Post by Mabon DaneThis is a personal opinion but I do not believe that King Arthur
existed. I think a mistake has arisen due to the confusion over the
title of the Bear given to Ambrosius Aurelianus - Mabon
Mabon
Yes, that is one possibility, although there is no evidence of which I am
aware that Ambrosius was ever called the Bear, whether by Gildas or anyone
else. Indeed, the evidence from Gildas is the opposite.
This is for 3 reasons:
1) his animal appelations or other nicknames are generally of people of
whom he disapproves:
eg "Constantine, tyrant whelp of the filthy lioness of Dumnonia" (two for
the price of one here)
"Aurelius Caninus [dog pun on Conan/Kynan -Winterbottom end note], lion
whelp"
" you bear.............Cuneglasus, in Latin 'red butcher' "
"like a leopard in your behaviour, and spotted with wickedness......
Vortipor, tyrant of the Demetae"
"Maglocunus...[described as ]....."fat bulls of your kind"
"ill omened father of all the damned [Satan is].... like an eagle vast in
wing and talon"
"A treacherous lioness butchered the governors..."
His comments on Ambrosius are, unlike the examples above, extremely
favourable - and it seems unlikely given his general tenor of using such
nicknames/animal names for those he disapproves of, that he would use such
a device with Ambrosius of whom he does approve.
2) You will also note fromn the examples above, that where he gives a name
and uses a nickname/animal type to help describe the character of that
person, he does so in the section relating to that person. He does not
have a section about X and several sections later use his nickname/animal
descriptor. If Gildas was to follow his general method of writing, then if
the Bear was Ambrosius, it would be in the Ambrosius section, not taht
dealing with Cuneglasus.
3) In Section 32 he uses the 'bear' descriptor twice:
"And thou too, Cuneglasse, why art thou fallen into the filth of thy former
naughtiness, yea, since the very first spring of thy tender youth, thou
bear, thou rider and ruler of many, and guider of the chariot which is the
receptacle of the bear..." [or 'of the chariot of the Bear's Stronghold'
Winterbottom
If the two bears are taken to be different people, then the first appears
to be Cuneglasus and the second an unnamed person whose chariot Cuneglasus
drove [presumably before he became a ruler in his own right].
And Gildas does use an animal descriptor *on its own* to refer to a person
whom he does not otherwise name. Thus, in Section 6:1 he refers to "A
treacherous lioness butchered the governors..." but does not name her.
This is generally taken to be Boudicca.
For these textual reasons, and looking at the way Gildas writes, and uses
words, I can not agree that Gildas ever gave the title 'Bear ' to
Ambrosius.
Kind regards
Malcolm Martin
London, UK