's story almost entire, but the sober
Latinists of the monasteries, with very few exceptions, regarded it
with careful attention ; and while there were some among them, even
from the first, who discerned its true nature, or viewed it with great
distrust, and while most of them, owing largely to the character of
their works, did no more than to extract from its pages a few brief
notices, there were not wanting others (and that among the most
painstaking) to embody it almost verbatim in their compilations,
and many more drew upon it very freely. In its almost countless
1 For this he probably took the hint from ancient stories.
Digitized
by Google
Conclusion 275
repetitions during a very long period, the history, as thus told in chron-
icles, naturally underwent very great modifications of detail. These
were due sometimes to the carelessness or inaccuracy of those who
rearranged it, sometimes to their unjudicial and instinctive love of
romance and a good story, sometimes to their desire to reconcile
it with other historical authorities or with ideas of their own. The
narrative necessarily gathered up also some touches from current
popular tales about its heroes, and increasingly (especially after the
first couple of centuries) from the related very elaborate prose
romances, which in their origin had been largely inspired by it. In
the long French prose compilations of the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries it was itself treated throughout in a fashion thoroughly
romantic. It received occasional notice in Continental chronicles
not dealing especially with England, but only in those of England
did it hold a place of the largest importance. Naturally the Scottish
historians gave it much attention, but often only to travesty it in the
interest of national prejudice and animosity. In exceedingly various
shapes, then, it reached at last the English prose historians of the
sixteenth century. These men were setting out seriously, under the
lights and shades of the Renaissance, to compile the authentic his-
tory of their country. Credulous as some of these were by nature,
and impossible to the time as was a genuinely scientific method, yet
they did not fail to question the Arthurian story at every point and
to reject, and train the reading public to reject, or distrust its least
credible features. Gradually, with the passing of the mediaeval spirit,
passed away the importance of the story to history, and by the be-
ginning of the seventeenth century, it came to occupy in history
only a comparatively insignificant place. For four hundred years
and more, this narrative in which there were scarcely a few glimmer-
ings of truth had aided most signally in supporting the usurpation of
romance upon the realm of fact, but the age of romance was at last
ended, and fact, though not yet swollen with parvenu insolence, could
not much longer be largely kept from what was rightfully its own.
Digitized
by Google
Digitized
by Google
ADDITIONAL NOTES
Certain articles which (with one exception) have appeared since the
foregoing pages were in the hands of the printer, demand notice here.
Page 26
Mr. Anscombe has lately renewed the argument that the scenes of
Arthur's battles as named by Nennius are to be identified with places in the
region to the south of the Roman walls, that is, in Upper Britain.^ His
reasoning will hardly convince those who have heretofore been skeptical.
He prefers the forms of the names in the Vatican MS. (which suit the
theory better) and puts more confidence, among other points, both in the
historicity of Nennius's list and in the occasional trustworthiness (accidental
trustworthiness, perhaps it is only fair to say) of Geoffrey than the majority
of students will think justified.
Mr. Anscombe's disagreement^ with another of my conclusions may be
noted. He believes Nennius to be right in saying that Octha and his fol-
lowers first settled in the North, and suggests that they may have removed
to Kent in consequence of Arthur's victories. " The extreme eastern point
of Kent was a strange place wherein to station the Saxon auxiliaries who
had been hired to defend the Roman province [j/V] against the northern
peoples of the Picts and Scots."
Page 47
Gewissae^ the name which Geoffrey gives to Vortigern's tribe, is a Saxon
name (Plummer's Bede, II, 89).
Pages 49 ff.
In some notes on Geoffrey' Mr. Ward proposes the following hypothesis
about the liber and its connection with the Historia^ which seems interest-
ing and possible enough to be here reproduced, though, as he himself says,
it is not much more than guesswork.
1 Ztsch.f. Celt. Phil., 1904, V, 103-123 ; cf . pp. 15-16, 26-28, above.
2 P. no; cf. p. 25, above. ^ Anglia, 1901, XXIV, 381-385.
277
Digitized
by Google
278 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
" Archdeacon Walter of Oxford brought home from Brittany an Old Welsh
MS., containing many British genealogies and several historical glosses. He
had not leisure (perhaps not skill enough) to translate these into Latin, and
arrange them. He naturally turned to South Wales, where Robert of Glouces-
ter was Prince of Glamorgan, and Urban was Bishop of Llandaff." Geoffrey
was recommended to him, undertook the work, and did it, " from first to last,
under the sanction of Archdeacon Walter."
Page 90
For another Oriental parallel to Uther's change of form see Oertel,/^«r.
Amer, Oriental Soc, 1905, XXVI, 186. Professor Oertel also quotes' Pau-
sanias, v, 18,3: <!>$ airyyeyoiTo AXxfiijvrj Zev$ Afi<f>iTpvitivi. cixacr^cts.
Pages 96 ff.
In an article on T/ie Round Tabled Professor L. F. Mott argues plausibly
for a connection in folk-lore observances between the Celtic Round Tables
on the one hand and, on the other, the druidical circles and the various
circular or oval objects in Great Britain which are or have been popularly
associated with Arthur. He thinks that they all point back to primitive
agricultural festivals, and suggests therefore that Arthur was originally an
agricultural god. This last inference is perhaps as likely to be true as any of
the theories which have been proposed to explain the mythological elements
in the conception of Arthur ; but it does not seem more probable than these
other theories, especially in view of the manner in which popular and romantic
stories develop. At all events, the character of agricultural divinity does not
differ greatly from that of culture hero, which one of these theories assigns
to Arthur. Whoever is inclined to accept either hypothesis must readjust
for himself the emphasis in part of what has here been said ^ of the growth
of the idea of Arthur before Geoffrey. He must picture to himself not an
historical (or supposedly historical) figure gradually attracting to itself the
debris of various mythological personages, but two distinct figures, one
mythological, the other historical, gradually united, with all their attributes.
Pages 189-191
The arraignment of the existing text of William of Malmesbury's Pe
Antiquitate Glastoniensis Ecclesiae has been strongly renewed by Mr. W. W.
Newell.*
1 Publ. Mod. Lang. Assoc, 1905, XX, 231-264. 2 pp. 107-108, above.
^ Publ. Mod. Lang. Assoc, 1903, XVIII, 459-512.
Digitized
by Google
Additional Notes 279
Mr. Newell makes it appear probable (though there is no absolute proof)
that the Arthurian entries in this work (among many other sections) are inter-
polations made in the latter part of the twelfth century. It must therefore be
doubted whether the idea that Arthur and Guenevere were buried at Glas-
tonbury^ really antedates Geoffrey's Historia. The same is true of the story
of Arthur and Ider,^ for the insertion of which, in particular, Mr. Newell has
a plausible theory^; though it hardly seems to me justifiable (considering
the frequent occurrence of such episodes in romantic literature) to assert
positively* that the ultimate source of this story is Geoffrey's account of the
duel between Arthur and the giant of Mont St. Michel.
Mr. NewelPs discussion* of the discovery of the bodies of Arthur ^nd
Guenevere is not altogether in agreement with mine.®
I see no reason to alter my statement that the account of this incident
given in the Flore s Historiarum is copied from that in the Coggeshall
Chronicle. It is true tiiat the date 1187, which I have given' for the latter
chronicle, merely marks the year at which Abbot Ralph took up the task of
compilation.* It seems also to be true that Roger of Wendover more prob-
ably began his work on the Flores at the year 11 88 than at ca. 1200, the
date which (using round numbers in a case of uncertainty) I have put down.*
But we must suppose that Ralph wrote before Roger, and Roger's work is
still only a compilation up to 1202.
Mr. Newell's conclusion ^° that Giraldus had never heard of a connection
between Arthur and Glastonbury before 1191, while it may be true, does
not seem to me to be borne out by valid evidence.
Mr. Newell appears definitively to reject Giraldus's assertions about the
instrumentality of King Henry II in the discovery of the bodies. But even
if Giraldus is wrong, as appears to be the case, in saying, in the Speculum^
that the king suggested the search to Abbot Henrys nevertheless in his ear-
lier account (that of the De Principis Instructione) Giraldus's statement is ^^
that the king had made his communication to the monks. It may well be
that this is the fact and that in his later version Giraldus may be writing
carelessly, or, as Mr. Newell suggests, may have forgotten. Distrust of
Giraldus would seem to me better grounded if I could accept the statement ^^
I See p. 191, above. 2 pp, 98-99, above. ' Pp. 493-497.
* P. 497, note. 5 Pp. 505-509. ® Pp. 189-191, above. "^ P. 172, above.
* It is, therefore, in the absence of definite knowledge about the authorship of
the earlier part, the best assignable date for this earlier part, in which occur the
bulk of the Arthurian entries. * P. 173, above. *° P. 508.
II As Mr. Newell's citation (p. 507, note 2) shows. ^ P. 506, note i.
Digitized
by Google
28o Arthurian Material in Chronicles
that the De Principis Instructione was not written until 121 7. The dates
of both the composition and the publication of the treatise as a whole and
in its various parts are only inferential and uncertain ; but the statement just
mentioned seems to be taken inadvertently from Mr. Warner's conclusion ^
that the complete work was published about 121 7. Mr. Warner's discus-
sion ^ affords good reason (never controverted, so far as I know) to believe
that the first distinction which contains the passage in question, was written
(if not published) some time before the year 1 200.*
However, the statement that the bones were found at a depth of sixteen
feet may be false, and if so it is the less unlikely that they may have been
found by accident ; and the conclusion which Mr. Newell adopts, namely
that the discovery was planned, or manipulated, by the Abbot, to enhance
the glory of Glastonbury, must always be borne in mind as an alternative
to (or possibly as cooperative with) the theory which I have followed, involv-
ing machinations of King Henry.
Page 213
It has recently been pointed out * that the verses said in the Polls tor ie del
Eglise de Caunterbyre to have been engraved on Gawain's sword occur also,
together with an explicit and extravagant statement in prose of the size of
the various parts of the sword, in a manuscript which is said to be of the
reign of Edward I, a few years earlier, that is, than the Polistorie,^
Professor A. C. L. Brown has called attention^ to the fact that the Gaban"^
whom the verses call the maker of the sword is probably the famous smith
known in Welsh stories as Gofan, or Govan, in Irish as Goibnin?
1 Giraldus, Operay VIII, xv. 2 pp. xiv-xx.
8 My "about 1194," though it is, I think, not unreasonable, perhaps sounds
more definite than our actual knowledge warrants.
* Rom.<, 1905, XXXIV, 279-280.
* The verses were printed by Madden in his Syr Gawayne. M. Meyer has shown
also (Rom, XXXIV, 98-100) that the last four verses are a commonplace, known
to exist in varying forms in still three other MSS.
^ Modern Philologyy 1903, I, 100.
^ The name has generally been corrupted to Galatiy etc., in the MSS., unless as
Professor Kittredge suggests to me, Galan (Gaiant) is here the earlier form and
is to be taken as a corruption of Wayland.
8 Professor Rhys has brought the same fact to my notice, and adds that the
mediaeval Irish word for " smith " was goba^ or gaba^ genitive gobantty etc.
Digitized
by Google
Additional Notes 281
In the article just referred to^ Brown makes the extremely probable sug-
gestion that the smiths to whose workmanship Layamon ascribes Arthur's
bumie and spear ^ were both originally no other than Gofan. It seems to
me that we must accept Professor Kittredge's emendation^ of Madden's
translation, which would make Wygar (i.e. Wigheard^ battle-hard) the name
not of the smith, but of the burnie, and Witeje the name of the smith.
Witeje will then apparently be a corrupt form of Widia^ or Wudia, the
name given in Anglo-Saxon mythology to the son of Wayland. But
whether this is so, or Madden was right in supposing Wygar to be a cor-
ruption of Welandy or Wygar is an independent person otherwise unknown.
Brown certainly seems to be right* in saying that Saxon narrators might
easily substitute their own legendary smith for the Welsh one whom they
found in the story. It seems altogether probable that the name of the other
smith. Griffin, whom Layamon calls maker of the spear, is merely a corrupt
form of Gofan, the more especially, as Brown observes, in view of the verses
on Gawain's sword referred to above. To quote Brown's words : " In Irish
and Welsh, wonderful arms are regularly said to be the work of Gobban.*
He would therefore be the natural artificer of Arthur's magic accoutrements."
From all which follows the main conclusion of the article, namely that in
these, as in other instances, Layamon is preserving in Saxon disguise original
Welsh ideas.
Similarly Brown gives almost certain confirmation to the theory that
Layamon's name Goswhit for Arthur's helmet is a Saxon translation of a
Welsh name. He points out^ that most of the names of Arthur's posses-
sions in Kulhwch and Olwen contain the idea of "whiteness." Even
Gwenhwyfar is " the white enchantress." " Probably all the belongings
of the Celtic Other World had whiteness or luminosity attributed to them."
I am glad to transcribe also from the- article just under discussion two
minor points.^ (i) Layamon's form Winetlonde^ for Wace's Guenelande
(Greenland) as the country of one of Arthur's subject kings, seems to show
that Layamon thought Gwynedd Qi\or\\i Wales) to be meant (2) Gille
Callcet ^ means " prudent gillie."
1 Pp. 99-100. a See p. 162, above.
' Appended to Brown's article, p. 99, note 4.
* And parallel cases bear him out (p. 99, note 5).
5 Doubtless one should always remember that the name was originally generic,
not personal. * Pp. 101-102. "^ P. 97.
8 See p. 164, above. The equation of Winetlonde with Gwynedd was suggested
by Professor Kittredge. ^ See p. 1 59, above.
Digitized
by Google
282 Arthurian Material in Chronicles
Page 218
I have overlooked the fact that the Dorell and Richard whom the French
Brut names (together with Holdinus) as recipients of fiefs in France from
Arthur are evidently identical with Borellus Cenomanensis and Guytardus
Pictavensis whom Geoffrey (ix, 12) mentions (with Holdinus) among^ the
Gallic lords present at Arthur's coronation. Why the Brut makes them
relatives of Arthur does not appear.
Page 232
The Guerin de Chartres who appears in Bouchart is evidently the Guerinus
Carnotensis whom Geoffrey (x, 4) also represents as a member (though not
the chief member) of Arthur's embassy to Lucius. The author of the
account in the Liber de Constructione ^ applies the appellative Carnotensis,
by confusion, to Boso of Oxford.
Page 239
The Ricardus cited as authority by Laziardus is probably Richardus
Cluniacensis.^
Page 242
Some further explanation will make clearer the reason for Fordun's
objection to Geoffrey's statements about the relationship between Arthur
and Anna. Geoffrey (viii, 19 and 20) first represents that Arthur was the
eldest child of Uther and Igerna, and that Anna was also their daughter.
In the next chapter he says that Uther had given Anna in marriage to Lot.
He implies a considerable interval between chapters 20 and 21, but the
statement is not altogether plausible in view of his remark (ix, i) that
Arthur was fifteen years old at his accession. It is consistent enough with
what Geoffrey says of Lot and Gawain in ix, 11. But in ix, 9 Geoffrey tells
us that in the time of Aurelius, Lot had married his (Arthur's) sister. Since
Aurelius died, according to the rest of Geoffrey's account, long before
Arthur's birth, this statement is in absolute contradiction to both the others.
