This article was downloaded by: [64.53.171.165]On: 29 June 2014, At: 00:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T3JH, UK

FolklorePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfol20

The Cult of Arthurian RelicsE. M. R. DitmasPublished online: 30 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: E. M. R. Ditmas (1964) The Cult of Arthurian Relics, Folklore,75:1, 19-33, DOI: 10.1080/0015587X.1964.9716942

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0015587X.1964.9716942

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is

expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.5

3.17

1.16

5] a

t 00:

00 2

9 Ju

ne 2

014

The Cult of Arthurian Relics by E. M. R. DITMAS

R E A D I N G D r W . Bonser's interesting article o n ' T h e Cult o f Relics in the M i d d l e Ages ' (Folklore, V o l . 73 , Winter 1962, p p . 2 3 4 - 5 6 ) prompted m e to consider the somewhat analogous cult o f Arthur­ian 'relics' wh ich nourished between the twelfth and the sixteenth centuries. T h e r e is, o f course, a distinction between these and the Christian relics o f saints. Christian relics were collected and en­shrined because it was bel ieved that some port ion o f the saint's power , bo th to heal and to intercede for the faithful, cou ld cl ing t o any fragment o f his physical b o d y or to any object that had been in close association with h im. T h e fact that this faith was later ex­ploited for monetary purposes and that it often degenerated into extraordinary depths o f credulity does not alter its basic character.

Arthurian relics cou ld never have been venerated in this sense though some o f them were exhibited at famous shrines. T h e y were, so to speak, added attractions for the pilgrim or traveller, but they fo rm an interesting c o m m e n t o n mankind's inherent liking for mementoes o f great men and w o m e n , and o n the credulity which , to this present day, will lead many to give uncritical acceptance to such objects . T h e oddest fact is that these relics commemora te a fictitious hero o f almost purely literary origin. T h e y have little or no relation to the early British war-leader w h o seems to have been the historical Arthur. I n short, Geoffrey o f M o n m o u t h ' s creation o f the figure o f the great king had such compel l ing force that for four centuries his Arthur was accepted, b y all except a few sceptics, as an authentic person and as o n e o f the N i n e Worth ies .

A R T H U R ' S T O M B

Since it was a fundamental characteristic o f relics that they should b e either material remains o f the person in quest ion or o b ­jects that had been in contact with his b o d y , it is fitting that w e should start with the 'd iscovery ' o f Arthur 's remains iii the grave

*9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.5

3.17

1.16

5] a

t 00:

00 2

9 Ju

ne 2

014

T H E C U L T O F A R T H U R I A N R E L I C S

2 0

at Glastonbury in 1 1 9 0 - 1 . T h e outline o f events seems to b e as fo l lows:

Traditionally the grave of Arthur, that is, the historic Ar thur , was unknown or secret. 'Anoeth bid bet y Arthur' (Black Book of Carmarthan). T h e exact translation is uncertain but is given b y M r s Rachel Bromwich as 'Concealed till Judgment Day the grave o f Arthur ' . 1 Th i s uncertainty as to the place o f the grave o f t h e national hero had evolved into an expectation held b y the British, especially in Wales and Cornwall, that he would c o m e again t o overthrow the invading enemy, the enemy being at first the Saxons but, after 1066, the Normans and their allies. In his Historia Regum Britanniae (1136) Geoffrey o f M o n m o u t h had had to be careful o n the one hand not to offend royal patrons b y proclaiming his be l i e f in Arthur's return, yet o n the other, he could not ignore t he strength o f tradition. H e compromised b y making his Arthur w i t h ­draw into Avalon for the dealing o f his wounds — and A v a l o n , with its other-worldly associations, was given no precise location.

T h e Welsh continued to resist Norman domination and H e n r y I I must have longed to eliminate this opponent , neither ghost n o r living man, but ever-present in the memories o f the British. P r o o f o f Arthur's actual death wou ld b e very acceptable. It is said that a hint as to the locality o f Arthur 's grave was given to Henry b y o n e o f the Welsh bards but, be that as it may, it seems that he definitely encouraged the monks o f Glastonbury to look for the grave. In t he event the 'find' d id not take place till 1190 or 1 1 9 1 , in the reign o f his son, Richard I, but when it did, it was sensational. Sixteen fee t d o w n in the monastery burial ground, between two 'pyramids ' ( i . e . pillars) inscribed to the memory o f long-dead notables, was found a coffin hol lowed out o f a tree-trunk, containing the bones o f an u n ­usually tall man and those o f a woman. Moreover , some nine fee t above the coffin had been found a stone slab o n the underside o f w h i c h was a leaden cross, about a foot long, inscribed in archaic capitals H I C J A C E T S E P U L T U S I N C L Y T U S R E X A R T H U R I S I N I N S U L A A V A L L O N I A .

