Chapter 3

Contemporary Sources

The first two chapters have painted a very brief picture of the events leading up to, and just after, the fall of Roman Britain. Below is a list of all the contemporary historical sources¹ that refer to Britain and the year in which they were written. It is worth noting that none mention any Arthur, any more than throughout Roman occupied Britain. Nor is there evidence of legends or myths from any source which even hint at the Arthurian legend at this point.

Table 3

393 AD Ammianus Marcellinus, (Res Gestae Divi Augustae):

Describes a prosperous province supplying grain to Gaul in the 4th century.

The incursion and subjugation of Picts and Scots in 360

402 AD Claudus Claudianus wrote a number of poems referring to the General Stilicho and his defeat of Scots, Picts and Saxons presumably in 396-8 AD

417 AD Orosius (Historium adversum paganos book vii) a native of Hispania, writing in North Africa. Referring to the barbarian incursion across the Rhine in 406 AD (Book VII, 40):

When the barbarians were overrunning Gaul in Britain Gratian, ‘a citizen of the island, was made a usurper’ only to be killed. Then Constantine was elected, ‘a man of the lowest military rank, on account of the hope alone which came from his name….’ Constantine then crossed over into Gaul.

390-425 AD the Notitia Dignitatum: A civil and military list of offices that may include updated or outdated posts with uncertain provenance and date. In summary it lists the following:

Provinciae, Britanniae V: Maxima Caesariensis, Valentia, Britannia prima, Britannia secunda, Flavia Caesariensis.

Consuls were responsible for the first two and ‘presidents’ for the other three with a Vicarius Britanniae overseeing all five.

Militarily there were two counts: Comes Britanniarum and Comes Litoris Saxonici per Britanniam. Additionally one Duke (of the frontiers), Dux Britanniarum. There then follows a list of units.

425 AD Olympiodorus of Thebes referring to Stilicho leaving Britain and Gaul open to invasion:

Records discontent in Britain, with the rule of the Stilicho, and ‘with lack of attention his government paid to the defence of Britain against the Picts’

Constantine was ‘brought to power by a revolt of the soldiers….in the provinces of Britain.’

Then: ‘in the provinces of Britain before the seventh consulship of Honorius in 407, they had stirred the army there to revolt, and proclaimed a certain Marcus as supreme ruler.’

Constantine is raised to ‘supreme commander’ and crosses to Gaul with his troops gaining control ‘as far as the Alps.’

439 AD Sozomen originally from Gaza writing in Constantinople: Historia Ecclesiastica concerning the years 324-439. Regarding Britain after 406 AD gives more detail:

‘The soldiers in Britain were the first to rise up in sedition.

First Mark was made ‘tyrant’ but then killed by the soldiers who had proclaimed him. This was followed by Gratian who they also killed four months later.

Next came Constantine who they thought ‘on account of his name… would be able to reduce the empire firmly under his authority.’

It describes Constantine nominating his son Constans Caesar then Emperor and sending him to Spain.

After, Constantine with his other son Julian are ‘waylaid and killed’ on their way to Italy.

450 AD The Narratio de imperatoribus domus Valentinianae et Theodosiane was an anonymous text concerning the emperors from Valentinian I to Honorius (364-423).

It records in the reign of Honorius ‘many heavy blows befell the state’ namely Gaula nd Spain were ‘demolished and utterly destroyed by the barbarian nations of the Vandals, Sueves, and Alans’ and Rome was ‘captured and overthrown’ by the Visigoth King Alaric.

Most relevant though was: ‘Britain was forever removed from the Roman name.’

452 AD The Gallic Chronicle (a)

The Britains were devastated by an incursion of the Saxons 409 AD

The Britains, which to this time had suffered from various disasters and misfortunes, are reduced to the power of the Saxons 441 AD

455 AD Prosper of Aquitaine later a notary of Pope Leo I wrote the Epitoma Chronicon.

Records that Agricola, ‘son of the Pelagian bishop Severianus, corrupted the British churches’. Then Palladius persuaded Pope Celestine to send Germanus, bishop of Auxerre, to Britain to combat the Pelagian heresy prompting Germanus’s fisrts visit in 429 AD.

Then: ‘Palladius was sent by Pope Celestine to the Scots who believed in Christ, and was ordained as their first bishop’.

The Scotti being the Irish.

500 AD Zosimus, Historia Nova

Book VI.5.2-3

Records that the barbarians north of the Rhine ‘reduced the inhabitants of Britain and some of the Celtic peoples to defecting from the Roman rule and living their own lives, independent from the Roman laws. The Britons therefore took up arms and, braving the danger on their own behalf, freed their cities from the barbarian threat.’

