The Date of the Mirabilia

“Certainly there is much about the early Arthurian tradition that might fit a god or supernatural hero. ……... This Arthur seems to belong in a world of ‘magical realism’, set apart from the abodes of man.”1 

It is generally accepted that the case for a “historical” Arthur begins with the battle list contained in the 9th century Historia Brittonum (History of the Britons, dated AD 829/30), the earliest surviving copy found in the Harleian manuscript 3859 dated AD c.1100. A single chapter provides the earliest narrative of Arthur in which he appears as ‘dux bellorum’, commander of the armies of the kings of Britain. The Harleian manuscript is the earliest and most complete text, possibly a direct copy of the original. The archetype may well have been the “certain very ancient book in the British language” presented to Geoffrey of Monmouth by Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, which provided much of the source material for his 12th century 'The History of the Kings of Britain' (Latin: De gestis Britonum, or Historia Regum Britanniae).2

The Historia Brittonum was commonly referred to as “Nennius” following the preface in several manuscripts attributing the work to a cleric of this name who claimed to be “disciple of Saint Elved” (Elvodugus) commonly identified with Elfodd bishop of Bangor AD 755. But the assertion of Nennian authorship has largely been rejected ever since David Dumville claimed the preface to be a secondary addition, however, some scholars still argue for retention of Nennius’s authorship. 

Contained within the same manuscript and appended to the first sixty-six chapters of the Historia Brittonum is a collection of British genealogies, the Welsh Annals (Annales Cambriae), a list of the Cities of Britain (Civitates Brittaniae) and an untitled list of topographic marvels called the 'Wonders of Britain' (Mirabilia Britanniae). 

From the earliest references a figure called Arthur, we assume the same character as featured in the battle list, became attached to marvellous landscape features. Two such items are recorded in this list of ‘marvels’ or ‘wonders’ appended to the Historia Brittonum as chapters 67-76. The first marvel is the story of Carn Cabal (Cafall) a stone bearing the footprint of Arthur’s dog made when hunting the giant boar Twrch Trwyth:

1. “There is another wonderful thing in the region which is called Buelt. There is in that place a heap of stones, and one stone superposed on the pile with the footprint of a dog on it. When he hunted the boar Troynt, Cabal, who was the dog of Arthur the soldier, impressed his footprint on the stone and Arthur afterwards collected a pile of stones under the stone, whereon was the footprint of his dog, and it is called Carn Cabal. And men come and carry the stone in their hands for the space of a day and a night, and on the morrow it is found upon its pile”3 

Carn Cabal (illustration from Guest's Mabinogion)

The second records the ever changing size of the tomb of Arthur's son Amr (Anir): 

2. “There is another wonder in the country called Ergyng (Ercing). There is a tomb there by a spring, called Llygad Amr (Licat Amr); the name of the man who was buried in the tomb was Amr. He was the son of the warrior Arthur, and he killed him there and buried him. Men come to measure the tomb, and it is sometimes six feet long, sometimes nine, sometimes twelve, sometimes fifteen. At whatever measure you measure it on one occasion, you never find it again of the same measure, and I have tried it myself.”4

From this evidence as presented in the same manuscript it would appear that there were two Arthurs; a battle leader (the dux bellorum) of the post-Roman period, and a mythological figure associated with landscape features as seen in The Mirabilia. Clearly, the Arthur of The Mirabilia is at odds with the Arthur of the Nennian battle list; however, if the battle list in the Historia Brittonum was not a historical record but a legendary account then the two Arthurs become compatible.

Thomas Green has suggested that some of the entries in the Arthurian battle list have a mythological characteristic to them, arguing that a good case can be made for seeing Cat Coit Celidon (‘Battle of Coed Celyddon, the Caledonian Forest’) as the entirely mythical 'Battle of the Trees' recorded in the poem 'Kat Godeu' from the Book of Taliesin. Similarly, Green suggests the attack on the fort of Guinnon has all the appearance of an Otherworldly battle of the sort recorded of Arthur in the 8th-century (or earlier) Preiddeu Annwn. And the tenth, the ‘battle on the bank of a river which is called Tribruit’ is suspiciously similar to the Arthurian battle Traeth Tryfrwyd recounted in the poem Pa Gur? (What Man is the Gatekeeper?) in which Arthur is fighting werewolves (dogheads) and Garwlwyd who is also found in the Triads as Gwrgi Garwlwyd ('Man-dog Rough-grey') who killed one of the Cymry every day, and two on Saturday to avoid killing on Sunday. The fact that a battle from a mythical Welsh poem fought against supernatural creatures on the shore of the Tryfrwyd also appears in a so-called 'historical record' of the Historia Brittonum speaks volumes as to the author's sources and must cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the Arthurian battle list contained at Chapter 56.

There has been much debate as the dating of Pa Gur? Current opinion favours a 10th-century composition, although arguments have been forwarded for a 9th or even 8th-century origin. However, the poem clearly reflects an early mythological Arthur, fighting witches and supernatural monsters of a similar vein to the Arthur of The Mirabilia and Culhwch and Olwen. Patrick Sims-Williams suggests the poem may have been written near the south-east Welsh border, incidentally where the core of The Mirabilia are concentrated. If Sims-Williams is correct in locating the author of Pa Gur here it confirms a body of Arthurian lore was extant in this region from an early date, prior to the composition of the battle list in Historian Brittonum chapter 56.

Celtic scholar John Rhys,5 amongst others of the period, saw the primary figure as mythological from the pre-Christian Celtic world, and the leader of the sub-Roman period as a secondary development. Few Arthurian scholars would agree with Rhys today as the pendulum swings back favourably towards belief in a historical Arthur.

