BADON AND AMBROSIUS

Wallop Brook, Hampshire

[NOTE: This is an unfinished article I've had lying around for some time.  As I'm moving on to other fields of interest, I thought it best to just offer this here now.  Honestly, I've just never been able to figure out what to do with it. Others may decide it's worth building upon.  If not, well, at least I won't have it beckoning to me from the dustheap of ideas! Enjoy - or not, as the case may be.]

In past articles, I showed how the Ambrosius associated with Dark Age Britain was, in fact, an error for a Roman prefect of Gaul who went by that name (possibly conflated with his more famous son of the same name, St. Ambrose).  I presented the points of my argument in the following piece:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-ghost-ambrosius-or-why-arthurs.html

The question as to why this error happened has haunted me for some time.  The solution to the problem seems to lie in the HISTORIA BRITTONUM'S placement of the battle between Ambrosius and Vitalinus at Wallop Brook in Hampshire.  This location is only a few miles south of Amesbury or Ambresbyrig.  Now, while place-name specialist prefer to see in Ambres- a Germanic personal name, none will allow for this being derived from Ambrosius.  It is assumed Ambrosius was only attached to the town in legend because of a similarity existing between the two names.

However, I was able to come up with an acceptable British etymology for the place-name.  I discussed this first here:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/06/ambirix-as-name-preserved-in-place-name.html

Vitalinus is no help to us in this context.  There is a grandfather of Vortigern of this name, which again would point to Ambrosius being the Gaulish man of the 4th century.  Geoffrey of Monmouth's fiction makes Vitalinus the archbishop of London who is responsible for bringing Ambrosius into Britain.  I have suggested (tentatively!) that the name may betray that which is found in Fittledon (Viteletone, Fitletone, Fitelon, from Fitela + tun) not far north of Amesbury.  Even the Fedelmid father of Irish-British Foirtchern may come in here.  Welsh has a Gwyddelan meaning "little Irishman."

But if we want a great British hero named Ambrosius, rather than an English one fighting other English, we should opt instead for Ambirix.  He would have been based at Amesbury or, more likely, at its hillfort Vespasian's Camp.  In fact, I have written extensively about this hillfort as the original for the Welsh Dinas Emrys in Gwynedd (see, for example, https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/11/two-vessels-tent-and-two-worms-dark-age.html). It would be truly remarkable if such a man had become an early champion against the Saxons.  Stonehenge hard by Amesbury was at the juncture point of three ancient British tribal territories (Dobunni, Atrebates and Durotriges).

Ambrosius has sometimes been considered the victor at the famous Mount Badon battle.  Some have even tried to make the case that he was Arthur.  I don't think these ideas work.  One thing I can say, though, is this: there is a good chance 'Ambrosius' are Arthur's father, Uther Pendragon, are one and the same person.  I argued this many years ago, but abandoned the notion simply because it didn't settle well with me.  Yet the more I think about the possibility, the more reasonable it seems.

Here is an except from my theory on Ambrosius = Uther:

***

In Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account of the comet that appears on the death of Aurelius Ambrosius (the Ambrosius Aurelianus of Gildas), Merlin tells Uther that the dragon star signifies himself.  This is NOT in accord with the prevailing medieval view.  Simply expressed, a comet heralded the death of the king – something that Geoffrey does start out saying in his account.  But such a star DID NOT represent, in any way, the dead king’s successor.  And Geoffrey certainly would have known this.

Uther had nothing to do with the dragons of Dinas Emrys (a relocation of the Vespasian’s Fort at Amesbury and nearby Stonehenge; see my book “The Mysteries of Avalon”). Beginning with the account of Emrys Guletic (Ambrosius the Prince) in Nennius, it is ONLY Aurelius who has to do with the dragons.  In Geoffrey’s History, Merlin is intruded and here wrongly identified with Ambrosius.  Uther is placed in charge of obtaining the stones from Ireland with Merlin Ambrosius’s help, but all this is done by order of Aurelius.  In the original Dinas Emrys story it was Emrys/Ambrosius who revealed the dragons under the fort and who was then given the site to rule from by Vortigern.  In fact, we are told Vortigern “gave him [Emrys] the fortress, with all the kingdoms of the western part of Britain.”  This is omitted, of course, when Geoffrey divides the Dinas Emrys episode from the Amesbury/Stonehenge one.  Uther is buried with Ambrosius at Stonehenge.

One more point is important here.  According to Nennius (Chapter 31), Vortigern was in FEAR or DREAD (timore in the Latin text) of Ambrosius, who is called the “great king” (rex magnus) “among all the kings of the British nation”.  This title is a Latin rendering for his Welsh rank of guletic.  In Welsh, uthr is an adjective and has the meanings of ‘FEARFUL, DREADFUL’ (see the Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru).  Thus the great king who was the terror of Vortigern could have become, quite naturally, the Terrible Dragon/Pen.  Uther Dragon/Pen would then merely be a doublet for Ambrosius.

