{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_41783/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_41783","id":"gutenberg_41783","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41783","summary":null,"tags":["Arthur, King -- Homes and haunts -- England -- Cornwall (County)","Category: History - British","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Cornwall (England : County) -- Antiquities, Celtic"],"text":"Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this\n      file which includes the original illustrations.\n      See 41783-h.htm or 41783-h.zip:\n      (https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/41783/pg41783-images.html)\n      or\n      (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/41783/41783-h.zip)\n\n\n      Images of the original pages are available through\n      Internet Archive. See\n      http://archive.org/details/cu31924074466586\n\n\n\n\n\nKING ARTHUR IN CORNWALL\n\nby\n\nW. HOWSHIP DICKINSON, M.D.\n\nHonorary Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nLongmans, Green, and Co.\n39 Paternoster Row, London\nNew York and Bombay\n1900\nAll rights reserved\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThe following pages present an attempt to bring together what may be\naccepted with regard to the personality and actual life of King Arthur,\nwhile putting aside everything that is obviously or probably fabulous. I\nhave endeavoured to give due weight to the evidence, both positive and\nnegative, rather than to work up to a pre-determined conclusion. With\nregard to the evidence of a positive kind, if so it may be called, I have\ngiven especial weight to the details of topography, more particularly in\nCornwall, with the Arthurian localities of which I happen to be more\nfamiliar than with those elsewhere.\n\nThe fame of Arthur as expressed by the association of his name with places\nis greater than that of any other personage save one who can claim this\nsort of connection with our island. On this showing, Julius C\u00e6sar and\nOliver Cromwell sink into insignificance as compared with the Cornish\nChief. Only the Devil is more often mentioned in local association than\nArthur. That name, indeed, is almost ubiquitous, since it is to be found\nwherever local peculiarities exist which were not explicable to our\nforefathers save by infernal agency. The Devil's Dyke, The Devil's Bridge,\nthe Devil's Jumps, the Devil's Frying Pan, the Devil's Post-Office, the\nDevil's Punch-Bowl, are a few instances among many. Next to the Devil in\nbestowing names on localities comes Arthur. But the two names are\ndistributed in a very different fashion: that of the Devil is scattered\nimpartially, being placed at random wherever thought suitable; that of\nArthur is limited to certain districts in which according to history or\ntradition the hero lived or moved. This dissemination and limitation of\nthe name must have some origin, and may be most obviously and reasonably\nexplained by connecting them with an individual to whom it actually\nbelonged. I hold Arthur to have been as real a person as C\u00e6sar or\nCromwell, though less advantageously circumstanced for the recording of\nhis deeds. The British Chief lived in the dark interval between two\ncivilisations, between the departure of the Romans from the island and\nthe establishment of the Saxon polity. The west and the north, which were\nthe seats of his exploits, were remote from what had been the centres of\nRoman learning, and it may be presumed that Arthur's fighting men were\nonly less illiterate than the Saxons with whom they contended. There may\nhave been priests among them, for Christianity had already reached Ireland\nand touched the western extremity of England, but the priests, if priests\nthere were, were probably more religious than literate. There was no\nXenophon in Arthur's army, and perhaps no one who could read or write. No\nmanuscript has come down to us from Arthur's time and place, though we\nhave reason to believe that among his contemporaries and immediate\nsuccessors were some who could compose and others who could learn, recite,\nand remember with advantages the deeds of a leader who made an impression\non his countrymen which will probably never be obliterated. What was\ncrystallised in metre was easily remembered and handed down with something\napproaching to verbal accuracy. The narratives not so expressed gathered\nexaggeration as they went on, until in the course of time both the facts\nand the fiction acquired the permanence of writing. Oral tradition is not\nto be ignored; indeed, a large proportion of ancient history must have had\nthis origin.\n\nPutting aside obvious and inevitable exaggerations, the general outlines\nof Arthur's story are consistent with historic probability and with his\ngreat fame, which cannot be otherwise explained; while, as will presently\nbe seen, many details are strikingly confirmed by the correspondence of\nthe topography with the traditions.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have not attempted to construct a biography of Arthur, nor even to\narrange in chronological sequence the deeds attributed to him and the\ncircumstances which, according to tradition, preceded his birth. So far as\nI have used the order of time, it has had to do with the records to which\nI have referred rather than with the events of which I have made mention.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n                                                                      PAGE\n\n    I. INTRODUCTORY                                                      1\n\n   II. TRADITIONS AND HISTORY BEARING UPON THE LIFE OF ARTHUR           10\n\n  III. ARTHUR'S LAST BATTLE--THE DOUBTS WHICH SURROUND HIS PLACE\n       OF BURIAL                                                        31\n\n   IV. TOPOGRAPHICAL ASSOCIATIONS                                       49\n\n    V. CONCLUSIONS                                                      78\n\n\n\n\nILLUSTRATIONS\n\n\n  FIGURE                                                              PAGE\n\n  1. TINTAGEL CASTLE AS REPRESENTED BY NORDEN, 1584-1600                62\n\n  2. TINTAGEL CASTLE, FROM THE 25-INCH ORDNANCE MAP                     63\n\n  3. DAMELIOCK CASTLE, REPRODUCED FROM THE 25-INCH ORDNANCE MAP         69\n\n  4. CASTLE KILLIBURY, FROM THE 25-INCH ORDNANCE MAP                    73\n\n  5. CARDINHAM CASTLE, FROM THE 25-INCH ORDNANCE MAP                    76\n\n\n\n\nKING ARTHUR IN CORNWALL\n\n\n\n\nI\n\nINTRODUCTORY\n\n\n_Ex nihilo nihil fit._ For the story of King Arthur there must be some\nfoundation, however the primary facts may have been distorted and\nexaggerated. Two rules may be safely laid down with regard to tradition:\nit usually has some truth to rest upon; that truth is not accurately\npresented to us, but has been altered and probably magnified by verbal\ntransmission. We may believe that Troy was besieged and captured by the\nGreeks, though we hesitate to accept the many instances of divine\nintervention which the siege afforded; we may believe that Ulysses met\nwith many adventures at sea, though we may have our doubts concerning the\nSirens and Polyphemus. The creative power of man's mind is small; he is\nmore ready to embellish than to invent. We may give to tradition a\ncredence as to something which has an origin in fact, though it is not\nalways easy or possible to separate that fact from the superstructure by\nwhich it has been overlaid. Tradition, first oral and latterly written,\npointed to the grave of Agamemnon: a skeleton with a gold mask was found\nthere, after the lapse of 3,000 years, with surroundings which appeared to\nindicate that it was that of the King of Men. Tradition preserved the\nmemory of a church at Perranzabuloe which was buried in sand and lost to\nview--some say in the 8th or 9th century--certainly at a remote period of\nEnglish history. In the year 1835 a great storm shifted the sand and\nexposed the minute archaic edifice where tradition had placed it, and\nwhere it had been hidden for we cannot say how many centuries.\n\nA tradition came down from Druidical to recent times to the effect that\nnear the Cheesewring in Cornwall the Arch-Druid had his seat, and there\ndispensed wine to hunters out of a gold cup, which, like the widow's\ncruse, was inexhaustible. In the year 1837 a gold cup was found in\nRillaton Barrow, within a quarter of a mile of the supposed seat of the\nDruid. This cup was decided by arch\u00e6ologists to belong to the Bronze\nAge.[1]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn looking at the legend of King Arthur one is immediately struck with its\nwide distribution. Originally of Celtic origin, it has taken root in\ncertain localities, and held its place in them notwithstanding that the\npeople among whom it originated have suffered admixture or even been\nentirely replaced by other races. There are four groups of what are called\n'Arthurian localities'--localities in which the name 'Arthur' is\nfrequently used in connection with places or structures, or in which some\nname or tradition is retained which connects Arthur with them. Some of the\ndesignations referred to are certainly ancient, some of doubtful\nantiquity, some obviously modern.\n\nThe four groups of 'Arthurian localities' are:--\n\n1. In North Cornwall, from Boscastle to Wadebridge. This is the most\ninteresting, and the traditions belonging to it are the most explicit, and\nrelate not only to Arthur's life, but to events which preceded it.\n\nTo mention some of the Arthurian names in Cornwall, and the names of\nplaces with which Arthur is traditionally connected, we find King Arthur's\nCastle, the famous stronghold at Tintagel, where we may believe that he\nwas born; Damelioc, whereby hangs a tale; and Kelly Rounds, which, if I am\ncorrect in identifying it with Kelliwic, has also a place in Arthurian\nlore. Allusive names without circumstance are numerous in the same\ndistrict. To mention some, we have King Arthur's Hall, Hunting Seat, Bed,\nQuoit, Cups and Saucers, Tomb, and Grave. I may add Pentargon, which Mr.\nBaring-Gould interprets as 'Arthur's Head.' Many of these designations\ndeclare nothing more than the prevalence of the name in a certain district\nand the readiness of our ancestors to apply it indiscriminately. 'Arthur's\nTomb' bears the name of Latinus, but is assigned to Arthur because he was\nerroneously thought to have been killed in the vicinity, and the\ninscription is difficult to be read. (See page 33). 'Arthur's Grave' is a\nbarrow also called the 'Giant's Grave,' of which the occupant is unknown.\n'Arthur's Quoit' is the top stone of a cromlech which has no probable\nrelation to King Arthur, excepting that it is in Tintagel. 'Arthur's Cups\nand Saucers' are excavations made by weather in Tintagel Head. These bare\nnames prove nothing beyond the vague retention of a memory in the district\nto which they relate, but so much they may be held to indicate. The names\nwhich are associated with traditions are more suggestive and will receive\nfurther consideration.\n\n2. In Britanny, probably a mere offshoot from Cornwall--Britanny and\nCornwall being closely connected geographically and by identity of race.\nAs there is no reason to suppose that Arthur was ever in Gaul, I do not\npropose to dwell upon the French localisation of the Arthurian legend, nor\nhave I the necessary local knowledge.\n\n3. In Wales, chiefly in the south, with Caerleon-upon-Usk as a centre, but\ninvolving the north to a lesser extent. I may touch briefly upon the Welsh\nlocalisations, though it is not my purpose to dwell upon them in detail.\nThe Welsh legends or traditions are more circumstantial than those I\nshall presently refer to as Scottish or Cumbrian. Caerleon-upon-Usk was\nknown as the City of Legions, because in the time of the Roman supremacy a\nlegion (the Second Augustan) was stationed there. It was an Archiepiscopal\nSee, and as such was held by Dubricius, who plays a prominent part in\nArthurian mythology. According to Nennius, one of Arthur's battles was\nfought here. Welsh names, local and personal, abound in Arthurian\nliterature, and the connection of Arthur with South Wales was accepted by\nboth Hume and Gibbon as sufficient to warrant them in regarding him as a\nprince of the Silures. As will presently be seen, I have not adopted this\nhypothesis.\n\n4. In Scotland and the North of England, reaching from north of Edinburgh\nto south of Carlisle, and comprising the Lowlands and Cumberland. Cornwall\nand Wales belong to what Sir William Harcourt once called 'the Celtic\nfringe'; in the Lowlands and Cumberland the Celt has been superseded by\nother races, who have taken, together with his territory, some\nreminiscence of his traditions. In the north Arthurian names are more\nwidely scattered than anywhere else, though there is an absence of the\ndetails which connect the Cornish localities with the personality of\nArthur. Mr. Skene in his 'Four Ancient Books of Wales,'[2] a work to which\nI owe much, has discussed with learning the military career of Arthur, and\nshown that there is reason to believe that many of his battles took place\nin the north, including that in which he met his end. Mr. Stuart Glennie\nhas followed on the same side, in the endeavour to prove that the north\nwas 'the historical birthland of the Arthurian tradition.' I venture to\nthink, as will presently be seen, that there is satisfying evidence that\nScotland was the scene of the later events of Arthur's life and probably\nof his death.