At the very start of the Arthur section of GoM, he writes:
"After the death of Utherpendragon, the leaders of the Britons assembled
from their various provinces in the town of Silchester and there suggested
to Dubricus, The Archbishop of the City of the Legions that as their king
he
should crown Arthur, the son of Uther".
In this sentence, in its context of being the start of the immediately
following text, there are four things that interest me. These are:
1) What has lead GoM to use 'Silchester'
2) What has led GoM to use 'Dubricus'
3) Given that the following text leads up to the Battle of Baden Hill
(which, from Gildas, took place circa 500CE?) what has led GoM to link
Dubricus with Silchester at around, or shortly before, that date?
These second and third questions I intend to leave on one side for this
post, and concentrate only on the Silchester question. In so doing, I
recognise that longer term members of this NG will know that I have
advanced
some of these arguments before - I ask your forbearance.
As at the 12th Century, and as far as I can ascertain, Silchester was a
deserted ruin. I am not aware that it had any connection with Robert of
Gloucester, indeed, it seems to have been abandoned by the Britons at
least
400 years (and probably longer) before, and not been occupied by the
Saxons.
As John Wacher puts it "From Goring up to Dorchester on the north bank of
the Thames, there was an area of intensive early Saxon settlements, which
contrasts strongly with the almost complete lack of similar occupation in
and around the Silchester area.....................We might
conclude.....that life at Silchester lingered on through the fifth and
early
sixth centuries until the next phase of Saxon expansion began in the
middle
of the sixth century, after which it was extinguished for ever." ["The
Towns
of Roman Britain" Book Club Associates 1976 p 276-277] or "one of the few
Roman cities in Britain that did not evolve into a major medieval and
modern
city" [Snyder 'Age of Tyrants' 1998 p155]
Thus there seems to me to be no intrinsic reason related to GoM, or
extrinsic reason related to his time period, as to why he should select
Silchester as the starting place The only literary possibility I can
think
of is the concept of the 'unknown' arising from a disregarded place to
become king. But GoM's Arthur is not here an unknown. His text makes it
clear that he is known by all, that he is to be King, and that he is known
as the son of Uther.
If , however, one considers what Silchester was at about 500CE - it was
the
effective former Roman main town of Southern Britain. Looking at a map of
Roman roads (which would still have been in existence at that time)
virtually all roads lead to Silchester - or as GoM writes "the leaders of
the Britons assembled from their various provinces in the town of
Silchester". Moreover, it was a British enclave in this area. This is
seen
by:
1) lack of Saxon graves [set out above]
2) linear dykes facing away from the town [O'Neil 'Antiquity xviii 113
cited
Wacher op cit]
3) preservation of alignment of all major roads from Silchester for
considerable distances except that to Dorchester (with implied
British/Saxon
frontier by Padworth) [O'Neil op cit]
4) Ogam inscribed stone dated between 450CE [Sir Ifor Williams] to 700CE
[Prof Kenneth Jackson]
5) Late Roman and finds with western Celtic affinities [Boon 'Med Arch'
iii
79 cited Wacher op cit] [also referred to Snyder op cit p156]
6) a consideration and mapping of place name evidence [Charles Thomas
"Christianity in Roman Britain to AD 500" Batsford 1981 chap 10]
If this overall analysis of Silchester in post Roman Britain is correct -
ie
a known city, with good trans****t access to British controlled areas,
which
itself is still known (and remembered?) as a major city under British or
Romano-British control, but one that is out of use by the time GoM wrote,
then we have to consider why GoM used it in his text:
a) GoM took it at random. I have difficulty with this, and for two
reasons.
i) First, (following Collingwood 'Idea of History' if I remember
correctly) first consider the reason 'why' GoM is writing the Arthurian
section of his book. Here I suggest that, and after considering the
Arthurian section in the context of the rest of his book, that his general
purpose is to elevate Arthur - too many examples to give here, but I think
that in looking at GoM we must ask, and answer, that question if we are to
properly look at what he is saying. And, within that general purpose and
the context of Part 7, even that first sentence, appears to be designed to
elevate Arthur. This is shown by the sense given by 'the leaders of the
Britons', 'assembled' , the use of 'Dubricus, Archbishop of the City of
the
Legions', making him 'king' (not dux bellorum), and the reference to his
parentage - all of these work this way.
ii)And this leads to the second reason - for amongst that immediate
surrounding co-text, the use here of 'Silchester' as a random choice does
not fit - but as another chosen aspect to elevate Arthur, it fits both
with
its surrounding co-text, and GoM's larger purpose, as shown by the wider
context of Part 7.
b) I think we can dismiss the possibility that GoM had access to 20th
Century academic research. (Since I am seeking to look at his text, this
may be shown by the fact that the accuracies of his prophecies falls away
after his own time........................leading one to doubt that he had
access to 20th century thought and records!!)
c) GoM had access to an oral memories of the post Roman Romano-British
centre at Silchester. Whilst this is possible, given that he is writing
at
least 400 years after the last known Celtic element (taking Jackson's
dating
of the Ogam stone) and possibly longer, I have difficulty with accepting
that such an oral memory would have survived so long and in such a
detailed
way as set out in the sentence quoted. More likely, I suggest, along the
lines of oral memory and story research [sorry, no citation here - I
cannot
remember where I read this] that the location of the event would be
relocated, by story teller after story teller, from place to other (more
im****tant, local to the story teller) place over a time period of such
length - unless the story had become so fixed early in its telling, that
the
audience would not accept any variation. And if that is the case, then we
have an oral memory which probably goes to the time when Silchester was
local and im****tant (ie pre mid sixth century), with Silchester being
fixed,
regardless of its subsequent decline.
d) GoM had access to a written source, which itself preserved an original
story, whether in previous written or oral form, that dated back to the
time
when Silchester was still a British town ie before mid 6th century.
Conclusion
By an analysis of GoM's text itself, and consideration of that text in the
light of current archaeological research and thought, the most likely
probability is that GoM had access to a written source or accurate oral
source relating to the relevance of Silchester in post Roman Britain.
Please note this is not an argument for or against the historical
existence
of Arthur, nor an argument for the accuracy of GoM's 'coronation' -
instead,
it is merely looking at the question as to whether GoM had sources or not
and, whether we can consider that question from an examination of the
text,
rather than the GoM 'I've got a book' vs. WoN 'It's all lies' fruitless
debate
In the next post, I shall look slightly further at the possibility of oral
memory, again possibly dating back to circa 500CE, embedded in his text,
and
how GoM may have adapted his text for his own purposes. But that may not
be
for a few days or even longer, depending on my workload next week.
Kind regards
Malcolm
|
