“dux erat bellorum”

This is from a post – with some additions – I made on Arthurnet about why Nennius (or whoever) used the term “dux”.  I do not claim it to be a scholarly work, but I have tried to give as many references as possible but there will be no bibliography.  I also apologise in advance for any bad Old Welsh and Latin.

Dux erat bellorum/Dux belli

The discussion about what Nennius (or whoever the compiler(s) and translators where) meant by “dux erat bellorum” (or ”dux belli” in the Vatican recension) in the Arthurian section of the Historia Brittonum (H.B.) c. 830 AD, has gone on for decades. Some have used it as an argument to say he was given the old Roman command of Dux Britannium but others point out that if he’d been given the title then why didn’t the H.B. say so?

I think there are actually two questions here: 1)  WHY was dux used, and  2)  WHAT word or words in Primitive or Old Welsh was it translated from … if it was?  Arthur couldn’t have been the first or last to be called a ‘leader/lord of battle’.  Perhaps it’s just a case of finding it.  To try and answer this, I wanted to look at a better and more contemporary source (at least in John Koch’s view) and see if it could help: the epic British ‘poem’ ‘Y Gododdin’ (‘The Gododdin’) attributed to Neirin /Aneirin (c.600 AD)

The why?

First why was dux used?  Was it simply because in Latin it meant “leader” or “lord”? Very possibly.  Higham (Concepts Of Arthur, 2007; p.151) argues that a mythical Arthur was used as a Biblical ‘Joshua-figure’ in answer to St. Patrick’s ‘Moses-figure’ in the H.B., and that he was given this title because Joshua was a dux belli.  It is a valid point and I would have agreed with Higham’s conclusions once upon a time, but even if Arthur was used in this way in the H.B. it does not mean that he was invented to be this, but was rather perfect for the Biblical comparison, like St. Patrick.  Had someone else been used we might all be writing about them!  However, it cannot be ruled out that he wasn’t called a “dux bellorum” in any poetry and Nennius used this term because of the Biblical comparison he was trying to make.

There’s also another point to bring up here and it is another one made by Higham, but this time in his book ‘English Conquest – Gildas and Britain in the Fifth Century‘ (1994). Higham is adamant that Gildas’s use of duces (plural of dux) is meant as “military leaders”, but this could apply to a king or a civil position. How long between the 5th and 9th centuries this was used, we’ll never known, (see below) but it is at least a possibility “dux erat bellorum” meant ‘military leader of battles’ for clarification as dux had other meanings. (See THIS blog for further discussion on this).

Whilst dux does mean ‘leader’ or ‘lord’ in Latin, this may not have been only way that those of 9th century Britain would have read it, besides the possibility mentioned above.  Let’s look at it another way. What was a dux or duke in the 9th century? Dukes (duces) across the English Channel in what became France seem to have become counts with military command.

“Like the patriciate and rectorate, the ducal dignity was suppressed under the first Carolingians*, but the title dux was informally revived in the usage of the classicizing historians of the 9th century as one of several designations for the counts placed in command of military forces of the border districts, or “marches,” which like the former ducal commands were composed of several adjacent *pagi, or counties—the successors of the former civitates.  In the 10th century, “duke” was adopted in west Francia as a formal title of dignity by the rulers not only of these marches but several similar groupings of counties formed within the kingdom with or without the consent of the king.”

( ‘Medieval France: an encyclopedia’ by William W. Kibler, p.307/308 )

(*It would be interesting to know, though we probably never will, if the same thing happened in Britain as happened under the Carolingians).

In the 10th century these same dukes became only second in rank to their king.

As far as I’m aware, the Welsh never used the term dux as a specific title, but across the border in England, the Anglo-Saxons certainly did.  Here it meant a ‘supreme landlord’; again, only second to the king, and there were quite a lot of them.  They could very often be princeps and dux of a county or shire and by the 10th century gained even more power (Michael Lapidge, John Blair, Simon Keynes, 2001, 152).  So choosing dux the H.B.’s Latin literate 9th century audience are possibly going to imply something very different to us.  Anglo-Saxons would interpret it their way, Bretons, Welsh etc., theirs.  Like Higham, I think the H.B. was aimed as much at the English, and specifically the Mercians, as the Britons – “don’t listen to Gildas or Bede, we were once, and will be again, great … and we’re going to say so whilst you’re busy with the Vikings!”