( In certain accounts the inscription is extended to include Guinevere , i.e. C U M W E N N E V A R I A U X O R E S U A S E C U N D A — but more o f this later.) T h e remains o f Arthur were not only found but the identification o f Glastonbury with fabled Avalon was documented. T h e first

1 H. M . Chadwick, N . Chadwick et al., Studies in early British history, C.U.P. 1954, p .112 .

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.5

3.17

1.16

5] a

t 00:

00 2

9 Ju

ne 2

014

THE CULT OF A R T H U R I A N RELICS

21

would please the royal patron o f the abbey w h o n o w had p roof that his adversary was incontestably dead; the second brought added fame to a site which already cla imed to b e the oldest hal lowed place in Britain.

F r o m the point o f v iew o f the A b b e y officials the find cou ld not have c o m e at a better t ime. S ix years earlier, in 1184, a disastrous fire had destroyed not only the fine Norman church built b y Henry o f Blois but also the remains o f the famous ' O l d Church ' , o ld even in the days o f K i n g Ina in 708, wi th all its wealth o f saintly relics and sacred associations. A t the time o f the fire, the abbacy was vacant and the affairs o f the A b b e y were in the hands o f K i n g Henry I I ' s officials. Fortunately the K i n g generously made funds available for rebuilding and the site o f the ' O l d Church ' had al­ready been covered b y the building n o w known as St Joseph's Chapel bu t which at that t ime was still called S t Mary ' s Church in memory o f the original dedication. Here , at the east end o f the newly completed edifice, the monks, ' rejoicing' , re-interred K i n g Arthur's bones .

T h e discovery o f Arthur 's remains was described b y Giraldus Cambrensis in De Instructione Principum as early as about 1194, i.e. within three or four years o f the event, and it seems that he paid a personal visit to Glastonbury and talked with s o m e o f those w h o had handled the bones . A t about the same t ime the event was m e n ­tioned independently b y Ralph o f Coggeshall in the Chronicum Anglicanum with the slight difference that the latter account omits any reference t o Guinevere and that it attributes the discovery o f the coffin to the accidental circumstance that o n e o f the monks had asked to be buried at that particular spot . ( I t seems unlikely that digging for an ordinary grave w o u l d have been carried d o w n six­teen feet.) Giraldus, w h o had b e e n openly sceptical o f some o f Geoffrey o f M o n m o u t h ' s statements about K i n g Arthur and there­fore was not likely to b e over-credulous, referred to the matter again at greater length in his Speculum Ecclesiae wh ich he wrote about 1216. Finally A d a m o f D o m e r h a m , in his Historia de Rebus Gestis Glastoniensibus, written in 1290, 2 also describes the event, adding the picturesque detail that curtains were erected round the

* E. K . Chambers, Arthur of Britain, London, Sidgwick & Jackson, 1927. Extracts from Giraldus Cambrensis, De Instructione Principum and Speculum Ecclesiae, and from Adam of Domerham Historia de Rubis Gestis Glastoniensibusy

pp. 268-74,280.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.5

3.17

1.16

5] a

t 00:

00 2

9 Ju

ne 2

014

THE CULT OF A R T H U R I A N RELICS

2 2

grave during the excavation — a procedure curiously reminiscent o f modern practice during an exhumation.

It is to A d a m o f Domerham that we also owe the brief but v i v i d description o f the visit paid to the t omb b y Edward I and Q u e e n Eleanor in 1 2 7 8 . 3 A t dusk o n the Tuesday before Easter they w e r e shown the t o m b with its twin compartments and the painted l ike­nesses o f Arthur and his queen, and the marks o f the fatal w o u n d o n Arthur's skull were pointed out . T h e next day the bones w e r e wrapped in rich silks and, K ing Edward carrying those o f Ar thu r while Eleanor bore those o f Guinevere, they were temporari ly returned to the t omb until a more splendid resting place cou ld b e made ready before the High Altar in the recently completed A b b e y Church. It appears, however, that the skulls were retained o n v i e w outside the t o m b as relics propter populi devotionem.