Then Armorica and ‘other Gallic provinces’ expelled the Roman officials.

Book VI.5-6

Gerontius in Spain rebelled against against Constantine. Then: ‘the barbarians from beyond the Rhine overran everything at will and reduced the inhabitants of the British Island and some of the peoples in Gaul to the necessity of rebelling from the Roman empire’

This defection occurred during ‘Constantine’s tyranny’ due to the ‘carelessness in administration.’

Book VI.10.2

Honorius writes to the cities of Britain, telling them to look to their own defences.

511 AD Gallic Chronicle (b) with reference to 440 AD

The Britains, lost to the Romans, yield to the power of the Saxons.

540 AD Procopius of Caesera (Palestine)

Concerning 407 AD:

Bellum Vandalicum 3.2.31

States the Britons revolted then the soldiers chose ‘Constanti(us, a man of no mean station’. And He gathered a ‘fleet of ships and a formidable army and invaded both Spain and Gaul with a great force.’

Concerning 411 AD

Bellum Vandalicum 3.2.38

Records the death of Alaric and the defeat and death of Constantine and his sons.

Then: ‘the Romans never succeeded in recovering Britain, but it remained from that time on under tyrants.’

Concerning the middle of the 6th century

History of the Wars 8.20.6-10 (553 AD)

Three very populous nations inhabit the Island of Brittia, and one king is set over each of them. And the names of these nations are Angles, Frisians, and Britons who have the same name as the island. So great apparently is the multitude of these peoples that every year in large groups they migrate from there with their women and children and go to the Franks. And they [the Franks] are settling them in what seems to be the more desolate part of their land, and as a result of this they say they are gaining possession of the island. So that not long ago the king of the Franks actually sent some of his friends to the Emperor Justinian in Byzantium, and despatched with them the men of the Angles, claiming that this island [Britain], too, is ruled by him. Such then are the matters concerning the island called Brittia.

What all these sources tell us is that after Constantine III left Britain with the last legions around 407, the Romano-British were effectively on their own. The response by Honorius to their appeals for help in 410 confirmed this. It is only with hindsight that later sources pinpoint this as the moment that Britain broke away from Roman rule. In reality, the province may have continued regarding itself as part of the Roman world for some time.

It is worth taking particular note of the two Gallic Chronicle entries referring to 441 and Saxons gaining power over the Britons. They were written in 452 and 511 respectively in Gaul. These documents are usually reasonably accurate, yet this date does not fit into the narrative of either Gildas or Bede which we will hear later. It is also not accurate for the whole island given that Devon and Cornwall held out for hundreds of years, and Wales until the time of Edward I. So which part of the country fell and what ‘yields to the power of the Saxons’ means is open to debate. It is likely it refers to the South East as that is the closest to Gaul. This leads us to speculate about the province of Maxima Caesariensis, the Count of the Saxon Shore military command and the Diocese capital, London.

It is worth pointing out that Nennius, in the ninth-century Historia Brittonum, does indicate a Saxon arrival in 428 and subsequent revolt which would tie in with this date, and it is this very source that first mentions Arthur. We need to compare this to Bede writing in the eighth century, who is more respected and yet posits a date of 449 for the Saxon arrival and a later date for their revolt. However it is true that the only contemporary source from the Continent does suggest an earlier date for any Saxon incursions. To focus on the Gallic Chronicle below are selected entries for the 440s:

Table 4: Gallic Chronicle entries

A number of things to note:

After 446 the chronicle is accurate; before 446, the further away from Gaul the less accurate the record. So the entries for 444 and 445 are actually four or five years too late. What this means is that the entry for Britain for 441, being close to Gaul, is likely to be fairly accurate, but if not, could well be even earlier. The phrase ‘reduced to the power of’ is often used to mean a military take over. It could though mean something else such as a political change. This may be important when we come to later narratives. What this means for Gildas and Bede dating for the arrival of the Saxons is uncertain. Either they are are incorrect or they are talking about two separate events. We cannot equate this with Bede’s date for the arrival of the Saxons for a couple of very good reasons. First, the Gallic entry most definitely does not relate to a simple arrival, but to a significant change in the balance of power either politically or militarily. Second, Bede makes it clear that the Saxon revolt occurred sometime after the arrival. So it’s not simply a case of trying to bring the Gallic date of 441 forward to meet Bede’s date for the arrival of 446 or 449, because Bede records the revolt as some time after that.