Christopher Gildow in his book The Reign of Arthur (2004) points out something about the Historia Brittonum and its use of dux (or the plural duces) and that is that in every instance before its connection with Arthur when using this term it either means a general or a governor subordinate to the Emperor. (p.44). This could mean when the H.B. says Arthur was a dux, it meant something very specific.

So, did the translator use dux knowing they would read it as more than just ‘leader’?  Of course, the answer comes back as to why he didn’t just say he was simply a dux if they’d know what a dux was?  But, if it had more than one meaning, adding “of battles” would be for clarification.  Could it be that “dux erat bellorum” was the best translation the translator could come up with for someone who was second to a king but also a leader of battle?  This leads on to exactly what was being translated …

The what?

In the Arthurian battle list of the H.B. there seems strong evidence from the rhyming of many of the names that this originally came from a battle poem or poems.  If the poem(s) or triads that came down to 9th century were in Primitive or Old Welsh, what might this title be and what other evidence is there for such a title as ‘leader of battle’ (if dux bellorum hadn’t been added later)?  I thought it should come down as pen kat (leader of battle), pen budinor (leader of armies) or pen teulu (leader of household troop), or to really big him up, Gwledig; but he’s never called these, or no evidence has survived, and only the latter title once in a poem attributed to the 6th century bard Taliesin, but probably much later, Kadeir Teyrnon, (‘The Chair of the Sovereign’) c. 9th century(?). He is called penn kadoed Kernyw (Leader of the battalions of Cernyw – which might be Cornwall but could be another Cernyw region) in the poem ‘Ymddiddan Arthur a’r Eryr’ – ‘Arthur and the Eagle’ (dated to around 1150 AD), but that could just be the influence of Geoffrey of Monmouth.  However, none of these titles, except Gwledig, are mentioned in Y Gododdin.

But I did find other possibilities: *cintrenn/cyntran, *(ri/si) chatvarchawc, and *aer dwyw/ry(ri)dywys.

Starting with cintrenn/cyntran (‘centurion’ according to Koch), here’s a position that the H.B.  translator might have known, judging by the fact that most of the mentions of it in Y Gododdin are from the later A text, dated to the 8th/9th centuries.  This is indeed a ‘battle leader’ of sorts, whether you take Koch’s interpretation as a ‘centurion’ or not.  Jarman does not translate this as a leader of a hundred men, just as ‘warrior’ or ‘leader’.  Koch’s reasoning is thus:

“[BI.13] 253 *ar-tege can(t)=uur ‘he used to lead a hundred men’ is evidence for the persistence of Roman office of centurion, a heroic ideal and poetic convention if nothing else.”

(‘The Gododdin of Aneirin’, Koch, Notes, 168)

“[A.5] 48 … A further possibility is that the original had the t- pret. of the verb (*cintrann (…) rac-uant rac bodinor ‘a centurion (who) counterthrusted against armies’).

(‘The Gododdin of Aneirin’, Koch, Notes.180)

“[A.18] 196 *cintren’n‘ [MS kynrien] ‘battle leaders, centurions’.  We expect a third personal name here, but this word is frequent in the diction of the Cynfierdd as a common noun.   Furthermore the preceding two names *Conrig and *Conuon have Celt. *kuno – ‘hound’ as the first element, whereas *cintren’n’ has *kintu - ‘foremost’, so the alliteration would weaken.  The general sense of kynran is ‘first in its part’, thus more specifically in Hengerdd ‘commander, captain, (under-)chieftain.  The transparent preform would therefore be Brit. *cintu-rannos.  This form probably rose as a popular etymology applied to the Lat. centurio, centurionis during the Roman Period.  In favour of this interpretation one may further adduce CA A.24.287 diua oeda gynrein gan-wyr ‘his centurion’s centuries (hundred-man units) perished’.) It is probable therefore that the name of the third hero has dropped out or been transformed in transmission into the common noun.”

(‘The Gododdin of Aneirin’, Koch, Notes,194)

“[A.24] 287 *diba oid i-cintrenn cant-guir ‘his centurion’s hundred-man units perished’.

(‘The Gododdin of Aneirin’, Koch, Notes, 199)

However, it may be wondered why the translator wouldn’t call him a centurionis in Latin.  Unless they wanted to make him something more than this, or the title by his time wasn’t synonymous with an overall ‘leader of battle’?