This possibility is reinforced by the fact that the late French Vulgate refers to Ambrosius as Pendragon. In the words of Bruce's THE ARTHURIAN NAME DICTIONARY:

"After Geoffrey's chronicle, Ambrosius disappeared from legend and romance for some time. The authors of the Prose MERLIN and the Vulgate Cycle renamed him PENDRAGON. He resurfaces in the seventeenth century..."

Thus it would appear that as far as the post-Galfridian writers were concerned, Ambrosius = Uther Pendragon.  Modern scholars and enthusiasts have misinterpreted this identification as meaning instead that Pendragon was a hereditary title belonging to Arthur's family.

***

Uther took on his own 'personhood', eventually, and the fact that he was Ambrosius was forgotten.  Or, it is also conceivable that the former was invented in order to fill the presumed time gap between Arthur and the latter.  In any case, Ambrosius (or Ambirix) was not the victor at Badon.

Obviously, the next question has to do with Badon itself. We are pretty much forced to accept the traditional account that it was Arthur who fought there.  No other candidates are offered to us by the prevailing tradition. 

So where was Badon?   

Liddington Castle (Badbury), Wiltshire

Well, I wrote about this as well - although because my quest for Arthur's battles ultimately led me elsewhere, I remained aware of the fact that the only early source (in this case the Welsh Annals) that appears to pinpoint its whereabouts put it near Ashdown in Oxfordshire.  

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-second-battle-of-badon.html[1]

I also remained convinced that at least as far as the Badburys were concerned, the name had been calqued by Gildas's use of the word strages for the Badon battle.  This idea received a favorable response from none other than Dr. Richard Coates, President of the The English Place-Name Society.

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/12/cadburys-and-personal-name-badda.html

If Liddington Castle or Badbury Hill were Badon, and Arthur fought there, there are two curious details that I've always emphasized.  First, right next to Liddington Castle was the Roman town of Durocornovium.  Duro- is here a word for a fort or fortified settlement, thought to be one on level ground as opposed to a hillfort.  But -cornovium displays the same word we find in the Welsh word for Cornwall - the Cornwall where Arthur was usually placed in the tradition.

And then there is the Barbury hillfort not far from Liddington Castle.  This was the 'Bear's fort.'  We don't know if we are dealing here with an English name meaning 'bear', or if the place was merely named after a bear that lived there or was seen there.  But that the Welsh themselves referred to Arthur as 'the bear' may not be a coincidence.  Could the English have named this great hillfort after Arthur?  Was the warrior chieftain based here at some point?

Barbury was attacked by the Gewissei in 556 A.D.  This was a full 40 years after Arthur was said to have won at Badon (c. 516).  I've elsewhere written about the Gewissei and their failure to penetrate/conquer Wiltshire for many years.  Here is an abbreviated version of my thinking on that subject:

"... the defeat of the British by Cynric at Old Sarum.  Four years later a battle is fought at Barbury Castle further north.  However, this battle is, significantly, not said to be a victory.  We are merely told there was a battle there.  In 560, Ceawlin succeeds Cynric.  After Barbury Castle there are no more battles against the Britons until 571 - 15 years later. And the theater of action has changed: the Gewissei are now coming up the Thames Valley.  In 577, the war theater changes again - this time to the west and north of Wiltshire (including the capturing of Bath).  In 584, there is a battle in Oxfordshire, well to the NE of Wiltshire. We do not return to Wiltshire until 592, when a great slaughter occurs at Adam's Grave near Alton Priors resulting in the expulsion of Ceawlin.  In the next year, Ceawlin perishes.

From the Battle of Beranburh to that of Adam's Grave, 36 years had passed.  Adam's Grave is roughly 15 kilometers south of Barbury Castle.

The question I would put forth is simply this:  who was in Wiltshire for all this time keeping the Gewissei and the English out?  And is it a coincidence that only several kilometers NE of Barbury Castle along the ancient Ridge Way is the Liddington/Badbury fort?"

It is habitual among Arthurian scholars to fall victim to one fatal approach in their researches.  We forget that at Arthur's time, large tracts of England remained in British hands.  Instead, we peer through the lens of the accounts written centuries later by men who were holding on in the Celtic fringes - men who, quite naturally, relocated heroes from lands long in possession of the English to kingdoms still controlled by native Welshmen.  Had Arthur originated from, say, Durocornovium or environs, it would have been a simple matter to transplant him to Cornwall.

We also desire a neat and perfect genealogy for Arthur - when, alas, one simply might not exist.

Should we be looking for Arthur in Wiltshire, rather than elsewhere?

[1] The Welsh spelling for Badon is Baddon, and that indicates the town of Bath.  This contradicts an identification of the site with a Badbury. 