Fordun pardy bases his criticism, however, on a misconception of Geoffrey's
language in ix, 9, which Fordun, like Boece later,^ interprets as meaning
that Anna was the sister of Aurelius.
Geoffrey's statement (ix, 2) that Hoel of Brittany was the son of a sister
of Arthur obviously implies a second sister. The occasional confusion of
the two in later chronicles * was to be expected.
.1 See p. 123, above. 8 ggg p. 247, above.
2 P. 171, above. * See pp. 183, 232, above.
Digitized
by Google
Additional Notes 283
Still later (xi, 2) GeofiPrey calls Cador's son Constantine, to whom Arthur
leaves the kingdom, Arthur's cognatus, (Later versions say, nephew?)
Geoffrey has represented Cador as Duke of Cornwall, and if we wish to
rationalize we may assume that Geoffrey thinks of him as the immediate
successor of Gorlois, perhaps, therefore, as son of Gorlois and Igerna and
half-brother of Arthur. The Brut Tysilio and Hardyng say definitely that
Cador was son of Gorlois.* That Guenevere is called in later versions a
relative of Cador ^ may be partly a careless inference from this statement of
Geoffrey, but more probably comes from his earlier one (ix, 9) that Cador
brought her up.
Page 246
It seems altogether probable that the Vodinus, bishop of London, in
Boece,* is to be identified with Geoffrey's Archbishop Guethelinus.*
1 See pp. 230, 252, above. * See p. 246, above.
« See pp. 117, 251, above. ^ See p. 59, above.
« See pp. 159, 225, 266, above.
Digitized
by Google
I
Digitized
by Google
INDEX
[The names of some chroniclers and some chronicles are given in the vernacular,
of others in the Latin form, in accordance, as nearly as possible, with common
usage. In the arrangement of sub-headings Geoffrey's order has been taken as
the basis. Names of saints are entered under St., and the order is as if the title
were spelled in full. Brackets [] mean that some link of the connection between
subject and reference must be supplied by the reader.]
Aaron and Julius, martyrs, 1 14 n. 5.
Adam de Domerham, Historia de Rebus
Gestis GlastoniensibuSy 174, 191
n.4.
Adeluf, in Rauf de Boun the name of
three kings, one a son of Arthur,
211.
iEdilberct, Kentish king, 25.
iElcus (Malvasius), king of Iceland, 159.
iElle, Saxon king, 22.
iEneas Sylvius, Historia^ 240 n. 2.
iEsc (CEric, Oisc), son of Hengist, 21,
25. See Eosa.
iEschil. See Aschillius.
iEthelweard, Chronicle^ 35 ff., 67 n. 3.
Agamemnon, 94.
Agned, in Nennius, a mountain, scene
of one of Arthur's battles, 16.
Cf. Arthur, war with the Saxons.
Agrauains, son of Lot and Anna, 189.
Aguisel, Agusel. See Auguselus.
Alanus de Insulis, Prophetia Anglicanay
79, lOI.
Alaric, king of the Goths, 84.
Albania. See Scotland.
Albericus Trium Fontium, 173, 191.
Albertus Stadensis, AnnaUsy 240 n. 2.
Albinus. See Alcuin.
Alclud, taken by Uther, 243.
Alcuin (Albinus), letter, 70.
Aldolf. SeeEldol.
285
Aldroenus, king of Armorica, 47, 59.
Alexander, bishop of Lincoln, 45, 51,
55, 226 n. 3.
Alfred, King, 72, 88.
Alfred of Beverley, Annales sive His-
toriay 116 (with n. 3), 125, 171
(bis), 182, 183, 268.
Aliduc, one of Arthur's knights, 162.
AUectus, historical British adventurer,
81.
Aloth. See Loth.
Amand de Zierickzee, Chronica com-
pendiosissima, 239.
Amboise, foundation of, etc., 122 f.
Ambrosius (Ambrose, Embreis), Am-
brosius Merlinus. See under
Aurelius and Merlin.
Amesbury (Stonehenge), scene of
"Long Knives" episode, 157.
See under Vortigem.
Amlawdd the Great, called father of
Igerna, 117.
Amytayn, Sire, called Merlin's master,
208.
Andreas, priest at Ratisbon, Chronicon
GeneraUy 238.
Angles, Anglo-Saxons. See Saxons.
Angria, name applied to the Saxons'
country, also to Rowena, 147.
Anguischel, Anguisel, Anguissel, An-
gusian. See Auguselus.
Digitized
by Google
286
Index
Anir, Arthur's son, 17, 18.
Anjou, III, 233 ff. Chroniques d^AnjoUy
233. See Bourdign^.
Anlaf, historical Danish leader, 88.
Anna, Arthur's sister, wife of Lot and
mother of Gawain and Modred
(Hoel and others), 90 (as a tradi-
tional character), 48, 141, 183,
189, 2 1 5, 224, 232 f ., 242, 247, 282.
Annales Cambriag, 31 ff., 76 f., 78 n. 7,
90, 98.
Annales Prioratus de Dunstapliay 173.
Annales Wigornenses (Annals of the
Priory of Worcester^ 175, 192
n. 3.
Annales de Wintonia (Annals of Win-
chester)^ 172 f.
Annals of Margan, 173, 191.
Annals (Chronicle) of St. MichaePs
Mounty 34 f .
Annals of Waverley^ 174, 191 n. 4, 192
n.3.
Anne of Brittany, 230.
Anonymous Metrical English Chron-
icle, i98f.
Anthemius, Roman emperor, 82.
Antoninus Forciglioni, Chronica^ 238.
Apollo, 157.
Appas, 1 53. See £opa.
Arawn, king of Hades, 76 ji. 6. Cf.
Auguselus.
Argante, 165. See Morgana.
Armorica (Brittany), settlement by
Britons (Conan Meriadoc), 2
n. I, 47, 65, 122; Aurelius and
Uther brought up there, 72, 75,
82, 137 n. I, 163, 254, 257; Sam-
son and Thelianus go there, 79 ;
Arthur called from there, 1 53, 1 63 ;
Caduallo flees thither, 49 ; Arthur
possibly early famous there, 102
n. 3 ; histories of, 230 ff.
Armoricans (Bretons), alliances with
Britons, 48, 82, 145 f., 155 n. 17,
196. See Hoel.
Arras, a manuscript there, 124 n.
Arthgall of Warwick, 265.
Arthur (Arthoure, Arthure, Arthurus,
Arturus, Artus, Zitus), King^,
mythical and folklore elements
in the conception of Arthur, and
theories as to their connection
with him, 83 f., 95 ff., 278 ; ques-
tion of his historical existence,
actual rank, and achievements,
[I f.], 7 f., [18], 2Z. 26 f., 28 ff.,
[37] ; not the son of Ambrosins,
26; identified with Riothimir,
185 (cf. 82 f.); historicity de-
fended, 225; exploits doubted,
233 (^'-f)* 239 (^assim)y 245, 246,
249, 258, 259, 260 ff., 264, 267
(bis)y 269 (bis) (cf. Geoffrey of
Monmouth, Historia^ doubted);
asserted [50, n.], 260, 262; lo-
cality of his activity and places
associated with him, 26 ff., 95
n. I, 185, 244, 266, 277, 278;
idea of him and extent of his
fame before Geoffrey, 15 f., 16 f.,
28, 34, 35. 40. 42, 49. 50, 53 n- 3»
97-108, 114, 137, 145 f., 278; as
subject of popular stories after
Geoffrey, 188 n. 10; praised or
magnified, 107, 120, 138, 145,
159 f., 167, 186, 187, 197, 199,
202, 206, 208, 221, 227, 252, 254,
262, 269 ; called one of the Nine
Worthies, 244; a magus, 245;
made an English hero, 147; dis-
praised, 241 ff.
Possessions (etc.) : treasures,
95 n. 4; dog Cabal, 16, 18;
weapons, 205, 239 (bis) ; bumie,
96, 162, 281 ; helmet (Goswhit),
96, 141, 162, 281 ; lance (spear,
Ron), 96, 162, 281; shield (Prid-
wen), 32, 95, 162, 167 ; sword
(Caliburn, etc.), 95 f., 162, 167,
187, 192, 197, 202, 206, 225, 230,
Digitized
by Google
Index
287
252, 253 (with n. 8); banners,
213, 251; "dragon," 200; war-
cry, 227; coat-of-arms, 232;
crown, 192 ; seal, 259.
Story as a whole : in Nennius,
I5£f. ; Geoffrey, 48 f., 63 f.;
Layamon, i53ff. ; briefer men-
tions, 34, 39 f., 42, 121, 145, 174,
177 n., 178 n. (bis)^ 180, 182,
198, 210, 211, 212, 213, 230 f.,
231, 238 (passim), 239 (passim),
240, 244, 246, 249, 250, 253 (bis),
254, 258, 259, 261 f., 263 (bis),
264, 266 f ., 270.
Ancestry, 82, 189, 227 (cf.
145 f.); begetting, 48, 167 (cf.
Uther, union with Igema) ; ille-
gitimacy emphasized, 241 ff. ;
represented as legitimate, 182,
184, 233, 270; why Geoffrey
made Uther his father, 89;
enchanted by elves, 162; rela-
tives (see below, after Arthur,
marriage) : sister Anna, 48, 90,
141, 183, 189, 215, 224, 232 f.,
242, 247, 282; a second sister,
mother of Hoel, [48], 282;
Morgana of Avalon called his
sister, 146, 190, 223; called rel-
ative of Kay, 159 (with n. 11);
nephew of St. David, 181 ; half-
brother of Cador, 251, 283 ; kins-
man of Constantine, his successor,
49, 230, 252, 283 ; of St. Iltutus,
106; of Maurin, 159 ; kinsman of
Dorell and Richard, 218; char-
acteristics: cruel, 160; cruelty
expunged, i38f.; tall, 251; char-
acteristics of a hero of romance,
98 (cf. 279), 99 f., 103, 107, 1131,
{.''^Z^ly 167, 186, 197, 199, 201 f.,
202 n. 8, 206, 218, 224, 227 ;
nothing said of him from birth
to accession, 163 f . ; knighted,
223 ; called from Brittany to be
crowned, 153, 163 ; accession and
place of coronation, 78, 87, 182,
224, 229, 238, 242, 269, 282.
War with the Saxons (cf.
Baldulf, Cador, Cerdic, Cheldric,
Hoel), 151, 18, 26, 48, 63 f., 82,
88, 185 f., 246, 258 (bis), 263,
265, 277 ; battle at the Dubglas,
'5» 63, 153, 235; siege of York,
203; retreat to London, 135;
aid from Hoel, 48, 235; battle
at Caledonian forest, 16, 63, 206;
allows Saxons to depart, [i49]»
218; battle of Badon Mount
(generally identified with Bath),
[3. 5» 6, 7 (^), 8], 16, 18, 23,
26, 30, 32 ff., 40, 48, 63 f., [67],
71, 78, 88, 136 n. I, 149, 154,
201, 202, 205, 216, 219, 225, 229,
231 n. 4 (bis), 232 n. 7, 251;
locality of the battles, 26 ff., 277 ;
Arthur and Aurelius as coad-
jutors, 39, 266; Arthur helped
by Scots (and Picts), [245], 248,
267 ; Angles made tributaries,
185, 258 ; Arthur gives Westsex
to Cerdic, 251 ; war with the
Scots and Picts (and Irish) and
division of Scotland, 48, 64, 109,
132, 138, 212, 215, 218, 224,
225, 246, [251], 266, 267 f. ; cited
by Edward I, 192 ; Arthur called
builder of a house in Scotland,
249; feast at York, 168 n. 2,
196, 203, 246; aids the Church,
239; distributes fiefs in Britain,
213, 218; marriage with Guene-
vere, [190], 225, 234, 252; mar-
riage childless, 140, 155, 215;
Arthur's son, 17, 18, 141 (with
n. i) ; Modred called his son,
141, x88 ; other sons, 211.
Conquests outside Great
Britain, 48 f., 154 f., 239; origin
of the idea, 50, 83 ff., I26f.,
Digitized
by Google
288
Index
142; Ireland, 84, 133, 181, 216;
."Gutlande," 216; Greenland,
141, 281; Norway, 138, 216;
Denmark (Dacia), I26f. ; omis-
sions, 216; first war in Gaul
(France) : origin of the idea,
67 f., 82 ff., 85 ; whole campaign,
48, 154, 218, 244; doubted or
omitted, 233 (^j); duel with FloUo
and surrender of Paris, 87, 96,
113, 131, 157, 167, 194, 196, 201,
232,253; Arthur's deeds in France
(Wace), 137 ; divides France, 109,
218; institutes Twelve Peers,-
187 ; builds a chapel to the Vir-
gin, 232; builds a castle, 206;
return from France, 131, 203;
second coronation and feast,
48. 67, 78, no, 113, 119, 129,
131. i55» 161, 171, 181, 195
n. 8, 196, 201, 202, 207, 214 n. 4,
216, 218, 231 n. 4, 232 n. I,
252, 268, 282; Round Table
(thing or custom) associated
with Arthur (cf. below, Round
Table), 100, 142, 143, 164, 187,
I97» 203, 207, 213 (bis), 214 n. 4,
215, 218, 222, 223, 232, 242, 244,
249, 252, 253 {pis\ 264, 265, 266;
Arthur has 24 knights, 249.
War with Lucius in general,
48 f., 122, 154 f., 198, 216, 223,
[242], 251 f., 254; Lucius invades
Britain, 223; Lucius's message,
67, 132, 154 f., 181, 216, 218,
219; speech by Cador, 133 n. 10,
139, 161, 231 n. 4; by Gawain,
132, 139, 161 ; Lucius's heathen
kings, 87 ; Lucius leaves Rome,
219; Arthur's embarkation, 131,
144, 1 56 ; dream on the Channel,
67, 88, 136, 160, 195 n. 8, 216;
duel with the giant of Mt. St.
Michel, 90 f. (mythical origin),
48, 82, 108 n. 3, 1 13, 130, 134 n. I,
I35» 13^ 141. iS5» ^6i (bis)^
163, 188, 196, 201, 216, 2I9»
227, 232 n. I, 253, 279; duel with
Ritho, 91, 160, 188, 196, 201;
with a giant in Ireland, etc.,
183 {bis) ; embassy of Gawain and
others and first battle with the
Romans, 48, 71, 131, 132 {pis),
134 n. I, 135, 141, 143, 144, 156
(with n. 5), 213, 229, 232, 282 ;
prisoners sent to Paris, 135;
Lucius's ambuscade and battle
of the Convoy, 136 n. i, 227;
Lucius retreats, 119; Arthur
interposes, 206; last battle with
Lucius, 122, 163, 205, 217, 229,
253; Arthur's prowess, 138, 219,
231 n. 4; Arthur kills Lucius,
252 ; Gawain kills Lucius, 201 ;
treatment of Lucius's body, i3Sf.;
Arthur crosses Alps, 187, 202, 223,
252 ; invasions of France con-
fused, 122, 183^ 212; conquests
extended, 103, 223, 244, 251.