In a recent series of articles we have looked as evidence for a pre-Nennian Arthur, that an Arthur extant prior to the battle list of the Historia Brittonum which recorded Arthur the dux bellorum as victorious in twelve battles culminating in the battle of Badon. We find evidence for the existence of an Arthur by four individuals all so named ‘Arthur’ in the period AD 550-650.  All these individuals had links with Irish royal families in western areas of Britain but none could be considered 'THE ARTHUR' of Badon from the Historia. However, it must be noted that that the 9th century Historia Brittonum and 10th century Annales Cambriae are the first texts to associate the battle of Badon with Arthur; contemporary sources such as Gildas (later followed by Bede) failed to link the victory with Arthur.  

It is commonly believed that these four men of Gaelic descent must have been named after the memory of some military superhero from previous generations. The contemporary Welsh would not use the name ‘Arthur’ as if it carried some taboo, but this clearly did not apply to the Irish immigrants. Were these four men named after the battle leader at Badon or a surviving tradition of a mythological figure with origins in the pre-Christian world of the Celts, as envisaged by John Rhys?

To determine if Rhys was correct in arguing for a mythological primary figure we must consider which came first; the battle leader or the figure of the supernatural world? In doing so we are pitching Arthur the dux bellorum of the Historia against the Arthur of supernatural wonders of The Mirabilia.

Nicholas Higham poses the question, “If a ‘mythological’ Arthur was already the subject of storytelling in Wales when the Historia was written in 829–30, then might this be the ultimate source of the ‘historical’ figure who first appears therein? In that case Arthur’s emergence into history could be secondary to the figure of pagan mythology.”6

The case for a mythological Arthur rests on a body of Medieval Welsh literature where we find this same figure of Arthur leading a band of warriors raiding the Otherworld and stealing magic cauldrons, fighting giants, witches and hunting supernatural monsters. This Arthur was able to pass at will between the realms of myth and man; clearly this is clearly beyond the capabilities of a historical figure.

The essence of this mythological Arthur is found in the tale Culhwch and Olwen, poems such as Pa Gur? and Preiddeu Annwn, and of course The Mirabilia. Although these works are contained in later manuscripts their origins have been dated to the 9th and 10th centuries. It is significant that these early tales and poems include references to Arthur the ‘soldier’ (Latin = ‘miles’); yet this figure is a far cry from the King Arthur of Britain who becomes conqueror of Europe as portrayed by Geoffrey of Monmouth in the 12th century. In the vast majority of pre-Galfridian (before Geoffrey) texts, Arthur is involved in predominantly supernatural adventures. For this reason alone it is essential that Geoffrey’s impact on the Arthurian legend is fully appreciated and not underestimated.

The Wonders of Britain
The list of topographic marvels known as the Wonders of Britain (Mirabilia Britanniae) has been generally accepted as part of the original content of the Historia, but it is separated from the first sixty- six chapters in the earliest complete text (the Harleian MS 3859) by British genealogies, the Welsh Annals (Annales Cambriae), and the list of the Cities of Britain (Civitates Brittaniae).

The Historia has come down to us in several versions in over fifty manuscripts including, Harleian 3859, Chartres 98, Vatican Recension, Sawley Recension and even an Irish version, but unfortunately the archetype is no longer in existence. The Mirabilia does not appear in the Vatican recension but it is otherwise a near ubiquitous element of the Historia in its later recensions. Higham considers that The Mirabilia is unlikely to be of the same hand as the Historia with both the Civitates and The Mirabilia being very different in both style and purpose to the first sixty- six chapters of the Historia. Higham argues that The Mirabilia is therefore better treated as a separate text which was assimilated to the Historia.7

In most current versions of the Historia, The Mirabilia can be found as chapters 67-75, consisting of twenty marvels, immediately following chapter 66. The first mirabile listed is found at Loch Lomond in Scotland,8 however, without doubt the primary group are located in south- east Wales, the Severn valley, Ceredigion and the southern March (2–7, 9–14). Found in the midst of these is a miraculous ash tree found beside the river Wye said to bear apples (8). A further four have been appended (15–18) which are found in Anglesey with the final two relating to Ireland completing the list. 

Locations of The Mirabilia (after Higham, 2018)

In writing his chronicle of the The History of the Kings of Britain Geoffrey of Monmouth drew on many sources. It is evident from his use of certain mirabilia that he used a copy of the Historia Brittonum or the original thereof. Geoffrey has Arthur in Scotland following his victory over the Scots and Picts, in which he blockaded his enemies for a fortnight at Loch Lomond, where his companion Hoel is amazed by the sixty rivers, islands, crags, and eagles’ nests of the loch. This is a direct lift of features attributed to Loch Lomond in the Historia Brittonum. Hoel is then told about two other wonders by Arthur, which also derive directly from the Historia Brittonum. It is likely Geoffrey used these wonders simply to show some knowledge of Scotland.9 

The Historia goes South
The author of The Mirabilia seems to have drawn from existing groups of marvels in compiling his list, drawing the first four marvels, the Anglesey and the Irish items, probably from separate sources. Yet, the central group, marvels 5 to 14, are noticeably different in their presentation; each are are short individual narratives on their own merit, rather than a simple annotated list. This suggests that the author was personally acquainted with this group of marvels from south-Wales and the Marches. For example, in reference to measuring Amr ‘s tomb he claims “I have tried it myself”.10 

This bias suggests that the text originated from this area and the author likely from this area himself. Whereas it is clear that the first sixty-six chapters of the Historia Brittonum are a product of North Wales for Merfyn Frych, king of Gwynedd. Indeed, Higham sees The Mirabilia, as appended to the Harleian manuscript, as a work complete in itself and copied from a south Welsh archetype written no earlier than the mid- 950s - over a century later than the Historia.11 

Higham argues that although the genealogies attached to the Historia, as noted above, seem to derive from a north- Welsh genealogical collection, this was then “fleshed out and adapted to the needs of Dyfed’s court” in the 950s. Likewise, the Annales Cambriae were compiled in their extant form in the south, no earlier than 954. On that basis, he argues, the Harleian is best understood as a text copied from a manuscript written at St David’s in or after the mid-10th century. Higham suggests that both the Civitates and The Mirabilia are likely to have been attached to the Historia there and should be treated as independent texts written in southern Wales. He argues that it is very likely that the archetype of the Historia was limited to the first sixty- six chapters.

