click here
|
Chapter 1.5: The five
tyrants: Maglocunus and the north
Fabio P.
Barbieri
|
|
Maglocunus deserves a section
apart, not only because he is by far the most
outstanding of the five tyrants, but also because
he is the only one who has demonstrably left a
mark on later history. And while I have been able
to discuss Constantine, Aurelius, Cuneglasus and
Vortiporius purely from Gildas' own text, the
problems connected with Maglocunus will need a
more wide-ranging treatment.
Maglocunus was, without a doubt, a
man of uncommon gifts. Physically, he was
gigantic, and Gildas dwelled on his size and
strength. But he was also mentally unusual.
Gildas mentions his education with the magister
elegans and throws more Biblical texts at him
than to all the other tyrants put together;
clearly he expects him to know his way around the
Good Book. With all his faults, he had
flashes of sensitive conscience, and once had
seriously taken monastic vows; but he was also
eager, passionate - Gildas compares him to a
hot-headed young colt - and imperious, with a
temper to want everything and get what he wanted.
It may not have been only for the reward that so
many bards flocked to sing his praises, although
rewards were certainly abundant; Gildas mentions
his open-handedness; but his was the sort of
personality to which the likes of the historical
Taliesin would respond, big in word and deed,
magnanimous yet violent, brave and to some extent
even romantic. He was a man, I think, to catch
fire at heroic poetry and tales of great heroes
of old; no doubt it was the impression of great
men and great deeds that lured him out of his
vows, just as the beauty of the monastic ideal of
self-sanctification had drawn him in.
According to Gildas, Maglocunus
was the mightiest of all the five. He had driven
many of them from their thrones and killed some
similar tyrants - not out of any passion for
justice, but because he was even worse than the
rest. Despite the benefit of teaching by the
magister elegans, he was barely adult when
he rebelled against his uncle, who was king
before him, and killed him ense, hasta, igni,
with sword and spear and fire. The fact that it
was his uncle suggests a disputed succession,
perhaps from Maglocunus' father, or perhaps - as
we will see - from the mother's side. Mention of
fire implies either a siege ending in a fire, or
a trap and a burning house; at any rate, a
revoltingly cruel end to a feud - Gildas is quite
properly outraged - and doubly horrible because
it was between family members. As if that wasn't
enough, Gildas says, Maglocunus destroyed his
uncle's royal guard, who were among the country's
best soldiers; and Gildas implies that their
destruction had been followed by one or more
episodes of plunder remarkable even by the age's
standards[1] - Maglocunus, in fact,
had run amuck.
Having stepped to the throne over
his kinsman's body and the plundered and bloodied
lands of his kingdom, he seems to have repented.
After long thought on the beauty of the monastic
ideal, he publicly took vows - to Gildas' great
joy. But it did not last: still young, he threw
off the habit, married, and resumed conquest and
slaughter. Gildas' Latin speaks of the devil
entering the sheepfold like a wolf, to carry off
God's new-made sheep to be a wolf like itself;
which reminds me strongly of his threats against
Aurelius Caninus, where mention of the King of
Heaven seemed to conceal, or rather to imply, an
earthly sovereign. In the same way, I think that
the Devil who reached into the holy sheepfold and
subverted the young royal monk had two legs, two
arms, and a human voice. I believe a real person,
perhaps named after a wolf, who wanted the tall
young monarch to "become a wolf like
himself", going back to the life of a raider[2], was given far too free
a run in Maglocunus' monastic establishment.
It was not a matter of a kingdom
left without a king. Even if Maglocunus and his
subjects considered his murderously conquered
rule legitimate, there was no contradiction
between being a king and taking monastic vows. We
know of at least one early Welsh prince,
St.Cadog, who lived as a monk while remaining the
full king of his country, and even the commander
of a body of professional soldiers. The point was
not therefore that Maglocunus had returned to his
royal status; he had never lost it. If worldly
advisers had free access to him, monastic
discipline can hardly have been so severe as not
to allow him to rule; in a modern monastery, the
very idea of a new-made monk being allowed
uncontrolled and unmonitored access to
non-religious friends would be absurd. What he
had done was to break the restraints that a
religious discipline, however gentle, would have
placed upon his freedom of action: he could not
have married, he could not have started
aggressive wars, he could not have indulged in
the more gross kinds of public cruelty and
violence. He did not regain his crown, for he had
never lost it: he regained the right to do as he
pleased, without the burden of conscience.