Arthur's last campaign: war
with Melwas in early tales, 94 f.,
105 f., 270; possible origin of
Geoffrey's story, 81 ; Modred's
treason, etc., 49, 51, 141, 150 f.,
163, [190], 198, 207, 216, 228,
229!; Guenevere blamed, 163,
175. ^97. 201, 210, 219, 223, 252;
exculpated, 229 f., 270 ; the cam-
paign against Modred in general,
122, 198, 207, 213, 219, 223, 242,
258, 259, 267, 270 ; Modred helped
by Saxons and Scots, 186, 219,
248, 258, 267 ; first battle, 231
n. 4 ; battle at Winchester, 252 ;
omitted, 216 ; Modred escapes to
Cornwall by sea, 231 n. 4 ; last
battle, at Camelford (Camlann,
Camblenc, river Cambula, Cam-
blan, Tambre, Tanbre), 32, 34,
118, 120 f. (with 120 n. 5), 126,
Digitized
by Google
Index
289
127, 137 n. 1, 164 f. (with 164 n.3),
167, 175, 180, 188, 190, 197 f., 202,
213, 222, 230, 236, 247, 248, 252,
258 ; Arthur gives Calibume to
Gifflet, 230; leaves kingdom to
Constantine, 230, 283 ; said to
have (conquered Modred and)
continued to reign, 199, 254;
Arthur killed (or dies), 32, 120
(with n. 5), 123, 188, 197, 202, 207,
211, 219, 247, 248, 252, 258, 267;
uncertainty whether he is alive
or dead, 202, 232 ; carried to Ava-
lon, 49,95, ^oo» 102, 123, 165, 223,
225, 230, 258; to Glastonbury,
211; to Saleme, 214 n. 4; dis-
appearance rationalized, 190; in
the antipodes, 145, 167 ; in the
Earthly Paradise, 167; in Mt.
Etna, 188; associated with the
Wild Hunt, 189; British hope
of his return, 100, loi, 102, 104,
107, 120, 138, 143, 146, 165, 167,
188, 197, 202, 207, 219, 221, 223,
239; sepulchre unknown, 104,
254; buried at Glastonbury,
199, 203, 210, 211, 258 ; bodies of
Arthur (and Guenevere) found
at Glastonbury, 189 £f., 197, 225,
250, 253, 262, 263, 270, 279 f.
Miscellaneous mentions : Arthur
brought in before Vortigem, 198;
visits Jerusalem, 33 f . ; on good
terms with **Clodius," 122 ; fight
with the cat, 214 n. 4; endows
Glastonbury Abbey, 99, 255 ;
charters Cambridge University,
255; builds Windsor, 265 ; reigns
twenty-one years, 211.
Arthur, a figure in a genealogy, 77.
Artur le Preuxy 231.
Arturus, Artus. See Arthur.
Arviragus, British king, 46, 73 f., 86.
Aschillius (iEschil, Aschis), king of
Denmark, i26f., 154.
Asser, 67 n. 3.
Attila, king of the Huns, 84.
Aualon. See Avalon.
Auguselus ( Aguisel, Agusel, Anguischel,
Anguisel, Anguissel, Angusian,
Augusele) receives part of Scot-
land from Arthur, 48, [109], 192,
224, 266, 268 ; at Arthur's feast,
76, 268 ; death, etc., 155, 161, 201,
207, 219, 244; I wain succeeds
him, 135; omitted, 218.
Augustodunum, 219.
Aurelius (Ambrose, Ambrosius, Am-
brosius Aurelianus, Ambrosius
Merlinus, Aurelie, Aurelien,
Aurelius Ambrosius, Aurilam-
bros(e), Aurylambros, Awrelius),
Ambrosius Aurelianus in Gildas,
5, 7 f. ; probably historical, 23 ;
perhaps has mythical elements,
19 n. I ; possibly to be equated
with King Bors, 89 n. i ; as
supreme kinjg in Nennius, 15 ;
quarrel with Guitolinus, 16, 64,
80 ; as boy in the tower episode,
12 ff., 17, 47, 62 f., 92; incon-
sistency of Nennius's mentions,
18; largely gives place in Nen-
nius to Vortimer, 18 {bis)\
omitted, 198; whole story, 39,
47 f., 59 f.. 63, 109 n. 3, 143, 153,
166 n. 4, 174, 238, 239 {bis), 242
n.3, 243, 258, [263], 266, 270;
chosen king before Constans,
1 50 {pis) ; a child at the death
of Constans, 183; taken to
Brittany, 72, 75. 82, 254, 257;
reputation there, 137 n. i ; Vor-
tigem in fear of, 10, 18, 60;
called from Brittany, 163;
awaits Saxon attack, 136 n. i ;
destroys Vortigem, 47, 133, 155 ;
war with the Saxons (Hengist),
speech of Eldadus, and death of
Hengist, 47, 67, 82, 87, 157, 184,
Digitized
by Google
zgo
Index
226, 229, 232 n. I, 246, 259, 261,
267 ; Aurelius restores churches^
78; restores York, 168 n. 2;
Uther*s expedition to Ireland
for the Great Circle and its
erection at Stonehenge with
Merlin's help, 47, 93 (with n. 3
and n. 4), 118, 139, 140, 153, 155,
162, 167, 172, 180 f., 189, 207,
[213], 218, 229, 251 n. 2, 257,
265, [266], 269 ; disbelieved, 182,
244; Aurelius's second corona-
tion, 1 10 n. 5 ; wars with Pascent,
47, 134 n. 2; poisoned, 75 f., 132
(with n. 2), 282; killed in battle,
218, 238, 261 ; loses importance
in later Arthurian stories, 94 ;
called coadjutor of Arthur, 266 ;
under Vortimer, 261 ; confused
with Uther, 195 n. 8 ; alliance with
Scottish kings, 243, 245 ; his sis-
ter, wife of Lot, 247, 282 ; Gildas's
book on his victories, 65 n. 2.
Aurelius Conanus, British king, 49.
Aurilambros, Aurylambros, etc. See
Aurelius.
Avalon (Aualon, Avallon, Avallonia,
Avalun, Insula Fatata), 100 f.,
146, 162, 167, 187, 197, 202, 207 ;
Arthur goes there, 49, 95, 100,
102, 123, 146, 165, 167, 223, 225,
230, 258 ; equated with Glaston-
bury, 190, 258.
Avicianus, Count of Tours, 123 (with
n. 4).
Awrelius. See Aurelius.
Ayala, CrSnica del Rey Don Pedro, 236.
Badon, Mount (Mons Badonicus, Bath
(.?)), battle of, 5, 7, 8 ; ascribed to
Uther, 261 ; to Arthur, see under
Arthur, war with the Saxons.
Badulcus. See Baldulph.
Bajocae (Bayeux), Bedver*s burial place,
iiif.
Balderus, perhaps to be equated -with
Baldulph, 88.
Baldulph (Badulcus, Baldolf, Baldulf,
Baldulphus, Bladulf), Saxon
leader against Arthur, 88 (Bal-
derus), 48, 63, 149, I53f., 159,
216, 235.
Ban, King, in the romances, 89 n. i.
Barbour, Brut, not extant, 241 n. 2.
Bartholomew de Cotton, Historia Anglt^
canay 171, 174.
Bassas, river, scene of one of Arthur's
battles, 16, 63.
Bath, battle of. See Badon.
Baynes, Merlin's fountain, 207. Cf.
Galabes and Labenes.
Beauvais, monk of, interpolated version
of the Chronicon of Sigebert de
Gembloux, 172, 179.
Bede, Historia Ecclesiastical 23 ff.;
draws from Gildas, 24 (with n. 2) ;
used by Geoffrey, 53 {pis\ 57 ff.,
62 n. 4, 65 n. 2, 81 ; by other
writers, 21,36, 38ff., 41, 148, 171,
175, 179 f., 210, 237 (with n. i),
238, 243 (bis) (with n. i), 246,
256, 257, 261, 265, 266 {bis)y 268
(bis).
Bedrag, grandfather of Bedver, 1 1 2 n. 4.
Bedver (Beduerus, Bedwer), Arthur's
steward, inf., 76, 143; in the
fights with the giants, 91, 163,
196, 218 f.; death, 49, 119, 132,
139 n. I; his son, 240; called
king, 196; ancestor of the Bed-
uara, 240.
Bedver I, grandfather of Bedver, 112,
133 n. 10.
Belinus, early British king (Gallic chief),
46, 68, 81, 108.
Belle nden, John, translation of Boece's
Scotorum Historia, 247, 267.
Benedict of Gloucester, Life of St.
Dubricius, account of Arthurian
period, 121.
Digitized
by Google
Index
291
Benedict, abbot of Peterborough, Gesta
Henrici 11^ 172, 192.
Benedictus, monk of S. Andreas, Chron-
icofif 240 n. 2.
Biowulf, 156, 157.
Bergomensis, 238. See Foresti.
Bemhardus,monk,on Merlin's birth, 238.
Beulan, spiritual director of Nennius (?)»
10.
Bevis of Hampton, 206 n. 6.
Bible, influence of on Geoffrey's Historian
87 (passim), 156 (with n. i).
Billeius, 123. See Hirelgas.
B/ack Book of Caermarthen, 89 n. 3.
Bladud, early British king, 46, 86 {pis),
Bladulf. See Baldulph.
Blase, Merlin's master, 208.
Blesis (Blois), foundation, 123.
Blioberis, one of Arthur's knights, 223.
Bliriacus (Bler^), town in Touraine, 123.
Bloet, Robert, bishop of Lincoln, 41.
Blondus, 238. See Forliviensis.
Boccus (Bocu), king, killed by Hirelgas,
119, 139 n. I, 160 n. 6.
Bodemound, substituted for Gorlois, 211.
Boece, Hector, Scotorum ffistoria,
245 ff., 257, 282, 283; followed,
248 f., 249, 266, 268.
Book of Llan Ddv (Llandaff, Liber
Landavensis), 17 n. i, 77 n. i, 78,
79 (with n. 4).
Borel (Borellus Cenomanensb, Bors,
Dorell), one of Arthur's knights,
140 n. 3, 143, 159 n. 5, 161 f.,
218, 282.
Borel, a Saxon warrior, 159.
Borron, Robert de, author of the prose
Merlin, 118, 252 n. 14.
Bors, King, 89 n. i.
Bors, 143. See Borel.
Boso (Beus) of Oxford, one of Arthur's
knights, 56 n. 2, 206 n. 6, 229.
"Boso Camotensis" (Boso of Oxford
confused with Guerinus Camo-
tensis of Geoffrey, x. 4), 123, 282.
Bouchart, Alain, Grandes Croniques de
Bretaigne, 231 ff., 233, 268, 282.
Boulogne-sur-Mer, counts of, 124 n.
Bourdign^, Jehan de, Chroniques d*An-
jou et du Maine (Hystorie agre-
gative des Annalles et cronicques,
etc.), 233 ff.
Bran of the Venerable Head, 89 n. i.
Branwen, Daughter of Llyr, 83 n. 7.
Bremmerch (Brentimaris), a piece of
land, [99], 255.
Brennius, 46, 81. Cf. Belinus.
Brentecnol (Brentenol), Mt., 99.
Bretons. See Armoricans.
Brittany. See Armorica.
Brompton, John, Chronicon, 175.
Brounsteelle. See Caliburn.
Brut. See Barbour, French Brut, Lay-
amon, Munchener Brut, Petit
Brut, Wace. Minor French
chronicles, 209 ff. Cf. 209 n. i.
Brut Gruffydd ab Arthur, 117 (with
n.i).
Brut Tysilio, 2 n. i (p. 3), Ii7ff., 146
n. 4, 283.
Brut y lywysogion (Gwentian Brut),
44 (with n. 2 and n. 4), 45 (bis),
50 n.
Brutus (Brute), legendary founder of
the British race, 46, 51, 65, 81,
98, 108, 115, 167 n. 19, 193, 198,
216, 262.
Buchanan, George, Rerum Scoticarum
Historia, 249.
Budecius (Budic) of Brittany, 75, 232.
Cabal, Arthur's dog, 16, 18.
Cabellus, a Roman, 229.
Cadal, Constantine's assassin, 158.
Cadiocus, bishop of Vannes, 166.
Cador (Cato), duke of Cornwall, father
of Constantine (3), 64, 88, 283 ;
mythical origin, 94 ; called king,
106, 229; son of Gorlois, 117,
251, 283; relative of Guenevere,
Digitized
by Google
292
Index
140 n. 3, 159, 225, 266, 283; in
Arthur's wars, 48, 72, 131, 134
n. 1, 154, 1 57 n. 2, 200, 235; speech,
133 n. 10, 139, 161, 231 n. 4.
Cadualladnis (Cadwaladrus), last Brit-
ish king, 49, 51, 57 (with n. i),
115.
Caduallo (Cadwallo), last great British
king, 49, 65, 108.
Caduanus, British king, 49.
Caen, Kay buried there, 1 1 1 f .
Caer Guorthigim, 14, 15 (with n. 4), 20
n. I.
Caerleon (Carlion, Carlon, Karlium,
Kerlionus, Urbs Legionum, Usk),
rebuilt by Constantine the Great,
255; tournament under Uther,
223; scene of one of Arthur's
battles, 16; as Arthur's capital,
114, 67, 77, 99, 163, 181, 186,
216 (cf. under Arthur, second
coronation) ; Arthur dies there,
211; Guenevere becomes nun
there, 95 n. i, 230, 252; said to
be on the Thataies, 229.
Caesar, Julius, invasion of Britain, 46,
67, 68 f., 71, 249.
Caesarius of Heisterbach, on Arthur's
immortality, etc., 188 n. 10.
Caius, John, De AnUquitate Cantabrigi-
ensis Academiae^ 50 n. i, 260 n. 6.
Cajus. See Kay.
Caleburne, etc. See Caliburn.
Caledonian forest (Wood of Calidon,
Celidon), scene of one of Arthur's
battles, 16, 63, 206.
Caliburn (Brounsteelle, Caleburne, Cal-
ibeorne, Calibourne, Caliburnus,
Taboume), Arthur's sword, 95 f.,
162, 167, 187, 192, 197, 202, 206 f.,
225, 230, 252, 253 (with n. 8).
Camalet, Round Table held there, 266.
Camblan, river, 164 n. 3. See Arthur,
last battle.
Camblenc, 236. See Arthur, last battle.
Cambridge University, 255. Cf. Caius
and Cantalupus.
Cambula, river, 164 n. 3, 167. See
Arthur, last battle.
Camelford, 164. See Arthur, last battle.
Camlann, 32, 34. See Arthur, last battle.
Canon of Lanercost, Larga Angliae
Historian 175 ^m ^^> ^^3 n. 3.
Cantalupus, Nicholaus, De AnUquitate
et Origine Universitatis Canta-
brigiaey 255.
Cantia, 11. See Kent.
Canturguoralen, 11. See Kent.
Capgrave, John, The Chronicle of Eng-
land^ 250.
Caradoc of Llancarvan, 52 ; Brut y
Tywysogion (Gwentian Brut), 44
(with n. 2 and n. 4), 45 (bis), 50
n. ; Life of Gildas, 80, 95, 105 f.
Caradocus, duke of Cornwall, 86.
Carados of Little Britain, 223.
Carausius, historical British adven-
turer, 81.
Cardiff, 80.
Careticus, British king, 49.
Carlion, Carlon. See Caerleon.
Carlisle, 73 f.