This is nothing new, it was suggested by Joseph Stevenson back in the early 19th century, who wrote in a the Preface to his translation of the Harleian Historia Brittonum, “The genealogies of the Saxon monarchs, and the Treatise de mirabilibus Britanniæ, formed, as we may believe, no part of the original work; but being of remote antiquity, and found in the greater number of the manuscripts, they have been inserted in the present edition.”12 

Higham concludes that, “It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the Civitates and The Mirabilia are very unlikely to have been written by the Historia’s author. If it had not come south earlier, then the Historia may have reached Dyfed with Merfyn’s great- grandson, Hywel Dda, when he became king c.904”13 

There is no reason why we should interpret Higham’s argument as dating The Mirabilia to the mid-10th century, however, we can accept the case he presents for the date The Mirabilia became attached to the Historia. As Higham points out, it is very likely that The Mirabilia was in existence in south Wales as a separate, independent text long before being appended to to the Harleian manuscript. As we have seen above Stevenson regarded The Mirabilia as “being of remote antiquity.”

In truth we do not know when The Mirabilia was first written down, however as Rachel Bromwich states, the tradition of Carn Cafall and the hunting of the Twrch Twyrth was certainly already ancient by the 9th century.14

The two Arthurian marvels are both in origin folkloric explanations of topographical features. However, Brynley Roberts suggests the specific Arthurian elements appear to be later accretions, providing evidence that “by the 9th century Arthur had become a popular hero inasmuch that folklore motifs were being attached to his name and that he was a figure of sufficient fame to attract local legends into his orbit.” 15

Roberts adds that this was a feature of the later development of the Arthurian legend and examples of Arthurian topography are widespread, however, these two Arthurian marvels (Carn Cabal & Amr’s tomb) are the earliest examples which can be securely dated. Indeed, these two Arthurian marvels bear all the hallmarks of being a direct product of their author who had first hand knowledge of the topographic folklore of south-east Wales and along the English border long before their attachment to the Historia Brittonum.16

Individually these two marvels may not provide substantial evidence for Arthurian origins but when  combined together with other evidence, such as the hunt for the Twrch Twyrth, they achieve greater significance in the study of the provenance of the Arthurian legend.

Notes & References
1. Nicholas Higham, King Arthur: The Making of the Legend, Yale University Press, 2018, pp. 149-50.
2. Geoffrey of Monmouth claims to have translated the “certain ancient book in the British language” into Latin for his History of the Kings of Britain. No doubt much of his source material was taken from the Historia Brittonum, however, the extant versions of the HB are all in Latin, not the British tongue. Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, had obtained this “ancient book” from Wales (Bern MS).
3. John Morris, ed & trans, Nennius: British History and the Welsh Annals, (Arthurian Period Sources, 8), Phillimore, 1980
4. Ibid.
5. John Rhys, Studies in the Arthurian Legend, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1891.
6. Higham, 2018, p7.
7. Higham, 2018, pp. 179–80
8. Morris, 1980; in his translation of the Historia Brittonum, incorrectly translates stagnum Lumonoy as “Loch Leven” when it should read as “Loch Lomond”.
9. Ben Guy, Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Welsh Sources, in A Companion to Geoffrey of Monmouth, Brill, pp.31–66.
10. Brynley F. Roberts, Culhwch Ac Olwen, The Triads, Saints’ Lives, In Rachel Bromwich, A.O.H. Jarman, Brynley F. Roberts, Editors, The Arthur Of The Welsh: The Arthurian Legend In Medieval Welsh Literature, University Of Wales Press, 1991 (Second Edition, 2008), p.89-90.
11. Higham, 2018, p.226
12. Joseph Stevenson, Nennii: Historia Britonum, Preface, p.xviii, 1838.
13. Higham, 2018, p.180
14. Rachel Bromwich & D Simon Evans, Culhwch and Olwen: An edition and Study of the Oldest Arthurian Tale UWP 1992, Introduction, p.lxvi.
15. Roberts, 1991, p.92.
16. Ibid.

Edited 8/12/22

* * *

An Irish Arthur?

Arthurian References in the Irish Annals
In the previous post Evidence for a pre-Nennian Arthur we noted four men of the 6th-7th centuries all bearing the name ‘Arthur’ from Irish Royal families with British connections:

• The first historically attested Irish Arthur is found in the family of Áedán mac Gabráin, king of the Scottish Dál Riata from 573-608 AD. 

• Artuir ap Bicuir 'the Briton' of Strathclyde who killed an Ulster chieftain. The Irish Annals record the death of Mongán mac Fíachnai of Dal Fiatach in Strathclyde in 625,

• Artur, grandfather of Feradach, documented in 697,

• Arthur ap Pedr of Dyfed, grandson of Vortipor (“tyrant of the Demetae” as mentioned by Gildas). This Arthur is mentioned in the Harleian Genealogies and the Irish text The Expulsion of the Deisi.

It has been argued that these four men were named after a peerless warrior, a military superhero who had by that time attracted mythological properties that the native Britons were so in awe of they could not use the name. Clearly no such qualms applied to these Irish families who were seemingly unaware of this great soldier, mighty defender of the Britons and had complete disregard for any reverence of the name. 