\n\nThe Arthurian district of the north reaches from Penrith to Strathmore,\nand has supplied Mr. Skene and Mr. Stuart Glennie with a large number of\nArthurian names. Arthur's Seat occurs three times, Arthur's Round Table\ntwice; besides which we have Arthurstone, Arthur's O'on (oven), Arthur's\nChair, Camp, Lee, Fountain, Hill, Tomb. There are also to be found\nMerlin's Fountain, Merlin's Grave, Mordred's Castle, and Camlan or\nCamelon. The local association of Mordred and Camlan is of especial\ninterest; for Camlan, wherever it be, is the name given in Arthurian\nliterature to Arthur's last battle. Whether this is to be placed in\nScotland or in Cornwall is a question which will receive further\nconsideration. I have no doubt that this list of Scottish place-names\nwhich refer to Arthur might be considerably increased. Ben Arthur is to be\nfound at the head of Loch Long, and Dumbarton Castle was known in the time\nof David II. as Castrum Arthuri, near which, according to Mr. Skene's\nreading, occurred Arthur's ninth battle. Many of these names may be purely\nfanciful--applied, we know not how recently, to the places they denote;\nbut at any rate it may be regarded as probable that someone, presumably a\nCeltic chieftain (for the word 'Arthur' is of Celtic origin), left the\nmemory of the name, if of little else, widely scattered over Scotland and\nthe North of England.\n\nIn addition to the localisation of Arthurian names it will presently be\nseen that many, or I may say most, of the battles attributed to Arthur,\nincluding that in which he died, have been placed in this district. The\nconclusion is not to be avoided that at some remote time, imperfectly\npresented to us by history, one Arthur was a prominent person in the south\nof Scotland and the north of England, left his name widely scattered in\nthe Lowlands, and fought many battles hereabouts.\n\n\n\n\nII\n\nTRADITIONS AND HISTORY BEARING UPON THE LIFE OF ARTHUR\n\n\nApart from the evidence of names, we may inquire what is to be found in\nthe way of history or circumstantial tradition.\n\nArthur has been regarded as a somewhat shadowy character; it has even been\ndoubted whether he was not wholly imaginary. Milton[3] thus expresses his\nuncertainty: 'Who Arthur was, and whether any such person reigned in\nBritain, hath been doubted heretofore, and may again with good reason.' It\nis said that Tennyson, who has partaken of Arthur's immortality, doubted\nhis existence; and so much has the Arthurian story been overlaid with\nromance that it is no easy matter to discover the historical facts which\nare concealed under the superstructure of fiction.\n\nSo much has the story of Arthur been magnified and embellished by the\nromancers of the twelfth and subsequent centuries, so much has it been\nglorified by impossible details and inflated by obvious anachronisms,[4]\nthat we cannot wonder that the whole tale was distrusted where there was\nso much reason for rejecting the greater part. The later Arthurian story\npresents conditions rather befitting the Black Prince than the British\nking. To get to the foundations, we must dig below the superstructure,\nwhich is mostly of French origin, and examine the records, scanty though\nthey be, which belong to Arthur's country and as nearly as may be to his\ntime. The ancient literature of Cornwall, if there ever was any, has\nperished with its language, but there remains much of that of Wales, some\ngoing back possibly to the time of Arthur, probably to the century in\nwhich he lived. Some of the Triads and some of the songs of the bards are\nconfidently believed to have been handed down from the sixth century,\nthough we possess no manuscripts which have an earlier date than the\ntwelfth. Among these survivals are many allusions to Arthur, mentioning\nhim by name and referring to him as a fighting man and a leader, and more\nthan one associating him with Cornwall, and with a particular earthwork\nwhich, I venture to think, can still be identified. One of these writings\nis entitled 'Triads of Arthur and His Warriors,'[5] and is thus\ntranslated:\n\n    Arthur the chief lord at Kelliwic in Cornwall, and Bishop Betwine the\n    chief Bishop, and Caradawe Vreichvras the chief elder.\n\nThis is referred to by Dr. Guest[6] as 'a poem of the sixth century, whose\ngenuineness no scholar has ever doubted.'[7] The Triads do not deal with\nnarrative; their purpose is served when three names are linked together.\nThe mention of Cornwall in connection with Arthur may be taken to indicate\nthat he was a Cornish rather than a Welsh potentate; while that of\nKelliwic, as will presently be shown, is of especial interest as\nindicating the locality to which he belonged. The 'Black Book of\nCaermarthen' contains a poem of somewhat uncertain date and authorship, in\nwhich the same place is referred to in connection with Arthur:\n\n    he killed every third person\n  When Celli was lost.\n\nCelli is evidently the place elsewhere referred to as Celliwig, another\nform of the name Kelliwic. The same 'Black Book' gives a poem relating to\nGeraint, who was killed in the course of it. Arthur was there, and\nattracted the notice and commendation of the author:--\n\n  In Llongborth I saw Arthur,\n  And brave men who hewed with steel,\n  Emperor and conductor of the toil.\n\nI presume that Llongborth is a place elsewhere spoken of as Longporth, and\nbelieved to be Portsmouth; and the battle referred to, one between Arthur\nand Cerdric.\n\nThe same manuscript gives a poem entitled 'The Verses of the Graves.' Many\ngraves are mentioned which are not to the present purpose; that of Arthur\nis referred to as unknown in the following line:--\n\n  A mystery to the world the grave of Arthur.\n\nTaliessin was a Welsh bard who, among others, is assigned to the sixth\ncentury. He refers to Arthur frequently as the Guledig--a term, according\nto Skene, equivalent to Ruler or Imperator. That Arthur was not Imperator\nof all Britain will presently appear; that he held some position of\nsupremacy in the west may well be believed. Taliessin refers to Arthur\nfrequently, once as 'Arthur the blessed':--\n\n        on the face of battle,\n  Upon him a restless activity.\n\nThe same poet describes with much repetition a certain expedition, of\nwhich one stanza may serve as a sufficient sample:--\n\n  And when we went with Arthur, a splendid labour,\n  Except seven none returned from Caer Vedwyd.\n\nThe same poet alludes to 'the steed of Arthur' in a poem which enumerates\nmemorable horses. In the 'Book of Aneurin,' a Welsh poet who belonged, as\nit is thought, to the sixth century, Arthur is made use of as a standard\nof comparison. A certain warrior is thus referred to:--\n\n            He was an Arthur\n  In the midst of the exhausting conflict.[8]\n\nFurther quotations from similar sources might be brought together, but\nenough have been adduced to show that the name of Arthur was so widely\ncelebrated by the Welsh bards, and was so connected by them with place and\ncircumstance, that it is not possible to doubt that the traditions had\nreference to a real person. Whether any of the bardic effusions which have\ncome down to us are correctly assigned to the sixth century, as Welsh\nscholars believe, I am not competent to decide. Many of them are obviously\nof later date; but if we may accept what is generally believed, we must\nattribute some of these poetic remnants to a time when Arthur was a recent\nmemory, and give credence to them as at least founded on fact. By the\nbards Arthur was represented as a military chief paramount in the country\nto which their knowledge extended; as a soldier of exceptional activity,\nand one who attracted the admiration of those who fought under him; as\nconcerned in a variety of fights in a variety of places, most of which are\nnot now to be exactly identified, but one of which was Kelliwic, a place\nof strength which will receive further notice; and as resembling another\ngreat leader in the invincible obscurity which shrouded his place of rest.\n'In the lost battle borne down by the flying,' his sepulchre may have been\nthe maws of kites.\n\nFrom the time of the bards--not to limit that period to the sixth\ncentury--until the ninth century no records concerning King Arthur have\ncome down to us. It is more likely that some were written, utilised, and\nlost, than that the historian of the ninth century was guided only by\noral tradition. The earliest connected history of Arthur, though, as has\nbeen seen, this by no means contains the earliest mention of him, is that\nof Nennius, a Briton who, according to his own statement, wrote in the\nyear 858, and concludes his history in the time of the 'Heptarchy.' Thus\nthree centuries elapsed between the supposed death of Arthur in 542 and\nany collected record of his doings which is still extant. This interval,\nhowever, was not barren of Arthurian lore, for we have derived from it, as\nI have shown, a sufficiency of fragments and allusions to certify to the\nexistence of Arthur, to mark his position as 'Dux Bellorum,' to present\nhim in his fighting character, and in more than one instance to associate\nhim with places which can still be identified.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAs against the positive testimony of the Bards we have a certain amount of\nnegative evidence to which due weight must be attached, though the\nnegation may be held to apply not so much to the existence of Arthur as a\nchieftain in the west as to the general supremacy assigned to him by\nlater writers and popular tradition as King of Britain, Comes Britanni\u00e6,\nlord of the whole country comprising the 'Saxon shore' as well as the\nremote districts of the west and north. Proceeding in chronological order,\nthe first historical record (for the bardic fragments can scarcely be so\ntermed) relating to 'Britain's Isle and Arthur's days' is that of Gildas,\na British priest of reforming tendencies, who was born, according to his\nown statement, in the year of the famous battle of Badon Hill, or Mons\nBadonicus, and received in consequence the addition of Badonicus to his\nname. This battle, which was fought in the year 520, or, according to\nanother reckoning, 516, was connected in later times with Arthur, and\nregarded as his crowning victory. If Gildas was born in the year of Badon\nHill, he must, supposing we accept the date 520 for that engagement, have\nbeen twenty-two years old at the time assigned by tradition to Arthur's\nlast battle. Yet Gildas makes no mention of Arthur, though he refers by\nname to Ambrosius as the successful leader of the Britons against the\nSaxons at this epoch. If, as there is reason to believe, Scotland was the\nscene of the latter part of Arthur's career and of his death, it is the\nless remarkable that he should have escaped mention by Gildas, who\napparently belonged to the south of England, for he is known to have spent\npart of his time at Glastonbury. Similar negative evidence is provided by\nthe Venerable Bede, who lived nearer to the place of Arthur's exploits\nthan did Gildas, though he was more remote from them in time. Bede was a\nNorthumbrian priest in the time of the 'Heptarchy.' He was born in 673 and\ndied in 735. As a writer on ecclesiastical history, it is remarkable that\nhe found no place for Arthur as a Christian champion. Bede, who closely\nfollows Gildas, mentions only Ambrosius. I may venture to quote from the\n'Ecclesiastical History' the passage which refers to Ambrosius, from which\nit will be seen that this historian does not explicitly attribute the\nvictory of Badon Hill to Ambrosius, though his words have been thought to\nbear that signification. 'Under him' (Ambrosius) 'the Britons revived and,\noffering battle to the victors, by the help of God came off victorious.\nFrom that day, sometimes the natives, and sometimes their enemies,\nprevailed, till the year of the siege of Baddesdown Hill, when they made\nno small slaughter of those invaders.' Putting Badon Hill aside, there\nare other battles, which will be enumerated in due course, of which Arthur\nhas the sole credit, which might have been expected to have drawn the\nattention of the priest to the hero had he been all that later chronicles\nrepresent.