A short history of Excalibur
A short history of Excalibur
or, how did the Richard the Lionheart get that **** sword?
On the fourth day the king of Sicily sent to the king of England many presents of great value, consisting of gold and silver, horses and silken cloths; but he would receive nothing from him except a little ring, which he accepted as a token of their mutual esteem. On the other hand, the king of England gave to king Tancred that most excellent sword which the Britons called “Caliburn,” and which had been the sword of Arthur, once the valiant king of England. King Tancred also gave to the king of England four large ships…
—The Annals of Roger de Hoveden: A.D. 1181 to A.D. 1201
It’s 1191, and Richard the Lionheart is in Sicily on his way to the Holy Land on Crusade, as we mentioned last time. Somehow, he’s gotten his hands on the famous sword of King Arthur, who (if he ever lived at all) died in the early 500s. A long time ago. And Roger of Hoveden reports without comment or fanfare that he gave it away?
The song above is a lament by Guillaume de Poitiers, Eleanor of Aquitaine’s grandfather and Richard’s great-grandfather. He was Duke of Aquitaine, leader of a crusade, a military leader, and more interestingly, the first Troubadour. Richard had poetry and song in his blood… By the way, some of Guillaume’s songs are bawdy, nearly obscene, but that’s a story for another day…
The basics of Excalibur you probably already know. The most famous sword in history, drawn from the stone by Arthur, (or given to him by the Lady of the Lake, Nimuë), thrown back to the Lady of the Lake by Sir Bedivere (or Griflet, there are a lot of variations of this story!). The sword is sometimes claimed to have magical powers, mostly generating a blinding light, but the real magic is in the scabbard - the bearer of the scabbard cannot lose blood in battle.
My personal favorite tellings of this tale are (unsurprisingly) Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur (1485), which can be a slow read for the uninitiated, and T. H. White’s The Once and Future King, which is a magical and easy to read book, by turns serious and hilarious and thoughtful and tragic.
In Malory, there are two swords, the Sword from the Stone which broke in battle when Arthur battled King Pellinore, followed by the sword Arthur receives from the Lady of the Lake. Confusingly, both are named Excalibur. Excalibur is known by many names: Caliburn (as above) or Caliburnus or Caledfwlch or Escalibor.
If Arthur is to be consider an historical figure and not mythic, he is generally positioned in history around ~500AD. His death is usually associated with the Battle of Camlann, traditionally dated (via Geoffrey of Monmouth) to 537 AD. The earliest dateable reference to the battle is found in the 10th-century Welsh annals Annales Cambriae. An entry for the year 537 mentions the "strife of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut fell, and there was great mortality in Britain and Ireland. Breeze cites R.G. Collingwood, to the effect that an identification of Camlann with "Camboglanna on Hadrian's Wall" was "convincing".[1]
But my intent here is not to go down the rabbit hole of Arthurian legend and the historicity of Arthur. Eye on the prize, we are tracking Excalibur!
To my knowledge the first mention of Excalibur in historical texts is in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain, 1136AD. There it is referred to as Caliburno in the original Latin. Apparently modeled after Caladbolg, the sword of Fergus mac Róich in the Irish mythological cycle Táin Bó Cúailnge. Robert de Boron’s Merlin is the first to introduce the “sword in the stone” motif (an anvil in this case). In the late 12th century we find the sword Escalibor in the possession of Sir Gawain, in Chrétien de Troys’ Perceval, a chivalric Arthurian tale. de Troyes is a highly regarded medieval poet and interestingly, was a contemporary of Richard, and even served for many years at the court of Marie of France, the half-sister of Richard through his mother Eleanor! While there is no evidence Richard and de Troyes met in person, Richard was steeped in chivalric tradition, so it’s not hard to imagine.
