sign in sign up
<<
Home , Riothamus

Arthur and the Giant of Mont-Saint-Michel: the Creation

of a Folktale

Four writers mention the activities of the Britons in in the fifth century: the Gothic historian, Jordanes; , Prefect of Rome and later Bishop of Clermont-Ferrand; Gregory, bishop of Tours; and . Jordanes, writing his De Origine Actibusque Getarum ('On the Origin and Deeds of the ') in 551, tells of the deeds of ,, king of the (between466 and 485).1 The Visigoths already hold most of Spain but, spurred on by changes of government in Rome,, Euric thinks to conquer parts of Gaul as well. The Western Roman emperor, , thus seeks assistance from the Britons, and their king, Riotimus, mounts an expedition: Anthemius imperator Brittonum solacia postulavit. quorum rex Riotimus cum duodecim milia veniens in Beturigas civitate Oceano e navibus egresso susceptus est'Emperor Anthemius sought help from the Britons, of whom the king Riotimus, coming with 12,000 (men) into the state of the Bituriges by way of the

Ocean, was received as he came out of his ships' (pp. I 1 8-1 191.2

Euric comes to Riotimus, in Berry, with a great force. and defeats him: ad [eosJ rex Vesegotharum Eurichus innumerum ductans advenit exercitum diuque pugnans Riutimum Brittonum rege, antequam Romani in euis societate coniungerentur, effugavit'Eurich, king of the Visigoths, came against (them) leading an immense affny, and fighting fbr a long time against Ri(o)timus, , put him to flight, before the Romans could join up with him' (p. I l9). Riotimus makes for Burgundy: amplam partem exercitus amissam cum quibus potuit fugiens ad Burgundzonum gentem vicinam Romanisque in eo tempore foederatam advenit 'with the best part of his army lost, fleeing with those whom he could gather, he came to the , a neighbouring people at that time allied to the Romans' (ibid.).

Further information on this British king may be found in the correspondence of Sidonius, who writes to one 'Riothamus' on behalf of a landowner, deploring the abduction of a number of his slaves by the Britons: gerulus epistularum ... mancipia sua Britannis clam sollicitantibus abducta deplorat'the bearer of this leffer complains that his slaves have been carried off secretly, by the solicitations of the Britons'.3 Sidonarius asks for justice. The date of the letterto Riothamus is probably 469 or 470.4 And Jordanes' Riotimus is active at some time between 467 and 472.the first and last years of the reign of Anthemius.

Gregory of Tours. writing his Historia Francorum ('History of the ') in the sixth century, notes the defeat of the Britons by the Goths within the state of Berry: Brilanni de Biturica d Gotthis expulsi sunt, multis apud Dolensem vicum peremtis 'the Britons were expelled from Berry by the Goths, many having been slain in the village of Ddols'.5 The battle is undated, but only a few short chapters later Gregory is speaking of Euric, of the building of churches in Clermont-Ferrand, and of the succession of Sidonius as bishop (ll. 20, 21). He also mentions the new bishop's eloquence and saintly deeds (ll. 22,23). Piecing together the snippets of information given by Gregory, Sidonius,, and Jordanes, we have the story of a British leader called 'Riotimus' or 'Riothamus', tvho leads an arrny to Berry to assist the Romans against the Goths, who steals away the men of the country and is castigated by the bishop of Clermont, who is defeated at Ddols after a hard battle, and who takes refuge with the Roman confederate tribes in Burgundy. Thus far the information appears to be historical.

The exploits of this British leader may be echoed in the deeds of as they appear in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae ('History of the Kings of Britain').6 Arthur has made himself master of very many lands, including the Islands of the Ocean and all of the regions of Gaul (pp. I 07_109). He is holding his plenary court in the City of the Legions, when messengers come to him bringing a letter from Lucius (Hiberius), Procurator of the Republic (of Rome).7 The letter deplores Arthur's theft of Gaul from the and his seizure of the Islands of the Ocean and of the lands of the Allobroges (p. I l3). [t demands that Arthur appear in Rome for sentencing. It claims that tribute has been held back.