Dál Riata 

Mongán mac Fíachnai
The most intriguing of these connections with these “Irish Arthurs” is Artuir ap Bicuir 'the Briton', who killed Mongán with a dragon stone from the sea.1

The Annals of Tigernach (T627.6) records Mongán’s death:

Mongán son of Fiachna Lurgan, stricken with a stone by Artur son of Bicoir Britone died. Whence Bec Boirche said:

Cold is the wind over Islay;
There are warriors in Cantyre,
They will commit a cruel deed therefor,
They will kill Mongán son of Fiachna.2

This poem by Bec Boirche, a 7th century bard, suggests that Mongán was killed on Islay in a battle against warriors from Kintyre who fought with Artur against the Dal Fiatach of Ulster. Islay may have been a disputed territory at this time.

The account of the death of Mongán mac Fiachnai by a stone dealt by Artur, the son of a British king, is supported in other Irish Annals. An account of the same event is included in Chronicon Scotorum Annal CS625.3

An apparent historical figure Mongán is also a well-known figure in later Irish mythology; tales of Mongán appear in the early 12th century manuscript Lebor na hUidre (The Book of the Dun Cow). He has significant connections with the Otherworld and Manannán mac Lir, the sea god of the Tuatha Dé Danann.

In the tale Scél asa mberar combad hé Find mac Cumaill Mongán (A Story from which it is inferred that Mongán was Finn mac Cumaill) Mongán is also said to be a re-incarnation of Finn, as the title suggests, a character who shares many traits with a pre-Galfridian Arthur of the Britons.

Mongán also appears in Immram Brain the 7th or 8th century text in which Bran mac Febail embarks upon a quest to the Otherworld; The Voyage of Bran. After travelling over the sea for several days Bran and his crew come across Manannán mac Lir in his chariot riding over the sea towards them. Manannán tells them that this may seem like a body of water to them, to him it is an Otherworldly plain. Manannán also foretells the birth of his son as Mongán mac Fiachnai. 

There is more than one copy of Mongán’s conception, Compert Mongáin, in addition to that contained in Lebor na hUidre it is also found in Leabhar Buidhe Leacáin (The Yellow Book of Lecan). The tale of Mongán’s birth bears some remarkable similarities to the conception of Arthur of the Britons in later legend. Here the Irish sea god, Manannán mac Lir, claims that Mongán is his son and was conceived while his father Fíachnae mac Báetáin, king of Dal Fiatach, was away assisting Áedán mac Gabráin on his campaigns in Britain. While Fíachnae is away Manannán takes on his appearance and sleeps with his wife Caíntigern to produce Mongán. Mongán bears the patronymic ‘mac Fiachna’ despite his misattributed paternity. 

The story of King Arthur’s conception as told by Geoffrey of Monmouth in the 12th century Historia Regum Britanniae (The History of the Kings of Britain) has Arthur’s father Uther take on the appearance of Gorlios, Duke of Cornwall, by Merlin’s magic, so that he can enter the castle at Tintagel and sleep with the Duke’s wife Igerna. We can dismiss any possible borrowing from Geoffrey’s later work which was not very popular in Ireland with no Middle Irish translation known, although Latin manuscripts were in circulation. Arthurian literature did not flourish until the late medieval period in Ireland and this does not appear to be influenced by Geoffrey’s work, but more from continental Romance.4

The Arthurian Legend in Ireland
Supporting the apparent disregard for the Arthurian legend is evidenced by the treatment of the Arthuriana in the Lebor Bretnach (LB), the Irish translation of the Historia Brittonum (HB). As we have seen above, the Arthurian legend came late to Ireland; the date for the reception and translation of the HB was proposed as the second half of the 11th century by van Hamel editor of the Lebor Bretnach. Irish Historian Ann Dooley sees the date as slightly earlier, circa 1050.5

Elements of the Arthurian legend did not receive the most attention in the translation, the material apparently not of particular interest to the Irish literati, resulting in the Arthuriana being handled rather carelessly.6

In the Irish version, LB ch.43 the battle list, it simply refers to Arthur who fought with the Britons, omitting his military leader status as “dux bellorum” and the reference to the Kings of Britain. The battles are summarised carelessly except for the religious appeal of the symbolism in the eighth battle at the “fort of Guinneain” in which Arthur carried the image of the Virgin which seemed to attract the attention of the Irish translator.7

The “Miracula” section (Wonders or Marvels of Britain) chapters 44-46 treat the Arthurian material in a similar manner. The tenth marvel refers to the cairn for Arthur’s dog, Cafal without reference to the legendary boar hunt as found in the Latin text of the Historia Brittonum. The eleventh marvel in the Irish version recalls the tomb in the region of Ercing of varying size but without reference to Arthur or his son Amr at all.8

Artur, son of Bicuir the Briton
We find the earliest mention of the Britons of Strathclyde in Irish literature. Beinne Britt, or Beinne the Briton (we find various spellings), led a Strathclyde army at the Battle of Magh Mucruimhe (Cath Maige Mucrama), against the Irish in the middle of the 3rd century. Some Annals date this battle earlier, toward the end of the 2nd century. 

Location  of Strathclyde (Ystrad Clud) 

Cath Maige Mucrama
In the tale Cath Maige Mucrama. Lugaid MacCon of Cork was foster-brother to Eogan son of Aileel Aulom, king of Munster. He and Eogan quarrelled over the possession of a fairy minstrel. They assembled their forces and fought a battle at Cenn Abrat which ended in the defeat of Lugaid. Lugaid went to Alba (North Britain) where he took refuge with the king of that country. This king was grandson of the king of the Britons and son-in-law of the king of the Saxons. He took up Lugaid's cause, and the combined forces of the Britons and Albanachs (North Britons) set out to attack Art MacCon, the king of Ireland. When the two armies met, one of the British detachments was led by Beinne the Briton who is fairly well known in Irish heroic literature. 

