sign in sign up
<<
Home , Avalon, Belinus, Constantine (Briton), De nugis curialium, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Mordred

Kelsey Blake Te Britons and the Welsh in Twelfh-Century Vernacular Literature

Te twelfh century saw a great wave of intellectual and historical writing in Europe as part of what is known today as the Twelfh Century Renaissance. Norman armies under the leadership of the Conqueror had defeated the English in 1066, had claimed their land, and were establishing increasing control over the island. Many of the writings that emerged in this period concerned the history of the conquered English, the time of the Anglo-. Very few early histories mentioned the people who had inhabited the island before the Saxons, however. Tese people were the Britons, a group relegated to folkloretraces and myth, whose history began entering into the consciousness of only in the twelfh century. Before the twelfh century the Britons had been overlooked by most historians, as the people and their accomplishments were considered unworthy of note. Te few historians who mentioned the Britons’ loss to the Normans attributed it to a faw inherent in the that caused their cowardice and instability. However, King Henry II’s reign brought forth a wave of literary works in and France, many of which were inspired or infuenced by Geofrey of ’s History of the Kings of Britain, a work from 178 Kelsey Blake

Miniature of the battle between and ’s armies on Salisbury Plain. (Photo by Xxxx Xxxx.)1

the frst half of the twelfh century that introduced a new interpretation of the original inhabitants of Britain and the events that led to their decline. An analysis of these works provides a window into the minds of the authors and the patrons who requested and approved of these writings. Several authors translated Geofrey’s History from its original Latin into the French vernacular, while others borrowed his historical fgures and themes to create stories of their own. Geofrey’s reinterpretation clearly infuenced many of these portrayals of the Britons, who were described as a noble people whose kingdom and autonomy came to an end long ago, but whose essence survived in the Welsh. Tis notion shaped the image of the Welsh in these later twelfh-century works. While authors saw the Welsh as a barbaric and uncivilized race, this was due not to their innate wickedness so much as their distinct culture. Tis article will explore the popularity of Geofrey’s chronicle among members of the twelfh-century Norman court and the works in the French vernacular that took the History of the Kings of Britain as their inspiration. Tese authors drew upon the tales and fgures in Geofrey of Monmouth’s chronicle, which shaped their creation of a literary world that refected the courtliness expected in their own time and infuenced their depictions of the .

179 The UNC-Chapel Hill Journal of History

Geofrey of Monmouth’s Alternative History of Britain Anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss describes a type of story, the “Genesis of Disorder,” that is told in many diferent societies. “Te entire story aims at explaining why afer their frst beginning, a given clan or lineage or group of lineages have overcome a great many ordeals, known periods of success and periods of failures, and have been progressively led towards a disastrous ending,” Levi-Strauss explains.1 In the History of the Kings of Britain, Geofrey of Monmouth provides such a story, detailing the origin, rise, and eventual fall of the Britons. Monmouth’s account is flled with noble kings and tales of heroic deeds, countering previously held notions of the “worthless” Britons.2 His work also advances the legend that, afer their conquest by the Anglo-Saxons, the Britons had fed to the hills of , known in the twelfh century as . Te legends claimed that the Britons still lived there and that their descendants had come to be called by a diferent name: the Welsh.3 Much of Geofrey’s text is believed to be invented.4 He claims to have learned of previously unreported events and unheard of kings through a mysterious book in the British tongue given to him by the Archdeacon of , but many scholars doubt that the book ever existed.5 Geofrey mentions in his introduction that stories of British kings were “proclaimed by many people as if they had been entertainingly and memorably written down.”6 Te source Geofrey draws upon for his most famous stories

1 Claude Levi-Strauss, Myth and Meaning (: Routledge, 2001), 32-33. 2 J.S.P. Tatlock, The Legendary History of Britain (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1950); Siân Echard, “,” in The Arthur of Literature, ed. Siân Echard (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2011), 43-59. 3 Geoffrey of Monmouth, The History of the Kings of Britain, trans. Neil Wright (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2007). 4 There is much debate over the ancestry of Geoffrey of Monmouth. Some scholars believe he was of Welsh or Breton lineage, and invented the History out of a desire to present a more positive portrait of his ancestors. Others argue that his time spent living on the , the border between Wales and England, gave him access to a unique variety of sources and tales. Michelle R. Warren, History on the Edge: and the Borders of Britain (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), 25; John Gillingham, The English in the Twelfth Century (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2000), 24-25; Tatlock, 440-443, 430. 5 Tatlock, 422-5; Geoffrey of Monmouth, History, 4. 6 Geoffrey of Monmouth, History, 4. 180 Kelsey Blake therefore was not a written and preserved text, but a body of oral tradition.7 Drawing upon sources diferent from those used by many other historians, Geofrey invented details as he saw ft, relating these stories in a way that allowed for a new interpretation.8 Geofrey infuenced later works in the twelfh century because his History, fantastical though some events in it may be, refuted a work that had previously been hailed as the undeniable truth of ancient British history, ’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Written in AD 731, Bede’s was one of the earliest historical works to detail the history of the island of Britain and its transition to the hands of the Anglo-Saxons.9 His depiction of the land’s former inhabitants, the Britons, would prove infuential, and thus any study of this subject must start with Bede. Bede portrays the Britons as a passive people, without control over their own fate, ultimately doomed to failure by their inherent faws.10 Bede wrote in a time when great transitions of power were attributed to the will of God.11 Unsurprisingly, then, he argues that the Britons failed because they fell out of favor with God. As he states in his address to king Ceolwulf, “If history records good things of good men, the thoughtful hearer is encouraged to imitate what is good; or if it records evil of wicked men, the devout, religious listener or reader is encouraged to avoid all that is sinful and perverse and to follow what he knows to be good and pleasing to God.”12 According to Bede, God had placed the Anglo- Saxons in power over the Britons, who were found unworthy of their own leadership and even their own lands. Since the Britons were ultimately