In response to this letter, Arthur formulates a plan to exact his own tribute from Rome-his ancestors have held the City at various times in history and he will do the same (p. I l4). He agrees to meet his subordinates at Barfleur after they have gathered together their armies; from there they will move as a united force to the lands of the Allobroges, where they will meet the Romans (p. I 16). Arthur sends a message to Rome, saying that he will pay no tribute, but is coming, instead, to exact payment from them. When Lucius receives the message he prepares his army and sets out for Britain. And then, when Arthur learns of their coming, he places the defence of Britain in 's hands, and makes for Southampton, whence he sets off u,ith a seasonable wind (ibid.). He lands, a short time later, in the port of Barfleur, where he awaits the coming of his confederates (p.1 l7). 'l'his is Geoffrey's 'historical' account, so-called.

There follows a brief fabulous episode: before the other troops can join him on the Continent, news comes to Arthur that a giant, who has broken out ex partibus

Hispaniarum ' from Spanish regions' (ibid.). has captured the niece of , duke of , and fled with her to the top of (the nearby) Mont-Saint-Michel. Arthur decides to meet the giant in single combat, as an inspiration to his men (in the Roman campaign); and after a long struggle he kills the giant (p. I l8). Then there is a return to the 'historical' matter: Arthur links up with his allies, and moves onwards, planning to meet the Romans at Autun (p. I l9). His men later defeat the Romans in a three-fold series of battles, near the River Aube, in the countryside near Paris, and in a valley called'sessia'(see pp. ll9-129 for the battles).8 During their clashes with the Romans, the Britons take many prisoners, kill Lucius Hiberius-and send his body to the Eastern Roman emperor, Leo,, as the only tribute he may expect (p. 129). Arthur intends to journey on to capture' occupy and plunder the city of Rome, but he is hindered by the weather. While he is waiting for a change of weather, he finds time to subdue the cities of the Allobroges, who are the allies of the Romans. When Summer comes, he is already making his way through the mountains towards Rome when news comes to him that Mordred has usurped the crown (ibid.).g Rrthur returns to Britain, fights with Mordred, and is killed (p. 132).

The outline of Geoffrey's account is hence as follows: a British king,, declared enemy of Rome, comes to Gaul to meet the Romans in battle after making rendezvous with his associates. Before the other armies have joined him, he fights a giant from Spanish regions and wins. He defeats the Romans, and later subdues their allies, the Allobroges, to whose territory his troops have come. Geoffrey's account of Arthur's deeds appears to have been adapted from the Jordanes story: each version contains a plan to fight with armies united, a battle before the rendezvous can be effected, and an enemy from Spain; and Geoffrey's term 'Allobroges' is traditionally used in medieval times to refer to the'Burgundians', the gens Burgundzonum of Jordanes.l0 Yet in Jordanes' story there is a British military defeat at the hands of the Goths (who are then holding territory in Spain). In Geoffrey's account the battle of the Britons against the Spanish enemy is not lost but won. In Jordanes, the Romans and Burgundians are friends of the Britons. In Geoffrey, they are not friends but foes-the Britons meet the Romans in battle and defeat them and later subdue their allies. the Allobroses. Thus far the transformation of the story.

