Mythic origins of the British nation

[brianmelendez]

For years I have read various versions of The Matter of Britain, the cycle of stories that culminates in the Arthurian romances. The versions that I have read all trace the British nation’s mythic origins to the island’s settlement by Brutus the Trojan, great-grandson of Aeneas and first king of the Britons, who take their name from him:

Arthur’s pretensions were that he was a brave, though not always a successful warrior; he had withstood with great resolution the arms of the infidels, that is to say of the Saxons, and his memory was held in the highest estimation by his countrymen, the Britons, who carried with them into Wales, and into the kindred country of Armorica, or Brittany, the memory of his exploits, which their national vanity insensibly exaggerated, till the little prince of the Silures (South Wales) was magnified into the conqueror of England, of Gaul, and of the greater part of Europe. His genealogy was gradually carried up to an imaginary Brutus, and to the period of the Trojan war, and a sort of chronicle was composed in the Welsh, or Armorican language, which, under the pompous title of the “History of the Kings of Britain,” was translated into Latin by Geoffrey of Monmouth, about the year 1150. The Welsh critics consider the material of the work to have been an older history, written by St. Talian, Bishop of St. Asaph, in the seventh century.

Thomas Bulfinch, Bulfinch’s Mythology, p. 375 (New York: Avenel Books, 1979). Bulfinch opens his chapter on “The Mythical History of England” thus:

The illustrious poet, Milton, in his “History of England,” is the author whom we chiefly follow in this chapter.

According to the earliest accounts, Albion, a giant, and son of Neptune, a contemporary of Hercules, ruled over the island, to which he gave his name…

Another story is that Histion, the son of Japhet, the son of Noah, had four sons, Francus, Romanus, Alemannus, and Britto, from whom descended the French, Roman, German, and British people.

Rejecting these and other like stories, Milton gives more regard to the story of Brutus, the Trojan, which, he says, is supported by “descents of ancestry long continued, laws and exploits not plainly seeming to be borrowed or devised, which on the common belief have wrought no small impression; defended by many; denied utterly by few.” The principal authority is Geoffrey of Monmouth, whose history, written in the twelfth century, purports to be a translation of a history of Britain brought over from the opposite shore of France, which, under the name of Brittany, was chiefly peopled by natives of Britain who, from time to time, emigrated thither, driven from their own country by the inroads of the Picts and Scots. According to this authority, Brutus was the son of Silvius, and he of Ascanius, the son of Aeneas…

If our readers ask when all this took place, we must answer, in the first instance, that mythology is not careful of dates; and next, that, as Brutus was the great-grandson of Aeneas, it must have been not far from a century subsequent to the Trojan war, or about eleven hundred years before the invasion of the island by Julius Caesar. This long interval is filled with the names of princes whose chief occupation was in warring with one another…

The Romans eventually succeeded in establishing themselves in the island, and after the lapse of several generations they became blended with the natives so that no distinction existed between the two races. When at length the Roman armies were withdrawn from Britain, their departure was a matter of regret to the inhabitants, as it left them without protection against the barbarous tribes … who harassed the country incessantly. This was the state of things when the era of King Arthur began.

Ibid. at 379-8. Joy Chant’s chronicle The High Kings tells a similar story of Julius Ceasar’s conquest, when the Roman general reached terms with the British king Cassibellaunus:

At that they [Caesar and Cassiballaunus] laughed, and clasped hands, and swore friendship together; and the nobles of Britain acclaimed them. That night Romans and Britons feasted together, and a strong alliance was sworn between them, and great Julius conferred on every free man of Britain the citizenship of Rome. Thus met the two races of Trojan descent, and the divided heirs of Aeneas were united, and found in one another the equals they had not found before in all the world.

Joy Chant, The High Kings, pp. 166-67 (Toronto: Bantam Books, 1983).

But recently, I was reading an old (1949) edition of Burke’s Peerage, and was surprised by a different account of the royal house’s mythical origins:

After the invasion of the former Roman province of Britain by the ancient English, a number of dynasties were established in England, each having sway over part of the country and each claiming descent from the god Woden. It became the custom for the various kings south of the river Humber to acknowledge an overlord, and in the reign of the famous Offa, King of the Mercians there occurs for the first time in one of his official documents the famous phrase-- Rex totius Anglorum patriae, King of all England. Offa reigned 757-796 and his descent was traced from a namesake who had reigned over the English in their old home 400 years before in what is now Schleswig. By 825, however, supremacy among the English kingdoms south of Humber passed to Egbert, King of Wessex, to whom the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle applies the term “Bretwalda,” or Ruler of Britain.

