{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_69615/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_69615","id":"gutenberg_69615","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/69615","summary":null,"tags":["Arthur, King","Arthurian romances -- History and criticism","Category: History - Other","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore"],"text":"The Cambridge Manuals of Science and\n  Literature\n\n\n\n\n  KING ARTHUR\n\n  IN HISTORY AND LEGEND\n\n\n\n\n  CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS\n  London: FETTER LANE, E.C.\n  C. F. CLAY, MANAGER\n\n  [Illustration]\n\n  Edinburgh: 100 PRINCES STREET\n  Berlin: A. ASHER AND CO.\n  Leipzig: F. A. BROCKHAUS\n  New York: G. P. PUTNAM\u2019S SONS\n  Bombay and Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.\n\n  _All rights reserved_\n\n\n\n\n  KING ARTHUR\n\n  IN HISTORY AND LEGEND\n\n  BY\n  W. LEWIS JONES, M.A.\n\n  Professor of the English Language and\n  Literature, University College of\n  North Wales, Bangor\n\n  Cambridge:\n  at the University Press\n  1914\n\n\n\n\n  _First Edition_, 1911\n\n  _Second Edition_, 1914\n\n_With the exception of the coat of arms at the foot, the design on\nthe title page is a reproduction of one used by the earliest known\nCambridge printer, John Siberch, 1521_\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO FIRST EDITION\n\n\nThis little book is an attempt to trace, in as clear and summary a\nform as possible, the origin and growth of King Arthur\u2019s historical\nand literary renown, and follows, largely, the lines of a chapter\ncontributed by me to the first volume of _The Cambridge History of\nEnglish Literature_. Although I have had, necessarily, to refer to\nmuch literary matter which is purely mythological, I have not sought\nto give any account of the speculations of those who in our own time\nhave endeavoured to reconstruct and interpret the myths and beliefs of\npre-historic Celtic heathendom. Nor have I made more than the briefest\nallusion to the subsidiary legends which, mainly through the agency of\nFrench romantic scribes, came to be associated with Arthur\u2019s name, and\nto be included in \u201cthe matter of Britain\u201d as it emerged out of the age\nof high romance. The book deals, all but exclusively, with King Arthur\nhimself, as he is known to chroniclers, romancers and poets.\n\nMy obligations to particular writers will be found recorded in the\npaginal notes. I must, however, express here my special indebtedness to\nthe writings of Sir John Rhys and the late Mr Alfred Nutt. To Mr Nutt,\nin particular, whose tragic and untimely death last year was a grievous\nloss to Celtic scholarship, I owe much private help and suggestion.\n\nIn one or two chapters of the book--the second and the third, more\nespecially--I have reproduced, almost _verbatim_, a few short passages\nfrom articles of mine which have appeared in _The Quarterly Review_,\nand in the Transactions of the London Cymmrodorion Society.\n\n                                                       W. LEWIS JONES.\n\n  BANGOR,\n    _July 1911_.\n\n\n\n\nPREFATORY NOTE TO SECOND EDITION\n\n\nIn this edition a few slight changes and corrections have been made in\nthe text. The \u201cAdditional Notes\u201d at the end of the book (pp. 138-140)\nsupply a few omissions apparent in the first edition, some of which\nwere pointed out to the author by his reviewers.\n\n                                                              W. L. J.\n\n  _July 1914._\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n                                                   PAGE\n\n  INTRODUCTORY                                        1\n\n  CHAP.\n\n    I. THE EARLIEST ARTHURIAN RECORDS                11\n\n   II. ARTHUR IN WELSH LEGEND AND LITERATURE         37\n\n  III. GEOFFREY OF MONMOUTH AND THE CHRONICLERS      60\n\n   IV. ROMANCE                                       95\n\n    V. ARTHUR IN ENGLISH LITERATURE                 116\n\n  ADDITIONAL NOTES                                  138\n\n  BIBLIOGRAPHY                                      141\n\n  INDEX                                             143\n\n\n\n\nKING ARTHUR IN HISTORY AND LEGEND\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY\n\n\n\u201cIt is notoriously known through the universal world,\u201d writes Caxton\nin his preface to Malory\u2019s _Morte Darthur_, \u201cthat there be nine\nworthy\u201d kings \u201cand the best that ever were,\u201d and that the \u201cfirst and\nchief of the three best Christian and worthy\u201d is King Arthur. Caxton,\nhowever, finds it a matter of reproach that so little had been done\nin his own country to perpetuate and honour the memory of one who\n\u201cought most to be remembered amongst us Englishmen tofore all other\nChristian kings.\u201d Thanks mainly to Caxton\u2019s own enterprise, and to the\npoets who have drawn their inspiration from Malory\u2019s book, there is\nno longer any cause to accuse Englishmen of indifference to Arthur\u2019s\nname and fame. No literary matter is more familiar to them than \u201cwhat\nresounds in fable or romance of Uther\u2019s son.\u201d And yet nothing is\nmore \u201cnotoriously known\u201d than that authentic historical records of\nthe career of this \u201cmost renowned Christian king\u201d are distressingly\nscanty and indeterminate. An old Welsh bard, who sings of the graves\nof departed British warriors, and has no difficulty in locating\nmost of them,[1] tells us that \u201cunknown is the grave of Arthur.\u201d[2]\nWould that this were indeed the sum of our ignorance! To-day, as of\nold, Arthur remains but a shadowy apparition, clothed in the mists\nof legend and stalking athwart the path of history to distract and\nmystify the sober chronicler. A Melchisedec of profane history, he\nhas \u201cneither beginning of days nor end of life.\u201d Neither date nor\nplace of birth can be assigned to him any more than a place of burial,\nwhile undiscovered yet is the seat of that court where knights, only\nless famous than himself, sought his benison and behest. It is only\nromantic story-tellers, like the authors of the Welsh _Mabinogion_,\nwho venture upon such positive statements as that \u201cArthur used to hold\nhis court at Caerlleon upon Usk.\u201d[3] Geoffrey of Monmouth is, indeed,\neven more precise and circumstantial than the professed retailers of\nlegend, for he actually gives the reasons why Arthur settled his court\nat Caerlleon, or the City of Legions--a \u201cpassing pleasant place.\u201d[4]\nThat, of course, is only Geoffrey\u2019s way, and illustrates the genius\nfor invention which makes his so-called _History_ a work unique of\nits kind. The \u201cmatter of Britain\u201d is, much more than the \u201cmatter of\nFrance,\u201d or even the heterogeneous \u201cmatter of Rome the great,\u201d the\ndespair of the historian.[5] But it is, for that very reason, the\nparadise of the makers and students of romance; and, as a result, the\nmass of Arthurian literature of all kinds which exists to-day,--prose\nand verse romances, critical studies of \u201corigins,\u201d scholarly quests\nalong perilous paths of mythology and folk-lore,--is ponderous enough\nto appal the most omnivorous reader. The Arthurian legend has indeed\nbeen of late, both in Europe and in America, the subject of so much\nmythological, ethnological and philological speculation as to tempt the\nunsophisticated lover of mere literature to say, when he contemplates\nthe mounting pile of printed critical matter, that Arthur\u2019s sepulchre,\nwherever his mortal remains may lie, is at last well on the way to be\nbuilt in our libraries.\n\nThere is nothing in literary history quite like the fascination which\nArthurian romance has had for so many diverse types of mind. Poets,\nmusicians, painters, religious mystics, folk-lorists, philologists--all\nhave yielded to it. For some people the study of Arthurian nomenclature\nis as engrossing a pursuit as the interpretation of \u2018The Idylls of the\nKing\u2019 is for others, while there are those who derive as much pleasure\nfrom investigating the symbolic meanings of the story of the Grail as\nlovers of music do from listening to the mighty harmonies of _Parzival_\nor _Tristan und Isolde_. All this only makes us wonder the more why so\nobscure and elusive a figure as the historical British Arthur should\nhave become the centre of a romantic cycle which presents so many\nvaried and persistent features of interest. Even in Caxton\u2019s time, as\nin our own, there were sceptics \u201cwho held opinion that there was no\nsuch Arthur, and that all books as been made of him be but feigned\nand fables.\u201d This is not surprising, when it is remembered that even\nwhen Geoffrey of Monmouth, some three centuries before, gave to the\nworld his astonishing record of Arthur\u2019s achievements, a few obstinate\ncritics had their doubts about the whole matter, and one of them--the\nchronicler, William of Newburgh--roundly denounced Geoffrey for having,\nby his \u201csaucy and shameless lies,\u201d made \u201cthe little finger of his\nArthur bigger than the back of Alexander the Great.\u201d[6] Caxton\u2019s way\nwith the sceptics is ingenuous and short, but it is curious to note\nhow his preface to the _Morte Darthur_ succeeds, in its own quaint\nand crude fashion, in suggesting what are still the main problems of\nconstructive Arthurian criticism. It will not do, he says in effect,\nto dismiss summarily all Arthurian traditions as so many old wives\u2019\ntales. They are too widespread and persistent not to have some basis\nof solid fact underlying them: besides, the people who believe them,\nlove them, and write of them, cannot all be credulous fools. Caxton,\nin particular, cites the case of the \u201cnoble gentlemen\u201d who \u201crequired\nhim to imprint the history of the noble king and conqueror, king\nArthur,\u201d--one of whom \u201cin special said, that in him that should say\nor think that there was never such a king called Arthur might well be\naretted great folly and blindness.\u201d This gentleman--of whom one would\ngladly know more--was evidently both an antiquary and a student of\nletters, and could give weighty reasons for the faith that was in\nhim. First of all, Arthur\u2019s grave, so far from being unknown, might\nbe seen \u201cin the monastery of Glastingbury.\u201d Again, reputable authors\nlike Higden, Boccaccio, and \u201cGalfridus in his British book,\u201d tell\nof his death and recount his life; \u201cand in divers places of England\nmany remembrances be yet of him, and shall remain perpetually, and\nalso of his knights.\u201d His seal, for example, \u201cin red wax closed in\nberyl,\u201d could be seen in the Abbey of Westminster; Gawaine\u2019s skull and\nCradock\u2019s mantle were enshrined in Dover Castle; the Round Table was\nat Winchester, and \u201cin other places Launcelot\u2019s sword and many other\nthings.\u201d Caxton appears to speak in his own person when he goes on to\nre-inforce all this by mentioning the records of Arthur that remained\nin Wales, and \u201cin Camelot, the great stones and the marvellous works\nof iron lying under the ground, and royal vaults, which divers now\nliving have seen.\u201d Moreover, Arthur\u2019s renown was well established in\nall places, Christian and heathen, so much so that he was \u201cmore spoken\nof beyond the sea,\u201d and \u201cmore books made of his noble acts,\u201d than\nin England. \u201cThen all these things alleged,\u201d he concludes, \u201cI could\nnot well deny but that there was such a noble king named Arthur, and\nreputed one of the nine worthy, and first and chief of the Christian\nmen.\u201d Hence he decided in all good faith, \u201cunder the favour and\ncorrection of all noble lords and gentlemen, to enprise to imprint\u201d the\nBook of King Arthur and of his Noble Knights of the Round Table. And,\nin view of Ascham\u2019s famous denunciation of the book as containing but\n\u201copen manslaughter and bold bawdrie,\u201d and of Tennyson\u2019s sensitiveness\nto the touch of\n\n        \u201cthe adulterous finger of a time\n  That hover\u2019d between war and wantonness,\u201d\n\nit is well to remember that Caxton held that all that was in it was\n\u201cwritten for our doctrine.\u201d \u201cFor herein may be seen noble chivalry,\ncourtesy, humanity, friendliness, hardiness, love, friendship,\ncowardice, murder, hate, virtue and sin. Do after the good and leave\nthe evil, and it shall bring you to good fame and renommee.\u201d\n\nCaxton\u2019s preface to the _Morte Darthur_ has here been taken as a\nsort of preliminary text, not only because that famous work is, by\ngeneral consent, the fullest and the most fascinating presentment in\nEnglish of the great congeries of tales that make up the so-called\nArthurian \u201ccycle,\u201d but also because Caxton\u2019s own words, as already\nhinted, serve to raise, in a peculiarly suggestive way, most of the\nquestions with which the critical student of the Arthurian legends and\ntheir origin has to deal to-day. The _Morte Darthur_ itself, it has\nbecome a commonplace to say, remains unchallenged, in spite of its\ninconsequences and inconsistencies, the supreme Arthurian \u201cprose epic\u201d\nin English. The work is not, of course, \u201cepic\u201d in any strict sense,\nbut it was issued by Caxton to the readers of his day as pre-eminently\nan English _Arthuriad_. Arthur alone of \u201cthe Nine Worthies\u201d had not\nhad justice done to him in his own country. The two other Christian\n\u201cworthies,\u201d Charlemagne and Godfrey of Boulogne, had been adequately\ncelebrated abroad, and Caxton himself had contributed to spread the\nlatter\u2019s fame in England. Why should the great English \u201cChristian\nking\u201d remain unhonoured in his own land? It was, therefore, with the\npatriotic object of blazoning the fame of the greatest of _English_\nheroes that Caxton undertook the publication of Malory\u2019s book. Now,\nthe historical Arthur, so far as we know him, is not English at all,\nbut a \u201cBritish\u201d hero, who fought against the Saxons, and whose prowess\nis one of the jealously treasured memories of the Celtic peoples, and\nparticularly of the Welsh. By what process of transformation had this\nBritish warrior become, by Caxton\u2019s time, the ideal \u201cChristian king\u201d\nof England? And why, again, should he be singled out as pre-eminently\none of the three _Christian_ kings of the world, and his name linked\nwith \u201cthe noble history of the Saint Greal\u201d? Here we come at once upon\none of the disturbing influences in what ought to be a straightforward\nrecord of the doings of a fighting chieftain of early Britain. The\nquest of the Holy Grail had, originally, nothing to do with Arthur.[7]\nBut, by Caxton\u2019s time, the mystic, or religious, element in Arthurian\nromance had become so prominent as to make it impossible to think of\nArthur except in association with the \u201chigh history\u201d of the Grail. A\nfurther complication meets us when we are told that Malory took his\nmaterial for his narrative of the deeds of the paramount English, or\nBritish, hero \u201cout of certain books of French.\u201d Why should Malory so\nconstantly refer to \u201cthe French book\u201d as his authority, and have so\nlittle to go upon that had been written in English, or in Welsh? Why\nis it that to-day, after four centuries of diligent search in both\nprivate and public libraries, the amount of extant British literature\nof an indubitably ancient date dealing with Arthur\u2019s exploits is so\nscanty? For Caxton\u2019s statement still remains substantially true that,\ndown to the fifteenth century, \u201cthe books that had been made about\nArthur over sea,\u201d and in foreign tongues, far outnumbered those that\nhad been made in Britain. How are we to account for the popularity\nwhich the Arthurian stories thus enjoyed on the European continent, and\nfor the way in which they became, during the Middle Ages, practically\ninternational literary property?\n\nThese are the main questions which have to be answered to-day by\nthose who attempt to trace the origin and growth of the Arthurian\nlegends, and they are all suggested in Caxton\u2019s preface. This little\nbook does not pretend to furnish a final answer to any one of them.\nIt simply essays to present in a summary and, it is hoped, a clear\nform the substance of what is told about King Arthur in history and\nlegend, together with a brief notice of the development of Arthurian\nliterature mainly in England. No attempt will be made to trace the many\nramifications of the subsidiary stories which have been grafted upon\nthe original Arthurian stock. Characters like Perceval, or Lancelot,\nor Tristram, who figure so largely in the full-orbed Arthurian cycle,\ncould each easily be made the subject of a separate volume far\nexceeding the dimensions of the present one. Here, attention will be\nconcentrated, as far as possible, upon the figure and the fortunes of\nArthur himself.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE EARLIEST ARTHURIAN RECORDS\n\n\nIf, in Caxton\u2019s words, \u201csuch a king called Arthur\u201d ever lived in these\nislands, he must have flourished during the period between the first\ncoming of the Saxons and the middle of the sixth century. So much, at\nany rate, is clearly attested by the meagre historical records which\nprofess to recount his deeds. Nothing, however, can be found in these\nrecords to warrant the belief that he ever became \u201cking\u201d of any part\nof Britain. His achievements as a warrior alone are mentioned, and\nall that we can gather besides from Welsh tradition only serves to\nemphasise the fact that his renown among the British people rested\nmainly upon his warlike prowess. His admission to the so-called \u201cCeltic\npantheon,\u201d and his gradual evolution in Celtic tradition as a great\nmythological figure, are matters of purely speculative interest,\nand cannot be taken into account in an attempt to answer our first\nquestion--Who, and what, was the historical Arthur? In Welsh we read\nof an \u201cemperor\u201d Arthur,[8] but this title, as we shall see, implies\nnothing more than that he was a war-leader, or a commander-in-chief\nof a group of more or less celebrated generals. His kingship, and his\nstate as the head of a great court, are entirely the creations of later\nromance.[9]\n\nLittle, if anything, of historical significance is to be deduced\nfrom the form of Arthur\u2019s name. It appears in the Latin chronicles\nas _Arturus_, and is probably of Roman origin, derived from the form\n_Artorius_.[10] This is much more likely than that, as Rhys suggests,\nit was \u201ca Celtic name belonging in the first instance to a god Arthur.\u201d\nFor the latter explanation, as readers of Rhys\u2019s _Arthurian Legend_\nwill know, carries us into the world of mythology, and is made the\nfoundation of an ingenious hypothesis to account for Arthur\u2019s Celtic\nfame. That hypothesis, so far as it bears upon the name, is thus\nsummarised by its author. \u201cThe Latin _Art\u00f4rius_ and the god\u2019s name,\nwhich we have treated as early Brythonic _Artor_, genitive _Art\u00f4ros_,\nwould equally yield in Welsh the familiar form _Arthur_. In either\ncase, the name would have to be regarded as an important factor in the\nidentification or confusion of the man with the divinity. The latter,\ncalled Arthur by the Brythons, was called Airem by the Goidels, and\nhe was probably the Art\u00e6an Mercury of the Allobroges of ancient Gaul.\nHis r\u00f4le was that of Culture Hero, and his name allows one to suppose\nthat he was once associated, in some special manner, with agriculture\nover the entire Celtic world of antiquity. On the one hand we have the\nman Arthur, whose position we have tried to define, and on the other a\ngreater Arthur, a more colossal figure, of which we have, so to speak,\nbut a _torso_ rescued from the wreck of the Celtic pantheon.\u201d[11] The\nmythological Arthur, as he appears in Welsh literature and tradition,\nwill claim our attention in another chapter; here, our inquiry will be\nconfined mainly to the Latin records in which we find, or should expect\nto find, the earliest authentic information about \u201cthe man Arthur.\u201d\n\nThe oldest historical document in which Arthur is mentioned by name is\nthe famous _Historia Brittonum_ ascribed to Nennius. Parts of this work\nmay have been put together as early as the seventh century,[12] but the\ncompilation, as we now have it, was due to a Welshman named Nennius,\nor (in Welsh) Nynniaw, who lived about the year 800.[13] The work may\nbe roughly divided into two parts,--the first, of sixty-six sections\nor chapters, professing to give a cursory sketch of the history of\nBritain from the earliest times down to the eighth century; the second\ncontaining a list of the twenty-eight \u201ccities of Britain,\u201d together\nwith an account of certain \u201cmarvels\u201d (_mirabilia_), or wonderful\nnatural phenomena, of Britain, which, the compiler tells us, he \u201cwrote\nas other scribes had done before him.\u201d The quasi-historical part of the\nwork contains much the fullest notice of Arthur\u2019s military exploits\nto be found in any chronicle before that of Geoffrey of Monmouth,\nwhile from sundry allusions to Arthur in the section on the \u2018marvels\nof Britain,\u2019 we gather that legend was already busy with his name.\nThe celebrated passage in which Arthur is mentioned in the _Historia_\nproper[14] runs as follows:--\n\n\u201cAt that time, the Saxons increased and grew strong in Britain. After\nthe death of Hengist, Octha his son came from the northern part of the\nkingdom to the men of Cantia, and from him are descended its kings.\nThen Arthur fought against them in those days, together with the kings\nof the Britons, but he himself was leader in the battles.[15] The first\nbattle was at the mouth of the river Glein; the second, third, fourth\nand fifth on the river Dubglas, in the region Linnuis; the sixth on the\nriver Bassas; the seventh in the wood of Celidon, that is, Cat Coet\nCelidon[16]; the eighth at the castle of Guinnion, when Arthur bore the\nimage of the holy Virgin Mary on his shoulders, and when the pagans\nwere put to flight and a great slaughter made of them through the might\nof our Lord Jesus Christ and of Holy Mary his mother. The ninth battle\nwas fought at the city of Legion, the tenth on the shore of the river,\nwhich is called Tribruit, and the eleventh on the mountain which is\ncalled Agned. The twelfth battle was on Mount Badon, where there fell\nnine hundred and sixty men before Arthur\u2019s single onset; nor had any\none but himself alone a share in their downfall, and in all the battles\nhe was the victor. But the enemy, while they were overthrown in all\ntheir battles, sought help from Germany, and continually increased in\nnumber, and they brought kings from Germany to rule over those who were\nin Britain up to the time of the reign of Ida, who was the first king\nin Beornicia.\u201d\n\nOne notes, in the very first words in which mention is here made of\nArthur, that he is not called a \u201cking,\u201d but that he fought \u201ctogether\nwith the kings\u201d of the Britons, not, seemingly, as their auxiliary, but\nas their commander-in-chief--_sed ipse dux erat bellorum_. It has been\nsuggested,[17] with much plausibility, that the term _dux bellorum_\nin this passage implies that Arthur held, after the departure of the\nRomans, a military office similar to one of those established in the\nisland during the later years of the Roman administration. Since the\ntime of Severus Britain had been divided, for defensive purposes, into\ntwo districts. At first, most pressure came from the Picts and the\nScots in the North, and the defence of Upper Britain was entrusted to\na commander called _dux Britanniarum_. Later, when the Saxons began to\nthreaten the eastern and southern shores, a second officer--_comes\nlittoris Saxonici_--was appointed to command the armies of Lower\nBritain. Finally, a third officer, the _comes Britanni\u00e6_, was given\na general supervision over the other two, and the supreme charge of\nthe defences of the entire country. Sir John Rhys discovers in Arthur\nthe representative in the sixth century of this third officer of the\nRoman military organisation. This supposition undoubtedly helps to\nexplain better than any other both Nennius\u2019s description of Arthur as\n_dux bellorum_, and the seemingly wide range of country covered by the\ntwelve battles which he is said to have fought.\n\nIt is, however, to be noted, as Rhys points out,[18] that while the\ntitle apparently given in early Welsh literature to those who succeeded\nto supreme power in Britain was _gwledig_, that name is never given\nto Arthur. The term _gwledig_, itself, means no more than \u201cruler\u201d\nor \u201cprince,\u201d and is indiscriminately used in that sense in medi\u00e6val\nWelsh,[19] but there is good reason to believe that, as applied to\ncertain warriors of the sixth century, the title was a Brythonic\nequivalent of the official military title, _comes_ or _dux_. The most\nfamous bearer of the title, Maxen Wledig, comes within the Roman\nperiod, and his renown is mainly due to romance[20]; three others who\nare so called, Cunedda, Ceredig and Emrys (the Ambrosius Aurelianus\nof Gildas), may very well have held one of the military offices in\nquestion. \u201cCunedda Wledig and Ceredig Wledig are connected with the\nnorth and appear to be guardians of the wall, while Emrys Wledig is\nthe antagonist of the Saxons. Thus Cunedda and Ceredig may be regarded\nas Dukes of the Britains, while Emrys is a British Count of the Saxon\nshore.\u201d[21] Arthur, on the other hand, is in Welsh literature _yr\namherawdyr Arthur_, \u201cthe emperor Arthur,\u201d[22] and so, as Rhys suggests,\n\u201cit is not impossible that, when the Roman _imperator_ ceased to have\nanything more to say to this country, the title was given to the\nhighest officer in the island, namely, the _Comes_ _Britanni\u00e6_, and\nthat in the words _yr amherawdyr Arthur_ we have a remnant of our\ninsular history.