\n\nHere is a difficulty which cannot be ignored; and which consists not so\nmuch of conflicting testimony as of testimony conflicting with the absence\nof testimony. In such a case it is probable that more weight should be\nattached to positive evidence than to negative. The ignoring of Arthur by\nGildas and Bede, and as I shall presently show by the 'Saxon Chronicle,'\nmay imply no more than that he held no such position as would have caused\nhim to be mentioned by the British writers, who named no one but the\ncommander-in-chief, and that the field of his activity did not bring him\nunder the notice of the Saxon chroniclers, who took no cognizance of what\nwent on at this time in the west. The two British writers, whose notice of\nthe wars of the Saxon invasion is confined to the briefest epitome,\nmention no leader on either side but Ambrosius. There must have been\nothers, of whom Arthur may have been one. Arthur was never, like\nVortigern, King of Britain, or, like Ambrosius, commander-in-chief of the\nBritish forces: he had no concern with the 'Saxon shore'; he was, as we\nare frequently told, Guledig, or Imperator, but his authority must have\nbeen limited to the west and north.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBetween the history of Bede and that of Nennius, the Arthurian legend\nappears to have taken tangible shape, and by the later historian was\nwritten in a connected though condensed form. If, as is probable, Nennius\nwas guided by earlier manuscripts, they have perished or not come to\nlight. Little is known of this writer. His 'Historia Britonum' is said to\nhave been edited by Mark the Hermit in the tenth century. According to his\nown statement, Nennius, who was apparently a Briton and a priest, wrote\nhis history in the year 858. It concludes with the battle of Cocboy (or\nMaserfield), between two kings of the 'Heptarchy' in the year 642.\nImportance (as will presently be seen) is to be attached to the date of\nthis conclusion. Nennius in the course of his history deals with the\nconflicts between the Britons and Saxons after the death of Hengist, and\nintroduces us to Arthur in these words:--\n\n'Then it was that the magnanimous Arthur, with all the kings and military\nforce of Britain, fought against the Saxons. And although there were many\nmore noble than himself, yet he was twelve times chosen their commander\nand was as often conqueror. The first battle in which he was engaged was\nat the mouth of the river Gleni. The second, third, fourth and fifth were\non another river, by the Britons called Duglas, in the region Linuis. The\nsixth on the river Bassas. The seventh in the wood Celidon, which the\nBritons call Cat Coit Celidon. The eighth was near Gurnion Castle, where\nArthur bore the image of the Holy Virgin, mother of God, upon his\nshoulders, and through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy\nMary put the Saxons to flight, and pursued them the whole day with great\nslaughter. The ninth was at the City of Legion which is called Cair Lion.\nThe tenth was on the banks of the river Trat Treuroit. The eleventh was in\nthe mountain Breguoin, which we call Cat Bregion. The twelfth was a most\nsevere contest, where Arthur penetrated to the hill of Badon. In this\nengagement nine hundred and forty fell by his hand alone, no one but the\nLord affording him assistance.'[9] It is worth noting that a later writer,\nGeoffrey of Monmouth, tells a story with regard to the battle of Badon\nHill resembling that which Nennius attaches to that of Gurnion Castle.\nArthur had a picture of the Virgin painted on his shield, and with his own\nhand and his sword Caliburn slew 470 men; Giraldus Cambrensis explains\nthat the picture was on the inside of the shield, so that Arthur might\nkiss it without inconvenience.\n\nThese battles are indicated by Nennius only by their localities, without\nmention of the chiefs to whom Arthur was opposed. It is believed that\nCerdric was prominent in this capacity: he may have been so in the south,\nbut we find no evidence that this commander ever got far enough north to\ntake part in the majority of the fights of which Nennius is the historian\nand Arthur the hero. The river Gleni has been thought to be the Glen in\nAyrshire; by others to be a river of the same name, a tributary of the\nTill in Northumberland. The Duglas, or Dubglass, has been supposed to be\nthe Dunglas, which forms the southern boundary of Lothian; by others one\nof the rivers in Scotland which bears the name of Douglas; by others to be\nthe Duglas in Lancashire. The wood Celidon may be the Caledonian Forest or\nEnglewood in Cumberland. Gurnion Castle is supposed by some to have been a\nRoman station near Yarmouth, by Skene to be one near Lammermoor. The City\nof Legion or Cair Lion, where the ninth battle was said to have been\nfought, should be Caerleon-upon-Usk, though this position does not\ncorrespond with that of the other contests, and on this and other grounds\nmust be held in doubt. Giles supposes Cair Lion to have been Exeter. The\nriver Trat Treuroit, on which was the tenth battle, cannot be\nsatisfactorily located. The eleventh battle was apparently fought at\nEdinburgh, not against the Saxons but the Picts. Cadbury in Somersetshire,\naccording to another hypothesis, has also been assigned as the place of\nthis battle. The famous twelfth battle, which was between the British and\nSaxons, and resulted in the taking of Mons Badonicus or Badon Hill, has\nbeen placed at Bannesdown near Bath, at Badbury in Dorsetshire, and at\nBouden Hill in Linlithgowshire. This great battle, whatever may be the\ndoubts as to its position, stands out as an indubitable historical fact,\nthough Gildas and Bede have occasioned a certain ambiguity between Arthur\nand Ambrosius in regard to it. If, as is believed, Ambrosius died, whether\nby sword or poison, in 508, and Mons Badonicus was fought in 520, we may\ndisconnect Ambrosius from this battle and give the sole credit of it to\nArthur. The opponent of Arthur on this occasion was, according to evidence\nand probability, Cerdric, who had landed at the mouth of the Itchen in\n495, defeated Natanleod near Netley in 508; and was himself defeated at\nBadon Hill in 520.[10] If these statements be accepted, as it seems they\nshould be, we can scarcely place Mons Badonicus in Scotland, whither\nCerdric, so far as we know, never went. He was probably sufficiently\noccupied at this time in establishing his kingdom of Wessex. It is\npossible that at Badon Hill Arthur and Cerdric may have met, not for the\nfirst time, for a bardic fragment to which I have referred (see page 14)\nrepresents Arthur as fighting, probably with Cerdric, at Llongporth or\nPortsmouth. English, as distinguished from Scottish, historians concur in\nplacing Badon Hill in the south. Geoffrey says that the battle was near\nBath (not that this is by any means conclusive); Bannesdown has been\ngenerally accepted as its situation, though Dr. Guest prefers to place it\nat Badbury in Dorsetshire. At any rate, we must believe that it took place\nin the southwest and within stroke of Cerdric. Amid much that is obscure,\nthis battle, as between the British and Saxons and Arthur and Cerdric,\npresents itself as a sort of anchorage in a sea of doubt.\n\nWe may look back upon the preceding battles having regard to the\npresumption that in 520 Arthur was in the south of England. Of these\nbattles, eleven in number, we have no exact knowledge as to either time or\nplace. With regard to three of them we cannot form any reasonable\nconjecture. Of the remaining eight each has more than one position\nhypothetically assigned to it--always one in the lowlands of Scotland,\nwhere Arthurian names most abound, another generally in the north of\nEngland. It would be vain to pretend that we know enough of the\nparticulars of the invasion to give us more than vague guidance as to the\nmovements of Arthur. It may be supposed that in his time the Angles were\npenetrating the island by the Humber and the Forth, and it is possible\nthat he may have been concerned in the fighting which ensued. Manifestly\nhe obtained great fame in the north, though we do not know when. Between\nthe battle of Badon Hill in 520 and Camlan in 542 we are in absolute\ndarkness as to his whereabouts. We may presume that he was in the south of\nEngland in 520 and in Scotland in 542; between the two dates there is room\nfor conjecture and for much fighting. If we could adapt the traditions to\nprobability, we should suppose that the Scotch battles took place after,\nand not before, Badon Hill; that in the early part of his career Arthur\nwas at war with Cerdric and the Saxons of Wessex, in the later part with\nthe Angles of the north and possibly with the Picts. But if we accept the\nlist of battles as given by Nennius, and in the order in which he places\nthem, we must believe that Arthur went north before Badon Hill[11] and\nreturned to fight there, for all the little evidence we have indicates\nthat some at least of the battles which this historian records were in\nScotland. If this be so, Arthur must have gone north again to conclude his\ncareer at Camlan, and thus must have made more than one Scotch campaign,\nto the multiplication of Arthurian names.[12]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe 'Saxon Chronicle,' which gives a detailed account of the battles in\nKent, Sussex, and Hampshire, makes no mention of any in the west or north,\nor of Arthur. The 'Saxon Chronicle' is an apparently truthful, if somewhat\nbald, history. It mentions Vortigern as King of Britain and the opponent\nof Hengist, it names Natanleod, Commail, Condida and Farinmail as British\nkings who were defeated and slain; but neither Arthur nor Ambrosius find\nplace in this record. It has been supposed that Natanleod, who was killed,\ntogether with five thousand men, by Cerdric at Netley in the year 508,\nwas no other than Ambrosius, but I have not been able to find the evidence\non which this theory rests; and there is another tradition with regard to\nthe death of Ambrosius, namely, that he was poisoned in the same year by a\nSaxon monk. The silence of the Chronicle, if so it be regarded, as to\nAmbrosius throws no doubt upon his existence; and as to Arthur, though it\nmay indicate that he had no position of national supremacy in the east and\nsouth, it goes for nothing as touching the west and north, of which this\nrecord takes no cognizance.\n\nThe fame of Arthur may have been, or rather must have been, founded upon\nhis deeds, but the vast superstructure raised on that foundation is to be\nattributed to the close association between the branches of the Celtic\nrace in Cornwall, Wales and Britanny. The fame of Arthur, once established\namong the Welsh Bards and the Romancers of Britanny, easily lent itself to\nexaggeration and attracted to itself much that was due to others or was\npurely imaginary.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have called Geoffrey of Monmouth an imaginative writer: it may admit of\nquestion whether he should be termed imaginative or credulous. He was an\nindiscriminate collector of Arthurian legends, some of which may contain a\nmodicum of truth, while others are wholly false. Of the latter variety\nArthur, according to Geoffrey, conquers Ireland, Iceland and the Orkneys,\nsubdues Norway, Dacia, Aquitaine and Gaul, bestows Normandy upon Bedver\nthe butler, and establishes his court in Paris. He was crossing the Alps\nto attack Rome when he was recalled by the treachery of Mordred, to\nconclude his career on the Camel. Such inventions savour more of the\ntwelfth century than the sixth, and mark Geoffrey as one whose statements\nare not to be accepted without concurrent testimony.\n\nSo overloaded is the story of Arthur with fiction or romance that it is\ndifficult or impossible to discern the truth that must necessarily be at\nthe bottom of it. The more remote are the Arthurian writings from the\nArthurian epoch, the more voluminous, the more circumstantial, and the\nmore obviously superadditional, they become. But there must necessarily be\na root under all this efflorescence, the presence of which is clearly\nindicated, though it cannot be fully exposed to view.\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\nARTHUR'S LAST BATTLE--THE DOUBTS WHICH SURROUND HIS PLACE OF BURIAL\n\n\nThe last battle attributed to Arthur has obtained more prominence than the\nmost famous battles of antiquity, has been connected with its supposed\nplace by geographical particulars, has been enriched with romantic detail,\nmade the subject of poetry, and so much glorified in English literature\nfrom Geoffrey to Tennyson, that it seems like sacrilege to hint that the\nonly fight on the Camel of which we have sure information, took place long\nafter Arthur's death; and that if he and Mordred encountered, as there is\nreason to believe they did, the place of that event was not Cornwall but\nScotland.\n\nThe fatal battle of Camlan, as it is called, which is assigned to the year\n542, in which Mordred is supposed to have been slain and Arthur mortally\nwounded, is stated by Geoffrey, and generally believed, to have taken\nplace on the Camel. There was undoubtedly a great battle on this river,\nnear Camelford, at some remote time, and its position seems to be exactly\nindicated by a bridge which still bears the name of Slaughter Bridge, or\nBloody Bridge. Near the bridge, close to the river, is an inscribed\nsepulchral stone, obviously of great antiquity, which is held in repute in\nthe neighbourhood as marking the grave of King Arthur.