Chapter 11

Saints’ Lives

The saints’ lives are semi-biographical accounts of various saints often written many hundreds of years later. They tend to contain miracles and wonders to demonstrate the saint’s power. They are not regarded as being in any way historically accurate, but they contain historical elements in that they are intended to be believed. References to locations and characters may be included to demonstrate why the church has certain rights in an area. The earliest surviving texts concerning Arthur date from around 1100, before Geoffrey of Monmouth’s work, although surviving copies are from later. Unless there have been major alterations, this suggests legends were common before he wrote. They are often designed to highlight the heroic nature of the saint involved and his victory and superiority over secular kings and lords such as Arthur.

For example, if I wished to prove a certain saint of this area was indeed powerful and holy, I might tell of how he defeated a dragon and link it to a king that I knew, or believed, to have lived at that time. Then if I wished to prove that I, or the church, had the right to this land or building, I might state in the story that the king then granted this land. If I wished to show the power of the church over secular power, I might write how the saint humbled that king in some way.

It is fair to ask whether it is relevant to include stories, centuries out of date, that include magic and monsters. Is there any historical value to this at all? They have value in the sense the writer wished the story to be believed. So the setting, location and characters would have to be believable, at least to the medieval mind. What they do suggest is that by the eleventh century Arthur was possibly seen as a real figure. On the other hand there’s no proof as to what the writers believed. They may well have thought Arthur was as mythical as the dragon in the stories and knew the audience would understand the allusion. Also, their belief 500 years later is rather irrelevant as to the existence of Arthur. What we need for that is contemporary literary or archaeological evidence, but they are of interest and may provide clues although we must take this ‘evidence’ with a huge pinch of salt.

There are seven tales in all that reference Arthur, two of which are from Brittany. The first is possibly the most important if the date is correct. Although there is much debate about that.

In 1019, the Breton writer William, Chaplain of Bishop Eudo of Leon, wrote about St Goeznovius, a sixth/seventh-century saint from Cornwall who was a bishop in Brittany. There is some controversy around the date, but if true it predates Geoffrey of Monmouth’s work by 100 years. William states that the information used in his preface came from Ystoria Britanica, unfortunately, a source now lost to us. It describes Vortigern inviting the Saxons and goes on to describe how ‘presently their pride was checked by Arthur, king of the Britons’. Importantly, it could also be the first text to also describe his ‘many victories which he won gloriously in Britain and in Gaul’.¹ It then describes a time of further incursions from Saxons and oppression of Britons and the church in particular. Many martyrs were made and some emigrated to Brittany.

What is meant by ‘presently’ is debatable, but it doesn’t suggest a large time-span. Ambrosius Aurelianus isn’t mentioned at all, but Vortigern is. It is also possibly the first time Arthur is referred to as a king. It demonstrates a Breton tradition which is also apparent after the Norman invasion and the increased interest from Norman and French writers after Geoffrey’s work becomes popular. The book referenced, Ystoria Britanica, could be Nennius’s Historia Brittonum, or one based on that. The inclusion of fighting in Gaul would suggest not, but that could have been from another, local source. The next saint is St Cadoc or Cadog.

St Cadoc was born around 497 and died in 580. He lived in South Wales and became abbott of Llancarfan. The life of St Cadoc, Vita Cadoci, was written around 1086 by Lifris of Llancarfan. In the prologue there is a tale of a King Gwynllyw, who abducts King Brychan’s daughter, Gwladus. Brychan chases them to the border where he kills 200 of Gwynllyw’s men. Two regions in South Wales are said to be named after these kings, Gwynlliog, and Brycheiniog. Arthur witnesses this with Kai and Bedwyr and at first has ‘evil thoughts’ about the girl. Cai and Bedwyr encourage Arthur to act chivalrously and they chase Brychan’s army away. Later the following tale is told:

In that same time a certain very brave leader of the British [or Britons], called Ligessauc, the son of Eliman, also surnamed Llaw hir, that is, Long Hand, slew three soldiers of Arthur, most illustrious king of Britannia.

Arthur pursues him but St Cadoc gives him refuge for seven years in Gwynlliog. He is betrayed and Arthur comes with a ‘very great force of soldiers’ to the river Usk (South Wales). Cadoc intercedes and arranges for Arthur to receive three oxen for each man killed. Arthur reluctantly agrees but ‘tauntingly’ demands that the cows are half red and half white. The saint miraculously changes the cows as requested and drives them to the middle of the ford. When Cai and Bedwyr pull the cows to the other side the cows turn into bundles of fern. Arthur then asks and receives forgiveness for his behaviour before granting certain land rights. Arthur is referred to as king and this is again one of the earliest occasions he is given this title in Welsh sources.²

