Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this
file which includes the original illustrations.
See 41783-h.htm or 41783-h.zip:
(https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/41783/pg41783-images.html)
or
(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/41783/41783-h.zip)
Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive. See
http://archive.org/details/cu31924074466586
KING ARTHUR IN CORNWALL
by
W. HOWSHIP DICKINSON, M.D.
Honorary Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge
Longmans, Green, and Co.
39 Paternoster Row, London
New York and Bombay
1900
All rights reserved
PREFACE
The following pages present an attempt to bring together what may be
accepted with regard to the personality and actual life of King Arthur,
while putting aside everything that is obviously or probably fabulous. I
have endeavoured to give due weight to the evidence, both positive and
negative, rather than to work up to a pre-determined conclusion. With
regard to the evidence of a positive kind, if so it may be called, I have
given especial weight to the details of topography, more particularly in
Cornwall, with the Arthurian localities of which I happen to be more
familiar than with those elsewhere.
The fame of Arthur as expressed by the association of his name with places
is greater than that of any other personage save one who can claim this
sort of connection with our island. On this showing, Julius Cæsar and
Oliver Cromwell sink into insignificance as compared with the Cornish
Chief. Only the Devil is more often mentioned in local association than
Arthur. That name, indeed, is almost ubiquitous, since it is to be found
wherever local peculiarities exist which were not explicable to our
forefathers save by infernal agency. The Devil's Dyke, The Devil's Bridge,
the Devil's Jumps, the Devil's Frying Pan, the Devil's Post-Office, the
Devil's Punch-Bowl, are a few instances among many. Next to the Devil in
bestowing names on localities comes Arthur. But the two names are
distributed in a very different fashion: that of the Devil is scattered
impartially, being placed at random wherever thought suitable; that of
Arthur is limited to certain districts in which according to history or
tradition the hero lived or moved. This dissemination and limitation of
the name must have some origin, and may be most obviously and reasonably
explained by connecting them with an individual to whom it actually
belonged. I hold Arthur to have been as real a person as Cæsar or
Cromwell, though less advantageously circumstanced for the recording of
his deeds. The British Chief lived in the dark interval between two
civilisations, between the departure of the Romans from the island and
the establishment of the Saxon polity. The west and the north, which were
the seats of his exploits, were remote from what had been the centres of
Roman learning, and it may be presumed that Arthur's fighting men were
only less illiterate than the Saxons with whom they contended. There may
have been priests among them, for Christianity had already reached Ireland
and touched the western extremity of England, but the priests, if priests
there were, were probably more religious than literate. There was no
Xenophon in Arthur's army, and perhaps no one who could read or write. No
manuscript has come down to us from Arthur's time and place, though we
have reason to believe that among his contemporaries and immediate
successors were some who could compose and others who could learn, recite,
and remember with advantages the deeds of a leader who made an impression
on his countrymen which will probably never be obliterated. What was
crystallised in metre was easily remembered and handed down with something
approaching to verbal accuracy. The narratives not so expressed gathered
exaggeration as they went on, until in the course of time both the facts
and the fiction acquired the permanence of writing. Oral tradition is not
to be ignored; indeed, a large proportion of ancient history must have had
this origin.
Putting aside obvious and inevitable exaggerations, the general outlines
of Arthur's story are consistent with historic probability and with his
great fame, which cannot be otherwise explained; while, as will presently
be seen, many details are strikingly confirmed by the correspondence of
the topography with the traditions.
* * * * *
I have not attempted to construct a biography of Arthur, nor even to
arrange in chronological sequence the deeds attributed to him and the
circumstances which, according to tradition, preceded his birth. So far as
I have used the order of time, it has had to do with the records to which
I have referred rather than with the events of which I have made mention.
CONTENTS
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTORY 1
II. TRADITIONS AND HISTORY BEARING UPON THE LIFE OF ARTHUR 10
III. ARTHUR'S LAST BATTLE--THE DOUBTS WHICH SURROUND HIS PLACE
OF BURIAL 31
IV. TOPOGRAPHICAL ASSOCIATIONS 49
V. CONCLUSIONS 78
ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGURE PAGE
1. TINTAGEL CASTLE AS REPRESENTED BY NORDEN, 1584-1600 62
2. TINTAGEL CASTLE, FROM THE 25-INCH ORDNANCE MAP 63
3. DAMELIOCK CASTLE, REPRODUCED FROM THE 25-INCH ORDNANCE MAP 69
4. CASTLE KILLIBURY, FROM THE 25-INCH ORDNANCE MAP 73
5. CARDINHAM CASTLE, FROM THE 25-INCH ORDNANCE MAP 76
KING ARTHUR IN CORNWALL
I
INTRODUCTORY
_Ex nihilo nihil fit._ For the story of King Arthur there must be some
foundation, however the primary facts may have been distorted and
exaggerated. Two rules may be safely laid down with regard to tradition:
it usually has some truth to rest upon; that truth is not accurately
presented to us, but has been altered and probably magnified by verbal
transmission. We may believe that Troy was besieged and captured by the
Greeks, though we hesitate to accept the many instances of divine
intervention which the siege afforded; we may believe that Ulysses met
with many adventures at sea, though we may have our doubts concerning the
Sirens and Polyphemus. The creative power of man's mind is small; he is
more ready to embellish than to invent. We may give to tradition a
credence as to something which has an origin in fact, though it is not
always easy or possible to separate that fact from the superstructure by
which it has been overlaid. Tradition, first oral and latterly written,
pointed to the grave of Agamemnon: a skeleton with a gold mask was found
there, after the lapse of 3,000 years, with surroundings which appeared to
indicate that it was that of the King of Men. Tradition preserved the
memory of a church at Perranzabuloe which was buried in sand and lost to
view--some say in the 8th or 9th century--certainly at a remote period of
English history. In the year 1835 a great storm shifted the sand and
exposed the minute archaic edifice where tradition had placed it, and
where it had been hidden for we cannot say how many centuries.