\n\nThe position is a likely one to have been chosen by an army on the\ndefensive. The stream, which was probably larger then than now, runs\nthrough a marshy bottom with hills ascending on both sides. That a great\nbattle was fought here may be accepted as certain, and equally so that it\nwas between the Britons and the Saxons. One of the writers who attributes\nit to Arthur tells us that the Camel[13] overflowed its banks with the\nblood of the slain. So far we have a likely Arthurian story, and we may\nlook with interest at the inscription on the stone which presumably covers\n(or rather _covered_, for the stone has been slightly moved from its\noriginal situation) the bones of some one killed in the fight, perhaps of\nthe king himself. Carew, in his 'Survey of Cornwall,' speaks of the stone\nas 'bearing Arthur's name, though now depraved to Atry.' Borlase accepts\nthe tradition that Arthur fought his last battle near this spot, but\ndenies that the stone bears reference to that warrior. The inscription,\naccording to Borlase, runs thus: 'Catin hic jacit[14]--filius Magari,' and\nrefers not to Arthur but to the son of Magarus. The letters are about six\ninches high and much weatherworn. They are not easy to be made out, but\nthe Rev. W. Iago, of Bodmin,[15] has brought his special skill to bear\nupon them, and, with the aid of casts and rubbings, has determined the\ninscription to be as follows:\n\n  Latini ic jacit filius Magarii.\n\nwhich Mr. Iago thus interprets:\n\n  (The monument) of Latinus; here he lies; son of Magarius.\n\n_ic_ stands of course for _hic_.\n\nThe use of the Latin language points to British rather than Saxon\nauthorship.\n\nLatinus was probably a Briton of Roman descent who was presumably fighting\non the British side. That his fellow soldiers had leisure to construct a\nmemorial on the battlefield may be accepted as an indication that they\nretained their position as victors, but we seek in vain for evidence that\nArthur was here concerned.\n\nIt is certain that a great battle was fought in this position in the time\nof Egbert in the year 823. This is mentioned in the 'Saxon Chronicle,' in\n'Ethelwerd's Chronicle,' and by Henry of Huntingdon, as having taken place\nat Camelford between the Britons of Cornwall and the Saxons of Devonshire.\nSeveral thousands fell on both sides according to Henry of Huntingdon, but\nwe are not told which was victorious. Probably the Britons, for the Saxons\ndo not seem to have pushed their conquests further, at least until the\ntime of Athelstan, nor ever to have generally replaced the former\ninhabitants in the further parts of the county.\n\nSo much for the historical battle in the year 823. Now for the traditional\nbattle on the same river in the year 542. Nennius makes no mention of\neither. His history terminates in the year 640, and does not reach the\nlater battle, but his failure to mention the earlier, if it took place\nwhen and where it is supposed, is remarkable. Another English writer,\nHenry of Huntingdon, who is disposed to give much credit to Arthur, speaks\nof the twelve battles, with particular reference to Badon Hill, but makes\nno mention of the subsequent battle or of the death of the king. These\nappear to have been entirely ignored so far as English chroniclers are\nconcerned until we reach Geoffrey of Monmouth, in the twelfth century, who\nmust be regarded as a romancer rather than a serious historian. We must\neither suppose that there were two great battles on the Camel, the earlier\nof which, in the sixth century, escaped the notice of chroniclers until\nthe twelfth, and then was recovered with ample circumstance and detail by\nthe highly imaginative writer to whom I have referred; or we must suppose\nthat there was only one great battle in this situation; that this was\nfought in the ninth century; and that between the ninth century and the\ntwelfth it came to be confused with a battle in Scotland in which Arthur\nwas really engaged, and in which he met his death.\n\nIn relation to the earlier battle on the Camel, if there was one, and the\nsupposed connection of Arthur with it, I must mention a scrap of\ntopographical evidence, which is far from conclusive, but which may be\ntaken for what it is worth. In this supposed battle, Cador, Duke of\nCornwall, half-brother to Arthur, or, according to another account, his\nnephew, takes a traditional place among the slain. About three miles from\nCamelford, between the Camel and the sea, stands a large sepulchral mound\nwhich looks down upon the Atlantic from an elevation of over a thousand\nfeet. This is known as Cad\u00f5n Barrow, and the tradition is that it covers\nthe body of Cador. To this tumulus especial consideration and sanctity\nhave long been attached. If it covers the bones of Arthur's kinsman the\nplace consorts with his death on the Camel. At a distance of about seven\nmiles from the battlefield, be it Arthur's or Egbert's, stands another\nsepulchral mound in which an interested person might find an Arthurian\nassociation. This mound is known as the Giant's Grave, or King Arthur's\nGrave. It lies within a gigantic double-walled enclosure which has the\nname of Warbstowe Bury, one of the largest of the British camps of\nCornwall. This occupies a commanding situation, and would furnish an ideal\nresting-place for a Cornish hero. But whatever be the purpose of the\nmound, we have no reason to connect it with Arthur. The name is employed\nsomewhat at random: barrows are common in Cornwall; and we must have\nconsistent historical evidence before we suppose Arthur to occupy the\nGiant's Grave or his kinsman Cad\u00f5n Barrow.\n\nThe evidence which is wanting with regard to Arthur's battle on the Camel\ncomes to light on the Firth of Forth. There is reason to suppose that\ntradition did not err in the fatal association of Arthur and Mordred,\nthough the place of the last scene was not Cornwall but Scotland. The name\nCamlan, which has been freely given by later writers to the supposed\nbattle on the Camel, is not to be found there, nor, so far as I can\nascertain, in Cornwall.\n\nSkene and Stuart Glennie maintain with much converging evidence that\nCamlan is Camelon[16] on the river Carron, in the valley of the Forth,\nwhere it is said are the remains of a Roman town. Here, according to\nScotch tradition, Arthur and Mordred met. We have evidence which appears\nto be sufficient that Mordred was King of the Picts, or, as he is\nsometimes termed, King of Scotland, and the head of a confederacy of\nPicts, Scots, and Saxons, or, as some authorities have it, Picts, Scots,\nand renegade Britons. With this composite army he gave battle to Arthur\nand his faithful British force, in which the latter were defeated and\nArthur slain.\n\nIt is worth noting as in favour of the Scottish location of the battle\nthat Geoffrey, who places it on the Camel, nevertheless states Mordred's\nforce to have consisted of Picts and Scots. It is surely improbable that\nArthur could have been confronted in Cornwall by a great army of these\nnorthern savages. On the Forth[17] they were numerous and much at home.\nMordred was supposed to have been the son of Llew, to whom Arthur had\ngiven Lothian. These particulars are confirmed by the 'Chronicle of the\nScots.' It may be added that an earthwork with double lines of\ncircumvallation in the neighbouring valley of the Tay, now known as Barry\nHill, is designated by tradition as Mordred's Castle, not the only\ninstance in which testimony of this nature has been found to throw light\nupon Arthurian history.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is impossible to dissociate the place of Arthur's death from that of\nhis supposed burial. According to the well-known story which we owe to\nGeoffrey of Monmouth, the king was desperately wounded on the Camel, and\nthence conveyed to Glastonbury, where we must suppose he died; for there,\nin confirmation of Geoffrey's account, was his grave found, or said to\nhave been found, after the lapse of 647 years. The circumstantial report\nof the finding and identification of the grave on the spot indicated by\nthe story gives verisimilitude to the legend, and demands for it serious\ncriticism. In the first place, there is reason to believe, as I have\nshown, that though there was a great battle on the Camel, Arthur was not\nin it, and though he died in battle, it was not on the Camel. If Arthur\nconcluded his career, not on the Camel but the Forth, the question of\nsepulture at Glastonbury may be dismissed as a fabrication. On the other\nhand, if the burial in this place can be maintained, then we must abandon\nthe Scottish localisation of the last battle, and may accept the statement\nof the unveracious Geoffrey that it was fought on the Cornish river. It\nbehoves us, therefore, to examine the Glastonbury story as one upon which\nmuch turns. The tradition that Arthur, mortally wounded on the Camel, was\nconveyed alive to Glastonbury may be at once discarded. Such a\ntransporting of a desperately wounded man must be regarded as\nimpracticable. He was within easy reach of his Cliff Castle at Tintagel\nand of his fortified camp of Kelliwick (assuming this to have been Kelly\nRounds), and would probably, if moved at all, have been deposited in one\nor the other. On the other hand, if he was killed outright the removal of\nthe body to Glastonbury by way of the Camel and the sea would be neither\nimpossible nor unlikely.\n\nGlastonbury was one of the earliest seats of Christianity in this island,\nand no doubt was reverenced as such in the time of Arthur. The tumulus and\nthe churchyard were at this time competing as receptacles for the\ndead--the tumulus as a heathen, the churchyard as a Christian place of\nrest. A tumulus was raised over a Saxon chief in the time, and with the\npermission, of Ambrosius. Christian burial was probably practised at\nGlastonbury at as early a date. Giraldus Cambrensis, together with a monk\nof Glastonbury quoted by Leland, professed themselves to have been\nwitnesses of the opening of Arthur's grave. There are two accounts as to\nthe finding of this--one that it was sought for by order of Henry II., who\nhad learned from the British Bards that Arthur was buried between two\npyramids at Glastonbury; the other that it was found accidentally in this\nsituation in digging to bury a monk who had selected this spot for his\ninterment. The pyramids undoubtedly existed before the alleged discovery\nof Arthur's grave; for they were described by William of Malmesbury in the\nreign of Henry I. They displayed some inscription, apparently Saxon, and\nan ecclesiastical effigy, but no mention of Arthur.\n\nSo circumstantial is the statement of Giraldus, who represents himself as\nan eye-witness of the exploration, that if in any essential respect he\ndeparted from the truth, whether by way of addition or otherwise, we can\nscarcely suppose that the falsehood was unintentional. Though there are\ndifferences, as I shall presently show, relating to the date of the\nalleged exploration, preponderating evidence places it in the time of\nHenry II., in whose interest it has been suspected that a fraud was\ndevised to gratify the king and serve a political purpose. Henry as a\nNorman might, it has been thought, desire to rehabilitate Arthur as, like\nhimself, an enemy of the Saxons. Priests were deceivers ever: here they\nmay have had both the motive and the means for deception. But it must be\nallowed that if the ecclesiastical explorers lied they lied so much like\ntruth that if any exception be taken to their report it is only that it\ncomes up too exactly to what might have been expected. The story, as told\nby Giraldus, is as follows. On digging between the pyramids in the monks'\ncemetery a leaden cross was found at a depth of seven feet, which bore\nthis inscription in rude letters:\n\n  HIC JACET SEPULTUS INCLYTUS REX ARTHURIUS IN\n  INSULA AVALLONIA, CUM WENNEVEREIA UXORE\n  SUA SECUNDA\n\nCamden gives what professes to be a facsimile of the inscription, which\n'was formerly written and preserved in the monastery of Glastonbury.' The\nlettering has the appearance of great antiquity, but suspicion attaches to\nthe mention of the name of the place in connection with the interment.\nAvallonia, or Avalon, is of course Glastonbury--probably in Arthur's time\nan island in a swamp. As to its place, the body speaks for itself. It may\nbe necessary to say whose it is; it is not necessary to say where it is;\nnor is it usual on tombstones or coffins to give their address.\n\nAt a depth of nine feet, or two feet below the cross, was found a coffin,\nconsisting of a hollowed oak, in which were the bones of a man and a\nwoman. The man was represented as of great stature. I am indebted to the\nscholarship of Mr. T. Holmes for as exact a translation of the words of\nGiraldus as the Latin of that author allows. Speaking of the male occupant\nof the coffin, Giraldus says: 'His tibia placed beside that of the tallest\nman in the place (whom the Abbot pointed out to me), and fixed into the\nearth by the side of his foot, extended fully three fingers' breadth above\nthe man's knee. His skull bone also was capacious and large enough for a\nprodigy or a show--so much so that the interval between the eyelids and\nthe space between the eyes might contain the size of a man's palm fully.