I have several related questions arising out of these two accounts. First, let me be clear that I realize we are talking about mythology here, that nobody takes seriously the descent from either the Trojans or from Woden, and that there is no “official” national mythology on this matter. I’m really asking about the two descents’ cultural and symbolic significance in the modern British consciousness. Here are my questions:

1. Is the Matter of Britain considered a part of the story of the modern British nation – that is, is King Arthur considered even as a mythical or semi-mythical predecessor of Queen Elizabeth II? Or is the Celtic nation that Arthur led considered a separate nation from the British nation that Egbert and his successors have ruled?

2. What is the earliest antecedent from which the modern British monarchy can claim a lineal, even if mythical, descent?

3. Which story – as between The Matter of Britain with its descent from Brutus, Aeneas, Venus (Aeneas’s mother), and Jupiter (Aeneas’s great-great-great-great grandfather); and the Anglic version with its descent from Woden – claims the more ancient literary pedigree? The Matter of Britain certainly appeared by Geoffrey of Monmouth’s chronicle in the mid-12th century, but claims antecedents dating back to St. Talian in the seventh century, and may go back even further to the Mabinogion. The Norse-Anglic version appears by the time of Offa in the eighth century and Egbert in the ninth, but Offa’s descent goes back as far as the fourth century.

4. To what extent, if any, does either story impinge upon the modern British popular consciousness? Does the average Londoner have any sense of the monarchy’s ancient historical or mythological roots? What about the average Welsh subject, for whom The Matter of Britain may have greater resonance?

5. Does the story of Noah’s son Japhet and Japhet’s son Britto have any literary, scholarly, or popular currency?

6. Finally, I’m curious whether more recent editions of Burke’s Peerage contain the same story as my 1949 edition.

Now, if you have read this far … thank you! And I look forward to your dispelling my ignorance.

[GorillaMan]

Some answers from an English point of view:

@brianmelendez

1. Is the Matter of Britain considered a part of the story of the modern British nation – that is, is King Arthur considered even as a mythical or semi-mythical predecessor of Queen Elizabeth II? Or is the Celtic nation that Arthur led considered a separate nation from the British nation that Egbert and his successors have ruled?

No. Most people couldn’t actually tell you anything at all about the Arthurian legends.

2. What is the earliest antecedent from which the modern British monarchy can claim a lineal, even if mythical, descent?

It all gets a bit murky once you get back to the Anglo-Saxon kings, and of course there was a slight hiccup in the direct inheritance of the throne in 1066 Again, most people don’t know their myths to be able to place the characters into any speculative lineage.

4. To what extent, if any, does either story impinge upon the modern British popular consciousness? Does the average Londoner have any sense of the monarchy’s ancient historical or mythological roots?

Pretty much none, and no. While historical events certainly shape national & regional attitudes (the rivalry of red & white roses lives on, for example, and Boudicca has a heroic status), mythical characters don’t feature.

[Cat_Jones]

Now, if you have read this far … thank you! And I look forward to your dispelling my ignorance.

Confession I kinda skimmed to get to your questions!

The basic problem is your use of the word ‘British’, the inhabitants of the island of Great Britain have a very limited concept of Britishness - indeed the word is most usually used by the second and third generation immigrants (“British Asians”) rather than with a historical feel. As he clearly states, Gorillaman has answered from and English perspective, let me try to give a more Celtic spin (although I’m 50:50).

1 - no conection between the present royals and Arthur - despite the fact that we have had several ‘dynasties’ since, we tend to trace the idea of our monarchy, a single ruler of England, later Wales and later still Scotland, to the invasion of William the Conquerer in 1066. (It was at this point we dropped ‘nicknames’ such as 'the confessor" & “the unready” for numbers Henry II, Richard III etc.) Arthur is considered as a myth, but a myth which symbolises the last of the Celts standing against the Saxons. Or, for the English, a brave Britain fighting against and dangerous invader. (PS Lexically I saying Egbert was a British king is not strictly accurate.)

2 - What Gorillaman said. You may find this site worth a look.

3 - No idea, the Celts did not write their histories down; a lot of our written evidence comes via roman observers. Remember there were distinct tribes living in the islands, there could have been different beliefs co-exsisting.

4 - 'THe Matter of Britain" very very very few people will have even the vaguest idea what you are talking about. Arthur is about as important as Robin Hood. We don’t link our monarchy with our myths but with the nation’s history yes - we can’t help it with the various royal events which pop up at various times of year. As for influencing realtions between Wales and England for example we have plenty of more recent events (the rebellion of Owen Glyndwr, the miner’s strike, rugby) to base our mutual mistrust on without delving back so far

5 - I studies some medaeival texts at uni so was vaguely aware of the Brutus link but hadn’t heard the Noah’s son idea. So popular currency, none at all for either theory.

6 - Um, no idea - you’ve tried looking online have you ? Or ask them directly.