A tradition came down from Druidical to recent times to the effect that
near the Cheesewring in Cornwall the Arch-Druid had his seat, and there
dispensed wine to hunters out of a gold cup, which, like the widow's
cruse, was inexhaustible. In the year 1837 a gold cup was found in
Rillaton Barrow, within a quarter of a mile of the supposed seat of the
Druid. This cup was decided by archæologists to belong to the Bronze
Age.[1]
* * * * *
In looking at the legend of King Arthur one is immediately struck with its
wide distribution. Originally of Celtic origin, it has taken root in
certain localities, and held its place in them notwithstanding that the
people among whom it originated have suffered admixture or even been
entirely replaced by other races. There are four groups of what are called
'Arthurian localities'--localities in which the name 'Arthur' is
frequently used in connection with places or structures, or in which some
name or tradition is retained which connects Arthur with them. Some of the
designations referred to are certainly ancient, some of doubtful
antiquity, some obviously modern.
The four groups of 'Arthurian localities' are:--
1. In North Cornwall, from Boscastle to Wadebridge. This is the most
interesting, and the traditions belonging to it are the most explicit, and
relate not only to Arthur's life, but to events which preceded it.
To mention some of the Arthurian names in Cornwall, and the names of
places with which Arthur is traditionally connected, we find King Arthur's
Castle, the famous stronghold at Tintagel, where we may believe that he
was born; Damelioc, whereby hangs a tale; and Kelly Rounds, which, if I am
correct in identifying it with Kelliwic, has also a place in Arthurian
lore. Allusive names without circumstance are numerous in the same
district. To mention some, we have King Arthur's Hall, Hunting Seat, Bed,
Quoit, Cups and Saucers, Tomb, and Grave. I may add Pentargon, which Mr.
Baring-Gould interprets as 'Arthur's Head.' Many of these designations
declare nothing more than the prevalence of the name in a certain district
and the readiness of our ancestors to apply it indiscriminately. 'Arthur's
Tomb' bears the name of Latinus, but is assigned to Arthur because he was
erroneously thought to have been killed in the vicinity, and the
inscription is difficult to be read. (See page 33). 'Arthur's Grave' is a
barrow also called the 'Giant's Grave,' of which the occupant is unknown.
'Arthur's Quoit' is the top stone of a cromlech which has no probable
relation to King Arthur, excepting that it is in Tintagel. 'Arthur's Cups
and Saucers' are excavations made by weather in Tintagel Head. These bare
names prove nothing beyond the vague retention of a memory in the district
to which they relate, but so much they may be held to indicate. The names
which are associated with traditions are more suggestive and will receive
further consideration.
2. In Britanny, probably a mere offshoot from Cornwall--Britanny and
Cornwall being closely connected geographically and by identity of race.
As there is no reason to suppose that Arthur was ever in Gaul, I do not
propose to dwell upon the French localisation of the Arthurian legend, nor
have I the necessary local knowledge.
3. In Wales, chiefly in the south, with Caerleon-upon-Usk as a centre, but
involving the north to a lesser extent. I may touch briefly upon the Welsh
localisations, though it is not my purpose to dwell upon them in detail.
The Welsh legends or traditions are more circumstantial than those I
shall presently refer to as Scottish or Cumbrian. Caerleon-upon-Usk was
known as the City of Legions, because in the time of the Roman supremacy a
legion (the Second Augustan) was stationed there. It was an Archiepiscopal
See, and as such was held by Dubricius, who plays a prominent part in
Arthurian mythology. According to Nennius, one of Arthur's battles was
fought here. Welsh names, local and personal, abound in Arthurian
literature, and the connection of Arthur with South Wales was accepted by
both Hume and Gibbon as sufficient to warrant them in regarding him as a
prince of the Silures. As will presently be seen, I have not adopted this
hypothesis.
4. In Scotland and the North of England, reaching from north of Edinburgh
to south of Carlisle, and comprising the Lowlands and Cumberland. Cornwall
and Wales belong to what Sir William Harcourt once called 'the Celtic
fringe'; in the Lowlands and Cumberland the Celt has been superseded by
other races, who have taken, together with his territory, some
reminiscence of his traditions. In the north Arthurian names are more
widely scattered than anywhere else, though there is an absence of the
details which connect the Cornish localities with the personality of
Arthur. Mr. Skene in his 'Four Ancient Books of Wales,'[2] a work to which
I owe much, has discussed with learning the military career of Arthur, and
shown that there is reason to believe that many of his battles took place
in the north, including that in which he met his end. Mr. Stuart Glennie
has followed on the same side, in the endeavour to prove that the north
was 'the historical birthland of the Arthurian tradition.' I venture to
think, as will presently be seen, that there is satisfying evidence that
Scotland was the scene of the later events of Arthur's life and probably
of his death.