\nAnd in this were seen ten or more wounds, all of which, except one larger\nthan the others and which had made a great gash, and which alone seemed to\nhave caused death, had joined into a firm cicatrix.'\n\nThe body of the woman found in the same receptacle presented yellow hair\nnicely braided, a lock of which on being handled by a monk crumbled into\ndust. Here we have all we could expect--almost more. Strength and valour,\ntogether with as much of female charm as could survive six centuries. Hair\nwill last and retain its colour for an indefinite time. With regard to the\nmale skeleton, the large recent wound on the head corresponds with the\nmanner of Arthur's death and the wounds of earlier infliction with the\nmanner of his life. In the length of the tibi\u00e6 there is nothing\nimpossible. But with regard to the skull the dimensions possible to\nhumanity are so much exceeded that it is difficult to suppose that we are\nreading the honest report of an eye-witness. The palm between the eyes\nsavours more of imagination than observation. The space between the\norbits in an ordinary skull on a level with the eyelids, where the\ndistance is greatest, is at most 1-1/2 inch. One of the largest human\nskeletons known is that of the Irish Giant at the College of Surgeons,\nwhich measures 7 feet 7 inches in height. The distance between the orbits\nin a level with the place of the eyelids is 2 inches. The palm between the\neyes is impossible even to procerity. Thus doubts gather round the grave:\nif the king desired that this should be found attempts not wholly\ningenuous might have been made to gratify him. Apart from the inscription\nand the skull, the completeness of the alleged discovery, the\nappropriately wounded skeleton and the fascinating queen, are suggestive\nof invention.\n\nA postscript or corollary was added to this story in the time of Edward I.\nThe skeletons, when first found, were removed, as we are told, from the\ncemetery to the church; not as yet to find final repose, for in the year\n1278 'Eduardus Longus' (Edward I. or Longshanks), together with Queen\nEleanor, caused the tomb to be reopened and the bones to be again buried\nin front of the high altar, with the exception of the skulls, which were\nkept outside for the devotion of the people.[18] The chests in which the\nbones were found were painted with representations, and the arms, of the\noccupants. Within the new sepulchre was placed a writing referring to the\nfinding of the bones by Edward and Eleanor, and attested by many witnesses\nwhose names are still to be read in the pages of Leland.[19]\n\nI think it may be credited that bones were unearthed, probably in the time\nof Henry II. and the Abbot Henry de Blois, which were adopted as those of\nKing Arthur and provided with suitable conditions and surroundings. That\nbones were re-buried as those of Arthur and found by 'long Edward' I think\nadmits of no doubt. But much may we doubt whether the bones were those of\nArthur, not only from the inconsistency and improbabilities of the story\nof the disinterment, but from the lack of evidence that Arthur died within\npracticable reach of Glastonbury.\n\nBut perhaps the most convincing negative evidence is supplied by Gildas,\nto whom I have already referred. This historian, a fellow-countryman and\ncontemporary of Arthur, was either ignorant of his existence or thought\nhim not worth mentioning. Now Gildas, as we are told by William of\nMalmesbury, 'took up his abode' at Glastonbury 'for a series of years.' If\nArthur died, as was supposed, in the year 542, and Gildas was born in 520,\nthe historian must have been twenty-two years old when the king was buried\nunder the description of 'the famous King Arthur,' _inclytus Rex\nArthurius_. Gildas might have been present had this taken place as\nrepresented, or at any rate must have heard from his friends the monks of\nwhat could not fail to be of interest to the British historian. But\nneither Arthur's death nor his life appealed to Gildas. Thus we must\ndiscredit both the Camel and Glastonbury as connected with Arthur's death\nand burial.\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\nTOPOGRAPHICAL ASSOCIATIONS\n\n\nI do not propose to follow in detail the romancers of the twelfth and\nsucceeding centuries, excepting where they may be taken in concurrence\nwith surviving structures and geographical peculiarities. I have said\nsomething in this sense both of the Cornish and the Scottish localisation\nof Camlan. Turning from the conclusion of Arthur's career to the beginning\nof it, I must again have recourse to Geoffrey of Monmouth, a writer who\nsometimes finds the corroboration which he always needs.\n\nUther Pendragon, King of Britain, held a festival in London, or, according\nto another account, at Winchester, at which were present Gorlois, King of\nCornwall, and his wife Igerna, 'the greatest beauty in all Britain.' Uther\nwas more attentive to the lady than was approved by her husband, who\nabruptly left the Court and returned to Cornwall, taking his wife with\nhim. Uther followed. Gorlois deposited Igerna in Tintagel, 'upon the sea\nshore, which he looked upon as a place of great safety. But he himself\nentered the castle of Damelioc to prevent their both being involved in the\nsame danger if any should happen.' Damelioc is described as a strong\n'castle,' having many issues out. According to the legend, Gorlois hoped\nhere to receive succour from Ireland. In this place Gorlois was besieged\nby the superior forces of Uther, and was slain fighting outside its\nramparts. Igerna was apparently secure in Tintagel. 'For it is situated\nupon the sea and on every side surrounded by it; and there is but one\nentrance into it, and that through a straight rock, which three men shall\nbe able to defend against the whole power of the kingdom.' But though\nTintagel was impregnable, the lady was not. Uther obtained admittance into\nthe castle while Gorlois was in Damelioc, and Arthur was the result.\nAccording to tradition, Uther was transformed into the likeness of Gorlois\nby the arts of Merlin, and the King of Britain admitted under a\nmisunderstanding to the domestic privileges of the King of Cornwall. The\nsceptical may hesitate to accept this explanation of the error of Igerna,\nbut no doubt it was furnished by the lady herself, who could scarcely fail\nto have been acquainted with the facts. My purpose in alluding to the\nstory is rather local than personal. The description of Tintagel might\nserve at the present day. Part of the castle is on a lofty and precipitous\npeninsula commonly known as the Island, which has only a narrow connection\nwith the mainland, which few could defend against many. It is obvious that\nit was on the Island that Igerna was placed and Arthur begotten.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Castle of Tintagel is so closely connected with the Arthurian legend\nthat a few particulars concerning it must be introduced. At Tintagel,\naccording to tradition, the Kings or Dukes of Cornwall had their residence\nbefore the coming of C\u00e6sar. The place was formerly known as Dundagell, and\nis supposed to be indicated by the name Donecheniv, which is to be found\nin 'Domesday Book,' and according to Gilbert means the fort or castle with\nthe chain. This is the earliest reference to Tintagel, if it be one,\nwhich I have been able to discover. The allusion to the chain is\nappropriate. There is evidence that the chasm which separates the insular\npart of the castle from that on the mainland was formerly crossed by a\ndrawbridge. This is likely enough, for the chasm was evidently once\nnarrower than at present, having been enlarged by the falling away of the\ncliff, while the buildings on the mainland and the island are opposite and\nnear to each other, as if they had at one time been connected. Leland in\nhis 'Itinerary' describes the castle as it existed in the time of Henry\nVIII. In the earlier part of his work he refers to a drawbridge as\nconnecting the two portions of the fortress; in a later part he states\nthat the island could be reached only by long elm trees laid for a bridge.\nOther writers refer to the bridge. Carew in his 'Survey of Cornwall' in\n1602 states that this was in existence one hundred years before he wrote,\nand Norden, a writer of about the same date, says that it was there within\nliving memory. It is obvious that the historical bridge belonged to the\nbuildings parts of which still exist. The allusion in 'Domesday Book,' if\ncorrectly interpreted, must relate to an earlier structure, for there is\nreason to believe, as I shall presently show, that no part of what now\nremains existed at the time of the Conquest. Nevertheless, there was\nprobably at that time some mechanism with a chain which gave access to the\nisland from the adjacent cliff.\n\nIt is not my purpose to give a detailed description of Tintagel Castle,\nsuch as may be found in many works relating to the locality;[20] but a few\nwords bearing upon the question of its hypothetical association with\nArthur seem called for.\n\nThe site of the castle is remarkable: it is partly on the mainland and\npartly on a peninsula which from time immemorial has been known as the\nIsland. This is separated from the mainland by a deep chasm which is\nevidently in process of enlargement, or, in other words, was once narrower\nthan it is now. The island, which is bounded by lofty precipices, is\nconnected with the mainland only by a narrow ridge, which rises steeply\nfrom the sea, traverses the chasm, and gives access to the island by a\nnarrow path cut in the face of the cliff, which now, as in ancient days,\nmight be defended by a few against many.\n\nTo take first the insular part of the castle, which no doubt was the\noriginal place of retreat and defence, the site may be associated with\nthat of many prehistoric fortifications of earth or stone, the remains of\nwhich are to be found on the Cornish coast. The ancient engineers\nhabitually selected a precipitous peninsula, inaccessible from the sea,\nwith a narrow neck, across which they made barriers to protect against\nattack from the landward side. Thus Tintagel Head was selected as a place\nof defence, if not by prehistoric engineers, certainly in accordance with\nprehistoric methods. The buildings at present on the island are less\nextensive than those on the mainland. There is no evidence that any part\nof them is anterior to the Plantagenets. An arch which forms the gateway\nof the outer wall is distinctly though bluntly pointed, and must be later\nthan the Norman period. A bluntly pointed arch, known as the Iron Gate, is\nalso to be seen in a wall which protects what was apparently once a\nlanding place. Outside the enclosure of the castle are the wind-swept\nremains of a little chapel which should be that in which Merlin vainly\nsought repose. Old it undoubtedly is, but the most credulous could\nscarcely attribute it to the sixth century. In construction it resembles\nthe rest of the insular part of the castle, being not too solidly built of\nroughly quarried unsquared slates. There is nothing of architectural style\nto determine the date, but the walls resemble the others and may be\npresumed to be like them of the early Plantagenet time.[21]\n\nThe buildings on the mainland give more scope for discussion. These are\nplaced on a high, narrow elevation which rises out of a gorge: this\nelevation, which is steep on one side and precipitous on the other, rises\nabove the level of the buildings on the island, with which at one point\nthey may easily have communicated. The structures on the mainland consist\nof two walled enclosures on different levels, connected by steps. The\nlower and larger is supposed to be the courtyard, the higher the keep, and\nindeed they do not admit of any other interpretation. The courtyard\npresents towards the land the remnants of a great gateway, while towards\nthe sea the wall has fallen, exposing a precipice where once the wall\nstood. The gateway is of especial interest: what remains of the arch is\nsuggestive that it once was pointed, and I have the evidence of an\nintelligent mason who lives hard by, and who was familiar with its\ncondition twenty years ago, that though then broken it retained enough of\nthe curve to indicate that originally it was bluntly pointed, and\nresembled in construction those still to be found on the island. I may add\nthat I have seen a drawing executed by Mr. Sturge, about sixteen years\nago, from which the same inference is to be drawn. I may draw attention to\na photographic reproduction of a print of the castle as it was about 300\nyears ago, when the gateway was complete (see fig. 1, p. 62). The arch in\nquestion appears to be less flat than it should be were it Norman, though\nthe scale of the drawing is too small to display a distinct point. It has\nbeen supposed that the upper enclosure, known as the keep, is older than\nthe lower or courtyard, and the late Prebendary Kinsman thought he had\nfound traces of Roman methods in a projecting course of flat stones which\ntraverses the upper part of one of the walls; but I am inclined to agree\nwith my friend the mason, who considers the projection to be of English\ninvention, designed to protect the wall from weather and give finish to\nits top.