Cassibellaunus, British king, 46, 67,
(&, 108.
Castelford, Thomas, Chronicle, 202 f .
Catagren, 218. See Categimus.
Categimus (Catagren, Kartigem), son
of Vortigern, 14, 15, 218, 228.
Catel, a Welsh chief (Annates Cam-
briae), 76.
Cato, 106. See Cador.
Caxton, Crony cles of Englond, 214, 220,
231 n. 3, 256, 268; St. Albans
edition, 264 n. 2.
Celidon, Wood of, 16. See Caledonian
forest.
Cerdic (Cordryk), historical Saxon
king (Geoffrey's Cheldricus and
Cherdicus, which see), 22, 185 f.,
246, 251, 258, 259, 267.
Digitized
by Google
Index
293
Ceretic, Hengist's interpreter, 1 1, 18.
Chainon (Chinon), 122.
Chanson de Roland^ 87 n. ii, 94 n. I.
Charlemagne, 84, 94.
Chatleus map Catel, one of Arthur's
knights, 77.
Cheldric (Cheldrich, Cheldricus, Chel-
drik, Cheldryk, Chelrik, Chil-
deric, Childrich, Childrick), two
Saxon leaders of that name in
Geoffrey, both properly identical
with Cerdic, 185 ; (i) in Arthur's
early wars, 48, 61, 63, 88, 141,
149. i54» 157 n. 2, 159, 195 n. 8,
216 n. 2, 219, 231 n.4, 234; (2)
allied with Modred, 186, 219. Cf.
Cerdiq.
Chelianus (Thelianus), 79 (with n. 8).
Ghent, 11. See Kent.
Gherdicus, a Saxon leader, 185. Gf.
Gerdic and Gheldric.
Ghester, Vortigem kept there, 258.
Gheudo (Gajus), 11 1 n. 5.
Cheuno. See Kay.
Ghilderic, etc. See Gheldric.
Ghinon, foundation, 122 f. Gf. 206.
Chronica Chronicarum^ 268. See under
Cronica.
Chronica of Mailros, 241 n. 2.
Chronica S, Martini de Dover ^ 177 n.
Chronicle of MS. Gott. Gleop. A. i, 175,
183, 186 n. 5.
Chronicle (Annals) of St. . MichaePs
Mountf 34 f.
Chronicon Incerti Auctoris^ 240 n. 2.
Chronicon Monasterii de Hales ^ 175, 182,
185 n. 8, 187 n. 8, 191 n. 2.
Chronicon Monasterii Mellicensis, 240.
Chronicon de Origine et Rebus Gestis
Britannia^ et AngliaCy 176, 187.
Chronique des Vavassours^ 222 n. 5.
Ghymoun, Kay's town, 206. Cf. I22f.
Gilchester, Arthur crowned there, 224
n. 4, 229.
Gimbri, 74.
Ginncenn, Welsh chief {AnncUes Cam-
briae), 76.
Cirencester, 215.
Claudius, emperor of Rome, 46, 74.
Clodius (Clovis the Merovingian)^ 122.
Gloucestre (Gloucester), 229.
Clovis. See Clodius.
Goel, British king, 69.
Coggeshall Abbey, Chronicle, 172, 173,
189 n. 3, 190, 279.
Golgrin (Colegryne, Colgrim, Colgri-
nus), a Saxon leader against
Arthur, 48, 63, 135, 149, 215,
216 n. 2, 235.
Commodus, or Ivomadus, legendary
character, 123.
Conaan, Merlin's grandfather, 158.
Gonan Meriadoc, British hero, [2 n. i],
47 (^w), [65], 86, [122].
Conchobar, Irish hero, 107 n. 6.
Gonrane (Conradus), king of Scotland,
248, 266.
Gonstans (Constant, Constantius, Con-
staunce), son of Constantine (2),
king of Britain, whole story, 47,
59, 81, 146, 151 (passim), 251,
266, 269; coronation, i49f.; as-
sassination, 150, 159, 232 n. I ;
sons, 195 n. 8 ; other mentions,
182, 251, 254, 257 ; omitted, 267.
Constantine the Great, 47, 69, 84, 255.
Constantine (Constantin, Constantinus)
of Brittany, king of Britain,
father of Gonstans, Aurelius,
and Uther, 47, 59, 72, 81, 84, 87,
144, 163, 185, 195 n. 3, 200, 217,
251, 266, 267, 268, 269.
Constantine (Constantinus), son of Ca-
dor (Carados, Gorlois), kinsman
of Arthur, and his successor, 49,
64, 117, 165, 223, 230, 252, 283.
Cooper, Thomas, bishop, Epitome of
Chronicles, 263, 265, 268.
Coquet River^ scene of a victory of
Uther, 224.
Digitized
by Google
294
Ifidex
Cordryk. See Cerdic.
Corineus (Cornebyus), early legendary
British hero and duke of Corn-
wall, 46, 56, 254.
Cormac, Irish hero, 113 n. 2.
Cornebyus, 254. See Corineus.
Comer, Hermannus, Chronica Novella,
240 n. 2.
Comubia, Cornwall, loi, 106, 231 n. 4,
244. Cf. Cador, Caradocus, Con-
stantine (3), Corineus, Gorlois.
Coslyn, 254. See Guethelinus.
Crecganford, scene of a battle between
Saxons and Britons, 21.
Crestien de Troyes, 99, 133.
Crete, 136.
Cronica Cronicarum Abrege, 233, 268.
Crdnica del Rey Don Pedro, by Ayala,
236.
Crony cles o/Englondy 220. See Cazton.
Cumbreland, 74.
Cupid, 228.
Cynric, historical Saxon king, 22, 246.
Cynvarch (Kahu), mythological Welsh
character, 76, 224.
Dacia. See Denmark.
Dalrymple, James, translation of Leslie's
De Origine . . . Scotorum^ 248.
Damen (Dannet, Dane) Hill, scene of
one of Uther's battles, 118 n. 11,
251.
Danaut map Papo, one of Arthur's
knights, 77.
Danish invasions of England, 67, 108
n. 3.
Dannet. See Damen.
Dates added, 159, 217, 222, 232 n. i,
233» 251, 254, 257, 258, 264,
265, 267.
Denmark (Dacia), conquered by Arthur,
48, i26f., 154.
Derguentid, river, scene of one of
Vortimer's battles, 14.
Dido, queen of Carthage, 88.
Dillus Varvawc) a giant in Kulhwch
and Olwen, 91, 163.
Dinabuc^ giant of Mt. St. Michel so
called, 141. Cf. under Arthur.
Dinabutius, in the tower episode, 62,
[12 f., 218].
Dindrarthon, called Arthur's city, 106.
Dol in Brittany, 79.
Don, river, scene of Hengist's death,
184, 261.
Dongard, king of Scotland, 267.
Dorell (Geoffrey's Borellus Cenoma-
nensis), called Arthur's cousin,
218, 282.
"Douglas of Glastonbury," alleged
author of the French Brut, 214.
Douglas, river. See Dubglas.
Dowchsperys (Twelve Peers, which see),
242.
Draco Normannicus, 145 f., 167.
Drayton, Michael, Polyolbion, 270.
Dream of Rhonabwy, 95 n. 4, 141 n. i.
Drinc Heil episode. See under Vorti-
gem, Hengist's feast.
Dubglas (Douglas, Duglas), river, scene
of several of Arthur's battles,
15. 63» 153*235.
Dubricius (Dubriz), St., 121 (Life of), 77,
119, 154, 181, 205.
Duglas, river. See Dubglas.
Dunbar, 251.
Dunvallo Molmutius, British king, 75.
Duvianus, legendary missionary, 65 n. 2.
Earthly Paradise, 146, 167. Cf. Avalon.
Ebissa, Ebyssa. See Eosa.
Eboracum. See York.
Edgar, historical Saxon king, 186.
Edinburgh, associated with Arthur, 244.
Edward I, connected with the Arthu-
rian story, 191 f., 250.
Edward, St., historical Saxon king, 72.
Egbert, historical Saxon king, 72.
Egypt, conquered by Arthur, 223.
" Eielredus," Saxon king, 70.
Digitized
by Google
Index
295
Eigr, 117. See Igerna.
Eldadus, bishop under Aurelius, 47,
80 n. 7, 87.
Eldof, Eldolf, etc. See Eldol.
Eldol (Aldolf, Eldof, Eldolf, Elduf,
Eldulph), escape from **Long
Knives" massacre, 47, 62, 87,
127 n.2, 130 f., 152, 183, 228,
251 n. 2 ; in the battle against
Hengist, 47, 155, 157, 229,
232 n. I, 267.
Eleanor, queen of Henry II, 128.
Eleven Thousand Virgins, legend of, 86.
Eli, reeve of Merlin's city, 158.
Elized, Welsh chief (Annates Cambriae)^
76 (bis),
Elmham. See Thomas of Elmham.
Elves, 162, 195 n. 4; Argante called
elf, 165.
Elyn (Helen), mother of Lot, 218.
Embreis. See Ambrosius.
Emine, name given to Anna, 232.
Enenkel (Einenkel), Joannes, Univer-
sai-Chronik^ 240 n. 2.
Engelhusius, Theod., Chronicon^ 240 n.2.
Engist. See Hengist.
England, name derived from Hengisty
218, 244; from Igerna^ 254;
divided by Hengist, 218, 244,
254, 258.
^''English Chronicle'*'* (translation of
the French Brut). See Caxton.
Englist. See Hengist.
Enguerrand de '^^XyChroniquey 222 n. 5.
Eopa (Appas), a Saxon, poisons Aure-
lius, 48, 153.
Eosa (iCsc, Ebissa, Ebyssa, Eossa,
CEric, Oisc, Osa, Ossa, Oysa,
Oyse, Oza), Hengist's nephew
(son), Ebissa probably identical
with vEsc, 25; Layamon distin-
guishes Ebissa and Eossa, 158;
Ossa called brother of Otta
(Octa), 214 n.4; wed-brother,
157; Ebissa in Nennius, 11, 18,
29» 30, 39; iEsc in the Saxon
Chronicle y 21 ; Eosa (Ebissa) in
Geoffrey and others, [47], 48, 61,
63, 152; surrender to Aurelius,
157; first war with Uther and
capture, 48, iiSf., [196, 229],
251 ; second war with Uther and
death, [70, 73], 153. [185], 200,
[214 n.4], 224, [246, 267].
Episford, scene of one of Vortimer*s
battles, 14.
Epitome Historiae Britannicae^ 168.
Er, son of Hiderus (Ider), 94, 162.
Erech, one of Arthur's knights, 223.
Eridur, British king, 77.
Esscol, son of a king of Iceland, 159.
Essex, and other counties, Wace*s ety-
mology, 136.
Ethelred, historical Saxon king, 72.
£tienne, monk of Bee, supposed author
of Draco Normannicus, 145.
£tienne de Bourbon, on Arthur's earthly
immortality, 188 n. 10.
Etna, Mt., Arthur said to be there, 188.
Eudo, abbot of Caen, 1 1 1 n. 5.
Eudo, seneschal of William I and II,
III n. 5.
Eugenius, king of Scotland, 247.
Eventus. See Iwain.
Eweyn. See Iwain.
Exeter, Arthur holds a hustings there, 154.
Fabyan, Robert, New Chronicles of
England and France, 255 ff.>
259, 260, 263, 264 {bis)y 265, 268 f .
Faganus and Duvianus, legendary mis-
sionaries, 65 n. 2.
Fasciculus Temporuniy 238, 239.
Fausta, legendary character, 123.
Febus, called god of the Saxons, 136.
Ferrex and Porrex, 46.
Feudal manuals of English history, 212.
FloUo (Flolon, FroUe, Frollo, Frolloun,
FuUo, Fullon), possibly to be
equated with RoUo, 81 ; under
Digitized
by Google
296
Index
the Emperor Leo, 85 n. 2 ; called
" Sir Thomas," 183, 200 n. 9,
212; Arthur's campaign against
and duel with, see under Arthur.
Florence of Worcester, 35, 67 n. 3.
Flores Historiarum (The Flowers of
History), 170, 173, 183, 184, 185,
187, 189, 191 n. 2, 279. Cf. Mat-
thew of Westminster.
Flowers of History , 173. See Flores
Historiarum.
Forciglioni, Antoninus, Chronica, 238.
Fordun, John of, Chronica Gentis Sco-
torunty 242 f., 247, 268, 282.
Foresti, Jacobus (Bergomensis), Sup-
plemerUum Cronicarum, 238 f.,
239» 245-
Forliviensis, Flavins Blondus, Historiae
ab Inclinatione Romanorum Im-
perii , 238, 239 (<Jw).
Fortiger. See Vortigern.
Fortune, 228.
France. See under Arthur, first war in
Gaul, and war with Lucius.
Frea (Frie), Teutonic goddess, 70,
195 n. 4.
French Brut, the large one, 214 £f.,
176, 213, 220, 242 n. 3, 244, 250,
251, 253, 282.
Frie, 195 n. 4. See Frea.
Frise, Frislonde, (Frisia), 151, 158.
Froissart (Frosard), 265.
Frolle, Frollo. See Flollo.
Fulgentius, British king, 242.
" Fyn-Mak-couU," popular Scottish
hero, 248.
Gaban, maker of Gawain*s sword, 213,
280.
Gaheries, son of Loth and Anna, 189.
Gaimar, Geoffrey, History of the Brit-
ons and History of the Engles,
125 ff., loi, 144 n. 10.
Galabes, Merlin's fountain, 127 n. 2,
187 f. Cf. Baynes, Labenes.
Galan, Galant, suggested intermediate
forms between Waylart^ and
Gaban, 280 n. 7.
Gallowaie (Walweitha), 104, [187, 218,
251], 267.
Galopes, son of King March, 223.
Ganhumara. See Guenevere.
Gaufridus Monumetensls. See Geoffrey
of Monmouth.
Gaul, 137 n. I. See under Arthur, first
war in Gaul, and war with Lucius.
Gauuan. See Gawain.
Gawain (Gauuan, Gavain, Gawa3me,
Gawen, Gawyn, Walgainus,
Walgan, Walvanus, Walwanus,
Walwen, Wawayn), son of Xx^tli
and Anna, brother of Mod red
(and Hoel), 104 {bis), 183, 189,
2x1, 221, 282 ; cousin to Holdin,
• 140 n. 3 ; original mythical char-
acter, 94; hero of stories in
North of England, [104], 219;
in William of Malmesbury, 1 04 f . ;
in Geoffrey, 48, 113; sent to
Pope Sulpicius, 80, 229 ; receives
a fief from Arthur, 187, 218,
251 ; speech, 132, 139, 161 ; em-
bassy to Lucius and battle with
the Romans, 48, 71, 131, 132
(bis), 134 n. I, 135, 141, 143,
144, 156 (with n.5), 213, [282] ;
kills Lucius, 201 ; goes with
Arthur to Avalon, 223; death,
49, 104, 258 ; Arthur's regard for,
207 ; body sent to Scotland^ 219;
body found, 104, 187 ; his sword,
213, 280; praised, 48 f., 82, 94,
105 n. 2, 139, 144, 163, 187, 197,
201, 207, 213 {pis), 229, 270 ; dis-
praised, 123; exploits doubted,
245; omitted, 199.
Gaynore. See Guenevere.