The Arthurian district of the north reaches from Penrith to Strathmore,
and has supplied Mr. Skene and Mr. Stuart Glennie with a large number of
Arthurian names. Arthur's Seat occurs three times, Arthur's Round Table
twice; besides which we have Arthurstone, Arthur's O'on (oven), Arthur's
Chair, Camp, Lee, Fountain, Hill, Tomb. There are also to be found
Merlin's Fountain, Merlin's Grave, Mordred's Castle, and Camlan or
Camelon. The local association of Mordred and Camlan is of especial
interest; for Camlan, wherever it be, is the name given in Arthurian
literature to Arthur's last battle. Whether this is to be placed in
Scotland or in Cornwall is a question which will receive further
consideration. I have no doubt that this list of Scottish place-names
which refer to Arthur might be considerably increased. Ben Arthur is to be
found at the head of Loch Long, and Dumbarton Castle was known in the time
of David II. as Castrum Arthuri, near which, according to Mr. Skene's
reading, occurred Arthur's ninth battle. Many of these names may be purely
fanciful--applied, we know not how recently, to the places they denote;
but at any rate it may be regarded as probable that someone, presumably a
Celtic chieftain (for the word 'Arthur' is of Celtic origin), left the
memory of the name, if of little else, widely scattered over Scotland and
the North of England.
In addition to the localisation of Arthurian names it will presently be
seen that many, or I may say most, of the battles attributed to Arthur,
including that in which he died, have been placed in this district. The
conclusion is not to be avoided that at some remote time, imperfectly
presented to us by history, one Arthur was a prominent person in the south
of Scotland and the north of England, left his name widely scattered in
the Lowlands, and fought many battles hereabouts.
II
TRADITIONS AND HISTORY BEARING UPON THE LIFE OF ARTHUR
Apart from the evidence of names, we may inquire what is to be found in
the way of history or circumstantial tradition.
Arthur has been regarded as a somewhat shadowy character; it has even been
doubted whether he was not wholly imaginary. Milton[3] thus expresses his
uncertainty: 'Who Arthur was, and whether any such person reigned in
Britain, hath been doubted heretofore, and may again with good reason.' It
is said that Tennyson, who has partaken of Arthur's immortality, doubted
his existence; and so much has the Arthurian story been overlaid with
romance that it is no easy matter to discover the historical facts which
are concealed under the superstructure of fiction.
So much has the story of Arthur been magnified and embellished by the
romancers of the twelfth and subsequent centuries, so much has it been
glorified by impossible details and inflated by obvious anachronisms,[4]
that we cannot wonder that the whole tale was distrusted where there was
so much reason for rejecting the greater part. The later Arthurian story
presents conditions rather befitting the Black Prince than the British
king. To get to the foundations, we must dig below the superstructure,
which is mostly of French origin, and examine the records, scanty though
they be, which belong to Arthur's country and as nearly as may be to his
time. The ancient literature of Cornwall, if there ever was any, has
perished with its language, but there remains much of that of Wales, some
going back possibly to the time of Arthur, probably to the century in
which he lived. Some of the Triads and some of the songs of the bards are
confidently believed to have been handed down from the sixth century,
though we possess no manuscripts which have an earlier date than the
twelfth. Among these survivals are many allusions to Arthur, mentioning
him by name and referring to him as a fighting man and a leader, and more
than one associating him with Cornwall, and with a particular earthwork
which, I venture to think, can still be identified. One of these writings
is entitled 'Triads of Arthur and His Warriors,'[5] and is thus
translated:
Arthur the chief lord at Kelliwic in Cornwall, and Bishop Betwine the
chief Bishop, and Caradawe Vreichvras the chief elder.
This is referred to by Dr. Guest[6] as 'a poem of the sixth century, whose
genuineness no scholar has ever doubted.'[7] The Triads do not deal with
narrative; their purpose is served when three names are linked together.
The mention of Cornwall in connection with Arthur may be taken to indicate
that he was a Cornish rather than a Welsh potentate; while that of
Kelliwic, as will presently be shown, is of especial interest as
indicating the locality to which he belonged. The 'Black Book of
Caermarthen' contains a poem of somewhat uncertain date and authorship, in
which the same place is referred to in connection with Arthur:
he killed every third person
When Celli was lost.
Celli is evidently the place elsewhere referred to as Celliwig, another
form of the name Kelliwic. The same 'Black Book' gives a poem relating to
Geraint, who was killed in the course of it. Arthur was there, and
attracted the notice and commendation of the author:--
In Llongborth I saw Arthur,
And brave men who hewed with steel,
Emperor and conductor of the toil.
I presume that Llongborth is a place elsewhere spoken of as Longporth, and
believed to be Portsmouth; and the battle referred to, one between Arthur
and Cerdric.
The same manuscript gives a poem entitled 'The Verses of the Graves.' Many
graves are mentioned which are not to the present purpose; that of Arthur
is referred to as unknown in the following line:--
A mystery to the world the grave of Arthur.