From the Annals of the Four Masters:

M195.1 After Art, the son of Conn of the Hundred Battles, had been thirty years in the sovereignty of Ireland, he fell in the battle of Magh Mucruimhe, by Maccon and his foreigners. In the same battle, along with Art, fell also the sons of his sister, Sadhbh, daughter of Conn, namely, the seven sons of Oilioll Olum, who had come with him against Maccon, their brother. Eoghan Mor, Dubhmerchon, Mughcorb, Lughaidh, Eochaidh, Diochorb, and Tadhg, were their names; and Beinne Brit, King of Britain, was he who laid [violent] hands upon them. Beinne was slain by Lughaidh Lagha, in revenge of his relatives….9

In addition to the 9th century tale of Cath Maige Mucrama, Beinne Britt is also mentioned elsewhere in Irish literature: as we have seen he appears in the Irish Annals as the father of the man who killed Mongán, and in the tale of the Battle of Crinna. There is also a passage in the Coir Anmann, a compilation which gives popular etymologies for certain well-known names, that records the "Three Fothads" who were the offspring of Lugaid Maccon and Fuiche the daughter of Beinne Brit, king of Britain.10

However, as a king from the early medieval kingdom of Strathclyde (Ystrad Clud) he is noticeably absent from the early king lists, although it must be admitted the early years are not good, yet Gaelic storytellers claim him as an ancestor of MacCailín, the Gaelic style of the Duke of Argyll. Clearly a Strathclyde king who fought at Cath Maige Mucrama in the 2nd or 3rd century cannot be the same as the father of the man who killed Mongán in the 7th century; were there two kings called Beinne Britt, or was this a title rather than a personal name?

In the Agallamh na Senorach (AnS -Tales of the Elders of Ireland), an early 13th century compendium of Fenian tales, there is a tale of Artuir, son of Benne Brit, here a member of the Fian, the band of Finn, in a tale in which he stole three of Finn's hounds and took them across to Britain:

“Artuir, son of Benne of the Britons, was at that time a member of the Fian with a retinue of twenty-seven. Finn had arranged a hunt on Benn Etair and the hounds let loose. Finn sat at Carn in Feinneda (The cairn of the Fian-warrior) between Howth and the sea. Artuir was positioned on the coast, between the hunt and the sea to prevent the quarry swimming away. While he was at the edge of the water he saw three of Finn's hounds, Bran, Sceolaing and Adnuall and decided on a plan. He and his twenty-seven companions would cross the sea and take the three hounds with them to their own land. Executing the plan they landed at the estuary of the Sandy Shoal in the territory of the Britons. They then went to the Mountain of Lodan, son of Lir, and hunted there.

"After the hunt, the Fian found three of Finn's hounds were missing. He ordered three companies of the Fian to carry out a search but the hounds were not found. Finn washed his face then put his thumb under his Tooth of Wisdom so that the truth would appear to him.

"It was Artuir, son of the King of the Britons" he said. Nine men were chosen to go after them. They found Artuir sitting on his hunting mound, they captured him and killed all of his twenty-seven companions. They returned across the water to Finn with Artuir, the heads of the twenty-seven men, the three hounds Bran, Sceolaing and Adnuall, and two horses, a stallion and a mare, from these stock have come all the horses of the Fian. Artuir remained Finn's warrior till the day he died."11

Conclusion
The late arrival of the Arthurian legend in Ireland would explain why there was no reason why the use of the name should hold any prohibitions for the Irish immigrants of the 6th-7th centuries. The poor treatment of Arthuriana in the Irish version of the HB and the disregard for Geoffrey of Monmouth’s work clearly demonstrates that Arthur of the Britons did not hold any great interest for the Irish storytellers. This only too well demonstrated by the tale in Agallamh na Senorach   in which Arthur is subservient to Finn. Thus, there is no reason why these Irish families would not have used the name; they were probably not aware of the Arthur of the Britons until they arrived in the British Isles. There is also the possibility that, on these rare occasions, when they came into contact with stories of this "Great Arthur" they used the name purposefully to demonstrate their military prowess over the local Britons.

Despite the various references to Beinne Brit in Irish Literature, he remains elusive in the British record and attempts to uncover him come to a dead end. We cannot even be certain if Beinne Brit’s son Artuir as mentioned in the AnS is meant to be THE ARTHUR. However, the enigmatic connection between Mongán and Arthur and Finn is suggestive of a tale that binds these three men together and suggests a knowledge of Arthur the Briton before the 9th century Historia Brittonum on both shores of the Irish Sea.

Notes & References
1. Joseph Falaky Nagy, “Arthur and the Irish”, in: Helen Fulton, ed., A Companion to Arthurian Literature, Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. pp.117–127.
2. The Annals of Tigernach (T627.6) - Translated by Gearóid Mac Niocaill Electronic edition compiled by Emer Purcell, Donnchadh Ó Corráin. CELT: Corpus of Electronic Texts: a project of University College Cork, 2010. 
3. Chronicon Scotorum Annal CS625 - Translated by William M. Hennessy, Gearóid Mac Niocaill, CELT: Corpus of Electronic Texts: a project of University College, Cork (2003) (2010).
4. Joshua Byron Smith, "The Reception of Geoffrey of Monmouth in Ireland", in Joshua Byron Smith and Georgia Henley editors, A Companion to Geoffrey of Monmouth, Brill, 2020, pp.475–476.
5. Ann Dooley, "Arthur of the Irish: A Viable Concept?", in Arthurian Literature XXI: Celtic Arthurian Material, edited by Ceridwen Lloyd-Morgan, DS Brewer, 2004.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Cath Maige Mucrama - Background information - References in the Annals of the Four Masters: Irish Sagas Online 
10. Clark Harris Slover, Early Literary Channels Between Britain and Ireland, Studies in English, 1926, No. 6, pp. 5-52.
11. Ann Dooley, op.cit. Appendix pp.26-28.