7 Echard suggests that Geoffrey’s British book is “a place-holder for his access to oral traditions richer in his own time than their scattered survival today suggests.”: Echard, 45-7.For more, see Tatlock, 178, 206; Robert W. Hanning, The Vision of History in Early Britain: From to Geoffrey of Monmouth (New : Columbia University Press, 1996), 124. 8 Echard argues that “Medieval historians did not share our understanding of ‘fact’ and ‘fiction’: as a branch of rhetoric, history was properly embellished in ways we might regard as essentially literary.”: Echard, 46. 9 Michelle P. Brown, “Bede’s Life in Context,” in The Cambridge Companion to Bede, ed. Scott DeGregorio (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 3-5. 10 J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People: A Historical Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993); Clare Stancliffe, “British and Irish Contexts,” in The Cambridge Companion to Bede, ed. Scott DeGregorio (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 69-78. 11 Stancliffe, 19; Alan Thacker states that Bede viewed historical writing as “the unfolding of God’s purposes for mankind as the world moved towards final judgment and the end of time.” Alan Thacker, “Bede and History,” in The Cambridge Companion to Bede, ed. Scott DeGregorio (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 170-176. 12 Bede, The Ecclesiastical History of the English People, t rans. Leo Sherley-Price, rev. R.E. Latham (London: Penguin Classics, 1990), 41. 181 The UNC-Chapel Hill Journal of History

defeated, it stood to reason that they must have displeased God in some way, and deserved their fate.13 Scholars of this time judged Bede to be a trusted historian. considered Bede the highest historical authority, one “whose wisdom and integrity it is sacrilegious to doubt.”14 Furthermore, he only trusted the British historian Gildas’s On the Ruin of Britain to the extent that the work agreed with the Ecclesiastical History.15 William of wrote of Bede, “I wonder which to praise the more, the great number of his writings or the modesty of his style.”16 William considered his work a continuation of the Ecclesiastical History, and himself Bede’s successor. Henry of Huntington used 132 out of 140 of Bede’s chapters in writing his Historia Anglorum, and he indicated that his patron wanted him to use Bede’s history as a reference for his own.17 Of 160 surviving manuscripts of the Ecclesiastical History, 30 percent were copied in the twelfh century.18 Bede’s Ecclesiastical History was not simply a historical work that happened to survive into the twelfh century: in the eyes of twelfh century historians Bede was “the standard against which all other historians must be measured.”19 Antonia Gransden argues that the played a role in his popularity. As the Normans attempted to discredit the Church in England as partial justifcation for William I’s invasion, the English monks and churches referenced the “” described in Bede’s work to defend their own claims. His work lent credibility to the English churches, a

13 Wallace-Hadrill points out that Bede compares the Saxon defeats of the Britons to Old Testament stories. He says, “It is the first time that divine sanction is invoked to account for English ravages among the British. It is not simply a historical reminder of an Old Testament parallel, but, for Bede, an historical instance of God’s retribution at work in modern times precisely as it had worked in the history of Israel.”: Wallace-Hadrill, 24. 14 William of Newburgh, The History of English Affairs: Book I, tran. P.G. Walsh and M.J. Kennedy (Warminster: Aris and Phillips Ltd, 1988), 37. 15 William of Newburgh, 29; For more on Gildas, see N.J. Higham, The English Conquest: Gildas and Britain in the Fifth Century (New York: Manchester University Press, 1994). 16 , History of the English Kings, trans. R.A.B. Mynors, comp. R.M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 87. 17 Allen J. Frantzen, “The Englishness of Bede, from Then to Now,” in The Cambridge Companion to Bede, ed. Scott DeGregorio (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010), 231-232; Henry of Huntington, The History of the English People, trans. Diana Greenway (New York: , 1996), 7. 18 Antonia Gransden, Legends, Traditions and History in Medieval England (London: The Hambledon Press, 1992), 1. 19 Nancy Partner, Serious Entertainments (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 63. 182 Kelsey Blake point that they were able to circulate through their praise of his works, to a degree that “perhaps at no time in medieval England were Bede’s historical works more intensively studied than in the Anglo-Norman period.”20 By the end of the eighth century, Bede was considered the patron of the abbey at Wearmouth-Jarrow, and in the early twelfh century his relics were enshrined at the cathedral in Durham.21 Bede’s portrayal of the Britons infuenced works for years to come, and none more so than that of William of Malmesbury’s Te History of the English Kings.22 William devotes several passages of his history to praising the historian, noting that, “Without doubt, the divine wisdom had come upon him in good measure, to enable him in one short lifetime to complete so many great books.” William considers his opinion of Bede beyond argument, commenting that “so great was his reputation at that time that in the solving of its problems mighty itself had need of him, nor could the proud ever fnd in this English scholar aught deserving of criticism; the whole Latin-speaking world gave him the prize for learning and for faith.” 23 William’s respect for Bede was so absolute that in many cases he refused to touch upon the topics that Bede’s work covered. Upon recognizing a discrepancy between dates given by Bede and those listed in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, William simply points out the diference, saying he is “content to call attention to it, and let it be.”24 Elsewhere in his work William defers to Bede, as if a detail or fact could not conceivably be wrong if Bede wrote that it was so.25 While William of Malmesbury praised what he considered the undeniable accuracy of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, Geofrey of Monmouth was hard at work composing an alternative history that “challenged, by implication, Bede’s ascendancy as the primary authority for the early history

20 Gransden, 1-26. 21 David Rollason, “The Cult of Bede,” in The Cambridge Companion to Bede, ed. Scott DeGregorio, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 193-198. 22 William of Malmesbury 15, 21. 23 Ibid, 87-89. 24 Ibid, 29. See also 43: William points out a detail not clearly covered in Bede’s work, but does so in a way that seems almost apologetic. He would not mention it, but it would be “against his principle to conceal the facts.” William states that he chooses to quote Bede’s work at length rather than summarize so that he might not “run the risk of adding or omitting something,” 85. See also p. 23. 25 William of Malmesbury, 83,97, 79, 73. 183 The UNC-Chapel Hill Journal of History

of Britain.”26 As Geofrey states in the beginning of his work, Bede was one of the only historians who had even covered the history of the Britons.27 Even in Bede’s history, however, very little information is ofered about British kings, while more attention is devoted to foreign visitors and conquerors. Nearly a century passed between the reigns of Roman emperors Severus and , yet no attention is given to the hundred years between Severus’s construction of an earthen wall in the north of Britain and the beginning of Diocletian’s Christian persecution.28 In his prologue, Geofrey attributes his inspiration for the History to the weakness of Bede’s work, and in response he composes a detailed history of the time from the frst settlement of the Britons to the decline of the last British king.29 Geofrey provides details for a period that had been ignored by historians, including names and stories of heroic kings, bloody battles, abandoned and enraged queens, and victorious sons. He writes the story of and his daughters, of and , of resistance against Caesar, and the founding of a nation.30 Te period before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons was not fully explored in any source prior to Geofrey, which explains why Henry of Huntington was thrilled to discover a copy of Geofrey’s History in 1139. Henry wrote a letter to Warin Brito about his fnd and included a summary of Geofrey’s work, noting that he had begun his own history with the arrival of ’s army in Britain due to a lack of information. 31 Not only did Geofrey introduce new historical fgures and events, but the manner in which they were portrayed made his contributions worthy of note. Geofrey’s Britons were not the wicked, malicious, and inherently fawed men of the Ecclesiastical History. Geofrey presented strong, noble kings, brave and worthy , and a race of Britons who, despite facing periods of turmoil, should ultimately be remembered as good men who fell to ruin through forces outside of their control.32

