Explorations in Arthurian History
A Literature ReviewPart 3: Nennius and William of Malmesbury
Short mention has been made of
Gildas,
a sixth-century monk who wrote about the Britain crumbling
around him. He is included in Arthurian research because he
mentions Badon
Hill. But he doesn't mention
Arthur. He talks about a character called "the Bear," which
can be drawn from the Celtic Art. One monk who does is Nennius,
who lived in the ninth century in Bangor, in North Wales.
His Historia Brittonum is significant in that it
places Arthur in a time period that can be verified and it
gives us details of Arthur's military career. Nennius lists
12 battles won by Arthur, ending with the glorious victory
at Mons Badonicus. The locations of these 12 battles are
debated by various scholars and is a microcosm of the larger
debate over whether Arthur was a northern, western, or
southern king. For our purposes, Nennius's battle sites
stand for what they are. Nennius, too, is given to exaggeration,
though he may be excused for merely passing on information:
He says that at the Battle of Badon Hill, Arthur
single-handedly killed 940 men. He also says Arthur went
into one of his 12 great battles with the sign of the Virgin
on his shield. This reference is probably an attempt to
Christianize Arthur, in the vein of the Grail. Indeed,
Nennius says of the 12 battles: "For no strength can avail
against the will of the Almighty." We have sketchy evidence
that Arthur was a person at all, and we have even shakier
ground on which to stand and say that Arthur was promoting
Christendom. More probably, Nennius had it in his mind to
modernize Arthur and draw him out of some of the paganism
associated with Welsh tales. He makes two other mentions of Arthur,
both strange:
Click here for the full Nennius text of the Historia Brittonum. Nennius is also helpful in providing his list of the 28 Town-Cities in Roman Britain.
Is Nennius a historian? He certainly wants to be. For the most part, we can conclude he is, so far as history is defined as chronicling events and perceptions. Can we take his writings verbatim as collections of facts? Probably not. He is best taken as a source for investigation, not as a source of history.
One man who wanted to be a source of history was William of Malmesbury, who wrote his History of the Kings of England in the early 12th century, just before the celebrated Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote his tome. William says Arthur is "a man worthy to be celebrated, not by idle fictions, but by authentic history." William presents many names and facts but still relies on earlier sources: He quotes Nennius at one point in describing how Arthur himself killed more than 900 men at Badon. William makes one further mention of Arthur. In describing the sepulcher of Walwin, said to be the nephew of Arthur, William says that the tomb of Arthur has not been found, "whence ancient ballads fable that he is still to come." This, of course, was perpetuating the myth that Arthur would come again, a theme running throughout Welsh tales of famous heroes. But it was the first instance of this concept being applied to Arthur. As such, William of Malmesbury takes us a giant step forward in reaching the idealism that would define the Arthurian legends. The next step on our historical journey is France. It true, Brut? Click here to continue. |
Back to
Explorations in Arthurian History and Legends
Main PageOther