\u201d[23]\n\nAn even more difficult problem than the determination of Arthur\u2019s rank\nis the identification of the twelve battlefields mentioned in Nennius\u2019s\nrecord. The twelfth century chronicler, Henry of Huntingdon, tells\nus that, even in his own time, \u201call the places were unknown\u201d; hence\nit is not surprising that those who have in our day sought to trace\ngeographically the course of Arthur\u2019s campaigns have not brought us\nmuch nearer certainty. The most plausible theory is that which would\nlocate most, if not all, the places named by Nennius in the region\nof the Roman walls in the North,[24] a theory largely supported by\nGeoffrey of Monmouth\u2019s elaboration of Nennius\u2019s account, and by the\nfact that the names of several prominent characters connected with the\nearly exploits of Arthur are localised in Lowland Scotland. On the\nother hand, it is contended that Mount Badon,[25] and Urbs Legionis,\nat least, must be in the South, and that Linnuis--which in Geoffrey\nappears as Lindisia (or Lindsey), \u201cotherwise called Lindocolinum\u201d--is\nin the East. The localisation of Arthur\u2019s battlefields is of no great\nconsequence as compared with the fact that the earliest record of\nthem, however vague and fragmentary, clearly points to a long and\nvictorious campaign conducted under his generalship against the Saxons\nand other enemies of the Britons in the sixth century. Two, at least,\nof the victories recorded by Nennius appear to have strongly seized\nthe imagination of later writers of Arthurian story. It mattered\nless to them where \u201cthe castle of Guinnion\u201d actually was than that\nin the battle fought there Arthur \u201cbore the image of the holy Virgin\nMary on his shoulders,\u201d and thus established the tradition which\nultimately exalted him into \u201cthe first and chief of the three best\nChristian kings.\u201d Nennius\u2019s brief statement is, of course, expanded and\nembroidered by Geoffrey[26] and other romantic chroniclers in turn,\nuntil the tradition becomes so firmly rooted as to make a modern poet\nlike Wordsworth single out Arthur as a champion of the early British\nChurch, and sing,\n\n  \u201cAmazement runs before the towering casque\n  Of Arthur, bearing through the stormy field\n  The Virgin sculptured on his Christian shield.\u201d[27]\n\nHence, even Tennyson takes no very great liberty with Arthurian\ntradition when he converts \u201cArthur\u2019s knighthood\u201d into a Christian\nfellowship avowing that\n\n  \u201cThe King will follow Christ, and we the King,\n  In whom high God hath breathed a secret thing.\u201d[28]\n\nThe other battle, of those mentioned by Nennius, that looms large in\nsubsequent Arthurian story is that of _Mons Badonis_, or Badon Hill.\nThis battle is of exceptional interest because it is possible to\nassign to it an approximately certain date. The record in the _Annales\nCambri\u00e6_ of the year 516 as its precise date is of less importance than\nthe fact that Gildas, the celebrated sixth century scribe, expressly\nrefers to the battle as having been fought in his natal year. In his\n_De Excidio et Conquestu Britanni\u00e6_, amid much vehement denunciation of\nthe British people and their degenerate leaders, Gildas gives a short\nsketch of the history of Britain down to his own time. Coming to the\nSaxon invasions, he states that they were first successfully checked\nunder the leadership of Ambrosius Aurelianus, the last of the Romans,\n\u201ca modest man, who alone of all his race chanced to survive the shocks\u201d\nof that troubled time.\n\nAfter this, he continues, the struggle went on with varying fortune\n\u201cuntil the year of the siege of Badon Hill, and of almost the last\ngreat slaughter inflicted upon the rascally crew. And this commences\n(a fact I know) as the forty-fourth year, with one month now elapsed;\nit is also the year of my birth.\u201d[29] So far as the date goes, this\nseems to mean that the year of the battle of Badon and of Gildas\u2019s\nown birth was the forty-fourth from that in which he wrote. As the\n_De Excidio_ must have been written before the death of Maelgwn\nGwynedd--the Maglocunus against whom Gildas directs some of his\nchoicest invective--in or about the year 547, the date of the fight at\nBadon Hill cannot well have been later than 504. At any rate, Gildas\u2019s\ntestimony is sufficient warrant that some time during the first decade\nof the sixth century a battle was fought against the Saxons at a place\ncalled Badon Hill, in which the Britons were the victors.\n\nBut that battle, according to Nennius, was the one of all the twelve\nrecorded by him in which Arthur gave the most signal evidence of his\nindividual prowess; before his single onset \u201cnine hundred and sixty\nmen\u201d fell. Now Gildas, an unimpeachable sixth century authority,\nmakes no reference whatever to Arthur\u2019s achievements in this, or any\nother, encounter with the Saxons. This silence, so far as it affects\nthe historicity of Arthur, is less disturbing than it appears to be,\nwhen account is taken of the character and motive of Gildas\u2019s work as\na whole. The _De Excidio_ is not so much a history as a homily. Gildas\nbelonged to a \u201cRomanist\u201d party, and what the more or less unorganised\nBritons sought to do for themselves, and their independence, was\nto him but a decline upon savagery and selfish native pride. It\ndid not suit his purpose to celebrate the name and virtues of any\nBritish prince, and it is significant that, apart from Ambrosius,--by\nbirth, apparently, no less than by his training and sympathies, a\nthorough-going \u201cRoman,\u201d--he does not mention by name a single British\nchieftain except as a target for his invective.\n\nIn the _mirabilia_ attached to Nennius\u2019s _History_ Arthur is a\nmythical figure as remote and as elusive as he is in early Welsh\npoetry and triadic lore. In them, as in the earliest Welsh poems, he\nis pre-eminently Arthur \u201cthe warrior,\u201d but he is known besides as the\nowner of a famous hound, and as the father of a son whose name had\nbeen given to one of the natural features of the country. The first\n\u201cmarvel,\u201d in connection with which Arthur\u2019s name occurs, is in the\nregion of Buelt, or Builth. Here, we are told, is a mound of stones,\non the top of which is one stone bearing the mark of a dog\u2019s foot.\nThis mark was made by Cabal, \u201cthe dog of Arthur the warrior\u201d (_Arthuri\nmilitis_), when he was hunting \u201cthe boar Troit\u201d (_porcum Troit_). The\npile of stones was put together by Arthur, and is called Carn, or the\nCairn of, Cabal. The marvel lay in the fact that, though men might come\nand carry away the top stone \u201cfor the space of a day and a night,\u201d the\nstone was invariably found in its proper place the next day. Another\nmarvel, described in immediate succession, belongs to \u201cthe region which\nis called Ercing,\u201d or Archenfield. There may be found a tomb close by\na spring which is called the Source of the Amir,--_juxta fontem qui\ncognominatur Licat Amir_, after the name of the man who was buried\nthere. This Amir was the son of \u201cArthur the warrior,\u201d who himself\nkilled, and buried him, on that spot. The \u201cmarvellous\u201d property of this\ntomb was that, when men came to measure it, at various times, they\nnever found it of the same size; \u201cand,\u201d the writer ingenuously adds, \u201cI\nhave made proof of this by myself\u201d (_et ego solus probavi_). These two\n_miracula_, as he calls them, are all that Nennius, or his authority,\nhas to tell us of the mythical, as distinguished from the historical,\nArthur.\n\nThese apparently casual records of Arthurian marvels are noteworthy,\nnot only as indicating an early association of Arthurian traditions\nwith the topography of Wales, but also as affording a connecting link\nbetween the earliest Latin documents in which Arthur\u2019s name is found\nand one of the very oldest of the Welsh Arthurian tales. In the Welsh\nromance, or rather fairy-tale, of _Kulhwch and Olwen_,--the primitive\nliterary form of which probably dates from the tenth century,[30]--the\nhunting of the _Twrch Trwyth_, or the Boar Trwyth (the _porcus Troit_\nof Nennius), forms one of the capital features. Now, in that hunt, as\ndescribed in _Kulhwch and Olwen_, Arthur\u2019s dog Cabal, or Cavall,--which\nis the Welsh form of the name,--takes part; he is led to the chase by\nArthur\u2019s faithful henchman, Bedwyr, or Bedivere.[31] Nor was it in\nbringing to bay \u201cthe boar Troit\u201d alone that Cavall took part. He was\nconspicuous in the capture and the slaughter of another monster, who is\ncalled an Arch- or Head-Boar, bearing the fearsome name of \u201cYskithyrwyn\nBenbaedd.\u201d \u201cAnd Arthur,\u201d we read,[32] \u201cwent himself to the chase,\nleading his own dog Cavall. And Kaw, of North Britain, mounted Arthur\u2019s\nmare Llamrei, and was first in the attack. Then Kaw, of North Britain,\nwielded a mighty axe, and absolutely daring he came valiantly up to the\nboar, and clave his head in twain. And Kaw took away the tusk. Now the\nboar was not slain by the dogs that Yspaddaden had mentioned, but by\nCavall, Arthur\u2019s own dog.\u201d[33]\n\nThe battle of Mount Badon, as we have seen, is recorded in the\n_Annales Cambri\u00e6_, contained in a MS of the tenth century. Still more\ninteresting is another record in that document under the year 537. In\nthat year, we read, was fought \u201cthe battle of Camlan, in which Arthur\nand Medraut fell.\u201d Although we hear nothing of Medraut\u2019s treachery, or\nof his being Arthur\u2019s nephew, here, so far as we know, is the first\nrecorded allusion to what subsequently became one of the prime tragic\nfeatures in Arthurian story. Medrod, or Modred, is the villain of the\nromances, and Camlan is that \u201cdim, weird battle of the west,\u201d where\nArthur fought the \u201ctraitor of his house,\u201d and\n\n  \u201cStriking the last stroke with Excalibur\n  Slew him, and all but slain himself, he fell.\u201d[34]\n\nIn Welsh prose romance we hear of Camlan both in _Kulhwch and Olwen_\nand in _The Dream of Rhonabwy_; it is also mentioned in the Triads, and\nthere are two references to the place in the oldest Welsh poetry. In\n\u2018The Verses of the Graves\u2019 in _The Black Book of Carmarthen_, we are\ntold that \u201cthe grave of the son of Osvran is in Camlan,\u201d[35] and in\na poem in _The Red Book of Hergest_, a nameless bard labouring under\nforebodings of coming tumult in his own day, prophesies that \u201cCamlan\nwill be heard again, scenes of groaning will again be seen, and dismal\nlamentations.\u201d[36] Apart from these meagre references, Latin chronicles\nand early Welsh literature are alike altogether silent about what, in\nlater romance and poetry, stands out as the most fateful battle in\nArthur\u2019s career. Geoffrey of Monmouth is the first to give us elaborate\ndetails about Arthur\u2019s encounter with Modred, and his motley army of\nSaxons, Picts and Scots, on the banks of \u201cthe river Cambula,\u201d or Camel.\nThe river, according to Geoffrey, is in the west country, and the\nbattle is popularly supposed to have been fought near Camelford,[37] in\nCornwall.\n\nWhen we come to examine the remaining chronicle literature of the\npre-Norman period, we find no mention of Arthur\u2019s name, and nothing but\nthe briefest allusion to the campaigns in which he is supposed to have\nfought. Geoffrey of Monmouth, in the dedicatory epistle prefacing his\nBritish _History_, expresses his surprise that Bede, in his \u201celegant\ntreatise,\u201d has nothing to say about Arthur. If Arthur was indeed\nwidely known as a Christian champion, it is somewhat strange that an\necclesiastical writer of the first half of the eighth century should\nhave passed over his deeds in silence. Moreover, Bede does mention\nAmbrosius as a successful leader against the Saxons, and knows of \u201cthe\nsiege of Baddesdown-hill.\u201d Bede\u2019s silence about Arthur is not to be\nlightly ignored, nor easily explained away, in any critical discussion\nof the historicity of Arthur. Bede stands as the primary authority and\nthe model of what Stubbs calls \u201cthe most ancient, the most fertile,\nthe longest lived and the most widely spread\u201d of all the \u201cschools of\nEnglish medi\u00e6val history,\u201d[38]--the Northumbrian. The best and most\ntrustworthy of the chroniclers who followed him--such, for example, as\nWilliam of Malmesbury and William of Newburgh (Geoffrey\u2019s remorseless\nassailant)--pay their tributes to his industry, wisdom and integrity.\nHis _Ecclesiastical History_ is no mere desultory, or mechanical,\nrecord; it bears the impress of a great, and honest, personality. In\nhis record of the Saxon invasions, it is true, he follows Gildas,\neven to the extent of largely reproducing his very words. There is\nno conclusive evidence that he knew anything of the documents from\nwhich Nennius compiled his _History_, although one cannot, of course,\ndeny the probability of his knowledge of them. The only plausible\nexplanation of his silence about Arthur is that he drew his materials\nsolely from Saxon tradition and from Latin records, and that he was\neither ignorant of, or distrusted, the Celtic, or British, traditions\nconcerning Arthur which had their origin and home in the West and in\nthe then \u201cfarthest North.\u201d If, on the other hand, stories of Arthur\u2019s\ndeeds were widely current in Lowland Scotland, it is surprising that a\nNorthumbrian writer should apparently have known nothing of them.\n\nAgain, there is no mention whatever of Arthur in the Saxon _Chronicle_.\nThe fact that the _Chronicle_ contains no record of a fight, successful\nor otherwise, against the Britons for a long period after 527, or\n530, seems to confirm Nennius\u2019s account of the decisive check to the\nSaxon advance given in the battles with which he associates Arthur\u2019s\nname. On the other hand, the battle at Badon Hill must, as we have\nseen, have been fought long before the year 527. There is no question\nabout the superior trustworthiness of the _Chronicle_ to Nennius\u2019s\nnarrative as a historical authority.[39] Here, again, the silence can\nonly be explained on the assumption that the compilers of the Saxon\n_Chronicle_ did not care much about recording British victories, and\ncared less, or knew nothing at all, about the British chieftains\nwho won them. As against this assumption, it should be noted that\nthe _Chronicle_ does mention such British names as Vortigern and\nNatanleod,--the latter a \u201cBritish king\u201d slain in the year 508, just\nat the time when Arthur\u2019s prowess, according to tradition, was at its\nheight.\n\nThe meagreness of the pre-Norman Arthurian records which have been\nhere reviewed stands in significant contrast to the amplitude and\nthe range of the Arthurian matter which we find in the romantic\nproductions of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The contrast is\nso startling as to suggest at once that the coming of the Normans to\nBritain had much to do with what may be called the aggrandisation of\nArthur. It was Geoffrey of Monmouth, as we shall see, writing under the\ndirect auspices of a cultured Norman potentate, who did more than any\nother man to spread the renown of Arthur as a presumably historical\ncharacter, and to give him for centuries an assured place in the\nchronicle literature of Britain. But Geoffrey could not have written\n\u201cto order\u201d such a book as his _History_ had he not a large stock of\npopular traditions to draw upon. All the evidence seems to point to\nthe period extending from the tenth to the twelfth centuries as that\nof the popular growth of an Arthurian legend, on a large scale, among\n\u201cthe Celtic fringe.\u201d By the beginning of the twelfth century Arthurian\nstories were circulating freely in Brittany, Cornwall and Wales. It\nis only on this supposition that one can account, for example, for a\ntumult caused at Bodmin in the year 1113, by a certain monk from Laon\nwho had the temerity to deny that Arthur still lived.[40] Later on in\nthe same century, as Alanus de Insulis records,[41] belief in Arthur\u2019s\n\u201creturn\u201d was so firmly held in the country districts of Brittany that a\ndenial of it might have cost a man his life. Moreover, two chroniclers\nof repute who wrote before Geoffrey bear clear testimony to the\nwidespread currency of Arthurian traditions in their day, and to the\ncuriosity aroused in serious historians concerning the deeds of the\nBritish king.\n\nNone of the Anglo-Norman chroniclers ranks higher as a trustworthy\nhistorical authority than William of Malmesbury,--the first great\nsuccessor of Bede, whom he calls his master and exemplar. In the first\nchapter of his _History of the Kings of England_--the first version of\nwhich was completed in 1125--we find the following passage referring to\nthe Saxon invasions in the sixth century:--\n\n\u201cWhen he (Vortimer) died, the British strength decayed, and all hope\nfled from them; and they would soon have perished altogether, had not\nAmbrosius, the sole survivor of the Romans, who became monarch after\nVortigern, quelled the presumptuous barbarians by the powerful aid of\nthe warlike Arthur. This is the Arthur of whom the idle tales of the\nBritons rave even unto this day; a man worthy to be celebrated not in\nthe foolish dreams of deceitful fables, but in truthful histories. For\nhe long sustained the declining fortunes of his native land, and roused\nthe uncrushed spirit of the people to war.\u201d\n\nThen follows a reference, based upon Nennius\u2019s narrative, to the battle\nof Mount Badon. This passage, although somewhat confused in its account\nof the relative positions of Vortigern, Ambrosius and Arthur in the\nevents of their time, is significant as indicating not only Arthur\u2019s\nfame as a fabled British hero in William\u2019s day, but the historian\u2019s\nown regret at the absence of authentic information about a warrior\nso worthy of lasting commemoration. Another noteworthy reference to\nArthur in William of Malmesbury\u2019s history occurs in his account of the\ndiscovery in Pembrokeshire of the grave of Gawain, \u201cArthur\u2019s noble\nnephew.\u201d[42] Gawain, we are told, \u201cwas driven from his kingdom by the\nbrother and nephew of Hengist,\u201d and \u201che deservedly shared, with his\nuncle, the praise of retarding for many years the calamity of his\nfalling country. The grave of Arthur is nowhere to be seen; hence\nancient songs fable that he is still to come.\u201d Here we have positive\nevidence that, long before Geoffrey\u2019s time, Arthur\u2019s \u201creturn\u201d was sung\nof by British bards whose compositions, with the solitary exception of\nthe stanza in \u2018The Songs of the Graves,\u2019 already referred to, appear to\nhave been irretrievably lost.\n\nHenry of Huntingdon is not so trustworthy a chronicler as William of\nMalmesbury, and his account of Arthur is, substantially, borrowed, with\nembellishments, from Nennius. Henry\u2019s place in a review of Arthurian\nrecords is due not to his _History_, but to a letter, addressed to a\nfriend named Warinus,[43] which singularly attests the interest then\nfelt in the history of Arthur. That letter recounts how Henry, while\non a journey to Rome in the year 1139, stopped at the abbey of Bec in\nNormandy and was there shown by the chronicler, Robert of Torigni, a\n\u201cgreat book,\u201d written by one \u201cGeoffrey Arthur,\u201d containing a history\nof the early kings of Britain. The book in question was, almost\ncertainly, an early draft of Geoffrey of Monmouth\u2019s famous _Historia\nRegum Britanni\u00e6_. But it is curious to find that Henry\u2019s abstract of\nthe book, as given in the letter to Warinus, differs in one important\nrespect--and that alone concerns us at this stage--from the text of\nGeoffrey\u2019s _History_ as given in all the MSS of that work in its final\nform. Geoffrey\u2019s account of the \u201cpassing\u201d of Arthur--an incident which\noffered to so imaginative a writer unrivalled opportunities of romantic\ndecoration--is singularly devoid of ornament. Henry\u2019s abstract of\nthis part of the book which he found at Bec is, on the other hand, a\nhighly-coloured piece of writing.\n\n\u201cWhen he (Arthur) was about to cross over the Alps, an envoy said unto\nhim, \u2018Modred, thy nephew, hath set thy crown upon his own head with the\nassistance of Cheldric, king of the English, and hath taken thy wife\nunto himself.\u2019 Arthur, thereupon, seething over with wondrous wrath,\nreturning into England, conquered Modred in battle, and after pursuing\nhim as far as unto Cornwall, with a few men fell upon him in the midst\nof many, and when he saw that he could not turn back said, \u2018Comrades,\nlet us sell our death dear. I, for my part, will smite off the head of\nmy nephew and my betrayer, after which death will be a delight unto\nme.\u2019 Thus spake he, and hewing a way for himself with his sword through\nthe press, dragged Modred by the helmet into the midst of his own men\nand cut through his mailed neck as through a straw. Natheless, as he\nwent, and as he did the deed, so many wounds did he receive that he\nfell, albeit that his kinsmen the Britons deny that he is dead, and\ndo even yet solemnly await his coming again. He was, indeed, the very\nfirst man of his time in warlike prowess, bounty and wit.\u201d[44]\n\nThe vivid personal details of this narrative may be due to Henry\u2019s own\nimagination, for it is well known that he, like Geoffrey, exercised\nthat faculty largely in his treatment of history; but, even so, the\npassage is curiously significant in its bearing upon the martial fame\nof Arthur, and upon the belief in his \u201creturn\u201d cherished by \u201chis\nkinsmen the Britons,\u201d in the first half of the twelfth century.\n\nThe review given in this chapter of the earliest Arthurian\nrecords,--all of which are in Latin,--as distinguished from Celtic song\nor fable, points clearly to the gradual growth, around the personality\nof a real British warrior of the sixth century, of a legend which by\nthe twelfth century had assumed a form that arrested, though it might\nbaffle, the leading historians of the day. Now, it so happened that the\ntwelfth century was the seed-time of medi\u00e6val romance in Europe, and\nhow effectively the legend of Arthur was thenceforth exploited for\nromantic purposes will be seen later on. It remains, however, for us,\nfirst, to give some account of what was known, or fabled, about Arthur\namong \u201chis kinsmen the Britons\u201d themselves, as recorded in their extant\nprose and poetry.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nARTHUR IN WELSH LEGEND AND LITERATURE\n\n\nTo begin once more with Caxton, the preface to the _Morte Darthur_\nstates that of the \u201cnoble volumes made of Arthur and his noble knights\u201d\nthere \u201cbe many in Welsh.\u201d Caxton was, here, either drawing upon his\nimagination or speaking with imperfect knowledge. It is true that\nArthur figures largely in the _Mabinogion_, but when we come to examine\nclosely even these tales, we find that he appears only in five out of\nthe eleven[45] which are designated by that name in Lady Charlotte\nGuest\u2019s well-known translation, while in the four tales--probably the\noldest of all--to which alone the title of \u201cmabinogion\u201d is strictly\napplicable, he does not appear at all. Again, in the oldest Welsh\npoetry Arthur is the merest shadow, and even the medi\u00e6val Welsh poets,\nwho might have been expected to drink deep of the wells of romance,\nmention him only in the most casual and perfunctory way. There is,\nhowever, just enough in these old Welsh poems and prose stories to\nindicate that a legend of Arthur existed in Wales from a very early\nperiod--certainly from a period long before the appearance of Geoffrey\nof Monmouth\u2019s _History_ in the twelfth century. The traditions embodied\nin this literature are indeed vague and disconnected enough, for they\nare drawn from an age when the art of romantic \u201cexploitation\u201d had not\nyet been learnt; but they bear the unmistakable marks of a legendary\ngrowth indigenous to Wales itself. As such, they are of exceptional\ninterest, and deserve a somewhat fuller notice than their actual range\nand extent would seem to warrant.\n\nThe earliest Welsh literature in which we read of Arthur may be divided\ninto three distinct and well-marked groups. First come the few poems\nin the oldest Welsh MSS which mention him. The allusions to Arthur in\nthese poems represent, probably, traditions derived from an earlier\nperiod than anything contained in the second group of writings to be\nnoticed, the prose tales,--although, as will be seen, one or two of the\npoems and prose stories appear to refer to the same legends. Lastly, we\nhave the Triads, which, according to Rhys, \u201cgive us the oldest account\nof Arthur.\u201d[46]\n\nThe compositions attributed to the oldest Welsh bards have come down\nto us in MSS which date from the twelfth to the end of the fourteenth\ncentury; the best known of them are four in number, and these were\nedited long ago, with translations, by the late Dr W. F. Skene under\nthe title of _The Four Ancient Books of Wales_.[47] It is unnecessary\nhere to touch upon controversial questions affecting the antiquity and\nthe genuineness of the poems contained in these MSS. Many of them are,\nplainly enough, not much older than the date of the compilation of the\nparticular MS in which they are found. Others, however, as plainly\ncontain what Matthew Arnold,[48] speaking of the prose _Mabinogion_,\ncalls \u201ca _detritus_ of something far older,\u201d and it is impossible to\navoid the conclusion that some of them refer to historical events\nand personages of the sixth and seventh centuries, while others\ncontain mythological matter derived from a much remoter age. Here,\nthe references to Arthur in these poems alone concern us. They are\nstrangely few in number, and tantalisingly brief. In _The Black Book\nof Carmarthen_ he is mentioned five times, in _The Book of Aneirin_\nonly once. He is the central figure in a remarkable poem in _The Book\nof Taliesin_, and his name occurs in one other poem in that MS; in the\npoetry of _The Red Book of Hergest_ nothing is heard of him, except\nin a poem called \u2018Gereint, son of Erbin,\u2019 which is also found in _The\nBlack Book_. Three of the references in _The Black Book_ are of the\nbriefest character. In one poem[49] the bard tells us that he \u201chas\nbeen where Llacheu, the son of Arthur, was slain,\u201d and that is all;\nin another, evidently a late poem, we hear of \u201cArthur\u2019s host,\u201d or\n\u201cretinue\u201d (_teulu Arthur_)[50]; while in a stanza, already alluded to,\nin \u201cThe Songs of the Graves,\u201d we are told that his grave is unknown. In\nthe solitary passage in which his name occurs in _The Book of Aneirin_\nhe is a standard of comparison,--a certain warrior is described as\nbeing \u201can Arthur in the exhaustive conflict\u201d[51]; the second of the two\npoems in which he is mentioned in _The Book of_ _Taliesin_ refers,\nwithout comment or description, merely to \u201cArthur\u2019s steed.\u201d[52]\n\nThere remain to be noticed the three poems which, alone, contain\nanything more than such casual allusions as those we have just cited.\nTwo of them are in _The Black Book_, and one would seem to bring us\ninto touch, though but remotely, with the historical \u201cArthur the\nwarrior,\u201d--the _dux bellorum_ of Nennius, who may have held \u201cthe place\nof the _imperator_ himself, when Britain ceased to be part of the\ndominions of Rome.