We have a check on Gawain, because Geoffrey is not the only person to mention him. William of Malmesbury, writing slightly earlier, says that the tomb of Walwenus had been found in the Welsh region of Ros (Pembrokeshire) in the time of William the Conqueror. It was 14 feet long and lay on the seashore. This is presumably connected with the (inland) site known since the late thirteenth century as Walwyn’s Castle. Buried in this tomb was ‘the noble Walwenus, who was the nephew of Arthur by his sister. He reigned in the part of Britain which is still called Walweitha (Galloway). Although a warrior most renowned for his valour, he was expelled from his kingdom by Hengist’s brother and nephew . . . but not before he compensated for his exile by causing them considerable damage. He deserves to share the praise justly given to his uncle since together they delayed for many years the destruction of their collapsing country’ (White 1997).
William’s locating of Gawain’s tomb in Pembrokeshire seems more likely than in Richborough. Assuming they both draw on a common legend, it seems unlikely that William took a tradition naming the Port of Rutupi and accidentally located it in an obscure corner of Wales, especially as he connects Gawain with Galloway. Far more likely, Geoffrey mistook or distorted a name like Ros into the only channel port beginning with R, as required by his geography of continental campaigns.
We note in passing that if Arthur’s overseas campaigns derive from myth, then Ros is a good location for a return from a western expedition, to Ireland or the otherworld.
William’s story, connecting Gawain with South Wales and the war against Hengist’s nephew and the Saxons is much more expected than Geoffrey’s wars in France. He provides two alternative endings, one that Gawain is ‘wounded by his foes and cast out in a shipwreck’, which has an affinity with his death during the amphibious assault in Geoffrey. The other, that he was killed by his fellow citizens at a public banquet, shows at least that more than one story of Gawain was in circulation. That he was already a famous Arthurian figure is proved by his appearance on the Modena archivolt.
This discussion is muddied by the presence in the Welsh legends of the king’s nephew, Gwalchmei, son of Gwyar, found in Culhwch and Olwen. In the Welsh translations of Geoffrey, this Gwalchmei ap Gwyar always replaces Gawain. This identification has problems. Gwalchmei came complete with a patronymic while Gawain had both parents named as Loth and Anna. Geoffrey makes Gawain and Modred brothers. It is certain that Gwalchmei and Medraut were not regarded in this way, as Medraut is never given the patronymic ‘ap Gwyar’.
The Emperor Lucius
Lucius decides to withdraw into Augustodunum (Autun) to await reinforcements from the Emperor Leo. He marches for Langres en route to Autun. Arthur, however, outmarches him, bypassing Langres to take up position in the valley of Siesia. The only location which almost fits the bill is Saussy, which is how Thorpe translates the name. The ensuing battle of Siesia is Geoffrey’s pièce-de-résistance, taking twice as long as the battles of Badon and Camblan put together.
The deployments of the troops are recorded. Arthur sets up his command-post and field hospital under his standard of the Golden Dragon, to the rear of the main divisions. Arthur and Lucius deliver lengthy speeches to their troops. Kay and Bedivere die in the first assault, overwhelmed by Medes and Libyans. Hoel and Gawain counter-attack at great loss. Fighting with the Emperor’s bodyguard, ‘Three other famous leaders were killed, Riddomarcus, Bloctonius and Iaginvius of Bodloan. Had these men been rulers of kingdoms, succeeding ages would have celebrated their fame, for their courage was immense’ (HRB X.10; Thorpe 1966:253).
The Britons are again forced back, but this time Arthur and his division come to their support. With his sword Caliburnus, Arthur strikes down men or horses at a single blow. Lucius joins in the combat and fate hangs in the balance, until Morvidus brings the British reserve down from the hills. Lucius is killed fighting in the midst of his men. The Romans break and are slaughtered as they flee.
Arthur spends the winter subduing the cities of the Allobroges (Geoffrey’s name for the Burgundians), before preparing to march on Rome. At this point, he receives bad news from Britain: his nephew Modred has usurped the throne. He rushes back to reclaim it.