The next example is Gildas, whom we have already met. There are two versions of the Life of St Gildas. The first is by a monk of Rhuys and was likely written in the ninth century. He is said to be one of five sons of Caunus, King of Alt Clud (Strathclyde). He studied with St Iltud in Glamorgan together with St Samson and St Paul of Leon. He was later asked by the high king of Ireland to restore order to the church. Later he travelled to Brittany where he was asked to write the De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae, discussed earlier. This version has him also travelling through Gaul during the time of Childeric (king of Franks, died 482) and meeting St Apollinaris (died 489), which would place Gildas much earlier than other traditions. To compound the confusion there is a miracle told within the text. A princess, the daughter of King Werocus and pregnant with child, is murdered by a Breton king, Conomerus (kings Waroch and Conomor both lived around 540). St Gildas brings her back to life (fixing her head back in place). The child born is also named Gildas, who the Bretons call Trechmorus so as not to confuse them. Arthur is not mentioned.

The second version is by Caradoc of Llancarfan dated to the twelfth century. In this, Gildas is the son of Nau, the King of Scotia and one of twenty-four brothers. At the time Arthur ruled in Britain and the brothers were always rising up against him. The eldest brother, Hueil, was eventually killed by Arthur. In the story Gildas forgives Arthur. Later, Melvas, king of the summer country, ‘violated and carried off’ Arthur’s wife, Gwenhwyfar, to Glastonbury. Arthur searches for a year before besieging the town with an army from Cornwall and Devon. Gildas intercedes and brokers the return of Gwenhwyfar and peace. Both kings then grant extensive lands to the abbot of Glastonbury. The story places him in the time of King Trifinus in the district of Pepidiauc, which could refer to Triffyn of Dyfed in mid-fifth century.

So overall there is some confusion about whether Gildas was in the fifth or sixth centuries. Gerald of Wales, writing in 1190, explains how Gildas throws all the praise he had written on Arthur into the sea, the earliest attempt to explain Arthur’s absence in The Ruin of Britain. The first ‘life’ has Gildas being buried in Brittany near Rhuys and the second has him buried at Glastonbury.

Saint Carannog or Saint Carantoc was a sixth-century abbot in Wales and the West Country. In the Life of St Carannog, written in the twelfth century, he is said to have visited Ireland and met St Patrick, placing him in the mid-fifth century. Later he returned to Ceredigion in West Wales and churches in both Cornwall and Brittany are said to be founded by him. The story goes as follows:

And Christ gave him an honourable altar from heaven, the colour of which no one fathomed. And afterwards he came to the Severn river [i.e., the Severn sea], that he might sail across, and he cast the altar into the sea, which also preceded him whither God wished him to go.

In those times Cadwy and Arthur were reigning in that country, dwelling in Dindraithov (Dunstan Castle, Exmoor). And Arthur came wandering about that he might find a most formidable serpent, huge and terrible, which had been ravaging twelve portions of the land of Carrum.

Carannog and Arthur meet, and Arthur agrees to tell the saint where the altar is if he catches the serpent. The saint prays, the serpent comes forward and is miraculously subdued and led ‘like a lamb’, raising neither ‘wings or claws’. Arthur returns the altar after finding ‘whatever was placed upon it was thrown to a distance’. He gives the saint land rights in the area of Carrum (Carhampton in Somerset) presumably as compensation. Cadwy appears in many of the legends as a king of Dumnonia and Arthur’s half brother.

St Padarn founded St Padarn’s church in Ceredigion, dying in 550. The Life of St Padern states he was originally from Brittany before travelling to Ireland then later to Britain. He defeats two of Maelgwn of Gwynedd’s heralds and later cures him of his illness when he begs forgiveness. Later, Arthur, ‘a certain tyrant’, is filled with avarice for a tunic owned by Padarn. He flies into a rage and is determined to take the tunic. Padarn claims the earth will swallow him, which it does – up to his chin. Arthur begs forgiveness and is released. This may be linked to ‘Padarn Redcoat’ whose coat was one of the ‘Thirteen Treasures of the Island of Britain’ listed in fifteenth century texts.

The Life of St Iltud was probably written in Glamorgan in the twelfth century. There is just one reference that concerns us when the saint visits Arthur’s court. St Iltud in the Vita Sancti Sampsonis, written in Dol, Brittany, about 600, is said to be a Disciple of St Germanus, which would place him in the mid-fifth century. A later, more untrustworthy, Norman tale has him as a Breton prince and cousin of King Arthur.

The Life of St Efflam is a Breton tale from possibly 1090, involving Arthur’s attempt to slay a dragon, living in a cave, in Brittany. Arthur is exhausted after a long battle with the beast and weak with thirst. St Efflam draws water from a rock for Arthur and then uses prayer to defeat the monster who vanishes into the sea.