Taliessin was a Welsh bard who, among others, is assigned to the sixth
century. He refers to Arthur frequently as the Guledig--a term, according
to Skene, equivalent to Ruler or Imperator. That Arthur was not Imperator
of all Britain will presently appear; that he held some position of
supremacy in the west may well be believed. Taliessin refers to Arthur
frequently, once as 'Arthur the blessed':--
on the face of battle,
Upon him a restless activity.
The same poet describes with much repetition a certain expedition, of
which one stanza may serve as a sufficient sample:--
And when we went with Arthur, a splendid labour,
Except seven none returned from Caer Vedwyd.
The same poet alludes to 'the steed of Arthur' in a poem which enumerates
memorable horses. In the 'Book of Aneurin,' a Welsh poet who belonged, as
it is thought, to the sixth century, Arthur is made use of as a standard
of comparison. A certain warrior is thus referred to:--
He was an Arthur
In the midst of the exhausting conflict.[8]
Further quotations from similar sources might be brought together, but
enough have been adduced to show that the name of Arthur was so widely
celebrated by the Welsh bards, and was so connected by them with place and
circumstance, that it is not possible to doubt that the traditions had
reference to a real person. Whether any of the bardic effusions which have
come down to us are correctly assigned to the sixth century, as Welsh
scholars believe, I am not competent to decide. Many of them are obviously
of later date; but if we may accept what is generally believed, we must
attribute some of these poetic remnants to a time when Arthur was a recent
memory, and give credence to them as at least founded on fact. By the
bards Arthur was represented as a military chief paramount in the country
to which their knowledge extended; as a soldier of exceptional activity,
and one who attracted the admiration of those who fought under him; as
concerned in a variety of fights in a variety of places, most of which are
not now to be exactly identified, but one of which was Kelliwic, a place
of strength which will receive further notice; and as resembling another
great leader in the invincible obscurity which shrouded his place of rest.
'In the lost battle borne down by the flying,' his sepulchre may have been
the maws of kites.
From the time of the bards--not to limit that period to the sixth
century--until the ninth century no records concerning King Arthur have
come down to us. It is more likely that some were written, utilised, and
lost, than that the historian of the ninth century was guided only by
oral tradition. The earliest connected history of Arthur, though, as has
been seen, this by no means contains the earliest mention of him, is that
of Nennius, a Briton who, according to his own statement, wrote in the
year 858, and concludes his history in the time of the 'Heptarchy.' Thus
three centuries elapsed between the supposed death of Arthur in 542 and
any collected record of his doings which is still extant. This interval,
however, was not barren of Arthurian lore, for we have derived from it, as
I have shown, a sufficiency of fragments and allusions to certify to the
existence of Arthur, to mark his position as 'Dux Bellorum,' to present
him in his fighting character, and in more than one instance to associate
him with places which can still be identified.
* * * * *
As against the positive testimony of the Bards we have a certain amount of
negative evidence to which due weight must be attached, though the
negation may be held to apply not so much to the existence of Arthur as a
chieftain in the west as to the general supremacy assigned to him by
later writers and popular tradition as King of Britain, Comes Britanniæ,
lord of the whole country comprising the 'Saxon shore' as well as the
remote districts of the west and north. Proceeding in chronological order,
the first historical record (for the bardic fragments can scarcely be so
termed) relating to 'Britain's Isle and Arthur's days' is that of Gildas,
a British priest of reforming tendencies, who was born, according to his
own statement, in the year of the famous battle of Badon Hill, or Mons
Badonicus, and received in consequence the addition of Badonicus to his
name. This battle, which was fought in the year 520, or, according to
another reckoning, 516, was connected in later times with Arthur, and
regarded as his crowning victory. If Gildas was born in the year of Badon
Hill, he must, supposing we accept the date 520 for that engagement, have
been twenty-two years old at the time assigned by tradition to Arthur's
last battle. Yet Gildas makes no mention of Arthur, though he refers by
name to Ambrosius as the successful leader of the Britons against the
Saxons at this epoch. If, as there is reason to believe, Scotland was the
scene of the latter part of Arthur's career and of his death, it is the
less remarkable that he should have escaped mention by Gildas, who
apparently belonged to the south of England, for he is known to have spent
part of his time at Glastonbury. Similar negative evidence is provided by
the Venerable Bede, who lived nearer to the place of Arthur's exploits
than did Gildas, though he was more remote from them in time. Bede was a
Northumbrian priest in the time of the 'Heptarchy.' He was born in 673 and
died in 735. As a writer on ecclesiastical history, it is remarkable that
he found no place for Arthur as a Christian champion. Bede, who closely
follows Gildas, mentions only Ambrosius. I may venture to quote from the
'Ecclesiastical History' the passage which refers to Ambrosius, from which
it will be seen that this historian does not explicitly attribute the
victory of Badon Hill to Ambrosius, though his words have been thought to
bear that signification. 'Under him' (Ambrosius) 'the Britons revived and,
offering battle to the victors, by the help of God came off victorious.
From that day, sometimes the natives, and sometimes their enemies,
prevailed, till the year of the siege of Baddesdown Hill, when they made
no small slaughter of those invaders.' Putting Badon Hill aside, there
are other battles, which will be enumerated in due course, of which Arthur
has the sole credit, which might have been expected to have drawn the
attention of the priest to the hero had he been all that later chronicles
represent.