26 Gransden, 18-21. 27 Geoffrey of Monmouth, History, 4. 28 Bede, 47-55. 29 Geoffrey of Monmouth, History, 4. 30 Ibid., 34, 36-44. This is the same who is later made famous by Shakespeare. 31 Gransden, 18-20; Tatlock, 205-206; Monika Otter, Inventiones (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996), 77-78, 80-82. This is not to say that there were no British histories. Gildas, Bede, and “” all wrote about the Britons, but not in the detail or completeness of the work provided by Geoffrey of Monmouth. 32 Geoffrey of Monmouth, 48-52, 36-44, 280. 184 Kelsey Blake

Arthur in council with his knights. (Photo by Xxxx Xxxx.)1

Geofrey’s Infuence Extends to the Twelfh-Century Norman Court Geofrey’s History of the Kings of Britain seems to have been popular in the latter half of the twelfh century, though he was criticized by other historians. William of Newburgh, who also wrote a history of the English, said of Geofrey, “To atone for these faults of the Britons he weaves a laughable web of fction about them, with shameless vainglory extolling them far above the virtue of the Macedonians and the Romans.” He adds that Geofrey “has taken up the stories about Arthur from the old fctitious accounts of the Britons, has added to them himself, and by embellishing them in the Latin tongue he has cloaked them with the honorable title of history.33 William of Newburgh devotes most of his introduction to debunking Geofrey’s tales and suggesting that his readers should instead consult Bede, whom he holds in the highest regard.34 Regardless of his motives for doing this, the fact that he felt the need to mention the discrepancies between the accounts of Bede and Geofrey indicates that Geofrey’s work was well known. William, at

33 William of Newburgh, The History of English Affairs: Book I, trans. P.G. Walsh and M.J. Kennedy (Warminster: Aris and Phillips Ltd, 1988), 29. 34 Ibid. 185 The UNC-Chapel Hill Journal of History

least, had read it, and had to expect that others were aware of it too. Indeed, over 200 manuscripts of the History of the Kings of Britain survive today, proof of the popularity of this work.35 Another indication of the reception of Geofrey’s History is the patronage of works that drew upon themes and fgures presented in it. In 1154, Henry II ascended to the throne of England upon the death of his cousin Stephen.36 Many historians regard Henry II as a patron of the literary arts who aided such authors as , , and . Tough Henry II and his wife are credited with the frst commissioned works in the French vernacular, recent scholarship suggests that these claims are somewhat exaggerated. Henry II may have been connected with vernacular authors, or at the very least was aware of their works, but there is little evidence that he served as a patron of many.37 Tis does not mean he was unaware of Geofrey of Monmouth’s work, however, as Henry was educated in Bristol at the home of his uncle, Robert of Gloucester, who served as Geofrey’s patron and to whom the History was primarily dedicated.38 One literary work that caught the eye of Henry II was Le , a work based upon the History of the Kings of Britain. Around 1155, Wace completed Le Roman de Brut, which he supposedly presented to Eleanor of Aquitaine.39 In this work, Wace rewrites the tales of Geofrey’s

35 Jean Blacker, The Faces of Time: Portrayal of the Past in and Latin Historical Narrative of the Anglo-Norman Regnum (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994), 17-18. There are 160 manuscripts of the ever-popular Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People, indicating that Geoffrey’s work was just as popular, if not more so. Gransden, 1. 36 Richard Huscroft, Ruling England: 1042-1217 (New York: Pearson Education Ltd, 2005), 152. For a very detailed biography of Henry II, see W.L. Warren, Henry II (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973). For more on Henry’s reign, see John Gillingham, The Angevin Empire (New York: Arnold Publishers, 2001). 37 Kristen Lee Over, Kingship, Conquest, and Patria (New York: Routledge, 2005), 74-77; Martin Aurell, “Henry II and Arthurian Legend,” in Henry II: New Interpretations, ed. Christopher Harper-Bill and Nicholas Vincent (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2007), 362-380. Eleanor’s position as a literary patron may be exaggerated as well: Ruth Harvey, “Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Troubadours,” in The World of Eleanor of Aquitaine: Literature and Society in Southern France Between the Eleventh and Thirteenth Centuries, ed. Marcus Bull and Catherine Leglu (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2005), 101-114. 38 Tatlock, The Legendary History of Britain, 467, 436-437. Tatlock notes that, while various manuscripts contain different dedications, Robert is prominent in all of them. 39 Lawman indicates that Wace presented his work to “æðelen Ælienor þe wes Henries quene” in an early thirteenth-century translation of Wace’s Roman de Brut into Middle English, although this seems to be the only evidence to support the claim. Tatlock, 476-477. 186 Kelsey Blake

History in vernacular French verse, presenting the history in a form pleasing to the Anglo-Norman court. His Brut appears to have been well received, and it has been suggested that his appointment as a canon at was connected to it. Furthermore, the commission of the seems to have been a direct result of the reception of the Brut.40 Wace was not the frst to translate Geofrey of Monmouth’s History into the vernacular. Soon afer the History of the Kings of Britain was completed, aristocrat Ralph FitzGilbert and his wife Constance brought the work to the attention of a poet, Gefrei Gaimar. Although the volume Gaimar composed based upon Geofrey’s History has been lost, he refers to it several times in a second book, Estoire des Engleis. Gaimar credits the source for this history to a book brought to him through the eforts of Robert of Gloucester, who “had this historical narrative translated in accordance with the books belonging to the Welsh that they had in their possession on the subject of the kings of Britain.” Robert of Gloucester was the earl whom Geofrey of Monmouth cited as his patron, indicating that the book about which Gaimar wrote was the History of the Kings of Britain.41 At the end of his second work, Gaimar writes, “Tis book is not fction or fantasy, but it is taken from an authentic historical source concerning the kings of the past, and tells of those who ruled over England, some peacefully, others by waging war. Tis is how it has to be: it cannot possibly be otherwise.”42 Te History of the Kings of Britain was so popular upon its completion that members of the aristocracy like Constance and Ralph FitzGilbert commissioned a verse edition in the vernacular, and wanted it badly enough that the work was fnished in just over a year.43 Furthermore, the work was commissioned from a writer who took pride in accuracy and presented himself as a serious historian.44 Tis suggests that the history of the Britons was seen as a subject appropriate for a serious historian such as Gaimar, and that it excited the public to the degree that patrons requested the work. Te portrayal of the Britons within the works of Wace and Gaimar

