Avalon in Literature and History

by Cortlan Waters

"...In one great act of Druid magic, to protect the last precious refuge of their school, they had made the last great change in the world; that change which removed the Island of Avalon from the world of mankind" (Mists 114)

The legendary Isle of Avalon, a place of wonder, magic, and peace in Arthurian legend draws the attention of readers in many works, particularly with the publication of Marion Zimmer Bradley's novel The Mists of Avalon in 1982.  Still, it is difficult to place such a mystical, magical Isle within the historical context of the world.  Is Avalon a real place that can be found on a map? If so, where can one find it?  There have been many suggestions as to where this magical island might be in Arthurian legend, however historical proof of Avalon's existence is much harder to find.  It is Glastonbury Abbey that stands out the most in the search for a historical Avalon; however, conclusive proof that Glastonbury is or is not Avalon is impossible to find, and readers of Arthurian literature must content themselves with the fantastical island described in legend. 

           The name "Avalon" as present day readers understand was popularized in Geoffrey of Monmouth's work The History of the Kings of Britain, where he referred to the Insula Avallonis.  This is Geoffrey's Latin interpretation for the Welsh name Ynys Avallach, and he dubs Avalon the "isle of the apples," an association that will remain with Avalon throughout literature and legend (Lacy 307).  However, Geoffrey's Latin name, and consequently the modern name of Avalon, was probably influenced by not only the Welsh name but also by the actual town called Avallon in Burgundy, France which is Gaulish for "apple-place" (Lacy 307).  Thus, readers today learn of the mystical Isle of Avalon and its various associations with apple orchards in literature.

           The folklore that surrounds Avalon as a literary landmark is surprisingly rich, though most of course Arthur remains at the forefront of any discussion. According to The Arthurian Handbook, Avalon is the "enchanted island where, according to Geoffrey of Monmouth, Arthur's sword was forged and where he was conveyed after his last battle for his wounds to be attended to" (Lacy 307). The Arthurian Handbook goes on to say "It is ruled by Morgen (that is, Morgan le Fay), a well-disposed enchantress and healer heading a sisterhood of nine" (Lacy 307).  This description essentially covers the elements of Arthurian Literature that are associated with Avalon and all of Arthur's ties to it. 

However, it should be made clear that Avalon's history is generally Celtic, and it was the Bretons who perpetuated it as an island (Lacy 307).  Another interesting legendary association with Avalon is as a place to summon the dead. Geoffrey Ashe explains Avalon's connections to the Otherworld through Gwyn the King of Fairies, a connection made through Life, a document written by St. Collen (a Welsh saint) whose kingdom, Annwn, is a place of departed spirits (Ashe 25).  Generally speaking, Avalon has a few main characteristics that become important when attempting to locate it in the physical world: it is an island and dedicated to spiritual connections (be it Moran le Fay or Gwyn), and as for Arthur it is unanimously his final resting place (be it is his grave or where he mere awaits his return to Britain). 

           According to Reno's research, there is no mention of Avalon in either Gildas or Nennius' accounts of the historical or legendary Arthur (233).  However, that changes with Geoffrey of Monmouth's work, The History of the Kings of Britain.  He writes, "Arthur himself, our renowned King, was mortally wounded and was carried off to the Isle of Avalon, so that his wounds might be attended to" (Monmouth 261).  The only other mention of Avalon by Geoffrey, however, is to say that Arthur's sword Caliburn was forged there (217).  Geoffrey does not elaborated on the mystical isle and certainly does not connect Avalon to Glastonbury.  Reno explains, "...Monmouth does not assign the name Avalon to Glastonbury; he might have been thinking of Avalon as the Afterworld, or he might have had in mind a village on the continent by that name" (233).  So, as is evident, Avalon's earliest mentions are confined to brief statements without elaboration.

           In Le Morte Darthur, Sir Thomas Malory does expound a little more on the Isle of Avalon, though still in the same context as Geoffrey's earlier works.  At the end of his life, Arthur says to Bedivere, "For I will into the vale of Avilion to heal me of my grievous wound; and if thou hear never more of me, pray for my soul" (Malory 516).  And, surprisingly, Malory gives this final statement, "Yet some men say in many parts of England that King Arthur is not dead, but had by the will of Our Lord Jesu into another place...But many men say that there is written upon the tomb this: Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus" ("Here lies Arthur, king once, king to be") (517).  Despite the fact that Arthur's tomb had supposedly been uncovered at Glastonbury hundreds of years before he wrote, Malory seems vague and uncertain, and Parry explains, "Yet Malory's sources cannot make him certain where this place is, so he refrains from asserting a connection between Glastonbury and Avalon" (147). 