T h e new t o m b , in black marble with lions carved at the head a n d foot, remained in its place in a central position before the H i g h Altar between the tombs o f Edmund the Elder and Edmund I r o n ­side until the sixteenth century when Leland saw it and descr ibed it in detail o n his visit to Glastonbury between 1534 and 1539. H e noted the inscription which tallied with that quoted b y A d a m o f Domerham and he handled the leaden cross with its ancient letter­ing. John Leland was an enthusiastic champion o f the o ld idea o f British history, based on Nennius and Geoffrey of M o n m o u t h , the authenticity o f which was being questioned by Renaissance scholars. Nevertheless he was a learned man and an experienced observer and though his admiration for Arthur amounted t o a n obsession, one need not doubt that the t o m b , in his day, was as h e describes it.* Caxton also mentions the t omb as one o f the c h i e f proofs o f Arthur's actuality in his preface to Malory 's Morte d'Arthur.*

It is as well that Leland made his visit when he did for, alas f o r Glastonbury Abbey , the end was near. In September 1539 t h e Commissioners o f Henry V I I I arrived without previous notice a n d arrested the aged A b b o t w h o was tried for treason and executed o n Glastonbury T o r . T h e king took the best o f the A b b e y treasures

* Chambers, op. cit., pp. 280-1. *John Leland, The itenerary of John Leland the Antiquary, ed. Thomas

Hearne, Oxford, 1710-12 , vol. iii, p. 84, and idem, Assertio Inclytissimi Arthurii ed. W . E . Mead, E.E.T.S., 1925, pp. 126 seqq.

* Thomas Malory, Morte d'Arthur, ed. Eugene Vinaver, O.U.P., 1947, p. cxii.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.5

3.17

1.16

5] a

t 00:

00 2

9 Ju

ne 2

014

T H E CULT OF A R T H U R I A N RELICS

23

but the building itself was sold and given over to spoliation and desecration, quickly becoming a ruin and a quarry for local builders. O f Arthur's t o m b w e hear no more though the leaden cross sur­vived at least for a time. In 1607 Camden saw it and made a draw­ing o f it. Its cont inued existence has been traced as late as the eighteenth century when it was in the possession o f a M r Chancel­lor Hughes o f Wel ls , but thereafter nothing is known o f it.

Arthur 's grave at Glastonbury has been described at length b e ­cause it provided the background without which very few o f the other relics cou ld have c o m e into being. Granted that Geoffrey o f M o n m o u t h created the personality o f K i n g Arthur as w e n o w think o f h im, king and emperor, centre o f a splendid court and leader o f a heroic band o f knights, nevertheless it took the find at Glastonbury to clothe the literary figure with the semblance o f historical fact. Geoffrey's creation had not lacked for critics, Wil l iam o f Malmesbury, Wil l iam o f Newburgh , and Giraldus Cambrensis among them, w h o had attacked the exaggerated claims made o n his behalf, especially his overseas conquests which were always the weakest part o f Geoffrey's invention. But the find at Glastonbury seems to have been widely accepted as genuine, convincing even the shrewd Giraldus. W a s it entirely a hoax? I f so it must have been o n e o f the mos t elaborate o n record and, m o r e ­over, one that required the faithful collaboration o f a number o f monks and abbey officials.

T h e leaden cross is the mos t suspicious i tem with its inscription that not only identified the b o d y but conveniently certified that Glastonbury and Avalon were one and the same place. Y e t if the cross has been 'planted' b y Henry H ' s direction during the interregnum between the death o f Henry o f Blois in 1172 and the appointment o f Henry de Sully as abbot in 1189, h o w d id they know that a coffin containing the right type o f human remains wou ld b e found be low? T h e coffin was found sixteen feet d o w n which makes it unlikely that it was also 'planted' ; an excavation to that depth w o u l d have been far t o o noticeable. Furthermore it is most unlikely that a coffin hol lowed f rom the trunk o f an oak wou ld have been used. W e n o w k n o w that early burials were s o m e ­times made in this fashion bu t such knowledge is the result o f comparatively recent research. Moreove r , w h y put the coffin at such a depth? Is it likely that hoaxers wou ld have taken, into

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.5

3.17

1.16

5] a

t 00:

00 2

9 Ju

ne 2

014

THE CULT OF A R T H U R I A N RELICS

account the fact that, over two hundred years earlier, St Dunstari had found the monks' burial ground so overcrowded that he had had earth piled on the top to a depth of four or five feet to form a new layer in which burials could be made?8 On the other hand there is the theory that the island had been a burial ground from pre-Christian times and, if the tradition had lingered on into the twelfth century, the hoaxers may have trusted that, if a sufficiently deep excavation was made, a very ancient coffin would be found approximately below the 'planted' cross. In that case it was the good fortune of the monks that such a coffin was found, and it was their further good fortune that the man's skull within it bore the marks of a severe head wound such as that which Arthur was sup­posed to have suffered in his fight against Mordred. The gamble was great but it was for high stakes, and both the royal desire to destroy the belief in Arthur's return and the abbey's desperate need to attract funds after the disastrous fire of 1184, would en­courage those responsible to persist in their search.