40 Peter Damian-Grint, The New Historians of the Twelfth-Century Renaissance (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1999), 53-55. 41 Geffrei Gaimar, Estoire des Engleis, trans. and ed. Ian Short (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 348-349. Geoffrey of Monmouth, History, 4-5. Tatlock, 452-453. 42 Gaimar, 354-355. 43 Tatlock, 452. 44 Daimian-Grint, 52-53. 187 The UNC-Chapel Hill Journal of History

sheds light upon their views of British history as well as those acceptable to their patrons. Although Wace retells the stories contained within Geofrey’s chronicle, he is not judgmental and seems not to favor either the Britons or their enemies. Jean Blacker argues that Wace’s Brut is a “depoliticization” of the History, written in a factual way that in no way glorifes the Britons, as Geofrey’s work does. Te Brut does not depict the Britons in a negative fashion, but it exposes the “inevitability of change.” As Blacker notes, “Trough the rise and fall of diferent peoples, the shifs of language, and the rebuilding of towns and mountains, Wace shows the revolutions of the wheel of fortune.” Wace does not depict the coming of the Saxons or any of the events that occurred during the time in which the Britons ruled the island as divine judgment or something for which they were at fault. Tey were defeated by an invading force, and this has no bearing on the qualities of the Britons themselves.45 Tatlock says of Wace’s writing, “On the whole the style is unadorned, bare, hardly distinguished, with few phrases which light up the page, spread-out though not quite wordy; well ftted to be read aloud to people who were intelligent but not highly cultivated, and wished to feel that they were getting a history and not romance.”46 Tis portrayal evidently met the approval of Wace’s readership. Te positive reception of the Brut is clear from the existence of another work based upon it, Lawman’s Brut, a very close translation of the work into Middle English that appeared in the early thirteenth century.47 Gaimar composed a verse history in the vernacular, detailing the period from the time of the Trojans through the Saxon conquest. Unfortunately, no copy of this work has survived—the popularity of Wace’s Roman de Brut seems to have supplanted it.48 However, traces of the original remain within his second work, the Estoire des Engleis. “You have, if you recall, already heard, in the previous volume, how ruled over this domain in succession to Arthur, and how in his turn, Yvain was crowned King of Moray and Lothain,” begins Gaimar’s history. He goes on to recount the conquest

45 Blacker, 96-97. Kenneth J. Tiller, Laamon’s Brut and the Anglo-Norman Vision of History (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2007), 76-78. 46 Tatlock, 466. 47 Françoise H.M. Le Saux, Laamon’s Brut: The Poem and its Sources (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1989), 24-25. For more on Lawman, or Laamon’s translation of Wace, see Tatlock, 483-490, and Tiller, 81-87. 48 Otter, Inventiones, 77. Tatlock, 451-453. 188 Kelsey Blake by Hengest, leader of the Saxon armies, and the fnal battle between Arthur and Mordred, as told in Geofrey’s work. Gaimar’s explanation for the fall of the Britons is particularly interesting: the blame lies not on cowardice or some failing on the part of the Britons themselves, but with the overwhelming number of Anglo-Saxons, who steadily laid claim the island until they exerted control over so much of the land that it became known as England rather than Britain.49 Although one can only speculate about how Gaimar might have portrayed the Britons in his lost volume, he refers several times to the deeds of the most famous of their kings, Arthur. In one instance, he details Arthur’s conquest of the Danes and its afermath. Aschil, the king to whom Arthur gives Denmark, died fghting for him “when Mordred had acted so wrongfully against him,” and his brother inherited the crown. Although the brother, Edulf, is a cruel king, no portrait of Aschil is presented. However, the fact that he died fghting for his lord, “Artur le fort,” is made plain. While Aschil fought for his lord, Mordred betrayed Arthur’s trust. Wace’s Le Roman de Brut describes a slightly diferent relationship between Arthur and Aschil, in which Aschil is king of the Danes upon Arthur’s arrival in Denmark and chooses to submit to him rather than fght and risk losing his kingdom. Aschil then “came to accord with Arthur: He swore him fealty, became his man; he kept his kingdom under Arthur.”50 According to Geofrey’s work, King Aschillus of Denmark died at a battle near the river Camblan, the same battle in which Mordred died and Arthur was mortally wounded. 51 Aschil died with his lord, supporting Arthur until the end. Tus, any cruelties on Edulf’s part are not the fault of Arthur, as he performed his duty and acted appropriately toward Aschil and the Danes and was no longer in power by the time Edulf took the Danish throne. Gaimar portrays Arthur as a powerful king whose control is unrivaled until the time of the Anglo-Saxon King Edgar in 959, who was “a devoted supporter of Holy Church, and knew how to tell the diference between right and wrong. Because he was noble-minded and high-born, he took pains

49 Gaimar, 2-5. Short’s translation replaces the names of characters with variations from later sources in the tradition. For example, Gaimar’s Modret becomes Mordred and Arthur’s sword Caliburn becomes Excalibur. The names Gaimar uses are closer to those used by Geoffrey of Monmouth, while Short uses the more familiar versions. 50 Wace, 265-266. 51 Geoffrey of Monmouth, History, 248-253. 189 The UNC-Chapel Hill Journal of History

Decorated initials at the beginning of Book 2 of William of Malmesbury’s Gesta Regum Anglorum: the prologue and first chapter,. (Photo by Xxxx Xxxx.)1

to do good, and he established good customs.”52 Te reference to Arthur, which precedes this high praise of Edgar, presents the historic king as a standard for comparison. No king had yet matched Arthur’s prowess and reputation, and the next one who came closest was a man of great faith and an admirable character, who lived 500 years afer the end of Arthur’s rule. Gaimar presents Arthur as a king who held great power, who inspired loyalty and faith in his followers, and whose accomplishments set a precedent and goal to which only the worthiest kings can aspire. Troughout the twelfh century, stories and legends of King Arthur appeared continuously in the writings of vernacular writers of history and romance. He was the Briton considered the most interesting and important from all those within Geofrey’s History. In Geofrey’s work Britain reaches its greatest expanse and height during King Arthur’s reign. Arthur has sparked the imagination for years, yet no one can say for certain whether

