This question is raised from time to time. That Arthur was not a king during the period of his twelve battles is confirmed by HB 50 and this is not surprising since during these campaigns he may well have been in his early to mid-twenties. Consequently, Gildas would not have considered mentioning him. That he eventually became king of Dyfed is shown by HG 2.
The slate was found on the island at Tintagel in 1998. I believe it reads
- MAV E[IGIR]
- COLI AVI FICIT
- COLI [AVI]
where the bracketed letters are now missing and some of the words run together. A cross occupies the space between lines one and three.
The letters in the first line are in larger characters. They are not easy to identify and their interpretation has changed since the slate’s discovery. The M and A are ligatured with the start of the letter M being only just visible. The text below the cross occupies five lines and the script is smaller. The lefthand diagonal descender of the letter V in the third line is just about visible. Also, what has thus far been interpreted as a G on the fifth line is in reality an R and G ligatured as illustrated below.
The inscription is clearly Arthurian as indicated by the following interpretation. The text in lines one to four form a sentence which is repeated in lines five to seven, but with the matronymic missing and the name Paternus replaced by Artorgnou. This suggests that they are alternative names for the same individual. The slate thus reads:
The son of Igraine, Paternus, made this for his grandfather Coel.
Artorgnou made this for his grandfather Coel.
So, Arthur’s name in his own lifetime was Artorgnou. The second element of the latter name means renowned. The two elements of his name can be seen to be in reverse order in the manuscripts listed in the table below where all the names are given in their original form:
|Gen.||ABT 18a fragment
||HG 2 fragment
||JC 12 fragment|
|0||Nowy (m.) Arthur||Nougoy (m.) Arthur||Nennue (m.) Arthur|
This reversal of the elements may have occurred when a text that indicated Artorgnou was the father of Eleothen came to be interpreted as Arthur was the father of Nowy who was the father of Eleothen. Eleothen is wrongly believed to be a corruption of Cloten and, in fact, the name refers to Llacheu who was indeed a son of Arthur. He may be Ilinot, a son of Guinevere, in Wolfram’s Parzival and Loholt in Perlesvaus and Ulrich’s Lanzelet.
We thus have an inscription with an interesting mix of Brythonic and Latin text. HG 2 states the father of Arthur was Petr. ByS 21 says the father of Padern was Petrwn. So, Arthur and Paternus had fathers of the same name, Petranus, supporting the proposition that the two names refer to a single individual.
The name Macsen Wledig has been applied to two distinct persons. The first individual appears in gen. -8 of HG 2 as Maxim gulecic, see Why Bartrum’s dating … . I believe this individual can be identified with the Roman emperor Constantius Chlorus as explained in the above link.
The Pen. 16 version of The Dream of Maxen Wledig only describes the story up to his stay in Britain. The version in Pen. 4 of the White Book of Rhydderch speaks about his return to Rome, but this continuation is actually referring to the second Macsen.
This is the Western Roman emperor Magnus Maximus born c. 335. He appears in gen. -5 as in the follwing fragment from JC 13.
Cyndwr Fendigaid is St. Kentigern who was the son of Owain ap Cyngar and not Owain ab Urien Rheged. The table is in accord with Constantine the Great’s birth in 272 or 273 and the birth of Helena, a wife of Constantius Chlorus, birth between 248 and 250.
To understand why there is a problem with the birthdate of Arthur son of Pedr given by Bartrum, i.e. 560, we need to look at a manuscript that mentions this individual. The names in the tables below are in the same order as they occur in HG 2, namely progressing from the most recent to later individuals. My allocation of the generation numbers are in the first column and they are based on the principle that the generation number of an offspring should be one greater than that of the parent. The generation number in the fourth column are those given by Bartrum. The first table shows the first segment of the Demetian pedigree. The obits shown in the 3rd column are those stated by Bartrum and originate from the AC.
|Gen.||HG 2: 1st seg.||Obit acc. Bartrum
||Gen. acc. Bartrum||Birthdate acc. Bartrum|
Using my generation numbers, regression analysis of the five obits in the above table give a generation step-size of 28 years. On the basis of this statistical technique and on the assumption that the average life expectancy was 65 years, it follows that an estimate of Arthur’s birthdate is 531, not 560.
Using a much larger database of obits the step-size is 32 years. Indeed, Bartrum states a male generation (the period between the birth of a father and that of his child) is about 33 years whereas a female generation (the period between the birth of a mother and that of her child) is about 20 years. The vast majority of generations in my database are male ones.