\u201d[53] This latter poem is called \u2018Gereint _filius_\nErbin,\u2019[54]--a title identical with that of the prose romance which is\nthe Welsh collateral of Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes\u2019s _Erec_,--and, although\nGereint is its hero, Arthur is introduced as a war-leader of seemingly\nhigher rank. \u201cAt Llongborth,\u201d the bard sings,\n\n        \u201csaw I of Arthur\u2019s\n  Brave men hewing with steel,\n  (Men of the) emperor, director of toil.\n\n  At Llongborth there fell of Gereint\u2019s\n  Brave men from the borders of Devon,\n  And, ere they were slain, they slew.\u201d\n\nWhere \u201cLlongborth,\u201d or \u201cShip\u2019s port,\u201d was, we do not know, but the\nwhole poem appears to refer to an actual battle in which Gereint\u2019s\ndeeds had left a profound impression upon his bardic eulogist. The\nassociation, in this poem, of Arthur with Gereint brings us, for the\nfirst time, into the company of one of the knights who, in later\nromance, belong to the goodly fellowship of the Round Table. In the\nsecond _Black Book_ poem we are introduced to two others who figure\nprominently in the romances,--Kei, or \u201cKay the seneschal,\u201d and Bedwyr,\nor Bedivere, \u201cthe latest-left of all\u201d King Arthur\u2019s knights. This poem\nis cast in the form of a dialogue between Arthur and the keeper of a\ncastle who is called Glewlwyd of the Mighty Grasp, and who appears in\nthe Welsh prose stories as one of Arthur\u2019s chief \u201cporters.\u201d Arthur\nseeks entrance to the castle, and Glewlwyd, apparently, will not\nopen the gates without satisfying himself as to the number and the\ncredentials of his followers. Arthur, thereupon, proceeds to name them\nand to recount their achievements. They are a weird company, bearing\nstrange names reaching back to the remotest regions of primitive Welsh\nmyth. Among them are Mabon, the son of Modron, \u201cUther Pendragon\u2019s man\u201d;\nManawyddan, the son of Ll\u0177r, \u201cprofound in counsel,\u201d who \u201cbrought home a\npierced buckler from Tryvrwyd\u201d[55]; Mabon, son of Mellt, \u201cwho stained\nthe grass with gore\u201d; Llwch Llawynawc, Angwas the Winged, Arthur\u2019s son\nLlacheu, and others.[56] But the two doughtiest among the champions\nArthur has around him are Bedwyr and Kei. Bedwyr, like Manawyddan,\nfought at Tryvrwyd, and \u201cby the hundred they fell\u201d before him there;\n\u201cnine hundred to watch, six hundred to attack,\u201d continues the bard, was\nthe measure of Bedwyr\u2019s prowess. Still mightier was \u201cthe worthy Kei.\u201d\n\u201cVain were it to boast\u201d against him in battle; \u201che slew as would an\nhundred,--unless it were God\u2019s doing, Kei\u2019s death would be unachieved.\u201d\nKei, we are further told, \u201cslew nine witches\u201d; he went \u201cto Mona to\ndestroy lions,\u201d and he fought against a mysterious monster called\n\u201cPalug\u2019s Cat.\u201d Capable as he was of all this, it is not surprising to\nhear that Kei\u2019s drinking powers were equal to those of four men. Of the\ndeeds of Arthur himself the poem tells us nothing.\n\nA still more remarkable poem,--the last that remains to be noticed,--in\nwhich certain strange deeds of Arthur are commemorated, is found in\n_The Book of Taliesin_ under the name of \u2018Preiddeu Annwvn,\u2019 or \u2018The\nSpoils of Hades.\u2019 It refers to various expeditions made by Arthur and\nhis men, in his ship Pridwen to certain mysterious regions oversea.\nDefinite names enough are given to the different places visited--Caer\nSidi, Caer Rigor, Caer Vandwy, and so on,--but the places themselves\nremain quite unidentified. \u201cThree freights of Pridwen,\u201d sings the\nbard, \u201cwere they who went with Arthur\u201d on these expeditions; \u201cseven\nalone were we who returned\u201d therefrom. One of the exploits achieved in\nthe course of these voyages was, apparently, the rape of a cauldron\nbelonging to the King of Hades, and the whole poem, according to\nRhys,[57] \u201cevidently deals with expeditions conducted by Arthur by sea\nto the realms of twilight and darkness.\u201d\n\nThe last two poems here referred to have several features in common\nwith what is, probably, the oldest of the Arthurian prose tales in\nWelsh,--the story of _Kulhwch and Olwen_. That story also tells of the\nrape of a cauldron, belonging not, indeed, to the King of Hades, but\nto one Diwrnach, who lived across the sea in Ireland; Arthur went in\nquest of it, with a small retinue, in his ship Pridwen, and brought it\nhome \u201cfull of Irish money.\u201d The second of the two poems refers to \u201ca\nspeckled ox\u201d (_ych brych_), and the acquisition of \u201ca speckled ox\u201d was\none of the tasks imposed upon Kulhwch by Olwen\u2019s father as part of the\nprice to be paid for her hand. Again, nearly all the persons mentioned\nin _The Black Book_ dialogue between Arthur and Glewlwyd figure also in\n_Kulhwch and Olwen_. So, where the oldest Welsh Arthurian poetry comes\ninto contact with the oldest Welsh prose, the Arthur that we find dimly\noutlined in both is a purely mythical hero.\n\n_Kulhwch and Olwen_, the most fantastic of all the Welsh prose tales\ndealing with Arthur, palpably embodies Arthurian traditions current\nin Wales at a very early date. \u201cAlmost every page of this tale,\u201d\nwrites Matthew Arnold,[58] \u201cpoints to traditions and personages of\nthe most remote antiquity, and is instinct with the very breath of\nthe primitive world.\u201d The tale relates of the wooing of Olwen, the\ndaughter of one bearing the formidable name of Yspaddaden Pen Kawr, by\nKulhwch, so called because \u201che had been found in a swine\u2019s burrow,\u201d\nbut \u201cnevertheless a boy of gentle lineage, and cousin unto Arthur.\u201d\nKulhwch, after being told by his stepmother that he \u201cshould never\nhave a wife until he obtained Olwen,\u201d is informed by his father that\n\u201cthat will be easy for him.\u201d \u201cArthur is thy cousin,\u201d the father says;\n\u201cgo, therefore, unto Arthur, to cut thy hair, and ask this of him as\na boon.\u201d The winning of Olwen,--hard enough though it appears in the\nstory, which is mainly concerned with the long series of laborious\ntasks imposed upon Kulhwch as conditions of gaining her hand--is\nmade \u201ceasy\u201d through Arthur\u2019s intervention. The hero starts by duly\npresenting himself at \u201cthe gate of Arthur\u2019s palace,\u201d and he there meets\nwith the porter, Glewlwyd of the Mighty Grasp, who conveys to Arthur\nthe news of his arrival. Arthur is introduced to us as the head of\na court, keeping high state in his palace, or hall, which is called\nEhangwen (Broad-White). When Kulhwch comes to ask his \u201cboon\u201d of him,\nArthur replies, \u201cThou shalt receive the boon whatsoever thy tongue may\nname, as far as the wind dries, and the rain moistens, and the sun\nrevolves, and the sea encircles, and the earth extends,--save only my\nship; and my mantle; and Caledvwlch,[59] my sword; and Rhongomyant, my\nlance; and Wynebgwrthucher, my shield; and Carnwennan, my dagger; and\nGwenhwyvar, my wife.\u201d Kulhwch proceeds to ask for help in his quest\nnot only from Arthur himself, but also from his knights and retainers,\nof whom a long and weird list is given. Kai and Bedwyr--an apparently\ninseparable pair--are first mentioned; then follows a series of strange\nand fantastic names, of most of which no other record remains in\nfable or folk-lore. Characters such as Taliesin, the chief of bards;\nManawyddan, son of Ll\u0177r; Gereint, son of Erbin; Gwynn, the son of Nudd,\nand some others, are heard of elsewhere. But what are we to make of\nbeings like Sugyn, the son of Sugnedydd, \u201cwho could suck up the sea\non which were three hundred ships, so as to leave nothing but a dry\nstrand\u201d; or, \u201cGilla of the Deer-Legs, the chief-leaper of Ireland,\u201d\nwho \u201cwould clear three hundred acres at one bound\u201d; or, Gwevyl, the\nson of Gwestad, who, \u201con the day that he was sad, would let one of\nhis lips drop below his waist, while he turned up the other like a\ncap upon his head\u201d; or, Medyr, the son of Methredydd, who could from\nCornwall \u201cunerringly shoot the wren through the two legs\u201d as far away\nas Ireland; and other weird people endowed with similar superhuman\nattributes? Arthur himself figures in the tale as a fairy king, having\nall these strange beings at his service, and giving them orders in the\nmost direct and matter-of-fact way. One of his most useful henchmen,\nfor example, is \u201cMenw, the son of Teirgwaedd\u201d--corresponding to the\nconventional enchanter of the universal fairy world--who could \u201ccast\na charm and an illusion over them, so that none might see them while\nthey could see every one.\u201d Other characters in the motley crowd are\nsaid to \u201ccome from the confines of Hell\u201d; others are \u201cattendants\u201d and\n\u201chuntsmen\u201d of Arthur, while quite a large group figure as his \u201cuncles\u201d\nand \u201ckindred on his father\u2019s side.\u201d\n\nAmong the many trials to which Olwen\u2019s father submits Kulhwch is that\nof \u201cgetting Arthur and his companions to hunt the Twrch Trwyth.\u201d \u201cHe,\u201d\nsays Yspaddaden, \u201cis a mighty man, and he will not come for thee,\nneither wilt thou be able to compel him.\u201d Kulhwch knew better, for\nhe had already secured Arthur\u2019s promise to help him to the utmost of\nhis own and his companions\u2019 resources. The hunting of the Boar (the\n_porcus Troit_) is one of the main features of the story; and, except\nperhaps Meleager\u2019s adventure to the quarry of the Calydonian boar,\nthere is no such swine-hunt in primitive literature. Many strange men\nand beasts and implements were required for the chase and despatch of\nTwrch Trwyth, and for the capture of \u201cthe comb and scissors\u201d between\nhis ears, which Yspaddaden wanted for the proper trimming of his\nunruly hair. Mabon, the son of Modron; Garselit, \u201cthe chief huntsman\nof Ireland\u201d; Gwynn, the son of Nudd, \u201cwhom God has placed over the\nbrood of devils in Annwn\u201d; Gilhennin, \u201cthe king of France\u201d; Drudwyn,\n\u201cthe whelp of Greid\u201d; Du, \u201cthe horse of M\u00f4r of Oerveddawg\u201d; \u201cthe sword\nof Gwrnach the Giant\u201d;--all these, and many more such auxiliaries, had\nto be secured for the Boar\u2019s capture. But Kulhwch is not dismayed; \u201cmy\nlord and kinsman Arthur,\u201d he tells Yspaddaden, \u201cwill obtain for me all\nthese things, and I shall gain thy daughter, and thou shalt lose thy\nlife.\u201d\n\nThe story of the hunt, with its many marvels, is chiefly remarkable\nfor its minute topographical and personal detail,--the topography\nbeing indeed so precise as to make it all but possible to trace on a\nmodern map the route taken by the hunters.[60] The Boar is finally\ndriven into Cornwall, and thence \u201cstraight forward into the deep sea;\nand thenceforth it was never known whither he went.\u201d \u201cThen,\u201d says\nthe story-teller, \u201cArthur went to Gelli Wic, in Cornwall, to anoint\nhimself, and to rest from his fatigues.\u201d He had, however, to assist\nKulhwch in one further enterprise,--the obtaining of \u201cthe blood of the\nwitch Orddu, of Pen Nant Govid (the Head of the Vale of Grief), on the\nconfines of Hell.\u201d He did so by slaying the hag with his own hand,\ncleaving her in twain \u201cwith Carnwennan, his dagger.\u201d After that Kulhwch\ngoes boldly to Yspaddaden and asks, \u201cIs thy daughter mine now?\u201d \u201cShe is\nthine,\u201d said he, \u201cbut therefore needest thou not thank me, but Arthur,\nwho hath accomplished this for thee.\u201d\n\n_Kulhwch and Olwen_, it will be seen from this brief account of it,\nis in all essentials a fairy-tale, embodying a mass of fantastic, and\neven grotesque, folk-lore of an obviously pre-historic antiquity. It\nis to fairy-land, also, that we are transported in another of the\nWelsh tales, _The Dream of Rhonabwy_, composed probably during the\nlatter half of the twelfth century. Both it and _Kulhwch_ have much in\ncommon with the mythic tales of Ireland. \u201cWe possess a considerable\nnumber of Irish sagas, which betray the same characteristics as the\ntwo Welsh tales: fondness for enumeration, triadic grouping, _bravura_\ndescriptive passages, and, notably in _Bricriu\u2019s Feast_, a distinct\nsemi-parodistic tone.\u201d The _Dream_,--of which the central feature, the\nstory of Owen and his ravens, must be very old,--is remarkable for a\nseries of minutely detailed and richly coloured word-pictures of\n\n  \u201cImpresses quaint, caparisons and steeds,\n  Bases and tinsel trappings.\u201d[61]\n\nAmong the marvellous objects described are Arthur\u2019s sword and mantle\n(called Gwenn), but the story-teller does not let his fancy play around\nthem so freely as around most of the things he depicts. The sword was\nin the keeping of \u201cKadwr, earl of Cornwall,\u201d whose duty it was to \u201carm\nthe king on the days of battle.\u201d \u201cAnd the similitude of two serpents\nwas upon the sword in gold. And when it was drawn from its scabbard, it\nseemed as if two flames of fire burst forth from the jaws of serpents.\u201d\nGwenn, the mantle, was \u201cof diapered satin\u201d with \u201can apple of ruddy gold\nat each corner thereof,\u201d and \u201cit was one of its properties that upon\nwhomsoever it was put, he became lost to sight though he himself could\nsee every one.\u201d Arthur himself is, in this tale, constantly referred to\nas \u201cthe Emperor,\u201d and he is first met with \u201csitting on a flat island\u201d\nbelow the Ford of the Cross on the Severn, \u201cwith Bedwini the Bishop on\none side of him, and Gwarthegydd, the son of Kaw, on the other.\u201d Among\nhis retainers are his \u201ccousin\u201d March (or Mark), the son of Meirchion,\nprince of \u201cthe men of Norway\u201d; Edern, the son of Nudd, prince of \u201cthe\nmen of Denmark\u201d; Kai, \u201cthe fairest horseman in all Arthur\u2019s Court\u201d;\nand a host of others, many of whose names appear in the long catalogue\ngiven in _Kulhwch and Olwen_. Some of these names, such as Tristan, the\nson of Tallwch, and Peredur of the Long Lance, bring us into touch with\nthe later developments of Arthurian romance.\n\nThe other three _Mabinogion_, so called, in which Arthur figures,--_The\nLady of the Fountain_, _Geraint_, and _Peredur_,--will be noticed in\na subsequent chapter, for these stories, whether they were directly\nbased upon French originals or not, palpably belong to a period when\nthe Arthurian legends had been, or were being, exploited for romantic\npurposes by French writers. The natural transition from such stories\nas _Kulhwch and Olwen_ is to the Welsh Triads, the oldest group of\nwhich certainly contain traditions about Arthur as archaic as anything\nto be found in either the poems or the prose tales already reviewed.\nHere, only a few of the more significant allusions to Arthur contained\nin them need be quoted. Arthur is first mentioned in connection with\nMedraut\u2019s, or Modred\u2019s, treachery, and he is described--much as in\nGeoffrey\u2019s Chronicle--as conducting a victorious campaign against the\nRomans. The final battle with the Romans, of which Geoffrey gives so\nelaborate an account, is said to take place \u201cbeyond Mount Mynneu,\u201d\nand in it Arthur encounters, and slays with his own hand, the Roman\nEmperor himself.[62] Modred, who had been left in charge of Britain,\nhearing of the grievous slaughter of Arthur\u2019s \u201cbest men\u201d in this\nbattle, revolts. Arthur returns, \u201cand then took place the battle of\nCamlan between Arthur and Medraut, when Arthur slew Medraut, and Arthur\nhimself was mortally wounded; and _he was buried in a palace in the\nisle of Avallach_.\u201d In another Triad, Arthur is made responsible for\none of \u201cthe Three Wicked Uncoverings\u201d of the Isle of Britain, viz.,\nthe uncovering of \u201cthe head of Br\u00e2n the Blessed from the White Mount\u201d\nin London. The \u2018mabinogi\u2019 of _Branwen, daughter of Ll\u0177r_, relates how\nthe head of Br\u00e2n had been buried, by his own command, in the White\nMount, with its face towards France. While it remained undisturbed,\nthis island would be secure from invasion,--hence the \u201cwickedness\u201d\nof Arthur\u2019s \u201cuncovering.\u201d Another of the Triads speaks of Arthur as\nthe husband of three wives, each called Guinivere,--\u201cGwenhwyfar, the\ndaughter of Gwryd Gwent, Gwenhwyfar, the daughter of Gwythur, son of\nGreidawl, and Gwenhwyfar, the daughter of Ogrvan the Giant.\u201d This\nstrange statement, as Rhys points out, appears to have its parallel\nin the Irish story of Echaid Airem, where we hear of three women all\nbearing the name of Et\u00e1in, and \u201cthe three Gwenhwyfars are the Welsh\nequivalents of the three Et\u00e1ins, and the article in the Triads must\nbe held to be of great antiquity.\u201d[63] One of the last records in\nthis group of Triads has affinities both with the four \u2018Mabinogion,\u2019\nproperly so-called, and with one of the old Welsh poems cited in this\nchapter; it also contains a curiously interesting reference to a\ncharacter who, in medi\u00e6val romance, appears as the hero of the most\npoetical of all the legends included in the Arthurian cycle. This Triad\nrefers, mainly, to certain swine legends, and is entitled _The Three\nStout Swineherds of the Isle of Britain_; but it mentions, besides\nswine, \u201cPalug\u2019s cat,\u201d--hence its connection with \u2018Preiddeu Annwvn,\u2019\nthe poem from _The Book of Taliesin_ already alluded to. The first of\nthe \u201cthree swineherds\u201d is Pryderi, the son of Pwyll, \u201cHead of Annwn,\u201d\nand his story is told in full in the \u2018mabinogi\u2019 of _Pwyll, prince\nof Dyved_. It is strange, however, to find that the second of these\npre-eminent swineherds is Drystan, or Tristan, son of Tallwch,--the\nknightly Tristram of later romance. \u201cThe second\u201d stout swineherd, so\nthe record runs, \u201cwas Drystan, son of Tallwch, with the swine of March\n(Mark), son of Meirchion, while the swineherd went on a message to\nEssyllt (Iseult). Arthur and March and Kai and Bedwyr came, all four\nto him, but obtained from Drystan not even as much as a single porker,\nwhether by force, or fraud, or theft.\u201d\n\nThese four examples are quite sufficient to show that in the Triads,\nno less than in the oldest Welsh tales and poems dealing with Arthur,\nwe come upon traditions handed down from a very remote age, which were\nall but incomprehensible to the medi\u00e6val scribes who garnered them, and\nare therefore preserved in a bewilderingly confused and disconnected\nform. They are the _disjecta membra_ of a lost mythology, the legacy\nof pre-historic Celtic heathendom, which even the most learned and\ningenious interpreters of primitive folk-lore and religion find it\nwell-nigh impossible to restore into a coherent and intelligible\nwhole.[64]\n\nThey, however, who would rob us of a historical and a chivalric\nKing Arthur must, perforce, leave us an Arthur whose attributes\nas a presumed pagan deity do not prevent the unsophisticated from\nrecognising in him an ideal prince of fairy-land. It is as such a\nprince that he appears against the setting of \u201cold,\u201d but not altogether\n\u201cunhappy, far-off things, and battles long ago,\u201d in which he is\npresented in the early literature of Wales. It is as such a prince that\none, at least, of the great English poets accepts him. To Spenser,\nArthur, \u201ctaken from mother\u2019s pap\u201d and\n\n                  \u201cstraight deliver\u2019d to a Faery knight\n  To be upbrought in gentle thewes and martiall might,\u201d[65]\n\nwas just the potent deliverer required to bring the Red Cross\nKnight and the rest of that questing company out of their various\ndifficulties, and to establish, through a series of timely\ninterventions, his right to the hand of the Fairy Queen.\n\nIn both _Kulhwch and Olwen_ and _The Dream of Rhonabwy_, as also in the\nTriads, we find frequent mention of Cornwall as a district with which\nArthur is intimately connected. It is to Cornwall that he retires to\nrest after the hunting of the boar; and it is to Cornwall that Kai, at\nthe close of _The Dream of Rhonabwy_, bids all repair who \u201cwould follow\nArthur.\u201d His home, and his court, there is at a place called Kelli, or\nGelli, Wic. In later Arthurian literature little, if anything, is heard\nof Kelli Wic; Caerleon-upon-Usk displaces it altogether as the scene\nof Arthur\u2019s central court. But, with Geoffrey of Monmouth, two other\nCornish localities are brought into dramatic connection with Arthur\u2019s\nfortunes--viz., Tintagol, or Tintagel; and Dimilioc, or Damelioc. These\nplaces are unheard of in the Welsh Arthurian tales, but, according to\nGeoffrey, it was at Dimilioc that Uther besieged, and his men slew,\nGorlois; and it was this siege that enabled Uther, in the semblance\nof Gorlois, to gain access to Igerne in her retreat at the castle of\nTintagel, and so to become the father of \u201cthe most renowned Arthur.\u201d It\nis a pity that no Cornish records have survived to throw some further\nlight upon these momentous events. It is, however, very unlikely that\nGeoffrey would have incorporated them in his narrative, had there not\nbeen, in Cornwall as in Wales, traditions long current which associated\nthe name of Arthur with some of the ancient strongholds of the country.\nNo less significant, as indicative of the existence of a separate\nCornish legend of Arthur, is that Geoffrey, with others, tells us that\nthe last and fatal battle with Medrod took place on the river Camel\nin Cornwall. It is not, perhaps, easy to reconcile these traditions\nwith the theory that Arthur\u2019s life and achievements were confined to\nNorth Britain. But that theory is no less difficult to reconcile with\nthe abundance, and the ubiquity, of Arthurian place-names in all the\ndistricts, except Ireland, that make up \u201cthe Celtic fringe.\u201d \u201cOnly the\nDevil is more often mentioned in local association than Arthur.\u201d[66]\nThe precise significance of such association is perhaps, in both cases,\nequally indeterminable.\n\nInvestigators of Arthurian origins talk a good deal about Brittany.\nUnfortunately, there is no early Breton, any more than Cornish,\nliterature to draw upon for any further information about a\npre-historic, or a pre-romantic, Arthur. The _lais_ of Marie of\nFrance are supposed to embody matter borrowed from Breton minstrels\nwho sang before the flourishing of romance; but only one of her\npoems, \u2018Lanval\u2019--and that but remotely--has any connection with early\nArthurian lore. It may be that \u201cthe Bretons\u201d whom Wace mentions as\n\u201ctelling many a fable of the Table Round\u201d[67] were Armorican Britons.\nWe know for certain, at any rate, that a legend of Arthur, which\nincluded a belief in his \u201creturn,\u201d had taken firm root in Brittany\nby the twelfth century.[68] There is, therefore, no difficulty about\nassuming that it was from the Bretons, rather than from the Welsh,\nthat the Normans derived their first knowledge of Arthur, and so came\nto construct out of the stories connected with him the romantic cycle\nknown as the _mati\u00e8re de Bretagne_. The controversy waged about the\nrelative shares of Great and of Little Britain in supplying matter for\nthe French romantic writers[69] is of no real consequence--everybody\nis agreed that that matter is to be ultimately traced to a Celtic,\nand a British, source. What is of more importance is the fact that\nbefore any \u201cmatter of Britain\u201d is heard of as a great romantic theme,\na writer appeared who, by means of an orderly narrative embodied in an\napparently sober chronicle, aroused an interest in Arthur\u2019s life and\ndeeds such as no mere romance could ever have succeeded in doing. He\nwas Geoffrey of Monmouth, and it is in his _History_ that we get our\nfirst full-length portrait of Arthur as a great, and actual, \u201cking of\nBritain.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nGEOFFREY OF MONMOUTH AND THE CHRONICLERS\n\n\nChaucer, in his _Hous of Fame_, gives a station of conspicuous honour\nto a group of writers whose claim to distinction is that they are all\n\u201cbesy for to bere up Troye.\u201d Homer, inevitably, heads the list, standing\n\n  \u201cFul wonder hye on a pilere\n  Of yren.\u201d\n\nWith him, however, are ranged persons of somewhat doubtful reputation;\nto wit, Dares, the Phrygian, and \u201cTytus,\u201d or Dictys, the Cretan, \u201cGuido\nde Columpnis,\u201d and--significantly--\u201cEnglish Gaufride.\u201d \u201cGaufride,\u201d\nor Geoffrey, owes his modern renown much more to his contributions\nto Arthurian literature than to his modest additions to the tale of\nTroy. His detractors will have it that the Arthurian portions of his\nso-called _History_ are as fabulous as his account of the descent of\nthe British race from Brutus, the son of \u00c6neas. He had, however, the\nauthority of Nennius, at least, for his use of the Brutus legend. He\nhad the brief records of Nennius, also, to work upon as a foundation\nfor the elaborate narrative which he gives of the life and deeds of\nKing Arthur. But that narrative came upon the world as quite a new,\nand a startling thing. It is, perhaps, no exaggeration to term its\nappearance the chief literary event of the twelfth century; at any\nrate, it is certain that it aroused infinitely greater interest than\nthe story of what Brutus and his immediate descendants achieved in\nBritain. Chaucer, however,--to judge, at least, by his _Tale of Sir\nThopas_,--regarded the newer romantic matters with good-humoured\ncontempt; and the tale of Troy, in its various ramifications,\nchallenged his imagination much more insistently than such a\nnew-fangled theme as the story of Arthur.\n\nNotwithstanding the fact that Geoffrey\u2019s use of the Brutus legend is\nwhat constitutes the claim of his _History_ to rank as the first,\nand the greatest, of a long series of \u201cBruts,\u201d--English, French and\nWelsh,--his real title to literary fame rests upon his achievement,\nand his influence, as a contributor to Arthurian story. The Arthurian\nlegend would, undoubtedly, have attracted the attention of European\npoets and romancers, had Geoffrey\u2019s _History_ never been written.\nIt was current, as we have seen, in Wales, Brittany and Cornwall\nlong before his time. There is even evidence that Arthur, and tales\nconcerning him, were known in the south of Europe before he took up\nhis pen. But it is quite certain that Arthur would never have figured\nas he does in chronicle literature, and so have come to be regarded\nas an authentic historical character, were it not for Geoffrey\u2019s\nnarrative. And it may be doubted whether English poets, at any\nrate,--to judge from the homage which they pay Geoffrey,--would have\ndallied so much over Arthurian fable had they not at their call what\nWordsworth describes as that\n\n        \u201cBritish record long concealed\n  In old Armorica, whose secret springs\n  No Gothic conqueror ever drank.