Here is a difficulty which cannot be ignored; and which consists not so
much of conflicting testimony as of testimony conflicting with the absence
of testimony. In such a case it is probable that more weight should be
attached to positive evidence than to negative. The ignoring of Arthur by
Gildas and Bede, and as I shall presently show by the 'Saxon Chronicle,'
may imply no more than that he held no such position as would have caused
him to be mentioned by the British writers, who named no one but the
commander-in-chief, and that the field of his activity did not bring him
under the notice of the Saxon chroniclers, who took no cognizance of what
went on at this time in the west. The two British writers, whose notice of
the wars of the Saxon invasion is confined to the briefest epitome,
mention no leader on either side but Ambrosius. There must have been
others, of whom Arthur may have been one. Arthur was never, like
Vortigern, King of Britain, or, like Ambrosius, commander-in-chief of the
British forces: he had no concern with the 'Saxon shore'; he was, as we
are frequently told, Guledig, or Imperator, but his authority must have
been limited to the west and north.
* * * * *
Between the history of Bede and that of Nennius, the Arthurian legend
appears to have taken tangible shape, and by the later historian was
written in a connected though condensed form. If, as is probable, Nennius
was guided by earlier manuscripts, they have perished or not come to
light. Little is known of this writer. His 'Historia Britonum' is said to
have been edited by Mark the Hermit in the tenth century. According to his
own statement, Nennius, who was apparently a Briton and a priest, wrote
his history in the year 858. It concludes with the battle of Cocboy (or
Maserfield), between two kings of the 'Heptarchy' in the year 642.
Importance (as will presently be seen) is to be attached to the date of
this conclusion. Nennius in the course of his history deals with the
conflicts between the Britons and Saxons after the death of Hengist, and
introduces us to Arthur in these words:--
'Then it was that the magnanimous Arthur, with all the kings and military
force of Britain, fought against the Saxons. And although there were many
more noble than himself, yet he was twelve times chosen their commander
and was as often conqueror. The first battle in which he was engaged was
at the mouth of the river Gleni. The second, third, fourth and fifth were
on another river, by the Britons called Duglas, in the region Linuis. The
sixth on the river Bassas. The seventh in the wood Celidon, which the
Britons call Cat Coit Celidon. The eighth was near Gurnion Castle, where
Arthur bore the image of the Holy Virgin, mother of God, upon his
shoulders, and through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy
Mary put the Saxons to flight, and pursued them the whole day with great
slaughter. The ninth was at the City of Legion which is called Cair Lion.
The tenth was on the banks of the river Trat Treuroit. The eleventh was in
the mountain Breguoin, which we call Cat Bregion. The twelfth was a most
severe contest, where Arthur penetrated to the hill of Badon. In this
engagement nine hundred and forty fell by his hand alone, no one but the
Lord affording him assistance.'[9] It is worth noting that a later writer,
Geoffrey of Monmouth, tells a story with regard to the battle of Badon
Hill resembling that which Nennius attaches to that of Gurnion Castle.
Arthur had a picture of the Virgin painted on his shield, and with his own
hand and his sword Caliburn slew 470 men; Giraldus Cambrensis explains
that the picture was on the inside of the shield, so that Arthur might
kiss it without inconvenience.
These battles are indicated by Nennius only by their localities, without
mention of the chiefs to whom Arthur was opposed. It is believed that
Cerdric was prominent in this capacity: he may have been so in the south,
but we find no evidence that this commander ever got far enough north to
take part in the majority of the fights of which Nennius is the historian
and Arthur the hero. The river Gleni has been thought to be the Glen in
Ayrshire; by others to be a river of the same name, a tributary of the
Till in Northumberland. The Duglas, or Dubglass, has been supposed to be
the Dunglas, which forms the southern boundary of Lothian; by others one
of the rivers in Scotland which bears the name of Douglas; by others to be
the Duglas in Lancashire. The wood Celidon may be the Caledonian Forest or
Englewood in Cumberland. Gurnion Castle is supposed by some to have been a
Roman station near Yarmouth, by Skene to be one near Lammermoor. The City
of Legion or Cair Lion, where the ninth battle was said to have been
fought, should be Caerleon-upon-Usk, though this position does not
correspond with that of the other contests, and on this and other grounds
must be held in doubt. Giles supposes Cair Lion to have been Exeter. The
river Trat Treuroit, on which was the tenth battle, cannot be
satisfactorily located. The eleventh battle was apparently fought at
Edinburgh, not against the Saxons but the Picts. Cadbury in Somersetshire,
according to another hypothesis, has also been assigned as the place of
this battle. The famous twelfth battle, which was between the British and
Saxons, and resulted in the taking of Mons Badonicus or Badon Hill, has
been placed at Bannesdown near Bath, at Badbury in Dorsetshire, and at
Bouden Hill in Linlithgowshire. This great battle, whatever may be the
doubts as to its position, stands out as an indubitable historical fact,
though Gildas and Bede have occasioned a certain ambiguity between Arthur
and Ambrosius in regard to it. If, as is believed, Ambrosius died, whether
by sword or poison, in 508, and Mons Badonicus was fought in 520, we may
disconnect Ambrosius from this battle and give the sole credit of it to
Arthur. The opponent of Arthur on this occasion was, according to evidence
and probability, Cerdric, who had landed at the mouth of the Itchen in
495, defeated Natanleod near Netley in 508; and was himself defeated at
Badon Hill in 520.[10] If these statements be accepted, as it seems they
should be, we can scarcely place Mons Badonicus in Scotland, whither
Cerdric, so far as we know, never went. He was probably sufficiently
occupied at this time in establishing his kingdom of Wessex. It is
possible that at Badon Hill Arthur and Cerdric may have met, not for the
first time, for a bardic fragment to which I have referred (see page 14)
represents Arthur as fighting, probably with Cerdric, at Llongporth or
Portsmouth. English, as distinguished from Scottish, historians concur in
placing Badon Hill in the south. Geoffrey says that the battle was near
Bath (not that this is by any means conclusive); Bannesdown has been
generally accepted as its situation, though Dr. Guest prefers to place it
at Badbury in Dorsetshire. At any rate, we must believe that it took place
in the southwest and within stroke of Cerdric. Amid much that is obscure,
this battle, as between the British and Saxons and Arthur and Cerdric,
presents itself as a sort of anchorage in a sea of doubt.