Not only is Geoffrey's story an exaggeration (witness here Arthur's demand for tribute from Rome), but there are several features of the story which suggest that it has been fictionalised. From the court at Caerleon, after Arthur has decided to attack Rome, those kings in Arthur's service leave for home, determined to muster their forces without delay. The plan is to rendezvous at Barfleur, ut illinc Allobrogum fines cum ipso adituri Romanis in obuiam uenirent'so that from there they might march with him (Arthur) to the territory of the Allobroges to meet with the Romans' (p. I l6). Their plan has been formulated in response to a letter which has claimed that Arthur has taken lands in Gaul and has seized the territory of the Allobroges: Eripuisti quoque Galliam, eripuisti Allobrogum prouinciom 'You have snatched ... Gaul; you have stolen awaytheterritoryof the Allobroges'(p. 113). Later, however, Arthur subdues the cities of the Allobroges, whose lands are supposedly already under his control: Deinde post subsequentem hiemem in partibus illis moratus est et ciuitates Allobrogum subiugare uacuuil 'Then, throughout the following winter, he remained in those parts, and found time to subdue the cities of the Allobroges' (p. 129). The Allobroges affair is the first and most obvious of several irregularities in Geoffrey's plot.

At the time when Arthur voices his intention of going to the land of the Allobroges,, he has not even declared his intention to fight. Only after the plans have been made does Arthur send the Roman messengers back to their masters, saying that he rejects their demands: Imperatoribus autem per eorundem legatos mandauit se nequaquam eis redditurum tributum'Moreover he sent word to the emperors through their own legates that he would pay them no tribute at all' (p. l16). These envoys set out for Rome at the very same time as Arthur's underkings return home to gather their men: Digrediuntur ergo legati, digrediuntur reges, digrediuntur proceres et quod eis preceptum fuerat perJicere non dffirunt'thus the legates set out, the kings set out, the princes set out; and what ha(s) been commanded to them they lose no time in carrying out' (ibid.). When Lucius does receive Arthur's message, presumably several weeks later, he summons his supporters in the east and makes preparations for the campaign, but only then does he set out for Britain: iter uersus Britanniam arcipiunr'they make their way towards Britain' (ibid.). So, the plan of the Romans is to journey to, or perhaps towards, Britain, but Arthur and his underkings have planned to meet the Romans in the land of the Allobroges, before they have even gathered their forces and before they could even have known that Arthur had planned to attack. This is the second inconsistency in Geoffrey's plot.

There is yet another. After defeating the giant and then joining up with his confederates, Arthur moves irresistibly towards Autun: Arturus illinc Augustudunum progyeditur quo imperatorem adesse existimabat 'Arthur proceeds from there to

Autun, where he consider(s) the emperor to be' (p. 1 l9). His armies travel, however, out of their w&y, via the River Aube,, and soon after they arrive there a small force under meets and overcomes the Romans, taking captive their leader, Petreius Cocta, and some others (pp. I l9-l2l). They intend to take their prisoners to Paris, but are intercepted by the Romans, and only defeat them after a second, hard-fought battle (pp. l2l-122). Lucius is then in a quandary, whether to engage in a full-scale battle, or to withdraw to Autun and await reinforcements from Emperor Leo (pp. 122-123). He decides to wait and the next night marches his troops into the city of Langres:, on his way to Autun. Arthur decides to by-pass Langres and cut Lucius off in the valley of Sessia (p. 123). However, if Arthur had been making for Autun, and had expected from the start to meet the emperor there, then why are he and Lucius both to be found in a more northerly part of France?l I Geoffrey might have included this detail because he knew of a source which had the British king move to the land of the Allobroges after a battle in another part of Gaul. Jordanes' story of Riotimus' journey to the land of the 'Burgundians' might have suggested this very thing.l2

There are other indicators that the story is Geoffrey's own invention. Historically, the Western emperor contemporary with Emperor Leo (457-74) is Anthemius (467-72), just as in Jordanes, but Geoffrey calls him 'Lucius'. It has been suggested that the name is a misreading of 'Glycerius', who was emperor a few years after Anthemius, and who appears in the universal chronicle of Sigebert of Gembloux (a text which Geoffrey might well have known) as'Lucerius', but who is incorrectly assigned by Sigebert to the years 469 and 470.13 Looking at the story purely as a literary production, however, it may be that Geoffrey's Arthur, national hero of the Britons, can profitably attack the Romans, but can not be allowed to kill a real Roman emperor. So, perhaps, Geoffrey has an unknown hand kill a fictitious emperor (Lucius Hiberius), and Arthur has the body carried to the Senate with the message that the Britons owe no tribute other than this. Such audacity may be acceptable only in fiction. To be sure, Arthur plans to complete his mission to Rome-but just as he is about to set out, news comes to him that Mordred has taken control at home, and the planned affack on Rome is aborted. Arthur, his reputation greatly enhanced by his mission to the Continent. is killed soon afterwards. This looks very much like a piece of authorial manoeuvrins.