Table 18: Arthur in the Saints’ lives

It is interesting they are mostly fifth- and sixth-century figures and there are no references outside this time period but it has to be said they can’t all be correct. The time span is too wide. At least one predates Geoffrey of Monmouth and so demonstrates a tradition that survived the centuries. Of course none of them are contemporary or valid in any way. It has already been stated that none of them are considered credible historical sources. Other saints’ lives have also been connected with the Arthurian legend and we can see them below.

Table 19: Saints connected to aspects of legend

In general they are eleventh- or twelfth-century compositions written to magnify the saint’s name. There is often a local element which is used to justify or explain certain land rights or privileges for particular monasteries or churches. These are ecclesiastical ‘hero tales’ to demonstrate the power of the church over the secular power represented by kings and lords. Arthur is often shown in stark contrast to other Welsh legends and poems as being avaricious and arrogant before being humbled and begging for forgiveness. They also show Arthur as being one of a number of different kings. However, on present evidence, no region can claim Arthur for its own and it is possible his title of king was a literary invention to add status to the saint’s story.³

Many of these dates are suspect, Paul Aurelian, for example, is recorded as being 140 when he died. St David’s birth is recorded as 462 in the Annales Cambriae and his death in other sources in 589. St Samson’s Father, Meurig, elsewhere is recorded as being born 100 years after him. There are a number of contradictions and impossible lifespans. Despite the contradictions and inconsistencies it is possible to build a coherent timeline.

Putting them in chronological order, first we have St Illtud and St Dubricius, both born around 470. Illtud is said to be Arthur’s cousin. An Arthur born around 480 would be fighting-fit at 500 and at any possible battle of Badon. He would also be the next generation on from Ambrosius who, according to Bede, was militarily active in the time of Zeno, 474–91. The next generation of saints are all recorded as being born around 500. Gildas, Samson and Paul are all disciples of Illtud. St David is said to be succeed Dubricius and is the nephew of Arthur, which fits perfectly with being a generation after. The Lives of Cadoc, Carannog and Padarn are all contemporary with this same generation in the early sixth century. They are all active in the same region of Wales and many of the tales place Arthur in this specific area in south-east Wales and around the river Severn. Yet these saints, alongside St David, are likely to have been born around 500 and been ‘professionally’ active from 520 onwards. For a historical Arthur to have interacted with them he would have had to have been in position in the 520s–530s. We will see from the genealogical evidence later that many of these figures are reported to be the great grandsons of Cunedda and thus allegedly of the same generation of Arthur and Maelgwn. Inconsistencies aside, an Arthur being born in the 480s and dying in 530s wouldn’t be incompatible with the majority of these sources, while remembering that as evidence they are severely lacking in validity.

St Illtud and St Dubricious have been connected with St Germanus of Auxerre. This has caused some to claim that all the dates should be moved back a generation or more, and others to dismiss the stories as mere fables. An interesting theory⁴ posits that this Germanus has been confused with St Garmon, who is known to have been in Wales in the 460s and died on the Isle of Man in 474. The only reason to reject St Illtud being taught by St Germanus of Auxerre and replacing him with this St Garmon is purely to explain away the obvious inconsistencies. The latest that St Germanus of Auxerre could have interacted with Illtud was the 440s, which pulls all the other saints’ lives, and of course Arthur, back two generations. Yet in the Life of St Germanus, Constantius mentions none of the story in the Historia, so it is possible the latter refers to a completely different person.

In summary we have sources full of contradictory dates, dragons, serpents, magic altars and cloaks. On the point of timelines we could build a very tenuous link for St Germanus (or Garmon) to St Dubricious and St Illtud. There then follows a second generation born around the time of the battle of Badon. The Annales Cambriae suggests Arthur perished at Camlann twenty-one years later, so Cadoc, Padarn and Carannog would have been less than 21 when interacting with him if Badon was before 500. But a Badon fought in 516 and a Camlan in 537, as stated in the Annals Cambriae, would be compatible. The problem is these saints’ lives, genealogies and later legends were all written long after the Annales Cambriae and Historia. They may well have simply fitted their stories around what was believed at the time.

Even if we ignore all the inconsistencies, contradictions and absurdities, we still have a body of work written 600 years after his time. A body of work written today about Henry VIII is not at all relevant unless it includes evidence from contemporary sources. Evidence that has to be validated. Even a contemporary source can be false and has to be supported by other evidence. What we have here is little better than someone in 500 years using half-forgotten stories of superheroes to prove Spiderman was real. Nevertheless, it’s odd that all these saints are clustered around the end of the fifth and beginning of the sixth century, and mostly located in South Wales. One could well argue that hagiographers would only attach their favoured saints to a figure connected with a specific time. The fact that Arthur was connected with this period in the mind of a medieval writer 600 years later doesn’t prove he was real. However, at the very least it shows medieval writers placing the figure of Arthur, historical or mythical, a generation or more either side of AD 500. It also demonstrates some links with South Wales and the West Country.