* * * 

Evidence for a pre-Nennian Arthur

 The Historicity of the Arthurian Battle List - Part II

"[The use of the name Arthur] …… reflects a desire to capture whatever mythological kudos and religious potency already surrounded the name with British/Welsh families avoiding its use primarily because of its newly-acquired mythological connections which might have been considered un-Christian"11

Whence the name Arthur?
In Part I of the Historicity of the Arthurian Battle List we explored the possible origins of the Arthurian battle list as contained within the 9th century History of the Britons (Historia Brittonum – aka 'Nennius') raising more questions than answers. However, although the History of the Britons is our first securely dated documentary evidence for Arthur, it is clear that the figure of Arthur was known well before the 9th century and was not invented by its author. So who was this Arthur who inspired the record of twelve successful battles against the Saxons, culminating in the Battle of Badon? In hope of finding any answer to this we need to examine evidence for Arthur prior to the 9th century.

Our first call is four figures who appear in the mid-6th and the early 7th centuries all named Arthur who are often cited as evidence for the existence of a historical Arthur, named in the memory of a great military leader.

All these occurrences of the name as recorded in Gaelic sources are connected to Irish settlers belonging to high-status Irish royal families who founded the kingdoms of Dyfed (Demetae) in south-west Wales, and Dalriada in southern Scotland: 

    • The first historically attested Irish Arthur is found in the family of Áedán mac Gabráin, king of the Scottish Dál Riata from 573-608 AD. Adomnán's Vita Columbae (The Life of Columba) records how Áedán's sons Arthur and Eochaid Finn died in battle against the Miati some time before 597. This is confirmed by the Annals of Tigernach.; 

    • Artuir ap Bicuir 'the Briton' of Strathclyde(?) who killed an Ulster chieftain. The Irish Annals record the death of Mongán mac Fíachnai of Dal Fiatach in Strathclyde in 625. This is the Mongán of legend of legend whose real father was said to be Mananna mac Lir, the Irish Sea god; it is claimed that Mongán was conceived while his father Fíachnae mac Báetáin, king of Dal Fiatach, was away helping Áedán mac Gabráin on his British campaigns when his wife Caíntigern slept with Manannán mac Lir to produce Mongán. Mongán often bears the patronymic mac Fiachna, despite his true paternity. The record of Mongán’s death in the Annals of Tigernach has him killed by a stone thrown by one Artuir ap Bicuir, described as a Briton.

    • an Irish Artur, grandfather of Feradach, documented in 697; 

    • Arthur ap Pedr of Dyfed, grandson of Vortipor (“tyrant of the Demetae” as mentioned by Gildas). This Arthur is mentioned in the Harleian Genealogies and the Irish text The Expulsion of the Deisi.

‘Arthur’ was a very rare name both before and after this time and to have four appear in the genealogical record all within a generation or so of each other is a very unusual occurrence; notably, the name does not appear again in Welsh genealogies for several hundred years. All appear to have belonged to high-status Irish royal families with British connections. As the Arthur of the 9th century History of the Britons is clearly a British text with a British hero, not Irish, we require an explanation to how the fame of Arthur spread among the Irish as well as the Britons?11

These 6th-7th century Arthur’s are often presented in the argument for a historical Arthur that claims they must have all been named after a renowned British warrior probably from the generation previous.12 However, Ken Dark concludes:

"The account of Arthur in the Historia Brittonum can be seen as wholly fictional, representing our earliest glimpse of the Arthurian legend. But this legend may well have developed in the previous centuries from a genuinely historical figure, active either in the 'Irish' areas of Britain or in Ireland, in the sixth century. This figure, the ' Irish Arthur', as he might be termed, may have been a military hero among Irish elites with British connections in the later sixth and seventh centuries, and possibly also among the Britons. Perhaps we should look to Dyfed, even to Arthur son Pedr/Retheoir in particular, for this 'protypicaI Arthur'.”13

Contra Dark, Caitlin Green asserts that clearly none of these ‘Irish’ Arthurs can plausibly be considered as the ‘original’ Arthur of the History of the Britons;  in accepting that Green is correct then how then do we explain the appearance these four men in the historical record all within a few generations of each other?14

Significantly, from what we know of their biographies, none of them has any connection with the events of the 5th century war of the Saxon federates and the battle of Badon. Green, quoting the authority of Rachel Bromwich, argues that to find four men all named after the historical Arthur… ‘would be a type of commemoration for which Celtic tradition offers no parallel.’ Green asserts that the only plausible explanation is that these men were not being named in memory of some historical figure from a previous generation or so, but after a character already renown in legend and myth that these Irish families came into contact with during their interactions with the Britons.15

The name ‘Arthur’ was likely commended to these Irish chieftains as that of a ‘peerless warrior’, a military ‘superhero’ as found in battle poems such as Y Gododdin and Marwnad Cynddylan, during their contact with the Britons. Green reasons that this would provide an explanation for some people with Irish connections at this time having used the name regardless of any native British superstitions against its use as suggested by Oliver Padel.16

Padel argues that “the absence of this name from British contexts is due to Arthur being regarded ‘with exceptional awe’ as a legendary hero of folklore, whilst the Irish ‘when they came into contact with the folklore as a result of their settlements in western Britain, need not have felt such reverence or reluctance' ”17

A detailed study of the Welsh genealogical tracts by Peter Bartrum’s found that not one single person of British descent in Wales (rather than Irish, such as Arthur map Pedr) bore the name ‘Arthur’ in the genealogies until the late 16th century at the earliest. Bartrum is therefore in agreement with Padel that the name may have been avoided by the Britons as it had some sort of awe and superstition attached to it.18 

Thus, Bartrum and Padel offer a feasible explanation for the peculiar avoidance of the name by the Britons who by the mid-6th century held ‘Arthur’ in sufficient awe and superstition that no one would use the name. However, the use of a legendary superhero’s name did not prove prohibitive to Irish-immigrants who may have adopted the name to boost their own military reputation. We find a similar situation among the Irish where the name of the mythical figure Cú Chulainn was likewise avoided by the Irish, suggesting that Arthur was regarded in a similar light.19