Since then he had become the insularis
draco, the dragon of the island. What island?
Britain, common sense tells us; as Gildas says,
he was the biggest, the fiercest, the most
armour-plated beast of prey in the land,
contained not by God, conscience, or enemy, but
only by the seas. Anglesey, insist later Welsh
tradition and some modern scholars, who say that
Maelgwn - to give him his Welsh name - was king
of Gwynedd, descended from a conqueror called
Cunedda Wledig who had come to Wales from Manaw
Gododdin (between Stirlingshire and Lothian) and
driven the Irish out "with immense
slaughter".
That word Gwynedd, attached
to Maelgwn's name in Welsh sources, has, in my
view, played merry Hell with the evidence. Let's
start from the Father Brown principle "I can
believe the impossible, but not the
improbable": the notion that a prince of
Gwynedd, Gwynedd mind you, might be a permanent
terror to the whole of Britain, is so unlikely as
to be off the scale. Insularis draco? The
bane of kings and kinglets by the dozen, killer
of many, banisher of more, greater - as Gildas
admits - than any other British war-leader? Even
granting him the most eminent military qualities:
where would he find the men? It is physically
impossible for large armies to be raised in such
a small and circumscribed area; or to be
victualled, armed, and safely trained without
fear of reprisal. Gwynedd, historically, has
always been a refuge, not a headquarters of
conquest.
I will state my views in two
sentences: it is certain that descendants of
Cunedda and Maelgwn did rule in North Wales from
the seventh century; but to assume that Maelgwn
did is to assume that Savoy is a suburb of Rome,
that Orange is somewhere near the Hague (or
Belfast), that Hohenzollern is a Prussian town
(perhaps sporting, now, the name of a Russian
general), and that Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is a pretty
English village with a square Norman bell tower
and cricket in the village green. Dynasties
migrate; the twentieth century saw a direct
descendant of the Byzantine Paleologoi emperors,
Prince Antonio de Curtis, become the great
Neapolitan comedian Totò.
Maelgwn's claim to have ruled
North Wales is inseparable from the claim that
his ancestor Cunedda (or, to give him his archaic
name, Cunedag) came there with his seven
sons from Manaw Gododdin, later followed by his
grandson Meiriaun, that he or his son Ceredig had
something to do with the expulsion of the Irish
from Wales, and that he shared the land out
between his heirs: a puzzling, unconvincing story
that received many even less convincing modern
explanations. Scholars have suggested that
Cunedda was allowed or even forced to move from
central Scotland to Gwyned by an order from the
Roman empire or from Vortigern, king of the
country after the end of Roman power (a
difference based on different reckonings of
Cunedda's date); but there is little to be said
for the one suggestion, and not much more for the
other. The Romans could sometimes draft a
turbulent tribe by force into the Roman army,
moving it as far as possible from its previous
haunts[3], but they would hardly
settle it in the same island and only a few days'
march, as Roman feet marched, from the area of
their previous depredations.
The Vortigern theory is marginally
more credible, since Vortigern was probably
unable to exile a turbulent tribe overseas, and
since an original link with Vortigern would not
have been anything to be proud of and might, in
theory, have been concealed; but in actual fact,
some Welsh dynasties claimed with pride such
otherwise reviled ancestors as Maxen and
Vortigern. As long as the ancestor was
sufficiently famous, it mattered little whether
he was a villain. It is probably from one such
dynasty that comes the singularly positive
account of Maxen in The dream of Maxen Gwledig,
while in the rest of Welsh tradition, down to and
including Geoffrey of Monmouth, Maxen is a
disastrous and despised figure. In other words,
there is no reason why Cunedda's descendants
should not have claimed to have been settled
where they were by Roman authorities, as the
Thuringians, according to Procopius[4], claimed to have been
settled in their homeland by Augustus the first
Emperor. The claim's historical value would
probably be the same in both cases, but my point
is that there was no shame in Welsh legend about
the name of Rome, nor any reason to hide or
forget original relationships of Cunedda with
Roman or even post-Roman authorities.