52 Gaimar, 194-195, says “Not since the disappearance of Arthur had a single king been so powerful.” 190 Kelsey Blake the man existed.53 Fictional or not, Arthur crops up in various works in the twelfh century, in various roles, and may have derived from Geofrey’s oral .54 However, the Arthur presented in these twelfh- century texts was not only the great conqueror from the History of the Kings of Britain. Although his Celtic origin was recognized and his place in history was acknowledged, the Arthur of the twelfh century was very much a contemporary fgure who embodied the expectations and ideals of the time. A.B. Taylor attributes this to the fact that writings of this nature were not meant purely as historical works, though they were accepted as such. Teir purpose was to entertain, to enrapture the audience with tales “of strange events in far of lands and distant times,” while maintaining a resemblance to the world with which readers were familiar. Tus, these works were faced with certain expectations, as “the character of literature designed for entertainment is determined by its patrons.”55 If the work did not meet with the approval of the patron, that patronage would be lost. Tis meant that the Britons could not be portrayed as a barbarous and wicked people, but had to behave in ways familiar to the intended audience and patrons. In order to meet the expectations of the patrons, the focus of Arthur’s reign was not his conquest, but his court, establishing a literary world in which the society of the Britons refected the same respectability and manners as the world in which the patrons lived. Wace therefore describes Arthur’s court as a center of and courtly manners:

For twelve years afer this return King Arthur governed peacefully… Alone, without another’s urging, He started such great learning up And spoke with such nobility So beautifully and courteously

53 For discussion on the story behind the Arthur legend, see N.J. Higham, King Arthur: Myth-making and History (New York: Routledge, 2002), 38-95; Frank D. Reno, The Historic King Arthur: Authenticating the Celtic Hero of Post- (Jefferson, North Carolina: MacFarland and Company, 1996). 54 For more on Welsh legends of Arthur, see O.J. Pade, Arthur in Medieval Welsh Literature (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2000). 55 A.B. Taylor, An Introduction to Medieval Romance (New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1969), 57-59. 191 The UNC-Chapel Hill Journal of History

that no one’s court had speech like this— not even the Roman Emperor’s! He heard no talk of any Who did some deed worthy of praise Who would not be one of his men, If he had means to make him be.

Wace continues to describe a court in which knights and nobles come from all over to “seek honor and for fame/ As well as to hear the courtesies.”56 He portrays Arthur as a man “of great valor and glory” and a king “above all other princes/ In courtesy and nobleness,/ In strength and generosity.”57 However, while Wace relates the tales of Arthur, he does not necessarily trust their accuracy. Certain tales seem to him so outlandish that they had to have been embellished by the imagination:

…adventures were turned up Tat so ofen told of Arthur In stories that have been dressed up— Not all lies and not all truth Not all folly, not all wisdom. Te storytellers tell so much And the yarnspinners spin so much Embellishing their story lines Tat all they tell does not sound true.58

Indeed, Wace appears to treat some Arthurian lore with great skepticism. While he includes the legend of Arthur’s survival on , he does not translate ’s prophecies, saying of them:

Ten Merlin said the prophecies Which I believe you’re heard before, About the kings who were to come, Who rightfully possessed the land. I don’t want to translate this book

56 Wace, 261-263. 57 Ibid., 243-244. 58 Ibid., 263. 192 Kelsey Blake

Since I cannot interpret it; I do not wish to say a thing If it were not as I would say it.59

Tis passage occurs in Geofrey’s History where Merlin tells king of two , one red, one white, which will fght to represent the fate of Britain.60 Wace’s reluctance to include Merlin’s prophecies indicates that while he expected the tales of Arthur’s conquests and courtliness to be pleasing to his audience, certain Celtic elements of the legend would not. Another depiction of Arthur’s court appeared toward the end of the twelfh century in the Arthurian Romances of Chretien de Troyes, which received the patronage of Marie de Champagne, the daughter of Eleanor of Aquitaine from a previous marriage to King Louis VII of France.61 Marie commissioned works and romances from Chretien de Troyes that depicted Arthur and his knights, in particular requesting the romance Knight of the Cart, which depicts the afair of and , and even providing the author with the interpretation that she wanted to see.62 Chretien’s work as a whole may have been inspired in part by the writings of Wace, which provided the model for a king whose court epitomized chivalry and courtesy.63 Notably, Chretien’s Arthurian Romances focus not on the king himself, but his court and the knights who swear their fealty to him.64 Te romances detail the deeds of Arthur’s knights, such as , Lancelot, and Yvain, who are drawn to the king because of his courtly reputation. In the romance Cliges, Alexander, the son of a Greek emperor, had “heard mention of King Arthur, who reigned in those days, and of the barons who always accompanied him, making his court feared and renowned throughout the world.” He continued, “Whatever might come of it, whatever might happen to him, nothing in the world could prevent his wanting to travel to Britain.” Alexander then goes before his father and announces his plan, declaring,

59 Ibid., 203. 60 Geoffrey of Monmouth, History, 140-145. 61 Huscroft, 152-153. 62 N.J. Higham, King Arthur: Myth-making and History (New York: Routledge, 2002), 221. 63 Duggan, 222, 31-32. 64 Karl D. Uitti and Michelle A. Freeman, Chretien de Troyes Revisited (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1995), 11, 31-33. 193 The UNC-Chapel Hill Journal of History

“I’ll never arm my face or put a helmet over my head as long as I live unless King Arthur girds the sword upon me, if he will deign to do so, for I do not wish to be knighted by anyone else.”65 Arthur’s court is portrayed in Chretien’s work as a place of order and respectability where only the best knights may claim a seat.66 However, Arthur is not always portrayed in the best light, appearing at times old and rather feeble while fnding himself unable to protect Queen Guinevere from kidnappers or defend himself from rude knights.67 Yet the magnifcence of the court and its reputation remain undiminished. Even as he is shamed, Arthur is acknowledged as “the king who makes knights,” and his court is considered the