But there may be other clues in Y Gododdin, as mentioned above.  (I have to say I need help finding more with the various translations all differing).  For example: Robert  (O’Toole) on Arthurnet mentioned that the leader of an Irish or Hiberno-British fianna (warband) would be a ri fianna > ‘leader (lord) of the warband’.  I found in Koch’s translation a reference to the *tri ri c(h)atmarchoc, ‘the three directors of the cavalry brigades’.  If you look in Jarman’s book the *ri isn’t there at all and it’s translated as ‘Three battle-horsemen’. In yet another version it has *Tri si chatvarchawc, which gets translated as ‘Three hundred knights of battle’.  I don’t know which one’s right, but if it’s Koch’s then here’s an example of Britons using *ri (modern Welsh *rhi = ‘king’ or ‘lord’) as a leader, this time of cavalry units.

But Arthur seems to be even more than these.  He’s made out to be more of an overall leader; a commander or general if you will. The only reference in Y Gododdin I could see is:

*Aer dywys, rydywys ryfel > ‘Battle leader, he led to war …’

(LXXIII, A 72, 690. ‘Aneirin – Y Gododdin’. Jarman)

*Air=tiuis > ri- tiuis > ribel_> ‘A battle leader can lead in war’

(A.72, 904 ‘The Gododdin of Aneirin’, Koch, Notes,113).

Here seems to be a point on which the two authors agree.   Once again there is that ri usage by the Britons.  (Later Welsh might interpret ri-dywys as ‘king of war’).  In fact, if you change the hero of this and the previous verse in Y Gododdin that these appears in, from “Ywain” (the only Gwledig mentioned in the piece by the way) to “Arthur”, it would fit perfectly:

Battle leader, he led to war,

The land’s multitude loved the mighty reaper.

On the green earth there was fresh blood around the green grave,

He wore armour over his crimson garment.

A trampler of armour, an armour’s trampler,

Like under death weariness falls.

Spears were shattered at the commencement of battle,

A path to a clearing was the aim of the spearthrust. (Jarman)

A battle leader can lead in war.

A sovereign’s host loved the powerful reaper.

The mighty Forth is blood around a new grave.

It was armour that he had over his red [garments].

An armoured trampler used to trample on armour.

The appearance of death fell on the exhausted.

Spear-shafts in shields at the outset of battle —–

a path towards the light was the purpose of the spear thrust. (Koch)

These ‘titles’ would seem to me the strongest contenders for what would translate to “dux erat bellorum”; although Arthur may also have been one of the other military positions before this in his rise to fame … if he existed.  They could also have been the British translation of ri fianna if Arthur was an Hiberno-Britannian or Hiberno-Briton himself (see THIS blog for that discussion).  I have no knowledge of Latin so need help here too, but, I believe, ri-dywys (‘Lord of war’), would be something like regnatoris(?) erat (bellum) bellorum?  Whilst sounding more powerful to us the translator may not have been able to use it because his British, Hibernian and English audiences were probably well aware of what Arthur was called.  I believe aer dywys could indeed be erat dux (bellum) bellorum.  Here the translator gets the chance to call him a dux, as in ‘leader’, as well as letting any Breton or English  reader translate it as a ‘duke’.

Why any of the above would also account for Arthur also being called a pen teyrned (teyrnedd) > (‘chief/leader of kings/lords/rulers’) in Culhwch ac Olwen (10th C) and the Triads, I’m unsure. Unless this was some Welsh bard’s interpretation of the leader of kings (in battle).  Pen tyrned could be interpreted as meaning the ‘Head of Kings’: a Gwledig(?) or ‘High King’, but there is no indication of this in the H.B. and if he was commonly thought to be a king, of whatever class, one would think the H.B. would have made political use of it.  Stephen Knight (1983, p.32-34) argues that in the 9th/10th century Arthur may have simply been fashioned into a Welsh over-king of the times, such as Rhodri Mawr and Hwyel Dda.

Dux Britannium

There is always the possibility that because the translator was working form an Old Welsh copy of a poem, it may have used the equivalent of the Old Welsh translation of “Dux Britannium”.  We mustn’t forget that this was at the end of a transmission of the story, which may even have gone form Latin to Primitive Welsh to Old Welsh to Latin.  Even if it didn’t start as Latin, it still came down as language and military knowledge had changed.  Did it come down as something like “aer dywys, pen tyrned prydein” > “Leader of battle, chief of the rulers (kings) of Britain”?