In Welsh legends, Arthur's sword is known as Caledfwlch. From that great paragon of historical accuracy, :) Wikipedia:
In Culhwch and Olwen, it is one of Arthur's most valuable possessions and is used by Arthur's warrior Llenlleawg the Irishman to kill the Irish king Diwrnach while stealing his magical cauldron. Though not named as Caledfwlch, Arthur's sword is described vividly in The Dream of Rhonabwy, one of the tales associated with the Mabinogion (as translated by Jeffrey Gantz): "Then they heard Cadwr Earl of Cornwall being summoned, and saw him rise with Arthur's sword in his hand, with a design of two chimeras on the golden hilt; when the sword was unsheathed what was seen from the mouths of the two chimeras was like two flames of fire, so dreadful that it was not easy for anyone to look."
In addition, it said that when Excalibur was first drawn in combat, in the first battle testing Arthur's sovereignty, its blade shined so bright it blinded his enemies.[link]
Interestingly, there is a legendary tradition of making duplicates of Excalibur, as told by Malory. When Morgan le Fay steals Excalibur and the scabbard from Arthur and secretly gives it to her lover Sir Accolon to kill King Arthur, she replaces Excalibur with a fake sword to deceive Arthur.
Lastly, when Arthur dies, Excalibur is returned to the Lady of the Lake by Sir Bedivere (after twice failing to throw the sword in the lake and being remonstrated by Arthur, he does so). Arthur himself is shipped off to the Isle of Avalon (traditionally located in Glastonbury Tor) to recover from his death, and be ready in the future to come back to live in England’s hour of need. It can’t be overstated how many controversies have revolved around Arthur’s historicity, the location of Avalon, and many other details.
OK, enough legends. How did Richard get Excalibur, and why would he give the world’s most famous sword to Tancred, a King-to-be of a relatively minor kingdom, that of Sicily?
Gerald of Wales reports in his history that at the instigation of King Henry II, the burial site and remains of King Arthur were discovered at Glastonbury Abbey. Somewhere around the same time, Richard shows up in Sicily with Excalibur, Arthur’s sword, neither of which have been mentioned in the histories for some time. Coincidence? Unlikely!
The commonly related story is that Henry, Richard’s father, was told of the location of Arthur’s burial site at Glastonbury Abbey, perhaps as early as 1171, by “an ancient Welsh bard”, and told the monks they should dig. Eventually they do, and find Arthur and Guinevere. The various histories report that there was a bad fire at Glastonbury in 1184, and the conventional academic wisdom today is that the monks were “discovering” invented history in order to generate funds from pilgrims to fund a recovery.
But there are some pesky things that don’t add up. The first reports of the disinterment of Arthur are from Gerald, writing around 1193 and also in later years. Gerald does not mention a specific date, but indicates it is during the reign of King Henry II (which ended in 1189), and at Henry's instigation1:
Furthermore, in our times, while Henry II was ruling England, the tomb of the renowned Arthur was searched for meticulously in Glastonbury Abbey; this was done at the instruction of the king and under the supervision of the abbot of that place, Henry (ed: de Sully), who was later transferred to Worcester Cathedral…his [ed: Arthur’s] body was discovered at Glastonbury, in our own times, hidden very deep in the earth in an oak-hollow, between two stone pyramids that were erected long ago in that holy place. The tomb was sealed up with astonishing tokens, like some sort of miracle.
(It’s important to note that most contemporary historians in this era had some kind of axe to grind. Whether they wanted patronage from a ruler, or had political or religious beliefs that aligned to a particular view of history, it is dangerous to take any of the histories as literal facts, particularly when only one history reports something. And it must be said that historians cast a jaundiced eye on the accuracy of Gerald’s writing.)
We must further note that Henry de Sully was not appointed until after King Henry was dead, and Richard appointed him, in 1189 after Henry’s death. So this is already confusing - was the tomb found while Henry was alive (1189 or earlier), or afterwards, when the other Henry was abbot?
The date of the dig is reported in other histories variously as 1191 (Ralph of Coggeshall, writing in 1225, about thirty-five years later), and 1190 (Adam of Domerham, writing one hundred years later)2.