\u201d[70]\n\nNow, it so happens that the \u201cBritish record,\u201d which Wordsworth, with\na poet\u2019s licence, so confidently tells us was \u201clong concealed in old\nArmorica,\u201d has never yet been discovered, and the mystery surrounding\nit is the chief critical problem which still baffles every student\nof the work of Geoffrey of Monmouth. This problem is deliberately\nset us by Geoffrey himself at the very beginning of his Chronicle,\nfor he states that he is simply translating into the Latin tongue\n\u201ca certain most ancient book in the British language,\u201d which,--as\nhe adds in his epilogue,--\u201cWalter, archdeacon of Oxford, brought\nhither from Brittany.\u201d That he had some \u201cbook,\u201d or books, other than\nNennius, to supply him with material, is not only highly probable,\nbut almost certain; and, if we are to believe his own statement, that\nbook must have been in \u201cthe British language.\u201d But the fact remains\nthat no document, either in Welsh or in Breton, has yet been found\neven remotely resembling that which Walter, the archdeacon, is said\nto have brought over from Brittany. It is possible, however, that\nthose who have been searching for it have attached too much importance\nto the \u201cBritish\u201d book, and that, even were it to be discovered, its\ncontents would only serve to show how deftly Geoffrey manipulated his\nmaterial, and how artfully he succeeded in making his story of Arthur\njust what his Norman patrons, and the new romantic taste of the time,\nrequired. No intelligent reader of Geoffrey\u2019s _History_ can, at any\nrate, escape the conclusion that the work, especially in its treatment\nof both the Brutus legend and the career of Arthur, was written with\na motive. Besides, it is a work _sui generis_ among the chronicle\nliterature of its time, and bears clear evidence of deliberate romantic\nembellishment. In order to apprehend what Geoffrey\u2019s motive may have\nbeen, and how far he is to be regarded as a conscious romancer, it\nis necessary, first of all, to know something of the writer himself\nand of the age and the people for whom he wrote; a brief examination\nof the actual contents of the _History_, and more particularly of its\nArthurian portions, may perhaps serve, subsequently, to clear up as\nmuch of the rest of the matter as is possible, in the absence of any\nknowledge of \u201cthe British book.\u201d\n\nThe amount of authentic biographical detail ascertainable concerning\nGeoffrey is exceedingly scanty, and it is, therefore, not surprising\nthat what is told about him in many reputable literary histories is\ndistressingly inaccurate. Even the name of his famous book is, often,\nwrongly given; it is constantly cited as _Historia Brittonum_--the\ntitle of Nennius\u2019 compilation--instead of as _Historia Regum\nBritanni\u00e6_. Walter, the archdeacon of Oxford, again, has been confused\nwith Walter Map, who could hardly have been more than about twelve\nyears old when Geoffrey died. Geoffrey himself is loosely designated\n\u201carchdeacon of Monmouth,\u201d whereas there was no archdeaconry of Monmouth\nin his time. He is said to have become, ultimately, bishop of Llandaff,\nand to have died in the year 1152,--the actual facts, however, being\nthat he was ordained priest and, almost simultaneously, appointed\nbishop of St Asaph in 1152, and that he died at Llandaff in 1155. The\nexact dates of the beginning, and of the completion, of his _History_\ncannot be definitely fixed; but we know enough about the work to say\nthat it must have existed, in some form, as early as 1139, at the\nlatest, and that it was complete in the form in which we now have it by\nthe year 1148.\n\nThere is no conclusive evidence that Geoffrey was of Welsh birth,\nor that his home, other than a monastic domicile, was at Monmouth.\nThe dedication of his _History_, however, proves that he claimed the\npatronage of a Norman prince who was lord of a tract of Welsh country,\nthe north-west boundary of which all but extended to the town of\nMonmouth. Early in the twelfth century Robert, earl of Gloucester,\nacquired the lordship of Glamorgan by marriage with Mabel, the daughter\nand heiress of Robert Fitz-Hamon. Eminent as both statesman and\nwarrior, Robert of Gloucester, like his father, Henry Beauclerc, was\na student of letters and a generous friend of literary men. It is no\nempty compliment that Geoffrey pays Robert when he hails him as \u201cone\nnurtured in the liberal arts by philosophy, and called unto the command\nof our armies by his own inborn prowess of knighthood,\u201d and \u201cwhom in\nthese our days Britain haileth with heart-felt affection as though\nshe had been vouchsafed another Henry.\u201d[71] Robert\u2019s enlightened\npatronage of men of letters is sufficiently attested by the fact that\nWilliam of Malmesbury, the most distinguished historian of his day,\ndedicated to him his _History of the Kings of England_. The abbey of\nMargam, whose chronicle is an important authority for the history of\nmedi\u00e6val Wales, was founded by him; another abbey in which a valuable\nchronicle was compiled--that of Tewkesbury--had in him one of its chief\nbenefactors. On his estates at Torigni in Normandy was born Robert of\nthe Mount, afterwards abbot of Mont St Michel, eminent as a chronicler\nand known as a lover of the legends of his own Breton race. Robert of\nGloucester\u2019s close connection, as thus indicated, with both South Wales\nand Normandy at once suggests that he must have taken a considerable\ninterest in Welsh and Breton legendary lore. It is even possible that\nit was at his instance that Walter, the archdeacon, and Geoffrey\nembarked upon the quest which ultimately led to the discovery, real or\nalleged, of the \u201cbook in the British tongue,\u201d and to its translation\ninto Latin. It is obvious that Geoffrey, at any rate, was at pains to\nproduce a work which would please both his immediate patron and all\ncourtly readers who took pride in the growth of the Norman dominion.\n\nA plausible, and by no means improbable, explanation of Geoffrey\u2019s\nmotive in compiling the _Historia_ is that he meant it to be a kind\nof \u201cnational epos,\u201d blazoning the united glories of the composite\nAnglo-Norman \u201cempire\u201d which reached the zenith of its power under\nHenry II.[72] A book written with such a patriotic purpose would\ncertainly commend itself to Robert of Gloucester and other Norman\nlords, and would appeal strongly to the imagination of less exalted\nreaders. The _History_ does, indeed, provide in Arthur a hero over\nwhose achievements Norman and Saxon, Welshman and Breton, could all\nalike exult. Moreover, the common ancestry of the various constituent\nraces of the Angevin empire is shown by an account of their descent\nfrom a branch of the great Trojan stock which founded imperial Rome.\nBrutus, the son of \u00c6neas, stands to Britain in the same relation as\n\u00c6neas himself stands to Rome, with the exception--and that was, of\ncourse, to the advantage of Britain--that Brutus could be claimed as\nthe eponymous hero of this island.[73] Thus--as poets like Wace and\nLayamon, and certain Welsh chroniclers, who use the name, were quick\nto see--here was a _Brut_, which, though written in prose, had as\ngood a right to its epic title as the _\u00c6neid_. There is, even, some\nevidence that Geoffrey may, at one time, have cherished the ambition\nof emulating Virgil himself by telling his story in verse; for, in the\neleventh chapter of his first book, we come across certain elegiac\nlines which look uncommonly like fragments rescued from a projected\npoem. Apart, however, from its account of the coming of Brutus, there\nis little in Geoffrey\u2019s _Brut_ that furnishes any real analogy with\nthe _\u00c6neid_. It is not Brutus, but Arthur, who stands out as the hero\nof the _Historia Regum Britanni\u00e6_. The _Historia_ covers, altogether,\na period--according, of course, to the computation of its author--of\nsome fifteen hundred years; but more than a fifth part of it is devoted\nto the record of Arthur\u2019s life,--more than twice the space allotted to\nthe history of Brutus. It is upon the story of Arthur that Geoffrey\nseems to concentrate all his powers, and, by magnifying the continental\nconquests of the British king, he is able ultimately to point with\ntriumph to the fulfilment of a prophecy that \u201cfor the third time should\none of British race be born who should claim the empire of Rome.\u201d\n\nThe main objection to this theory of an Anglo-Norman \u201cepos\u201d is the\ndifficulty of reconciling it, not so much with the Trojan and the\nArthurian parts of the _Historia_ as with the scope and character of\nthe work as a whole. The book is called a _History of the Kings of\nBritain_, and would appear, _prim\u00e2 facie_, to have been composed\nby a writer of British birth for the sole purpose of glorifying the\nforgotten heroes of his own race.[74] Through six books the narrative\nis strictly confined to the insular history of Britain and its rulers,\nmany strange legends and marvels being interwoven with what professes\nto be an authentic and ordered record of actual events. Even in the\nfirst half of the _History_, dull though it is for the most part, one\nalights upon many passages which betray the hand of the deliberate\nromancer. But it is only with the introduction, in the seventh book, of\nthe prophecies of Merlin that Geoffrey finds his real opportunity for\nromantic dilatation. With Merlin he is in the very heart of the land\nof enchantment, and the spell of romance inevitably falls upon him. It\nis to Merlin\u2019s magic arts that the birth is due of \u201cthe most renowned\nArthur, who was not only famous in after years, but was well worthy of\nall the fame he did achieve by his surpassing prowess.\u201d Then follows,\nin three books, the narrative which first revealed to an astonished\nworld that Britain once had a hero whose deeds challenged comparison\nwith those of Alexander and Charlemagne. Here, at last, was historical\nconfirmation of what had long been fabled in \u201cthe idle tales\u201d and\n\u201cancient songs\u201d of the Britons. Here, also, was just what a romantic\nage was thirsting for, and Arthur immediately became the central figure\nof the most popular and the most splendid of the romantic cycles.\n\u201cAlexander\u201d--and, we may add, Charlemagne--\u201chad been an amusement;\nArthur became a passion.\u201d[75]\n\nGeoffrey\u2019s _History_, to be properly understood, must thus be read in\nthe light of the general literary history of its time. Romance was in\ndemand, and Geoffrey was shrewd enough to perceive the romantic value\nof the story of Arthur. It is impossible to read the Arthurian chapters\nin his Book without feeling that the writer is conscious of having got\nhold of \u201ca good thing,\u201d and that he is determined to make the most of\nit. So he gives his imagination free play, and palpably expands and\nembellishes his matter as he goes on. The _Historia_ is much more of a\nromance than a sober chronicle, and it is quite conceivable that, in\nan age of literary experiment, its author enjoyed the use to which he\nwas thus putting the time-honoured form of the chronicle. It is not,\nof course, suggested that Geoffrey invented all, or even the greater\npart, of his matter; nor need it be believed that the reference to\n\u201cthe British book\u201d is altogether a ruse. Like other chroniclers, he\nborrows largely from his predecessors; what he has taken from Nennius\nand Bede, for example, can be clearly traced in his text. But the\n_History_ obviously contains much which Geoffrey either invented, or of\nwhich he was unwilling to disclose the secret source. It is otherwise\nunaccountable that he should warn orthodox and reputable chroniclers,\nlike William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon, not to pry into\nthe romantic enclosure which was his own particular preserve. In his\nepilogue, Geoffrey tells these two eminent historians that they may\ngo on writing about \u201cthe kings of the Saxons,\u201d if they choose, but he\n\u201cbids them be silent as to the kings of the Britons, since they have\nnot that book in the British speech which Walter, archdeacon of Oxford,\nbrought over from Brittany.\u201d\n\nOf scarcely less significance than his epilogue, as throwing a light\nupon the general character of the work, is Geoffrey\u2019s introductory\nchapter. Its apologetic tone is distinctly suspicious, and seems\nintended to disarm the critical by vouching an authority, both ancient\nand written in a strange tongue, for the marvellous narrative that was\nto follow and for the ornate style in which it was presented. It is\nworth quoting in full, for it really strikes the keynote to the entire\nwork.\n\n\u201cOftentimes in turning over in mine own mind the many themes that might\nbe subject-matter of a book, my thoughts would fall upon the plan of\nwriting a history of the Kings of Britain; and in my musings thereupon\nmeseemed it a marvel that, beyond such mention as Gildas and Bede\nhave made of them in their luminous tractate, nought could I find as\nconcerning the kings that had dwelt in Britain before the Incarnation\nof Christ, _nor nought even as concerning Arthur_ and the many others\nthat did succeed him after the Incarnation, albeit that their deeds\nbe worthy of praise everlasting, and be as pleasantly _rehearsed from\nmemory by word of mouth in the traditions of many peoples_ as though\nthey had been written down. Now, whilst I was thus thinking upon such\nmatters, Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, a man learned not only in the\nart of eloquence, but in the histories of foreign lands, offered me a\ncertain most ancient book in the British language that did set forth\nthe doings of them all in due succession and order from Brute, the\nfirst king of the Britons, onward to Cadwallader, the son of Cadwallo,\n_all told in stories of exceeding beauty_. At his request, therefore,\nalbeit that never have I gathered gay flowers of speech in other men\u2019s\nlittle gardens and am content with mine own rustic manner of speech\nand mine own writing-reeds, have I been at pains to translate this\nvolume into the Latin tongue. For, had I besprinkled my page with\nhigh-flown phrases, I should only have engendered a weariness in my\nreaders by compelling them to spend more time over the meaning of the\nwords than upon understanding the drift of my story.\u201d\n\nThen follows the dedication to Robert of Gloucester.[76] Having thus\ngiven us his authority, and having taken further shelter under the wing\nof Walter, Geoffrey settles down to his task with all the gravity of a\npious monkish chronicler. As other chroniclers had done before him, he,\nin his early books at least, makes brief references--as, apparently, so\nmany \u201cguarantees of good faith\u201d--to contemporaneous events in sacred\nand profane history. When, for example, Gwendolen is said to have\nhanded over the sceptre to her son Maddan, we learn that \u201cSamuel the\nprophet reigned in Jud\u00e6a, and Homer was held to be a famous teller of\nhistories and poet.\u201d Carlisle, we are told, was founded at the time\nwhen \u201cSolomon began to build the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem.\u201d \u201cThe\nfortress of Mount Paladur, which is now called Shaftesbury,\u201d was built\nby Hudibras, when \u201cHaggai, Amos, Joel and Azarias did prophesy.\u201d We\nget, in the account of the building of Shaftesbury, a characteristic\nexample of Geoffrey\u2019s way of getting level with the sceptical reader.\n\u201cThere, while the wall was a-building, an eagle spake, the sayings\nwhereof, had I believed them to be true, I would not have shrunk from\ncommitting to memory along with the rest.\u201d\n\nIt is time, however, to give some account of Geoffrey\u2019s narrative of\nthe life of Arthur. He was, we are told, the son of Uther Pendragon[77]\nby Igerne, the lawful wife of Gorlois, duke of Cornwall. Uther is\nintroduced to us as the brother of Aurelius Ambrosius, and becomes, on\nthe death of Aurelius, king of Britain. After conquering the Saxons\nunder Octa and Eosa, and strengthening his kingdom generally, he falls\nin love with Igerne and quarrels with her husband. He, thereupon, makes\nwar upon Gorlois and besieges him in the castle of Dimilioc. Igerne\nhad, in the meantime, been sent for safer refuge to the neighbouring\ncastle of Tintagel, on the sea-coast. Thither Uther, transformed\ninto the semblance of Gorlois by Merlin\u2019s magic powers, proceeds in\nquest of her; he gains ready admission, and so becomes the father of\nArthur. Immediately afterwards Gorlois, in a sally from Dimilioc, is\nkilled, and in due time Uther marries Igerne. Another child born unto\nthem was a daughter, Anna, who became the wife of \u201cLot of Lodonesia,\u201d\nand the mother of Gawain and Modred. After another campaign against\nOcta and Eosa, Uther is poisoned by the Saxons, and Arthur succeeds\nto the throne. He is crowned by Dubricius, \u201carchbishop of the City\nof Legions,\u201d[78] and is thus portrayed as he was at the time of his\ncoronation. \u201cAt that time Arthur was a youth of fifteen years, of a\ncourage and generosity beyond compare, whereunto his inborn goodness\ndid lend such grace as that he was beloved of well-nigh all the peoples\nof the land. After he had been invested with the ensigns of royalty,\nhe abided by his ancient wont, and was so prodigal of his bounties\nas that he began to run short of wherewithal to distribute amongst\nthe huge multitude of knights that made repair unto him. But he that\nhath within him a bountiful nature along with prowess, albeit that\nhe be lacking for a time, natheless in no wise shall poverty be his\nbane for ever. Wherefore did Arthur, for that in him did valour keep\ncompany with largess, make resolve to harry the Saxons, to the end\nthat with their treasure he might make rich the retainers that were\nof his own household.\u201d Thus it comes about that Arthur begins his\ncareer of conquest at once. He attacks the Saxon chieftains Colgrin,\nCheldric and Baldulph, and with the help of his nephew Hoel, king of\nArmorica, subdues them after several battles--including the twelve\nrecorded by Nennius--of which the last is fought in \u201cthe country about\nBath.\u201d Arthur himself, carrying \u201con his shoulder the shield Priwen,\u201d\nand armed with Ron, his spear, and \u201cCaliburn, best of swords, that\nwas forged within the Isle of Avalon,\u201d performed prodigies of valour\nin that battle. \u201cWhomsoever he touched, calling upon God, he slew at\na single blow, nor did he once slacken in his onslaught until that he\nhad slain four hundred and seventy men single-handed with his sword\nCaliburn.\u201d Having restored the whole island to its pristine British\ndignity, Arthur, we read, \u201ctook unto him a wife born of a _noble Roman\nfamily_, Guenevere, who, brought up and nurtured in the household of\nDuke Cador (of Cornwall), did surpass in beauty all the other dames\nof the island.\u201d[79] His marriage only stimulated Arthur to attempt,\nand achieve, further conquests; and, in rapid succession, Ireland,\nIceland, Gothland, and the Orkneys, are either subdued or forced to\npay tribute to him. Then follow twelve years of peace, during which\nhis court waxed in splendour, and his renown spread until \u201cat last\nthe fame of his bounty and his prowess was on every man\u2019s tongue,\neven unto the uttermost ends of the earth, and a fear fell upon the\nkings of the realms oversea lest he might fall upon them in arms and\nthey might lose the nations under their dominion.\u201d Hence, one is not\nsurprised to learn that Arthur\u2019s \u201cheart was uplifted for that he was a\nterror unto them all, and he set his desire upon subduing the whole of\nEurope unto himself.\u201d Norway, Dacia and Gaul are invaded, and quickly\nreduced to submission. Lot, his sister\u2019s husband, is given what was his\nof ancestral right, the crown of Norway, just at the time, as we are\ntold incidentally, when \u201cGawain, the son of Lot, was a youth of twelve\nyears, and had been sent by his uncle to be brought up as a page in\nthe service of Pope Sulpicius.\u201d Arthur\u2019s visit to Gaul led to a single\ncombat between him and a man of giant stature, Flollo, \u201cTribune of\nRome\u201d; the British king was wounded in the fight, but at last \u201craising\nCaliburn aloft\u201d he clove Flollo\u2019s head \u201csheer in twain.\u201d He concluded\nhis business in Gaul by giving \u201cNeustria, which is now called Normandy,\nunto Bedevere, his butler, and the province of Anjou unto Kay, his\nseneschal.\u201d\n\nReturning to Britain, Arthur holds high court at Caerleon-upon-Usk,\nand in the descriptions of the state that he kept there the colour and\npomp of the age of chivalry, and of Norman court-life, run unchecked\nthrough Geoffrey\u2019s narrative. Even before he had embarked upon his\ncontinental conquests, Arthur had begun to \u201chold such courtly fashion\nin his household as begat rivalry amongst peoples at a distance,\ninsomuch as the noblest in the land, fain to vie with him, would hold\nhimself as nought, save in the cut of his clothes and the manner of\nhis arms he followed the pattern of Arthur\u2019s knights.\u201d But, so far,\nnothing has been heard of \u201cthe City of Legions,\u201d except that Dubricius\nwas \u201carchbishop\u201d there. Now, however, we are given a picture of the\ntown \u201csituate on a passing pleasant position on the river Usk in\nGlamorgan,\u201d which Arthur chose to be the seat of his court, and to\nbe the scene of the \u201chigh solemnity\u201d of his second, and seemingly\nimperial, coronation. The city \u201cabounded in wealth\u201d above all others;\nships came to it from oversea; its kingly palaces challenged comparison\nwith those of Rome itself; it was the third metropolitan see of\nBritain, and \u201chad, moreover, a school of two hundred philosophers\nlearned in astronomy and in the other arts, that did diligently observe\nthe courses of the stars, and did by true inferences foretell the\nprodigies which at that time were about to befall unto King Arthur.\u201d\nTo the coronation were bidden princes and warriors from every part of\nthe British islands and from realms oversea, until \u201cnot a single prince\nof any price on this side Spain remained at home and came not upon the\nproclamation.\u201d The description of the splendours of the ceremonial\nitself, and of the banquet that followed it, taxes Geoffrey\u2019s\nrhetorical powers to the full. He has, indeed, to give up in despair\nany attempt to give a complete account of them; \u201cwere I to go about\nto describe them,\u201d he writes, \u201cI might draw out this history into an\nendless prolixity.\u201d \u201cFor at that time Britain was exalted unto so high\na pitch of dignity as that it did surpass all other kingdoms in plenty\nof riches, in luxury of adornment, and in the courteous wit of them\nthat dwelt therein. Whatsoever knight in the land was of renown for\nhis prowess did wear his clothes and his arms all of one same colour.\nAnd the dames, no less witty, would apparel them in like manner in a\nsingle colour, nor would they deign have the love of none save he had\nthrice approved him in the wars. Wherefore at that time did dames wax\nchaste and knights the nobler for their love.\u201d\n\nHere is a passage that must have delighted the hearts of Norman readers\nnurtured upon ideals of chivalry and courtly love, and seems as though\ndesigned to prepare the way for Arthur\u2019s entry into the kingdom of\nchivalric romance. It is no great step from Arthur\u2019s court, as here\npictured, to the knightly fellowship of the Round Table, and all the\nother elaborate fictions of professional romantic scribes. Of a part\nwith all this romantic presentment of the pomp and state surrounding\nthe British king is Geoffrey\u2019s constant exaltation of his \u201cbounty,\u201d and\nof his individual prowess as a warrior. Nor is the element of wonder\nlacking in the narrative given of Arthur\u2019s exploits. He encounters at\nSt Michael\u2019s Mount, and slays by his own hand, a Spanish \u201cgiant of\nmonstrous size,\u201d who had carried away and killed the niece of Hoel,\nduke of Armorica. This adventure leads him to tell Kay and Bedivere,\nwho had accompanied him on the expedition, how he had once, in Wales,\ndespatched another formidable monster, \u201cthe giant Ritho,\u201d of Mount\nEryri, \u201cwho had fashioned him a furred cloak of the beards of the kings\nhe had slain.\u201d Again, in the last battle with the Romans, he is a truly\nHomeric hero. \u201cHe dashed forward upon the enemy, flung them down, smote\nthem,--never a one did he meet, but he slew either him or his horse at\na single buffet. They fled from him like sheep from a fierce lion madly\nfamishing to devour aught that chance may throw in his way. Nought\nmight armour avail them but that Caliburn would carve their souls from\nout them with their blood.\u201d\n\nThe campaign against the Romans, undertaken with an army of\n\u201ceighty-three thousand two hundred, besides those on foot, who were not\neasy to reckon,\u201d seems to have followed close upon the festivities at\nCaerleon.[80] The Romans were under the command of \u201cLucius Hiberius,\nprocurator of the Commonwealth,\u201d who, summoning to his aid \u201cthe kings\nof the East,\u201d put into the field a host numbering \u201cfour hundred\nthousand one hundred and sixty.\u201d It is unnecessary here to give any\ndetailed account of the fighting, and of the final discomfiture of\nthe Roman forces. It need only be said that the British triumph was\nobtained at heavy cost. Among the slain were the faithful Kay and\nBedevere,--in death, as in life, not divided. Bedevere was buried at\nBayeux, \u201chis own city that was builded by Bedevere the first, his\ngreat-grandfather;\u201d Kai was laid to rest near Chinon, \u201ca town he\nhimself had builded.\u201d The chief disaster to the Romans was the loss of\ntheir leader Lucius, whose body Arthur \u201cbade bear unto the Senate with\na message to say that none other tribute was due from Britain.\u201d Arthur\ndesigned to follow up this message by a march upon Rome itself, and he\nhad actually begun to climb the passes of the Alps when news reached\nhim that \u201chis nephew Modred, unto whom he had committed the charge of\nBritain, had tyrannously and traitorously set the crown of the kingdom\nupon his own head, and had linked him in unhallowed union with Guenever\nthe Queen in despite of her former marriage.