In addition, Geoffrey formulates a fantastic struggle between giant and king. Aboard ship to Barfleur, Arthur has a prophetic dream, in which a terrible flying dragon encounters with a fierce, growling bear which flies through the air to meet it. After a dire struggle, the dragon hurls the scorched body of the bear to the ground. Arthur awakes and has his dream interpreted. The dragon, he is told, is himself, and the bear a giant; the victory of the dragon is a contest which Arthur will win: dicebant draconem significare eum, Ltrsum trcro aliquem gigantem qui cum ipso congrederetur; putFtam autem eorum portendere bellum quod inter ipsos futurum erat 'they said that the dragon signified him, and the bear some giant with whom he was to do battle: and their struggle portended a battle which would be between them' (p. I l7).

However, in literature, dreams or visions usually present the outcome of a known or a planned battle, which in this case would be that between Arthur and the emperor. Arthur himself thinks that the dream has come about because of the impending battle between himself and Lucius (ibid.). As it turns out, however, Arthur's dream prophesies the outcome of a battle which is not yet on the cards---€xcept perhaps in the mind of an author inspired by an account of an earlier historical battle such as that which appears in Jordanes. Geoffrey introduces his (Spanish) giant of Mont-Saint- Michel immediately after Arthur's dream. And Arthur defeats the giant-after all, he could hardly have suffered defeat, as has Riotimus at the hands of Euric, the earlier 'giant' from Spain. The dream is one more of Geoffrey's literary adornments. So, it seems, is the giant.

The very character of Geoffrey's giant undergoes a kind of literary shape-shifting, for he is presented as simultaneously bestial and human. When he snatches Helena, the knights of the district pursue him but are unable to achieve any result. No matter whether they attack by land or by sea, the giant either sinks their ships with huge rocks or kills them with a variety of weapons. Quite a few, indeed, he captures and eats while they are still half alive: plures capiebat quos deuorabat semiuiuos'many he captured which he devoured half-living' (ibid.). Not only is the giant a destroyer of knights but he is also a cannibal. Hoel, whose niece has been taken, is at the time nowhere to be found--although he later appears and grieves over the death of his niece. Euric has come from Spain, wishing to control parts of Gaul; Geoffrey's giant comes from Spain and holds an area around Mont-Saint-Michel. E,uric wins easily against Riotimus. The giant's 'eating' of 'living' opponents in Geoffrey's story may therefore reflect an easy victory over knights (in this case, those of Brittany); and the abduction of the duke's niece may be a literary overlay on the story of an attempt to seize lands.

A kind of fabulous literary symbolism also pervades the remainder of the episode. Because he is a man of such outstanding courage, Arthur declines to lead an army contra talia monstra'against such monsters' (ibid.). He sets out with his two henchmen, Kay and , to deal with the giant. On each of the mount's two peaks there is a fire burning, and Bedivere goes to the lower peak. As he approaches he hears a woman ssream. This terrifies him, quio dubitabat monstrum illud adesse'because he feared that the monster might be there' (ibid.). On arriving there, however, he finds only a tumulum recenter factum 'tumulus recently made' (ibid.) and an old woman weeping and wailing.14 The woman explains that the grave belongs to the niece of the duke, whom she, the girl's nurse, has modo'just now' buried (p. I l8). Helena has died even as the foul being has embraced her and, as he has been unable to force himself on the maiden, he has raped the old woman instead. The woman advises Bedivere to flee, because, she says, if the giant comes to have intercourse with her, more suo' in his usual manner' (ibid.), Bedivere will be destroyed. But why does the old woman scream when the giant is not even close by? Why does she say that the giant has intercourse with her as a matter of habit when the girl has only just been buried. The inclusion of the scream and, indeed, of the rape of the old rvoman, may be for literary effect only, just as may be Arthur's decision to fight w'ithout any support from his men, or Geoffrey's portrayal of a cannibal-giant over whom Arthur gains the victory.