What are we to make of this? There are lists of British commanders, some, such as Cador, Gerinus, Loth, Hoel, Gawain, Kay and Bedivere, are already familiar. Others, like Urbgennius of Bath, Cursalem of Caistor and Chinmarchocus of Treguier, are relative newcomers. These last three demonstrate how unlikely it is that Geoffrey found them in a context of fighting alongside Arthur. Shorn of their territorial epithets, they are found in the Harleian Genealogies. Urbgennius is an earlier form of Urien, and Chinmarochus is his father. Cursalem is a figure in the genealogy of neighbouring Strathclyde. It looks as if Geoffrey has again been mining non-narrative sources for names.
There are three possible explanations:
1. Geoffrey is being whimsical. The battles could be anywhere, against anyone, they just happen to be in Burgundy against the Romans.
2. The dramatic structure of his work, or narrative considerations, necessitated it.
3. External considerations suggested Burgundy as a site for the action.
The first option is contrary to Geoffrey’s methods of working. The exploits of his kings take place in locations we can usually explain in terms of geographical plausibility, etymology, archaeological deduction and regional or political bias. Arthur’s earlier campaigns combine speculation on the Historia battle-list, analogy with the wars of the Viking era, and the politics of the Anglo-Normans. Geoffrey was not able to sit down and study detailed maps to invent battle plans or likely locations. Only major towns would feature on the schematic maps of his time, not obscure places like Siesia.
Geoffrey has, moreover, only a vague grasp of where these places are. Augustodunum would seem, if we knew only Geoffrey’s text, fairly close to Mont St Michel, with the Aube somewhere between them. Langres would be en route from the Aube to Autun, with the valley of Siesia just outside. Burgundy would be a different place, south of Siesia, and nearer Rome. None of these things is true.
We have looked at the possible dramatic structure of Historia Regum Britanniae as a reason for sending Arthur to Rome. Geoffrey conceives the Lands of the Allobroges as being on the way to Rome. Brennius, king of the Allobroges by marriage, leads a combined force of Allobroges and Britons on Rome. Geoffrey intends Arthur’s conquests to involve the Allobroges and mishandles their incorporation at this point. One of the charges brought by Lucius against Arthur is that he has ‘seized the province of the Allobroges’. In fact, the Allobroges are only subdued after Arthur’s victory at Siesia. Even if Geoffrey’s narrative structure requires Arthur to follow in the footsteps of Brennius, this does not involve Autun, Langres, the Aube and Siesia. Neither possibility explains why Geoffrey has chosen these specific details of the campaign, which returns us to the suggestion that he was driven by external considerations.
Nothing we know of the life of Geoffrey of Monmouth suggests a connection with Burgundy. There is no evidence that he ever went there, nor that Walter the Archdeacon was connected to the place. Furthermore, Burgundy was not a factor in the Anarchy or the French wars of Henry I. Burgundy was on the border of France and the (Holy) Roman Empire, so Geoffrey could see it as a location for conflict between the Romans and Arthur as overlord of France, but this would not explain the exact locations chosen. They must have come to Geoffrey from a source of some sort. Whatever source he used, it is hugely unlikely that it related to the wars of King Arthur. The expeditions of Riothamus, Maximus or Constantine III, while possibly contributing to the picture, do not involve the named Burgundian locations.
One possibility is the wars of Julius Caesar. Geoffrey knew about these, writing ‘It happened, as can be read in the histories of Rome, that after he had conquered Gaul, Julius Caesar came to the sea coast of the Ruteni’ (HRB IV.1; Thorpe 1966:107) to prepare his invasion of Britain. These histories of Rome would have told Geoffrey how Caesar
defeated the Aedui near the present site of Autun. Siesia might recall Alesia, site of Caesar’s final defeat of the Gauls in the nearby lands of the Arverni.
Geoffrey’s treatment of Caesar’s wars is similar to this Arthurian material. Caesar and Arthur, for example, are the only characters to have named swords (Caesar’s is called Crocea Mors, Saffron Death) and both use them to kill with single blows. Cassibellanus fights Caesar at his last battle in a valley. Caesar arrives here after landing at Rutupi Portus and is aided by Cassibellanus’s treacherous nephew, features which will be revisited with Arthur. These similarities do not explain why Geoffrey specifically chose the locations he did. There are plenty of other places, including the Auvergne and Brittany, where Caesar fought the Gauls, which would be more appropriate for Arthur’s major confrontation.