\u201d\n\nSo ends Geoffrey\u2019s tenth book. \u201cHereof\u201d begins the eleventh,\nstrangely enough,--but, of course, plainly referring to the affair of\nGuinevere,--\u201cverily, most noble Earl, will Geoffrey of Monmouth say\nnought.\u201d He will only treat of the battles which Arthur, after his\nreturn to Britain, fought with his nephew, according to the account\ngiven \u201cin the British discourse aforementioned,\u201d and what he \u201c_hath\nheard_ from Walter of Oxford, a man of passing deep lore in many\nhistories.\u201d[81] The final, and fatal, battle did not take place all\nat once; it came at the end of a campaign of some length. Modred,\nretreating rapidly into Cornwall, is at last brought to bay on the\nriver Camel, and is slain in a battle in which \u201cwell-nigh all the\ncaptains that were in command on both sides rushed into the press with\ntheir companies and fell.\u201d And \u201ceven the renowned King Arthur himself\nwas wounded deadly, and was borne thence unto the island of Avalon for\nthe healing of his wounds, where he gave up the crown of Britain unto\nhis kinsman Constantine, son of Cador, duke of Cornwall, in the year of\nthe incarnation of our Lord five hundred and forty-two.\u201d\n\n\u201cBorne unto the island of Avalon for the healing of his wounds,\u201d--here,\nsurely, are words never before used in a professedly historical\nnarrative of a kingly hero wounded unto death. This touch, alone, is\nsufficient to attest the kinship of Geoffrey\u2019s \u201chistory\u201d of Arthur\nwith the waifs and strays of Celtic romance. The circumstances of\nArthur\u2019s birth, as told by Geoffrey, were marvellous enough; like other\nsaga-heroes, such as Finn and Cormac, he was born out of wedlock,\nthrough Merlin\u2019s magical intervention. But what caught the imagination\nof poets and romancers even more was the fable of his \u201creturn.\u201d \u201cSome\nmen say yet,\u201d writes Malory, \u201cthat King Arthur is not dead, but had by\nthe will of our Lord Jesu into another place. And men say that he shall\ncome again, and he shall win the holy cross. I will not say it shall\nnot be so, but rather I will say, here in this world he changed his\nlife. But many men say that there is written upon his tomb this verse,\n_Hic jacet Arthurus Rex quondam Rexque futurus_.\u201d Later in the twelfth\ncentury an attempt was made, at the instance--so it is alleged--of\nHenry II to destroy the persistent belief in this \u201cCeltic messiahship\u201d\nby an announcement that the body of Arthur had been exhumed at\nGlastonbury by the monks of St Dunstan\u2019s abbey.[82] It was, however, of\nno avail. A poet of the next generation, Layamon, tells us that \u201cthe\nBritons believe yet that Arthur is alive, and dwelleth in Avalon with\nthe fairest of all elves, and ever yet the Britons look for Arthur\u2019s\ncoming.\u201d\n\nThe popularity of Geoffrey\u2019s _History_ was immediate and immense; it\nis indeed difficult to find a parallel to it before the age of printed\nbooks. So much is largely attested by the number of extant MS copies\nof the work.[83] But the most striking evidence of the impression\nit made is to be found in the number of translations, adaptations\nand continuations of the _Historia_ compiled from the moment of its\nfirst appearance down to comparatively recent times. Not long, if at\nall, after its author\u2019s death, Geoffrey Gaimar translated it into\nAnglo-Norman verse.[84] By 1155 Wace had completed his _Brut_, which\nin substance is almost entirely based on Geoffrey\u2019s _Historia_. Early\nin the next century Layamon wrote his English _Brut_, embodying,\nwith many interesting additions and embellishments of his own, the\nmain features of Geoffrey\u2019s and Wace\u2019s narrative. Then follow a long\nline of English chroniclers, in both prose and verse, from Robert of\nGloucester down to Grafton and Holinshed, who pass on Geoffrey\u2019s fables\nas authentic history. In the Elizabethan age, in spite of attempts made\nto discredit him by critics and antiquaries, like Polydore Vergil and\nCamden, Geoffrey continues to be drawn upon by the poets. Sackville\nand Spenser, Warner and Drayton, and others, give a new currency to\nhis British legends, and Drayton even goes out of his way to defend\nhis impugned reputation.[85] Spenser, in borrowing from his record of\nBritish kings, pays him a well-known tribute in the second book of _The\nFaerie Queene_. But, perhaps, the finest tribute of all to Geoffrey\u2019s\n_History_ is that of Wordsworth in \u2018Artegal and Elidure,\u2019 where he\nsings of the \u201cBritish record\u201d in which\n\n        \u201cWe read of Spenser\u2019s fairy themes,\n  And those that Milton loved in youthful years;\n  The sage enchanter Merlin\u2019s subtle schemes;\n  The feats of Arthur and his knightly peers;\n  Of Arthur, who, to upper light restored,\n        With that terrific sword\n  Which yet he brandishes for future war\n  Shall lift his country\u2019s fame above the polar star!\u201d\n\nAlthough Geoffrey\u2019s book found so much acceptance in his own time\nand afterwards, it is significant to note that, even soon after its\nappearance and in the very heyday of its repute, a few shrewd critics\nventured to question its authenticity. William of Newburgh, as we\nhave seen, denounced it unreservedly as a tissue of impudent lies.\nHe, at any rate, had no scruple in treating the work as a deliberate\nexperiment in fiction under the guise of a chronicle. A different\nattitude towards the book might have been expected from Giraldus\nCambrensis, a Welshman proud of his race and of its \u201cold and haughty\u201d\ntraditions, who was himself not unskilled in the art of fiction. Yet it\nis Gerald who, of all Geoffrey\u2019s critics, says much the unkindest thing\non record of the _Historia_. He tells us of a Welshman at Caerleon\nnamed Melerius, or Meilir, who had dealings with evil spirits, and was\n\u201cenabled through their assistance to foretell future events.\u201d \u201cHe knew\nwhen anyone spoke falsely in his presence, for he saw the devil as it\nwere leaping and exulting on the tongue of the liar.... If the evil\nspirits oppressed him too much, the Gospel of St John was placed on his\nbosom, when, like birds, they immediately vanished; but when that book\nwas removed, and the _History of the Britons_ by Geoffrey Arthur was\nsubstituted in its place, they instantly reappeared in greater numbers,\nand remained a longer time than usual on his body and on the book.\u201d\n\nGeoffrey, in the epilogue to his _History_, hands over the task of\nwriting of \u201cthe kings who succeeded in Wales\u201d from the time at which\nhis narrative closes to \u201cCaradoc of Llancarvan, my contemporary.\u201d\nCaradoc was an undoubted Welshman, but no Latin continuation by him\nof Geoffrey\u2019s chronicle dealing with the Welsh kings is known to\nexist, and it is very doubtful whether a Welsh compilation bearing his\nname, and bringing Geoffrey\u2019s narrative down to the year 1156, is a\ngenuine work of his. It is, however, highly probable that he was the\nauthor of the Latin _Life of Gildas_, preserved in a twelfth century\nMS now in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. This work\nis of peculiar interest as containing certain Arthurian traditions\nwhich were apparently unknown to Geoffrey. Gildas is represented, in\nthis fictitious biography, as being a contemporary of Arthur, king of\nall Britain, whom he loved and obeyed. He had, however, twenty-three\nrefractory brothers who refused allegiance to Arthur, and the eldest\nof them, Hueil,[86] or Huel, King of Scotland, fought a battle with\nhim in \u201cthe isle of Minau\u201d and was killed. Gildas, who was in Ireland\nat the time, was much distressed to hear of this, but, as became a\nsaint, he prayed for Arthur, and, returning to Britain, granted the\nking the pardon which he besought. Further on in the _Life_ we get a\nversion, probably the earliest in literature,[87] of the story of the\nabduction of Guinevere by Melwas (the Mellyagraunce of Malory), \u201cthe\nwicked king of the Summer Country,\u201d or Somerset. After long seeking\nfor a convenient opportunity, Melwas carries her violently away to\nGlastonia, or Glastonbury, a place chosen by him as being apparently\nimpregnable because of the marshes around it. Arthur, discovering her\nretreat, besieges Glastonbury with a large army drawn from Cornwall\nand Devon. Before, however, he and Melwas engage in battle, the monks\nof the abbey, accompanied by Gildas, intervene; peace is made, and the\nqueen is restored to her lawful husband.\n\nOf the many chroniclers who, either in prose or in verse, repeat and\nembellish Geoffrey\u2019s Arthurian narrative, by far the most interesting,\nand the most important in their influence upon the literary development\nof Arthurian story, are Wace and Layamon. Both are poets, and their\nmetrical _Bruts_ mark, as it were, the transitional stage between\nthe Arthur of history and traditional legend and the Arthur of pure\nromance. Wace, according to Layamon, dedicated his poem, which was\ncompleted in 1155, to \u201cthe noble Eleanor, who was the high King\nHenry\u2019s queen.\u201d[88] This statement--and there is no reason to doubt\nits truth--affords another indication of the interest of the Angevin\ncourt in the literary exploitation of \u201cthe matter of Britain.\u201d Geoffrey\nhad already besought royal approval for his presentment of British\nlegends, and had done his best to clothe his account of Arthur\u2019s deeds\nin the highly-coloured rhetorical trappings that would commend it to\ncourtly Norman readers. Wace went further. He took Geoffrey\u2019s matter\nand dressed it up in a poetical form in French, thus giving it a much\nmore widespread currency than a Latin prose chronicle could ever have\ndone. Arthur becomes, in his _Brut_, the flower of chivalry, and\nhis entire narrative is decorated in a way that would appeal to the\nimagination of all knightly Anglo-Normans. Nor is he without thought of\nthe courtly ladies who took so lively an interest in tales of chivalry.\nLike Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes and other romancers, he is at some pains to\nelaborate his descriptions of scenes of love. He takes delight in\ndwelling upon the accoutrements of warriors, and upon their individual\nexploits in the field. But it is not alone in such embellishments--the\ndeliberate attempts of a courtly writer to please a courtly circle of\nreaders--that Wace differs from Geoffrey. He adds to his narrative many\ndetails which indicate that he also had at his command an independent\nfund of Arthurian traditions. Wace\u2019s literary celebrity is due,\nperhaps, most of all to the fact that he is the first Arthurian writer\nto mention the Round Table. \u201cThe Bretons,\u201d he says, \u201ctell many a fable\nof the Table Round,\u201d but he does not explain whence such fables came,\nor where he heard them told.[89] He does, however, inform us that the\nTable was made round because each of Arthur\u2019s knights thought himself\nbetter than his fellows, and Arthur devised this method of settling all\ndisputes about precedence among them. The praise of the knights of the\nRound Table, he adds in another place, was loud throughout the world.\nAgain, Wace adds considerably to Geoffrey\u2019s description of the passing\nof Arthur. The king is not only taken to Avalon \u201cto be cured of his\nwounds,\u201d--the Bretons confidently expect his recovery, and look for his\nreturn. \u201cHe is still there; the Bretons await him; they say that he\nwill come back and live again.\u201d\n\nWace\u2019s metrical chronicle formed the basis of the still more elaborate,\nand the more poetical, metrical _Brut_ of the Englishman, Layamon,--the\nmost remarkable English contribution to Arthurian literature until\nwe come to _Sir Gawayne and the Grene Knight_. Here we have a brave\nattempt to do what Caxton long afterwards desired,--to make Arthur\nthe best \u201cremembered among Englishmen before all other Christian\nkings.\u201d Wace\u2019s poem was a contribution to the polite literature of\nthe Normans; Layamon\u2019s, though his matter is so largely borrowed from\nWace, is a patriotic English epic. It was his aspiration, as we learn\nfrom the opening lines of his _Brut_, \u201cto tell the noble deeds of\nEngland,\u201d and in his record of those deeds Arthur, who had been all\nbut denationalised by the romancers, is restored to his fatherland and\nduly figures as the great \u201cChristian king of England.\u201d But Layamon\nwas a poet no less than a patriotic chronicler, and could not help\nlistening to the blowings of \u201cthe horns of Elfland.\u201d Arthur\u2019s prowess\nand royal attributes were such as could not be explained except for\nthe intervention of superhuman powers. Elves surrounded him when he\ncame into the world; it was from them that he derived the gifts which\nmade him the best of knights and the mightiest of kings.[90] Again,\nat his passing, Arthur says that he is about to go to the splendid\nelf, Argante (Morgain, or Morgan, _la f\u00e9e_); \u201cshe will heal me of all\nmy wounds, and shall make me all hale; and afterwards I shall come to\nmy kingdom and dwell among the Britons with mickle joy.\u201d[91] Arthur\u2019s\nbyrnie was made for him by Wygar, \u201cthe elvish smith\u201d; his spear by\nGriffin, of the city of the wizard Merlin (Kaermerddin); his sword,\nCaliburn, was wrought with magic craft in Avalon; the Round Table was\nconstructed by a strange carpenter from oversea. Layamon\u2019s account of\nthe Round Table is much fuller than that of Wace, and is evidently\nbased upon popular legends of wizardry. It was in Cornwall, when there\nwas a quarrel among his knights, that Arthur met the stranger from\nbeyond the sea who offered to \u201cmake him a board, wondrous fair, at\nwhich sixteen hundred men and more might sit.\u201d[92] Though it was so\nlarge, and took four weeks to make, the table could, by some magic\nmeans, be carried by Arthur as he rode, and placed by him wherever he\nchose. Layamon had evidently heard more about the Round Table, \u201cof\nwhich the Britons boast,\u201d than he cares to disclose in his poem; but\n\u201cthe Britons,\u201d he tells us at the end of his description of the Table,\nsay \u201cmany leasings\u201d of King Arthur and attribute to him things \u201cthat\nnever happened in the kingdom of this world.\u201d\n\nNo more spirited, or more romantic, passage is to be found in Layamon\u2019s\npoem than that in which he describes Arthur\u2019s last battle. It was\nfought at Camelford, \u201ca name that will last for ever.\u201d The stream, hard\nby, \u201cwas flooded with blood unmeasured.\u201d The combatants were pressed\nso close that they could not distinguish friend from foe; \u201ceach slew\ndownright were he swain, were he knight.\u201d Modred, and all his knights,\nwere slain, as were also \u201call the brave ones, Arthur\u2019s warriors, high\nand low, and all the Britons of Arthur\u2019s board.\u201d None remained alive\nat the end of the battle,--and they were two hundred thousand men who\nfought there,--save Arthur and two of his knights. Arthur, grievously\nwounded, bequeaths his kingdom to Constantine, Cador\u2019s son, and says\nthat he himself will go unto Avalon to be healed by Argante,[93] \u201cthe\nfairest of all maidens.\u201d And \u201ceven with the words there came from\nthe sea a short boat, borne on the waves, and two women therein,\nwondrously arrayed; and they took Arthur anon, and bare him quickly,\nand softly laid him down, and fared forth away. Then was brought to\npass that which Merlin whilom said, that there should be sorrow untold\nat Arthur\u2019s forthfaring. The Britons believe yet that he is alive, and\ndwelleth in Avalon, with the fairest of all elves, and ever yet the\nBritons look for Arthur\u2019s coming. Was never the man born, nor ever of\nwoman chosen, that knoweth the sooth, to say more of Arthur. But whilom\nthere was a seer hight Merlin; he said with words--and his sayings were\nsooth--that an Arthur should yet come to help the Britons.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nROMANCE\n\n\nBefore the close of the twelfth century the Arthur of popular legend,\nand of the chronicles, had been transformed into a purely romantic\nhero. The British king, soon after the appearance of Geoffrey\u2019s\n_History_, becomes the centre of the most profitably worked of the\ncycles of medi\u00e6val romance. Much of his individuality is, inevitably,\nlost in the process; and that loss implies, no less inevitably,\na gradual obscuration of the primitive British environment which\noriginally surrounded him. The paramount chief of early Britain,\nwhose prowess and conquests form the prime epic theme of Geoffrey\nand of Layamon, appears as the king of no known realm, numbering\namong his retainers heroic figures drawn from the uttermost limits\nof the mythical world. Exalted, as a world conqueror, to a level\nwith Alexander and Charlemagne, he becomes, like them, largely lost\nto sight among the crowd of fabulous characters called up around him\nby the professional romancers. The Arthur of the romances is no\nmore than a _primus inter pares_. He does, indeed, stand above his\nknights by virtue of his royal dignity,--he is still \u201cKing Arthur,\u201d\nand the head of a great Court. But our interest in his own personality\ndiminishes with the increasing accumulation of exploits attributed to\nhis knightly retinue. The glory of the king is dimmed by the general\nbrilliance of his Court. It is as though the Round Table, originally\nfounded to put an end to all claims of precedence among his knights,\nhad had the result of bringing Arthur himself into the unvalued \u201cfile.\u201d\nKnightly heroes, of whom little, or nothing, had been heard before,\nenter the Arthurian circle, and perform feats which interest us far\nmore than anything done by the king. In early Welsh tradition, and\nin Geoffrey\u2019s chronicle, Kay and Bedivere and, later, Gawain, alone\nfigure as warriors whose deeds are at all worth mentioning by the side\nof Arthur\u2019s. In the romances, Kay and Bedivere play quite subordinate\nparts, while Gawain becomes much more prominent, only, however, to find\nhis high station challenged, and frequently usurped, by newcomers such\nas Tristram and Perceval and Lancelot.\n\nThe cause of all this change is obvious. The age of Chivalry had come,\nand the Arthurian stories provided \u201cthe raw material\u201d exactly suited\nto its romantic literary requirements. The original Celtic legends\nconcerning Arthur and his few primitive \u201cknights\u201d lent themselves, at\nonce, to adaptation and embellishment by writers whose main concern\nwas with knight-errantry and courtly love; while the conception\nof an Arthurian \u201ccourt,\u201d with its fellowship of questing knights,\ninvited the importation into it of any and every legendary hero whose\nstory could in any plausible way be connected with Arthur. They had\nanother advantage which contributed to their supreme popularity in\nthe twelfth and the thirteenth centuries. They had about them an\nelement of mystery, of magic, of indefiniteness, coming as they did\nfrom the Celtic wonderland in the West. The Arthurian kingdom had no\ngeography,--it was a \u201cno man\u2019s land,\u201d which defied all cartography, and\nthe bounds of which could be extended by each romantic writer at his\nwill. It is true that British tradition, and the bards and chroniclers\nwho had sought to give it literary form, associated Arthur\u2019s name with\nwell-known localities in Great Britain; but, even there, the \u201cchampion\nof Britain\u201d had no settled capital or court. London, the chief city\nof the Norman kings, claimed him as her own; but so did Winchester,\nLincoln, York, Chester and Carlisle. Then there was Caerleon-upon-Usk,\nthe delectable \u201cmetropolitan city\u201d where Geoffrey of Monmouth had\ndefinitely located his court in Wales. Moreover places in Britain with\nmysterious legendary associations came to be connected with Arthur\u2019s\nname. Glastonbury, whither Joseph of Arimathea was fabled to have\nbrought the Holy Grail, was reputed to be his burial-place, and the\ndistrict around it was identified with the mythical Avalon. The grim\nold western castle of Tintagel was fixed upon as his birthplace, and\nthe tale of the battle on the Camel led to the building, in poetic\nimagination,[94] of a new Arthurian court at \u201ctower\u2019d Camelot.\u201d The\nname of Camelot at once suggests such purely romantic regions as\n\u201cthe wild woods of Broceliande\u201d and \u201cthe sad sea-sounding wastes of\nLyonesse.\u201d[95] Astolat, Cameliard, Sarras, Carbonek, Joyous Gard, and\nother places, belong to the same romantic class, and lie quite beyond\ngeographical identification. Stories, in which the characters thus\nroamed indifferently among places well known to Norman England and in\nregions which belonged entirely to \u201cthe land of phantasy and illusion,\u201d\nlay open to the incursion of fabulous matter drawn from many varied\nsources. In a word, the unrivalled possibilities of \u201cthe matter of\nBritain\u201d for all kinds of romantic exploitation established for it an\neasy supremacy over the other romantic themes, and the literary uses to\nwhich it was put by writers of romance throughout Western Europe all\nbut robbed it, ultimately, of its distinctive features as a native\nBritish growth.\n\nThe various stages in the romantic use and adaptation of the Arthurian\nlegends, mainly by French writers, are not difficult to trace. First\nof all, we get the metrical chronicles,--attempts to put Geoffrey\u2019s\nquasi-historical record into a poetical form which much better suited\nits heroic theme than the sober garb of Latin prose. Wace\u2019s _Brut_,\ncompleted in the year of Geoffrey\u2019s death, is our earliest extant\nexample of this poetical treatment of Arthurian story, and his work,\nas we have seen, was written with a much more deliberate purpose of\npleasing courtly readers than Geoffrey\u2019s. The tastes and requirements\nof such readers, regarded solely from the standpoint of their interest\nin knight-errantry and romantic love, determine the character of the\nsecond and the third phase which Arthurian literature assumes. The\nmetrical, and the prose, French romances began to be written about the\nsame time, and from the same motive. It is generally held, however,\nthat the poetical romancers were in the field before the prose writers:\nat any rate, the most famous of the metrical romances--those of\nChr\u00e9tien de Troyes--are earlier than any prose romances which have come\ndown to us. Chr\u00e9tien, in whom his admirers find the greatest medi\u00e6val\npoet before Chaucer, wrote for the Norman aristocracy, and especially\nfor ladies, what were practically the fashionable novels of the day.\nHe dedicates his _Chevalier de la Charrette_ to the countess Marie of\nChampagne, whose interest in everything appertaining to the French cult\nof _l\u2019amour courtois_ is well known; and all his poetical \u2018novels\u2019 are\nlargely designed for the entertainment of women eager for literature of\na more sentimental appeal than sagas of monster-slayers and warriors.\nThe sudden appearance of the immortal love-stories of Tristan and\nIseult, and of Lancelot and Guinevere, shows how triumphantly the\nFrench romancers responded to the demands made of them.\n\nChr\u00e9tien de Troyes\u2019 share in the literary flotation of both these\nstories entitles him to a place in the history of pure Arthurian\nromance even above that of Geoffrey of Monmouth. Geoffrey can claim,\nbeyond any question, to be the literary father of King Arthur himself\nas a romantic hero. But the Arthurian legend, as it emerged from\nmedi\u00e6val romance and as we know it in its modern presentment by the\npoets, contains so much more than the story of Arthur that the French\nromantic scribes who brought Tristan and Lancelot and Perceval into\nArthur\u2019s court must be regarded as the first artistic fashioners of a\npurely poetic \u201cmatter of Britain.\u201d Among them Chr\u00e9tien, and--if we are\nto take him as the unquestioned author of the great prose _Lancelot_\nromance--Walter Map, stand pre-eminent. As to Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s signal share\nin the work there is, at any rate, no controversy, and his name is\nassociated with the poetical treatment of the stories of each of the\nthree celebrated heroes just mentioned. He is believed[96] to have been\nthe author of a lost Tristan poem--probably his first work, composed\nabout 1160,--which is surmised to have been the foundation of the long\nprose _Tristan_ romance, whence Malory drew much of his material. It is\nin his _Chevalier de la Charrette_ that we first hear of Lancelot as\na lover of Guinevere. His unfinished _Conte del Graal_ is one of the\nfirst literary presentations of the story of Perceval.\n\nTwo other poems of Chr\u00e9tien are, with the _Conte del Graal_, of\nexceptional interest as bearing a close relationship to three Welsh\nprose romances included in _The Red Book of Hergest_, and translated by\nLady Charlotte Guest. The Welsh analogue of the _Conte del Graal_ is\nthe so-called \u2018mabinogi\u2019 of _Peredur, son of Evrawc_; while the Welsh\ntales called _Geraint, son of Erbin_, and _The Lady of the Fountain_\nresemble, in their main features, Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s two poems entitled _Erec_\nand _Le chevalier au lion_. The Welsh romances, as we have them, are\nundoubtedly of later date than Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s poems, and bear such clear\ntraces of Norman-French influence as to have led many critics to deny\naltogether their Celtic origin. But they are neither translations, nor\nadaptations of Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s works.[97] The only explanation that meets\nall the facts is that the French poems and the Welsh tales follow an\nolder and a simpler Celtic form of the stories embodied in them, which\nwas accessible both to Chr\u00e9tien and the Welsh writers.\n\nAlthough by no means the best, the _Chevalier de la Charrette_ is\nperhaps the most interesting of Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s extant works, for the reason\nthat we obtain in it our first literary introduction to the story of\nLancelot of the Lake. It treats, indeed, of only an episode in that\nfamous knight\u2019s career, but that episode reveals him to us as the lover\nof Arthur\u2019s queen, and so marks an important stage in the evolution\nof Arthurian romance. In Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s poem, Guinevere is abducted by\nMeleaguant,[98] the son of the king of a land whence no man returns.