If this supposition is correct, very few people need have known of the reasons that lay behind the decision to dig in a particular spot. Once the little leaden cross had been discovered, fixed with its inscription against the underpart of the stone slab, 'so that it should not be found by Saxon invaders', the rest of the proceed­ings would have been a genuine search by a number of enthusiastic helpers from whom Giraldus could have obtained first-hand accounts.

There is one further point that should be discussed here; that is the statement by Giraldus that the inscription referred also to Guinevere, Arthur's second wife. When, at the foot of the warrior's coffin, the monks found the bones of a woman and a lock of golden hair which fell to dust as soon as it was touched, it was natural that they should assume that they were those of Guinevere the queen, but none of the other descriptions of the leaden cross include any reference to Guinevere and the words do not appear on the cross handled by Leland and drawn by Camden. Indeed, if the above theory of the 'planting' of the cross is correct, it is most unlikely that Guinevere's name would have been included since the chance would be remote that the bones of a warrior and of a woman would have been found in one and the same coffin.

* Geoffrey Ashe, King Arthur's Avalon, London, Collins, 1957, p. 193.

24

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.5

3.17

1.16

5] a

t 00:

00 2

9 Ju

ne 2

014

T H E CULT OF A R T H U R I A N RELICS

25

T h e r e are one or two possible explanations. Giraldus was Welsh and when he heard that a woman ' s bones had been found, he may have remembered the story, n o w lost to us, to which reference is made in the triad Teir Riein Arthur (Three great queens o f Arthur 's cour t ) :

Gwennhwyfar daughter o f (Cywryd ) Gwent , and Gwenhwyfar daughter o f (Gwythy r ) son o f Greidiawl, and Gwenhwyfar daughter o f (G)ogfran the Giant . 7

Gwynhwyfar daughter o f Ogfran the Giant is the queen usually associated with Arthur in Celt ic tales. ( T h r e e wives wi th the same name may b e a satire mocking the We l sh love o f triple groupings ; the original story may have been o f two w o m e n bearing the same name.) Remember ing this story, and hearing that a woman ' s bones had been found in the coffin, d id Giraldus extend the inscription to include the queen and display his erudition b y defining her as the second wife?

M r Barber suggests another explanation. H e notes that in his description o f the leaden cross, Camden says that it was 'drawn out o f the first copie in the A b b e y o f Glascon ' and infers that what Leland and Camden saw and handled was not the original cross 'discovered' in 1190 but a c o p y . 8 T h i s allows the possibility that the original wording, recorded b y Giraldus, was later altered for reasons unknown. Tentatively I wou ld like to put forward another explan­ation for Camden 's cho ice o f words . Leland, I think, was sure that he was handling an original re l ic—the whole tone o f his references in the Assertio InclytisHmi Arthurii implies that — but Camden ' s visit was later, after the dissolution o f the A b b e y , and what h e saw and d rew may well have been a copy . Moreover , if any alteration in the inscription had been made, one w o u l d expect Guinevere 's name to appear in the later versions, b y wh ich t ime her remains were as wel l known as Arthur 's and her reputation had been vindicated b y the adopt ion o f the convent ion that, i f she had been faithful to her lover Lancelot , she cou ld b e excused f rom blame. T h e earlier Guinevere had been uncompromisingly c o n d e m n e d for adultery. Layamon, writing about the same t ime as the Glastonbury find was made, roundly stated that she ought to b e torn apart b y wi ld

1 Rachel Bromwich, Trioeddynys Prydein; The Welsh Triads, Cardiff, Univer­sity of Wales Press, 1 9 6 1 , Triad no. 56.

* R. W. Barber, Arthur of Albion, London, Barrie & Rockliff, 1961 , pp. 58-9-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.5

3.17

1.16

5] a

t 00:

00 2

9 Ju

ne 2

014

T H E C U L T O F A R T H U R I A N R E L I C S

horses, a fate which incidentally, appears to have been hers i f we are to trust the traditions attached to Gannore 's Grave near M e i g l e in Scotland. 9 T h e epitaph to Guinevere o n the Glastonbury t o m b quoted b y A d a m o f Domerham:

Arturi jacet hie coniux tumulata secunda, Quae meruit coelos virtutum prole fecunda.

has always seemed to m e to b e singularly inapposite and e v e n Leland was driven to declare that he supposed that her v i r t ue s referred to the period when she took the veil after the death o f Arthur. But one supposes that the monks o f Glastonbury, f i n d i n g themselves in possession o f her relics as well as those o f h e r illustrious husband, had to put the best construction o n h e r character 1