Historically, there was in fact a battle at about the right time (Geoffrey imagines this as happening in 541) at Autun. The city and surrounding Burgundy were assaulted and taken by the sons of Clovis. These kings were the actual overlords of the lands Geoffrey has appropriated for Arthur. We can imagine that Bretons took part in this fighting, but from the meagre evidence we cannot say why this campaign in particular should have turned up in a possible Breton source book. It may have been important in eleventh-century hagiography or in the military career of a famous Breton warrior but, if so, that has not survived in any source.
The last time Arthur could possibly have fought the Romans in northern Gaul is 486, when the Roman Kingdom of Soissons under Syagrius was conquered by Clovis of the Franks. It is possible that this has lent its name to Siesia, but otherwise Geoffrey knows nothing of this kingdom or its rulers. Another remote possibility is that Geoffrey’s source is one dealing with mythical otherworld locations such as Caer Sidi and Annwfyn, and that he casts about for vaguely similar names (Siesia? Augustudunum?) to replace them.
One last possibility is that the location of Arthur’s final campaign was circumscribed by knowledge that he would end up mortally wounded in Avallon. Avallon is actually one of the major ecclesiastical centres between Autun and Langres. Geoffrey may have been working towards this location and simply have looked at other nearby cities. Avallon is practically equidistant from Langres and Autun. If Arthur were wounded in battle halfway between them and was borne away from the battlefield in the direction of Britain, he might well arrive in Avallon. If Geoffrey does have some need to end the career of Arthur near the Burgundian Avallon, however, he has to make a detour by way of a British location for Arthur’s last battle, Camblan.
Shrouded in Mystery – The End of Arthur
The only part of Geoffrey’s work which he specifies as coming from the ancient book is the war between Arthur and Modred. It is supported by the testimony of Walter the Archdeacon. Geoffrey tells us that while Arthur was away, his nephew Modred has assumed the crown of the kingdom through tyranny and is now living adulterously with Guanhuvara. Although not specifically in the source book, it is the assumed background to the rest of the episode. Later Guanhuvara flees from York on hearing of Arthur’s victories and becomes a nun at the Church of St Julius in Caerleon, ‘promising to live a chaste life’.
Arthur fights three battles against Modred, at Rutupi Portus, at Gwintonia (Winchester) and finally at Camblan, a river in Cornwall (presumably the Camel). Gualguanus is killed at the first battle. This is either because he is mentioned in the source as dying or, on the contrary, expressly because he is not among Arthur’s men at Camblan in the source. Kay and Bedivere do not make it back from the continent and we must suppose that they did not figure in the Camblan tradition. This could be because the battle was associated with Arthur and Medraut before these ‘brave men’ came on the scene. The only named heroes on Arthur’s side are Olberic, King of Norway, Aschillus King of Dacia (Denmark), who has featured briefly as a commander in the Roman war, Cador Limenic and Cassibellanus. None of the characters associated with Camlan in the Welsh sources is mentioned.
Modred’s associates are a motley crew, ‘some Christians, some pagans’. He has attracted Saxons from Germany, led by Chelric, with the promise of the lands between the Humber and Scotland, and the possessions in Kent that Vortigern ceded to Hengist and Horsa. This conveniently links the Kent-based Saxons at the start of the Historia battle-list with the Northumbrians who follow. Modred’s vassals and allies include the Saxons Elaf, Egbrict and Brunning, and the Irishmen Gillapatric, Gillasel and Gillarvus, along with unnamed Picts and Scots. These names are unattested and seem made up.
One other person is named in the section, Hiwenus, son of Urianus (Owain, son of Urien), who ‘in the wars which followed . . . became famous because of the many brave deeds which he accomplished’ (HRB IX.1; Thorpe 1966:258). He does not take part in the action and it is therefore quite likely he did not feature in the ancient book at this point.
Modred himself is described as ‘the boldest of men and always the first to launch an attack’ (HRB IX.2; Thorpe 1966:260). We have encountered him as Medraut in Annales Cambriae. In Geoffrey, his name is given in Cornish or Breton form, pointing either to a Breton ancient book or a Cornish legend locating Camblan on the Camel. Camblan is in an older form than we have in any other source.