\nHer rescue is accomplished by Lancelot, who, in order to achieve his\nobject, has to ride in a cart used as a tumbril to convey prisoners to\nexecution; hence the name given to him and to the poem, \u2018The Knight\nof the Cart.\u2019 Welsh tradition knows nothing whatever of the loves of\nLancelot and Guinevere, although, as we have seen, Guinevere did\ncome to have in Welsh folk-lore a doubtful reputation that somewhat\ndebased her name. It is in his Lancelot poem alone that Chr\u00e9tien\nsuggests that Guinevere was anything but a gracious and loving wife.\nWhence, then, did he derive the story of her illicit relations with\nLancelot? Some see in it the influence of the Tristram legend, in which\npassionate love breaks every bond. Others attribute the invention of\nLancelot as Guinevere\u2019s lover to the personal suggestion of Marie of\nChampagne, who, according to Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s own account, furnished him\nwith the material for his poem. Whatever may be the truth about its\norigin, the story of Lancelot is an obvious, indeed the most signal,\nexample of the way in which the Arthurian legends were adapted to\nsuit the conceptions of chivalry. We have in it a capital instance of\nwhat was implied in the cult of \u201ccourtly love,\u201d and hence it is not\nsurprising that among medi\u00e6val tales women, as Chaucer informs us, held\n\u201cin ful gret reverence the boke of Lancelot de Lake.\u201d[99] That book\nwas not Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s poem, but, much more probably, the prose romance\nof _Lancelot_, usually assigned to Walter Map. The same prose story,\nor one of its adaptations, was presumably the book in which Paolo and\nFrancesca read, as related by Dante in the Fifth Canto of his _Inferno_.\n\nThe prose _Lancelot_ is a vast compilation embracing what is really\na series of romances, including a version of the Grail story, and is\nattributed, on good MS. authority, to the courtier Walter Map. If he\nbe indeed its author, he is entitled to as high a pedestal in the\nArthurian House of Fame as either Geoffrey or Chr\u00e9tien. The difficulty\nof accepting his authorship of the work is not so much that he was\na very active public man, as that the one book of which he is the\nindubitable author, the _De Nugis Curialium_,--a sort of commonplace\nbook in which contemporary history finds a place side by side with\nfairy tales, and much other odd lore,--does not afford the slightest\ntrace of interest in Arthurian story. Map\u2019s name was used to give a\nliterary passport to the notorious Goliardic poems gathered from many\ncryptic sources in the thirteenth century, and it may very well be that\nthe ascription to him of so wholly laudable a work as the _Lancelot_\nwas dictated by some too modest scribe\u2019s desire for high credentials.\n\nThe other great love-story of Arthurian romance, that of Tristram\nand Iseult, is the most poetical and the most poignant in tragic\ninterest of all the tales that came to be included in \u201cthe matter\nof Britain.\u201d The story of Lancelot, with all its charm and pathos,\nbetrays only too obviously its origin in the artificial conventions\nof \u201ccourtly love.\u201d The story of Tristram, on the other hand, is one\nof sheer, over-mastering, natural passion,--the first really great\nstory of passionate romantic love in modern literature. It is also,\nin its scene, its characters, its colouring, a distinctively Celtic\ntale. Tristram[100] is known to early Welsh tradition under the name\nof Drystan, the son of Tallwch, as a purely mythical hero; so also\nis Mark, or March ab Meirchion, who, in the first literary versions\nof the story, appears as King of Cornwall. The \u201cproud, first Iseult,\nCornwall\u2019s queen,\u201d\n\n  \u201cShe who, as they voyaged, quaff\u2019d\n  With Tristram that spiced magic draught,\u201d\n\ncame from Ireland; while the other Iseult,\n\n          \u201cthe patient flower,\n  Who possess\u2019d his darker hour,\n  Iseult of the Snow-White hand,\u201d[101]\n\nhad her home in Brittany. The entire atmosphere of the story is that\nof the western Celtic seaboard, where lay the mystic land of Lyonesse,\nthen \u201cunswallowed of the tides,\u201d and\n\n    \u201cthe wind-hollowed heights and gusty bays\n  Of sheer Tintagel, fair with famous days.\u201d[102]\n\nWhence the French romancers derived the story it is impossible to say;\nbut it is probable that it existed in the form of scattered popular\nlays long before the middle of the twelfth century. Fragments of two\n_Tristan_ poems by the Anglo-Normans, B\u00e9roul and Thomas, otherwise\nknown as Thomas de Bretagne, have come down to us.[103] These two poems\nwere the foundations, respectively, of the German metrical versions of\nthe story by Eilhart von Oberge and Gottfried von Strassburg.\n\nThe most intricate, though not the least fascinating, problem connected\nwith the Arthurian legends is that of accounting for the origin, and\nfor the attachment to the original Arthurian stock, of the story of\nthe Grail and its quest. Here, at any rate, we have presented to us,\nin Tennyson\u2019s words, \u201cSoul at war with Sense\u201d; and it is clear enough\nthat the gradual manipulation of the Grail stories marks a deliberate\neffort by ecclesiastical writers to neutralise the influence of the\ndangerous ideals of chivalry upon Arthurian romance. Celibacy had to be\nshown to be compatible with true knighthood; there was no reason why a\nknight-errant should make love, and, all too often, illicit love, the\nsole motive of his quest for adventure. So, we have ultimately created\nfor us the character of Galahad, who\n\n      \u201cnever felt the kiss of love\n  Nor maiden\u2019s hand in his,\u201d\n\nand who alone, by virtue of his purity, is allowed to \u201cfind the Holy\nGrail.\u201d The earlier forms of the Grail legend know nothing of Galahad,\nnor is there any reason for supposing that they had any religious\nsignificance. Gawain, apparently,--he who, in his progress through the\nromances, degenerates so much as to be finally described as \u201clight in\nlife and light in death,\u201d[104]--was the original hero of the Grail\nquest. It is Perceval, however, who is the central figure of the\nbest-known versions of the story--as, for example, the _Conte del\nGraal_, the Welsh _Peredur_, and Wolfram von Eschenbach\u2019s _Parzival_.\nBut Perceval was not immaculate, and so had to be superseded by one\nwho \u201cexemplified, in a yet more uncompromising, yet more inhuman,\nspirit, the ideal of militant asceticism,\u201d[105]--the virginal and\nyoungest knight of the Round Table, Galahad. And, in order to establish\nGalahad\u2019s right to a place in the Arthurian fellowship, he is\nintroduced as the son of Lancelot. Here is an artistic touch deserving\nmuch more appreciation than it has yet generally received. The sin of\nLancelot is largely expiated by the unsullied purity of his son. Truly,\nthe \u201cmilitant ascetics\u201d knew their romantic business as well as the\nbest of the secular scribes.[106]\n\nIt is unnecessary, here, to outline the various ramifications of the\nGrail legend, or to summarise the conflicting theories advanced as\nto its origin and meaning. It comes to be connected with Arthur\u2019s\ncourt mainly through the knightly Perceval, who, though ultimately\ndeposed as the Grail hero by Galahad, remains to the end the real\nprotagonist of the story. The Grail romances are usually divided into\ntwo classes,--one dealing with the \u201cQuest\u201d proper, and the other\nwith the \u201cEarly History\u201d of the Holy Grail. In the \u201cQuest\u201d group of\nstories--three of which have been named above--the main interest\nlies in the personality of Perceval, and in his adventures in search\nof certain talismans, which include a sword, a bleeding lance and a\n\u201cgrail,\u201d the latter, in Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s poem, a magic vessel, in Wolfram\u2019s,\na stone. The \u201cEarly History\u201d group--of which the chief representatives\nare the _Joseph of Arimathea_ and the _Merlin_ of Robert de Borron,\nand the _Qu\u00eate del St Graal_ attributed to Map,--dwell chiefly upon\nthe origin and nature of these talismans. The Grail legends, as given\nin these and other romances, and so far as they can be put into a\ncoherent whole, are undoubtedly a compound of remote mythical and\npagan elements, probably Celtic,[107] and of later accretions due to\nmonastic writers deliberately bent upon edification. A flagrant example\nof the way in which the legends were turned to ecclesiastical uses is\nfurnished by the identification of the Grail with the cup of the Last\nSupper, which Pilate gave to Joseph of Arimathea, and in which Joseph\ntreasured the blood that flowed from the Saviour\u2019s wounds on the Cross.\nJoseph brought this cup to Britain, and thus the Grail came to be\nconnected with the mythical story which attributed to Joseph the first\nevangelisation of these islands.\n\nIt has been said that Gawain was, in all probability, the original\nhero of the Grail quest.[108] Whatever the truth may be about that\nmatter, there can be no doubt that Gawain is the most famous of all the\nknights grouped around Arthur in pre-romantic tradition. He figures\nlargely in the Welsh Triads and in the _Mabinogion_ under the name of\nGwalchmei, and in the story of Arthur\u2019s wars as told by Geoffrey he is\nthe king\u2019s most powerful lieutenant. Originally a mythical hero, he\nwas probably the centre of a cycle of traditional stories as old as,\nif not older than, anything fabled or sung of Arthur.[109] No other\nknight of the Arthurian court is the hero of so many episodic romances\nand poems, while there is no more prominent figure in Arthurian\nliterature generally. No other knight, however, is subjected to such\nchurlish treatment at the hands of the romancers as he. In the earlier\nstages of Arthurian story--in the _Mabinogion_, especially,--Gawain\nappears as the very flower of chivalrous knighthood, no less courteous\nand gracious than brave. His degradation is due largely to the later\nmanipulators of the Grail legends, who could not brook the importance\nattached to so worldly a character. Malory and Tennyson follow in\ntheir footsteps, until for modern readers Gawain is branded with the\nwords put into the mouth of Bedivere in _The Passing of Arthur_,--of\nBedivere, who, as one of Gawain\u2019s oldest associates in Arthur\u2019s\nservice, ought to have been spared the indignity of having attributed\nto him so mean an aspersion upon a comrade in arms:\n\n  \u201cLight was Gawain in life, and light in death\n  Is Gawain, for the ghost is as the man.\u201d\n\nGawain, however, was the favourite Arthurian hero in England up\nto Malory\u2019s time,[110] and the finest contribution to English\nArthurian romance in the Middle Ages,--_Sir Gawayne and the Grene\nKnight_,--dealing, apparently, with an incident borrowed from the\nearlier traditions about Gawain, does full justice to him as a knight\n_sans peur et sans reproche_.\n\nThe most marvellous feature of Geoffrey of Monmouth\u2019s story of Arthur\nis the part played by the wizard Merlin in the events that led to\nArthur\u2019s birth. It is in Geoffrey\u2019s _History_ that we get, so far as\nis known, the first definite association of Merlin with the Arthurian\nlegends. In subsequent romance Merlin stands in the first file of\nArthurian characters, and his name is given to a group of romances as\nimportant as any of those dealing with the adventures of the great\nknights mentioned in the last few pages. In Welsh tradition Merlin, or\nMyrddin, was famous as both a bard and a magician, but the poetical\ncompositions which bear his name may safely be taken as spurious.\nGeoffrey exalts him as a prophet as well, and the \u2018Prophecies of\nMerlin\u2019 contributed largely to the renown of the _History of the Kings\nof Britain_. Geoffrey\u2019s authorship is sometimes claimed for a Latin\npoem called the _Vita Merlini_, and composed about 1148, which tells\nmuch about the enchanter that is not always easy to reconcile with the\naccount of him given in the _History_. The chief French romantic works\ndealing with the Merlin legend are a fragmentary poem, dating from the\nend of the twelfth century, and supposed to be by Robert de Borron,\nand the prose romance of _Merlin_, which exists in two forms known as\nthe \u201cordinary\u201d _Merlin_ and the _Suite de Merlin_, of the latter of\nwhich Malory\u2019s first four books are an abridgment. In these romances we\nfirst read of the enchanter\u2019s own enchantment, how he was, in Malory\u2019s\nwords, \u201cassotted and doted\u201d on a \u201cdamosel of the lake,\u201d--Ninien, or\nNimue, a name that in the latest forms of the story comes to be Vivien.\nIn these early French versions of the Merlin legend, also, appears\nthe first suggestion that Modred was Arthur\u2019s son. When the wife of\nKing Lot,--the daughter of Igerne by her first husband,--came to\nKing Arthur\u2019s court soon after his coronation, Arthur fell in love\nwith her, with the result that Modred was born. Modred\u2019s rebellion,\nand the tragic end of Arthur himself, were thus represented as a just\nretribution for the king\u2019s misconduct.\n\nFor English readers Malory\u2019s _Morte Darthur_ is the book in which the\nvarious strands of romantic matter reviewed in this chapter are woven\ninto a connected, though not always a coherently artistic, texture.\nFrom a literary point of view, the relative values of the various\nconstituents of \u2018The French book\u2019 whence Malory derived most of his\nmaterial are of little consequence. What really matter are the style,\nthe tone, the atmosphere of his own book; and these are charged to\nthe full with the subtle magic of the enchanted land in which his\nborrowed characters live and move. It is here that we reap the harvest\nof medi\u00e6val romance, and catch, in the beautifully quaint style of\nthe narrative, something of the fresh odour and mellow colouring of\nthe ripened corn. Of equally small importance with the question of\nthe precise identification and the value of his sources is that of\nMalory\u2019s general motive, or plan. It may, indeed, be possible to find\nin the book an epic in which \u201cmay be traced a thread of destiny and\nprovidence, leading either to a happy triumph over circumstance, or\nto a tragic doom.\u201d[111] But it is for no such reason that the _Morte\nDarthur_ is valued by the modern reader. We read Malory now both for\n\u201chis style and his love,\u201d--his love of \u201cKing Arthur and his noble\nknights of the Round Table,\u201d attested so signally by his painful zeal\nin garnering, and sifting, such a bewildering crop, both rich and rank,\nof manuscript material. His \u201cstyle\u201d is sufficiently near to the English\nof to-day, but at the same time retains so much in both vocabulary and\ngrammar which the invention of printing forced the language to reject,\nas to be an almost ideal medium for the presentment to modern English\nreaders of what was storied in the verse and prose of the age of high\nromance. Space does not allow of our giving any extended specimens of\nit here; but the reader may be referred, first, to a passage where\nMalory appropriately embroiders his narrative by expatiating upon \u201cHow\ntrue love is likened to summer,\u201d[112] and, secondly, to the noble and\npathetic chapter which tells of the passing of Arthur.[113] Incidental\nfelicities of style could be quoted from almost every page of his\nbook. Bedivere, when returning from his pretended attempt to \u201cfling\nExcalibur,\u201d tells Arthur that he saw \u201cnothing but the waters wap and\nthe waves wan.\u201d Tristan, in a general fight, \u201cfared among those\nknights like a greyhound among the conies\u201d; while, of another fight we\nread that \u201cthe best of us all had been full cold at the heart-root had\nnot Sir Launcelot been better than we.\u201d What, again, could be in better\nchime with its theme than this sentence from the account of Gawain\u2019s\nfight with Launcelot--\u201cthen Sir Gawaine deliberately avoided his horse,\nand put his shield afore him, and eagerly drew his sword, and bad Sir\nLauncelot, Alight, traitor knight, for if this mare\u2019s son hath failed\nme, wit thou well a king\u2019s son and a queen\u2019s son shall not fail thee\u201d?\nOr, what more pathetic than Guinevere\u2019s words when Lancelot found her\nin the nunnery at Almesbury--\u201cSir Launcelot, wit thou well I am set\nin such a plight to get my soul\u2019s health; and yet I trust, through\nGod\u2019s grace, that after my death to have a sight of the blessed face\nof Christ, and at doomsday to sit on his right side, for as sinful as\never I was are saints in heaven\u201d? But the entire work is studded with\nsuch gems, and he who would know and revel in the richest treasures of\nArthurian romance should devote his days and his nights to the reading\nof what is ingenuously, and truly, styled in its epilogue, \u201cthis noble\nand joyous book.\u201d[114]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nARTHUR IN ENGLISH LITERATURE\n\n\nEnglish Arthurian romance before Malory, with the conspicuous exception\nof _Sir Gawayne and the Grene Knight_--an alliterative poem composed in\nthe fourteenth century by an unknown author to whom three other poems,\n_The Pearl_, _Cleanness_, and _Patience_, are ascribed,--possesses\nlittle literary charm or distinction. The wearisome monotony and the\ngenerally jejune character of the common metrical romances of his day,\nwith their stereotyped phraseology and futile rhymes, had probably\nas much to do as anything with Chaucer\u2019s attitude towards the newer\nromantic matters. His _Tale of Sir Thopas_ is so openly contemptuous\na burlesque of the methods of the romantic rhymers of the time that\nwe may safely assume that the poet had little more respect for their\nthemes.\n\n  \u201cInto his sadel he clamb anon,\n  And priketh over stile and stoon\n    An Elf-queene for tespye;\n  Til he so longe hadde riden and goon\n  That he foond in a pryv\u00eb woon\n    The contree of Fairye,\u201d etc.\n\nIt was scarcely possible for one who could write so irreverently as\nthis of Elfland and its denizens to attune himself to the mood required\nfor grave poetical treatment of Arthurian story. An Arthurian setting\nof a sort is indeed given to _The Wife of Bath\u2019s Tale_; but the\nfacetious tone of the opening lines only too plainly reveals Chaucer\u2019s\nsense of the unreality of it all.\n\n  \u201cIn thold\u00eb dayes of the Kyng Arthour,\u201d\n\nhe writes,\n\n  \u201cAl was this land fulfild of fa\u00ebrie.\n  The elf-queene with hir joly compaignye\n  Danced ful ofte in many a gren\u00eb mede.\u201d\n\nBut, he adds, there are no fairies now; \u201clymytours and other holy\nfreres\u201d have effectually driven them away.\n\n  \u201cFor ther as wont to walken was an elf,\n  Ther walketh now the lymytour hymself.\u201d\n\nWith the elves had gone the knights-errant, and Chaucer\u2019s poetical\ngenius was not of the kind to restore either to their original pride of\nplace in imaginative literature.\n\nIt was Malory who gave new life to the Arthurian legends, and to\nhim, more than to any other writer, is due the fascination which\nArthurian story has had for so many modern English poets. Malory\u2019s\nbook, as we know from Ascham\u2019s testimony, was exceedingly popular\nin the Elizabethan age; but there were other causes of the interest\nthen so widely felt in ancient British legends. Throughout the\nsixteenth century chroniclers were busy in recording, and antiquaries\nin investigating, the early annals of Britain; and, in the reign of\nElizabeth herself, the heightened patriotic feeling of the day was a\npotent stimulus to all who sought to discover material for, and to\nreconstruct from it, the history of their country. Hence Geoffrey of\nMonmouth\u2019s Latin chronicle in its first printed forms comes to be one\nof the most eagerly studied books of the time. And it is, perhaps, not\nfanciful to find in the new interest aroused in the annals and legends\nof early Britain the influence of the reigning Tudor dynasty. On what\nother grounds are we to account, for example, for Spenser going out of\nhis way to remind Elizabeth that she can boast of a genuine British\nancestry, and that among her forebears is no less a person than the\ngreat King Arthur himself?\n\n  \u201cThy name, O soveraine Queene, thy realme and race\n  From this renowned Prince derived arre,\n  Who mightily upheld that royall mace\n  Which now thou bear\u2019st, to thee descended farre\n  From mighty kings and conquerours in warre,\n  Thy fathers and great Grandfathers of old,\n  Whose noble deeds above the Northern starre\n  Immortall fame for ever hath enrold;\n  As in that old man\u2019s booke they were in order told.\u201d\n\nHere is a compliment of which Geoffrey, could he have foreseen it,\nwould have been as proud as of his inclusion in Chaucer\u2019s \u2018Hous\nof Fame.\u2019 To have been singled out for honour as one \u201cbesy for to\nbere up Troy\u201d was much; it was more to be quoted, by a poet no less\nillustrious, as an authority for the Arthurian descent of the greatest\nof British queens. The glorification of the House of Tudor, and of\nElizabeth\u2019s Welsh descent, is obvious enough in the lines in _The\nFaerie Queene_ which refer to the \u201csparke of fire\u201d that shall\n\n  \u201cBee freshly kindled in the fruitfull Ile\n  Of Mona, where it lurked in exile:\n  Which shall breake forth into bright burning flame\n  And reach into the house that bears the stile\n  Of roiall majesty and soveraine name:\n  So shall the Briton blood their crowne agayn reclame.\n\n  Thenceforth eternal union shall be made\n  Betweene the nations different afore.\u201d[115]\n\nIn the second book of _The Faerie Queene_ Spenser, following\nGeoffrey\u2019s \u201cauncient booke hight Briton moniments,\u201d gives a versified\n\n        \u201cchronicle of Briton kings\n  From Brute to Uther\u2019s rayne,\u201d\n\nthus further emphasising the newly-discovered importance of early\nBritish history. The same patriotic fervour accounts for the production\nof such poems as William Warner\u2019s _Albion\u2019s England_ and Michael\nDrayton\u2019s _Polyolbion_. Warner is eminently practical, and, in his\nreproduction of Geoffrey\u2019s Arthurian narrative, leaves out its more\nromantic incidents. Arthur\u2019s\n\n  \u201cScottish, Irish, Almaine, French and Saxone battelles got\n  Yeeld fame sufficient: these seeme true, the reste I credite not.\u201d\n\nDrayton is inclined to trust Geoffrey more implicitly, and even takes\nup the cudgels on his behalf against the critics who were then seeking\nto disparage him. The \u201cadversary says,\u201d writes Drayton, that \u201cGeoffrey\nMonmouth first our Brutus did devise,\u201d whereas the fact is that\n\n      \u201cpregnantly we prove, ere that historian\u2019s days,\n  A thousand-ling\u2019ring years, our prophets clearly sung\n  The Britain-founding Brute.\u201d[116]\n\nDrayton\u2019s poem, so largely topographical as it is in its character,\naffords him many opportunities of making effective use of Arthurian\ntraditions. When he comes, for example, to the river Camel, he\nremembers that Arthur was born as well as slain in that tract of\nwestern country,\n\n  \u201cAs though no other place on Britain\u2019s spacious earth\n  Were worthy of his end, but where he had his birth.\u201d[117]\n\nAgain, referring to the songs of the ancient Britons, he tells us--much\nin Geoffrey\u2019s manner--of Caerleon with\n\n              \u201cher temples and her groves,\n  Her palaces and walls, baths, theatres, and stoves.\u201d\n\nWith all his garrulous \u201casides\u201d and prosaic disquisitions, Drayton\u2019s\n_Polyolbion_ is a well-intentioned poem, and its sympathetic treatment\nof the legends entitles it to an honoured place in the Arthurian\nlibrary. Like Caxton, Drayton bewails the indifference of British poets\nto the wealth of native tradition which lay ready for their use, and\nregrets that a British Homer had not been found to rise to \u201cthe height\nof its great argument\u201d;\n\n  \u201cFor some abundant brain, oh, there had been a story,\n  Beyond the blind man\u2019s might to have enhanced our glory.\u201d\n\nAlthough Elizabethan poets, from patriotic and courtly motives, were\nso much interested in the early British legends as presented to them\nby the English chroniclers of their time, it is somewhat strange that\nthese legends, and Arthurian story in particular, did not appeal\nstrongly to the imagination of the playwrights of our greatest\ndramatic period. The only Arthurian drama of any consequence written\nduring the Elizabethan period was _The Misfortunes of Arthur_ by\nThomas Hughes, which was acted before the Queen in February 1588; and\nthe plot of that play is derived, in the main, not from Malory, but\nfrom Geoffrey. In one important detail, however, Hughes departs from\nGeoffrey\u2019s narrative, and, like many of the later romancers, represents\nModred as Arthur\u2019s son; and he is in touch with Malory in making the\ntragedy of Arthur\u2019s doom the nemesis that comes upon him for his sin.\nThe drama, as a whole, is a standard example of the Senecan type of\ntragedy, so much in vogue at the time of its production, and action\nand characterisation are altogether subordinated in it to narration.\nSome life, however, is given to the characters of the two protagonists,\nArthur and Modred; and the introduction of the ghost of Gorlois at the\nbeginning and at the end of the play adds not a little to its general\ndramatic effect. In his final speech the Ghost, exulting over the ruin\nof the sinful house of Uther, is made to pay an adroit compliment to\nQueen Elizabeth,\n\n  \u201cThat virtuous Virgo, born for Britain\u2019s bliss,\n  That peerless branch of Brute,\u201d\n\nand gives utterance to the hope that she\n\n  \u201cShall of all wars compound eternal peace.\u201d\n\nWe are still without a great English drama based upon a theme drawn\nfrom Arthurian story; but what the Elizabethan dramatists, and most of\ntheir successors, rejected as either too unreal or too intractable for\ntheir purposes, continued even down to the Victorian age to haunt and\nchallenge the imagination of the poets.\n\n  \u201cThe mightiest chiefs of British song\n  Scorn\u2019d not such legends to prolong\u201d[118];\n\nand yet we possess no great Arthurian epic in English verse any more\nthan a drama. Milton and Dryden both cherished the ambition of writing\none, but both, in different ways, found the pressure of circumstances\ntoo strong for the accomplishment of their design. When Milton,\nafter the turmoil of the Civil Wars and his entanglement in public\ncontroversy, once more turned his attention to poetry, he had need of\nhigher argument for his long-projected \u2018heroic poem\u2019 than\n\n                  \u201cto dissect\n  With long and tedious havoc fabl\u2019d knights\n  In battles feign\u2019d.