In fact, Cunedda's pedigree is in
existence and makes him the son and grandson of
lords of Roman name and presumably allegiance -
Aeternus, Paternus. But if we are to believe
the legend of Cunedda driving the Irish from
Wales, then we should also believe its
implications: that is that Cunedda and his eight
sons achieved it unaided for the benefit of
Wales, from whom they removed the Irish yoke
"with immense slaughter". Neither Rome
nor Vortigern had anything to do with it. One
eloquent chronological fiction makes the point
unmistakably: Nennius dates the arrival of
Cunedag to Wales to 388 - the year in which
Magnus Maximus fell. Nennius and Welsh annalistic
believed Maximus to have been the last Roman
emperor in Britain. As the brilliant historian
Molly Miller pointed out[5], this means that Cunedag
came to Wales to replace the failed Romans. In
other words, this date has to be a learned
invention - or what she calls
"systematic" - to claim for Cunedda
some sort of succession to "Maxen".
But there is more. Five different
versions of Cunedda's story exist, not one of
which agrees with the others; and Dr.Thomas
Charles-Edwards[6] has shown that the
variations in the four earliest are so
fundamental as to question whether a credible
single original ever existed. I would add that he
has not even taken into account Geoffrey of
Monmouth's, in which - apart from Geoffrey's
peculiar way with dates, which places Cunedagius
about a thousand years too soon - Meiriaun,
renamed Manganus[7], is not Cunedda's
descendant, but his estranged cousin, and they
are assigned a variant of the Contending Brothers
legend which we shall examine in more depth when
we get to Hengist. Manganus' revolts against
Cunedagius because of dissatisfaction with the
way the land had been shared and with family
relationships. Representing a quite alternative
version of events, but using the archaic spelling
Cunedag, this has some common ground with
the genealogy which mentions Meiriaun, in which
he is a late-comer, coming to claim his father's
share and therefore in something of a contentious
position with respect to family relationships and
the sharing of the land.
Without paying attention to this,
Dr.Charles-Edwards also identified problems of
succession and land-sharing as the core of his
four versions of the legend; but, although I
disagree with him on some points[8], his general conclusions
are eloquent. "There is no consistent
relationship between the location of a ninth- or
tenth-century kingdom and the location of the
land-taking activities of Cunedda and his sons.
To regard the story, in all its versions, as
essentially an origin legend justifying the
position of the Second Dynasty of Gwynedd [i.e.
the descendants of King Mervyn, patron of
Nennius] is to ignore the layout, geographical
and chronological, of the evidence... [which]
gives the impression of an old but muddled
tradition, not propaganda newly minted on behalf
of an intrusive dynasty." In other words,
the story of Cunedda was an ancient legend, old
enough both to have been localized in many
different parts of Wales (different accounts make
the wars with the Irish happen in Gower,
Kidwelly, Cardigan, and all Wales north of the
Teifi!) and to have developed many variants.
There is nothing to place a historical Cunedag in
any particular place in Wales at all.
