click here
|
Appendix 2: The Lost
legend of Gwyrangcon
Fabio P.
Barbieri
|
At the end of his
historical account, Nennius appended a list of
twenty-eight ciuitates of the island of
Britain. There have been attempts to
explain Nennius' list in terms of Roman
antiquities; the claim has even been made that
they are "all" Roman cantonal capitals.
How that conclusion is reached when more than
half a dozen of them are dubious or indubitably
legendary - Cair Guorthigirn, Cair Mincip, Cair
Colun, Cair Cuosteint, Cair Maunguid, Cair
Leirion, Cair Guirangcon - puzzles me; and in the
case of Cair Guorthigirn (Caer Gwrtheyrn, the
legendary capital of Gwynessi), if the place was
not legendary, it was an Iron Age earthwork with
no pretension to Roman status. It is my
view that Nennius, a keen reader of Gildas, found
mention of twenty-eight ciuitates, some of
them ruined, in his source. He, who clearly
had no idea of what a proper town was like,
rummaged through all his storehouse of
geographical knowledge and Welsh lore until he
had found the names of twenty-eight towns and
royal fortresses. A good few of them have
names of known legendary heroes or villains,
Vortigern, Caradoc, Constantine, Gwyrangcon;
which, in my view, argues in favour of their
legendary character - though Cair Caradoc may be Caradoc,
Herefordshire.
The case of Gwyrangcon is
in point. Gwyrangcon, we remember, was the
supposed king of Kent from whom Vortigern,
according to Nennius, took the kingdom to give it
to Hengist. The list has two cities - Caer
Ceint, "the royal fortress of
Kent", obviously Canterbury; and Caer
Gwyrangcon, the royal fortress of Gwyrangcon,
which a puzzled John Morris (for once,
thankfully, not jumping to conclusions) could
only suggest was another name for Canterbury.
To make sense of the extremely
scanty data about this personage we have to
remember that we are seeing him through Nennian
eyes, and specifically through Nennius' effort to
edit the certainly not Welsh legend of Hengist
and Horsa into O. We remember that there
was an excellent reason - quite apart from the
Kentish origin of the whole legend - for the
story of England's supposed founder to be located
in Kent: namely, the structural parallels with
the mission of Augustine. If, therefore, we
hold the legend of Gwyrangcon to be Welsh in
origin, we have no original reason at all to
believe him to have been connected with Kent
before Nennius. Caer Gwyrangcon, which is
no part of Nennius' narrative, is peculiarly
connected with Gwyrancgcon himself, while Caer
Ceint is simply "the fortress of Kent"
- in other words, Canterbury (Cant-wara-byrig,
[at] the fortress of the men of Kent).
The fact that Nennius' Caer Ceint
is in effect a translation of the English name of
Canterbury means that his account reflects a
condition of learning in which the ancient
British name of the capital of the Cantii had
been forgotten or never known, and where it was
known by a version of the English name; but there
is reason to suspect that the name of Durouernum
survived, in some circles, until fairly late.
Geoffrey uncomprehendingly locates the war
council of Cassivellaunus - with his nephews
Arviragus and Tenvantius and his otherwise
unexplained army commander Belinus, at Dorobellum,
though he more correctly locates the great battle
between Britons and Romans at Durovernia. Belinus
vanishes from the scene after his one appearance
at Dorobellum - and so does Dorobellum
itself. Now these two names turn up in
Nennius, to the exclusion of both Cassivellaunus
and Durovernum: Belinus is the king of Britain,
and Dorobellum his army commander.
This suggests that Geoffrey had
two sources: one in which Belinus was Caesar's
enemy, one in which Cassivellaunus was; one in
which the confrontation was at Dorobellum,
one at Durovernum. The fact that the
name of Dorobellum is found in close
proximity to that of Belinus suggests that
the Belinus source was the one which located the
action at Dorobellum; and there is a slightly
more complicated correspondence with Nennius.