Notes & References
11. Nicholas Higham, King Arthur: Myth-Making and History, Routledge, 2002, p.76.
12. See for example: John Morris, The Age of Arthur:  A History of the British Isles from 350 to 650, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973.
13. Ken Dark, A Famous Arthur in the Sixth Century? Reconsidering the Origins of the Arthurian Legend, Reading Medieval Studies, 26, pp.77-95 (2000).
14. Green, Concepts of Arthur, Tempus, 2007, pp.48-49.
15. Green, Ibid.
16. Oliver Padel, The Nature of Arthur, CMCS 27, 1994.
17. Padel, Ibid.
18. Peter Bartrum, ‘Arthuriana in the Genealogical MSS’, The National Library of Wales Journal, 1965, quoted in Green (2007:48).
19. Patrick Sims-Williams, ‘Cú Chulainn in Wales: Welsh Sources for Irish Onomastics’, Celtica 21 (1990), quoted in Green (2007:49).

* * *

The Historicity of the Arthurian Battle List

“Early in the ninth century an anonymous cleric in Gwynedd…… wrote a text …which became known as the History of the Britons … [and]... took the Arthur figure with whom he was apparently familiar from folk tales rooted in what is now the west Herefordshire/Powys countryside and converted him into a historical character. This was still a warrior hero, reminiscent of the man in the ‘mirabilia’ stories, but now Arthur came forth as the great British leader, the glorious victor in the ‘war of the Saxon federates’.”1

Poets and Scribes
There have been many attempts to identify the “Real King Arthur”, the legendary British war leader who according to medieval histories and chronicles led the defence of the Britons against the incoming Saxons in the so-called Dark Ages. Yet evidence of Arthur's historical existence rests solely on two late sources, the 9th-century Historia Brittonum (History of the Britons, also known as “Nennius”) and the 10th century Annales Cambriae (Welsh Annals). The History of the Britons clearly places Arthur in the late 5th century/early 6th century, appearing before Ida (the Flamebearer) became king of the Anglian kingdom of Bernicia in AD 547.

The two Arthurian entries in the Welsh Annals, short references to the battles of Badon and Camlann, are generally accepted by many historians as genuine chronicle entries. The History of the Britons contains a section listing twelve battles in which Arthur was victorious in all, culminating in the battle of Badon without any mention at all of Camlann. Here Arthur is described as the leader of battles (dux erat  bellorum); manifestly, only his successes interested the author. This sequence of battles, leading up to and including Badon, corresponds with the 6th century account of Gildas.2 Historians generally agree that Badon occurred within ten years of AD 500, which corresponds with the History of the Britons date for Arthur’s battle campaign. Significantly the Welsh Annals state that Arthur fell at Camlann in 537, ten years before Ida is recorded as ruling in Bernicia. Thus, we have pinpointed Arthur’s floruit as the late 5th-early 6th century.

However, we should note that the History of the Britons and the Welsh Annals are the only sources to assign Badon to Arthur. Neither Welsh heroic poetry or contemporary sources for the period, such as Gildas and later Bede, associate Arthur with the victory at Badon. 

The History of the Britons

It was suggested many years ago that the Arthurian battle list in the History of the Britons may have its origin in an Old Welsh praise poem.3 We find evidence for the composition of early panegyric poetry by the Britons in works such as the “Moliant Cadwallon” which lists a sequence of victories by Cadwallon ap Cadfan of Gwynedd, and an elegy to Cynddylan, Prince of Pengwern, called “Marwnad Cynddylan”. 

A recent work attempting to identify the Arthurian battle sites made two assumptions necessary for its central theme, that the battle list has its origins in such an old battle poem and secondly, that Arthur was a genuinely historical figure.4 Not everyone would agree with either assumption.5 There may be glimpses of a rhyme-scheme in the Arthurian battle list, yet conversely the construction of a poem around Arthur’s battles may indicate a non-genuine campaign which required victories to be conveniently borrowed from other heroes to maintain such a rhyme-scheme as we shall see below. However, even if it could be proven that the battle list originated in an old bardic work it would not alone prove the historicity of Arthur.

Yet, how many Arthurian detectives have used the battle list as a primary source in reconstructing a biographical account of Arthur’s wars against the advancing Saxons proclaiming that they have identified the “Real King Arthur”; how many books or articles have you seen claiming this in the title? And how many have you read that were actually convincing?

Some of the earliest Arthurian material, known as the pre-Galfridian tradition, that is prior to Geoffrey of Monmouth’s 12th century Historia Regum Britanniae (The History of the Kings of Britain), portrays Arthur as a mighty defender of Britain fighting witches, beheading giants and hunting supernatural boars.6 Significantly Caitlin Green (then writing as Thomas Green), champion of a pre-Galfridian Arthur, deconstructs the Arthurian battle list as a series of Otherworldy adventures.7 Green identifies some of these as mythical battles taken from Welsh poetry8 and Higham9 sees other battles in the list as taken from other heroes exploits and wrongly attached to Arthur. We will discuss these in more detail later.

It has also been claimed that the battles in the list are not in chronological order, yet it has a clear division noticeable at the mid-point in which the nature of the descriptions changes significantly. The first six battles are simply listed as all occuring at obscure rivers: Glein; Dubglas (four battles); Bassas, without much further detail. The author of the list may have claimed four battles were fought at the Dubglas simply to have made the total number up to twelve, always a favoured number in medieval literature. Positive identification has no doubt been impeded by the loss of place names from the original language as the English spread west.

The next six battle locations provide place names which at first glance appear to offer some hope but become problematic in identifying these sites with an Arthurian campaign: Cat Coit Celidon; Castle Guinnion; City of the Legions; the river Tribuit;  Mount Agned (or Breguoin); and Badon as we have seen above only associated with Arthur by the History of the Britons and the Welsh Annals. We will come back to these in more detail later.