Arthur himself journeys to the higher of the two peaks, only to find the inhumanzs 'inhuman one' (ibid.) there, his face running with the blood of half-eaten pigs which he has been roasting by the fire. The two exchange blows for a time, until the giant is killed. Arthur then orders the giant's head to be cut off and carried back to the camp, where all the men (those from Britanny) rush to gape at it, ei ascribentes laudes qui patriom a tanta ingluuie liberauerat'attributing praise to him who had freed the homeland from such a glutton' (p. I l9). Even at its end, the story of the unnatural giant given to devouring men and pigs still demonstrates an underlying theme of military assault on the land. Given the probable association of Geoffrey's story with that of Jordanes, it might be that an individual struggle against a 'monster' or a 'giant' can represent-in literature-a full-scale battle between armies. Geoffrey appears to have conjured his story from an account such as that presented by Jordanes, retaining its original military backdrop, whilst simultaneously changing its aspect and embroidering it with elements such as the dream-prophecy, the monster's capture of a maiden, the rape of an old woman, and the devouring of knights.

Geoffrey has combined 'history' and fiction in his tale. Other writers appear to do the same thing with the story. The Anglo-Norrnan writer, Wace, recognises Geoffrey's two modes of presentation in his , written in ll55.l5 Wace's giant seems to have some truly monstrous characteristics: there has never been slain by man a giant ... plus oribles et plus laiz / Plu,s hisdos et plus contrefaiz'... more honible and more loathly, more hideous and more deformed' than this giant (addition after l. 11592. MS G). However, he is first and foremost a human opponent: ... uns gaianz mult corporuz / Ert de vers Espaine venuz ' ... a very formidatrle giant, come from Spanish parts' (ll. I 1289-90). He is opposed by the folk of the land, but he eats none of them. lnstead, he behaves just like an invading arrny, spoiling houses and cattle,, bearing away women and children and causing devastation until there is no-one left to labour in the fields. Then he retreats to his mountain.

The author of the fourteenth-century alliterative Morte Arthure also presents both sides of the coin. Arthur's opponent is a giant tormenter of the people, engenderde of ./bndez.l6 He has eaten more than five hundred folk, devoured freeborn children for seven winters, and killed all of the boy-children in the country. He sups on knave- children which are roasted on spits turned by women, and is found by Arthur gnawing on the limb of a man. He is five fathoms tall and embodies many of the features of wild beasts (see ll. 1074-1103). Even so, he is a specific enemy of the people, forthe philosophers who interpret the dream tell Arthur that the bear betakyns the tyrauntez, that tourmentez thy pople (1. 824). Arthur is asked to fight the giant in his role as overlord, to take pity on the people as he is their ryght-,wise kynge (1. 866a); he is not asked to fight in his role as slayer of giants. Arthur himself says that he will deal with the tyrant for treson, or perhaps 'seizure', of lands (1. 878b). The giant is clearly in violation of territorial boundaries. The single-line ending of the episode in the alliterative Morte indicates that funtasy is part of the literary varnish of the combat- tale, employed so as to create suspense and interest for the audience, for the people thank Arthur for destroying their enemy, an enemy who has renkes overronne (1. 1206a), but one who has nevertheless refte them theire childyre (1. 1206b). Analysis of the story of the giant of Mont-Saint-Michel as it is presented by Geoffrey of Monmouth, Wace and the author of the alliterative Morte Arthure, suggests that in relation to monster- or to dragon-stories, the literary enhancement of fact is a time- honoured convention (in this instance covering three centuries and involving three different literary types). And because the success of any story relies on its acceptability to the audience, it is just possible that the audience of this story viewed the conventional giant of Mont-Saint-Michel as once having been a historical figure of the kind presented by Jordanes, although we would not necessarily expect them to have made the connection between this giant and his early historical prototype, Euric, who fought against Riotimus but not against Arthur.l T