ARTHUR'S S W O R D

It did not take very long for Arthurian relics to proliferate. W e have seen that the find at Glastonbury took place in 1190 o r 1191. B y March 1191 Richard I was presenting Tancred o f Sicily w i t h Caliburn, better known to us as Excalibur! I t came about in t h i s wise :

Richard Coeur de L i o n succeeded his father in July 1189 a n d almost immediately set about amassing funds for his expedit ion t o the Holy Land on the Th i rd Crusade. By December he had c r o s s e d to France where he entered into a treaty o f friendship with P h i l i p o f France w h o was also bound for the Crusade. Dur ing 1190 Richard was making his way slowly through his French possess ions o f Anjou and Gascony to Marseilles where he jo ined his fleet. B y autumn he had reached Messina where Philip had already a r r ived and the two kings planned to winter there before sailing for Syria. >„

Sicily was undergoing one o f its periods o f dynastic t r o u b l e s . Wil l iam I I (the G o o d ) married Joanna o f England, Richard's s is ter , but had died the previous year leaving n o son. T h e rightful heir w a s his aunt, Constance, wife o f Henry o f Hohenstauffen and s o o n t o b e the mother o f the famous Frederick I I . However , her G e r m a n marriage was unpopular with the Sicilians and the throne w a s occup ied b y Tanc red o f L e c c e , a bastard descendant o f R o g e r H ,

• J. S. Stuart Glennie, 'Arthurian localities' in Merlin, E.E.T.S., 1869, Pt. i j | p. liii. "

26

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.5

3.17

1.16

5] a

t 00:

00 2

9 Ju

ne 2

014

THE C U L T OF A R T H U R I A N RELICS

2 7

Tancred had imprisoned the widowed Queen Joanna and Richard utilized the winter months of waiting by bringing pressure to bear on the Sicilian king to release his sister and to return her dowry. Richard indeed went further. He also declared that a vast treasure in gold and ships had been deposited in Sicily for the use of the Crusaders and claimed it. Tancred sent back Joanna with her bed­room furniture only. Quarrels broke out. Richard attacked Messina and thereby offended Philip of France who was lodged in the Sicilian palace there. Richard won an easy victory and constructed a wooden fortress which he called Mategrifon — grifon being a name contemptuously used by the northerners for Greeks. For the rest of his stay in Sicily, quarrels alternated with hunting and visits to local shrines—one envies him the sight of the mosaics at Palermo and Cefalu in their pristine splendour — and with lavish hos­pitality to his friends.

Eventually, Richard having obtained Joanna's release and some part of her dowry and other valuables, a truce was patched up between him and Tancred and at their farewell meeting gifts were exchanged. Tancred, probably glad to speed the parting guest, offered Richard gifts 'many and great' which Richard condescend­ingly refused, only accepting one small ring. He, on his part, pre­sented Tancred with the sword 'which the British call Caliburn, which was the sword of Arthur, former noble king of England'.10

The odd little incident is attested both by Benedict of Peter­borough11 and by Roger of Hoveden but we know no more of the sword's history, where it came from or what happened to it. A guess — it can be nothing more — is that when the monks of Glastonbury notified King Richard of the discovery of the grave of Arthur, they sent at the same time an ancient sword as a fitting gift to the warrior king. There is no mention of a sword having been found in the coffin but Richard's gift to Tancred comes so pat upon the discovery at Glastonbury that one cannot help feeling that the two are in some way connected. The gift to Tancred was not quite so inappropriate as might seem at first sight for stories of Arthur were already current in Sicily, including one that he was to be found in a subterranean palace within Mount Etna. All the same, one wonders a little if Tancred really appreciated Excalibur I

" W . Stubbs, ed. Chronica Magestri Rogeri de Houedene, 1870, Vol. iii, p. 97. 1 1 Chambers, op. cit., p. 274.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.5

3.17

1.16

5] a

t 00:

00 2

9 Ju

ne 2

014

T H E C U L T O F A R T H U R I A N R E L I C S

ARTHUR'S C R O W N

Chronologically, the next relic to be noted is Arthur 's c r o w n , presented to Edward I in 1283 by the Welsh as part o f their t o k e n o f submission after the defeat and death o f Llewellyn II at B u i l t h . 1 8

T h e c rown was handed over to the Shrine o f St Edward at W e s t ­minster A b b e y b y Edward's son, Alfonso, in 1285. Thereafter i t seems to disappear f rom history and M r Lawrence E. T a n n e r , Keeper o f the Muniment R o o m and Library at the A b b e y , i n f o r m s me that there is no record o f it in the lists o f relics made in 1467, 1479 and 1520. N o r have I been able, so far, to trace its ea r l ie r history. It is supposed to have been the c rown o f Llewellyn I I b u t there seems to be no Welsh tradition that it had originally b e l o n g e d to Arthur. Edward I was, in the words o f Professor L o o m i s , 1 3 a n 'Arthurian enthusiast' and w e have already met h im in c o n n e c t i o n with his visit to Glastonbury in 1278. I t seems more than l i k e l y that when the Welsh crown fell into his hands, someone thought t o enhance its interest for Edward b y claiming that it had be longed t o Arthur.

