The Mammoth Book of King Arthur (12 page)

Prosper is the only source for the date of Germanus’s visit to Britain, placing it right in the middle of that period from the end of Roman administration in 409 to the
apparent domination of Britain by the Saxons in 441. Germanus was a native of Auxerre, in north-central Gaul, and came from an aristocratic family. Trained in law, he became a governor of Armorica
and was raised to the rank of
dux.
In 418, he was appointed Bishop of Auxerre.

Constantius of Lyon wrote a “life” of Germanus,
Vita Sancti Germani
, around the year 480. Although it was written while those who knew Germanus were still alive, the
Vita
shows little evidence of research. Any factual reliability is buried beneath a welter of hyperbole and hagiophily.

Constantius confirms Germanus’s visit, saying that it had arisen following “a deputation from Britain”. We do not know who in Britain sent the deputation, but it shows that
Britain was not isolated, and that there was traffic to and from Gaul, and probably the rest of the Mediterranean world.

Constantius tells us that Germanus, with Bishop Lupus, crossed the Channel during winter. They were beset by a great storm, but through prayer arrived safely in Britain. We do not know where
Germanus landed, but it was probably at Richborough
in Kent, where there was a strong Christian community. Constantius reveals that they were met by “great crowds”
who had come “from many regions”, and that news of their arrival spread far and wide. Eventually the Pelagians, who had gone “into hiding” for fear of Germanus, reappeared,
“flaunting their wealth” and prepared for a debate at a “meeting place”. Constantius does not tell us where this was, but as he tells us that soon after the debate Germanus
visited the shrine of St Alban, we may presume that they met at the Roman amphitheatre at Verulamium. Verulamium was the third largest town in Britain and remained fully functioning throughout the
fifth century.

During the debate, Germanus, through his inspired responses, out-manipulated the Pelagians and received the accolades of the crowds. Constantius goes on to say that a man “of high military
rank” gave his young blind daughter to the bishops to heal. Germanus suggested that the tribune take his daughter to the heretics, but the heretics blanched at the idea and begged the bishops
to cure the girl, which they did. Germanus and Lupus won the day and “this damnable heresy had been thus stamped out.”

After visiting the shrine, Germanus tripped, injuring his foot, and had to be taken to a house where he was confined to a bed for several days. A fire broke out, burning several houses
“roofed with reeds”, and the wind carried the flames towards the house where Germanus lay. Although the flames engulfed the surrounding houses, Germanus’s was spared.

What Constantius tells us next is most revealing:

Constantius does not tell us where this “camp” was situated, but does say that it was during Lent and that upon the arrival of the bishops the soldiers eagerly
sought baptism. A small chapel was built out of branches, and Easter was celebrated. In the absence
of any other military leader, Germanus offered himself as their general.
Constantius continues:

This became known as the Alleluia victory and entered legend. For Constantius, writing fifty or so years later, it would have been a noted event, and therefore it is all the
more surprising that he does not say where it took place. Indeed, throughout his biography of Germanus, Constantius’s description of Britain is woefully lacking, suggesting he had not visited
Britain himself. There is a site in what was north Powys, called Maesgarmon, just outside Mold in Flintshire, where the River Alun runs through a steep valley. If this was the site then the
combined Pict/Saxon army had sailed along the River Dee, suggesting the army may also have included Irish warriors. This area has several Arthurian sites, including Moel Arthur and particularly
Moel Fenlli (
see
Chapter 6).

What is perhaps most surprising about this account is that the British forces had no competent battle leader of their own.
Germanus was a
dux
in his own right and
could have been the most senior official at the “camp”, and been offered the command through respect. Or it could have been a purely nominal gesture, with Germanus being the spiritual
leader of the troops, whilst the temporal commander is conveniently forgotten. It may even be that this battle had nothing to do with Germanus, who may have become confused with the British holy
man Garmon, of whom more later.

We may wonder, though, whether by the year 429 the British troops had become demoralised and lacked training, even though this was not long after Cunedda’s forces had been restationed in
North Wales. Gildas has some comments on the state of the British defences, as we shall see in the next chapter.

In summing up the victory Constantius remarks:

No matter how much Constantius embellishes this text, he was writing within only a generation or two of the real events and his readers would know exactly how Britain had fared
over those years. Thus we must give some credence to his account that at this time Britain was wealthy and still unconquered by the Saxons.

