In Search of the ‘Original’ King Arthur – Part Four

* UPDATED 1.1.12 – Updates in bold type

Arthur son of Bicoir (born ca 580-600?)

Arthur son of Bicoir the Briton (ab Artuir filio Bicoir Pretene) is an interesting character as he isn’t given mac or maic for ‘son’, but the Latin filio of the word and, in fact, his father is said to be a Briton (Pretene). It appears that this Arthur was from Kintyre, which was part of Hibernian Dál Riata (Dalriada).  This would seem to confirm it was a mixed ethnic area, unless he was brought in from ‘outside’.  He could be argued to be the only Brito-Briton (I just made that title up) with the name Arthur before the 13th century, yet still a Briton in an Hiberno-British region.  However, we also don’t know the ethnicity of his mother and, therefore, him … not to mention he could be completely fictional or even another Arthur entirely!

Why was it needed to be said he was the son of a Briton?  Possibly because anyone reading the name Artur would think they were of Hibernian stock … or was it because of what he (supposedly) ended up doing, so they had a Briton to blame!? This Arthur was involved in some assassination (or execution or invasion) work on either Islay or in what is now Ulster; possibly as an aire echta (‘noble of death-deed’/’nobleman of slaughter’). This is if he wasn’t purely a poetic devise as explored by J F Nagy in A Companion to Arthurian Literature (2009).

This Arthur appears in the 11th century Irish compilation The Annals of Tigernach.  The annals gives a fragment of a poem by Bec Boirche, a 7th/8th century Ulster king and, presumably, bard.

“625 Mongan, son of Fiachna of Lurga was struck with a stone by Arthur son of Bicoir the Briton, and was crushed. About this, Bec Boirche said:

‘Cold is the wind across Islay, There are warriors in Kintyre, They shall commit a cruel deed in retribution, They shall kill Mongan, son of Fiachna. Where the Church of Cluan Airthir is today, Renowned were the four there executed; Cormac Caem, with screaming And Illann, son of Fiachra; And the other two, — To whom many territories paid tribute,– Mongan, son of Fiachna of Lurgan and Ronan, son of Tuathal.”

If he was acting as an aire echta, he seems to have gone beyond what this ‘job’ entailed.  Here’s what the Irish Brehon Laws say an aire echta did:

IV 324.-109. The aire echta, why is he so called? Because he is a leader of five who is left to do feats of arms in [a neighbouring territory under] treaty-law for the space of a month, to avenge an offence against the honour of the tuath, one of whose men has been lately slain. If they do not (avenge this) within a month, they come upon treaty-law, so that their beds do not follow him from without. If they kill men within treaty-law, the same five, the aire echta must pay on their behalf, provided that land or bronze of a cauldron be not paid for it, but vessels to the value of a cow. He brings them out then to be …… till the expiration of treaty-law, (taking them) on the number of his protection and (that) of his friends, His retinue and his sick-maintenance are due as (those) of an aire desso.  (MacNeill, 1923, pp.297/298)

Perhaps Arthur got carried away with his work! There are some, including August Hunt (click HERE to go to his blog – he also has another theory), who wonder if Bicoir is a corruption of Petuir, as B and P can be interchanged, and c an t could be mistaken in these early manuscripts.  This would make it possible that Arthur ap Petr (Petuir) and Arthur son of Bicoir, might be one and the same … although their dating is somewhat different.  He argues that Kintyre in Argyle could instead be Pembroke (Penbrog/Pen broc) in Dyfed.  Both names do mean the same: ‘Headland’.  But a look at the Domnall Brecc poem from Y Gododdin tells us they called Kintyre, ‘Bentir ‘(Pentir) in British, not ‘Benbroc’. What may be slightly odd in this poem is that Islay was under the same rule as Kintyre, but they were different kindred. (More on that later).

(The name Bicoir – Latin Beccurus -  is said by Patrick Sims-Williams to come from British *Bikkorix or “Little King”.  (The Celtic Inscriptions of Britain: Phonology and Chronology, c. 400-1200).

Personally I’m not so sure about August’s argument.  Apart from the dating discrepancy, it’s easy to imagine someone on a dynastic feuding mission from Kintyre to Islay or Ulster, but a little harder from Pembroke … though it’s not impossible.

(More recently August has come up with another theory which champions this Arthur, who he equates with Arthur ap Pedr, as the original. Click HERE to see his article. We’ve been having some interesting discussions over this).

I’m indebted to Robert O’Toole, a member of Arthurnet, for information that he forwarded about this character and the fiannian warband system in general. Robert argues for this Arthur as being the bases for the legends.  Michelle Ziegler (Heavenfield blogger) in the article I’ve quoted certainly doesn’t see why Artúr mac Áedán should have any more claim than Bicior’s boy.  Robert thinks it’s possible that this Arthur fought at the Battle of Chester (ca 604-614) with the Dalriadians alongside the British against the Northumbrians. This battle, many have argued, was then added to the Arthurian battle list as urbe Legionis (City of Legions) in the Historia Brittonum.  It would be an odd choice, since the British lost this battle!  I see no evidence that the Dalriadans fought here, although I could be missing something and I’m hoping Robert (or someone) can help.  They did fight against the same Northumbrian king, Aethelfrith, at Degsastan in 603 (where they lost), but there’s no mention of them at Chester. Even though he may have fought with, or acted on behalf of the Dalriadans they were not necessarily a united group and were made up of kindred groups (see Tim Clarkson’s blog on the subject at Senchus).