Why did the monks wait seven years to dig if they needed money? One suggestion is that it was not until Henry’s death that their royal patron’s funding dried up, but there’s no direct evidence for this. Further, if this dig were fabricated to create a “tourist attraction” and thus revenue for the Abbey, one would expect activity supporting that. We don’t see it. There was no mention of the dig in the Abbey’s annals; no new shrine for pilgrims to visit; no uptick in visitors seems to have occurred.
Further, if the dig is 1191, then it is two years after Henry has died, which seemingly contradicts that it was done under Henry’s orders and during his reign. Lastly, the dig occurs when Henry de Sully is abbot of Glastonbury; he is Richard’s cousin and Richard himself made him abbot. Richard has taken the cross and is making plans for his Crusade to the Holy Lands; a bit of Arthurian political theater might well be helpful for him.
More unhelpful for our purposes is that none of the reports of the dis-interment seem to mention Excalibur, but do mention other relics. And the timeline is potentially inconvenient. We don’t know precisely when in 1190 or 1191 the dig occurred, but we do know that in September of 1190, Richard is already in Sicily and gives away “Excalibur” the following spring, in March 1191. So “Excalibur” could conceivably have come from the dig, if the dig occurred in 1190, but it could not have come with Richard to Sicily. It would have had to be sent separately. Not impossible, but seems unlikely.
(I am grateful to Dr. Martin Aurell, an Arthurian expert and professor of medieval history at the Université de Poitiers, for confirming that none of the historical accounts of the “discovery” of Arthur’s tomb mention Excalibur. How Richard came by it, historically, is unknown. All mistakes mine, of course).
There is a reasonable amount of controversy over the interpretation of the dig, the reasons it happened and whether it was genuine. Some of these controversies even involve a planted Gorilla skull. I am not making this up, as Dave Barry would say (e.g here, and here).
What are we left with? The event is generally reported as occurring in 1190 or 1191, without a clear way to know more precisely. But Excalibur is Arthur’s sword and Richard departs England in December of 1189, to appear in Sicily in September 1190, Excalibur in hand, giving it away in early 1191.
To my mind this argues for a dig in 1190 or earlier, not 1191, and perhaps with Richard’s involvement.
Why did Richard give “Excalibur” away in the first place? Sicily had strategic importance to the Crusades (as a port for ocean transport), and politically (as the Holy Roman Empire was trying to take it, to Richard’s detriment). As part of the Treaty of Messina, Richard has promised his nephew Arthur (!) in marriage to Tancred’s daughter, Tancred becomes an ally of Richard, and Richard’s heir eventually becomes King of Sicily. The Arthurian symbolism fits, and the Plantagenet family has always been enamored of Arthurian chivalric connections to their family.
Note that there’s no requirement for any of this to be “genuine” - to explain Richard’s actions, it suffices that the discovery of Arthur—and by implication Excalibur—had been announced.
Still, it is quite a gift. It’s not out of the question: Richard was famously generous. After the battle of Messina, Richard de Templo says:
After the feast was at an end, King Richard set before the king of France the most beautiful cups, and gave him his choice in honour of the occasion, and gave to each of the nobles presents according to his rank; for like Titus, with whose hand he lavished his wealth, he thought that the day was lost on which he happened to have given nothing.
So, what are we left with? A few scenarios:
The story itself is made up. Perhaps Roger of Hoveden inserted this into his history, but the event itself never took place. (Benedict of Peterborough is sometimes said to have mentioned this as well, but his history is now recognized as written by Roger [*]). Neither of the histories written by people actually on Crusade with Richard (Ambroise, Richard de Templo) mention this incident.