[22] The keep is connected with the courtyard by a flight of\nsteps, as if the two formed part of the same design, while the masonry of\nthe two portions is exactly of the same character, as if they were coeval.\nThat the upper and lower enclosures formed parts of the same design, is\nsufficiently evinced by the drawing which has been reproduced.\n\nThe insular part, though showing similar work and material, is in better\npreservation; indeed, it is not easy to doubt that it is considerably\nlater, though belonging to the same architectural period. The pointed\narches indicate that neither the continental nor the insular part were\nconstructed before the introduction of this form of arch. The pointed arch\ngradually superseded the round arch during the reign of Henry\nII.--1154-1189--and did not become general until quite the end of this\nperiod.[23] There are indeed pointed arches in the church of St. Cross,\nnear Winchester, which are supposed to date back as far as 1136, but this\nappears to have been a solitary instance some 50 years earlier than the\ngeneral employment of the style. It may fairly be presumed that neither\nportion of the existing buildings dates back further than the twelfth\ncentury, while the insular portion is probably less ancient than that on\nthe mainland. There is evidence that there were buildings on the island at\nan earlier date than can be ascribed to those now existing.\n\nGeoffrey of Monmouth, who was made Bishop of St. Asaph in the year 1152,\nand probably wrote earlier, describes the place, in words which I have\nalready quoted, as he supposes it to have been in the time of Uther\nPendragon. He calls it 'the town of Tintagel, a place of great safety. For\nit is situated upon the sea and on every side surrounded by it; and there\nis but one entrance into it, and that through a straight rock, which three\nmen shall be able to defend against the whole power of the kingdom.' Not\nto insist upon Uther, it is clear that Geoffrey intended to describe the\nplace as it was before his own time, and, by unavoidable inference, before\nthe buildings at present on the island were constructed. For it is almost\ncertain that none of them existed in the time of Geoffrey--quite certain\nthat none of them were built before his birth. It is to be noted that this\nwriter makes no allusion to the part of the castle on the mainland, which,\nthough probably older, was presumably not made when he wrote. We cannot\nbut infer that before Geoffrey's time there was some sort of fortification\non the island, which was replaced by the existing structure; and this\ninference is supported by the name under which this place is referred to\nin 'Domesday Book,' if Gilbert is correct in his interpretation of it as\n'the fort with the chain.' The evidence that Tintagel Head was used as a\nstronghold before the present buildings were made lends credibility to the\ntradition which connects Arthur with Tintagel, though none of the present\nwalls were constructed until at least 600 years after his death.\n\nWith the great gateway at one end and the exposed precipice at the other,\nthe courtyard corresponds with a description written in the thirteenth\ncentury, and designed to present the state of the castle in the time of\nArthur.[24] Through this gateway, according to the romance, rode Uther and\nMerlin, and within these walls Arthur was begotten. It is much to be\nregretted that the building so adapted to the story had no existence in\nthe time to which it relates. It may be objected also that the romancer\nhas made a capital error in placing the adventure on the mainland, and a\nminor error in assigning the same position to the chapel. It is to be\npresumed that the story-tellers long subsequent to Arthur's time adapted\nthe legends relating to Tintagel somewhat loosely to the building as it\nexisted in their own.\n\nThe 25-inch Ordnance Map represents the continental part of the castle as\nbuilt upon the site of a camp. It is with great diffidence that I venture\nto question this interpretation of a trench which runs parallel to, and\nclose to, the south wall of the castle. This trench must, I think, be\naccepted as having been made simultaneously with, or subsequently to, the\nbuilding, for it evidently bears relation to the great gate and to an\notherwise unprotected wall, of which it formed an outer defence. Sir\nJohn Maclean calls this a moat. If this means no more than a defending\nditch I am of his opinion, but if a moat should hold water the term is\ninapplicable, for the fosse is on such a slope that water never could have\nremained in it. As to the camp theory, it may be observed that there are\nundoubted remains of a camp within a quarter of a mile, close to the\nchurch, and it is unlikely that two camps would have been constructed in\nsuch proximity.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 1.--_Tintagel Castle as represented by Norden_,\n1584-1600.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 2.--_Tintagel Castle from 25-inch Ordnance Map_]\n\nI insert a drawing (p. 62), to which I think much interest attaches. It\nrepresents the castle as it was about the year 1600--roughly speaking, 300\nyears ago. It is a copy made by photography of a print in 'Norden's\nSpeculi Britanni\u00e6 Pars,' a book now in the British Museum, formerly in the\nRoyal Library. It is dedicated to James I., and appears to have been\nwritten at the end of the sixteenth century. The date 1584 has been\ndoubtfully assigned to it: we may safely refer it to the end of the\nsixteenth century. Norden was born in 1548 and died in 1626. He was\nSurveyor of Woods to James I., and evidently regarded architectural\naccuracy more than pictorial effect. The drawing shows the landward part\nas extending further seawards than at present, while it indicates a place\nwhere parts of the insular buildings had recently been engulfed. The great\ngateway on the mainland is entire; the keep and the lower court nearly so;\nwhile the relation of the three as parts of the same building, presumably\nbuilt at the same time, is unmistakable. The buildings on the island are\nmuch as they are now.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI append what may also be of interest--a facsimile of as much of the\n25-inch Ordnance Map as relates to Tintagel Castle. For permission to do\nso I have to thank the Director of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, to\nwhom also I am indebted for similar permission touching the maps of\nDamelioc, Kelly Rounds, and Cardinham Castle, to which I shall presently\ndraw attention.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSo much and so little for the Castle of Tintagel and its relation to King\nArthur, who certainly never saw an arch or a stone of the existing\nbuilding, and could not have been begotten in a hall which was not made\nuntil many centuries after his death. What took place, and where, before\nthe hall was built are other questions. This does not necessarily detach\nArthur from Tintagel. It is probable that Tintagel Head was a place of\nstrength and of retreat in prehistoric times, as were many headlands on\nthe Cornish coast. No earthworks were needed to secure it, as it had been\nrendered impregnable by nature. The Celts in the sixth century, and in\nCornwall, though they must have had skill in stone-carving if some of the\nexisting crosses are correctly attributed to this period, were probably\nnot castle builders, unless the term 'castle' be applied to earthworks, as\nis indeed still the custom. If Arthur was the lord of Tintagel, as is\nindicated by an immemorial tradition, which we may, without violence to\nprobability, accept, nothing remains of this his dwelling-place excepting\nthe immortal ramparts which will be for ever associated with his name.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Dameliock_ or _Dimilioc_ still exists as a formidable earthwork, and\nretains the name.[25] It is mentioned in 'Domesday Book' under the term\nDamelihoc. 'Domesday Book' is a mere rent-roll and does not deal in\ndescriptions, but the name is significant if Gilbert[26] is correct in\nhis interpretation of it as 'the place of battle.'\n\nDamelioc Castle is a British camp of great strength. It lies about eight\nmiles from Tintagel Castle by the modern roads, though in earlier time the\ndistance may have been as much as ten miles, which is assigned by\ntradition as the distance of Damelioc from Tintagel. It is in the parish\nof St. Kew, close to the road which connects Tintagel with the mouth of\nthe Camel, and, taking a wide scope, may be said to lie between the north\nof Cornwall and the south of Ireland. The work is said to extend over an\narea of twelve acres. It once consisted of three concentric ramparts, of\nwhich two remain effective if not complete, while portions of a third and\nouter are still to be seen, though much of it has yielded to the invasion\nof agriculture. Outside each of the two nearly complete ramparts, of which\nthe outer is the higher, lies a ditch. This rampart is from 20 to 30 feet\nhigh, measured from the bottom of the ditch;[27] it is about 11 yards\nthick and the ditch 10 yards wide. The inner circle is less perfect than\nthe outer, or more properly the middle, little remaining except the ditch,\nwhich is about 5 feet deep. The enclosure, measuring from the inside of\nthe middle rampart (the outermost is not complete enough to reckon by),\nhas a diameter of about 170 yards and a circumference of about 530 yards.\nThe enclosure formed by this rampart would, according to Colonel Mead,\nwhose assistance I had in examining the fortification, give comfortable\naccommodation to 2,000 men, supposing them to be besieged for a week or\nten days, while under temporary pressure 5,000 people might be crowded\ninto it. Were the outer circle restored according to the indications\nafforded by its remains, it is obvious that the camp would hold a much\nlarger number than that referred to as capable of being contained within\nthe middle defence. Like others of the Cornish earthworks, it stands on a\ncommanding elevation among hills which are higher than itself.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt has been seen that Tintagel and Damelioc are exactly adapted to the\nstory of which they are the scene. Either the story must have had some\nfoundation in fact, or the inventor of it must have possessed extensive\nand accurate knowledge of the topographical features of this remote part\nof the British Isles.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 3.--_Reproduced from the 25-inch Ordnance Map._]\n\nThe Romancers of Britanny may easily have heard of a place so well known\nas Tintagel, and woven it into their fictions; but Damelioc seems to have\nattracted little attention, though mentioned by Gilbert in 1838, until it\nemerged from obscurity to find name and place in the last edition of the\nOrdnance map. Thus unknown or disregarded, it would scarcely have been\nselected as the scene of a purely imaginary romance. To me, the finding of\nDamelioc where and what it should be according to the story is an\nindication that this was dictated by something more substantial than\nimagination, though this faculty no doubt had much to do with its\nembellishment.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have already quoted from the Welsh Triads assigned to the sixth century\na reference to Arthur as 'the chief lord at Kelliwic,' and have referred\nalso to other Welsh compositions, probably of little less antiquity, in\nwhich Kelliwic or Celliwig is spoken of in the same connection. Professor\nRhys finds in the Triads an account of a raid made by Mordred[28] upon\nArthur's Court, apparently in Arthur's absence, where the intruder left\nneither food nor drink unconsumed so much as would support a fly, and\nwhere he outraged the Queen. This is said to have occurred at Kelliwic in\nCornwall, though it must be admitted that the association of the northern\nking with the southern fortress is suggestive of doubt. Kelliwic is\nelsewhere referred to as a place from which a certain marksman of\nexceptional ability was able to hit a wren in Ireland. Dismissing this as\none of the super-additions to which tradition is liable, I revert from the\narcher to the king. If there be any truth in the tradition which places\nArthur's court or camp at Kelliwic, we ought to find some trace of it. If\nKelliwic could be found as a place of defence in the Arthurian country, we\nmight at least say that the coincidence was remarkable, unless the\ntradition had some substratum of fact. Now I venture to suggest that we\nhave Kelliwic still with us under the name of that remarkable earthwork\nknown as Kelly Rounds.