Gayus. See Kay.
Gelderus, perhaps identical with Chel-
dric, 88.
Digitized
by Google
Index
297
Genealogy of the Kings of England^ in
French verse, 202 n.8.
Geneviere, Genevre, Genievre, Gen-
ouer. See Guenevere.
Geoffrey Gaimax, History of the Britons
and History of the Englesy 125 ff.,
loi, 144 n. 10.
Geoffrey of Monmouth, life, 43 ff.;
called an earl, etc., 229 ; Historia
Regutn Britanniaey outline, 46 ff. ;
literary style, merits, and defects,
45» 50» 58 f-* 61, 67, 75, 94, I29f. ;
general method of composition,
57 f-> 65, 75 ; sources : the Liber
Vetustissimus and question of its
existence, 49 ff., 82, 115, 277 f.;
Breton material, 82 ; Nennius,
Bede, and Gildas, 53, 57 ff., 7 if.,
8 1 , 89, 92 ff . ; William of Malmes-
bury and Henry of Huntingdon,
[52]. 53» [55]» 57 U 61 n. i,
n. j^2, and n. 3, 66 ff., 84 ; Celtic
records, 75 ff. ; general history,
80 ff. ; myths and popular stories,
54, 85 ff. ; contemporary manners
and the romantic idea, 108 ff.;
Geoffrey's purpose and mood in
the Historiay 54 ff., 65 n. 2, 147 ;
creates the historical romance
of Arthur, 56, 108, 273 f.; aston-
ishment caused by the Historia^
116; its authority doubted,' 54 f.,
92, loi, 171, 179 ff., 239, 242, 256,
260 f., 263, 268 f., 270; transla-
tions into French prose, 220 n. 6;
into English, 220 n. 6; into
Welsh, 1 1 7 ff. ; Prophecy of Mer-
lin, published separately, 45, 171 ;
Vita Merliniy 45!, 92 n. 7, 100,
146, 163, 165, 167.
Geoffrey of Paris, Chronique Rimiey
202 n. 8.
Gerard de Leeu, edition of Caxton*s
Crony clesy 220 n. 6.
Gerins, 143. See Guerin.
Germanic invasion. See under Saxons.
Gerontius, lieutenant of Constantinus,
59, 81 {bis).
Gervase of Canterbury, Gesta Regutn
Britanniaey Actus Pontificunty
and Mappa Mundiy 173, 191 n. 2.
Gervase of Tilbury, Otia Imperialiay
87 n. 2, 173, 186 f., 188 f., 239 n.
Gesta Comitum Andegavensiuniy 121.
See Liber de Constructione.
Gesta Regis Henrici //, ascribed to
Benedict of Peterborough, 172,
192.
Gesta Regutn Britanniaey i66f.
Geste des Bretonsy 128. See Wace,
Brut.
Gewissae, Vortigem*s tribe, 47,' 277.
Gifflet, one of Arthur's knights, 230
(bis).
Gildas, St., of Ruys, 2 n. i (passim),
34 ; life, 3 f . ; Lives of 4, 80, 95,
105 f., 270; De Excidio et Con-
questu Britanniaey 3 ff . ; trust-
worthiness, 5 ff. ; account of
the Arthurian period, 4 ff., 7 f . ;
comparison with Nennius's ac-
count, 17 ff.; as source of Wil-
liam of Malmesbury, 38; of
Geoffrey, 53 (bis)y 57 ff., 65 n. 2,
81; of other writers, 171, 175,
178 n., 238, 261 (bis)y 268;
Gildas associated with Arthur,
105 f., 187; books ascribed to
him, 65 n. 2, 166.
Gille Callaet, Constans's assassin, 159,
281.
Gillomanius (Gillomith), king of Ire-
land in time of Aurelius and
Uther, 47 f., 229.
Gillomar, king of Ireland, captured by
Arthur, 154.
Gillomith. See Gillomanius.
Ginevra. See Guenevere.
Giraldus Cambrensis, Works y 172 ;
special points, 34 n. i, 79, 80,
Digitized
by Google
298
Index
92 (passim), 93 n.3, ibl, ii4»
180 f., 185, 189 f., 279 f.
Glamorgan, 278; Arthur crowned its
king, 216, 218.
Glastonbury (Glastinbery, Glastonia,
Glastyngbury) Abbey, 38, 99,
105 f., 255; Arthur (and Guene-
vere) buried, or their bodies
found, there, 189 ff., 197, 199,
203, 225, 250, 253, 258, 262, 263,
270, 279; equated with Avalon,
190 (bis), 258.
Glein, a river, scene of Arthur's first
battle, 15, 63.
Gloucester (Cloucestre), place of
Arthur's coronation, 229.
"Gnaor, Maister," translator of Geof-
frey's Historia into English,
220 n. 6.
Gobban. See Gofan.
Goemagot, a giant, 87.
Gofan (Gobban, Go van), Celtic smith,
possible original, of Gaban and
Griffin, 280 f .
Gog and Magog, 87 n. 3.
Gogfran, called father of Guenevere,
117.
Golfarius, Arthur's sword-bearer, 122.
Goneoure. See Guenevere.
Gorbonianus, British king, 46.
Gorlois (Gorloys, Gothlois), duke of
Cornwall, 232 n. i ; war with
Uther and death, see under
Uther; called father of Cador,
117 f., 283.
Gormund, king of Africa, 49, 87, 171.
Gortimerus. See Vortimer.
Goswhit, Arthur's helmet, 162, 281.
See under Arthur, weapons.
Gothland (Gutlande), submits to Arthur,
48, 216.
Gothlois. See Gorlois.
Gottfried of Viterbo, Pantheon, 146 f.,
212, 228.
Govan. See Gofan.
Go wan, oppressor of the Britons, 217.
Graal (cup), 252.
Grafton, Richard, Chronicle at Lxirgc
and other works, 264 ff.
Grail (Graal) romance, used as source^
or referred to, 189, 211, 230, 252.
Cf. 90 n. 2.
Gran Conquista de Ultramar, z^fi.
Gray, Sir Thomas, Scalacronica, 224 f .^
266.
Great Circle. See under Aurelius^
Uther's expedition to Ireland.
Greenland (Guenelande, Venelande,
Winetlonde), conquered by Ar-
thur, 141, 281.
Gregory of Tours, 235.
Griffin, a smith, maker of Arthur's^
spear, 162, 213, 281.
Guanhumara, Guanora. See Guenevere.
Guanius, heathen pirate, 86 (bis).
Guenelande. See Greenland.
Guenevere (Ganhumara, Gaynore, Gene-
viere, Genevre, Genie vre. Gen-
ouer, Ginevra, Goneoure, Guan-
humara, Guanora, Guenhera,
Guennvvar, Guenuara, Guinever,.
Guinevere, Gunnore, Gwaynour,.
Gwenhwyfar, Wenhaver, Wenne-
vereia), spelling of the name^
157 f.; meaning, 281; stories
about her in southern Scotland,
27, 247 ; called daughter of Gog-
fran, 117 ; sister of Modred, 141 ;
cousin of Cador, 140 n. 3, 159,
225, 266, 283; her beauty, etc.,
114, 143, 252; marriage with
Arthur, 225, 234, 252; called
Arthur's second wife, 190 ; child-
less, 140, 155, 215; coronation
at Arthur's feast, 155; union
with Modred (Mel was), see under
Arthur, last campaign ; flees from
Arthur and becomes nun, 95 n. i,.
194 n. 10, 203, 219, 230, 252;
kept captive by the Picts, 247;
Digitized
by Google
Index
299
executed by Lancelot, 223; dis-
covery of her body, 189 ff., [197,
225, 250, 253, 262, 263, 270],
279 f.
Ouenhera, Guennvvar, Guenuara. See
Guenevere.
■Guerin de Chartres (Gerins, Geoffrey's
Guerinus Camotensis), sent by
Arthur to Lucius, 143, 232, 282.
-Guethelinus (Coslyn), archbishop, 59,
64, 80, 254, 283. Cf. Vodinus.
-Guiart, Guillaume, Branche des Royaus
Lingnages^ 202 n. 8.
•Guibertus of Novigentum, autobiogra-
phy, lOI.
Cuido. See " Guydo."
•Guinever, Guinevere. See Guenevere.
-Guinnion, a fortress, scene of one of
Arthur's battles, 16, 33 n. 2.
Ouitolinus, in Nennius an opponent of
Ambrosius, 16, 18, 64, 80.
•Gunnore. See Guenevere.
•Gunter, king of Denmark, killed by
Arthur, I26f.
•Guorthemir. See Vortimer.
•Guorthigimusr. See Vortigern.
•Guoyrancgonus, ruler of Kent, 11.
-Gurgiunt (Gurgunt) Brabtruc, British
king, 126, 253.
-Gutlande. See Gothland.
^*Guydo de Columpna," called author
of Mer des Histoiresy 256.
•Guytardus Pictavensis, one of Arthur's
knights, 282.
•Gwaynour. See Guenevere.
"Gweheres, son of Loth and Anna, 189.
Owenhwyfar. See Guenevere.
Cwentian Brut, See Brut y Tywyso-
gion.
Gwynedd, 281.
Owynwas, Celtic god, original of Gua-
nius, 86.
Hades, in Irish and Welsh myths, 83 f.
Cf. Arawn.
Hales Monastery, Chronicon^ 175, 182,
185 n. 8, 187 n. 8, 191 n. 2.
Hallelujah Victory of Bede, 246, 257,
261, 270.
Hampshire, given by Arthur to Cerdic,
186.
Happy Other World, loi. Cf. Avalon.
Hardyng, John, Chronicle^ 251 ff., 257,
265, 268.
Harrison, William, Description of Brit-
aitiy in Holinshed, 267 ; Great
Chronology y 267 n. i ; translation
of Boece-Bellenden, Scotorum
Historiay 247 n. 2, 267.
ffaveloky metrical romance, 126 f., 198.
Helen (Elyn), mother of Lot, 218.
Helena, mother of Constantine the
Great, 69.
Helena (Helaine), niece of Hoel. See
under Arthur, duel with the giant
of Mt. St. Michel.
Helgi, 113 n. 2, 162.
Hengist (Engist, Englist, Hencgistus,
Hengest, Hengistus), whole story
of Hengist (and Horsa), 1 1 f .,
14 f., 18, 21 f., 24, 25, 30, 36, 47,
61 f., 70, 151 f., 174, 210; early
doings in Britain: defeats Picts
(and Scots), 60, 134 n. i, 228,
246; other doings, 25 n. 5, 130,
217, 267 ; builds a castle (bull's
hide trick), 61, 88, 151 f., 205,
228 ; plots, 226, 257, 269 ; feast to
Vortigern, see under Vortigern ;
war with Vortimer and expul-
sion from Britain, 226 (see
under Vortimer) ; return, 244,
246, 269 ; slaughter of the British
chiefs, see under Vortigern ; war
against Aurelius, in general, see
under Aurelius; captured and
killed, 47, 157, 184, 195, 259, 261,
267 ; dies a natural death, 1 5,
258, 259; lived in Britain forty
years, 195 ; conquers and divides
Digitized
by Google
300
Index
Britain, 218, 244, 254, 258; Eng-
land named from him, 218, 244;
destroys churches and Chris-
tianity, 244; reproached, 228;
his relatives dispossess Gawain,
104 ; called count of Anjou, 234.
Henricus de Silegrave, Chronicofu, 174.
Henry I, 72, 85.
Henry II, 145, 186; directs search for
Arthur's body, 190 f ., 279 f .
Henry, abbot of Glastonbury, 279 f.
Henry of Huntingdon, life, 41 ; Histo-
ria Anglorumy 41 f., 26 f., 32 n. 4,
39 n. 2 ; as source of GeofiErey,
[52]. 53. 55» 57 f-. 61 n. 2, 66fif.;
of other writers, 175, 176, 182,
185, 195, 212, 268; distrusted,
269; Letter to fVdrtnus, ii9ff.,
10 1, 116, 118, 179; followed by
other writers, 120 (with n. 5),
121, 175, 188, 198, 202, 230.
Henry Knighton, 176. See Knighton.
Henry de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, 210.
Hercules, 91 n. i, 167.
Hiderus, 94. See Ider.
Higden, Ralph, Polychronicofty 175 {pis)y
176, 181 f., 185 f., 191 n. 2, 255,
256, 258, 268.
Hirelgas (Billeius, Hiresgas, Hirlas,
Irelgas, Ridwa'Selan), nephew of
Bedver, kills Boccus, etc., 119,
123, 139 n. I, 158 f., 160 n. 6,
162, 207.
Historia Britonum. See Nennius.
Heel (Howell), Arthur's nephew, 48, 49,
%2{bis), 127 n. 2, 138, 183, 232,
235, 268, ?82.
Hoel, historical count of Brittany, 82.
Holdinus (Holdin, Houdin, Oldinus),
one of Arthur's subject kings,
122, 140 n. 3, 2i8, 282.
Holinshed, Raphael, Chronicles of Eng-
land, Scotland, and Ireland,
267 ff., 247 n. 2.
H61m-ganga, Norse custom, 87.
Honorius, Emperor, called superior of
Lucius, 122.
Horn, name given to Horsa, 217.
Horn, King, metrical romance, 198.
Horsa (Horn, Hors, Horsus), 11, 14,
18, 21, 24f., 30, 36, 151, 217 f.,
218 n. I. Cf. Hengist.
Houdin, 140 n. 3. See Holdinus.
Howell. See Hoel.
Howes, Historicall Preface to Stew's
Annates i 260 (with n. 5).
Huchown, lost account of Arthur,
242 n. 3.
Hudibras (properly Rudhudibras), Brit-
ish king, 86 n. I.
Hueil, an enemy of Arthur, 105 (with
n.5).
Hugues de Pierrepont, bishop, 222 n. 5.
Humber, river, called scene of Arthur's
last battle, 247.
Hywain. See Iwain.
Iceland, conquered by Arthur, 48.
Ickham, Peter (?), Chronicon de Regibus
Angliae, 174, 183, 185, 187, 188.
Ida, king of Beomicia, 16.
Ider (Hiderus, Yder), son of Nu (Nudd,
Nuth), father of Er, in the battle
of the envoys, 94, 161 f., 196 ;
William of Malmesbury's story,
99, 103, 231 n. I, 279.
Igema (Eigr, Igerne, Ingrene, Ygema,
Ygerne), union with Uther, see
under Uther; lineage and rela-
tives, 117 f., 251, 254, 283; Uther
makes the Round Table to com-
fort her, 252; England named
from her, 254; her beauty, 155.
Inge, name given to Rowena, 207.
Ingrene. See Igema.
Insula Fatata, 187. Cf. Avalon.
Iny, nephew of Cadualladrus, 49.
Ireland (Irland), Picts get wives there,
73; how peopled, 181; takes
the place of Hades in mythical
Digitized
by Google
Index
301
stories, 83 f.; Uther removes
the Great Circle, see under
Aurelius; conquered by Arthur,
48,84, 133, 154, 181, 216; Arthur
kills a giant there, 183.
Irelgas. See Hirelgas.
Irland. See Ireland.
Irminric, Kentish king, 25 (of. n. 4).
Isle of Wight, 22.
Ivomadus (Commodus), 123.
