[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Clearly, this method, based on the similarity of names, is too imprecise.More precision can be gained by re-examining the Annales entries.The early annals are based on Irish Annals composed in 741.Eleven British entries are added to these annals, giving events up to c.613, the first of which are the two Arthurian ones.After this, the focus of the Annales is obvious.The entries concentrate first on the wars of Cadwallon of North Wales and the Northumbrians, before shifting to South Wales.From the early ninth century, at least, the Annales seem to be written in St David’s.Kathleen Hughes (1973) identified the first stage of composition as being between 741 and 769.If the Arthurian entries date from that phase, they would be earlier than Historia Brittonum.Unfortunately, their early placing in the Annales is not necessarily indicative of their early composition.The eleven entries are located as follows: two unlocated (Arthurian), four northern, three or four North Welsh and two or three South Welsh (depending on whether we consider Urbs Legion (Chester) a northern outpost of Powys or part of Gwynedd).One of the South Welsh entries, on the death of Bishop Dubric, actually seems to derive from the St David’s phase, grafted on to an originally North British entry.The balance is, therefore, in favour of Camlann being in North Wales or the north, but assigning the Arthurian locations to any of the three regions would create an imbalance in its favour.We need another form of analysis to be certain.Another approach is to look at verbal similarities between the entries.Most of the entries are very terse.The Arthur entries leap out because of their sentence structure and detail.If their particular linguistic features occur in other entries, this may give a pattern pointing to a common origin.The diagnostic features on which we can make the comparisons are: explanations of events as being ones in quo/in qua (in which) something happened; use of Gueith to mean battle; and the results of battle being corruit/corruerunt (he/they were slain) or victor fuit/victores fuerunt (he was the victor/they were the victors).Those features occur, with their approximate dates, in these entries:516Bellum Badonis, in quo Arthur.et Britones victores fueruntUnlocated537Gueith Camlann, in qua Arthur et Medraut corrueruntUnlocated547Mortalitas magna in qua pausat MailcunNorth Wales613Gueith Cair Legion.North Wales630Gueith Meicen.Catguollaun autem victor fuitNorth Wales631Bellum Cantscaul in quo Catguollaun corruitNorth Wales644Bellum Cocboy in quo Oswald.et Eoba.corrueruntNorth Britain682Mortalitas magna.in qua Catgualart.obiitNorth Wales722Bellum Hehil apud Cornuenses, Geuith Gartmailauc.et Brittones victores fueruntCornish750Id est Gueith MocetaucNorth Britain760Id est Gueith HirfordSouth Wales813Bellum.Higuel victor fuitNorth Wales844Gueith CetillUnlocated?873Gueith BannguolouUnlocated?The pattern is strikingly clear.It refutes the charge that the Arthur entries are late additions based on their complexity and structure.The majority of those of similar length and construction refer to the seventh/eighth centuries and the style is not continued beyond 873.Four of the last battle entries are similar only in their use of the word Gueith, twice as a gloss for entries which probably originally did not include it.As is readily apparent they are features of a North Welsh phase of writing up to 813.All except one are about the North Welsh or (once) the Mercian and Northumbrian participants in the North Welsh wars.The only exception is the detailed description of the wars in Cornwall in 722.Badon we have assumed to be a southern location, but for Camlann, with no other information to guide us, we should consider that it fits the rest of the pattern.Although a Cornish location is not out of the question, the balance of probability is that Camlann is a North Welsh battle.As there is a perfectly plausibly North Welsh Camlan, on the Dyfi, we should assume that is the battle-site the writer meant.Camlann continued to be a focus of Welsh tradition long after memories of the other battles, including Badon, faded, adding to the likelihood that it was a known location in Wales.A later scribe did not expand a terse entry in the Annales reading ‘Bellum Badonis’ to incorporate the now famous figure of Arthur.This new analysis demonstrates the exact reverse.The description of Arthur’s victory is perfectly in accordance with the seventh- and eighth-century North Welsh entries.It is the location, Bellum Badonis, which is the anomaly.If any doctoring has taken place, it would be a replacement of an original obscure (North Welsh?) battle name with that of the more famous Badon, possibly derived from the Historia battle-list.If the battle at which Arthur carried the cross thirty years before the death of Mailcun was not originally equated with Badon, then a major discrepancy between the Annales and Gildas on their dating would be removed.Bridging the GapWe have focused on the Historia and Annales as the major battleground in the fight to prove the existence of a historical Arthur.If these accounts derive from the fifth and sixth centuries in any way, there is good reason for believing in him.If they are later fabrications, then the concept of Arthur as a real leader falls to pieces.These sources impress because they are consistent, both with each other and well-established facts; they are plausible and they derive from sources which are independent and which existed before the works in which they appear.Information about the historical Arthur could only have been passed down between the sixth and the ninth centuries orally or in writing
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]