\u201d[119]\n\nArthurian memories, however, lingered with him to the last, for even in\n_Paradise Regained_ he cannot help referring to what once charmed him\nin stories\n\n  \u201cOf fairy damsels met in forest wide\n  By knights of Logres, or of Lyones,\n  Lancelot, or Pelleas, or Pellenore.\u201d\n\nDryden, again, who had aspired to write an Arthuriad, as he tells us,\n\u201cfor the honour of his native country,\u201d found himself obliged to turn\nto more immediately profitable forms of literature,--\u201cbeing encouraged\nonly with fair words by Charles II., my little salary ill-paid, and no\nprospect of a future subsistence.\u201d[120] But it is doubtful whether he\nwas quite the kind of poet who, in Scott\u2019s words, could\n\n            \u201cin immortal strain\n  Have raised the Table Round again,\n  But that a ribald King and Court\n  Bade him toil on to make them sport.\u201d\n\nScott\u2019s assumption, at any rate, is scarcely justified by the\ncharacter of the \u201cdramatic opera\u201d called _King Arthur, or the British\nWorthy_, which Dryden composed shortly before Charles II.\u2019s death.\nThis \u201copera\u201d was written with a courtly, if not exactly a patriotic,\nmotive; it was meant to be a glorification of King Charles\u2019s public\npolicy, but, unfortunately, Charles died before any performance of it\ncould be given. It was produced on the stage, ultimately, in 1691, to\nmusic by Purcell; but, at that time, William and Mary were the reigning\nsovereigns, so that the original point of the play was lost, and it\nhad to be \u201cimproved\u201d to suit the changed conditions of the day. Thus,\nwhat Scott calls an \u201cingenious political drama\u201d was turned into \u201ca mere\nfairy-tale\u201d without \u201cany meaning beyond extravagant adventure.\u201d[121]\nThe story of Arthur, also, is in many of its main features turned in\nthis play into something very different from its familiar forms up\nto Dryden\u2019s time. Several new characters are introduced into it, the\nmost notable being a blind girl, Emmeline,--a creature of Dryden\u2019s\nown invention,--who, in defiance of all tradition and of Guinevere\u2019s\nwell-attested rights, becomes the wife of \u201cthe British Worthy.\u201d\n\nThe Restoration age, despite its literary pre-occupation with \u2018heroic\u2019\nplays and \u2018heroic\u2019 poetry, was unpropitious for the production of a\nromantic epic worthy of the Arthurian, or any other similar theme. A\nbrave attempt, however, to achieve the impossible was made by \u201cthe City\nBard or Knight Physician,\u201d[122] Sir Richard Blackmore, who in 1695\npublished _Prince Arthur, an Heroick Poem in Ten Books_, and followed\nit up in 1697 with another \u2018epic,\u2019 in twelve books, called _King\nArthur_. These ponderous poems, written in heroic couplets, are really\npolitical allegories, in which Arthur stands for the Prince of Orange,\nand his Saxon enemy, Octa, for James the Second. But they aim at being\n\u2018epics\u2019 as well. Supernatural \u2018machinery,\u2019 evidently suggested in many\nof its details by _Paradise Lost_, is introduced, and just as the gods\nused to intervene in the struggles of the epic heroes of antiquity,\nso angels like Uriel and Raphael watch over the fortunes of Arthur.\nIndeed, the whole heavenly host befriends him, while Lucifer and the\nrebel angels are the patrons of his foes. Blackmore, whatever else\nmay be said on his behalf, can claim to be at least faithful to the\ntradition which represents Arthur as \u201cthe chief and best of the three\nChristian kings,\u201d for he makes him the supreme champion of Christendom\nin his day:--\n\n  \u201cThis great deliverer shall Europa save,\n  Which haughty monarchs labour to enslave;\n  Then shall Religion rear her starry head,\n  And light divine through all the nations spread.\u201d[123]\n\nBut, alas, who now reads Blackmore? The world generally is quite\ncontent not to know him, and ready to echo Dryden\u2019s pious wish--\u201cpeace\nbe to the _Manes_ of his Arthurs.\u201d\n\nBlackmore, grotesque and even ludicrous though his methods are of\nallegorising the Arthurian stories, could, of course, claim high\npoetical sanction for this particular use of them. Spenser had, long\nbefore, \u201claboured to pourtraict in Arthure, before he was king, the\nimage of a brave knight, perfected in the twelve private morall\nvirtues, as Aristotle hath devised,\u201d[124] and had also, though somewhat\nobscurely, sought to \u201cshadow forth\u201d in him \u201ca modern gentleman\u201d of the\nElizabethan court,--the Earl of Leicester. There is not much to choose\nbetween Leicester and William of Orange as \u201cmodern\u201d types of Arthur,\nbut Spenser has, at least, succeeded in giving a romantic glamour to\nhis poem which helps us to forget its allegorical intent and takes us\nback to the legendary Arthur\u2019s native \u201cland of faerie.\u201d So, in _The\nFaerie Queene_, Arthur appears in a r\u00f4le somewhat similar to that which\nhe plays in the romances as the helper and deliverer of sorely-beset\nknights; and what the poet tells us about his person, his prowess,\nand his accoutrements is, in spirit though not always in the letter,\nquite in accord with romantic tradition. Delivered at birth to a faery\nknight, \u201cto be upbrought in gentle thewes and martiall might,\u201d he was\nput under the tutelage of Timon,[125]\n\n  \u201cOld Timon, who in youthly yeares had beene\n  In warlike feates th\u2019 expertest man alive,\u201d\n\nand who dwelt\n\n  \u201cUnder the foot of Rauran mossy hore,\u201d\n\n--the Merionethshire mountain, Yr Aran, where the river Dee has\nits source. \u201cThither,\u201d so Prince Arthur\u2019s tale of his own history\nruns,--[126]\n\n  \u201cThither the great magician Merlin came,\n  As was his use, oft-times to visit me;\n  For he had charge my discipline to frame\n  And Tutors nouriture to oversee.\u201d\n\nIt was Merlin\n\n            \u201cwhich whylome did excell\n  All living wightes in might of magick spell,\u201d\n\nwho forged for Arthur his shield and sword and armour. Spenser,\nhowever, departs from the romancers in calling Arthur\u2019s sword\n\u201cMorddure,\u201d[127] and in stating, what is nowhere told of Excalibur,\nthat it could not be\n\n  \u201cforst his rightful owner to offend.\u201d\n\nNor do we hear in the romances of such marvellous details about the\nprince\u2019s shield as those which Spenser gives; it was made of \u201cdiamond\nperfect, pure and cleene,\u201d and when Arthur chose to uncover it,\n\n  \u201cMen into stones therewith he could transmew,\n  And stones to dust, and dust to nought at all;\n  And when him list the prouder lookes subdew,\n  He would them gazing blind, or turne to other hew.\u201d[128]\n\nSpenser, again, finds none of the knights of the Round Table suitable\nfor the main purposes of his allegory--the only prominent one who is\nbrought into the poem is Tristram, and he is introduced only as quite a\nsubordinate character. As the poet expressly tells us in his prefatory\nletter that his purpose is to \u201cpourtraict\u201d Arthur \u201cbefore he was king,\u201d\n_The Faerie Queene_, even had it been completed, could hardly have\ncontained any reference to the later, and more especially the tragic,\nfeatures of Arthurian story. Neither did Spenser\u2019s general design admit\nof any treatment of them. There could be no Guinevere in his poem, as\nArthur was destined at the end to marry Gloriana, the Fairy Queen, in\nwhom \u201cI mean Glory in my generall intention, but in my particular I\nconceive the most excellent and glorious person of our soveraine the\nQueene, and her kingdom in Faery land.\u201d There is indeed some excuse\neven for Blackmore\u2019s \u201cparticular intentions\u201d in his egregious epics\nwhen we remember that a really great poet was capable of thus imagining\nArthur, even in allegory, as the husband of Queen Elizabeth.\n\nThe uses to which Spenser and Blackmore, each in his own way, put the\nArthurian legends are not, after all, so dissimilar to those which\nunderlie the most popular, and on the whole the most successful,\npoetical treatment of them in the nineteenth century.[129] _The Idylls\nof the King_ have a palpably symbolical, not to say an allegorical,\nmeaning, and \u201ca message for the times.\u201d It may be that in no other way\ncould any new life be infused into stories of which Swinburne says that\n\u201ctheir day is done,\u201d--\n\n  \u201cTheir records written of the winds, in foam\n  Fly down the wind, and darkness takes them home.\u201d[130]\n\nAt any rate, Tennyson frankly confesses that what he presents in his\n\u2018Idylls\u2019 is a\n\n                                        \u201ctale\n  New-old, and shadowing Sense at war with Soul\u201d;\n\nand the new element in it is a didactic purpose suited to the moral\nand sentimental temper of the Victorian era, and embodying what a\nsevere critic calls \u201cthe ethics of the rectory parlour.\u201d[131] Tennyson\nhimself is responsible for revealing the \u201cparticular intention\u201d which\nequates the Arthur of the \u2018Idylls\u2019 with the Prince Consort; for he\ndedicates the poems to his memory,\n\n          \u201csince he held them dear,\n  Perchance as finding there unconsciously\n  Some image of himself.\u201d\n\nIt is hardly likely, however, that Tennyson, when he first thought\nof the Arthurian stories as a poetic theme, had any very definite\nidea of putting them into the form of an allegory such as most of\nhis interpreters now discover in them; but that he, from the first,\nintended a \u201cmodern meaning\u201d is plain from the lines appended to the\n_Morte D\u2019Arthur_ at the time of its original publication,--\n\n  \u201cTo me, methought, who waited in a crowd,\n  There came a bark that, blowing forward, bore\n  King Arthur, like a modern gentleman\n  Of stateliest port; and all the people cried\n  \u2018Arthur is come again: he cannot die.\u2019\u201d\n\nThat the \u2018Idylls,\u2019 when finally completed and put into their present\norder, had \u201can allegorical or perhaps a parabolic drift,\u201d in them,\nis certain, for the words quoted are Tennyson\u2019s own.[132] Tennyson,\nhowever, complains that critics had \u201ctaken his hobby and ridden it\ntoo hard, and have explained some things too allegorically.\u201d \u201cThe\ngeneral drift of the \u2018Idylls,\u2019\u201d he continues, \u201cis clear enough. \u2018The\nwhole ... is the dream of man coming into practical life and ruined\nby one sin. Birth is a mystery and death is a mystery, and in the\nmidst lies the tableland of life.\u2019\u201d Modern though this \u201cdrift\u201d may\nbe, it is perennial and universal enough in its appeal to save the\n\u2018Idylls\u2019--notwithstanding the references to the \u201cmodern gentleman\u201d and\nthe Prince Consort--from being a merely Victorian poem, or series of\npoems. They do not, together, constitute an Arthuriad: they are not\nmeant to represent \u201cthe epic, some twelve books\u201d with \u201cfaint Homeric\nechoes\u201d which Tennyson may have been meditating in his earlier years\nwhen he published his _Morte D\u2019Arthur_. \u201cHe produced no epic, only a\nseries of epic idyllia. He had a spiritual conception, \u2018an allegory\nin the distance,\u2019 an allegory not to be insisted upon, though its\npresence was to be felt. No longer, as in youth, did Tennyson intend\nMerlin to symbolise \u2018the sceptical understanding,\u2019 or poor Guinevere\nto stand for the Blessed Reformation, or the Table Round for Liberal\nInstitutions. Mercifully Tennyson never actually allegorised Arthur in\nthat fashion.\u201d[133]\n\nTennyson\u2019s King Arthur is certainly modern enough in sentiment and\nspeech, but the position which he holds in the \u2018Idylls\u2019 is, in many\nways, in harmony with that which he occupies in history and romantic\nlegend. Tennyson himself warns his readers that they must not expect to\nfind in the \u2018Idylls\u2019\n\n            \u201cthat gray king whose name, a ghost,\n  Streams like a cloud, man-shaped, from mountain peak,\n  And cleaves to cairn and cromlech still; or him\n  Of Geoffrey\u2019s book, or him of Malleor\u2019s.\u201d\n\nRather they ought to discern in him\n\n  \u201cIdeal manhood closed in real man.\u201d\n\nAll the same, Tennyson\u2019s pre-occupation with \u201cideal manhood\u201d did not\nprevent him from bestowing painful labour upon knowing the \u201creal\nman,\u201d so far as the records, historical and romantic, reveal him; and\none of the outstanding features of _The Idylls of the King_ is their\nremarkable fidelity to the details of Arthurian story as given in its\ntime-honoured literary sources. \u201cGeoffrey\u2019s book,\u201d and \u201cMalleor\u2019s,\u201d had\nbeen carefully studied by the poet, and he had even been at pains to\ngarner all he could from early Welsh poetry and from the _Mabinogion_,\nas presented in Lady Charlotte Guest\u2019s charming translation. While\nMalory is their main source, the \u2018Idylls\u2019 contain much that shows\nhow familiar Tennyson was with Arthurian lore generally in its most\nprimitive forms. The story of Geraint, for example, as told by him,\nfollows closely the Welsh version of it given by Lady Charlotte\nGuest.[134] Again, the description of Britain in the opening lines\nof _The Coming of Arthur_ as a country where each \u201cpetty king\u201d was\never waging war upon some other, and where the children \u201cgrew up to\nwolf-like men, worse than the wolves,\u201d until\n\n                    \u201cKing Leodogran\n  Groan\u2019d for the Roman legions here again,\u201d\n\nrecalls vividly the bitter lamentations of Gildas over the degeneracy\nof his countrymen. The account which Lancelot gives of Arthur\u2019s wars in\n_Lancelot and Elaine_ is an expansion of the record in Nennius of the\ntwelve Arthurian battles. And Tennyson\u2019s general conception of Arthur\nas the flower of kings who\n\n  \u201cDrew all the petty princedoms under him,\u201d\n\nand \u201cmade a realm\u201d in Britain, is far more in keeping with that of\nthe early chroniclers than with the picture given of him in the later\nromances.\n\nBut it is not in such incidental features alone that the \u2018Idylls\u2019\nare true to the older Arthurian tradition. Modern in their sentiment\nand ethics though they may be, Tennyson\u2019s main purpose in them of\n\u201cshadowing Sense at war with Soul\u201d is not altogether unjustified by\nthe general literary history of the legends. Malory, at any rate, had\nsome such purpose, for Caxton assures us that the _Morte Darthur_\nwas \u201cwritten for our doctrine, and for to beware that we fall not\nto vice nor sin, but to exercise and follow virtue.\u201d \u201cIn Malory\u2019s\ncompilation, and in later medi\u00e6val romance, the fate of Arthur means\nthe fate of the chivalrous ideal, whose irreconcilable elements were\nincorporated in him. In the romantic historians the fate of Arthur is\nthe fate of the Christian Britons in conflict with heathenism from\nwithout and treason from within. Even in the old myths, his fate, if\nwe may trust Professor Rhys, is the fate of the culture-hero combined\nwith Father Sky, in conflict with the powers of Darkness and the\nNether-world. It was by a true inspiration that Tennyson was drawn to\nthe old legends, and reading into them his secret found it to be their\nown. Accordingly, this identity of feeling with his predecessors kept\nTennyson on the track of the story.... Thus the \u2018Idylls\u2019 are both\ntruer to the authorities and nearer our own feelings than any other\nof the adaptations of Arthurian story. Though the adventures are now\nregarded from a modern point of view, this point of view is in the same\nspiritual watch-tower from which the framers of the legend looked:\nbut it is the platform at the top, not a loop-hole on the winding\nstair.\u201d[135]\n\nAfter all, however much the \u2018Idylls\u2019 may be cavilled at on the score of\ntheir modern sentiment and occasional homiletic strain, their general\nsetting and atmosphere are genuinely romantic and in thorough keeping\nwith the far-off things of which they sing. Tennyson is true enough to\nhis sources in his descriptions of scenery and in his entire survey\nof the traditional Arthurian country. \u201cIt is no land dwelt in by bold\nbad men we see, when Arthur rides through the mountains and finds the\ndiamonds; when Geraint and Enid go through the green gloom of the\nwood; when Galahad rides over the black swamp, leaping from bridge to\nbridge till he sail to the spiritual city; when Lancelot drives through\nthe storm to the enchanted towers of Carbonek seven days across the\nsea.\u201d[136] In none of the \u2018Idylls\u2019 do we perhaps breathe more of the\natmosphere of pure romance than in the first and the last. Mystery and\nmagic surround both the coming and the passing of the King;\n\n  \u201cFrom the great deep to the great deep he goes.\u201d\n\nThis \u201cweird rhyme\u201d of Merlin\u2019s comes into Bedivere\u2019s memory as he sees\nthe barge with the three dark Queens bearing Arthur away into the\ndistance\n\n                              \u201ctill the hull\n  Look\u2019d one black dot against the verge of dawn.\u201d\n\nAnd the last scene closes with the faithful Bedivere left wondering\nwhether Arthur will \u201ccome again,\u201d and whether, \u201cif he come no more,\u201d\nthe three Queens who bore him away be \u201cfriends of Arthur, who should\nhelp him at his need?\u201d So, Tennyson, like Malory and the romancers,\nleaves Arthur\u2019s \u201creturn\u201d an open question; but Bedivere goes away\ncomforted by what seemed an assurance that \u201call was well\u201d with Arthur\nwhither he had gone.\n\n  \u201cThen from the dawn it seem\u2019d there came, but faint\n  As from beyond the limit of the world,\n  Like the last echo born of a great cry,\n  Sounds, as if some fair city were one voice\n  Around a king returning from his wars.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nADDITIONAL NOTES\n\n\n_Note A, p. 9._--The Grail and the Round Table, as originally drawn\ninto Arthurian story, were in all probability survivals of features in\nold Celtic nature-worship.\n\n_Note B, p. 26._--Cavall, it may be noted, is referred to in the Welsh\nromance _Geraint, Son of Erbin_, as taking part in a stag-hunt under\nthe leadership of Arthur, and is there called \u201cArthur\u2019s darling dog\u201d\n(_annwylgi Arthur_).\n\n_Note C, p. 94._--Argante--afterwards known as Morgain, or Morgan,\n_la f\u00e9e_ or _le fay_--is first heard of, in literature, in the poem\ncalled _Vita Merlini_, commonly dated 1148 and ascribed to Geoffrey\nof Monmouth (see p. 112). She there appears as a maiden, possessed of\nmagic powers, who heals Arthur\u2019s wounds after the battle of Camlan.\nAlthough she is usually spoken of by the romancers as being Arthur\u2019s\nsister, she is also represented as one who hates, and is involved in\ncertain malign schemes against, him. Her place in Arthurian story is\none of the many points at which the records and popular legends of \u201cthe\nBritish King\u201d touch the borders of fairy-land. The fairy element in\nArthurian romance is a fascinating, albeit intricate, subject of study,\nbut the scope and purpose of this little book allow only the briefest\nreferences to it. Those who are interested in the subject will find a\nvery full, and suggestive, treatment of it in _Studies in the Fairy\nMythology of Arthurian Romance_, by Lucy A. Paton (Radcliffe College\nMonographs, Boston, U.S.A., 1903).\n\n_Note D, p. 101._--Chr\u00e9tien himself, in the opening lines of _Clig\u00e9s_,\nstates that he had written of \u201c_le roi Marc et Iseut la blonde_.\u201d\n\n_Note E, p. 105._--Tristram, or Tristan, is the most accomplished of\nall the heroes who are associated with Arthur. In the romances he is\npre-eminent as hunter, horseman, linguist, musician, harp-player. He is\nalso a liar of infinite resource.\n\n_Note F, p. 115._--Malory, it should be said, is indebted for some of\nhis most picturesque touches in his account of the passing of Arthur\nand of other incidents to an unknown English poet who, probably in\nthe fourteenth century, composed a metrical _Le Morte Arthure_. As\nthe first edition of the present book has been accused of having\ndone \u201cgrave injustice to our vernacular Arthurian literature before\nMalory\u201d through failure to recognise the merits of \u201cthe unknown but\nmost true poet whose rightful laurels have so long been worn by the\nprose writer,\u201d an extract from the poem may be given in order to enable\nthe reader to judge to which of the two, from a purely literary point\nof view, the \u201crightful laurels\u201d ought to belong. Here is the poet\u2019s\naccount of the flinging of Excalibur:--\n\n  \u201cThe knyght was bothe hende and free;\n  To save that swerd he was fulle glad,\n  And thought, whethyr it better bee\n  Yif neuyr man it after had;\n  An I it caste in to the see,\n  Off mold was neuyr man so mad.\n  The swerd he hyd undyr a tree,\n  And sayd, \u2018syr, I ded as ye me bad.\u2019\n  \u2018What saw thow there?\u2019 than sayd the kynge,\n  \u2018Telle me now, yiff thow can;\u2019\n  \u2018Sertes, syr,\u2019 he said, \u2018nothynge\n  But watres depe, and waives wanne,\u2019\n  \u2018A, now thou haste broke my byddynge!\n  Why hast thou do so, thow false man?\n  Another bode thou muste me brynge,\u2019\u201d etc.\n\n_Note G, p. 130._--It would be impossible, within the limits of such a\nbook as this, to pass in review all the English Arthurian literature\nof the nineteenth century. William Morris\u2019s _Defence of Guinevere_,\n_King Arthur\u2019s Tomb_, and other Arthurian poems doubtless breathe much\nmore of the primitive romantic spirit of the legends than Tennyson\u2019s\n_Idylls_, but they are but slight experiments in comparison with\nTennyson\u2019s elaborate design. Then there are other works like Heber\u2019s\n_Morte Arthur_, Lytton\u2019s _King Arthur_, and Hawker of Morwenstow\u2019s\n_Quest of the Sangreal_, which claim a place in any full survey of\nmodern Arthurian literature, but are hardly of sufficient importance\nto have required notice in so brief a chapter as the last had,\nnecessarily, to be.\n\n\n\n\nBIBLIOGRAPHY\n\n[The following list comprises only a brief selection of books likely to\nbe of most use and interest to the English reader. Welsh, French and\nGerman authorities are left entirely out of account.]\n\n\n  Six Old English Chronicles. Translated by J. A. Giles. Bohn\u2019s Series.\n  (Contains useful translations of Gildas, Nennius, and Geoffrey of\n  Monmouth.)\n\n  Geoffrey of Monmouth. History of the Kings of Britain, translated by\n  Dr Sebastian Evans. The Temple Classics (Dent).\n\n  The Four Ancient Books of Wales. Edited, with translations, by Dr W.\n  F. Skene. Edinburgh, 1868.\n\n  The Mabinogion. Translated by Lady Charlotte Guest. The best popular\n  edition is that of A. Nutt, and is especially valuable for his\n  critical notes at the end.\n\n  Layamon\u2019s Brut. Edited by Sir F. Madden. 3 vols. London, 1847.\n\n  Malory\u2019s Morte Darthur. Edited, in 3 vols., by H. O. Sommer (Nutt).\n\n  ---- With introduction by Sir J. Rhys (Dent).\n\n  ---- Edited, with introduction, by Sir E. Strachey (Macmillan--Globe\n  Series).\n\n  Dickinson, W. H. King Arthur in Cornwall.\n\n  Fletcher, R. H. The Arthurian Matter in the Chronicles (Harvard\n  Studies and Notes, 1906).\n\n  Maccallum, M. W. Tennyson\u2019s Idylls and Arthurian Story.\n\n  Newell, W. W. King Arthur and the Table Round. Boston, 1897.\n  (Contains excellent summaries of Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes poems.)\n\n  Nutt, Alfred. Celtic and Medi\u00e6val Romance. (Popular Studies in\n  Mythology and Folklore.)\n\n  ---- Legends of the Holy Grail. (Popular Studies, etc.)\n\n  ---- Studies in the Legend of the Holy Grail (1888).\n\n  Rhys, Sir John. The Arthurian Legend (1891).\n\n  ---- Celtic Folklore (1901).\n\n  Schofield, W. H. English Literature, from the Norman Conquest to\n  Chaucer.\n\n  Squire, Charles. The Mythology of the British Islands.\n\n  Stephens, Thomas. The Literature of the Kymry (1872).\n\n  Weston, Jessie L. King Arthur and his Knights. (Popular Studies in\n  Mythology and Folklore.)\n\n  ---- The Legend of Sir Gawain (1897), and other works included in\n  Nutt\u2019s \u2018Grimm Library\u2019.