A digression

Just to digress for a moment, I think Keith (Fitzpatrick-Matthews) in his recent paper on the H.B. (The Arthurian Battles of the Historia Britonnum July 2010 – available on Scribd) makes an interesting point about battle poems.  It appears (from the limited evidence we have) that they lie between 580 and 635 AD. (Urien Rheged   (Ardwyre   reget,   Williams  1960,  7),  Cynan  Garwyn  (Trawsganu  kynan  garwin,  Williams  1960,  1)  and  Cadwallon   ap   Cadfan   (*Marwnad   cadwallon   ap   cadfan*,   Gruffydd   1978,   34 ) – list from Fitzpatrick-Matthews, 2010, p.19). They could have, of course, been in use before this and it is just a case that none have survived.  But if they do belong to a narrow window of time, and did not begin until after Arthur’s death then even the first poems about him may not have surfaced until after the event(s) and so they themselves would be based a folk memory, unless there were bards present at Arthur’s battles at the time to transmit the information, or as wonder by the likes of Christopher Gidlow (2004), some of the transmission was originally in Latin.  Even these may not necessarily have been in an accurate, historical way; that’s not what the bards were there to do.  As Keith points out, the chances are, all these poems may have been written after the fact, and this too is the opinion of Dumville (1977, p.188).

There is the question of whose bards might have been praising Arthur, if he was neither king or prince? (Not that he couldn’t have been a prince).  The bards were there to praise their patron.  As in 9th century Wales, there may have been two bards: the itinerant ‘chief of song’ (pencerdd) and the ‘poet of the warband/household’ (bard teulu); the former praising whomever he might be visiting as well as others and the latter his king and his warband and whoever might have been fighting with them.  Aneirin seems to fall into the former category.  He sings of the exploits of the various warriors, some from other kingdoms, fighting together.  If Arthur did command kings in battle, as Ywain in Y Gododdin may have done, then Arthur could have been praised by several bards over several campaigns … unless he employed is own.  If there was indeed a battle poem then it could have been the condensing of several other’s lyrical works.

What we may never know is what was written in Latin, if anything.  The royal courts seem to have had a priest in their employ. Whether any of these put quill to parchment and wrote down any of Arthur’s deeds, we’ll never know. But, just perhaps ‘silua  celidonis’ was a case in point? – (see THIS blog for further discussion).

Back to the point

In the Vatican recension of the H.B. Arthur’s position is clarified as being a miles, interpreted today as “soldier”.  On this point there’s an interesting thought from Dane Prestano in a post from Arthurnet in November 2007:

“This `miles’ issue has bothered me for a while.  In `The Ideals and Practice of Medieval Knighthood’ By Christopher Harper-Bill, Ruth E. Harvey, Stephen Church, which can be found on Google books it is stated that by the 9th/10th C `miles’ had become synonymous with a Knight, not a soldier and by the 12th C this was evident in medieval manuscripts. It could be argued that the later additions of ‘miles’ where because someone interpreted the same was as later generation are doing.  He’s a leader of battle. So this throw away term in the H.B. might be a clear indication that Arthur was a mounted knight, lending a much more Romance slant to the H.B. Arthur material than thought before.“

I may not agree with Dane that this shows Arthur was a cavalryman, but it may prove that is how he was perceived at the time, making him into a contemporary horse-backed duke.

I will leave you with my rendition of the battle poem, which is a mixture of English and Welsh. I’ve not tried put it in the correct meter as I don’t think it works the same in modern English as it would in Old Welsh.

Leader of battle for the kings of fair Prydein,

There fell the hostile crew at aber Glein.

In Linnuis four time the victor at the Dubglas,

Blood stained the waters at the river of Bassas.

Slayer of the dogs in the wood that is Celidon,

The Mother on his shoulder at the fort of Guinnion,

Feared the name Arthur in every dark region,

He fed the black crows on the walls of Caer Lion.

Blood stained the fetlocks on the shore’s of the Tribruit,

They reaped with blue steal on the hill that is Agned.

Three days the siege on the green hill of Badon,

He charged and there fell 960 feared Saeson.

Thanks for reading and be sure to take a look at the comments below,

Mak

December 2010