We may look back upon the preceding battles having regard to the
presumption that in 520 Arthur was in the south of England. Of these
battles, eleven in number, we have no exact knowledge as to either time or
place. With regard to three of them we cannot form any reasonable
conjecture. Of the remaining eight each has more than one position
hypothetically assigned to it--always one in the lowlands of Scotland,
where Arthurian names most abound, another generally in the north of
England. It would be vain to pretend that we know enough of the
particulars of the invasion to give us more than vague guidance as to the
movements of Arthur. It may be supposed that in his time the Angles were
penetrating the island by the Humber and the Forth, and it is possible
that he may have been concerned in the fighting which ensued. Manifestly
he obtained great fame in the north, though we do not know when. Between
the battle of Badon Hill in 520 and Camlan in 542 we are in absolute
darkness as to his whereabouts. We may presume that he was in the south of
England in 520 and in Scotland in 542; between the two dates there is room
for conjecture and for much fighting. If we could adapt the traditions to
probability, we should suppose that the Scotch battles took place after,
and not before, Badon Hill; that in the early part of his career Arthur
was at war with Cerdric and the Saxons of Wessex, in the later part with
the Angles of the north and possibly with the Picts. But if we accept the
list of battles as given by Nennius, and in the order in which he places
them, we must believe that Arthur went north before Badon Hill[11] and
returned to fight there, for all the little evidence we have indicates
that some at least of the battles which this historian records were in
Scotland. If this be so, Arthur must have gone north again to conclude his
career at Camlan, and thus must have made more than one Scotch campaign,
to the multiplication of Arthurian names.[12]
* * * * *
The 'Saxon Chronicle,' which gives a detailed account of the battles in
Kent, Sussex, and Hampshire, makes no mention of any in the west or north,
or of Arthur. The 'Saxon Chronicle' is an apparently truthful, if somewhat
bald, history. It mentions Vortigern as King of Britain and the opponent
of Hengist, it names Natanleod, Commail, Condida and Farinmail as British
kings who were defeated and slain; but neither Arthur nor Ambrosius find
place in this record. It has been supposed that Natanleod, who was killed,
together with five thousand men, by Cerdric at Netley in the year 508,
was no other than Ambrosius, but I have not been able to find the evidence
on which this theory rests; and there is another tradition with regard to
the death of Ambrosius, namely, that he was poisoned in the same year by a
Saxon monk. The silence of the Chronicle, if so it be regarded, as to
Ambrosius throws no doubt upon his existence; and as to Arthur, though it
may indicate that he had no position of national supremacy in the east and
south, it goes for nothing as touching the west and north, of which this
record takes no cognizance.
The fame of Arthur may have been, or rather must have been, founded upon
his deeds, but the vast superstructure raised on that foundation is to be
attributed to the close association between the branches of the Celtic
race in Cornwall, Wales and Britanny. The fame of Arthur, once established
among the Welsh Bards and the Romancers of Britanny, easily lent itself to
exaggeration and attracted to itself much that was due to others or was
purely imaginary.
* * * * *
I have called Geoffrey of Monmouth an imaginative writer: it may admit of
question whether he should be termed imaginative or credulous. He was an
indiscriminate collector of Arthurian legends, some of which may contain a
modicum of truth, while others are wholly false. Of the latter variety
Arthur, according to Geoffrey, conquers Ireland, Iceland and the Orkneys,
subdues Norway, Dacia, Aquitaine and Gaul, bestows Normandy upon Bedver
the butler, and establishes his court in Paris. He was crossing the Alps
to attack Rome when he was recalled by the treachery of Mordred, to
conclude his career on the Camel. Such inventions savour more of the
twelfth century than the sixth, and mark Geoffrey as one whose statements
are not to be accepted without concurrent testimony.