The sword itself is fake. Richard gives a fake sword to Tancred, and Richard knows it’s fake. There is no Excalibur. This is the simplest explanation, and in the middle ages there was a certain credulousness about relics that make this plausible. Any old sword might do. Keep in mind a real Excalibur would have spent 700 years in “Arthur’s” grave, and if not completely disintegrated, probably not much to look at. However, I remain puzzled that only Roger of Hoveden reports this (not Ambroise, not Richard of Devizes, nor Richard de Templo. And that it is reported in so matter-of-fact a manner, as not an amazing event. If feels like Roger believes this event happened and reports it as a not-that-surprising fact, rather than as an amazing occurrence which must be explained.
Richard has Excalibur, but gives Tancred a fake. Richard might well have come into the possession of a sword he thought was Excalibur, but did not want to part with it, and gave Tancred a fake. If I owned Excalibur, I would not want to part with it, so it’s easy to imagine Richard giving Tancred a fake (questions of honor aside), but where the original Excalibur came from remains up in the air.
Richard gives him what he thinks is the real sword. Richard might have possessed a sword he *thought* was the real Excalibur, and given it away for political gain. It’s consistent with his constant use of money for little except to advance his cause and the Crusade, and apparent lack of attachment to material things. This scenario still wants an explanation for where this Excalibur came from, and whether it was actually connected to an historical Arthur? Perhaps the sword was in fact found at the dig at Glastonbury, left unmentioned by the historians, and then delivered by shipboard courier to Richard in Sicily, likely rusty and crumbling. Seems unlikely, but ….
In an interesting footnote to the Richard’s Sicilian Adventure, as I call it: Fabrizio De Falco writes in “A Companion to Geoffrey of Monmouth”:
While traveling in Sicily in 1191, Richard the Lionheart gave Tancred a sword said to be Excalibur. In this gift it is possible to see Richard taking a political position in favor of Tancred and hostile to the Hohenstaufen. A few years later, Otto of Brunswick’s Imperial Court saw the birth of the fascinating legend, studied for the first time by Arturo Graf, in which Arthur seeks refuge in Sicily after his final battle.[*] In the Otia Imperalia (“Entertainment for an Emperor”, c.1210), Gervase of Tilbury – followed by other authors – identified Arthur’s final refuge as the bowels of Mount Etna, transforming Sicily into Avalon.
So Avalon is Sicily? Even the famed Arthurian researcher Roger Sherman Loomis finds connection between Arthur and Sicily. Did Richard plant these legends?
One last curious historical nugget: when Tancred gets Excalibur, Excalibur disappears from view forever.
Or does it? Two hundred years later, with Henry V at the battle of Agincourt, as related by medieval historian Rob Jones:
At Agincourt, in the midst of his victory over the French, Henry V suffered what, on the face of it, should have been a great loss. A force of local nobility and peasants appeared behind the English lines and ransacked the baggage wagons. According to the Chroniques de Ruisseauville the men of the nearby town of Hesdin, led by the knights Ysembert d’Azincourt and Robinet de Bournouville, carried away gemstones, two crowns, a fragment of the True Cross and ‘the sword of King Arthur which was worth so much money that no one knew what to do with it…’
In the end, Jones says the ‘sword of Arthur’ need not be, and probably isn’t, “Excalibur”. But as with all these things, the line of proof is not clear, we are left to weigh probabilities, the motivations of the principals, not to mention obsequious historians, and wonder what the truth is.
When we’re left to wonder about the truth, fiction, rather than history, often provides the best answers. In reality, the most likely explanation is that Richard simply made up a story about Excalibur and passed it off in return for a good treaty with Tancred.
But if I were writing a story? Well, Richard certainly has the real Excalibur, and it’s not a normal sword. And he’s sure as hell not giving it away. Following Morgan le Fay, he made or found a duplicate, gave it to Tancred, and took Excalibur off to try to retake the Holy Land.
https://d.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/text/gerald-of-wales-arthurs-tomb
http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/arthur/glast_cross.html
Well this is really fun! Love the amount of research and questions... a conundrum! Can there be more? And did you do this last wonderful image?