A number of facts point to a
completely different location for both Maelgwn
and Cunedag. Point one: it seems that two
passages in a poem attributed to (but not by)
Taliesin describe Cunedda threatening Carlisle
and Caer Weir - Durham[9]. Even though Durham was
founded much later, this indicates that tales of
Cunedda's deeds in the North were still known at
some point in the Middle Ages, and that the areas
he threatened were immediately south of the Wall
of Hadrian. Point two: Brude, king of the Picts,
was probably another son of Maelgwn: he is called
mac Maelchon in later Scottish historical
writing, and the dates fit he was king in
the days of St.Columba, who died in 597. Would a
Pictish dynastic alliance be practicable,
desirable, or possible, to a dynasty from
far-away Gwynedd - as opposed to one from, say,
Gododdin or Britain north of the Humber? Point
three: an ancient text speaks of Elidyr,
son-in-law of Maelgwn, trying to claim the
inheritance and being beaten by Rhun - Maelgwn's
possibly illegitimate son and heir; after which
Rhun invaded Scotland, where Elidyr had been
based. John Morris implausibly imagines that his
army was peacefully allowed to cross all
Yorkshire or Lancashire for this invasion. Point
four: Elidyr could never have claimed Maelgwn's
kingdom through his wife, Maelgwn's daughter,
unless Pictish law, that included succession
through the female line, applied in his kingdoms
- and it never applied in Wales[10]. Point five: one firm
fact is that Cunedag came from Manaw Gododdin -
the northern half of the tribe, sharing a border
with the Picts. If Cunedda existed at all, then
his ancestral lands were in the North. Point six:
Cunedda's improbable great ride from the north to
Gwynedd, across several probable Celtic states or
at least one Roman province, and yet to all
appearances unhindered and victorious, has an
exact parallel in the equally unchallenged and
equally victorious ride of Rhun from (supposedly)
Gwynedd to the North. Cunedda going south to
Gwynedd, Rhun going north to Scotland to defeat
Elidyr, move as if the map had folded and
Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cumbria and the Borders
did not exist. Let's call things by their names:
both stories would make a lot more sense if
Cunedda and his descendant Rhun were held to have
lived, not in Anglesey, but somewhere near
Edinburgh.
The seventh and final point is
that Cunedda's wife in the genealogies is Gwawl
- Wall - daughter of Coel Hen[11] (another great
patriarch) and of Coels supposed wife Stradwawl
- Roman-Road-Wall. To the best of my
knowledge, the Gwawl is never anything
else in Welsh but the Wall of Hadrian. The king
is the land's bridegroom; and the imagination of
their successors married off Coel and Cunedag, as
patriarchs, in the standard Celtic way, to the
goddess of the land they ruled - and which
their successors inherited.
This is the central issue:
patriarchs were remembered in terms of what later
generations had inherited from them. It would
have made no odds to the tribe that claimed
descent from Cunedag whether or not Cunedag ruled
(="was married to") the region around
the Wall, unless they had inherited it in his
name. Which means that for an appreciable
number of generations, the dynasty of Cunedda
ruled not in Gwynedd but around the Wall of
Hadrian (while Coel was married to a Roman Road
particularly connected with the Wall). This
particular land remained the chief dynastic
possession long enough for his successors to
regard the "marriage" as permanent and
place it in the creative age of the patriarchs.
In fact, we cannot even be sure that Cunedag held
the Wall, but we can be sure that his
descendants over several generations did -
long enough for the tradition to standardise and
be written down in Welsh-language genealogies.
(Much later in this study, we will find that
Welsh was in all likelihood not yet in existence
by the date we can suggest for Cunedag.)
The Irish whom Cunedda is said to
have driven out with great slaughter, if we take
that to be historical, may be raiders on
Strathclyde, or possibly the little settler
community that history does not record though
archaeology and place-names do, in west
Wigtownshire and the Rhinns of Galloway. This
colony certainly existed[12], but it was wiped out or
Cambrian-ized out of existence before any
historical record; even so, it had Irish-type
monastic enclosures, unimaginable before the
beginnings of the sixth century, which suggests
that its expulsion took place, if it did, long
after the age of Cunedda. It might be however
associated with Maglocunus (or - as we will see -
with Urien of Rheged). Great deeds of kings who
changed the landscape may have tended to be
backdated to their ancestors, since actual
changes in the political map would need to be
validated by an illustrious precedent or
predecessor. F.J.Byrne, for instance, has
suggested that the most important achievement of
Niall of the Nine Hostages may have been the
establishment of Airgialla - the kingdom of the
"hostage-givers" - in land taken from
the Ulaid, his enemies; and that this had been
backdated a century or more, under a thoroughly
legendary group of heroes (sort of) called the
Three Collas. It is therefore possible that
aggressive action against the Irish of whatever
settlement may have been attributed to the great
ancestor of the tribe, Cunedda.