Constantius reveals that some years after this visit there was a resurgence of Pelagianism, and Germanus was again called upon to visit Britain, this time accompanied by Severus, bishop of
Trier. The decision to return to Britain must have been sudden (despite another synod of bishops) because British officials were unaware of it. An official called Elafius, described as “one
of the leading men in the country”, hurried to meet Germanus. Otherwise the visit is all too similar to the earlier one. The resurgence of Pelagianism seems to have been restricted to just a
few, who were quickly identified and condemned. In order to prevent any further growth of Pelagianism, the leading heretics were taken by Germanus into exile on the continent.

There is no separate record of Elafius in the pedigrees, but that would not be surprising if he were a church, rather than civic,
official. Amongst the descendants of Coel
is the Latinised name of Eleutherius (Eliffer in British), and although he lived a century later, in northern Britain, the name was not uncommon. I conjecture more on Elafius later.

Constantius does not provide a date for this second visit or give any indication of how long it was after the first. The only clue is that Germanus died soon after his return. His death is
usually dated to around 448, but that contradicts other known events. Most significant is that upon his return to Gaul, Germanus was sent to Ravenna to plead with the Emperor about the rebellious
Bretons, but the 452
Chronicle
records the downfall of their leader Tibatto by the year 437. This would place Germanus’s second visit in the year 436, a date which has growing
support.

At the core of Constantius’s account is a picture of a wealthy Britain, at least in the south. It was subject to surprise attacks from the Saxons and Picts but, by 436, the officials had
regained some level of control and Britain was, perhaps, in a period of relative calm.

2. The Welsh Annals

The
Welsh Annals
, or
Annales Cambriae
, is a list of events, recorded year by year, which was kept by the British chroniclers. Over the years copies were made of
copies and none of the original documents survives. The earliest copy (Manuscript A) dates from the end of the tenth century, but the earliest date entered relates to the year 447. Another version
(Manuscript B) is of a later date although the entries go back far earlier. They are believed to have been copied from another document, most likely one of the Irish Annals, which runs until 1203,
as does a third version (Manuscript C). Where A, B and C overlap, they are fairly consistent, with just an occasional variance of a few years.

Unfortunately, there are only six entries for the fifth century and eighteen for the sixth century. Clearly either the original
Annals
were in such a poor state that later copyists were
unable to interpret records against certain years or, more likely, the records were not commenced until much later. In fact a regular sequence of dates does not start until the year 807. The Welsh
ruler Merfyn the Freckled, whose reign began in 825, encouraged the study of
British history, and it is likely that during his reign the
Annals
as we know them were
brought together from a variety of earlier documents. Therefore none of the fifth and sixth century records is likely to be contemporary. Moreover, it is impossible to tell whether entries were
copied correctly from originals, or were distorted by error.

There is an added problem in knowing which dates apply. The
Annals
do not record a standard date. Written in Latin, and thus recorded in Roman numerals, the entries begin from Year 1.
Assuming that each individual year is accurately recorded, we need to find a year in which the event is recorded against a verifiable time line, and count back. The usual event selected is against
Year 9, “Easter altered on the Lord’s Day by Pope Leo.” This happened at Easter 455, which makes Year 1 equal 447, the generally accepted date. Originally it was believed Leo had
adjusted Easter earlier, in 452. Therefore, some sources list the
Annals
as starting in 444. There are other entries which help us identify dates, especially in relation to St Columba
(Columcille), whose life was written by Adomnán, one of his followers, and who was excommunicated from Ireland in 561 and died on 9 June 597. The following
Annals
concur with this
timeline, which allows some degree of confidence.

Listed below are the relevant entries from the fifth and sixth centuries. The key dates are those for 518, 539 and 575.

Apart from the references to Arthur and Myrddin (Merlin), what strikes me most about these
Annals
is what little reference is made to other secular rulers. You would
expect entries on such major church figures as Patrick and Columba, for example, but the only individuals actually designated as king (
rex
) are Mailcun (Maelgwyn) and Dunaut, and the Saxon
ruler Edilburt (Athelbert). There is no mention of such well-attested rulers as Cadwallon or Rhun, let alone the more shadowy figures of Vortigern or Ambrosius Aurelianus. Most amazing of all,
there is no mention of the domination of the Saxons. The monks may not have wanted to record the activities of pagan invaders, but it is surprising that there is no mention of Hengist or Cerdic or
Aelle, names that figure strongly in Arthurian history. All of this suggests that not only were the
Annals
compiled at a later date, when the only reliable dates available to the chroniclers
were a few well remembered events in church history, but that they came from a source, such as the Irish Annals, for which these secular British events were of no interest.