Sooo Gildas was
a Scots (Irish) monk on Lindisfarne in the 500s CE, writing about events around
his monastery that didn’t sit right with him. What does that have to do with
Arthurian legend? Here I have to get into the other well-known Arthurian
sources from Britain. I can show that the latest of them has implications not
just for the evolution of the tradition but also for the history of the region.
And I can show that Gildas may have suffered from the same meddling as other
ancient writings.
Possibly the second
best-known Arthurian source after Gildas, is Bede. Gildas and Bede both lived
in Bryneich; Bede was a “Geordie”, living most of his life in Tyne. Bede refers to the Badon battle (it’s in chapter
16). Bede also refers to Ambrosius Aurelianus, and Gildas does not. Bede
repeats the “destruction” claim. Bede does not refer to an ostium or the
Sabrina. In many places it looks as if Bede is copying from existing
manuscripts, but he does not completely support Gildas. Bede was a Saxon;
“Gildas” would have been enraged to have Bede copy from him.
Bede was a doctus,
according to a papal declaration, meaning he was formidably educated. Bede went
on the type of travels that the Breton biography claims for Gildas, and refers
to York and London in part of his history. Bede lived almost a century after Gildas
died and, in a life of study, work, and travel, would have access to material the
cloistered Gildas would not – but he does not refer to the five kings Gildas
discusses. The five kings come from a non-Saxon, Bryneich viewpoint Bede did
not have.
Next, we have
Nennius of the 800s, a Welshman. It is natural for him to use Welsh place names
and his naming of Arthur at Badon would also be natural. But he says Arthur
personally killed 940 Saxons. This sort of exaggeration is classical for oral
traditions and had as much as 300 years to develop. Nennius does not name the
Severn. If, as Henry of Huntingdon supposed, his work was actually written by
Gildas, it gives us more reason to suspect that Excidio suffered from an
interpolation, which I will get to in a moment. But the resemblance to a record
of an oral tradition, which is not present in De Excidio, doesn’t support that “Nennius”
was written by Gildas.
Finally, we
have the Annales Cambriae, from Norman England prior to the period of
the Arthurian Vulgate Cycle (Robert de Boron and his heirs). It says that there
were two battles at Badon. Morcant Bulc died at the second one. The first Badon
reference names Arthur but not the Severn, any more than Bede does. Given that
Gildas is the only one of these ancient sources that supposedly refers to the
Severn, we can imagine some later scribe with an Arthurian background (i.e.
familiar with the Annales, since Arthur is not referred to in Bede), but knowing
nothing about Bryneich, “setting Gildas straight”.
Having two
battles at Badon is an example of how oral traditions grow. It can either
represent the importance of the battle, or it can be a derived doublet to give
more “stage time” to a character, or it can be a Law of Ascents issue by adding
a casualty, and one who was well-known at that, Morcant Bulc. Welding the
northeastern Morcant Bulc into a southwestern Arthurian tradition happens when
the two cultures have assimilated, which takes centuries. We have centuries, from
Gildas’ 570 CE death to the earliest-known manuscript record of the oral tradition
in the mid-900s CE, for the Celts of the big island to remain a coherent
culture after the reign of King Alfred. That doesn’t happen if the Anglo-Saxons
wiped out the Celts of the big island; the Annales wouldn’t exist in their
current wording. They also don’t survive a universally destructive Norman
Conquest. So we have to moderate our view of the violence of the two inflows of
population or we produce an impossible situation.
And if you can’t
let me go with that, I have another fact for you. We know that the ancient compositions
we have today may differ from the originals. For example, we know that in
Josephus’ Antiquities, Book 18:65-80 is
an interpolation that supports Christianity. We know it’s an interpolation because
it uses grammar that Josephus doesn’t use in any of his other writing – a verb
form used by Thucydides. It’s good Greek, it’s just not how Josephus writes
Greek. We know that there’s an interpolation in Jewish Wars that supports
Christianity; its grammar is so faulty that Josephus would have been ashamed to
be responsible for it.
There is suspicion that Gildas I.23 contains
an interpolation.[1]
The prophecy that the Angles would rule Britain for 300 years is part of material
with an Anglo viewpoint. With his hatred of Angles, Gildas would never provide
favorable information. What is more, the “300 years” has two problems. If the starting
point is Gildas’ period, the 300 years ends in the 900s, after the death of
Anglo-Saxon Christian king Alfred.
If the starting point is the Augustinian
mission, as Woolf discusses, the prophecy dates after “Gildas” died about 570,
so, ending in the 800s CE. This could show when the Breton biography was written,
and the Breton monastery might be responsible for such an interpolation to
Gildas. But they wouldn’t have known anything about Bryneich or its five lords;
the Rhuys biography doesn’t even refer to the Angles. So I doubt they were
responsible for whatever interpolations there might be.
By the way, Augustine had to work alone to
convert the Anglo-Saxons. The Welsh clergy wouldn’t help him. By itself this
shows that Celtic culture still ruled in the big island instead of being destroyed.
Now, if we’re talking about the endpoint
of Anglo domination, that came when the Norse (and Danes) took over, with their
destruction of Lindisfarne. This happened in the 800s, a chronological
viewpoint from which the 300 years works, but it also requires a favorable view
of Anglos that the Norse would not have, including the Normans who invaded
Britain later.
Woolf shows that his supposed
interpolation has unusual vocabulary compared to the rest of “Gildas”. This is
the same issue as Josephus. Taking out this interpolation leaves no information
gaps in the surrounding text. If there’s one interpolation to Gildas, another
much shorter one is possible to bring the “Sabrina” into it.
So the four main sources of Arthurianism
differ in age, content, and accuracy. The features of the Annales Cambriae give
them the best chance of being a record of a genuine British oral tradition,
assimilating the southwestern and northeastern cultures. They support Augustine’s
evidence that the Celtic substrate was in charge after the arrival of the
Anglo-Saxons, and made itself felt after the reign of King Alfred. Gildas,
Bede, and Nennius make a poor showing as Arthurian sources, compared to the
Annales, and the latter two undercut Gildas’ reference to Sabrina – which in
any case may be an interpolation. So now what about modern evidence?
[1] Woolf, Alex. An
Interpolation In the Text of Gildas's De Excidio Britanniae 2002, Peritia https://www.academia.edu/313152/An_Interpolation_In_the_Text_of_Gildass_De_Excidio_Britanniae
No comments:
Post a Comment