So overloaded is the story of Arthur with fiction or romance that it is
difficult or impossible to discern the truth that must necessarily be at
the bottom of it. The more remote are the Arthurian writings from the
Arthurian epoch, the more voluminous, the more circumstantial, and the
more obviously superadditional, they become. But there must necessarily be
a root under all this efflorescence, the presence of which is clearly
indicated, though it cannot be fully exposed to view.
III
ARTHUR'S LAST BATTLE--THE DOUBTS WHICH SURROUND HIS PLACE OF BURIAL
The last battle attributed to Arthur has obtained more prominence than the
most famous battles of antiquity, has been connected with its supposed
place by geographical particulars, has been enriched with romantic detail,
made the subject of poetry, and so much glorified in English literature
from Geoffrey to Tennyson, that it seems like sacrilege to hint that the
only fight on the Camel of which we have sure information, took place long
after Arthur's death; and that if he and Mordred encountered, as there is
reason to believe they did, the place of that event was not Cornwall but
Scotland.
The fatal battle of Camlan, as it is called, which is assigned to the year
542, in which Mordred is supposed to have been slain and Arthur mortally
wounded, is stated by Geoffrey, and generally believed, to have taken
place on the Camel. There was undoubtedly a great battle on this river,
near Camelford, at some remote time, and its position seems to be exactly
indicated by a bridge which still bears the name of Slaughter Bridge, or
Bloody Bridge. Near the bridge, close to the river, is an inscribed
sepulchral stone, obviously of great antiquity, which is held in repute in
the neighbourhood as marking the grave of King Arthur.
The position is a likely one to have been chosen by an army on the
defensive. The stream, which was probably larger then than now, runs
through a marshy bottom with hills ascending on both sides. That a great
battle was fought here may be accepted as certain, and equally so that it
was between the Britons and the Saxons. One of the writers who attributes
it to Arthur tells us that the Camel[13] overflowed its banks with the
blood of the slain. So far we have a likely Arthurian story, and we may
look with interest at the inscription on the stone which presumably covers
(or rather _covered_, for the stone has been slightly moved from its
original situation) the bones of some one killed in the fight, perhaps of
the king himself. Carew, in his 'Survey of Cornwall,' speaks of the stone
as 'bearing Arthur's name, though now depraved to Atry.' Borlase accepts
the tradition that Arthur fought his last battle near this spot, but
denies that the stone bears reference to that warrior. The inscription,
according to Borlase, runs thus: 'Catin hic jacit[14]--filius Magari,' and
refers not to Arthur but to the son of Magarus. The letters are about six
inches high and much weatherworn. They are not easy to be made out, but
the Rev. W. Iago, of Bodmin,[15] has brought his special skill to bear
upon them, and, with the aid of casts and rubbings, has determined the
inscription to be as follows:
Latini ic jacit filius Magarii.
which Mr. Iago thus interprets:
(The monument) of Latinus; here he lies; son of Magarius.
_ic_ stands of course for _hic_.
The use of the Latin language points to British rather than Saxon
authorship.
Latinus was probably a Briton of Roman descent who was presumably fighting
on the British side. That his fellow soldiers had leisure to construct a
memorial on the battlefield may be accepted as an indication that they
retained their position as victors, but we seek in vain for evidence that
Arthur was here concerned.
It is certain that a great battle was fought in this position in the time
of Egbert in the year 823. This is mentioned in the 'Saxon Chronicle,' in
'Ethelwerd's Chronicle,' and by Henry of Huntingdon, as having taken place
at Camelford between the Britons of Cornwall and the Saxons of Devonshire.
Several thousands fell on both sides according to Henry of Huntingdon, but
we are not told which was victorious. Probably the Britons, for the Saxons
do not seem to have pushed their conquests further, at least until the
time of Athelstan, nor ever to have generally replaced the former
inhabitants in the further parts of the county.
So much for the historical battle in the year 823. Now for the traditional
battle on the same river in the year 542. Nennius makes no mention of
either. His history terminates in the year 640, and does not reach the
later battle, but his failure to mention the earlier, if it took place
when and where it is supposed, is remarkable. Another English writer,
Henry of Huntingdon, who is disposed to give much credit to Arthur, speaks
of the twelve battles, with particular reference to Badon Hill, but makes
no mention of the subsequent battle or of the death of the king. These
appear to have been entirely ignored so far as English chroniclers are
concerned until we reach Geoffrey of Monmouth, in the twelfth century, who
must be regarded as a romancer rather than a serious historian. We must
either suppose that there were two great battles on the Camel, the earlier
of which, in the sixth century, escaped the notice of chroniclers until
the twelfth, and then was recovered with ample circumstance and detail by
the highly imaginative writer to whom I have referred; or we must suppose
that there was only one great battle in this situation; that this was
fought in the ninth century; and that between the ninth century and the
twelfth it came to be confused with a battle in Scotland in which Arthur
was really engaged, and in which he met his death.