Badon is a difficult place-name for an unexpected reason. As Kenneth Jackson proclaimed:

"No such British name is known, nor any such stem." [To be briefly mentioned in the context of Badon is the Middle Welsh word bad, 'plague, pestilence, death' (GPC; first attested in the 14th century), from Proto-Celtic *bato-, cf. Old Irish bath. Some have asked me whether this word could be the root of Badon - to which Dr. Graham I. Isaac, of the National University of Ire-land, Galway, responds emphatically, "No, absolutely no. A (modern) W form _bad_ etc. would have been spelt in the W of the ancient period as _bat_ and there can be no connection since _Bad(on)_ is what we find." Other noteworthy Celtic linguists, such as Dr. Simon Rodway of Aberystwyth University, Dr. Richard Coates of the University of the West of England and Professor Ranko Matasovic of the University of Zagreb, agree with Isaac on this point. Matasovic adds: “Professor Isaac is right; since we have references to Badon in Early Welsh sources, the name would have been spelled with –t- (for voiced /d/). The spelling where the letter <d> stands for /d/ and <dd> for the voiced dental fricative was introduced in the late Middle Ages.”]

Graham Isaac has the following to say on the nature of the word Badon, which I take to be au-thoritative.

His explanation of why Gildas's Badon cannot be derived from one of the Badburys (like Liddington Castle, often cited as a prime candidates for Badon) is critical in an eventual identification of this battle site. Although long and rather complicated, his argument is convincing and I have, therefore, opted to present it unedited:

"Remember in all that follows that both the -d - in Badon and the -th- in OE Bathum are pronounced like th in 'bathe' and Modern Welsh - dd-. Remember also that in Old English spelling, the letters thorn and the crossed d are interchangeable in many positions: that is variation in spelling, not in sound, and has no significance for linguistic arguments.

It is curious that a number of commentators have been happy to posit a 'British' or 'Celtic' form Badon. The reason seems to be summed up succinctly by Tolstoy in the 1961 article (p. 145):

'It is obviously impossible that Gildas should have given a Saxon name for a British locality'.

Why? I see no reason at all in the world why he should not do so (begging the question as to what, exactly, is the meaning of 'British locality' here; Gildas is just talking about a hill). This then becomes the chief crutch of the argument, as shown on p. 147 of Tolstoy's article: 'But that there was a Celtic name ‘Badon’ we know from the very passage in Gildas under discussion'.

But that is just circular: ' "Badon" must be "Celtic" because Gildas only uses "Celtic" names'. This is no argument. What would have to be shown is that 'Badon' is a regular reflex of a securely attested 'Celtic' word. This is a matter of empirical detail and is easily tested; we have vast resources to tell us what was and was not a 'Celtic' word. And there is nothing like 'Badon'.

So what do we do? Do we just say that 'Badon' must be Celtic because Gildas uses it? That gets us nowhere.

So what of the relationships between aet Bathum - Badon - Baddanbyrig? The crucial point is just that OE Bathum and the Late British / very early Welsh Badon we are talking about both have the soft -th- sound of 'bathe' and Mod.Welsh 'Baddon'. Baddanbyrig, however, has a long d-sound like -d d- in 'bad day'. Both languages, early OE and Late British, had both the d-sound and the soft th-sound. So:

1) If the English had taken over British (hy-pothetical and actually non-existent) *Badon (*Din Badon or something), they would have made it *Bathanbyrig or the like, and the modern names of these places would be something like *Bathbury.

2) If the British had taken over OE Baddanbyrig, they would have kept the d-sound, and Gildas would have written 'Batonicus mons', and Annales Cambriae would have 'bellum Batonis', etc. (where the -t- is the regular early SPELLING of the sound -d-; always keep your conceptions of spellings and your conceptions of sounds separate; one of the classic errors of the untrained is to fail to distinguish these).

I imagine if that were the case we would have no hesitation is identifying 'Baton' with a Badbury place. But the d-sound and the soft th -sound are not interchangeable. It is either the one or the other, and in fact it is the soft th -sound that is in 'Badon', and that makes it equivalent to Bathum, not Baddanbyrig.

(That applies to the sounds. On the other hand there is nothing strange about the British making Bad-ON out of OE Bath -UM. There was nothing in the Late British/early Welsh language which corresponded to the dative plural ending - UM of OE, so it was natural for the Britons to substitute the common British suffix - ON for the very un-British OE suffix -UM: this is not a substitution of SOUNDS, but of ENDINGS, which is quite a different matter. That Gildas then makes an unproblematic Latin adjective with -icus out of this does not require comment.)

To conclude:

1) There is no reason in the world why a 6thcentury British author should not refer to a place in Britain by its OE name.
2) There was no 'British' or 'Celtic' *Badon.
3) 'Badon' does not correspond linguistically with OE Baddanbyrig.
4) 'Badon' is the predictably regular Late British / early Welsh borrowing of OE Bathum.

Final note: the fact that later OE sources occasionally call Bath 'Badon' is just a symptom of the book-learning of the authors using the form. Gildas was a widely read and highly respected author, and Badon(-is) (from Gildas's adjective Badon -icus) will quickly and unproblematically have become the standard book-form (i.e. pri-marily Latin form) for the name of Bath. Again, all attempts to gain some sort of linguistic mile-age from the apparent, but illusory, OE variation between Bathum and Badon are vacuous."