So in conclusion, the Gallic Chronicle is fairly reliable. It describes some sort of Saxon takeover in 441 which appears to contradict the timeline recorded elsewhere such as Gildas and Bede. But this date of 441 is vitally important in laying out a narrative that includes a historical Arthur. However, there is much debate in academic circles on this point and no clear consensus, certainly not for any precise dating.

The issue of the different timelines each of the sources offer is crucial in understanding this period. But we do have a contemporary source relating to a visit to Britain in AD 429, twenty years after the break from Roman authority. Constantius of Lyon, born in approximately 420, wrote The Life of Saint Germanus in around 480. In response to the rise of the Pelagian heresy, Bishop Germanus of Auxerre travels to Britain accompanied by Lupus. Pelagius is usually described as a British monk and subscribed to the idea that free will is more important than original sin. Anti-Pelagian legislation started to appear on the Continent in 418 and Prosper of Aquitaine relates that a Pelagian supporter, Agricola, fled to Britain where it appeared to be safe.²

Germanus is welcomed by crowds of people and later enters into some sort of debating contest with followers of Pelagius ‘flaunting their wealth’ in their ‘dazzling robes’, witnessed by a great crowd thus suggesting they come from a rich aristocracy. During this debate a tribune brings his blind daughter to the bishop who cures her in front of the crowd. The ‘true church’ wins the debate and Germanus visits St Albans just outside London. There then follows an incursion of Saxons and Picts, so possibly from the north. The British army retreats to a camp and requests help from Germanus. On arrival he baptises many of the soldiers and appoints himself Dux Proelii (leader for battle). He positions his army hidden in a steep valley between mountains which suggests Wales or the north, and on sighting the enemy they all shout ‘Alleluia’ repeatedly, scaring the enemy who run away, many drowning in a river. The ‘most wealthy island’ now secure, Germanus returns to Gaul

Some time later the Pelagian heresy returns and Germanus travels once more, this time with a man called Severus. Germanus meets bishops and a leading man of the province, Elafius, and cures his son’s withered leg. The Pelagic heretics are banished from Britain and Germanus returns to Gaul to intervene in a dispute in Armorica before dying in Ravenna in Italy. So we have a picture of a Christian Britain, possibly with some form of Roman-like administration in the form of tribunes, leading men of the province and bishops. But there are also raids from Picts and interestingly, Saxons. Despite this, travel is possible both from outside of Britain and internally. There is some debate whether the second visit was in the 437, 442 or 448, with most scholars preferring the later date. However, it is important to consider this in conjunction with the Gallic Chronicle. A visit before 440 would explain why there is no reference to this Saxon power in the text. A later visit might explain where the author of the Chronicle got their information from.

In the past there was a consensus that he died in 448. This would make a visit in the 440s possible. There was some evidence he was involved in the deposition of Hiliary of Arles in 444. However, it is suspect if he was present. The Vita Severi describes the funeral procession of Germanus as passing through Vienne during the pontificate of Pascentius, who was dead by 441. We know his predecessor died on a Wednesday, 1 May, and that Germanus held the position for thirty years. Thus the three possible dates are: 407–37, 412–42 or 418–48. In the Vita Germani, he is said to have travelled to Revenna to settle a dispute in Armorica. We know from the Gallic Chronicle that this dispute occurred in 435–7.³ Therefore we can say confidently that Germanus died in 437 and his likely second visit was indeed few years after the first in the mid-430s. It would make sense that this visit was before the event that caused the Gallic Chronicle to reference Britain falling to the power of the Saxons, because Germanus would surely have mentioned it; something as momentous would have been recorded, aside from the fact that Germanus seems to have encountered a Britain as reasonably stable as in 429.

The visit of Germanus suggests a number of things:

• Britain was stable enough to travel to and across.

• There were still links within the church between Britain and Gaul.

• The Pelagians are portrayed as being richly dressed and so might be aristocratic.

• The religious division between Pelagians and the church suggests a political divide too.

• In the first visit, the Pelagians are ‘confounded’, but in the second they are condemned and exiled, suggesting a shifting of power.

There are links between Bishop Germanus’s visit and Vortigern, which I will cover later. However Constantius doesn’t mention any Vortigern or even any king.

What this suggests is that Britain remained somewhat stable after the last legions left. Despite this, at least one incursion of Picts and Saxons occurred in 429. Links persisted with Gaul and the Western Empire, especially through the church. The island was largely Christian but there were schisms within Christian society. Whether the provincial structure held, or separate civitates operated independently is unknown. And lastly, around 440 something occurred to cause an observer in Gaul to regard part of Britain, at least, to have fallen to ‘the power of the Saxons’.