\n\n_Kelly Rounds_ or _Castle Killibury_ is about five miles from Damelioc, to\nwhich it bears a general resemblance, though possessing only two ramparts,\nwith no traces of a third. The work is situated near the road between\nCamelford and Wadebridge, about 2-1/2 miles from the latter, which is a\nwell protected port. It consists--or rather I should say consisted--of two\nconcentric circles, each with rampart and ditch. It is obviously a British\ncamp. A road now cuts it into two nearly equal parts, of which that on the\nsouth has been nearly obliterated, while the northern segment is\ncomparatively uninjured. The ramparts, of which the inner is the higher,\npresent a maximum height of perhaps 15 feet, judging roughly by the eye.\nThe diameter of the remaining semicircle is about 210 yards, measuring\nfrom the inside of the outer rampart, while the semi-circumference in the\nsame position is 290 yards. On the west side are the traces of an outwork,\nor partial enclosure, which was evidently designed to protect the\nentrance.\n\nThe extravagance of the archer who 'shot with a lusty longbow' from\nKelliwic to Ireland is not quite without significance, for it may be\nheld to show that Kelliwic, like Kelly Rounds, was opposite the Irish\ncoast.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 4.--_From the 25-inch Ordnance Map._]\n\nWe may with some confidence identify Kelly Rounds, or Castle Killibury,\nwith Kelliwic, and discern in it, as in Damelioc, a definite association\nwith Arthur.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nA place to which the name of _Caradigan_ is given is prominent in\nArthurian lore. This has been interpreted as Cardigan, the ancient\ndesignation of Cardiganshire being Keridigion.[29] But Mr. E. G. B.\nPhillimore, who is a great authority on ancient Welsh literature,\nconsiders that Caradigan is not Cardigan, but Cardinam, now known as\nCardinham, a considerable, though much damaged, earthwork near Bodmin. In\nthis interpretation Mr. Phillimore apparently has the approval of\nProfessor Rhys. If Caradigan is Cardinham, this was one of the places\nwhere Arthur held his Court. It was at Caradigan that Enid was wedded to\nEric by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the presence of Queen Guenevere.\nIt was to Arthur's Court at Caradigan that Lancelot brought his\nnewly-married wife, Iblis.\n\nThe doings at Caradigan are obviously mingled with fiction, if not wholly\nfictitious. The Archbishop of Canterbury was not yet, and Eric as a knight\nof medi\u00e6val chivalry is, like the Archbishop, an anachronism; but there is\nsomething in a name, and Caradigan associates Arthur with the Cornish\nstronghold.\n\nCardinham Castle, as it is called, though far inferior in size and\ndistinctness to Killibury and Damelioc, is worth more notice than it has\nyet received. About five miles from Bodmin, on the edge of Cardinham Moor,\nlies Old Cardinham, now represented by a solitary farm-house. In a field\nbehind the house stands an earthwork, of small extent but great natural\nadvantage. It is situated, like Damelioc and Kelly Rounds, on high ground\namong hills which are higher than itself, but not near enough to command\nit without artillery. This stronghold or place of defence displays the\nremains of one rampart enclosing an ovoid or irregularly elongated space\non the side of a hill, within which the experts of the Ordnance Survey\ndiscern a small inner circumvallation. In designing the enclosure the\nnatural slope has been made use of to co-operate with the rampart on the\nnorth side, while the rampart on the south is wholly artificial, much\nbroken, and in places obliterated.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 5.--_From the 25-inch Ordnance Map._]\n\nThe partial destruction of the south wall makes the enclosure incomplete,\nand gives it a horse-shoe shape. The entire circuit along the tops of the\nexisting and nearly obsolete ramparts is about 267 yards, and this\ncomparatively small circumference encloses a narrow and elongated space of\nrelatively small capacity. The surface is irregular, and may once have had\nbuildings upon it, of which there are now no remnants. This small but\nwell-protected enclosure seems to have been better fitted for a fortified\nresidence than a resort for an army. It may conceivably have held the\nresidential quarters of a Cornish chieftain in the sixth century, and its\nlegendary association with Arthur may not impossibly have had some\nfoundation in fact.\n\n\n\n\nV\n\nCONCLUSIONS\n\n\nTo piece together the dislocated fragments which are all that remain of\nthe life of Arthur, they thus present themselves. Arthur, though unknown\nor unrecorded by the Saxon chroniclers of the invasion, who say nothing of\nwhat went on in the west and north, finds abundant mention among the Welsh\nbards and poets assigned to the sixth century, who speak of him by name,\nattribute to him great fame as a warrior, and briefly refer to certain\ndetails which connect him with places some of which can still be\nidentified. This positive and detailed evidence is of more weight than the\nnegative evidence, if so it can be called, which lies in the omission of\nArthur's name by Gildas and Bede, two ecclesiastics who touch only\nincidentally upon the wars of the sixth century and are satisfied with the\nmention of Ambrosius, who preceded Arthur, and apparently occupied a\nposition more nearly approaching that of commander-in-chief, having regard\nto the whole country, than did the later champion.\n\nBut it is not my purpose now to recapitulate the writings to which I have\nalready referred, but only to put together, with their help, some\nindications as to the probable biography of a personage who is at once so\nfamous and so obscure.\n\nWe may look upon Tintagel as the birthplace of Arthur, and believe that he\nwas the son or putative son of a petty Cornish king. The exact fitness of\nTintagel and Damelioc for the story of which they are the scene lends\nprobability to it: not that we need accept the narrative precisely as\nrelated. Time, verbal transmission, and Celtic imagination have to be\nallowed for; but we may without undue credulity believe that Gorlois was\nslain at Damelioc and Arthur born at Tintagel. We may presume that Arthur\nremained in possession and occupation of the country of his nativity.\nTintagel Castle has been from time immemorial known as King Arthur's;\nKelliwic, which is mentioned in the earliest records in connection with\nArthur, may with probability be identified with Kelly Rounds and placed\nnear the estuary of the Camel; and Cardinam Castle, which credible though\nlater tradition assigns to Arthur as a palace or residence, exists near\nBodmin. Great interest, to my mind, attaches to these memorials. Military\nengineering is older than the corps of Royal Engineers; and it may be said\nthat the most ancient history of our country is written in earth. These\nmemorials, together with Tintagel, a fortification constructed by the hand\nof nature, indicate that King Arthur occupied the coast line from Tintagel\nto the Camel, and the inland country to the vicinity of Bodmin.\n\nIf we accept the evidence of names, that of Pentargon in particular, we\nmust suppose Boscastle to be included in the Arthurian country, which\nwould thus extend from the mouth of the Camel to the mouth of the\nVallency. The town of Camelford lies within this district, and it is\ndifficult not to think of Camelot as possibly on the Camel, though we have\nno indication, excepting the name, to justify the assumption, and other\nplaces compete for the distinction of supplying the site of this somewhat\nhypothetical creation.\n\nWe can speak with more confidence of Kelliwic, assuming that it is still\nwith us under the name of Kelly Rounds. This lies 2-1/2 miles from\nWadebridge, where the Camel forms a practicable tidal harbour, and was no\ndoubt used as such in the sixth century. The fortification covered the\nlanding-place, at a convenient distance, and commanded what must have been\nthe chief line of communication between Arthur's Cornish domain, Wales,\nIreland, and the north-west coast. The sea is a connection rather than a\nseparation, and may have provided the lord of Kelliwic with an access to\nthe north which would have been practically unattainable by other means.\n\nIt may be doubted whether in Arthur's time the Saxons had reached\nTintagel: it is clear that in the ninth century they were fighting on the\nCamel, apparently unsuccessfully, and that they never generally superseded\nthe Celtic population much further to the west than the traditional\nterritory of Arthur. That Arthur ever fought a great battle on this river\nis improbable; nor is it likely that the Saxons in his time got far enough\nto the west to assault his earthworks; but these at any rate may have\nserved as places of retreat, and been used by him as Torres Vedras was by\nWellington.\n\nWe may accept the statement of Nennius, who was apparently an historian of\nhonest intentions, that Arthur was selected to command against the Saxons,\nand that in this capacity he fought many, perhaps twelve, battles. There\nmust, it is certain, have been much fighting in the west and north as well\nas elsewhere, and we may give Arthur the credit of much of it, though\ndetails, if not entirely absent, are by no means explicit. It seems clear\nthat he entered Scotland, perhaps more than once, became a prominent\ncharacter in the Lowlands, as the dissemination of his name implies, and\nfinally perished at Camelon or Camlan, near the Firth of Forth, fighting\nagainst a coalition of Saxons, or, strictly speaking, Angles, Picts, and\nScots, or, according to another tradition, against one consisting of\nPicts, Scots, and revolted Britons. It is a far cry from Cornwall to\nScotland, but the feat is not impossible. Agricola marched from the south\nof England to Scotland at an earlier date; but he had the resources of the\nRoman Empire behind him. Arthur must have been aided by his access to the\nsea, and probably found allies in the Celts of the west and north-west\nalong the whole front of the Teutonic encroachments. His movements in the\nsouth and in the north were attended with a series of British victories in\nwhich the invaders were pushed back from the western parts of the island,\nand which contributed to the preservation of the Celtic race in the\nregions of Cornwall and Wales, where it still survives. Such achievements\nwere enough to make Arthur famous from the Camel to the Forth, however\nlittle in those days of imperfect communication his reputation extended to\nthe 'Saxon shore.' The places where above all others he was held in memory\nand where his name was handed down as a local tradition were his little\ninheritance in Cornwall, where he was born, and which we cannot doubt that\nhe occupied--more or less; and the northern region, where he apparently\ndid much fighting and where he ultimately perished. I need not repeat that\nif, as seems probable, Arthur's last battle was in Scotland we must\ndissociate his death with the Camel and his burial with Glastonbury.\n\nSo much for what may be accepted as history. We might have had more had\nthe Cornish language survived like the Welsh. I do not propose to deal\nwith the superstructure of romance which in succeeding centuries\ncollected about Arthur's name. The magnitude of this echo, if so it may be\ncalled, is in some sort a measure of the impression produced by Arthur in\nhis life time. The romance seems to have come chiefly from France. There\nwas little communication in Arthur's time between the west and east of\nEngland: even between Cornwall and Devonshire there seems to have been\nlittle. The chief connection between Cornwall and the rest of the world\nwas by sea, and Wales, Britanny and Ireland were the countries in the most\nintimate association with this peninsula. Navigation is an ancient art,\nolder than the mariner's compass: in the comparatively late sixth century\ncrossing the Channel and the narrow seas must have been familiar to our\nancestors, whether Saxon or British. Britanny and Wales, countries within\ntouch of Cornwall, were, like it, occupied by Celts, a race gifted with\nmore imagination than has been granted to the practical and hard-headed\nSaxon. The fictions of which Arthur is the centre, constructed chiefly in\nFrance, but to a lesser extent in Wales, were brought to England in the\ntwelfth and later centuries, and replaced history by myth. In these\npoetic regions this story attained a complicated development the like of\nwhich is not to be found in British history, though we can discern\nsomething like it in connection with the siege of Troy and the subsequent\nadventures of some of the persons supposed to have been concerned in it.\n\nThat Arthur was a patriot, a defender of the soil against foreign\ninvaders, is sufficiently obvious. That he was also a Christian must be\nbelieved. Christianity reached Cornwall before St. Augustine preached in\nKent: Britain probably received some sprinkling of Christianity during the\nRoman occupation, though we cannot suppose that much of this religion\npenetrated from London to Cornwall. The western extremity of the island\nwas much associated with Ireland, and we have reason to believe that as\nearly as the fifth century the creed of St. Patrick was brought to\nCornwall, which thus became one of the earliest places in Britain to\nreceive the Christian religion. It is worth observing that the ancient\nCornish crosses, of which there are so many, generally present the Greek\ncross rather than the Latin, and would appear to belong to the Eastern\nrather than the Western Church. The oldest of these crosses are supposed\nto date back to the sixth century. It is more than probable that a Cornish\nchieftain at this period would have been a Christian, and possible that\nArthur himself may have knelt before some of the crosses which still\nexist.