CHAPTER III. THE SIXTH CENTURY (c. 500-597). THE HEATHEN INVASION CHECKED, AND REsumed. I. The first half of the Century, according to Gildas. II. Arthur, from the Historia Brittonum and the Annales III. West Saxon Records, from the Genealogical and Chronological IV. Britain according to Procopius. V. Northern England, from the Historia Brittonum; and the VI. From Bede's Chronological Summary. THE authorities are, as in the preceding century, from the 'Welsh' side Gildas, the Historia Brittonum, and the Annales Cambriae; from the English, Bede and the Chronicle. The contemporary evidence of Gildas proves conclusively that, from the time of his birth to that of his writing (most probably before 547), the territory saved from the invaders by the British rally had been held unimpaired (Extract I). The first half of the century must, then, have been a period of comparative quiet, resulting from the decisive check received by the invaders at Mount Badon. The Historia Brittonum and the Annales Cambriae attribute this British victory to Arthur, whom, however, neither Gildas nor Bede nor the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mentions. But the Chronicle is equally silent concerning the indisputably historic Ambrosius Aurelianus, and the battle of Mount Badon itself: such silences throw more doubt upon the completeness of the record of the Chronicle than on the existence of Arthur. Bede's silence regarding Arthur does not count, for he depends upon Gildas. The silence of Gildas is remarkable, yet we must remember that Gildas is mainly concerned with lament and denunciation. In the exactly parallel case of Wulfstan, 500 years later (see below, Chapter VIII, Extract IV), we are not surprised to find no mention of the heroism of Byrhtnoth, or of the successful defence of London. The silence of Gildas concerning Arthur may mean no more than that he has no evil to say of him. What is important to note is that the situation, as we gather it from Gildas, agrees quite remarkably with what we gather from the earliest accounts of Arthur in the Historia Brittonum and the Annales Cambriae. From the Historia we learn that Mount Badon was the last of Arthur's twelve great battles against the heathen; from the Annales we learn that it was twenty-one years after the battle of Mount Badon that Arthur fell, as did also Medraut (who is, of course, Modred), in the battle of Camlann. Now Gildas tells us that the series of battles against the heathen culminating in Mount Badon was followed by a long period of peace; broken, not by renewed Saxon attacks, but by the civil broils of the younger generation. For, Gildas tells us, so long as the generation lived which had witnessed this British rally culminating in Mount Badon, kings, magistrates and priests all did their duty. He does not mention by name any one of the excellent people of this generation probably their names were too familiar to need enumeration, for they must still have been in power in his boyhood. But they are none the less to be reckoned with, although Gildas leaves them anonymous. All the analogy of other legends would lead us to suppose that the leading hero of the crowning victory of Mount Badon, and of the long period of prosperity which followed it, would be remembered in story: and when we find the fame of a certain Arthur obscuring that of the earlier Ambrosius Aurelianus, the most rational explanation is surely to assume that Arthur was foremost among these blameless kings, and their followers, whose glory was redressing human wrong, and whose virtues. could move even Gildas from his melancholy mood of dyspeptic denunciation. We have the first account of Arthur in the Historia Brittonum (Extract II). Now we have seen that some scholars suppose that this portion of the Historia was written down, substantially in the form in which we now have it, about the year 680. Others have maintained that the Historia was written in the early Ninth Century (say 800-830). So this account of Arthur must have been composed (doubtless from earlier records, whether oral or written) at least 160 years, and at most three centuries, after the events narrated. But this is no reason for rejecting it. The poem of Beowulf, in the judgment of most scholars, was composed between these limits (680-800): yet it preserves, with much exact historical detail, records of Scandinavian kings who must have been contemporary with Arthur (see above, p. 53). No one seriously doubts the substantial accuracy of these historical records in Beowulf, though they must depend entirely upon oral tradition, are preserved in a country far remote from their scene of action, and are mixed up with much fabulous matter about dragons and monsters. The weight of proof must surely lie upon those who would deny that there is a historic foundation for such well-known matters as Arthur's victories over the Saxons, especially when preserved in a society like that of Sixth Century Celtic Britain, where writing for purposes of record would not be unknown. It is true that we see the figure of Arthur already growing mythical in the mention of him and his dog in the later sections about the Wonders of Britain' annexed to the Historia Brittonum. But these are quite distinct in their origin from the section on Arthur's battles. Neither they, nor the later fantastic developments of the Arthurian story from the Twelfth Century onwards, should be allowed to 1 For example, quite recently, Liebermann. See above, p. 70. 