The larger database gives Arthur’s birth as occuring c. 493, this being the mid-value in the range for gen. 0. The Demetian Arthur’s birthdate is in the period that one would expect for the individual around whom the Arthurian cycle was built.
Using my generation numbering, Bartum’s estimates for the birthdates from Owain to Cyngar in the above table has an average step-size of 26 years, which is far too small. To achieve a more realistic step-size, he has given a number of parents and offsprings the same generation number, viz. Elen/Owain, Cadwgon/Rhain and Nowy/Gwlyddien. This results in a more satisfactory step-size of 33 years, but at the cost of artificially giving parents and offsprings the same generation number.
The reason why Bartrum’s analysis went astray may have been because he believed that HG 2 was a single pedigree list, whereas in reality it consists of three seperate segments. In the second segment, shown below, he made use of two dateable events, namely the birth of Gwerthefyr and that of Macsen Wledig. In the Harleian document itself there names take the form Guortepir and Maxim gulecic respectively.
|Gen.||HG 2: 2nd seg.||Obit acc. Bartrum
||Gen. acc. Bartrum||Birthdate acc. Bartrum|
Gildas writing in the 540s in the DE describes Gwerthefyr, whose name takes the form Vortipor, with the words “… though thy head is now becoming grey … though the end of life is gradually drawing near …”. So, Bartrum’s birthdate for him of 480 cannot be too wrong, although, perhaps, a little on the late side. He errs when he identifies the Macsen Wledig with the Roman emperor Magnus Maximus who died in 388. This forces him to use an average generational step-size for the second segment of 21 years, which is not credible. Again, he circumvents this problem by giving Clodri/Tryffin and Annun Dyfed/Nyfed the same generation number, resulting in a step-size of 30 years.
In this instance the name Macsen Wledig was a reference to the emperor Constantius Chlorus, who died in 306, for the following reasons. He was born in the year 250 and this date falls into the period of my gen -8. His wife was Helena. This tallies with the first part of the Mabinogion tale entitled the Dream of Macsen Wledig in which Macsen came to Britain and married Elen Luyddog, the daughter of Eudaf.
It will be noted that there is an anomaly in that Bartrum’s tentative birthdate given to Clodri is 10 years after that of Tryffin who Bartrum believed was his nephew.
The 3rd and last segment of HG 2 is shown below. Note, the missing names that have been inserted, i.e. Custennin and Macsen Wledig, can be seen in JC 13.
|Gen.||HG 2: 3rd seg.
This segment confirms the identification of Macsen with Constantius, as his wife St. Helena has been given the cognomen of Eudaf’s daughter, namely Luyddog.
The evidence for Arthur being a genuine historical figure is very similar to that for Urien. Both appear in the Welsh pedigree lists, Arthur in HG 2 and Urien in HG 8.
|Gen.||HG 2||HG 8|
That Urien became incorporated into the Arthurian cycle is not necessarily a creation of the High Medieval writers since Urien belonged to gen. 1. Taliesin was a contemporary of Arthur and Urien. It is, consequently, not suprising that he wrote praise poetry about both, in The Chair of the Sovereign and Urien of Yrechwydd respectively.
St. Kentigern, who died in 614 according to the AC, was incorrectly identified with Cyndeyrn Garthwys, a grandson of Urien. I believe Kentigern was Cyndeyrn Fendigaid of gen. 1. This assertion is given support by the V. Kentigerni 24 which describes how a king called Melconde Golganu attempted to stop Kentigern from constructing a monastery. The king is identified as Maelgwn Gwynedd who belonged to gen. 0 and so could well have interacted with Kentigern.
The year of Kentigern’s birth can be determined with reasonable certainty. He is said to have died in 612 or 603. The latter date is more likely as his death occurred on 13 January on a Sunday. He is said to have lived 185 years which is likely to be an error for 85 years, giving a birthdate of 518.
|Gen.||ABT 18a||ByS G 18
|1||Cyndeyrn Fendigaid||Urien Rheged|
This confusion can be seen in triad 1 which describes Cyndeyrn as Chief of Bishops in the North but gives him the wrong cognomen, i.e. Garthwys. The error may have resulted in further misidentifications as indicated in the above table below.
||ByS G 18|
|3||Cyndeyrn Fendigaid||Cyndeyrn Garthwys|
However, Cyngar (Hound love) and Cynfarch (Hound horse), the name of Urien’s father, are not the same.
I believe that doubt has been created concerning Arthur’s existence because of the supernatural stories built around him by later writers. This sort of phenomenon has similarly cast doubt, in the minds of some, on the historicity of Jesus.