Decorated initial ‘R’(es) at place where those seeking knighthood should the beginning of William go.68 Tough his court is not without faws, it of Malmesbury’s Gesta regum Anglorum (Photo still refects the ideals of the twelfh century courtesy of Xxxx Xxxxx.) as a center for chivalric behavior.69 Chretien’s Arthur is portrayed as a historical fgure whose reign had fallen into chaos as he found himself unable to resist the rebellion of his nephew Modred. Te chivalry and nobility of Britain then sufered a decline as the Britons lost their land entirely.70 Chretien’s depiction of Arthur does not deny that he was a great king, but it presents the end of his reign, incorporating the historical notion

65 Chretien de Troyes, Arthurian Romances, trans. William W. Kibler (New York: Penguin Books, 2004), 124. 66 Donald Maddox, The Arthurian Romances of Chretien de Troyes (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 8-9. 67 Uitti and Freeman, 31. In the Knight of the Cart, the villain Meleagant enters Arthur’s court and issues a challenge: Arthur must entrust his Queen to one of his knights. If the knight can protect her, then prisoners whom Meleagant has taken from Arthur’s lands will be freed. Kay takes on the challenge, and loses Guinevere to Meleagant until she can be rescued by Lancelot. Chretien, 207-210, 269-271. 68 Chretien de Troyes, 387. 69 Over, 97-101. 70 See Wace, 396-397, for the details that Chretien may have read in reference to this decline. 194 Kelsey Blake of the British decline into the king of his Romances.

Te Legendary Britons and the Contemporary Welsh Stories and romances based upon Geofrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain and other Arthurian legends brought the tales of the sixth- century king into the setting of the twelfh-century court.71 Te Britons, Arthur’s kin, were no longer visible except in the legend that they had survived to become the ancestors of the Welsh. How did twelfh-century writers reconcile their ideas of Arthurian Britain with the contemporary Welsh? John Gillingham argues that the Celtic people were seen as barbarians by the twelfh-century aristocracy, as they did not behave within the social and cultural expectations dictated by chivalry.72 How, then, could these uncouth mountain people have sprung from the noble Britons of the fabulous tales that Wace and Chretien de Troyes presented? Wace writes of the creation of Wales in a manner similar to that in Geofrey’s History. According to Wace, afer the coming of the Anglo- Saxons, a great plague swept the land of Britain, driving the surviving Britons to the hills, where they struggled to survive and maintain their culture. In the end they lost Britain to the English “until the time of prophecy/ Tat Merlin said would come to pass.”73 Te Britons then moved into the western portions of the island, where they lived under the leadership of Yvor and Yni, to whom Cadwalader passed control: “To Wales’ he said, ‘you will now go/And you will be the lords of the Britons/So that through lack of noble lords/Te Britons do not become dishonored.” Yvor and Yni do as asked, and under their leadership the “remnants of the British people” come to be known as the Welsh, who are said to lack “the honor, customs, nobleness/ And life of those who’d lived before.”74 Tus the work that gained Wace the patronage of Henry II ended with the origins of the Welsh, presenting them

71 Geoffrey of Monmouth places Arthur’s death in the year 542, A.D: Geoffrey of Monmouth, History, 252. 72 Gillingham, The English in the Twelfth Century, 9-10, 42-44, 101-109. 73 Wace, 393-395; Wace lists a series of linguistic changes that occurred in the transition of power between Saxon and British rule, but states, “Among the Welsh there still endures/ The language coming straight from the British.” As to Merlin’s prophecy about the return of British power, Geoffrey of Monmouth writes a very similar passage, 278-279. 74 Wace, 396-397. Wace gives the etymology of the word Wales as deriving from Duke Gualon or Queen Galaes, the same given in Geoffrey of Monmouth. 195 The UNC-Chapel Hill Journal of History

as a people who had come from noble origins but who lost those qualities with their land. His comparison of the with Anglo-Saxon and French depicts the Welsh as belonging to their own unique group, society, and culture. Teir language still remains, in Wace’s estimation, as evidence of the people they once were. Te Welsh also appear in courtly romances that are not directly descended from Geofrey of Monmouth. Te last of Chretien’s works, Le conte du Graal, tells of Perceval’s quest to become a knight and to discover the meaning of the Grail. Tis work is signifcant because the hero, Perceval, is a Welshman. Early in the tale, Perceval appears as an ignorant youth who doesn’t know the names for a shield, a lance, or even a knight, whom he mistakes for an angel of God. However, Perceval gradually becomes a great knight and accomplishes tremendous deeds. Tis is not the tale of a young man overcoming the limitations of his lineage, but the story of a man proving the prejudices against him unfounded.75 Te idea that people of Welsh descent are inferior is a recurring theme throughout the work. A knight whom Perceval calls an angel tells him that “all Welshmen are by nature more stupid than beasts in the feld.”76 But it is almost immediately revealed that Perceval’s ignorance is not born of inherent stupidity, but a sheltered existence. Because his father and brothers, all knights, had been killed in battle, Perceval’s mother kept his lineage a secret and hid him away so that he would never become a knight himself. His mother tells him, “You were destined for knighthood, fair son … there was no worthier knight, no knight more feared or respected than your father in all the Isles of the Sea. You can confdently boast that neither his lineage nor mine is any disgrace to you.”77 Chretien’s Perceval is destined for greatness—all he lacks are the knowledge and experience to make him great. Chretien calls him “untutored,” not ill-bred or unintelligent. King Arthur observes that “had someone instructed the boy and taught him enough of weaponry

75 Duggan calls Perceval a “Quest for Kin,” as many of the characters whom Perceval meets throughout his journeys are his mother’s relatives, and Perceval learns much of his family and identity. He also presents an intriguing theory that Perceval’s birth was the result of an incestuous union between close relations, based upon the rather fragmented family tree described within the work. Duggan, 77-78, 80-84. 76 Chretien de Troyes, 384. 77 Ibid., 386. 196 Kelsey Blake that he could use his shield and lance a little, no doubt he would have made a fne knight.” Perceval receives instructions and lessons from Gornemant, a worthy gentleman, who says of Perceval’s ignorance, “Every profession requires efort and devotion and practice: with these three one can learn everything. And since you’ve never used weapons nor seen anyone else use them, there’s no shame or blame if you don’t know how to use them.” Arthur and Gornemant share the opinion that proper knightly conduct is not inherent, but learned. Trough Gornemant’s tutelage, Perceval begins to use his weapons and ride “as if throughout his life he had frequented the tournaments and wars, and wandered through every land seeking battle and adventure.” Once he received a proper education, he became a worthy foe for any courtly opponent. 78 But what does this say of Chretien’s attitude Detail of a miniature of King towards the Welsh? Te knight who claims that Arthur dictating to a scribe. all Welshmen are dumber than animals is never (Photo courtesy of Xxxx Xxxxx.) named, nor is he heard from again, while the characters who are important to the work, such as Arthur, Gornemant, and another knight named Gawain, treat Perceval with respect. Tose who doubt his abilities are humiliated and defeated, and Perceval is said to have the potential to become a truly great knight. As one handmaiden says to him, “In this whole world there will never be, nor will anyone ever acknowledge, a better knight than yourself.” It is said that he will become “the supreme lord among all knights.”79 Chretien makes sure that his audience knows that Perceval is Welsh before these words are spoken and that his potential is clearly not