Indeed, Cunedda may or may not
have extended his reach southwards; but we
certainly know one member of his dynasty, on
unimpeachable evidence, to have conquered many
kingdoms, exiled or killed many kings, and shown
no respect for man or God or devil. Let us
suppose that the young Maglocunus had started
from a northern lordship, however defined. (It
must still have been rooted in its Gododdin past,
to judge from the extent to which the name
survived.) The natural target of his expansion
would have to be what is today England north of
the Humber, and in particular the sizeable
mouthful of York with its fertile vale and
splendid Roman fortification. Had he ever managed
to take over the fortress, along with the great
kingdom of Brigantia which it dominated,
then Maglocunus would truly have had the
resources and power to become what Gildas called
him: the dragon of the island, the most powerful
robber-king in the north, able to make war at
will and at the same time impress the whole
island with a truly splendid court to which bards
flocked.
Brigantia was the Roman
name for a vast pre-Roman kingdom, occupying
modern Yorkshire and Lancashire - possibly even
extending north across the Wall - and critical
for the security of Roman Britain. There is
evidence that its name, at the very least, had
survived the end of Roman power, since the word *Brigantinos
has given us the most widespread modern Welsh
word for King, Brenhin. *Brigantinos
is built on Brigantia in the same way as *tigernos,
lord of the house, is built on *teg,
house: the *Brigantinos is the Lord of
Brigantia. And the survival in modern Welsh of
this highly territorial title, when the very
memory of Brigantia has been thoroughly and
elaborately lost, argues that it was taken to the
country in token of a lasting claim to the lost
kingdom, and that the dynasty that bore it was so
important in later history that its title, like
that of Caesar, became a universal word for
"king". One dynasty fits the
description: the house of Cunedda, with whose
arrival, says a textbook13], "Welsh history is
generally believed to begin". Historians of
the Welsh language might want to investigate
whether the term brenhin originated in
North Wales, in Gwynedd. I suggest that Maelgwn's
descendants, driven from the North by the English
of Northumbria, took it there with them and held
on to it as a token of their claim; held on the
more tightly, perhaps, since Cunedda's dynasty
was not originally from Brigantia at all, but
from the Votadinian far north, and had won the
country by conquest.
I am disposed to believe that
Maelgwn's activities represent in effect an
invasion of midland and lowland Britain from the
north, by a Christian but barbarous Votadinian
lord with something of the Pictish enemy about
him, and without even the commitment to the
existing order that the kings of more settled
lands had. Britain's governance was long a
precarious balancing act between the fertile
lowlands, turned geographically and spiritually
towards the continent and interested in trade and
stability, and the various highland regions, more
isolated, naturally tribal and unstable, not very
fertile, and looking towards nowhere in
particular except the warmer and more productive
south; Culloden was the ghastly end of a very
long quarrel. As a lord of the Gododdin,
Maglocunus would be the natural focus for every
northern ambition; he would have drawn to
himself, by the fame of his prowess and strength,
warriors from every part of the north.
He and the house of Aurelius
Caninus, between them, must have done a lot to
disembowel whatever order existed in Gildasian
Britain; the Aurelii from the centre, which they
wanted to subvert for their own dynastic
advantage, and Maglocunus from the remote,
impoverished, ever-warlike North, pushed up hard
against the Pictish enemy, and still inevitably a
part of the British world, a member of the
British kingdom, operating within a political
system in which he could only get ahead by war.
But the most interesting thing he may have taken
from the North is bards: for it is a fact that we
have almost no evidence for Celtic-language
poetry in post-Roman Britain before Gildas
unleashed the bolts of his rhetoric against the
screaming flatterers of Maglocunus. And even
among the desolate moral landscape of Gildas,
these "flatterers" are something
special, from which no other court suffers.[14] To Gildas, they are
alien things - and special to Maglocunus.