Around the same time as the Germanus visit, we have Pope Celestine sending Palladius to Ireland to be bishop for an apparently established Christian community. Shortly after this we have records of St Patrick preaching in Ireland. There is no provable date for his activities,⁴ although some traditions have his death in either the 460s or 490s. His mission to Ireland is thought to be in the 430s and there is a suggestion his letter to Coroticus may refer to a Strathclyde king around 450, but this is highly speculative. The dating is important because as we shall see the very first reference to Arthur places him after the death of St Patrick. Although it has to be said, the narrative and dating within the text is as open to criticism as the text itself. Having said that, a very credible theory suggests that St Patrick’s arrival has been confused with Palladius and thus his floruit was a generation later, his death date being recorded in the Annals of Ulster as 493.⁵

Patrick wrote two works: the Confessio (a spiritual and personal autobiography) and Epistola (a letter written to the British king, complaining about the capturing and enslavement of Christians). From his Confessio we learn he was born in an unknown town of Bannavem Taburniae (vico banavem taburniae). He grew up on the country seat or small estate (villula). His father, Calpornius, was a decurio (member of town council) and a deacon in the church and son of Potitus, a priest.⁶ This again suggests there were functioning town councils and an established Christian community in Britain at the beginning of the fifth century. At around 16 years old he was captured by Irish raiders. Six years later he escaped back to Britain and later travelled to Gaul, where he became a deacon and eventually a bishop. Later he went back to Ireland and became the ‘apostle of the Irish’, converting thousands and laying the foundation for a Christian Ireland.

His letter to King Coroticus suggests a number of things about the middle of the fifth century in Britain. There appear to be local kings at this point. Coroticus has been identified by some as from the Strathclyde area.⁷ The community to which the letter is addressed is obviously Christian and there is still a connection with Roman citizenry. To be accused of being neither Christian nor a citizen is apparently an insult. He starts the letter by calling himself a sinner and a bishop in Ireland, although there is an element of pleading. He asks that the letter be read to the soldiers of Coroticus.

They are no longer ‘fellow-citizens’, or ‘fellow-citizens of the saints of Rome’. He describes the scene of the newly baptised, still dressed in white robes, being attacked by the soldiers. Some are slain, others captured as slaves to be sold to their allies, the ‘apostate Scots and Picts’. A letter sent the next day requesting the return of the captives is laughed at. There are some interesting clues here. The messenger is a priest he ‘had taught from infancy’, thus suggesting this incident occurred perhaps at least fifteen years since his arrival. Even taking the earliest date for his ministry, the very uncertain 432, this would suggest the raid, and thus his letter and Coroticus’s reign, was near 450. The alliance with Picts and Scots suggest a location from Strathclyde to North Wales, although Ireland itself is not impossible.

He goes on to request that the people no longer offer food or drink to the miscreants until the captives are returned. Coroticus himself is described as ‘evil-minded’, betraying Christians into the hands of Scots and Picts. This appeal only makes sense if the intended audience, including Coroticus and his soldiers, are themselves Christian. Another interesting part is where he compares this behaviour with the Christians of Roman Gaul who negotiate with the Franks and other pagans to buy back captured Christians. He accuses Coroticus of killing them or selling them to ‘foreign peoples’. The strong inference is that Coroticus and his soldiers are not foreign but British, and British Christians at that. He ends by asking for his letter to be read before all the people, but especially Coroticus himself.

St Patrick would have been a contemporary of St Germanus. Depending on the credibility of other sources he would also have been a contemporary of some of the figures connected to the Arthur legend. Sadly, the surviving evidence sheds no light on this. It does suggest that in the mid-fifth century it was normal for a native Briton to consider himself Christian and still a citizen of the Roman world. To be accused of being neither appears to be an insult.⁸ The fact he addresses his letter to a king with a British name may indicate the first beginnings of the breaking down of order. If his letter was to a provincial governor, or the Dux Brittanniarum, for example, we would have a completely different picture.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it has to be stated that neither St Patrick nor Constantius writing about St Germanus refers to Arthur or any persons connected to the legend. Later we will come to the first mention of Arthur in the early ninth century, nearly 400 years after St Patrick. In that narrative Arthur is placed alongside, or just after, St Patrick. Unfortunately the sources are silent. In fact there are no contemporary sources from Britain until nearly 100 years after St Patrick’s letter to Coroticus. That source is what we will cover next. It’s from this person we can confirm the Battle of Badon took place, although he does not refer to Arthur. Unfortunately his purpose is not history, but to tell his fellow countrymen how thoroughly useless, lazy, cowardly and wicked they all are.