78 Ibid., 397-399. Duggan argues that what Perceval lacks is the concept of shame. Because he does not know the ideals of knighthood, he cannot embody them, hence he is “lacking in experience and naive, and … becomes worthy only through training and adjustment to the values and expectations of his society.”: Duggan, 119-121. 79 Chretien de Troyes, 394. 197 The UNC-Chapel Hill Journal of History

inhibited by his ancestry. Tat a Welshman has the capacity to become the greatest knight who ever lived is certainly a diferent sentiment than that expressed by Bede and William of Newburgh. Once Perceval dons his armor, no one can identify him as Welsh.80 Tis reality is recognized by the characters, particularly Perceval’s mother, who attempts to dress him such that he does not “appear so markedly Welsh.”81 Evidence of Welsh heritage can be removed as easily as changing one’s clothes. In Chretien’s work, the character faws a Welsh heritage instills are purely imagined, it seems. Once he appears as a knight, Perceval is just as good as any other knight. Chretien was not the only writer to present a Welsh hero in a positive light. In the Lais of the mysterious late twelfh-century writer Marie de France, another knight of Welsh heritage fnds renown. In the story of Milun, the titular character is a Welshman described as a worthy knight. “From the day he was dubbed a knight he did not encounter a single knight who could unhorse him,” Marie writes. “He was an exceedingly fne knight, noble and bold, courtly and ferce.”82 When Milun and the girl he loves conceive an illegitimate child, the infant is hidden away with an aunt and, much like Perceval, not told of his heritage until he is an adult. Te young man is told of his father, “Tere was no one in the entire land of greater fame or valor.”83 As the man has been raised in England, the “land” referred to is not merely Wales. Te son becomes a knight himself, and “because of his prowess, excellence, and generosity … those who did not know his name everywhere called him Te Peerless One.”84 Indeed, the young man gains such renown that Milun comes to challenge him, not knowing that the knight of such fame is his own son. In the end, the only man who can unhorse Milun is his son, a Welshman by heritage. Te son is not portrayed as a better man than his father because he was not raised in Wales, but if he bore some internal faw as a result of his ancestry, the story would have refected this. Marie was an educated woman, and thus would have been of noble birth. She was connected to the courts, and her

80 Ibid., 404, 408, 410, 429, 433, 434-436. 81 Ibid., 388. 82 Marie de France, The Lais of Marie de France, trans. Glyn S. Burgess and Keith Busby (New York: Penguin Books, 2003), 97. 83 Ibid., 101. 84 Ibid. 198 Kelsey Blake stories were written to refect stories she heard and the conventions she was familiar with.85 Te tale of Milun allows Milun and his son to become great warriors and worthy knights. In Marie’s Lais, the fact that the characters are Welshmen has no bearing on their capacity to achieve. Walter Map also deserves mention for his depiction of the Welsh. Like Wace, Map received the patronage of Henry II, though he difered from Wace in signifcant ways. Map was Welsh, and unlike the authors discussed above Map wrote his De Nugis Curialium, or Courtier’s Trifes, in Latin, sometime during the 1180s or 1190s. His work is not a romance or history and does not cover the reigns of kings or the rise and fall of empires. Instead, the book consists of a series of tales full of miracles, fantastic stories, moral fables, and humorous anecdotes. Map served Henry II’s court as a clerk and eventually rose in esteem and position to serve as a representative at the Tird Lateran Council in 1179, and later he was named archdeacon of Oxford. Compared with his other accomplishments, Map’s writing was almost insignifcant. It was not seen as noteworthy during his lifetime and was not widely circulated, but it merits study due to its author’s ancestral heritage. Much like Geofrey of Monmouth, Map came from the Welsh marches, but nevertheless became a person of great importance in the Anglo-Norman world. In addition, many of his stories seem to derive from the Welsh oral tradition.86 Map’s stories do not portray the Welsh in an entirely positive light, however.87 He says that the Welsh are given to the “disuse of civility, that if in one respect they may appear kindly in most they show themselves

85 Martin Aurell suggests that Marie de France may have been the daughter of Waleran de Meulan, a wealthy aristocrat connected with the court of Henry II, who may be the king to whom Marie dedicates her Lais. Furthermore, he states that her work was greatly influenced by Wace’s Le Roman de Brut: Aurell, 375-376. Ad Putter argues that Marie’s Lais were based on Breton songs, none of which have survived: Ad Putter, “The twelfth- century Arthur,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Arthurian Legend, ed. Elizabeth Archibald and Ad Putter (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 36-37. 86 Tony Davenport, “Sex, Ghosts, and Dreams: Walter Map (1135?-1210?) and (1146-1223),” in Writers of the Reign of Henry II, ed. Ruth Kennedy and Simon Meecham-Jones (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 133-136. M.R. James, “Master Walter Map,” in De Nugis Curialium (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), xii-xix. 87 William of Newburgh wrote in the prologue to his History of English Affairs of the British writer Gildas’s comments on the Britons, “It is no slight proof of integrity that he does not spare his own nation in revealing the truth; though quite sparing of compliments to his fellow-Britons, he condemns many evil traits in them.”: William of Newburgh, 29. If a writer could only be considered trustworthy if he acknowledged the negative qualities of his own people, it is possible that Map intended to do the same. 199 The UNC-Chapel Hill Journal of History

ill-tempered and savages.”88 However uncivilized they might be, he still portrays them in a way that is somewhat admirable, noting that “they so punctually observe respect for generosity and hospitality that before the third day no one will ask a guest whom he has taken in who or whence he is, lest he should be put to shame or seem to be suspected by his entertainer of taking forcible liberties.”89 In Map’s telling, the Welsh are a varied group. Although he makes general statements about their character, he also presents fgures who challenge the stereotypes. In one tale, a young Welshman says of his king and his own people, Miniature of Authur on the Wheel of Fortune above an “Brychan our king so excels in his own valour illuminated initial. (Photo and that of his men that neither you nor any courtesy of Xxxx Xxxxx.) other king could take away spoil from him by force on any day when at the dawn the tops of the mountains are clear and cloudless and the rivers in the valleys are covered with mist.” Still, King Brychan is presented as possessing a quick temper, so much so that his men fear bringing him unfavorable news, such as the fact that an enemy army approaches his kingdom. Tis temper causes him no harm, however, as he understands the danger in time to defeat the invaders. Furthermore, much like the leadership portrayed by Geofrey of Monmouth, Brychan’s army is unsuccessful until the king himself joins them in the fray. Te king’s strength and courage lend his troops the inspiration to defeat their foes. King Brychan displays the warring and somewhat barbaric nature ofen attributed to the Welsh, but he proves to be a capable leader and an admirable opponent.90 In another tale Map portrays the former Welsh king Grufud ap Llywelyn—who ruled Wales from 1055 to 1064 and met his death at the hands