Few other groups in Gildas
work are treated so ferociously. They are furciferi,
equal in abjection with the Saxons and
Cuneglasus' corrupt paramour: comparable, that
is, to the worst kind of pagan murderer, or to
someone who breaks her vows to God to entice a
king. He describes them as the very instruments
of the Devil (zabuli organum), perverting
together the gift of God that is music, whose
proper use is to praise the Lord, into the most
horrible Pagan ritual (ritu bacchantium
concrepante). What they do is not only a
seduction into violence and sin: it is itself a
sin, an orgy of musical lust, as violent in
itself as it encourages kings and their
entourages to war and cruelty; it does not only
turn the mind from God, but provide a rebellious,
forbidden pleasure. They are, no doubt, nominally
Christian; but he smells in their performances
and their attitudes the untamed, unbaptized,
unredeemed spirit of the heathen warrior's
praise-singer.
(It is perhaps worth pointing out
that nothing that Gildas says actually has a
bearing on the aesthetic value of the
bards' performances. He calls them violent, he
calls them diabolical; but he does not call them
ugly - though he does call the performances of
church choirs beautiful. From his point of view,
matters of artistic success were irrelevant; the
better the bards' performance, the worse the
result would be. But he does implicitly
acknowledge their effectiveness.)
Yet these bootlickers, who make
their living by enticing the king to more and
more violence, have themselves ended up, caught
up in the infernal cycle of unleashed desire and
lust, having to celebrate things that revolted
them. Maglocunus murders his wife, murders his
nephew, "marries" his nephew's wife -
and his parasites have to celebrate as
"legitimate" the marriage of the
"widowed" Maglocunus with a
"widow"! Fallaces parasitorum
linguae tuorum conclamant, summis tamen labiis,
non ex intimo cordis... "The lying
tongues of your parasites all scream together,
but from the height of their lips, not from the
deep of their hearts..." (One has a picture
of a shame-faced bard saying something like
"really, reverend, I agree with you, but
what could I do? I mean, it's my job to praise him,
isn't it? And it's more than my job's worth to
get in his way when he's in one of
those moods. He's a terrific guy most of the
time..." - of course, if such an exchange
ever took place, it would not have improved
Gildas' view of the bardic caste's morals.) But
whatever their moral cowardice, it seems that
even they have their limits; which argues that in
fact they stand for a different set of morals -
they are disposed and willing to encourage war,
but murder and treachery don't please them. They
are, in fact, the bearers of a primitive,
barbaric, but probably quite straightforward
warrior morality.
Tradition tells us that Maglocunus
died of the plague; and the Annales Kambriae
place his death at the famous Yellow Plague of
547, the one that swept the whole Roman world. I
have already claimed that my dating of The
Ruin of Britain to 561 blows this date
to bits, unless of course we decide that Gildas
had aimed his pained, severe and personal attack
at a man fifteen years dead; and as our
enquiry goes on, we will find plenty of reason
why it is makes a great deal of difference
whether Maglocunus/Maelgwn died in 547 or some
time after 561. Now, the 547 date has already
come under attack by that master of skepticism,
David Dumville[15]. He pointed out that
Kathleen Hughes and John Morris had both found
the source for many early eantries of the Annales
Kambriae in an Irish annal of the so-called
Clonmacnoise group, copied often word for word;
and that the entry for Maelgwns death is
simply constructed on the parallel Irish entry
for the Yellow Plague. Irish annal: Mortalitas
magna in qua pausant isti: Finno moccu Teldub,
etc. Welsh annal: Mortalitas magna, in qua
pausat Mailcunus rex Genedotae. As the Irish
annal was able to ascribe the fall of so many
illustrious names - Finnian of Moville, Ciaran of
Clonmacnoise, etc. - to the plague, there was
some pressure, conscious or unconscious, on the
Welsh transcriber, to find at least one equally
illustrious British victim. Dumville then points
out that the Irish annal was certainly drawn up
after 911, and the Welsh one some time between
954 and 977; thus placing its account of Maelgwn
much closer to the legendary figure of the Welsh
laws and the legend of Taliesin than the
historical bandit king of Gildas. It is the
legendary Maelgwn whom the Welsh annalist was
thinking of, and there is no evidence that any
date for his death was known before 954.