In relation to the earlier battle on the Camel, if there was one, and the
supposed connection of Arthur with it, I must mention a scrap of
topographical evidence, which is far from conclusive, but which may be
taken for what it is worth. In this supposed battle, Cador, Duke of
Cornwall, half-brother to Arthur, or, according to another account, his
nephew, takes a traditional place among the slain. About three miles from
Camelford, between the Camel and the sea, stands a large sepulchral mound
which looks down upon the Atlantic from an elevation of over a thousand
feet. This is known as Cadõn Barrow, and the tradition is that it covers
the body of Cador. To this tumulus especial consideration and sanctity
have long been attached. If it covers the bones of Arthur's kinsman the
place consorts with his death on the Camel. At a distance of about seven
miles from the battlefield, be it Arthur's or Egbert's, stands another
sepulchral mound in which an interested person might find an Arthurian
association. This mound is known as the Giant's Grave, or King Arthur's
Grave. It lies within a gigantic double-walled enclosure which has the
name of Warbstowe Bury, one of the largest of the British camps of
Cornwall. This occupies a commanding situation, and would furnish an ideal
resting-place for a Cornish hero. But whatever be the purpose of the
mound, we have no reason to connect it with Arthur. The name is employed
somewhat at random: barrows are common in Cornwall; and we must have
consistent historical evidence before we suppose Arthur to occupy the
Giant's Grave or his kinsman Cadõn Barrow.
The evidence which is wanting with regard to Arthur's battle on the Camel
comes to light on the Firth of Forth. There is reason to suppose that
tradition did not err in the fatal association of Arthur and Mordred,
though the place of the last scene was not Cornwall but Scotland. The name
Camlan, which has been freely given by later writers to the supposed
battle on the Camel, is not to be found there, nor, so far as I can
ascertain, in Cornwall.
Skene and Stuart Glennie maintain with much converging evidence that
Camlan is Camelon[16] on the river Carron, in the valley of the Forth,
where it is said are the remains of a Roman town. Here, according to
Scotch tradition, Arthur and Mordred met. We have evidence which appears
to be sufficient that Mordred was King of the Picts, or, as he is
sometimes termed, King of Scotland, and the head of a confederacy of
Picts, Scots, and Saxons, or, as some authorities have it, Picts, Scots,
and renegade Britons. With this composite army he gave battle to Arthur
and his faithful British force, in which the latter were defeated and
Arthur slain.
It is worth noting as in favour of the Scottish location of the battle
that Geoffrey, who places it on the Camel, nevertheless states Mordred's
force to have consisted of Picts and Scots. It is surely improbable that
Arthur could have been confronted in Cornwall by a great army of these
northern savages. On the Forth[17] they were numerous and much at home.
Mordred was supposed to have been the son of Llew, to whom Arthur had
given Lothian. These particulars are confirmed by the 'Chronicle of the
Scots.' It may be added that an earthwork with double lines of
circumvallation in the neighbouring valley of the Tay, now known as Barry
Hill, is designated by tradition as Mordred's Castle, not the only
instance in which testimony of this nature has been found to throw light
upon Arthurian history.
* * * * *
It is impossible to dissociate the place of Arthur's death from that of
his supposed burial. According to the well-known story which we owe to
Geoffrey of Monmouth, the king was desperately wounded on the Camel, and
thence conveyed to Glastonbury, where we must suppose he died; for there,
in confirmation of Geoffrey's account, was his grave found, or said to
have been found, after the lapse of 647 years. The circumstantial report
of the finding and identification of the grave on the spot indicated by
the story gives verisimilitude to the legend, and demands for it serious
criticism. In the first place, there is reason to believe, as I have
shown, that though there was a great battle on the Camel, Arthur was not
in it, and though he died in battle, it was not on the Camel. If Arthur
concluded his career, not on the Camel but the Forth, the question of
sepulture at Glastonbury may be dismissed as a fabrication. On the other
hand, if the burial in this place can be maintained, then we must abandon
the Scottish localisation of the last battle, and may accept the statement
of the unveracious Geoffrey that it was fought on the Cornish river. It
behoves us, therefore, to examine the Glastonbury story as one upon which
much turns. The tradition that Arthur, mortally wounded on the Camel, was
conveyed alive to Glastonbury may be at once discarded. Such a
transporting of a desperately wounded man must be regarded as
impracticable. He was within easy reach of his Cliff Castle at Tintagel
and of his fortified camp of Kelliwick (assuming this to have been Kelly
Rounds), and would probably, if moved at all, have been deposited in one
or the other. On the other hand, if he was killed outright the removal of
the body to Glastonbury by way of the Camel and the sea would be neither
impossible nor unlikely.
Glastonbury was one of the earliest seats of Christianity in this island,
and no doubt was reverenced as such in the time of Arthur. The tumulus and
the churchyard were at this time competing as receptacles for the
dead--the tumulus as a heathen, the churchyard as a Christian place of
rest. A tumulus was raised over a Saxon chief in the time, and with the
permission, of Ambrosius. Christian burial was probably practised at
Glastonbury at as early a date. Giraldus Cambrensis, together with a monk
of Glastonbury quoted by Leland, professed themselves to have been
witnesses of the opening of Arthur's grave. There are two accounts as to
the finding of this--one that it was sought for by order of Henry II., who
had learned from the British Bards that Arthur was buried between two
pyramids at Glastonbury; the other that it was found accidentally in this
situation in digging to bury a monk who had selected this spot for his
interment. The pyramids undoubtedly existed before the alleged discovery
of Arthur's grave; for they were described by William of Malmesbury in the
reign of Henry I. They displayed some inscription, apparently Saxon, and
an ecclesiastical effigy, but no mention of Arthur.