Ivor, son of Cadualladrus, 49.
Twain (Eventus, Eweyn, Hiwayne,
H3rwain, Iweyn, Owain, Yvain,
Ywain), son of Urien, 94, 135,
161, 199, 201, 207, 219, 223, 225.
Jean d'Outremeuse. See Jean des Preis.
Jean des Preis, Mer des Histoires (Ly
Myreur des Histors^^ 222 ff. ;
Geste d*Ogtery 224.
Jean de Stavelot, continuator of Mer
des Histoires y 222 n. i.
Jean de Wamant, Chronique^ 222 n. 5.
Jehan de Bourdign^. See Bourdigne.
Jehan Mansel, 220 n. 6.
Jehan Petit, Cronica Cronicarutnyi^'^ n.3.
Jerusalem, conquered by Arthur, 223.
Johannes Bevenis, Chronica, 175, 177 n.
Johannes Historiographus, Ckronicon,
John Brompton, Chronicon, 175.
John of Oxnead, Chronica, 174.
John of Whethamstede, 182 n. 4.
Joram, Vottigern*s chief magus, 159.
Jordanes, Gothic historian, 82 f.
Joseph of Arimathea, 189, 252.
Joseph of Exeter, 10 1, 191.
Judgual, a Welsh chief killed by the
Saxons, 76.
Julius, legendary martyr, 114 n. 5.
Julyan Notary, edition of Caxton's
Crony cles, 220 n. 6.
Jupiter and Alcmena, 90, [167, 278].
Justin, son of the emperor Anastaux,
conquered by Arthur, 223.
Justinian, Roman emperor, 83 n. 4.
Juvenal, quoted by Geoffrey, 69 n. 4.
Kaei, Kai. See Kay.
Kahu (Cynvarch), father of Lot, etc.,
76, 224.
Kairmerdin, Kairme'Sin, Merlin's city,
162, 180.
" Kardoyl," 200.
Karlium. See Caerleon.
Kartigern, 228. See Categimus.
Kctthdsaritsdgara, 90.
Kay (Cajus, Cheudo, Cheuno, Gayus,
Kaei, Kai, Kei, Keux, Key),
Arthur's seneschal, 49, 76, 91,
inf., 122 {bis)y 123, 159 (with
n. 11), 163, 184, 196, 206, 218 f.,
223, 235.
Kei. See Kay.
Kelton, Arthur, Chronycle, etc., 262.
Kent (Cantia, Canturguoralen, Ghent),
Saxons there, 11, 15, 18, 21,
277-
Kerlionus. See Caerleon.
Keux. See Kay.
Kildare, in Ireland, 93 n. 3, 181.
Kimbelim map Trunat, one of Arthur's
knights, 77.
Kincar, one of Arthur's knights, 77.
Kinkailin, king of Frislonde, 158.
Kinlich map Neton, one of Arthur's
knights, 77.
Knighton, Henry, Chronicon, 176, 191
n. 2.
Kulhwch and Olwen, Welsh tale, 16
n. 7, 83 n. 7, 91, 95 n. 4, 97, 103,
105 n. 5, 106, 163, 281.
Kymbelinus, British king, 77 n. 3.
Labenes, Merlin's fountain, 127 n. 2.
Cf. Baynes and Galabes.
Lancelot (Lanchelot, Launcelot), 201
n. 17, 223, 234, 252 f.
Lancelot, prose romance, 88, 120 n. 5,
151 n. I, 164, 165, 188 {bis), 230.
Digitized
by Google
302
Index
Cf. Lantelet and Morte Arthur^
prose romance.
Lanercost, canon of, Larga Angliae
Historian 175 ^m ^^0» ^^3 "^-S*
Langtoft, Peter, Chronicle^ I99ff.> 183
n. 3, 204.
Lanquet, Thomas, Epitome of Chron-
icles, 263.
Lanzeletj romance by Ulrich von Zat-
zikhoven, 141 n. i. Cf. Lancelot.
Laon, monks of, journey to Cornwall,
lOI.
** Lapis Tituli," scene of one of Vor-
timer's battles, 14.
Large Brut. See French Brut.
Launcelot. See Lancelot.
Layamon, life, 148; Brut, 147 ff-» 70,
100 n. 3, 128, 141 f., 147 n. 2,
195 n. 6, 281 (passim).
Laziardus, monk, Epitomata a . . .
Mundi Origine, 239, 282.
Le Baud, Pierre, Histoire de Bretagne,
230 f.
Leir, King, 46, 86, 210 n.4.
Leite, Irish hero, 95 n. 4.
Leland, John, Assertio Inclytissimi
Arturiiy 191 n. 2, 260 n. 2; Co-
drus sive Laus Arthuri, 50 n.,
260 n. 2; Collectanea, 177 n.,
• 224.
Leo, Roman emperor, associated with
Lucius, 71, 82, ^-^i (with n. 4), 85
n. 2, 133 n. 10, 167 n. 19, 174,
196, 200, 229, 231 n. 4.
Leodegarius (Ligerus), "consul Bolo-
niae," 124 n.
Leois, 152. See Lupus.
Leslie, John, De Origine, Moribus, et
Rebus Gestis Scotorum, 248 f.
Liber. See Book.
Liber de Constructione Aliquorutn Oppi-
dorum Turonicae Regionis, 121 ff.,
184, 235, 282.
Ligerus, 124 n. See Leodegarius.
Lily, George, Chronicon, 262.
Lincoln, 63, 1 54.
Liud, 68. See Lud.
Liver e de Rets de Brittanie, 210 f.
Liver e de Reis de Engleterre, 210.
Llacheu, Arthur's son, 141 n. i.
Llan Div (Llandaff), 45, ^^. Book oJ\
see Book.
Loch Lomond, 217.
London (Trinovantum), 62, 63, 150
(passim), 186, 223 (bis), 231 n. 4.
Lot (Aloth, Loth, Lotho), ancestry, 76,
189, 218, 224 ; marriage with.
Anna, and children, 48, 183, 189,
224, 242, 244, 247, 282; various
mentions, 48, 70, 76, 135, 185,
218, 224, 231 n. 4, [268] ; in the
Scottish versions, 241 if., 246 £.,
251, 252, 266. Cf. Natanleod.
" Lowthyan," Arthur gives it to Gawain,
251.
Lucan, quoted, 69.
Luces, Lucidar. See Lucius Hiberius.
Lucifer, 118.
Lucius, legendary British king, 24 n. 3,
47» 73 ^-y 198.
Lucius (Luces, Lucidar, Lucye) Hibe-
rius (wrongly, Tiberius), emperor
of Rome, 85 n. 2, 122, 133 n. 10,
140, 156, 196, 200, 231 n. 4. See
under Arthur, war with Lucius.
Lud (Liud), British king, 65 n. 2, 68
(with n. 4).
Ludhudibras, 86 n. i, incorrect form
for Rudhudibras.
Lupa, legendary character, 123.
Lupus (Leois), associate of St. Ger-
manus, 24 n. 2, 152.
Lutesse (Paris), tournament there, 223.
See under Arthur, duel with
FloUo and surrender of Paris.
Ly Myreur des Histors, 222 ff., 256.
Maelgwyn, 104 n. 6. See Malgo.
Maffei, Raphael, 239. See Volaterra-
Digitized
by Google
Index
303
Maglocunus. See Malgo.
Magnum Chronicon Belgicum^ 238.
Mahun (Mahomet), 157.
Mailrosj Chronica of, 241 n. 2.
Maine^ Chroniques du^ 233. See Bour-
digne.
Mair. See Major, John.
Major (Mair), John, History of Great
Britain^ 243 ff., 246, 247.
" Malebierge," Merlin buried there, 221.
Malgo (Maelgwyn, Maglocunus), Brit-
ish king, 49, 8r, 104 n. 6.
Malory, Sir Thomas, Morte Darthur,
88, 159 n. II.
Malvasius (^Icus), king of Iceland,
159-
Mannyng, Robert, of Brunne, Chron-
icUy 204 ff., 199; Havelok story,
I26f.
Mansel, Jehan, called de Hesdin, Fleur
des Hy stories y 220 n. 6.
Manuscripts not consulted in the prep-
aration of this book, 178 n., 202
(with n. 8), 209 n. I, 220 n. 6, 224,
267 n. I.
MS. Bodl. Douce no. 341, p. 253 n. 2.
MS. Bodl. Tanner no. 195, p. 210.
MS. Cott. Cleop. A. i, pp. 175, 183, 186
n. 5.
MS. Harl. no. 2414, p. 271 n.
MS. Lambeth no. 306, p. 254.
MS. Marquis of Bath, p. 253.
MS. Sloane no. 1090, p. 271 n.
Marcel and Marcel's cousin, killed
(wounded) by Gawain, 141, 143,
213.
March, King, 223.
Margan^ Annals of 173, 191.
Marganus, British king, 86.
Marianus Scotus, 35.
Marignola, Johannes, Ckronica^ 240 n.2.
Marius, British king, 46, 73 f., 211.
Marius, Roman general, 74.
Martin de Roecestre, poem on Merlin,
144 n. II.
Martinus Fuldensis, Ckronicon^ 240
n. 2.
"Martinus" Minorita, Flores Tempo-
rum, 174, 238, 240.
Martinus Polonus, Cronica Summorum
Pontificum Imperatorumque, 174.
" Master of Histories," one of Wavrin's
authorities, 226.
Matihre de Bretagne^ 82, 90 n. 3.
Matthew Paris (Matthaeus Parisiensis),
Chronica Majora and Historia
Anglorumy 173.
"Matthew of Westminster," 173, 176,
'79 ^' 3* See Flores Historia-
rum.
Maugantius (Maygan), in the tower
episode, 62, 1 18, 195 n. 8.
Maugis in Renaut de Montauban, 94
n. I.
Maurin, relative of Arthur, 159.
Maximus (Maximianu$), British leader
and Roman Emperor, 47, 84.
Maygan, 118. See Maugantius.
Medraut, 32. See Modred.
Meilerius, mentioned by Giraldus, 180.
Meleon, son of Modred, 1 58.
Melga, heathen pirate, 86 {bis).
Melingus, Irish prophet, 92.
Mel was (Melvas), Celtic god, original
of Melga, 86; as abductor of
Guenevere, 94 f., 105 f., 270 (cf.
Arthur, last campaign).
Memoriale hystoriarum, 232.
Mer des Histoires^ 222 ff., 256.
Merlin (Ambrosius Merlinus, Merelinus,
Merlinus, Merlinus Celidonius,
Merlinus Silvestris, Myrddin),
question of his historical exist-
ence, 2 n. I ; origin of the stories
about him, 91 f. ; Geoffrey's
account, 47 f. ; early known as
prophet, 91 f. ; Ambrosius (Mer-
linus) in the tower episode,
12 ff., 17, 47, 62 f., 92 f., 181;
age at that time, 205, 218;
Digitized
by Google
304
Index
prophecy at the tower, as a
whole, 12 ff., 47, SI, 63, 145, 171
{J>a5sim)y 189, 194, 220 n. 3, 221,
226, 228, 236, 238 {bis)f 239 ; spe-
cial points, 60, 70, 72, 79 f ., 87, 1 59,
181, 196; prophecies doubted or
omitted, 136, 194, 200, 208, 218,
225, 234, 242, 244, 251 n. 2, 257;
special prophecy to Arthur, 92 ;
prophesies Arthur's return, 165;
prophecies of Merlinus Silves-
tris, 92 (3m), 93 n. I ; other
prophecies not derived from
Geoffrey, 92, 215, 221 ; general
mentions as prophet, 199, 238;
Merlin's birth, 12 ff., 62 f., 118,
131, 144, i8of., 238, 244 f. ; Merlin
Ambrosius and Merlinus Silves-
tris (Celidonius) distinguished,
92, 163 ; Merlin as magician, in
general, 93, 139 f., 162 f., 167,
180 n. 5, 196, 201, 207 ; doubts
about his supernatural powers,
257, 260; Merlin's part in the
Great Circle affair, 47, 93 (with
n. 3 and n. 4), 118, [139], 140,
[162], 167, 172, 180 f., 189, 207,
218, 229, 251 n. 2, 257, 265, 266,
269; disbelieved, 182, 244; Mer-
lin omitted, 269; incident of
Uther's comet, 139; Merlin's
part in Uther's amour, 48, 93,
139, 162, 167, 196, 200 n. 2, 245,
257, 278; general mentions, 174,
238 (3/j), 239, 240 ; comparative
importance in Geoffrey, 93 f.,
139 (with n. 7) ; his fountain,
127 n. 2, 187 f., 207; buried at
" Malebierge," 221 ; king of
Great Britain, 222 ; prompts
Vortigem to strengthen Chris-
tianity, 238; connected with
Round Table, 187, 222; book
about, 234 ; Vita Merlini^ 45 f.,
92 n. 7, 100, 146, 163, 165, 167.
Merlin^ prose romance, 118, 144 n. 11,
146) 195 n. 8, 208, 252 n. 14.
Minau (Isle of Man), Arthur kills Hueil
there, 105.
Minnocaunus, British king, 68.
Mirabilia, See Nennius.
Modena cathedral, Arthurian sculpture
there, 102.
Modred (Medraut, Moddred, Modret,
Mordrech, Mordred, Mordret,
Mordreth), in Annales Cambrict^^
32, 34 ; stories about him in south-
em Scotland, 27 ; son of Lot, etc.,
183 ; Arthur's nepos, 119 n. 8 ;
Arthur's son, 141, 188; brother
of Guenevere, 141 ; relative of
Geoffrey of Monmouth, 229 ;
illegitimacy of his birth ques-
tioned, 242; treason and cam-
paign against Arthur, see under
Arthur; executed by Lancelot,
223 ; buried with Arthur, 191 ;
made a Scottish hero, etc., 241,
242, 244, 247, 248 ; omitted, 254 ;
his sons, 49, 64, 158.
Moine, son of Constans, 195 n.8.
Mordrech, Mordred, Mordret, Mor-
dreth. See Modred.
Morgaine, 223. See Morgana.
Morgan the Fay, 211. See Morgana.
Morgan le Noir, son of Arthur, 211.
Morgana (Argante, Morgaine, Morgan
the Fay, Morganis, Morgante),
lady (queen) of Avalon (Glas-
tonbury), sister (relative) of
Arthur, 146, 165, 190, 211, 223.
Morte Arthur^ prose romance, 164 f.,
[207]. Cf. Lancelot.
Morte Arthur of the Thornton MS.,
201 n. 17.
Morte Darthur of Malory, 88, 159
n. II.
Mt. Giu, 155.
Mt. St. Bernard, 214 n. 4. Cf. Mt. St.
Michel.
Digitized
by Google
Index
305
Mt. St. Michel, Arthur's duel there. See
under Arthur, war with Lucius.
Mousquet, Philippe, Chronique rimie^
221.
Miinchener BruU 144, 205 n. 2.
Myrddin, 118. See Merlin.
Myreur des HistorSy Ly, 222 ff., 256.
Naime de Bavi^re, 94.
Natanleod (Nathaliodus, Nathanliot,
Nazaleod), British king, killed
by the Saxons, 22, 70 f., 185, 246.
Cf. Lot.
Nauclerus, Joannes, Memorabilium . . .
Chronici Commentarii^ 239.