88 Walter Map, De Nugis Curialium, trans. and ed. M.R. James, rev. C.N.L. Brooke and R.A.B. Mynors (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983, 147. 89 Ibid., 183; see also 184-185. 90 Ibid., 149-155. 200 Kelsey Blake of Harold before the Norman invasion—as harsh and immature.91 Grufud ap Llywelyn calls for vengeance against a young man who he dreams had an afair with the queen. When the innocent young man is charged with the crime, however, a man well-versed in the law of the land comes up with an ingenious solution. Te penalty for the real crime would have been a payment of “1000 kine.” As the afair only happened in a dream, the payment is ofered to the king on the side of a lake. It is the refection of the money that the king then owns, because “a dream is the refection of the truth.”92 Despite the fact that the king clearly favors imprisonment or death for the young man, his court approves of this alternative decision, and the king is forced to follow their advice. As a boy, the future king Grufud ap Llywelyn is chastised by his sister for behaving “to the great shame of the king and of this realm that you are become a scorn and a byword to everyone.”93 His nephew, on the other hand, is described as “a boy of good abilities, tall and handsome, who attained great successes and showed many signs of strength and worth.”94 Two Welshmen of the same bloodline therefore are portrayed quite diferently. Te king’s behavior is seen as shameful, even to the Welsh, indicating that he acts outside of what is expected in the Welsh court, while his nephew is described only in a positive manner. In contrast with the king, the Welsh people are portrayed in these passages as wise, noble, and worthy of admiration. Tere is no one model for a Welshman in Map’s work, despite his overarching claims. Map’s work played a particularly interesting role in Anglo-Norman society. De Nugis Curialium was intended to be read aloud to the court, and to an elite audience. Map’s patron was Henry II, and it appears that Map, unlike Wace, was kept on for a while. Te tales in his De Nugis were meant to entertain an audience of courtiers and aristocrats through “retellings of Celtic ghost-and -stories.”95 Te contents of these tales therefore could not be displeasing to the court. Henry’s treatment of Wace indicates that he had no qualms about dismissing authors who did not do as he wished, but Map’s stories, including his portrayal of the Welsh, were acceptable to

91 Roger Turvey, The Welsh Princes (New York: Pearson Education, 2002) 39, 49-50. 92 Map, 187-189. 93 Ibid., 189. 94 Ibid., 191. 95 Siân Echard, Arthurian Narrative in the Latin Tradition (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 18-21. 201 The UNC-Chapel Hill Journal of History

Henry and other members of the court. Further evidence of Map’s role as a teller of exciting Celtic tales comes from a source with which he was unconnected. In the thirteenth century, long afer Henry II’s rule had come to an end, Arthurian legends were once again written in what is known as the Vulgate Cycle. Two of these works, the Queste del Saint Graal and La Mort le Roi Artu, are attributed to Walter Map. Te close to the Queste reads, “When had related to them the adventures of the as witnessed by himself, they were written down and the record kept in the library at Salisbury, whence Master Walter Map extracted them in order to make his book of the Holy Grail for love of his lord King Henry, who had the story translated from Latin into French.” Te claim to authorship continues in the Mort Artu: “Afer Master Walter Map had put down in writing as much as he thought sufcient about the Adventures of the Holy Grail, his lord King Henry II felt that what he had done would not be satisfactory unless he told about the rest of the lives of those he had previously mentioned, and the deaths of those whose prowess he had related in his book.”96 Te fact that these writings are attributed to Map and not the actual authors indicates that other writers of the time must have viewed him as a trusted and respected authority on Celtic literature.

Conclusion As the chronicle of Geofrey of Monmouth gained reputation throughout the Anglo-Norman courts, the tales his work contained were translated into the French vernacular by several other authors, who, taking their cue from Geofrey, presented the Britons in a positive light. Te decline of the Briton kingdom was not presented as the result of their inherent evil nature, but as an event that could befall any nation. Many of these works were completed at the request of patrons like Gefrei Gaimar’s Constance, or Chretien de Troyes’ Marie de Champagne. Tese patrons were familiar with tales of the Britons and their most famous king, Arthur, and they deliberately requested similar stories from their writers. Tese stories, written to entertain an

96 Queste del Saint Graal, trans. P.M. Matarasso (New York: Penguin Books, 1986), 284; La Mort le Roi Artu, trans. James Cable (New York: Penguin Books, 1971), 23. Both romances were written after at least 1230; Walter Map died around 1210, and so could not have been the author: James Cable, “Introduction,” La Mort le Roi Artu, (New York: Penguin Books, 1971), 9-10. 202 Kelsey Blake aristocratic audience, set the tales in a society that refected the customs and expectations of the twelfh-century court, transforming Arthur into a courtly and chivalrous king. However, this reimagining of the Britons brought them into sharp contrast with the Welsh, who the legends said were their descendants. As the romances attempted to reconcile the chivalrous Briton with the barbaric Welshman, the Welsh were represented as fawed due to culture rather than kinship. Tey were not useless or weak, and they were not sufering God’s disfavor. Tough they were portrayed as less civilized than the Anglo-Norman aristocracy, it was in a way that cast them as unsophisticated, not a reviled enemy. Not all Welshmen were subject to the common failings, however. Milun and his son both become worthy knights, and Perceval had the potential to become great. Numerous Welsh fgures in Map’s work are also portrayed as wise and honorable. Tus, the authors of twelfh-century vernacular romance and courtly literature reft the tales of Geofrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain to the needs of their own society and the tastes of their patrons, creating depictions that were entirely new and carried over to the depictions of the Welsh.

203