The odd thing about the poem is it mentions both the Dalriadian territories of Áedán’s (Cenél nGabráin) of Kintyre and Oengus’ (Cenél nOengusa) of Islay.  It could mean that he was in Kintyre and would have to pass through Islay on his way to Ulster (Airthir=Armagh).  It could also mean they were acting together or that he was from Kintyre and the ‘cold wind’ was blowing from Ulster via Islay, as the version of the poem in the Chronicon Scotorumhas depicts:

Cold is the wind across Ile Which blows against the youth of Cenn-tire; They will commit a cruel deed in consequence; They will kill Mongan, son of Fiachna. Cormac caem and Illand son of Fiachu die. Ronan, son of Tuathal died:—

Wherever it was this avenging took place it had to be in an area that was under treaty to his. The alternative is he wasn’t an aire echta at all, but the leader of a larger fianna (warband) as a ri fianna. However, there is also this entry from the Annals of Clacmacnois for 624 (quoted by O’Donovan, FM, vol. i. p.243, note z):

Mangan mac Fiaghna, a well spoken man, and much given to the wooing of woman, was killed by one ??? [Arthur ap] Bicoir, a Welshman, with a stone [15]

(The Voyage of Bran, Son of Febal: To the Land of the Living, Kuno Meyer, 1895/2008, p.76)

This one doesn’t even mention Arthur, only Bicoir, whom it calls a Welshman, which may indicates a later dating. 

This Arthur doesn’t appear to have been a prince, although we’ll never know.  (An aire echta could be anyone of this class, from nobleman to prince).  He very well could have been considered a Briton rather than a Dalriadan Hibernian; his father certainly seems to be. He would be contemporary with Artúr mac Conaing, if I’ve got my dating right, and could have fought along side him. The problem is we don’t know how old he was in 625. Nor do we know the politcal situation between Britons and Gaels around this date. We also don’t know how accurate that poem about him is … and here’s the possible fly in the ointment!

Joseph Falaky Nagy thinks this Arthur could have been used because he was actually the one of Badon … or at least a famous one. This is because Mongán is semi-mythical. Here’s what Nagy says:

“Mongán mac Fiachna, the fosterling of the wizardly seafarer Manannán mac Lir (who sired him in the guise of Fiachna), is said in these sources (including annals) to have been slain in the early seventh century by an “Artú(i)r son of Bicóir” from Britain, with a “dragon stone from the sea” (ail dracoin din muir; Nutt & Meyer 1895: 1.29, 1.84, 1.137–9; Mac Mathúna 1985: 43; Dooley 2004: 18; White 2006: 40, 58). In light of the fact that Mongán’s conception tale (preserved in a text as early as the seventh or eighth century) stands as the closest Celtic analogue to the account of Arthur’s deception-laden origins given by Geoffrey of Monmouth centuries later (Mac Cana 1972: 128–9), it is tempting to speculate that an Irish author familiar with both narrative traditions thought it would be fitting to have Mongán’s life come to an end at the hands of a figure that he construed as his British counterpart – or that the tradition the author was following was linking together figures who in other respects as well appear to be cognate reflections of a Celtic mythological type.” (pp.117-118)

… and he goes on …

“In the same early cycle of stories about the mysterious Mongán cited above, in one of the most extraordinary references to reincarnation to be found anywhere in Celtic literatures (Nagy 1997: 303–7), we learn that he was a rebirth of the Irish hero Finn mac Cumaill, around whom is centered the so-called Fenian or Ossianic tradition of story and song, and whose long-lived fame was still attested in the repertoires of Irish and Scottish storytellers of the last century. The connection between Mongán and Arthur would be even stronger, then, if we accept the Dutch Celticist A. G. van Hamel’s unjustly overlooked thesis (anticipated in Nutt & Meyer 1895: 2.22–5) that Arthur the dux bellorum and Finn the leader of Ireland’s premier fian, “hunting and warring band,” are matching cognate manifestations of what he dubbed the Celtic “exemplary hero” (1934: 219–33).”  (p.118)

If Bec Boirche’s poem is purely a story, or a semi-legendary one, then this changes things somewhat. However, there are a couple of interesting things to come out of it – if this Arthur is the one of Badon: his father’s name is given as Bicoir! (or the name it was thought to be at the time) and he’s said to be a Briton. But why would the poet need to say that? Why not “Arthur the Briton”, or “Arthur son of Bicoir, the Britons”? Nagy interoperates it as “Artú(i)r son of Bicóir” from Britain“. Was this Bicoir as famous as Arthur? It’s this last point that makes me have doubts about this Arthur being the famous one, or a mythical one.

(SEE COMMENTS)

One the other hand, if this poem is an accurate depiction of events, then the news of this Arthur’s deeds may have travelled far and wide. He’s the kind of warrior others my have wanted on their side. Once again it comes down to if he was the enemy or not when Y Gododdin was composed.  Even if he wasn’t this Arthur, his exploits could have been attached to the legend at a later date, and that would most likely have to come via Stathclyde if it did. Again, my conclusions will appear in the last blog.

In the next blog we’ll be staying in the region to look at two unusual figures. One who was the grandfather of an Arthur – Feradach hoa Artúr (ca 697) – and one who may or may not have had an Arthur name and who was either a Pict or Hiberno-Pict: Artharus rig Cruthni (date uncertain).

Thanks for reading,

Mak

Advertisement