Nazaleod. See Natanleod.
Nennius, early British hero, 65 n. 2.
Nennius, Historia Britonum^ 2 n., 8 ff. ;
manuscripts, 10, 15 n. 7, 19 f.,
33» 98, 277 ; question of author-
ship, etc., 9 f. ; outline, 10 S. ;
comparison with Gildas,, 1 7 ff. ;
sources, 19 ff.; question of his-
toricity, 21 ff. ; account of Arthur,
7, 25 ff.; comparison with the
Saxon Chronicle y 21 ff . ; with
Bede, 235.; with Annates Cam-
briaey 32 ff. ; special points, 8,
277; mirabiliay 10, 16 f., i8, 20,
21, 28 {bis)y 64, 98, 103 ; as source
of William of Malmesbury, 38 ff . ;
of Henry of Huntingdon, 41 f.,
68, 7 if.; of Geoffrey, 53 (bis),
57 ff., 65 n.2, 71 f., 89, 92 ff.;
of other writers, 36 f., 135 n.6,
175, 212, 256, 261, 265, 268.
Neptune, 231 n. 4.
Nestor, 94.
Neustria (Normandy), 72, 73, iii.
Nicolaus Gloucestriae (Nicholas of
Gloucester), Chronicon, 176, 180,
189 n. 5.
Niger, Ralph, Chronica, 172.
Nine Worthies, 244, [253].
Nonnita, mother of St. David, 80.
Normandy (Neustria), 72, 73, iii.
"Northfolk,"2i6.
Norway, conquered by Arthur, 48, 138,
216.
Notre Dame Cathedral, 232.
Nudd (Nu, Nuth), Celtic god, father
of Ider, 94, 99.
Nussia, monk of, Magnum Chronicon
Belgicuniy 238.
Octa (Occa, Octha, Otta), relation to
Hengist, 25; in Nennius, 11, 15,
18, 25 n. 4 and n. 5, 29, 30,
277 ; in William of Malmesbury,
39 ; in Geoffrey, 47 f., 61, 63 ; in
other chronicles, 135, 152, 157,
214 n. 4, 267 ; first war with
Uther and capture, 48, ii8f.,
[196], 229, 251 ; second war
with Uther and death, [70, 73],
IS3» [i8s]» 200, [214 n.4], 224,
246, 267.
Odo, bishop of Bayeux, 81 f.
Odulf, king of Denmark, 126.
CEric, 25. See -^sc.
Ogier the Dane, 224.
Oisc, 25. See iEsc.
Oldinus, 122. See Holdinus.
Ordericus Vitalis, Historia Ecclesiastica,
171, 82 n. I, 109.
Orkney islands, 12, 48, 154.
Osa. See Eosa.
Osiris, 262.
Ossa. See Eosa.
Otia Imperialia. See Gervase of Til-
bury.
Otta. See Octa.
Otterboume, Thomas, Chronica Regum
' Angliae, 176.
Otto Frisingensis, Chronicon, 240 n. 2.
Owain, 94. See Iwain.
OySa, Oyse, Oza. See Eosa.
Pantheon of Gottfried of Viterbo, 146 f.,
212, 228.
Digitized
by Google
3o6
Index
Paris of France, Arthur's friend, 223.
Pascent (Pascentius), son of Vortigem,
15, 18, 47 f., 63. 134 n. 2, 217,
228, 229, 265.
Patrice, a Scottish thane, 1 59.
Patrike le Rous, son of Arthur, 211.
Paul, Count of Anjou, 235.
Paulus Diaconus, 175, 237 n. i.
Paulus Jovius, Descriptio Britanniae^
etc., in his De Imperiis . . . Cog-
niti Orbisy etc., 262 f., 240.
Pa via, 202.
Pepin the Short, 84.
Perceval^ prose romance, 141 n. i.
Percival, Arthur's knight, 211.
Peredur, in Geofifrey, 77.
Persia, conquered by Arthur, 223.
Petit Brut, 146, 210 £f.
Petr, in Annates Cambriofy 77 n. i.
Petreius Cotta, Roman leader against
Arthur, 48, 71, 77 n. i, 133,
156 n. 5.
Picts, come to Britain, 46, 73 ; Picts and
Scots attack the Britons, i f.,
4^., 10, 47, 59, 79, 277; Picts
made Constans's body-guard and
assassinate him, 47, 151, 159,
232 n. I ; defeated by Hengist,
60, 134 n. I, 228, 261 ; Picts
and Scots (one or both) defeated
by Arthur, Arthur's conquest of
Scotland, 48, 64, 132, 138, 212,
215, 225, 246, 266, 267 f.; Picts
in Scottish Chronicles, 243 ff.,
263 n. 5.
Pierre Le Baud. See Le Baud.
Placidia, legendary character, 123.
Polistorie del Eglise de Christ de Coun-
ter byre, 212 f., 280.
Polychronicon. See Higden.
Polydore Virgil, Anglicae Historiae Li-
bri XXVI, 259 ff.; translation,
262 n. 2 ; doubts Geoffrey, 260 f.,
263, 268 ; opposed, 260, 262 ; fol-
lowed, 268.
Ponticns Vininnius, condensation of
Geoffrey's Historia, 240.
Porrex, 46.
Price, John, Historiae Brytanniceir
Defensio, 50 n., 260 n. 3.
Pridwen, Arthur's shield, 32, 95, 162,
167.
Pynson, Richard, edition of Caxton's
Cronycles, 220 n. 6.
Pyramus, Arthur's chaplain, 80.
Quintilien, governor of Gaul, 229.
Ragnar Lo'Sbr6k, Saga of, 88 {bis),
Ralph (Radulphus) of Cogge^all. See
Coggeshall Abbey.
Ralph de Diceto, Works, 170, 172, 173,
184, 187.
Ralph Niger, Chronica, 172.
Ramesey, 207.
Rastell, John, The Pastime of the Peo-
ple, or The Chronicles, etc., 259.
Rauf de Boun (Bohun), Petit Brut,
210 £f., 146.
Red Book of Hergest, 103, 117 n. i,
119 n. 8.
Regin map Claut, one of Arthur's
knights, 77.
Renaut de Montauban, 94 n. I.
Ricardus (Richardus Cluniacensis ?),
239, 282.
Richard I, 192, 225.
Richard, Arthur's nephew, 218, 282.
Richard of Cirencester, Speculum His-
toriale, etc., 176, 179 n. 3, 183,
184.
Richard of Devizes (monk of Win-
chester), Chronicon, 172 f., 183
n. II, 185.
Richard de Morins, prior, 173.
Richardus Cluniacensis, Chronicle, 171,
282.
RidwatSelan, 158. See Hirelgas.
Riothimir, king, possible original of
Arthur, 82 f ., 185.
Digitized
by Google
Index
307
Rishanger, William, Works ^ 175, 176,
182, 191 n. 2, 192 n. 4.
Ritho (Rito), a giant killed by Arthur,
91, 160, i83(^/j), 188, 196, 201.
Rivallo, British king, 70.
Robert of Avesbury, Historiae Ed-
war di III, 176, 189.
Robert de Borron, 118, 252 n. 14. Cf.
Merlin [and Grail].
Robert, earl of Gloucester, patron of
Geoffrey and others, 38, 44 f.,
SI {bis), 55(^w)» 1 10 n. 3, 114,
226 n. 3, 229, 278.
••Robert of Gloucester," Chronicle,
193 ff.
Robert, bishop of Lincoln, 45.
Robert de Torigni, Chronicle, 116 n. i,
120 n. 2.
Robertus, canon of S. Marianus, Chro-
nologiay 240.
Robin Hood, 248.
Rodric, king of the Picts, 73, 211.
Roger of Hoveden, Chronica, 85, 172,
186, 192 n. 2.
Roger of Wendover, Chroni(;a, etc.,
I73» 279-
Rolewinckius, W., Fasciculus Tempo-
. rum, 238, 239.
Rollandus, count of Brittany, 145.
Roman walls in Britain, 11, 27, 277.
Romances. See Grail, Lancelot, Lanze-
lety Merlin, Morte Arthur, Per-
ceval, Jean des Preis, Geste
d^Ogier.
Romances, points of contact with, 49,
88, 89 n. I, 99, 120 n. 5, 141,
146 (^/j), 151 n. I, 159 ff., 164 f.,
188, 189, 195 n. 8, 208, 21 1, 222 ff.,
225, 230, 242, 246 f., 251 ff., 252
n. 14, 253. See under Arthur,
characteristics, and cf. Gawain,
praised, etc., Auguselus, Iwain,
Kay, Lancelot, Lot, Modred.
Romarec of Guenelande (Rumareth of
Winetlond), 141 f., 143, 164.
Romualdus, Chronicon, 240 n. 2.
Ron, Arthur's lance (spear), 96, 162, 281.
Ronewen, Ronixa, Ronouen, Ronowen.
See Rowena.
Ros (Pembroke), Gawain*s tomb there,
104.
Ross, John, of Warwick, Historia Re-
gum Angliae, 254, 265 f.
Rouen, 112.
Round Table, original significance, 278 ;
made by Joseph of Arimathea,
252 ; by Merlin, 222 ; connected
with Uther, 252 (with n. 14) ;
mentioned, 106 n. 3, 174, 187
(passim), 197, 203, 233, 236, 239,
249. See under Arthur, Round
Table.
Roven, Rowan, Rowen, etc. See
Rowena.
Rowena (Ronewen, Ronixa, Ronouen,
Ronowen, Roven, Rowan, Ro-
wen, Rowenne, Roxiena), daugh-
ter of Hengist, wife of Vortigern,
in Nennius (unnamed), 11, 18;
named by Geoffrey, 61 ; mar-
riage with Vortigern, see under
Vortigern ; has a son, 246 ; poi-
sons Vortimer, 62, 72, 132 n. 2,
[150], 152 (with n. 6), [265];
death, 135 ; other mentions, 147,
207, 244.
Roxiena. See Rowena.
Royal MS, Scottish chronicle, 248.
Rudborne, Thomas, Historia Major
Wintonensis, 177, 185 n. 9.
Rudhudibras (Hudibras), British king,
86 n. I.
Rumareth of Winetland, 164. See
Romarec.
Rusie (Russia), 151, 158.
Sabrina, early British heroine, 46.
St. Aaron, church of, 201. Cf. Aaron
and Julius.
St. Alban, 184.
Digitized
by Google
3o8
Index
St. Albans (St Albons), monk of,
chronicle, 264 n. 2.
St. Albans, Schoolmaster of, edition of
Caxton's Cronycles^ 220 n. 6,
264 n. 2.
St. Asaphs, bishopric, 45.
St. Augustine, comes to England,
220 n. 6.
St. Brandan, 153, 154.
St. Bride, 154.
St. Cadoc, Life of 107 (with n. 2 and
n.3)- •
St. Carannog, Life of 106.
St. Columkille, 154.
St. David, called Arthur's uncle, 80,
181, 213.
St. Davids, bishopric, 180.
St. Dubricius. See Dubricius.
St. Edward, 72.
St. Elbodug, bishop of Bangor, 10.
St. Faustus, son of Vortigem, [12], 15.
St. George, 200, 251.
St. Germanus (Germain), Book of a
source of Nennius, 9, 15, 19 f.;
Life of 24 n. 2 ; mentions, 11, 12,
15, 18, 21, 60, 61, 64, 152, 218,
270.
St. Iltutus, Life of 106.
St. Kentigem, 244.
St. Paternus, Life ^, 107 n. i.
St. Patrick, 15.
St. Paul's church, 227.
St. Samson, 79, 203.
St. Teilo, 79. See Thelianus.
[St. Ursula and] the 11,000 Virgins, 86.
Saleme, Arthur carried there, 214 n. 4.
Samuil-penissel, 77.
Sandwych, 213, 219.
" Saracens," name applied to the Picts
and Scots, 217.
Sater, 76. See Stater.
Saturnus, called a Saxon god, 151,
231 n.4.
" Saynes," king of, conquered by Ar-
thur, 223.
Saxo Grammaticus, 88.
Saxon Chronicle ^ 21 ff., 36!, 38 f., 41 f.,
70, 71 n. I, 246, 265.
Saxons (Anglo-Saxons, Angles, Ger-
mans), early depredations in Brit-
ain, if., 6 ; invasion of Britain
and settlement, 17, 108 n. 3, 239,
258; in the North of Britain,
25, 246, 277 ; alliance with the
Picts, 243 ; their kingdoms estab-
lished, 270; conquered by Con-
stantine and Caduallo, 49; con-
fused with the Britons, 147 {bis)
(with n. 3); identified with the
Macedonians, 146. See under
Arthur, first war, Aurelius i^pas-
sim), Baldulph, Cerdic, Chel-
dric, Cherdicus, Colgrin, Cynric,
Eopa, Eosa, Hengist, Horsa,
Octa, Rowena, Uther (passim)^
Vortigem (passim), Vortimer
(passim).
Scalacronica of Sir Thomas Gray, 224 f.
Schedel, Hartmann, Chronicon, 240 n. 2.
Schoolmaster of St. Albans, edition of
Caxton*s Cronycles, 220 n. 6.
Scotichronicon, 242 n. 4.
Scotland (Albania), Scots, 73 (bis\ 216,
217, 267 (passim) \ Scotland
divided by Arthur, 48, 109, 192,
224, 241 ff., 251, 263 n. 5, 266,
268. See under Picts.
Scottish chronicles, 241 ff.
Scythia, original home of the Picts, 73.
Selden, John, annotations in Drayton's
Polyolbion, 270.
Seven Saints of Brittany, 79.
Shaftesbury, supernatural eagle, 86, 92,
201.
Sicardus, bishop of Cremona, Chroni-
con, 240 n. 2.
Siegfried, 89 n. 4.
Siffridus, Epitome, 240 n. 2.
Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronic on, 172,
170, 231. See Ursicampum.
Digitized
by Google
Index
309
Sigmund, father of Siegfried, 89 n. 4.
Silchester, 59.
Simeon of Durham, 35, 67 n. 3.
Simplicius, Pope, 80. Cf. Sulpicius.
Solomon, 201.
Somerset, 106 (with n. i) ; Arthur gives
to Cerdic, 186.
" Southfolk," 216.
Sprott, Thomas, Chronicle^ 176, 183
n.8, 187, 191 n. 2, 255 n.4.
Stamford, 42.
Stater (wrongly Sater), British king,
76 f.
Stewart, William, The Buik of the
Croniclis of Scotland (transla-
tion of Boece's Scotorum His-
toria)y 247 f.
Stonehenge, Great Circle, 182, 266. See
under: Aurelius, Uther's expedi-
tion to Ireland; and Vortigem,
slaughter of the British chiefs.
Stow (Stowe), John, The Chronicles
(Annates) of England ^Xid other
historical works, 264 ff., 185 n.3,
268 ; A Briefe Proofe of Brute,
182 n.4, 260 n.4.
Sulpicius (Simplicius?), Pope, 80, 229.
Syria; conquered by Arthur, 223.
Tabourne. See Calibume.
Taliessin, Spoils of Anwynn (Hades),
83, 95 n. 4; poem on Uthr Ben,
89 n. I ; as prophet, 91 n. 5.
Tambre, Tanbre, 164. See Arthur, last
battle.