The Welsh Annals

It may have been that some of these battle sites were taken at random from Bede, Gildas and the (6th century) Taliesin who’s works all predate the History of the Britons, to construct a rhyme-scheme for a poem in an attempt to historicise Arthur. Yet as we have seen the majority of these are obscure and defy positive identification; anyone who claims otherwise in their quest to identify the “Real King Arthur” is deluding themselves and their readers.

What if Arthur were not a historical figure and the battles were pure invention on the part of the author of the History of the Britons? After all, not one of the many 5th-9th century British inscriptions contain the name "Arthur", or even anything that could be interpreted as the name. As the Stanzas of the Graves tell us, there is no 'grave for Arthur'.

We must consider if the author was a genuine compiler as he claims in the Nennian prologue, bringing together many different strands from different periods of time (the heap), or was he producing a synthetic history, selectively using and inventing material to suit the politics of 9th century Gwynedd?10 A genuine battle poem would fit in to the first category, but an invented Arthur fits comfortably in the second. Ironically the History of the Britons was a major source used by Geoffrey of Monmouth in his History of the Kings of Britain and he is generally accused of inventing much of his story.

It is certainly a complex picture and we should not assume the battle list in the History of the Britons is a genuine first hand record of a campaign fought in the late 5th/early 6th century such as that portrayed by Gildas as noted above. Certainly many of these battles attributed to Arthur in the History of the Britons are found nowhere else. Yet, one thing is certain, and we can work with this, is that although the History of the Britons is our first securely dated documentary evidence for Arthur, it is clear that the figure of Arthur was known well before the 9th century and was not invented by its author.

>> Continued in Part II - Evidence for a pre-Nennian Arthur 

Notes & References:
1. Nick Higham, King Arthur, The History Press, 2015, p.61.
2. Gildas appears to be describing a similar sequence of battles: “From that time, the citizens were sometimes victorious, sometimes the enemy, in order that the Lord, according to His wont, might try in this nation the Israel of to-day, whether it loves Him or not. This continued up to the year of the siege of Badon Hill.”– Section 26, de Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae (trans) Hugh Williams 1899.
3. HM Chadwick & NK Chadwick, The Growth of Literature - Volume 1. Cambridge University Press, 1932.
4. Tony Sullivan, The Battles of King Arthur, Pen & Sword, 2022.
5. For an opposite view see: David Dumville, Sub-Roman Britain: History and Legend, History, 62 (1977).
6. Rachel Bromwich & D Simon Evans, Culhwch and Olwen: The Oldest Arthurian Tale, University of Wales Press, 1992, Introduction, pp.v-lxxxiii.
7. Caitlin Green, Concepts of Arthur, Tempus, 2007.
8. Green, Ibid.
9. Nick Higham, King Arthur: The Making of the Legend, Yale, 2018, pp.185-194.
10. David Dumville, The historical value of the Historia Brittonum, Arthurian Literature 6,

* * *

Concept of a Legend

Read a book for World Book Day 

Concepts of Arthur
Thomas Green 
Tempus, 2007 (The History Press, 2008)
ISBN: 978-0752444611

This is a detailed study of the origins of Arthur and the nature and development of the early Arthurian legend under the former nom de plume of Caitlin R. Green.

Here Green argues for a concept of Arthur as a figure of legend, not history.

Green asserts that the case for a historical Arthur rests entirely on two sources; the Historia Brittonum (The History of the Britons) and the Annales Cambriae (Welsh Annals). These two texts are the starting point for any argument presented for a historical Arthur.

At first glance both texts appear to present a concept of Arthur that is historical. The History of the Britons contains a complete section (usually referred to as Chapter 56) which presents Arthur as a leader of battles, not a king, and lists twelve successful conflicts culminating in the Battle of Badon, also referenced in a contemporary source, De Excidio Britanniae of AD 540 (although Gildas does not mention Arthur by name). Green sees the History of the Britons as presenting a concept of Arthur as a warrior who fought against Germanic invaders in the late 5th century.

Green suggests the History of the Britons could simply represent a mythical or folkloric figure drawn into history and far from being a 'heap', as descibed in the prologue of Nennius, sees the text as a carefully constructed work in ‘Biblical style’ with explicit political aims expressly written for Merfyn, King of Gwynedd 829-30 AD.

The Badon entry in the Welsh Annals is clearly influenced by Arthur's eighth battle at Guinnon in chapter 56 of the The History of the Britons. Whereas, the battle of Camlann, Green sees as a creation of the mid to late 10th century, and treated very differently by the ‘guardians of Welsh tradition’ possessing an 'Otherworldy' context and just one of several legendary versions of Arthur’s demise circulating in early medieval Wales.

Green concludes that the The History of the Britons is of dubious historical value and questions the confidence we can hold in its Arthurian reference, seeing the text as part of the process of historicizing a legend.

This an important work in the search for Arthur in which Green examines the earliest level of the Arthurian legend prior to Geoffrey of Monmouth, unravelling the world of a superhero battling monstrous supernatural beasts, witches and giants.


Concepts of Arthur
Table of Contents:

Chapter 1 The Arthur of History: The Evidence and Its Critics
Chapter 2 The Earliest Stratum of the Arthurian Legend
Chapter 3 The Nature of Arthur: ‘A Mighty Defender'?
Chapter 4 The Nature of Arthur's War-Band and Family
Chapter 5 The Origins of ‘Arthur'
Chapter 6 The Historicization of Arthur
Chapter 7 The Arthur of the British: A Maximum View

From May 2017, Concepts of Arthur has been unavailable in all editions for well over a year and the rights have now reverted to the author who has made the original 2007 version of the book available as a free PDF download on her website: Dr Caitlin R. Green Arthuriana: Studies in Early Medieval History & Legend

* * *