2 On this point consult, for example, Thurneysen in the Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie, xxviii., 104 (1895-6). prejudice the evidence for a Roman-British war leader (dux bellorum) Arturus or Artorius. The absence of any reference to the battle of Mount Badon is not the only difficulty in the way of accepting the account of the West-Saxon invasion as given in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. There are many further difficulties. (1) Cerdic is (perhaps) a Celtic name, and if so is peculiarly unlikely to be held by a chief coming from Continental Saxony. (2) The events recorded are linked up with places containing the name of the chief character. Now it is of course possible that Cerdices ora actually was named after Cerdic, though it looks like a reminiscence of the naming of Cymenes ora after Cymen (see above, p. 83). But mankind has a tendency to build up fictitious history from place-names: and when so many heroes are mentioned together, each one connected with a place or places named after him, we are right to be suspicious. Our suspicions are confirmed by 'Port,' who lands at Portsmouth, the Roman name of which, Portus Magnus, had been current for generations before 'Port' is supposed to have landed there. Similarly Wihtgar is made to rule the Isle of Wight, yet the name Wight (Vecta) is preSaxon. (3) The account is not consistent with itself: the West Saxons land at Cerdices ora nineteen years after their leader had landed there; and the double mention of Cerdices ford equally suggests the combination of two versions. (4) We have an early document giving the regnal years and genealogy of the West Saxon kings. One copy of this is prefixed to the Parker MS. of the Chronicle, but it is probably much older than the Chronicle of Alfred's day: certain linguistic considerations would lead us to place it nearly 150 years earlier. This early Genealogical and Chronological Note (for which see Extract III (a) below) gives a chronology which cannot be reconciled with that of the Chronicle. (5) We know from Bede that not Saxons, but Jutes, were settled round Southampton Water (see above, p. 82). The Chronicle account has been ably defended by Mr. W. H. Stevenson (The Beginnings of Wessex, in the English Historical Review, xiv., p. 32, 1899). Each of the objections raised above can be met individually. It is not beyond the reach of the long arm of coincidence that a Wihtgar should have ruled in Wight.' Mr. Stevenson emphasises that the British in the West must have been violently disturbed about this time, to account for the wholesale emigration to Brittany. But what is impossible is, not so much the Chronicle account, as the deductions which modern historians have drawn from it. They have depicted a West Saxon state, founded on the coast, to the west of the Southampton Water, and gradually forcing its way, after generations of fighting, to the Thames valley. The archæological evidence, which has been collected since Mr. Stevenson wrote, is conclusive against this, for early Saxon cemeteries are unknown in the coast district west of the Southampton Water, whilst they are common in the upper Thames valley. This has led many scholars to hold that the kingdom of Wessex was founded by invaders approaching, not northwards from the Channel, but westwards up the Thames (see Chadwick, Origin of the English Nation, 34). Mr. Leeds tells us that 'archæological investigation renders it wellnigh impossible to believe that a large number of invaders advancing along that line (Portsmouth or Salisbury) should have left practically no traces of settlements in their passage.' Yet the archæological evidence does not disprove the landing of Cerdic and a small band of raiders west of the Southampton Water, but only the assumption that they settled there. Cerdic may have come to land in the West with his five shiploads of men, harried there sufficiently to drive oversea many inhabitants of Damnonia, and finally settled down, with his plunder, as leader of the West Saxons who had reached the upper Thames valley by way of the Thames. Why should the Saxons in the Sixth Century have been less mobile than the Danes in the Ninth? The Roman roads were probably in better condition. The Anglo-Saxon account can only be founded on song or tradition, and therefore, even if the facts stated are correct, cannot possibly give us all the facts. We |