Tancred, 192, 225.
Tanet. See Thanet.
Tenuantius, British king, 77 n. 3.
Tervagant, 157.
Thametes, mother of St. Kenrigern,
244.
Thanet (Tanet), Isle of, 11, 14, 18, 134
n. I, 141.
Thelianus (Chelianus, St. Teilo), 79
(with n. 8).
Thomas Albus, Chronicon, 174.
Thomas of Elmham, Historia Monas-
terii S. Augustini Cantuariensis,
176, 191 n.4.
Thomas de Loches, 121 f. See Gesta
Comitum Andegavensium.
Thomas, monk of Malmesbury(?), Eulo-
gium Historiarum and Chronicon
brevius, 176.
Thomas Otterbourne, 176. See Otter-
boume.
Thomas Rudborne, 177. See Rudbome.
Thomas Sprott, 176. See Sprott.
Thomas Walsingham, 176. See Wal-
singham.
Tidea, Saxon goddess, 151.
Tintagel. See Tyntagell.
Tolomer, master of Merlin, 208.
Totness, 134 n. i, 141, 154.
Tower episode. See under Vortigem.
Tower of London, 269.
Tremorinus (Tremonnus, Tremorien,
Tremounus), one of Geoffrey's
archbishops, 80 n. 7, 213, 229.
Trevisa, translation of Higden*s Poly-
chronicon, 175, 182, 183 n. 8,
256 n.4.
Tribuit, a river, scene of one of Arthur's
battles, 16.
Trinbvantum (London), 62.
Tristan, 223.
Trithemius, Johannes, Compendium . . .
de Origine . . . Francorum, 239.
Troynt (the boar Twrch Trwyth), 16
(with n. 7).
Twelve Peers of France (Dowchsperys),
87, no n. 2, 187, 242.
Twrch Trwyth, the boar, 16 n. 7.
Tydorely Lay of 113 n. 2.
Tyntagell, Gorlois's castle, 218.
Tysilio. See Brut Tysilio.
Uchtryd, Geoffrey's uncle, 44 f., 1 14 n.3.
Ulfin (Ulphin), adviser of Uther, 139,
153, 162, 200 n. 2.
Digitized
by Google
310
Index
Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, Lanzelet, 141
n. I.
Urban, bishop of Llan D&v, 44, 278.
Urbgen(?), son of, one of the authors
of the Historia Britonumy 9,
Urbs Legionum. See Caerleon.
Urianus (Urien), 48, 76 (with n. 6), 89
n. I, 94, 218, 224, 231 n. 4, 268.
Ursicampum, monk of, interpolated
version of the Chronicon of
Sigebert of Gembloux, 172, 170,
174, 179, 182, 183 n. II, 185, 231.
Urtager. See Vortigern.
Usk (Caerleon), 67.
Uter, Uterpandragon, etc. See Uther.
Uther (Uter, Utere, Uterpandragon,
Utherpendragon, Uthr Ben), the-
ories of his literary origin, 65 n. i,
88 f ., 89 n. I ; story in Geoffrey,
MU 59» 63, 67, 75; in other
writers, 146 f., 153, 174, 198, 200,
21 1 f., 222, 238, 239 {bis), 242 n. 3,
243, 246, 258, [263], 266, 270; a
child at the death of Constans,
183; in Brittany, 59, 72, 75, 82,
163, 254, 257; establishment in
Britain, 146 (cf. Aurelius) ; expe-
dition to Ireland for the stones
of the Great Circle and their
removal by Merlin's aid, 47, 93
(with n. 3 and n. 4), 1 18, 140, 153,
I55» 167, 172, 180 f., 207, 218,
229, 251, 257, 265, 266, 269; dis-
believed, 182, 244; sick at the
beginning of his reign, 246;
campaign against Pascent, 47,
217; comet, 47 f., 67, 72, 139;
lament for Aurelius, 205; first
war with Octa and Eosa, 48,
118 f., 196, 229, 251; exploits,
etc., in the North, 203, 255 ;
twelve years of peace, 229 ; rela-
tions with the Scots and Picts,
243, 245, 246, 247, 267 ; love for
Igema and war with Gorlois, 48,
"9» i33» 134 n. I, 153, 155, 197,
201, 218, 227, 228, 229, 246;
union with Igema, of which
Arthur is the child, 48, 90, 93,
139, 146, 153, 162, 167 (bis), 184,
196, 200 n. 2, 211, 229, 245, 257,
278, 282 ; represented as a law-
ful marriage, 182, 184, 233, 270 ;
omitted, 198 ; Uther names Eng-
land from Igema, 254 ; gives Anna
to Lot, 282 ; sickness and second
war with Octa and Eosa, 70, T^y
i53» i57» 185, 200, 214 n. 4, 224,
246, 267 ; conquered by the
Saxons, 246 {bis) ; poisoned,
75 f., 132 n. 2, 150, 184, 229, 232
n. I ; buried in Glastonbury, 199 ;
loses importance in later, Arthu-
rian tradition, 94 ; mistakes as to
his identity, etc., 120, 195 n. 8,
238; dragon standard, 72; hel-
met, 141 ; arms, 251 ; Hallelujah
Victory connected with him, 246,
261 ; battle of Badon connected
with him, 261 ; Round Table
connected with him. 252 (with
n. 14) ; tournament, 223.
Uthr Ben. See Uther.
Vandals, conquered by Arthur, 223.
Venelande. See Greenland.
Verolamium, 157, 200.
Vertigerius. See Vortigem.
Vespasian, 249.
Vikings, wars in the British Isles, 84.
Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum Histori-
ale and Speculum Majus, 174,
237, 238, 239.
Virgil, no n. 2.
Visigoths, 82 f.
Vita Merliniy 45 f., 92 n. 7, 100, 146,
163, 165, 167.
Vodinus (Vodine), bishop of London,
246, 266, 283. Cf. Guethelinus.
Digitized
by Google
Index
311
Volaterranus (Raphael Maffei), Com-
tnentarii Rerum Urbanicaruniy
239-
Vorciguus. See Vortigern.
Vorcimer. See Vortimer.
Vortigern (Fortiger, Guorthigimus,
Urtager, Vertigerius, Vorciguus,
Vortegem, Vortegrinus, Vorti-
ger, Vertigerius, Vortigernus,
Vortigerus, Vortigier, Vorty-
geme, Vuertigerias, Vurthern,
Vurtigemus, Wortigonus, Wyrt-
geom); probably historical, 23;
origin of Geoffrey's account, 59,
81 ; Vortigem's tribe the Gewis-
sae, 47, 277; called Earl of
"Esex" (Westsexe), 217, 254;'
his story as a whole, [5, 7, 8],
10 ff., 18 f., 21, 22, 24, 30, 361,
39 f» 47, 59 ff-» [146], 151 ff-, 198,
200, 213, 233 f^ 238, 239, 240,
242 n. 3, 243, 257, 263, 266;
instigates Cons tan tine's assas-
sination, 183, 251 ; relations
with Constans, 149 ff., 157, 195
n. 8; b^omes king, 183, 257,
261, 266, 269; exonerated for
assassination of Constans, 232
n. I, 254; sends Aurelius and
Uther into Brittany, 254; fears
Aurelius, 10, 60, 184, 246; early
reign prosperous, [4], 257 ; re-
ceives (summons) Saxons, [5,^7,
8], II ff., 21 f., 23, 30, 58, 60, 70,
179, 183 n. 8, 210, 237 n. I, 238,
257, 269; Hengist*s first pro-
posals, 130 ; bull's hide episode,
61, 88 (cf. Hengist); Hengist's
feast, with Drinc Heil ( Wassail)
episode, and Vortigern's mar-
riage to Rowena, 11, 18, 22, 23,
61, 132, 167, 183, 210, 218, 228,
244, 246, 251, 258, 261, 270;
Vortigern gives parts of Scot-
land to Hengist, 267; Vorti-
gern *s incest, 12, 39, 61 ; kept
in Chester during Vortimer's
reign, 258 ; restoration, 1 19,
218, 244, 257 f, 270; Hengist's
slaughter of the British chiefs
at Stonehenge (Amesbury —
"Long Knives" affair), 14 f., 18,
21 (with n. i), 39, 42, 47, 62, 87,
132, 152, 157, 183, 194 n. 5, 218,
228, 234 f., 244, 246, 257, 265,
267, 270 (cf. Eldol); Vortigern
resorts to augury, ' 228 ; tower
episode, with the fight of the
dragons, I2ff., 18, 20 (with n. i),
21 {bis)y 47, 61, 62 f., 92, 93, 118,
131, 134 n. I, 136, 144, 146 f.,
152 f. (with 152 n. 13), 159, 171,
184, 194 (passim) f [195 n. 8],
201, 205, 206, 222, 228, 232 (with
n. i), 239 (cf. Merlin, prophecy) ;
tower episode omitted or ques-
tioned, 39, 42, 120, 171, 182,
234, 251 n. 2, 257,' 259, 266, 269;
Vortigem's death, 15, 18, 47, 63,
^33^ ^3Sy [155], 227, 257, 269;
Vortigern called bad or re-
proached, 40, 167, 183, 184,
200, 206, 213, 227 f., 251, 254,
257; length of his reign, 159;
strengthens Christianity, 238 ;
confused with Vortimer, 183;
puts Vodinus to death, 246;
connected with Anjou, 233 f.
Vortimer (Gortimerus, Guorthemir, Vor-
cimer, Vortumerus), probably
historical, 23; replaces Ambro-
sius, 18 f.; overpraised by Nen-
nius, 23; reign, and battles
against the Saxons, 14, 15, 18
(dis), 22 f., 30, 38, 60 ff., 152, 200,
203 n. 8, 228, [238], 243, 257,
[263], 266, 270 ; dies (naturally),
14, 71 ; poisoned by Rowena, 62,
72, 132 n. 2, 150, 152 (with n. 6),
2261, 265; burial, 18, 21, 136,
Digitized
by Google
312
Index
227; confused with Vortigem,
183; called colleague of Hen-
gist* 246; made contemporary
with Aurelius, 261 ; other men-
tions, 218, 228, 243, 255, 257
(bis) ; not mentioned, 249.
Vortumerus. See Vortimer.
Vortygerne, Vuertigerius, Vurthem,
Vurtigemus. See Vortigern.
Wace, life, 128; Brut^ 127 ff., 91 n. 5,
99 f., 125. 143 n. I, 144, 148, 195
n. 6, 203, 204 f., 213, 215, 226,
281 ; Roman de Rou^ 128.
Walgainus, Walgan. See Gawain.
Walsingham, Thomas, Historia Angli-
cana and Ypodigma Neustriae,
176.
Walter of Coventry, Memorialed 170,
174, 183, 187, 192 n. 2.
Walter, archdeacon of Oxford, and
his connection with Geoffrey's
liber, 51, 52 (passim), 55 n. 2,
224, 278 (bis).
Walvanus, Walwanus, Walwen. See
Gawain.
Walweitha (Galloway), 267. Gawain
rules there, 104, [187, 218, 251].
Warinus. See Henry of Huntingdon,
Letter.
Warner, William, AlbiorCs England,
270.
Warwick, 254.
Wassail episode. See under Vortigern,
Hengist's feast, etc.
Wauquelin of Mons, translation of
Geoffrey's Historia into French
prose, 220 n. 6.
Wavrin, Sire Jehan de, Recueil, 225 ff.,
220 n. 6, 258.
Wawayn. See Gawain.
Wayland (Weland) the Smith, 162, 213,
280 n. 7, 281.
Wed ale, in an Arthurian legend, ^iZ-
Weland. See Wayland.
Welsh chronicles, 1 19 (with n. 8). Cf .
also Gildas, Nennius, Annates
Cambriae^ Brut Tysilio, Brtit
Gruffydd ab Arthur,
Wendover. See Roger of Wcndover.
Wenhaver, Wennevereia. See Guene-
vere.
Westmoreland (Westimaria, West-
meria). 73 f., 211, 243.
" Westsex," 217, 251.
Whytsand, 213, 219.
Widia (Wudia), son of Wayland, 281.
Wild Hunt, associated with Arthur, 189.
William I, the Conqueror, 44, 72 (bis)^
81 f., 82, 109-112.
William II, Rufus, 81, 104, no n. 5.
William, son of Robert, Earl of Glou-
cester, 44 n. 4, 45.
William of Malmesbury, life, 38 ; Gesta
Regum Anglorum, 37 ff., 67, 32,
98, 104 f., 184 ; as source of
Geoffrey, [52], 53, [55], 57 f.,
6l n. I and n. 3, 66 ff., 70 ff., 84 ;
of other writers, 174 (bis), 176,
178 n., 182, 187, 198 n. 3., 256,
257* 265, 266, 268 f.; De Anti-
^uitate Glastoniensis Ecclesiae,
38, 98 f., 103, 191, 231 n. I, 255,
278 f.; Gesta Pontificum, 70, T}^.
William de Mechlin, edition of Cax-
ton*s Crony cles, 220 n. 6.
William of Newburgh, opposes Geof-
frey's Historia, 54 f., 92, 1 01,
180, 260.
William of Rennes, possibly author of
Gesta Regum Britanniae, 166.
William Rishanger. See Rishanger.
Winchester (Wynchester), 109, 149 f.,
153. i55» 186, 216, 224, 249, 252
(bis), 264, 265, 266.
Winchester, Chronicle of. See Richard
of Devizes.
Windsor, 264, 265.
Winetlonde (Guenelande, Gwjrnedd (?)),
164, 281. Cf. Greenland.
Digitized
by Google
Iftdex
313
Wippedsfleet, scene of a battle between
Hengist and the Britons, 21.
Witese (Widia?), 281.
^^denJ^f.
Wotfdietrich, 113 n. 2.
Worcester Priory, Annales^ 175, 192
n. 3.
Wortigonus. See Vortigem.
Wortiporius, a British king, 49.
Wudia, 281. See Widia.
Wygar, smith or bumie, 162, 213, 281.
Wynchester. See Winchester.
Wynkyn de Worde, edition of Caxton*s
Crony cleSf 220 n. 6.
Wyntown, Andrew of, 241 n. 2 ; Orygy-
nale Cronykil of Scotland^ 242,
248.
Wyrtgeorn. See Vortigem.
Yder. See Ider.
Ygema, Ygeme. See Igerna.
York (Eboracum), 63, 70, 95 n. i, 109,
167, 168 n. 2, 196, 203, 216, 246,
268.
Yvain, Ywain. See Iwain.
Zitus, name given to Arthur, 236.
Digitized
by Google
Digitized
by Google
Digitized
by Google
Digitized
by Google
wswmmmnsK^&si^u.: .
A FINE IS INCURRED IF THIS BOOK IS
NOT RETURNED TO THE LIBRARY ON
OR BEFORE THE LAST DATE STAMPED
BELOW.
"vr
m
iO
M^7 74 H
C "I'M. — - (.J J
s
s
-fe
^
"^^^
i ' to
^WIDENER
lUiM z I 2000
CANCELLED.
"AT T .^'": ■
i^^^Hai
> y yT ^- ' .v\ ^ — '. . -y p ^ ^ ^^i ^Cr-s;?^!^?^ ,- ;;^ ^^ or ^j;»
[JgitizedbyCaOOQlC
\ L^
- i
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11