In any case, Arthur's Roman Adventure, as it is presented by Geoffrey of Monmouth, is a very conspicuous fiction. More work needs to be done on why Geoffrey might have constructed his episode in the way that he has.

Sonya R. Jensen [Jniversity of Sydney Australia

NOTES

I ndited T. Momm sen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi, vol. 5 (Berlin, 1882). Euric appears between $$ 235 and244 (pp. ll8-l2l): references to the edition appear in the text. Jordanes' work is a condensed version, made partly from memory, of a lost early sixth century Gothic history by Cassiodorus Senator (see Charles Mierow, tr., The Gothic History of ,Iordanes.Cambridge.2nd edition, 1915, repr. 1966, pp. l3-14).

2 The 'state of the Bituriges' is Berry (Christian Thevenot, ed., Bourgogne Ancienne, Paris, 1985, p.2a\.

3 4. Loyen, ed. and trans., Sidoine Apollinaire3 vols (Paris, 1970), vol. [[,, Bk III, Ep. 9 (p. 98). On the name 'Riothamus', see L6on Fleuriot (Les Origines de la Bretagne. Paris, 1980, pp. 172-3), who suggests that the word is either a title or a surname, and that its meaning is 'supreme king'. Sidonius, born in Lyon ca. 430, became bishop of Clermont in 471, and died in 48718 (ibid. p.257). Clermont-Ferrand is located south of Bourees. 4 Loyen, p.249.It is likely that the slaves had been taken as mercenaries for the battle against the Goths, for the British king is not likely to have stolen slaves after his defeat.

) Edited T. Ruinart, Gregorii Episcopi Turonensi-c Opera ()mnia (Paris, 1699), II. l8 (p. 70). Subsequent references appear in the text. The Britons were probably stationed in , the capital of the former province of Berry; the battle was apparently fought near the River Indre in the small town of Bourg-de-Ddols, then also part of Berry.

6 Text edited Neil Wright,, The Historia Regum Britannie of Geoffrey of Monmouth, I Bern, Burgerbibliothek, MS. 568 (Cambridge, 1985). References to this edition appear in the text, by page-number.

7 Lucius is elseu'here called 'Emperor' several times.

8 1. S. P. Tatlock, The Legendary History of Britain (Berkeley, 1950), p. 102 and n. 83, comments on the name 'Sessia' and on Geoffrey's use of it.

9 Geoffrey goes on to note that the Mordred was living sinfully with Queen , who had violated the vows of her earlier marriage. Then, in an address to a 'noble count', he states that he prefers to say nothing more of the matter, but that he will continue on with the battle which the king fought against his nephew, as he found it in the British book, and heard from the learned . The Bern Manuscript, which arguably presents a second rendering of the Prologue of the Historia, is dedicated jointly to King Stephen, and to Robert, 'Count of Gloucester'. (See Acton Griscom, 'The Date of Composition of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historiq: New Manuscript Evidence', Speculum, Vol. I, No. 2 (1926), pp. 129-56, for a discussion of Geoffrey's Prologues.) Wright suggests, Introduction, p. xix, n. 20, that it may not be entirely inappropriate to call Robert a 'count', given what Geoffrey says elsewhere of certain rulers of Gloucester. But the count who is addressed in other versions of the Prologue is Waleran de Meulan-and Geoffrey's coyness here, in the text, may suggest that he is demurring in relation to the union between a youthful Isabella Elizabeth de Crdpi de Vermandois (Waleran's mother, who was the granddaughter of Henri I of France, and the daughter of Hugh the Great, Duke of Burgundy) and a long-term lover who ultimately became her husband: Elizabeth abandoned Waleran's aged father, Robert de Beaumont, Count of Meulan, in favour