Modred falls in the battle of Camblan, as expected, but Arthur does not. Instead, he is carried off, mortally wounded, to the isle of Avallon (Insula Avallonis), so his wounds can be attended to. As Avallon was not then a known British place-name, we have to consider Geoffrey’s use of it. This is as the place from whence Arthur’s sword Caliburnus came. If Avallon occurs in the source book, then perhaps that is an indication that the list of Arthur’s equipment shares the same provenance.
Shorn of material unlikely to derive from an earlier source, Geoffrey’s account of Camblan is very slim. This, however, is to ignore the single most important fact about it – Geoffrey knows that Camblan was the last battle, between Arthur and Modred. We have lost sight of the importance of this bare fact because we already ‘know’ that Arthur and Medraut fell at the battle of Camlann. How did Geoffrey know this?
We know about the battle of Camlann because it appears in Annales Cambriae. The Annales, however, are not a common text. Only three copies survive, only one of which, in the Harleian Manuscript, was actually in existence when Geoffrey wrote. Geoffrey incorporates no other Arthurian material from the Annales, not the idea that Arthur carried the Cross of Our Lord at the battle of Badon three days and three nights, not the fact that Camlann occurred in the same year as a great plague. He specifically contradicts the Annales’ placing of Dubricius some hundred years after Arthur.
Without the Annales or Geoffrey, our impression of the battle of Camlann would be very different. It does not feature in any other historical source. The Black Book poems give nothing about Medraut or Arthur’s fate. In both Culhwch and Olwen and the Dream of Rhonabwy, we might think that Camlan has already been fought, in the early career of Arthur. In the Dream, Arthur and Medraut are paired as adversaries at the battle, but a literal reading would be that Arthur has emerged victorious. Even the triads do not make it clear that it is the battle in which Arthur and Medraut fell. Yet Geoffrey knows this important information and we have to ask again, how did he know it?
Geoffrey obligingly answers: he knows because it is in his very ancient source book, confirmed verbally by Walter the Archdeacon. Here, we have no option but to accept him at face value. The idea is of genuine antiquity, as evidenced by its appearance in Annales Cambriae. It is arrived at independently, since it is not accompanied by any other material from the Annales. The form of the name Modred is different, pointing to a Breton origin. The spelling ‘Camblan’ is suggestive of an old manuscript form.
Geoffrey has a narrative of Camlann which does not involve any of the ‘best men in the world’. Even Arthur’s companions, Kay and Bedivere, do not accompany him. Culhwch and Olwen’s reference to a continuing feud between Arthur and Kay, so that the latter would not help him, even when his men were being killed, could indi
cate a specific tradition that Kay was absent for the last battle, but there is nothing like this relative to Bedivere. Arthur’s defeat is not brought about by the gradual whittling away of his followers, but by the indefatigable courage of his opponents. I would therefore deduce that Geoffrey’s information on Camlann comes from that earlier stratum of historical material before the accretion of superhuman champions to the side of Arthur.
The list of the ‘usual suspects’ on Modred’s side does not give us much confidence that this feature pre-dates Geoffrey. The four names of Arthur’s slain companions, however, do not raise our suspicions so readily. They do not obviously include any of the heroes we might expect to find in a roll-call of the fallen at Arthur’s last battle. Aschil and Odbricht are unknown characters. If their regional origin is in Geoffrey’s source, then this points to a post-Viking date, fine for a document contemporary with the Vatican Recension or Annales Cambriae. If the regional attributions are Geoffrey’s caprice, then the names show an impression that the battle, while essentially part of a British civil war, does involve Saxons as well. There is nothing outlandish about Geoffrey’s idea that the participants are both pagans and Christians. This could be true of an actual battle between British commanders in the early sixth century.
The two British participants offer more grounds for speculation. Neither has specifically appeared elsewhere in Geoffrey. Cador Limenic could be the same as Cador of Cornwall, last seen as a commander in the Roman Wars. His son, Constantine, succeeds Arthur as king of Britain, so we infer that something has happened to him between these two points, and death at Camblan seems a dramatically likely fate. Geoffrey may have a source where, at this point alone, Cador is given a Welsh surname.
The Reign of Arthur Page 29