To him, Dorobellus is not a place but a person;
but he is closely associated with Belinus as the
enemy of Caesar, and we notice that while he is
said to be Belinus' army commander, that is what
Belinus himself becomes in Geoffrey, while
Dorobellum becomes a place. The likelihood
however is that the Nennian Dorobellus
gained his identity by way of being the lord of a
fortress of that name; being a Celtic lord, we
must expect him to have a territory of his own,
and the correspondence between a personal name
and a place is best explained by connecting the
person to the place (especially when we are
dealing with legend). In other words, the
clash between Belinus and Caesar's Romans was
connected with the lord of a place called Dorobellum
- obviously, Durovernum.
Interestingly, in the Nennian
version the geographical connection is forgotten,
and all the three legendary battles take place
"at the mouth of the Thames", that is
at or near London. (Even in Nennius, the
description of Caesar's landings do have a strong
component of historical and classical features,
though the overall structure is wholly legendary
- three successive invasions over a period of
three years.) In the indubitably later
Cassivellaunus version, which Geoffrey
understandably favours, the identity and location
of Durovernia are quite clear; the fact
that it seems to have faded from sight in
Nennius, but come back with great clarity in
Geoffrey (who, as we know from his ditherings and
mistakes in the matter of the cloister of
Ambrius/dinas Emrys/Amesbury, was not
always so clear on the geography of his sources)
suggests that geographical traditions had
survived in manuscripts unknown to the earlier
compiler.
It is clear that the accounts of
both Nennius and Geoffrey are at the end of a
long evolution in which several versions, each
preserving or misunderstanding separate items of
information, must have co-existed in various
parts of the British/Welsh world; in which it was
possible for Nennius to receive a version in
which the geographical nature of Dorobellum
was ignored or forgotten, and its lord retained
the name while the action shifted to London;
while Geoffrey could receive not one, but two
versions in both of which Dorobellum and Durobernia
were undeniably place-names in Kent. What
is significant is that the legend was, from the
beginning - and that means long before Nennius -
set in Kent; which may suggest a traditional view
of Kent as the gateway for invasions into
Britain.
Somewhere in Britain, the identity
of the English Cantwarabyrig with Dorobellum
or Durovernum was remembered; but it was
not known to Nennius, who knows Dorobellum
only as a person. That, is the state of
knowledge or ignorance in which the capital of
Kent could be understood as Caer Ceint
seems typical of Nennius himself; and this seems
to agree with what we have seen of his invention
of Episford.
What Nennius says about Kent
springs from merely contemporary knowledge, with
no earlier survival whatever; and it follows that
there is no reason to trust his placing of Caer
Gwyrangcon after Caer Ceint - suggesting
geographical closeness - let alone his
description of Gwyrangcon as a king of Kent.
All that we know of Gwyrangcon, in effect, is
that he was the first British lord to be
dispossessed by the Saxons, and that Nennius
tells us that it happened at Vortigern's bidding.
As I have pointed out that the legend of
Vortigern is a sort of reversal of the legends of
Roman conquest, reversing each of the points of
contact between a masculine Rome and a feminine
Britain, the expulsion of Gwyrangcon in favour of
the folk of Ronweins tribe does seem to
parallel the expulsion of Beli by the Romans, to
be replaced, in Maxen, by Eudav and his
house, and in the parallel Gildasian account, by
an introduced Roman nobility of rectores.
The likelihood is that what we
have here is a fossile of an alternative, lost
tradition of the arrival of the Saxons, inserted
by Nennius at the time and place - Kent - where
Kentish tradition, hallowed by the cathedral
scriptorium at Canterbury, placed English
national beginnings, and where earlier British
traditions placed, not the Saxon, but the Roman
invasion. Where Caer Gwyrangcon might have
been before Nennius relocated its namesake king
to Kent, I have no way of knowing, unless some
Nennian manuscript somewhere has one of those
useful glosses by which long-dead and nameless
monks added what they knew, or thought they knew,
to the lore of their elders.
Note
History
of Britain, 407-597 is copyright © 2002, Fabio
P. Barbieri. Used with permission.
Comments
to: Fabio P.
Barbieri
|