l0 of the younger William de Warenne, who was second earl of Warren and of Surrey. So, if Geoffrey is not sincere in his dedications, it may be that he is allowing that Waleran is the son of a whore. (Compare, in the early versions of the Prologue, his florid prefatory comments about Waleran's valour, even though the man's other military behaviours seem to contradict this evaluation.) Elizabeth lived openly with William until the death of her husband, Robert, in I I 18, and then mamied him, but had by that time already borne William several children. It could therefore be argued that, in updating his Prologueis, Geoffrey wished to maintain his textual reference to the 'noble count' at the expense of his literary style. Indeed, a flippant textual challenge to Henry of Huntingdon may be found in Geoffrey's Stonehenge Episode (see pp. 90-92), which is variously a send-up of Henry's admission in Book I of his Historia Anglorum ('History of the English') that he does not know by what'art', or for what reason, the pillars at Stonehenge were raised up; of Henry's discussion of the various historiographical talents and non-talents of humans and 'brutes' in his Prologue to the Historia; and of certain information found in one of Henry's sources, Sallust's Bellum Catilinae, which itself opens with a discussion about beasts, physical strength, and intellectual ability. (See Diana Greenway ed. and trans, Henry, Archdeqcon of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, Oxford, 1996, pp. 22123 for Henry's Stonehenge admission. Sallust, Bellum Catilinqe, ed. J. T. Ramsey, Chico, Calif., 1984.) Geoffrey writes his history to promote the cause of 'Brutus'and his descendants, and he inserts a piece on the (supposed) doltishness of the bruti'Britons' into the Stonehenge Episode (see p. 9l). And there are too many mentions of strength and ingenuity in his account of how set up the Ring to signifo anything other than a provocative discourtesy to Henry on Geoffrey's part. [t is important to note here that Waleran became patron of the abbey of Bec in 1131, and it is at Bec in I139 that Robert, monk of Torigni, shows Henry of Huntingdon a copy of Geoffrey's Hrstorio. So it may be that Geoffrey chose to publish certain versions of his work for certain places in order to meet his underlying motives in presenting a history of the 'Bruti'.

l0 On the equivalence of the terms, see Tatlock., pp. 100-101. Geoffrey hshe (The Discovery of King Arthur, New York, 1985, pp. 100-l I I ) endeavours to prove that 'Riothamus' is Arthur. As long ago as 1799, notes Ashe (pp. 99-100), Sharon Turner, in his History of the Anglo-Saxons,YoL l, in speaking of the taking of 12,000 men to Gaul, argued that "'either this Riothamus was Arthur, or it was from his expedition that Geoffrey, or the Breton bards, took the idea of Arthur's battles in Gaul"'. Ashe

ll (pp. 113-ll4) dismisses Fleuriot's suggestion lLes Origines,pp. 170-1731 that Riothamus is .