T H E ROUND T A B L E A T W INCHESTER

A relic that can still b e seen is the R o u n d Table which hangs i n the County Hall at Winchester, the thirteenth-century b u i l d i n g which was the King ' s Hall in Winchester Castle. Th i s is a c i r cu l a r table top about seventeen feet in diameter, painted with radia t ing lines which divide it into twenty-five parts. O n e o f these s e c t i o n s is occupied b y the painted figure o f a king, each o f the others b e a r s the name o f one o f Arthur's knights. T h e table is o f stout oak p l a n k and the underpart is made in the form o f a wheel with t w e l v e radiating spokes, in each o f which is a mortice hole to receive a tenon, proving that it s tood originally o n legs with a central s u p ­por t . 1 4 T h e present scheme o f colouring, green and white w i t h a T u d o r rose in the centre, dates f rom the sixteenth century a n d

1 1 Henry Richard Luard, ed. Floret Historiarum, Rolls Series, 1890, Vol. £ij p. 59, F. M . Powicke, Henry III and the Lord Edward, O.U.P., 1947, p. 7*4, a n d Archaelogia Cambrensis, Vol. 1,1846, p. 43.

" Roger Sherman Loomis, 'Edward I, Arthurian enthusiast', in Speculum Vol. 28, no. 1, Jan. 1953, pp. 114-17. '

" T . W . Shore, 'King Arthur and the Round Table at Winchester', im Papers and Proc. of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society, Vol. iv, 1898. 1903, pp. 198-204.

28

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.5

3.17

1.16

5] a

t 00:

00 2

9 Ju

ne 2

014

THE CULT OF ARTHURIAN RELICS

2 9

there is an item in the Exchequer Roll for 1 5 1 6 - 1 7 for repairs to the Hall and to the Table. The table was repainted in 1 7 8 9 . "

The exact age of the table is not known but Henry V I I I dis­played it as a venerable curiosity to the Emperor Charles on his visit to Westminster in 1522 . Milner suggested that it might be as old as the reign of Stephen but it seems far more likely that it was commissioned by Henry I I I who did much to refurbish Win­chester Castle, or by Edward I . Edward's visit to Glastonbury was in 1278 and would still be freshly remembered when he spent the Christmas of 1279 at Winchester. Moreover that was the year when Roger Mortimer entertained a hundred knights and a hun­dred ladies at a tournament and 'rounde table' at Kenilworth.

The twenty-four knights whose names appear on the table in­clude most of those famous in the romances with Galahad, Lancelot du Lac, Gawain and Percival on the king's right, while on the king's left is Mordred's seat. Presumably this is the 'Place de Judas ou siege perilleux, restait toujours vide' mentioned by Diego de Vera who described the table when he saw it as a visitor to Win­chester for the marriage of Philip and Mary in 1 5 5 4 . 1 8

THE IMPRINT OF ARTHUR'S SEAL

The earliest mention of this that I have so far found is about 1485 when Caxton, in the preface to his edition of Malory's Morte d'Arthur, refers to the print of the seal in red wax which hung in St Edward's Shrine in Westminster Abbey. Subsequently it was seen and handled by John Rastell about 1529 and examined again by Leland about 1540. Thereafter, like the crown, it disappears from history.

Caxton gives an interesting list of items which, in his opinion confirm the existence of Arthur, and he cites them to confute those who might object that 'alle suche books as been maad of hym ben but fayned and fables'. Amongst these items is the imprint of the seal. John Rastell was one of those who doubted the accuracy of the British History according to Geoffrey of Monmouth and though he testifies to the existence of the seal at Westminster, he expressed distrust of its genuineness. He had been told by the custodians that

" Melville Portal, The great hall Winchester Castle, Winchester 1899, p. 90. " Portal, op. cit.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.5

3.17

1.16

5] a

t 00:

00 2

9 Ju

ne 2

014

THE CULT OF ARTHURIAN RELICS

THE WEDALE RELICS

These were said to be fragments of an ancient image of the V i r ­gin Mary which Arthur had brought from Jerusalem and which were preserved at Wedale, not far from Melrose. It seems that very little is known about them. An allusion to them appears as a late,

" T. D. Kendrick, British antiquity, London, Methuen, 1950, pp. 4 1 , 9 6 . " Richard Robinson, The assertion of King Arthur, ed. W. E. Mead, E.E.T.S.