In general the ‘English’ seem to have lost contact with their legends and myths, maybe it was the industrial revolution distancing them from the land and rhythms of nature, maybe they didn’t feel the same need as their ‘downtrodden’ Celtic neighbours to look back towards and build up a glorious past.

[APB]

Versions of all three traditions – Brutus/Britto (descendant of Aeneas), Brutus/Britto (descendant of Japheth) and Woden – can be found in Nennius’s Historia Brittonum. The idea that the Saxon kings were descended from Woden is certainly earlier than this (Bede alludes to it) and most scholars would assume that it was probably the earliest of them. The idea of a descent from Japheth is, of course, just a variation on the standard idea that all European peoples were descended from him.

But, as Nennius demonstrates, it wasn’t too difficult to conflate all three. That’s the fun thing about fantasy pedigrees – why have just the one when you can combine as many as you like? And it doesn’t take much historical insight to realise that each respresented a different type of dynastic claim (Classical, Biblical and Germanic) and that there was no need to prefer one over the other.

None of this has any contemporary resonance whatsoever. The last time they were used in any serious way by the monarchy was in the eighteenth century, when the Hanoverians were keen to stress the supposed common Saxon heritage. Some of these ideas lingered on in the popular consciousness into the nineteenth century, reviving a bit later among those writers who wanted a Wagnerian version of English/British history, but it all became deeply unfashionable round about the time of the First World War and has remained so. Some of them have since made their way into fantasy fiction, but that is completely disconnected from any popular perceptions of the actual British monarchy.

[GorillaMan]

@Cat Jones

a more Celtic spin (although I’m 50:50)

the rebellion of Owen Glyndwr

Yup, using the Anglicised spelling of his name puts you in the 50:50 catagory, alright

[Meurglys]

As already said, few people here would have a clue what ‘the matter of Britain’ was… and most people’s understanding of Arthurian stuff would be confined to whatever they gleaned from movies and novels.
This is another take on the history of Britain which has some obvious claptrap but also a lot of more interesting info. (it takes ages to load on my machine)
Druid site

[Futile_Gesture]

@brianmelendez

1. Is the Matter of Britain considered a part of the story of the modern British nation

2. To what extent, if any, does either story impinge upon the modern British popular consciousness?

3. Does the story of Noah’s son Japhet and Japhet’s son Britto have any literary, scholarly, or popular currency?

1. First point; The Britons & The British are not the same thing, so direct correlations between the Britons and modern day British are suspect. No one seriously considers King Arthur as lineage for the current royal family. I suppose you might consider him so spiritually or culturally, but you’d have to be a bit of a romantic unconcerned by the obvious mythology of it all. People are more likely to point out that the current lot are half German.

2. About as much as Monty Python’s take on it. It’s all a mixture of nice myth and dodgy history, but that’s about it. Strictly for the tourists.

3. Never heard of it.

@Cat Jones

we tend to trace the idea of our monarchy, a single ruler of England, later Wales and later still Scotland, to the invasion of William the Conquerer in 1066.

Hardly a ‘Celtic spin’ at all then. If you look at the lineage it’s a case of the Scottish king also becoming the King of England, so why should the lineage trace back to the ‘English’ William the Conqueror rather than the Scottish kings who pre-date him?

Either way, from a non-English viewpoint, King Arthur is not relevant to British royalty. He is usually regarded as ‘English’, but it has even been suggested that Arthur was ‘Scottish’ (i.e he came from what is now Scotland.) As 80% myth we’ll probably never know.

[Tamerlane]

@brianmelendez

2. What is the earliest antecedent from which the modern British monarchy can claim a lineal, even if mythical, descent?

Depends on just how “lineal” you want to get. William the Conqueror’s son, Henry I ‘Beauclerc’ married the daughter of the king of Scotland and Margaret Atheling. Margaret’s brother Edgar was by blood the proper heir of Edward the Confessor ( and in fact after the disaster at Hastings he was briefly declared king by the Witan, though never consecrated as such before everyone submitted to William ) - they were the great-grandchildren of Edmund Ironside and direct descendants of the West Saxon king Alfred the Great. The dynasty of the West Saxons was known as the ‘house of Cerdic’ and traced itself, supposedly, to a 5th century invading Saxon chief by that name. However that name appears to actually be Celtic in origin, which could point to any number of possibilities, including that he was mythical, of mixed heritage, or merely that his name got garbled and Celticized by the first to document and immortalize him, which was subsequently carried over into Anglo-Saxon history in that form.

So 5th century at best, but through a somewhat tortured path and at times through the female line. Remember their were strictly speaking a dynastic changes even immediately after Henry I - first under his nephew Stephen of Boulogne, son of his sister Adela, then under Henry II, the first Angevin/Plantagenet, son of his daughter Mathilda.