I 1 Autun is approximately half way between Britain and Rome, and can be reached by travelling in a general south-easterly direction fiom Barfleur. (lt is actually to the east of Bourges.) But Geoffrey has Arthur journey via the R. Aube and Paris, which are both much further to the north, and then move towards Langres, which is to the east of that area. He then travels back to the south, towards Autun, where he was originally headed. Tatlock, p. 101, notes that Autun was an important city in Burgundy, but sees no reason why it should have been well-known to the English; at p. 102, he describes Langres as a 'natural refuEe, & remarkable "peninsula" stronghold or acropolis, and as such appearing often in history'. Could Geoffrey have been influenced in his choice of site by perceived geographical similarities between Langres and his other battle-site of Mont-Saint-Michel (a site whose own inaccessibility would have been entirely appropriate to a fable)? The latter site might have been deliberately chosen. Tatlock (pp. 88-89) tells how Bernard, abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel between I135 and 1149, carried out some building work there; he says: 'this would be quite the time for the revival or invention of an eponymous tale', i.e., that of the 'Tomb of Helen'. Henri Dontenville (Guide de la France Mystdrieuse,Paris, 1964,, p.598) mentions several destructive fires at the monastery-and a disaster in I 138, which is around the time that Geoffrey's text was written. For a general discussion of the Mont, see idem, Mythologie Franqaise (Paris, 1973), pp. 8O-82. (I am indebted to Professor B. K. Martin for this last reference.) The spot has associations with Gargantua; and the possession of the place was supposedly disputed between the Devil and St. Michael. l2 Geoffrey's story is clearly a fiction, for he unashamedly appropriates the words of Gildas, on the early defeats of the Britons by the Romans, adapting them to the present defeat of the Romans by Arthur. He writes (p. 129) of the Romans: maxima pars eorum ultro protendebat manus suas muliebriter uincendas'moreover, the greater part of them held out their hands to be subdued like women'; of the Britons Gildas writes: manus vinciendae muliebriter protenduntur ' ... like women they stretched out their hands for the fetters' (see Michael Winterbottom, ed. and tr., Gildas: the Ruin of Britain and other Works, London, 1978, Ch.6. 2,pp. 18.,91). And there is many a different echo of Gildas in this part of Geoffrey's tale. l3 Edited G. Pertz , Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores 6 (Hanover, 1844), p. 3l l. The suggestion of the derivation from Sigebert appears in Ashe, p. 94. (ln

t2 Jordanes, p. I 19, Anthemius dies and is succeeded by Olybrius, who reigns for eight months and is in turn succeeded by Glycerius, who reigns for one year only. The information follows closely on from that on Euric and Riotimus.)

l4 The terms chosen for the weeping and wailingarefleo and, eiulo:that employed for the screaming is ululo.

l5 Edited t. Arnold , Le Roman de Brut de Wace, 2 vols (Paris, 1940). Wace removes some of the irregularities of Geoffrey's story, such as the woman's scream and Arthur's pre-cognition of the Romans' plans in Burgundy. References are to vol. 2, and appear in the text.

l6 John Finlayson, ed.' Morte Arthure (London,1967),1. S43b. Subsequent references appear in the text.

17 In some other texts, bears, dragons, giants, and/or monsters do indeed represent military opponents or armies. [n Cicero's De Divinatione, ed. and trans. W. A. Falconer (London, 1923, repr. 1959). I. 49 (for the reference I again acknowledge my indebtedness to Professor Martin), Hannibal sees an enorrnous beast circled about with snakes, which overthrows trees, shrubs, and houses. He is told that the beast is the desolation of ltaly. The ninth century Historia Brittonum tells us that a pair of fighting dragons represents the warring (armies of) Britons and Saxons: see The Historia Brittonum, 3 The 'Vatican' Recension,ed,. D. N. Dumville (Cambridge, 1985), end $24 (p. 94). In a paper read at the ANZAMRS XVI conference, Melbourne (6-9 February, 1992), I suggested that the 'dragon' in Beowulfmight be identified with the historical Swedish king, Onela, and by implication with his armies. In a forthcoming paper I shall argue that the monster named 'Grendel' is the fabulous equivalent of a historical character named 'Agnarr', who is in Scandinavian stories the son of Ingeld; and that the struggles between Beowulf and Grendel/Grendel's dam should be seen as linked to Ingeld's military attack on Heorot as it is presented in the Anglo-Saxon poem. Although sliced in half by the sword of Bjarki, the Scandinavian Agnarr dies with his lips parted into a smile. Could there be a link here with the name Grendel: gyennian 'to grin, shew the teeth as an expression of pain, anger, etc, (J. Bosworth and T. N. Toller, An Anglo-Soxon Dictionary, Oxford, 1898, repr. 1973, s.v.) + delan'to divide'?

l3