1925, p. 40.

30

the seal had come from a charter granted by Arthur to the A b b e y . Rastell questioned whether the monastery was, in fact, founded i n

Arthur's day and, in any case, could wax have lasted so long ? 1 7

In spite of this and other serious attacks on the Arthurian h i s ­tory, Leland accepted the seal with his customary enthusiasm f o r all things that might confirm the existence of his hero. He wrote a detailed description of it in his Assertio Inclytissimi Arthurii ( 1 5 4 4 ) . It was of red wax which had been 'crazed here and there into peeces' (I quote from the translation of 1582 by Richard Robinson), yet no part was completely missing for the edges and back were enclosed in silver, the front being protected by a 'circle of christall, which being taken off, streightway may any man touch the wax, which by reason of the antiquitie is most hard'. The figure of Arthur, crowned and in royal robes, was seated upon a half circle, 'such one as we see the raine boe is.' In his right hand he held a sceptre topped with a fleur-de-lis, in the left a globe surmounted b y a cross. His beard was 'comely, large and at length'. Around the edge of the seal was engraved PATRICIUS ARTURIUS BRITTANNIAE, GALLIAE, GERMANIAE, DACIAE IMPERATOR. Leland concludes his account with a soliloquy on the inscription, equating 'Dacians' with Danes.18

Leland made close inquiries as to the history of the seal but this time the custodians were wary and left him to conjecture that it had come originally from a Glastonbury charter and on that rather in­conclusive note one must leave the subject. The seal appeared in the hey-day of the Tudor cult of the Arthurian legend; it dis­appears, with the other relics at Westminster at the Reformation. All that can be said positively is that it hung among other costly offerings at the Westminster Shrine for a hundred years or more. D

ownl

oade

d by

[64

.53.

171.

165]

at 0

0:00

29

June

201

4

THE CULT OF ARTHURIAN RELICS

31

possibly thirteenth century, interpolation in a MS of Nennius,*9

which was seen by Leland and noted by him.20 Stuart Glennie identifies 'Wedale' as Stow, a few miles north-west of Melrose, where there was a church of St Mary. 8 1

There was a very early tradition that Arthur carried an image of the Virgin Mary into battle 'on his shoulder*. It has been suggested that this is a confusion between the Welsh iscuid (shoulder) and iscuit (shield) and Geoffrey of Monmouth says that the image was painted on the inside of Arthur's shield. In the romances Arthur's personal arms were said to be vert a plain cross argent, in chief the figure of the Virgin Mary with Christ in her arms, which seems to be a continuation of this tradition. (Later he is said to have assumed the better known arms, azure three (or thirteen) crowns or, to commemorate his conquests). The story of the Wedale relics seems to be an attempt to rationalize the tradition in another way.

OTHER RELICS

The above-mentioned 'relics' seem to be the items most closely connected with Arthur himself. There were, in addition, a number of relics connected with people famous in the Arthurian romances. These include Lancelot's sword mentioned by Caxton,22 Tristram's sword listed amongst the items of King John's regalia,23 Iseult's robe that was preserved at Golant church,24 Gawain's sword, and Gawain's skull with Craddock's mantle at Dover. In the space available we can only deal with the two last items.

Both Malory and Caxton mention the fact that Gawain's skull was exhibited at Dover Castle but with no supporting evidence. Indeed, it seems possible that Caxton was merely repeating Malory's statement, 'And than the Kynge let entere hym in a chapell within Dover castell. And there yet all men may see the skulle of hym, and the same wounde is sene that Sir Launcelot gaff inbatayle,'25

Gawain's burial place has been variously reported in the

" R. W . Barber, op. tit., p. 2con. »° John Leland, Assertio. . . . p . m . 1 1 J. S. Stuart Glennie, op. cit., p. Ixxvi. " Thomas Malory, op. cit., p.cxii. "Roger Sherman Loomis, 'Vestiges of Tristram in London', Burlington

Magazine, vol. 4 1 , 1 9 2 2 , pp. 5 4 - 6 4 . " Charles Henderson, Essays in Cornish history, O.U.P., 1 9 3 5 , reprinted by

D. Bradford Barton, Truro, 1 9 6 3 , pp. 2 7 , 4 2 - 3 . *' Thomas Malory, op. cit., p. 1 2 3 2 .

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.5

3.17

1.16

5] a

t 00:

00 2

9 Ju

ne 2

014

THE CULT OF A R T H U R I A N RELICS

Arthurian legend. Wil l iam o f Malmesbury tells us that, during t h e reign o f Will iam the Conqueror , the t omb of Walwen was f o u n d i n the Welsh province called R o s . 2 8 ( T h e modern identification i s Walwyn ' s Castle in Pembroke, north-east o f St Bride's.) F r o m Geoffrey o f M o n m o u t h onwards the chronicles and romances a g r e e that Gawain fell in the battle with Mordred when Arthur 's f o r c e s first landed in the country o n Arthur's return from his con t inen ta l wars but the places differ, Richborough, Romney and D o v e r a l l being mentioned. I n this matter Malory fol lowed the E n g l i s h stanzaic poem, Le Morte Arthur, which clearly indicated t h a t Gawain was buried at Dover . T h e tradition o f an association b e ­tween the Arthurian legend and Dove r Castle seems n o w to h a v e disappeared though it lingered until the early years o f the n i n e ­teenth century when Lyons ' History of the Town and Port of Dover (1814) refers to a space on the north-east side o f the K e e p w h i c h 'was anciently the scite o f a large r o o m called Arthur's Hall ' .

T h e other Arthurian relic at Dove r was Craddock's mantle a n d Caxton seems to be the main source o f information. Since t h e cloak was frankly magical in its properties — it shrank when w o r n b y an unfaithful wife — it cou ld only have been accepted as a r e l i c when the cult was at its most debased.

In Welsh tradition the mantle belonged to Caradawc V r e i c h b r a s and was worn triumphantly b y his wife Tegau Eurvron w h o w a s renowned for her fidelity. T h e story became widespread and a l a t e ballad version is to b e found in The boy and the mantle.11 A s in t h e Lai du Cor, where the chastity test is b y means o f a dr inking-horn , the mantle is used to expose Guinevere's faithlessness. In t h e Manteau Mautaillie the author asserts that the mantle had b e e n deposited in a We l sh abbey and had been recently r e - d i s c o v e r e d 2 8

— but there is no clue as to h o w it came to jo in Gawain's skull a t D o v e r .

Caxton's reference to the existence o f the relics at D o v e r i s

corroborated b y Leland if w e can assume that b y 'Dor i ' , ' D u r e n s j Castro' and 'Durensis portus ' he meant Dove r and D o v e r C a s t l e , and not Dorchester as Robinson translated him. T h e n his s ta te -

*• Chambers, op. cit., pp. 17 ,250 . *' Percy's Reliques of Ancient English Poetry,Everyman edition, London, D e n t

1906, Vol. ii, pp. 188-95. *• R. S. Loomis (ed.), Arthurian literature in the Middle Ages, O.U.P. 1 9 5 0

p. 1 1 4 .

3 2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.5

3.17

1.16

5] a

t 00:

00 2

9 Ju

ne 2

014

T H E C U L T O F A R T H U R I A N R E L I C S

C 33

merits that Gallouinus was buried in a chapel at Dor i and that at Durensis portus the inhabitants still claimed to possess certain exuvias o f Caradocus (which might be applied to cast-off apparel though Robinson translated as ' lyneamentes') would echo Caxton. Furthermore, Leland's remark that the local people pointed out Arturii aulam & Guenherae cubiculum would tie up with Lyons ' s report o f the r o o m anciently called Arthur's Hall.* 9

T o bring this survey up to date, mention must be made o f the current excavations at Glastonbury A b b e y . W o r k on the search for Arthur's grave was begun b y M r C . A . Ralegh Radford in 1962 and was continued in August 1963. A report on the first year's work has been published in Somerset & Dorset Notes & Queries, V o l . 28, Pt. 277, March 1963, p p . 114-17. It makes interesting reading. In the monks ' cemetery M r Radford has uncovered two areas o f disturbed earth which seem to correspond to the sites o f the two pyramids (pillars) described b y Wil l iam o f Malmesbury. Between these are traces o f a large irregular disturbance in which were found chippings o f Doul t ing stone which was used for the building o f the Church o f St Mary between 1184 and 1189. M r Ralegh Rad­ford suggests that this disturbance o f the soil may well mark the site o f the excavation o f Arthur 's grave in 1191 when chippings in quantity would still have been lying around. T h e full report o f the 1963 excavations is not yet available.

M Richard Robinson, Assertion.... pp. 29,33, and John Leland, Assertio.... pp. i o s , i°8.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.5

3.17

1.16

5] a

t 00:

00 2

9 Ju

ne 2

014