\n\n\nTHE END\n\n\n  PRINTED BY\n  SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE\n  LONDON\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] I have to thank the Rev. S. Baring-Gould for supplying me with these\nparticulars, which are to be found in the Report of the Launceston Meeting\nof the Cambrian Arch\u00e6ological Society, _Arch\u00e6ologia Cambrensis_, No. 51,\nfifth series, July 1896. This relic is preserved in the royal collection\nat Osborne, and is described and figured in the _Arch\u00e6ological Journal_,\nvol. xxiv. p. 189. The vessel is represented as in excellent preservation\nand of artistic design. It is of hammered gold, and is supposed to be of\nScandinavian workmanship.\n\n[2] See _The Four Ancient Books of Wales_, by W. F. Skene, 1868; also an\nessay on Arthurian localities, by J. S. Stuart Glennie, _Merlin_, part\niii., published by the Early English Text Society, 1869.\n\n[3] _History of Britain_, by John Milton.\n\n[4] I need not refer to _La Morte d'Arthur_, a work of which Roger Ascham\ndisapproves as encouraging manslaughter and incontinence: 'yet I know,'\nsays Roger, 'when God's Bible was banished the Court, and La Morte\nd'Arthur received into the prince's Chamber.'\n\n[5] Skene's _Four Ancient Books of Wales_, vol. ii. p. 457.\n\n[6] Guest's _Origines Celtic\u00e6_, vol. ii. p. 194.\n\n[7] Dr. Guest's opinion as that of an antiquarian scholar deservedly\ncarries great weight, though some at least of the bardic fragments usually\nascribed to the sixth century are held by Stephens to belong to the\ntwelfth. (See _Literature of the Kymry_, 1849.) This writer allows certain\nof these fragments to have come down from the sixth century, and the\nadmission of so scrupulous a critic goes far to establish their antiquity.\nI may refer to Skene's _Four Ancient Books of Wales_ for information\nregarding the works in question, as well as for the text of some of them.\nThere appears to be no reasonable doubt that Taliessin, Llymarch Hen, and\nMyrddin lived in the sixth century, though their supposed compositions are\nnot presented to us in any manuscripts which bear an earlier date than the\ntwelfth. _The Black Book of Caermarthen_, which contains some of these\nremnants, of the greatest reputed antiquity, was written in the time of\nHenry II. But though all intermediate writings have perished or remain\nhidden, we are not to infer that none ever existed. It is clear that some\nof the bardic fragments refer to the sixth century; for example, that\nrelating to the fight at Llongborth between Geraint and, as is supposed,\nCerdric, in which Arthur is mentioned. It is possible that this and other\npoems may at first have been transmitted by word of mouth, but impossible\nthat they could have been so conveyed for six hundred years. Intermediate\nwritings there must have been; these have not survived, but they are\nprobably fairly represented in the _Black Book of Caermarthen_ and similar\nrecords. It cannot be doubted that these compositions relating to the\nsixth century, by whatever means and with whatever modifications they\nreached the twelfth century, must have had some substantial foundation. It\nwould have been impossible in the twelfth century to create out of nothing\nstories and allusions so suited to the sixth in historic probability and\nlocal association.\n\n[8] Skene's _Four Ancient Books of Wales_, vol. i. p. 426.\n\n[9] Quoted from the edition by J. A. Giles in _Six Old English\nChronicles_.\n\n[10] See the _Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon_.\n\n[11] As bearing upon Arthur's early campaigns and their connection with\nScotland, it is of interest to recall the tradition which connects Arthur\nwith Mordred. Arthur's sister, Anne by name, married Llew, otherwise\nLothus or Lot, King of the Picts, to whom Arthur is supposed to have given\nLothian. Of this marriage came Mordred, or Modred, Arthur's nephew and\nmortal enemy. From this it would appear that the southern adventurer was\nassociated with the northern monarch before Mordred was born, and had\nvisited Scotland apparently as a conqueror in the time of Mordred's\nfather.\n\n[12] An elaborate and learned disquisition relating to Arthur and his\nbattles is to be found in Whitaker's _History of Manchester_, published in\nthe year 1775. See book ii. chapter ii.\n\n[13] Quoted by Camden from _Marianus Scotus_.\n\n[14] _Jacit_, instead of _jacet_, calls for remark. Mr. Iago assures me\nthat this spelling was not unusual in the time to which the inscription\nbelongs, and refers to Professor H\u00fcbner for instances of Christian\ninscriptions in Britain in which the same spelling was employed.\n\n[15] See _Trigg Minor_, by Sir John Maclean, vol. i. p. 583, where is a\nrepresentation of the stone and inscription provided by Mr. Iago.\n\n[16] Skene's _Four Ancient Books of Wales_, vol. i. p. 60; Stuart Glennie,\n_Arthurian Scotland_, Merlin Early English Text Society, part iii. p. lxi.\n\n[17] The Scots with whom Arthur fought were probably, like the Picts,\ninhabitants of Scotland, though the term Scotti is also applied to a\nportion of the inhabitants of Ireland.\n\n[18] Leland's _Assertio Arturii_.\n\n[19] There are discrepancies of date with regard to disentombment which\nincrease the doubts which on other grounds surround the story. The date\ncommonly assigned is that adopted by Camden, 1189, the last year of King\nHenry's reign. Leland gives the date as 1191, in which he is followed by\nHume, in the reign of Richard I. Giraldus, who represents himself as an\neye-witness, and is necessarily the earliest authority, does not give the\nyear, but indicates the time within certain limits. He states that the\ngrave was opened by order of Henry II. during the rule of the Abbot Henry.\nThis Abbot was apparently Henry de Blois, the grandson of the Conqueror\nand the brother of King Stephen; Henry II. was therefore his first cousin\nonce removed. It has been supposed that the consanguinity may have\ndisposed the Abbot to gratify the king by finding what he wanted. Henry de\nBlois was the 37th Abbot. He was appointed in 1126, in the time of Henry\nI., and died in 1171, in that of Henry II. In the year 1129, three years\nafter his appointment to Glastonbury, this Abbot became, according to\nLeland, also Bishop of Winchester. Giraldus tells us that the discovery\ntook place before the Abbot became Bishop. If that were so the remains\nwere found not later than 1129, in the reign of Henry I., not in that of\nHenry II., as Giraldus represents. Giraldus himself was not born until\n1147, or 1150 (both dates are assigned); so it is evident that a large\nerror has come in with regard to the date of the disentombment, in\nreference to the appointment of the Abbot to the bishopric. Putting aside\nthis contradiction as possibly due to some mistake in the ecclesiastical\nrecords, we at any rate cannot doubt, if any credit is to be attached to\nGiraldus, that the exhumation took place, if at all, in the time of Henry\nde Blois, who died in 1171. This is inconsistent with the dates 1189 and\n1191 which are respectively assigned to the event. Thus three Kings are\npresented as contemporary with the finding of Arthur's grave, while two\nAbbots and a _locum tenens_ offer themselves as immediately concerned in\nthe transaction. For in the last year of the reign of Henry II., in which\naccording to one account the grave was opened, there was no Abbot of\nGlastonbury, the King from the year 1178 until his death in 1189 having\nretained the Abbey in his own hands and administered it by means of a\nsubordinate. Thus in 1189, the date authoritatively assigned for the\nconcurrence of the Abbot and the King, there was no Abbot and the King was\napproaching his end. In the year 1191 Richard I. and the 39th Abbot bore\nsway. Like the Abbot of royal blood, he was named Henry (which may have\nled to confusion), one Henry de Saliaco, but he does not supply the\nrequirements of the case if we are to believe that King Henry was the\ninstigator and his sacerdotal kinsman the agent. Thus the whole story is\nbeset with doubts. This much may be believed: in the time probably of\nHenry II. the bones of Arthur were sought for; two skeletons were found\nwhere skeletons most do congregate, which with judicious exaggeration and\nsome invention were made to come up to what was demanded of the remains of\nthe warrior and his beautiful consort; these were re-interred under the\nnames of Arthur and Guenevere, and about 100 years later were honestly\naccepted as such by Edward and Eleanor.\n\n[20] _History of the Deanery of Trigg Minor_, by Sir John Maclean, vol.\niii. p. 194.\n\n[21] Among the more noticeable particulars in the buildings, both on the\nisland and the mainland, especially on the island, are the numerous holes\nin the walls. These have given rise to much remark and speculation; by\nsome they have been inconsiderately interpreted as arrow holes. It is\nsufficiently obvious that they once gave lodgment to the beams which\nformed the scaffolding employed in the construction of the walls. The\norifices are rectangular, about 7 inches \u00d7 6 or 6 inches \u00d7 5. The passages\nin connection with them are horizontal and give no scope for the\nadjustment of the weapon; many of them have no exits, but come to an end\nagainst rock or masonry. The holes are generally arranged so that several\nare on the same level. Similar holes for the same purpose are not uncommon\nin the neighbourhood, and may be seen in the Vicarage wall. I am indebted\nto Colonel Mead, of the Royal Engineers, for the self-evident explanation\nwhich I have adopted.\n\n[22] A similar projecting course is to be seen on a wall which cuts off\nthe neighbouring peninsula of the Willapark from the mainland. This wall,\nthough ancient and probably defensive, cannot be supposed to be Roman or\nto show Roman methods.\n\n[23] Rickman's _Gothic Architecture_.\n\n[24] I insert the description of Tintagel Castle as given in _The High\nHistory of the Holy Grail_, a French romance of the thirteenth century:\n\n'They (_i.e._ Arthur, Lancelot and Gawain) came into a very different\nland, scarce inhabited of any folk, and found a little castle in a combe.\nThey came thitherward and saw that the enclosure of the castle was fallen\ndown into an abysm, so that none might approach it on that side, but it\nhad a right fair gateway and a door tall and wide, whereby they entered.\nThey beheld a chapel that was right fair and rich, and below was a great\nancient hall. They saw a priest appear in the middle of the castle, bald\nand old, that had come forth of the chapel. They are come thither and\nalighted, and asked the priest what the castle was, and he told them it\nwas the great Tintagel. \"And how is the ground all caved in about the\ncastle?\" The priest then relates the death of Gorlois and the\ntransfiguration of Uther, \"so that he begat King Arthur in a great hall\nthat was next to the enclosure there, where this abysm is. And for this\nsin hath the ground sunken in on this wise.\" He cometh then with them\ntoward the chapel, that was right fair and had a right rich sepulchre\ntherein. \"Lords, in this sepulchre was placed the body of Merlin, but\nnever mought it be set inside the chapel, wherefore perforce it remained\noutside. And know of very truth that the body lieth not within the\nsepulchre, for so soon as it was set therein it was taken out and snatched\naway, either in God's behalf or the Enemy's, but which we know not.\"' _The\nHigh History of the Holy Grail_, by Master Blihis (1200-1250), translated\nby Sebastian Evans, vol. ii., p. 75.\n\nIf we may suppose, as probably we may, that Master Blihis describes the\ncastle as it was in his own time, though affecting to adapt his\ndescription to that of King Arthur, we may infer that in the thirteenth\ncentury when the existing castle was comparatively new it had already\nbegun to suffer from the encroachments of the sea.\n\n[25] In connection with the identification of Damelioc Castle, I have to\nacknowledge my obligation to the Director-General of the Ordnance Survey,\nand to Staff-Surgeon Trevan, of Bideford.\n\n[26] See Gilbert's _History of Cornwall_, 1838, vol. i. p. 328, vol. iv.\np. 94.\n\n[27] These measurements and others relating to the camps are only to be\ntaken as approximate, the horizontal distances were measured by pacing,\nthe heights by the eye. They will serve to give a generally correct\nimpression, though not made with the accuracy of a land-surveyor. This may\nbe found in the Ordnance maps which are attached.\n\n[28] _The Arthurian Legend_, by Professor Rhys, pp. 15 and 38.\n\n[29] _The Arthurian Legend_, by Professor Rhys, pp. 129 and 132.","title":"King Arthur in Cornwall","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":17645}