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\n  \u00c6neas, 60, 67\n\n  _\u00c6neid, The_, 67\n\n  Agned, 15\n\n  Airem, 13, 54\n\n  Alanus de Insulis, 31\n\n  _Albion\u2019s England_, Warner\u2019s, 120\n\n  Alexander the Great, 5, 70\n\n  Almesbury, 115\n\n  Ambrosius Aurelianus; _see_ Emrys\n\n  Amir, 24\n\n  _Aneirin, the Book of_, 40\n\n  Anna, 75\n\n  _Annales Cambri\u00e6_, 21, 26\n\n  Aran, Yr (Rauran), 128\n\n  Argante (_Morgan le fay_), 92, 94, 138\n\n  Arnold, Matthew, 39, 45, 105\n\n  Ascham, 7, 118\n\n  Astolat, 98\n\n  Aurelius Ambrosius, 74\n\n  Avalon, 76, 91, 93\n\n  Avallach (Avalon), 53\n\n\n  Badbury, 20\n\n  Badon, Mount, 16, 19, 21, 22, 26, 29, 32\n\n  Baddesdown-hill (Mount Badon), 28\n\n  Baldulph, 76\n\n  Bassas, 15\n\n  Bath, 76\n\n  Bayeux, 82\n\n  Bec, 33\n\n  Bede, 28, 71, 72\n\n  Bedwyr; _see_ Bedivere\n\n  Bedivere, 25, 42, 55, 78, 82, 111, 114, 137\n\n  Beornicia, 16\n\n  B\u00e9roul, 106\n\n  Blackmore, Sir Richard, 126\n\n  Bledri (Bledhericus, Bleheris), 109\n\n  Boccaccio, 6\n\n  Bodel, Jean, 3\n\n  Bodmin, 31\n\n  Br\u00e2n the Blessed, 53\n\n  _Branwen, daughter of Ll\u0177r_, 53\n\n  _Bricriu\u2019s Feast_, 50\n\n  Brittany, 31, 58, _seq._\n\n  Broceliande, 98\n\n  Brooke, Stopford, 136\n\n  Brutus, son of \u00c6neas, 60, 67\n\n  Brythons, the, 13, 29, 36\n\n  Builth, 23\n\n\n  Cador (Kadwr), Earl or Duke of Cornwall, 51, 76, 83\n\n  Cadwallader, 72\n\n  Cadwallo, 72\n\n  Caerlleon upon Usk, 2, 3, 57, 78, 97, 121\n\n  Caledvwlch (Excalibur), Arthur\u2019s sword, 46\n\n  Cambula (Camel), 27\n\n  Camden, 85\n\n  Camel, 57, 83, 98, 121\n\n  Camelford, 27, 93\n\n  Cameliard, 98\n\n  Camelot, 6, 98\n\n  Camlan, 26, 53\n\n  Caradoc of Llancarvan, 87\n\n  Carbonek, 98, 136\n\n  Carlisle, 73, 97\n\n  _Carmarthen, The Black Book of_, 2, 12, 26, 40, 74\n\n  Carnwennan, Arthur\u2019s dagger, 46, 50\n\n  Cavall (Cabal), Arthur\u2019s dog, 24, 25, 138\n\n  Caxton, 1-10, 11, 37, 135\n\n  Celidon, 15\n\n  Ceredig, 18\n\n  Charlemagne, 8, 70\n\n  Chaucer, 60, 103, 116\n\n  Cheldric, 34, 76\n\n  _Chevalier au lion_, 101\n\n  _Chevalier de la Charrette_, 100, 102\n\n  Chinon, 82\n\n  Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes, 41, 90, 100, 138\n\n  _Chronicle_, The Saxon, 29\n\n  Colgrin, 76\n\n  _Comes Britanni\u00e6_, 17, 18\n\n  _Comes littoris Saxonici_, 17\n\n  _Coming of Arthur, The_, 134\n\n  Constantine, 83, 94\n\n  _Conte del Graal_, 101\n\n  Cormac, 84\n\n  Cornwall, 31, 34, 49, 56-58, 83, 105\n\n  Cradock, 6\n\n  Cunedda, 18\n\n\n  Dafydd ap Gwilym, 77\n\n  Dante, 103\n\n  Dares the Phrygian, 60\n\n  David, St, 81\n\n  Dictys the Cretan, 60\n\n  Dimilioc (Damelioc), 57, 74\n\n  Dover Castle, 6\n\n  Drayton, M., 86\n\n  _Dream of Rhonabwy, The_, 12, 18, 26, 50-52, 56\n\n  Dryden, 123, 127\n\n  Dubglas, 15\n\n  Dubricius, 75, 78, 81\n\n  _Dux Britanniarum_, 16\n\n\n  Edern, son of Nudd, 51\n\n  Ehangwen, Arthur\u2019s hall, 46\n\n  Eilhart von Oberge, 106\n\n  Elbodugus (Elfodd), 14\n\n  Elizabeth, Queen, 118, 123, 130\n\n  Emmeline, 125\n\n  Emrys (Ambrosius Aurelianus), 18, 21, 23, 28, 32\n\n  Eosa, 74\n\n  Ercing (Archenfield), 24\n\n  _Erec_, 41, 101\n\n  Et\u00e1in, 54\n\n  Evans, Dr Gwenogvryn, 39, 45\n\n  Evans, Dr Sebastian, 3, 35, 65, 67\n\n  Excalibur (Caliburn), Arthur\u2019s sword, 26, 46, 76, 93, 114, 129\n\n\n  _Faerie Queene, The_, 119, _seq._\n\n  Finn, 84\n\n  Flollo, 78\n\n\n  Galahad, 106, 136\n\n  Gawain, 2, 6, 32, 75, 77, 107, 110\n\n  Gelli (or Kelli) Wic, 49, 56\n\n  Geoffrey of Monmouth, 2, 4, 14, 19, 27, 60 _seq._\n\n  Geoffrey Gaimar, 85\n\n  Geraint, 47, 136\n\n  _Geraint, son of Erbin_ (Welsh romance), 2, 52, 101, 138\n\n  _Geraint, filius Erbin_ (Welsh poem), 41\n\n  Germany, 16\n\n  Gildas, 18, 21, 22, 28, 72, 88, 134\n\n  _Gildas, Life of_, 88\n\n  Giraldus Cambrensis, 5, 84, 87, 109\n\n  Glamorgan, 65, 79\n\n  Glastonbury, 6, 84, 89, 98\n\n  Glewlwyd of the Mighty Grasp, 42, 45\n\n  Godfrey of Boulogne, 8\n\n  Goleuddydd, 17\n\n  Gorlois, 57, 74, 122\n\n  Gottfried von Strassburg, 106\n\n  Grafton, 85\n\n  Grail, The Holy, 8, 9, 98, 107, 138\n\n  Griffin of Carmarthen, 92\n\n  Guest, Lady Charlotte, 37, 134\n\n  Guido de Colonna, 60\n\n  Guinevere (Gwenhwyvar), 46, 53, 76, 82, 100, 115\n\n  Guinnion, 15, 20\n\n  Gwalchmei (Gawain), 110\n\n  Gwenn, Arthur\u2019s mantle, 51\n\n  Gwledig, 17\n\n  Gwynn, son of Nudd, 47, 48\n\n  Gwythur, 2, 53\n\n\n  Hawker, R. S., 140\n\n  Heber, _Morte Arthur_, 140\n\n  Hengist, 15, 33\n\n  Henry II., 84\n\n  Henry of Huntingdon, 19, 33, 71\n\n  _Hergest, The Red Book of_, 27, 101\n\n  Higden, 6\n\n  _Historia Brittonum_, 14\n\n  _Historia Regum Britanni\u00e6_, 64, _seq._\n\n  Hoel, King of Armorica, 76\n\n  Holinshed, 85\n\n  Huel, King of Scotland, 88\n\n  Hughes, Thomas, 122\n\n\n  Ida, 16\n\n  _Idylls of the King, The_, 4, 130, _seq._\n\n  Igerne, 57, 74\n\n  Iseult (Essyllt), 54, 100, 104\n\n\n  Joseph of Arimathea, 98, 109\n\n  Joyous Gard, 98\n\n  Juvenal, 12\n\n\n  Kadwr; _see_ Cador\n\n  Kay (Kei), 42, 52, 54, 78, 82\n\n  _King Arthur, or The British Worthy_, 125\n\n  _Kulhwch and Olwen_, 17, 25, 44, 45, _seq._\n\n\n  _Lady of the Fountain, The_, 3, 18, 52, 101\n\n  Lancelot, 6, 10, 100, 103, 107, 115, 136\n\n  _Lancelot and Elaine_, 134\n\n  Lang, Andrew, 133, 134\n\n  _Lanval_, 58\n\n  Laon, 31\n\n  Layamon, 27, 67, 84, 85, 89, 91, _seq._\n\n  _Le Morte Arthure_ (poem), 139\n\n  Legion, City of, 15, 19\n\n  Leicester, Earl of, 127\n\n  Leodogran, 134\n\n  Lincoln, 97\n\n  Linnuis (Lindisia, Lindsey), 15, 20\n\n  Llacheu, Arthur\u2019s son, 43\n\n  Llamrei, Arthur\u2019s mare, 25\n\n  Llandaff, 64\n\n  London, 53, 96\n\n  Lot (of Lodonesia), 75, 77, 112\n\n  Lucius Hiberius, 53, 81\n\n  Lyonesse, 98, 105\n\n  Lytton, _King Arthur_, 140\n\n\n  _Mabinogion, The_, 2, 3, 12, 17, 18, 37, 39, 101, 110, 134\n\n  Mabon, son of Mellt, 43\n\n  Mabon, son of Modron, 42, 48\n\n  Maccallum, M. W., 136\n\n  Maelgwn Gwynedd (Maglocunus), 22\n\n  Malory\u2019s _Morte Darthur_, 1-10, 36, 113-115, 118, 135, 139\n\n  Manawyddan, son of Ll\u0177r, 42, 47\n\n  Map, Walter, 64, 101, 103, 104\n\n  Marie of Champagne, 100, 103\n\n  Marie of France, 58\n\n  Mark (March, son of Meirchion), 2, 51, 54\n\n  Maxen Wledig, 18\n\n  Meleager, 48\n\n  Melwas (Meleaguant, Mellyagraunce), 89, 102\n\n  Merlin, 69, 75, 94, 111, 128, 137\n\n  _Merlin, The Prophecies of_, 69, 112\n\n  Milton, 50, 123\n\n  _Misfortunes of Arthur, The_, 122\n\n  Modred (Medrod, Medraut), 26, 27, 34, 52, 75, 82, 112, 122\n\n  Monmouth, 65\n\n  Mont St Michel, 66\n\n  Morris, William, 140\n\n  _Morte Darthur_; _see_ Malory\n\n  _Morte D\u2019Arthur_ (Tennyson\u2019s), 131\n\n  Mynneu, Mount, 52\n\n\n  Natanleod, 30\n\n  Nennius, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 41, 71, 134\n\n  Neustria, 78\n\n  Nutt, Alfred, 45, 50, 107\n\n\n  Octha, 15, 74\n\n  Owen and the ravens, 50\n\n\n  Palug\u2019s Cat, 53, 54\n\n  _Parzival_ (Wagner\u2019s), 4\n\n  Pembrokeshire, 23\n\n  Perceval (Peredur), 10, 52, 100, 101, 107\n\n  _Peredur_ (Welsh romance), 52, 101\n\n  Picts, The, 16, 27\n\n  Polydore Vergil, 85\n\n  _Polyolbion_, 86, 120\n\n  _Prince Arthur, an Heroick Poem_, 126\n\n  Prince Consort, The, 131, 132\n\n  Pridwen, Arthur\u2019s ship, 44\n\n  Priwen, Arthur\u2019s shield, 76\n\n  Pryderi, 54\n\n  _Pwyll, prince of Dyved_, 54\n\n\n  Rhongomyant (Rh\u00f4n), Arthur\u2019s lance, 46, 76\n\n  Rhys, Sir John, 2, 12, 13, 17, 38, 44, 49\n\n  Ritho, of Mount Eryri, 81\n\n  Robert de Borron, 109, 112\n\n  Robert, earl of Gloucester, 65, 73\n\n  Robert of Gloucester (chronicler), 85\n\n  Robert Fitz-Hamon, 65\n\n  Robert of Torigni (Robert of the Mount), 33, 66\n\n  Rome, 67\n\n  Round Table, The, 6, 80, 91, 93\n\n\n  Sackville, 86\n\n  St Asaph, 64\n\n  St Michael\u2019s Mount, 80\n\n  Sarras, 98\n\n  Saxons, The, 11, 15, 16, 27, 28\n\n  Scots, The, 16, 27\n\n  Scott, Sir W., 123, 125\n\n  Severus, 16\n\n  Shaftesbury, 74\n\n  _Sir Gawayne and the Grene Knight_, 91, 111, 116\n\n  Skene, W. F., 39\n\n  Somerset, 89\n\n  Spenser, 56, 86, 118, 127\n\n  Stubbs, 28\n\n  Swinburne, 105\n\n\n  Tacitus, 12\n\n  Taliesin, 17, 37, 47\n\n  _Taliesin, The Book of_, 40, 43\n\n  Thomas de Bretagne, 106\n\n  _Thopas, Tale of Sir_, 61, 116\n\n  Tennyson, 7, 21, 26, _seq._\n\n  Timon (Sir Ector), 128\n\n  Tintagel, 57, 74, 105\n\n  Triads, The, 26, 38, 52-55\n\n  Tribruit (Tryvrwyd), 15, 43\n\n  Tristram (Tristan, Drystan), 10, 52, 54, 100, 104, 114, 129, 139\n\n  _Tristan und Isolde_ (Wagner\u2019s), 4\n\n  Troy, 60\n\n  Trwyth, the Boar (_porcus Troit_), 24, 25, 49, _seq._\n\n\n  Uther Pendragon, 42, 57, 74, 122\n\n\n  Virgil, 68\n\n  _Vita Merlini_, 112\n\n  Vivien, 112\n\n  Vortigern, 30, 32, 69\n\n  Vortimer, 32\n\n\n  Wace, 58, 67, 85, 89\n\n  _Wales, The Four Ancient Books of_, 39, _seq._\n\n  Walter, archdeacon of Oxford, 68, 71, 83\n\n  Warinus, 33, 34\n\n  Warner, William, 86\n\n  Westminster, abbey of, 6\n\n  Weston, Miss J. L, 108, 109, 110\n\n  White Mount, The (in London), 53\n\n  _Wife of Bath\u2019s Tale, The_, 117\n\n  William of Malmesbury, 2, 28, 31, 66, 71\n\n  William of Newburgh, 5, 28, 69, 86\n\n  William of Orange, 127\n\n  Winchester, 6, 97\n\n  Wolfram von Eschenbach, 107\n\n  Wordsworth, 20, 62, 86\n\n  Wygar, the smith, 92\n\n  Wynebgwrthucher, Arthur\u2019s shield, 46\n\n\n  Yspaddaden (Pen Kawr), 26, 45, 50\n\n\n\n\n  PRINTED BY\n  TURNBULL AND SPEARS\n  EDINBURGH\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] \u2018The Songs of the Graves,\u2019 in the twelfth century _Black Book of\nCarmarthen_. \u201cA grave there is for March (or Mark),\u201d--so the lines\nrun,--\u201ca grave for Gwythur, a grave for Gwgawn of the Ruddy Sword; a\nmystery is the grave of Arthur\u201d: or, as Sir John Rhys translates, \u201cnot\nwise the thought--a grave for Arthur.\u201d\n\n[2] William of Malmesbury (_Gesta Reg. Angl._, Bk. III.), referring\nto the discovery in Wales of the grave of Gawain, Arthur\u2019s nephew,\nspeaks of the grave of Arthur himself as being unknown--hence, he says,\nancient songs (_antiquitas n\u00e6niarum_) prophesy his return.\n\n[3] The opening words of the Welsh romance, \u2018Gereint, Son of Erbin.\u2019\n_Cf._ also the first sentences of \u2018The Lady of the Fountain,\u2019 as given\nin Lady C. Guest\u2019s _Mabinogion_.\n\n[4] See Geoffrey\u2019s _History_, Bk. IX. Ch. 12, in the excellent\ntranslation by the late Dr Sebastian Evans (Temple Classics).\n\n[5] The three great romantic \u201cmatters\u201d are thus categorised in a\nwell-known passage in the _Chanson de Saisnes_ by the twelfth century\nwriter, Jean Bodel,--\n\n  \u201cNe sont que trois mati\u00e8res \u00e0 nul home attendant,\n  De France et de Bretaigne et de Rome la grant.\u201d\n\n[6] _Hist. Rerum Anglic._ Proemium (Chronicles of Stephen, etc., Rolls\nSeries, 1884-85).\n\n[7] See note _A_ on p. 138.\n\n[8] See a poem entitled \u2018Gereint, Son of Erbin,\u2019 in _The Black Book of\nCarmarthen_, and several passages in the _Mabinogion_,--especially in\n\u2018The Dream of Rhonabwy,\u2019--which are referred to later on.\n\n[9] It is worth noting, by the way, that the \u201cSaeson,\u201d or Saxons,\nagainst whom he is presumed to have fought most of his battles, are not\neven mentioned in the Welsh Arthurian romances.\n\n[10] The name _Artoria_ occurs is Tacitus, _Annals_, xv. 71; _Artorius_\nin Juvenal, _Sat._, iii. 29. It was common enough in Rome.\n\n[11] Rhys, _Arthurian Legend_, p. 48. In Chap. I. of the same work Rhys\nputs and answers the main question suggested in these pages as follows:\n\u201cHow did Arthur become famous above other (Welsh, or British) heroes,\nand how came he to be the subject of so much story and romance? The\nanswer, in short, which one has to give to this hard question must be\nto the effect, that besides a historic Arthur there was a Brythonic\ndivinity named Arthur, after whom the man may have been called, or with\nwhose name his, in case it was of a different origin, may have become\nidentical in sound owing to an accident of speech\u201d (_A. L._, p. 8).\n\n[12] The chief authorities on Nennius are Mommsen (see his edition\nof the _Historia_, and of Gildas, in _Mon. Germ. Hist._, Berlin,\n1898), and Zimmer (_Nennius Vindicatus_, Berlin, 1893). See, also,\nFletcher (_The Arthurian Matter in the Chronicles_, Boston, 1906) and\nM. R. James (_Camb. Hist. of Eng. Lit._, Vol. I. Ch. 5). Thurneysen\n(_Zeitschr. f. Deutsche Philologie_, 1897) fixes 827 as the date of the\ncompletion of the _History_.\n\n[13] This date must be accepted if we are to believe Nennius\u2019s\nstatement that he was a disciple of Elbodugus, or Elfodd, bishop of\nGwynedd.\n\n[14] Chap. 56.\n\n[15] _ipse dux erat bellorum._\n\n[16] This is simply the Welsh (modern, _cad coed_) for \u201cthe battle of\nCelidon Wood.\u201d\n\n[17] Rhys, _Arthurian Legend_, p. 7.\n\n[18] _Arthurian Legend_, p. 7.\n\n[19] A number of chieftains are styled _gwledig_ in the _Mabinogion_\n(see index to edition of Welsh _Red Book_, text by Rhys and Evans, p.\n342). Among them is one Amlawdd, or Amlodd, who in _Kulhwch and Olwen_\nis the father of Goleuddydd, the mother of Kulhwch, \u201ca boy of gentle\nbirth and cousin unto Arthur.\u201d In a poem ascribed to Taliesin the deity\neven is called _gwledig_--\u201cgwledig nef a phob tud,\u201d \u201cruler of heaven\nand of every land.\u201d\n\n[20] Viz., to the tale, included in Lady C. Guest\u2019s _Mabinogion_,\ncalled \u2018The Dream of Maxen Wledig.\u2019 The glorification of Maxen, or\nMaximus, in Welsh tradition suggests many points of analogy with the\nstory of Arthur.\n\n[21] Lloyd, _Hist. of Wales_, Vol. I. p. 100.\n\n[22] See the opening words of \u2018The Lady of the Fountain,\u2019 \u201cYr\namherawdyr Arthur oedd yng Kaer Llion ar Wysc.\u201d See also _The Dream of\nRhonabwy_, _passim_.\n\n[23] _Arthurian Legend_, p. 7. See also _The Welsh People_ (Rhys and\nJones), pp. 105 _sqq._\n\n[24] The most elaborate and ingenious expositions of this theory will\nbe found in Skene\u2019s _Four Ancient Books of Wales_, Vol. I. Chap. 4, and\nStuart-Glennie\u2019s _Arthurian Localities in \u2018Merlin\u2019_ (Early Eng. Text\nSoc., 1869).\n\n[25] \u201cMons Badonicus\u201d is still unidentified. Guest, in his _Origines_\n_Celtic\u00e6_ (ii. 187-189) makes a brave attempt to prove that it was\nBadbury in Dorset.\n\n[26] _Hist. Reg. Brit._, Bk. IX. Ch. 4.\n\n[27] _Ecclesiastical Sonnets_, i. 10.\n\n[28] _Coming of Arthur._\n\n[29] The translation is that of Dr H. Williams in his edition of Gildas\n(Cymmrodorion Record Series, London, 1901), p. 63.\n\n[30] Such, at any rate, is Rhys\u2019s opinion. See Preface to Dent\u2019s\n_Malory_, p. xxxv.\n\n[31] See p. 142 in Nutt\u2019s reprint of Lady C. Guest\u2019s _Mabinogion_.\n\n[32] _Op. cit._, p. 139.\n\n[33] See note _B_ on p. 138.\n\n[34] Tennyson, _The Passing of Arthur_.\n\n[35] Skene\u2019s _Four Ancient Books of Wales_, Vol. I. p. 311.\n\n[36] _Op. cit._, p. 291.\n\n[37] Layamon, in his _Brut_ (l. 28,533), is the first to locate the\nbattle definitely at this place.\n\n[38] Preface to Rolls Edition of Roger of Hoveden\u2019s _Chronicle_.\n\n[39] For an interesting comparison between the _Chronicle_ and Nennius\nin respect to the Arthurian period, see Fletcher, _Arthurian Matter in\nthe Chronicles_, pp. 21-23.\n\n[40] The account of this incident is given in Migne\u2019s _Patrologia_,\n156, col. 983.\n\n[41] _Prophetia Anglicana_, etc. (Frankfort, 1603), Bk. I. p. 17.\n\n[42] _Hist. Reg. Angl._, Bk. III.\n\n[43] Published in Rolls Series, _Chronicles of Stephen_, etc., iv. p.\n65.\n\n[44] Quoted from the Epilogue to the late Dr Sebastian Evans\u2019s\ntranslation of Geoffrey\u2019s _History_ (Temple Classics, 1904).\n\n[45] Lady Charlotte Guest\u2019s translation contains twelve tales, but one\nof these, the _History of Taliesin_, is from a late sixteenth century\nMS. and has no claim to rank with the rest as a genuine medi\u00e6val\nproduction.\n\n[46] _Arthurian Legend_, p. 6. \u201cThe Triads give us the oldest account\nof Arthur, and this now and then in a form which the story-tellers and\nromance-writers found thoroughly untractable and best ignored.\u201d\n\n[47] There are, of course, more than four \u201cancient books\u201d in the Welsh\nlanguage--for example, the MS. of what is known as the Venedotian code\nof the laws of Wales, and _The White Book of Rhydderch_, the contents\nof which have recently been made accessible to Welsh readers in Dr\nGwenogvryn Evans\u2019s fine edition. But Skene\u2019s \u201cfour books\u201d contain all\nthe oldest Welsh poetry that is of any account. These four, named\nin chronological order, are known as _The Black Book of Carmarthen_\n(twelfth century), _The Book of Aneirin_, _The Book of Taliesin_, and\n_The Red Book of Hergest_.\n\n[48] _The Study of Celtic Literature._\n\n[49] See Skene, _Four Ancient Books_, Vol. I. p. 295.\n\n[50] See Gwenogvryn Ewans\u2019s edition of _The Black Book_, p. 103.\n\n[51] Skene, _Four Ancient Books_, I. p. 426.\n\n[52] Skene, _Four Ancient Books_, I. p. 308.\n\n[53] Rhys, Preface to Dent\u2019s edition of _Malory_, p. xxv, where a full\naccount of these three poems is given.\n\n[54] Skene, _Four Ancient Books_, I. p. 266.\n\n[55] Tryvrwyd, in the form _Tribruit_, is one of the twelve battles\nrecorded by Nennius. See _ante_, Chap. I.\n\n[56] All the names here cited are found also in the prose story of\n_Kulhwch and Olwen_. The connection of the poem with _Kulhwch_ is\nreferred to later on.\n\n[57] See Preface to Dent\u2019s _Malory_, where a translation of the whole\npoem is given, and its correspondences with _Kulhwch and Olwen_ are\npointed out.\n\n[58] _The Study of Celtic Literature._ Rhys\u2019s opinion that the\nprimitive form, and substance, of this tale date from the tenth century\nhas been already referred to. Dr Gwenogvryn Evans, in the Preface to\nhis edition of _The White Book_ \u2018_Mabinogion_,\u2019 without assigning to\nit so definite a date, holds that _Kulhwch and Olwen_ \u201cis the oldest\nin language, in matter, in simplicity of narrative, in primitive\natmosphere,\u201d of all the tales to which the general name \u2018mabinogion\u2019\nis given. Mr Alfred Nutt, while holding that portions of _Kulhwch and\nOlwen_ are of \u201cpre-historic antiquity, far transcending in age any\nhistoric Arthur,\u201d assigns the story in the form we have it to the\ntwelfth century, on the strength, mainly, of its affinities to eleventh\ncentury Irish sagas.\n\n[59] The Welsh name for \u201cExcalibur.\u201d\n\n[60] Sir John Rhys does this in his _Celtic Folklore_ (Vol. II. pp.\n512 _sqq._). See the whole of Chap. IX. in that work for a learned\ndiscussion of the significance of the names, both local and personal,\nin _Kulhwch_.\n\n[61] Milton, _Paradise Lost_, ix. The prominence given to these\ndescriptions in the tale is emphasised by its brief epilogue. \u201cAnd this\ntale is called the _Dream of Rhonabwy_. And this is the reason that\nno one knows the dream without a book, neither bard nor gifted seer;\nbecause of the various colours that were upon the horses, and the many\nwondrous colours of the arms and of the panoply, and of the precious\nmantles and virtuous stones.\u201d\n\n[62] The Emperor (Lucius Hiberius, called in the Welsh narratives Ll\u00eas)\nis said by Geoffrey _(Hist. Reg. Brit._, X. xi) to have been killed by\n\u201can unknown hand.\u201d\n\n[63] Rhys, _Arthurian Legend_, Ch. II.\n\n[64] The most brilliant of these re-builders of \u201cthe Celtic Pantheon\u201d\nis Sir John Rhys. See, especially, his _Arthurian Legend_ and _Celtic\nHeathendom_.\n\n[65] Spenser, _Faerie Queene_, Bk. I. Canto 9.\n\n[66] Dickinson, _King Arthur in Cornwall_ (Longmans), p. vi, where an\ninteresting account is given of Arthur\u2019s Cornish associations.\n\n[67] _Roman de Brut_, 1. 9994\n\n[68] See above, p. 31.\n\n[69] See the final chapter, on \u201cGreat Britain and Little Britain,\u201d in\nRhys\u2019s _Arthurian Legend_.\n\n[70] _Ariegal and Elidure._\n\n[71] _Hist. Reg. Brit._, Chap. I. (Dr Sebastian Evans\u2019s translation).\nI have used this translation for nearly all the extracts from Geoffrey\ngiven in this chapter.\n\n[72] This hypothesis is ingeniously elaborated by the late Dr Sebastian\nEvans in the epilogue to his translation of Geoffrey (Temple Classics,\n1903).\n\n[73] This explanation of the name \u201cBritain\u201d is not, as has been pointed\nout (pp. 60, 61), original to Geoffrey. It is his elaboration of the\nBrutus legend that is significant.\n\n[74] William of Newburgh, the severest of all Geoffrey\u2019s critics,\nwriting about 1190, suggests that either this, or his own \u201clove of\nlying,\u201d was the motive of the work. \u201cIt is manifest that everything\nwhich this person wrote about Arthur and his successors, and his\npredecessors after Vortigern, was made up partly by himself and partly\nby others, whether from an inordinate love of lying or for the sake of\npleasing the Britons.\u201d William also held that Geoffrey\u2019s account of\nevents before the time of Julius C\u00e6sar was either invented by himself,\nor \u201cadopted after it had been invented by others.\u201d\n\n[75] Jusserand, _Lit. Hist. of the English People_, Vol. I. p. 131.\n\n[76] One MS of the _History_, preserved at Bern, contains a double\ndedication addressed to both Robert, and King Stephen. I have given\nsome account of this MS, and of its bearing upon the date and character\nof the _History_, in a paper on Geoffrey published in the _Transactions\nof the Cymmrodorion Society_ (London, 1899).\n\n[77] Where, apart from \u201cthe British book,\u201d Geoffrey derived the name\nand history of Uther, still remains an unsolved problem. It is worth\nnoting, however, that \u201cUther Pendragon\u201d is mentioned in a poem in _The\nBlack Book of Carmarthen_ noticed in the previous chapter (see p. 42).\n\n[78] Dubricius, or Dyfrig, is a well-known early Welsh saint, but\nthe archbishopric of the City of Legions is entirely a creation of\nGeoffrey\u2019s fancy.\n\n[79] I have italicised the words \u201cnoble Roman family\u201d here, because\nthis \u201cRoman\u201d descent of Guinevere would seem not to have been derived\nfrom a Welsh source. In the Triads we read of a Guinevere who is\ndescribed as \u201cthe daughter of Ogrvan the Giant\u201d (see _ante_, p. 53).\nShe is, apparently, the one among \u201cthe three Guineveres\u201d who is best\nknown to Welsh tradition as the wife of Arthur. She is mentioned both\nin a poem by the famous Welsh poet of the fourteenth century, Dafydd\nap Gwilym--referring to her adventure with Melwas--and in an old Welsh\nrhyme, which gives her a somewhat disreputable character (see Rhys,\n_Arthurian Legend_, Chap. III.).\n\n[80] It is interesting to note, incidentally, that after the\n\u201csolemnity\u201d at Caerleon, Dubricius is reported to have resigned his\narchbishopric, and \u201cDavid, _the King\u2019s uncle_, was consecrated in his\nplace, whose life was an ensample of all goodness unto them whom he had\ninstructed in his doctrine.\u201d\n\n[81] This statement appears to indicate quite explicitly that Geoffrey\nwas indebted to Walter for oral information as well as for the British\nbook.\n\n[82] The best-known account of the affair is given by Giraldus\nCambrensis (_De Principis Instructione_, viii. 126-9).\n\n[83] There are, for example, thirty-five in the British Museum and\nsixteen in the Bodleian.\n\n[84] No copies of Gaimar\u2019s version are known to exist, but his\nrhymed chronicle of Anglo-Saxon and Norman kings has been edited and\ntranslated by Duffus Hardy in the Rolls Series.\n\n[85] _Polyolbion_, Song x.\n\n[86] Hueil, and the cause of his quarrel with Arthur, are incidentally\nmentioned in _Kulhwch and Olwen_. Hueil, we there read, had stabbed his\nsister\u2019s son Gwydre, \u201cand hatred was between Hueil and Arthur because\nof the wound.\u201d\n\n[87] Rhys, who doubts Caradoc\u2019s authorship of the _Life of Gildas_, is\n\u201ccertain that the story\u201d of Melwas \u201cis ancient, for Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes\nin his _Erec_ speaks of Maheloas as the Lord of the Glass Island--\u2018Li\nsire de l\u2019isle de voirre.\u2019\u201d _Arthurian Legend_, p. 52.\n\n[88] Layamon\u2019s _Brut_, ll. 42, 43.\n\n[89] The question of the mythological origin of the Round Table is\none of the many indeterminate problems of Arthurian \u201ccriticism.\u201d\nFor a suggestive study of the question see Brown, _The Round Table\nbefore Wace_ (_Harvard Studies and Notes_, Vol. VII., 1900), where he\nconfidently states that \u201cthe Round Table was a very early Pan-Celtic\ninstitution.\u201d\n\n[90] _Brut_, ll. 19,254 _sqq._ (Madden\u2019s edition).\n\n[91] ll. 28,610 _sqq._\n\n[92] ll. 22,910 _sqq._\n\n[93] See note _C_ on p. 138.\n\n[94] Camelot is, apparently, first heard of in Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes\u2019\n_Chevalier de la Charrette_.\n\n[95] Tennyson, _Merlin and Vivien_.\n\n[96] See note _D_ on p. 138.\n\n[97] So much has been clearly proved in the case of _Peredur_, for\ninstance, in a French essay on the composition of that romance recently\npublished from Paris by Dr Mary Williams, formerly Fellow of the\nUniversity of Wales.\n\n[98] This, of course, is an obvious variant of the story told in the\n_Life of Gildas_, already mentioned, of Guinevere\u2019s abduction by Melwas.\n\n[99] _Nonne Prestes Tale_, l. 392.\n\n[100] See note _E_ on p. 139.\n\n[101] Matthew Arnold, _Tristram and Iseult_.\n\n[102] Swinburne, _Tristram of Lyonesse_.\n\n[103] M. B\u00e9dier, in his edition of Thomas\u2019s _Tristan_, maintains that\nthe original of all the various versions of the story was a single poem\ncomposed in England. This is a disputed point among scholars, but it is\ngenerally agreed that the story is of British origin.\n\n[104] See Tennyson, _The Passing of Arthur_.\n\n[105] A. Nutt, _The Legends of the Holy Grail_ (Popular Studies in\nMythology and Folklore), p. 72.\n\n[106] For a learned and suggestive study of the various versions of\nthe Grail legend, see Miss J. L. Weston\u2019s _The Legend of Sir Perceval_\n(2 vols.) in the Grimm Library (Nutt). Miss Weston there distinguishes\nthree stages in the growth of the legend as \u201cthe Folklore, the\nLiterary and the Mystical.\u201d In the Mystical, an element which she\nholds to be \u201centirely foreign to the original tale,\u201d viz., the Grail\nquest, \u201cmodified and finally transformed it.\u201d The folk-tale \u201cassumed\nan ecclesiastical and mystical character. The hero became a champion\nof Christianity and Holy Church, and as such displayed the qualities\nmost approved by the religious views of the time: he became not merely\nchaste, but an ascetic celibate, and any connection with women was\ndropped altogether\u201d (Vol. I. p. 117).\n\n[107] This, of course, raises a vexed question,--two schools of\ncritics, one German, and the other English, French and American,\nbeing at feud upon it. In connection with the alleged Welsh origin of\nsome of these traditions, it may be mentioned that the suggestion has\nbeen recently made that the first collection of them for \u201cromantic\u201d\npurposes was due to a Welshman variously known as Bledri, Bleheris, or\nBledhericus, who lived probably in the eleventh century, and is spoken\nof by Giraldus Cambrensis as a \u2018_famosus fabulator, qui tempora nostra\npaulo pr\u00e6venit_.\u2019 See Weston, _Legend of Sir Perceval_, Vol. I. Ch. 12.\n\n[108] He is made the actual achiever of the quest in the German poem\n_Diu Kr\u00f4ne_, by Heinrich von dem T\u00fcrlin.\n\n[109] See _The Legend of Sir Gawain_, by Miss J. L. Weston (Grimm\nLibrary).\n\n[110] See the _Sir Gawayne_ romances edited by Sir F. Madden for the\nBannatyne Club (London, 1839).\n\n[111] Strachey, Introduction to Globe Edition of _Le Morte Darthur_.\n\n[112] _Morte Darthur_, Book XVIII. Chap. 25.\n\n[113] Book XXI. Chap. 5.\n\n[114] See note _F_ on p. 139.\n\n[115] _Faerie Queene_, Bk. III. Canto iii.\n\n[116] _Polyolbion_, Song X.\n\n[117] _Polyolbion_, I.\n\n[118] Scott, _Marmion_, Introduction to Canto I.\n\n[119] _Paradise Lost_, Book IX.\n\n[120] _Discourse on Satire._\n\n[121] Scott\u2019s edition of Dryden, Introduction to the play.\n\n[122] Dryden so designates him in his _Preface to the Fables_.\n\n[123] _King Arthur_, Book I.\n\n[124] Introductory Letter to the _Faerie Queene_.\n\n[125] The Sir Ector of Malory.\n\n[126] _Faerie Queene_, Book I. ix.\n\n[127] _Faerie Queene_, II. viii. 21.\n\n[128] _Faerie Queene_, I. vii. 35.\n\n[129] See note _G_ on p. 139.\n\n[130] Dedication to his tragedy, \u201cLocrine.\u201d\n\n[131] Lord Morley, _Studies in Literature_ (\u201cOn \u2018The Ring and the\nBook\u2019\u201d).\n\n[132] _Lord Tennyson, A Memoir_, by his Son, Vol. II. v. 127.\n\n[133] Andrew Lang, _Tennyson_ (Blackwood\u2019s \u201cModern English Writers\u201d),\np. 103.\n\n[134] How closely it does follow the Welsh tale has well been pointed\nout by Mr A. Lang in the work just quoted, from pp. 119 _sqq._\n\n[135] M. W. Maccallum, _Tennyson\u2019s Idylls and Arthurian Story_.\n\n[136] Stopford Brooke, _Tennyson_, Chap. 10.\n\n\n\n\nTRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTES:\n\n\n  Italicized text is surrounded by underscores: _italics_.\n\n  Obvious typographical errors have been corrected.\n\n  Inconsistencies in hyphenation have been standardized.\n\n  Archaic or variant spelling has been retained.","title":"King Arthur in history and legend","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":33964}