Let us accept that Maglocunus,
that gigantic, youthful, muscular conqueror,
actually died of the plague - a death tragic and
ironic enough, and with enough of Gods
wrath about it, to be remembered down the
centuries. The point is that there are plenty of
later outbursts he could have died of: after 547,
the plague rooted itself in the population and
recurred frequently. Professor Dumville has
discovered one instance in which Nennius made a
chronological mistake by confusing the plague
which killed Cadwaladr of Gwynedd in the early
680s with an earlier and much larger outbreak in
664. This is an age in which we can already count
on written records - Bede's and Ireland's at
least; if Nennius could go wrong in the light of
well-established time reckonings, how much more
so could the redactor of the Annales Kambriae
in such an obscure date as Maelgwn's? In fact,
Marius of Avenches, a chronicler from present-day
Switzerland, mentions an outburst that afflicted
both Gaul and Italy in 570; if it also reached
Britain (a country quite unknown to Marius) it
might well have accounted for both Gildas and
Maelgwn.
I have no doubt that succeeding
dynasts of Cunedda and Maelgwns line made
use of Maelgwns reputation, and, in
particular, that this accounts for his being
identified with the monarchy of Gwynedd: the fact
that an ultimately intrusive dynasty from the
Votadinian north should possess this territory,
so far from their ancestral lands, needed
justification, and the great name of Maelgwn
provided it. This is, in my view, quite
independent from the notoriety granted him by
Gildas, and depends in all likelihood on his
support of bards. I have already argued that
he was unique among Gildas villains in
supporting these barbarous singers of heroes; and
we will encounter, time and again, the
extraordinary effect that the poetry of a truly
great bard can have on the memory even of an
insignificant kinglet. What, then, of the Dragon
of the Island, fighter and conqueror with few
peers - what, indeed, if it was he that set up
the institution itself of bardism south of the
Wall, or at least placed it at the centre of his
court - giving bards a huge incentive to remember
his name and identify their fortunes with his for
ever? In the caste legend of bardism, come down
to us in a half-dozen very similar variants, it
is always at Maelgwns court that Taliesin,
the spirit of bardism incarnate, becomes manifest
to dictate the laws of bardism; and we must
remember that, in spite of the elements of
conflict and even of humiliation in the story,
his appearance is a blessing. What this tells me
is that, in spite of Gildas anger, it was
not his majestic invective but the praise of
bards that kept Maelgwns name alive. Vixere
fortes ante Agamemnona/ Multi; sed omnes
inlacrimabiles/ Urgentur ignotique longa/ Nocte,
carent quia uate sacro
Two or three generations after
Maelgwn, his descendant Cadwallon of Gwynedd
ravaged Northumbria (634-35) with a ferocity that
was still indignantly remembered in Bede's time,
over a century later. It is clear that he was
bent on the complete destruction of the English
north of the Humber; and yet he cared so little
for the rest of England that he made a deal with
Penda of Mercia, not only an Englishman but a
heathen. Was he trying to re-establish an
ancestral lordship at the expense of the
intruding English? It might have been a recent
claim: the English did not completely subdue the
North until 616, when the recently baptized Edwin
of Northumbria destroyed the British kingdom of
Elmet, a state that, to judge from Taliesin's
poems to its lord Gwallawg, must have been among
the most powerful in the island[16]. Did he regard it as his
right to act to the English just as the Romans of
his own national legend[17] had acted to the
treacherous and rebellious British, on the
presumption that the English, too, were guilty of
"rebellion after acceptance" and
therefore deserved enslavement or destruction?
And in that case, why the alliance with Penda?
Was it because his claim was to Northumbria
alone? And is this in any way related with the
demonstrably British origin of one or two
dioceses in Mercia[18]? Did Penda, while
refusing the Roman Christianity of his English
neighbours, deliberately allow the schismatic
Britons, connected with his ally Cadwallon, to
re-establish their own episcopal organization
among the Christians who were surely among his
subjects?[19]
Notes
History
of Britain, 407-597 is copyright © 2002, Fabio
P. Barbieri. Used with permission.
Comments
to: Fabio P.
Barbieri
|