• Tamerlane

[Tamerlane]

Remember their were strictly speaking a dynastic changes…

God, that’s ugly :). Oh, well - I trust everyone undetstood what I was trying to say.

• Tamerlane

[Mathochist]

IIRC, the vast open questions over this matter are in large part what drove Tolkien to create a new British mythopoesis and back-story. Can anyone else flesh out his motivations?

[Cat_Jones]

Hardly a ‘Celtic spin’ at all then. If you look at the lineage it’s a case of the Scottish king also becoming the King of England, so why should the lineage trace back to the ‘English’ William the Conqueror rather than the Scottish kings who pre-date him?

Woah, you mis-read me Futile Gesture !

My ‘Celtic spin’ quip was in response to Gorillaman ‘s “from an English point of view”, for those who don’t read locations I wanted to stress that I’m half Welsh and, as such, may have/been brought up with a different view to the ol’ Tractor Boy. I didn’t mean to suggest the Celts as a whole were twisintg history to suit their own ends.

Nor was I referring to lineage, I said “the idea of monarchy”, and tried to elucidate or define what I meant, obvioulsy I failed. Kings with strange sounding names and soubriquets who ruled ertswhile kingdoms we’d find hard to locate on a map (Aethelwulf, King of Wessex; Creoda (son of Icel), King of Mercia etc.) are foreign indeed - I don’t know about you but they were quickly skimmed over in my history lessons (in England). That William I / William the Conqueror ruled a place called and identifiable as ‘England’ means that subconsciously or not he is often the starting point when we consider Kings & Queens of England “despite the fact that we have had several ‘dynasties’ since” (in my original post).

As for Arthur being considered ‘English’, he’s been claimed as a son by Cornwall, Wales, Scotland etc. but I think most agree the best label is British (in the sense of being an ancient Briton).

And, Gorillaman please don’t tell my Dad about the Owen Glyndwr (aka Owen Glendower & Owain Glyn Dwr) spelling - I only half anglicized it after all

[FriarTed]

Not one mention of the Lost Tribes of Israel and the Davidic roots of the House of Windsor?

Google up J.H. Allen’s “Judah’s Sceptre and Joseph’s Birthright” for a bit of fun, tho my favorite Anglo-Israel books are Adam Rutherford’s “Israel-Britain” and C.R. Dickey’s “One Man’s Destiny”.

[WotNot]

@FriarTed

Not one mention of the Lost Tribes of Israel and the Davidic roots of the House of Windsor?

Why bring up that nonsense? Everyone knows the Windsors are satanic shape-shifting reptilians of the Babylonian Brotherhood, from the constellation Draco.

Them and George Bush (senior), Boxcar Willie and Kris Kristofferson.

They eat babies and everything.

[Ponder_Stibbons]

@WotNot

… George Bush (senior), Boxcar Willie and Kris Kristofferson.

Oh, OK, I remember now. They were the three members of the Trilateral Commission, right?

[What_Exit]

No comments either way. I just wanted to add a good resource that I have liked for ancient Briton.
http://www.britannia.com/history/h6f.html

Specifically for Arthur:
http://www.britannia.com/history/h12.html

[GorillaMan]

@Cat Jones

My ‘Celtic spin’ quip was in response to Gorillaman ‘s “from an English point of view”, for those who don’t read locations I wanted to stress that I’m half Welsh and, as such, may have/been brought up with a different view to the ol’ Tractor Boy. I didn’t mean to suggest the Celts as a whole were twisintg history to suit their own ends.

I’ve got a chunk of Welsh ancestory, too, but for those who don’t understand annoying obscure locations I’ve always lived in England.

And, Gorillaman please don’t tell my Dad about the Owen Glyndwr (aka Owen Glendower & Owain Glyn Dwr) spelling - I only half anglicized it after all

Yeah, but you anglicised the part I encounter being anglicised on a daily basis

[Mk_VII]

my 1971 version of the Guinness Book of Records traces the Queen’s pedigree back as far as Elesa, who flourished in the 5th century A.D. when the Romans left. This is fifty generations.

[HPL]

@WotNot

Why bring up that nonsense? Everyone knows the Windsors are satanic shape-shifting reptilians of the Babylonian Brotherhood, from the constellation Draco.

Them and George Bush (senior), Boxcar Willie and Kris Kristofferson.

They eat babies and everything.

When did Kris Kristofferson join? I haven’t seen him at any of the meetings…er, if I went to any meetings don’t exist. Carry on!

[PBear42]

If you look at the lineage it’s a case of the Scottish king also becoming the King of England, so why should the lineage trace back to the ‘English’ William the Conqueror rather than the Scottish kings who pre-date him?

Are you referring to the Stuarts? My understanding is that the explanation is that Hank the 8th’s sister married Jim the 4th, so her progeny were indeed partly Tudors. Is that wrong? Or did you mean something else?