           It is in Alfred Lord Tennyson's much later work, Idylls of the King, that the Isle of Avalon is given more description and depth.  Just before he departs, Arthur says, "...To the island-valley of Avilion;/Where falls not hail, or rain, or any snow,/nor every wind blows loudly...Where I will heal me of my grievous wound" (Tennyson 299).  Here, Tennyson gives description to the mysterious island to which Arthur departs, and it is characterized as a place untouched by weather and seeming removed from the world.  Still, Tennyson does not give a location for Avalon in the physical world, relying on its ethereal and mystical characteristics. 

           In modern literature, it is Marion Zimmer Bradley's works that truly emphasize and draw the legendary Avalon out of earlier works, portraying the isle of Avalon as Glastonbury Abbey's other world counterpart, separated from Glastonbury by a magical mist.  In one of her novels, Bradley explains how Avalon was once the same location as Glastonbury, but the Lady of Avalon decided to separate them, and at that moment, the Fairy Queen says, "It is done...Your isle lies between the world of men and Faerie.  If any would now seek Avalon, it will be the holy isle of the Nazarenes [Glastonbury] they will find, unless the have been taught the ancient magic" (Lady 152).  Thus, in her novel The Mists of Avalon, set in Arthur's time, Avalon is no longer the same as Glastonbury, though the places seem to overlap. 

           Outside of Arthurian literature, the search for concrete proof of the legendary King Arthur's existence is wide-spread in both geography and discipline, the existence of a real Avalon is perhaps one of the most important questions pertaining to Arthur's existence because it is Arthur's last known (or last mentioned) destination.  Today, there is one location that shines above others as the most likely presentation of Arthur's mystical isle: Glastonbury Abbey.   In her brief history of the Abbey, Berkeley writes, "...Celtic and Saxon monks lived together in a Celtic monastery situated in an old Celtic town with a new English name; for Avalon or Ynyswytrin had become Glaestingaburgh" (317).  Thus, Glastonbury is tied not only to Celtic origins (like those of the mystical Avalon) but also to Avalon itself.  To strengthen her claim, Berkeley asserts, "Glastonbury, as the reputed dwelling-place of gods and the centre of uncanny rites, may well, hidden as it was behind its fogs, have gained the reputation of being "otherworldly"" (312).  Clearly, this description flows nicely with the mystical Avalon described in literature, but what is the actual proof that Avalon and Glastonbury are the same location?          

Sometime between 1125 and 1135, William of Malmesbury wrote, De Antiquitate Glastoniensis Ecclesiae, which is essentially the first work to truly promote Glastonbury as the famous isle of Avalon in Arthurian legend (Nitze 356).  In the years that followed this publication, monks at Glastonbury would continue to rely on it as a testament to Glastonbury's fame.  Nitze writes, "Avalon [...] is but another name for Glastonbury; and as for Arthur and Guenevere, proofs are at hand, said the monks, that their bodies lie buried in the Abbey's churchyard" (356).  Thus, the belief began that Arthur's tomb could actually be found there.

This leads to the strongest, and most controversial, point in the question of the connection between Avalon and Glastonbury: the exhumation of Arthur's supposed tomb there in 1191.  It is this evidence more than any other that cemented the connection between Arthur's mystical and magical isle and present day Glastonbury Abbey. Though the details of this exhumation and the motivations behind it are certainly vague and changing from various accounts, most documents agree on the following: the exhumation occurred in the old cemetery of Glastonbury where the monks dug sixteen feet into the ground between two pyramids and found an oak coffin and leaden cross with two skeletons, presumably Arthur and Guinevere, inside (Reno 248). 

Much later, in 1278, Edward I visited Glastonbury and ordered that Arthur's tomb (along with Guinevere's) should be moved to a more appropriate place within the Abbey (Nitze 360).  Still, there is no conclusive proof of the tomb's existence and certainly none that unquestionably identifies it as Arthur's specifically.  Unfortunately, according to Dimas, in 1539, Glastonbury Abbey was taken over by King Henry VIII, and after the King removed the most valuable treasures, the building itself was sold, and after that time, there is no record of what happened to Arthur's tomb (22-23). However, in 1962, an archeological dig at Glastonbury conducted by C.A. Ralegh Radford found evidence that proves that an exhumation did occur at the site generally described in the late twelfth century (Reno 249).  Consequently, researchers today can be positive that there was an excavation of some kind in the location and time indicated. 

           There are several accounts of this exhumation, but none of the accounts come from eyewitnesses present at Glastonbury when the tomb was uncovered.  The earliest written accounts of the exhumation at Glastonbury come from Giraldus Cambrensis, also known as Gerald of Wales, who was a twelfth century churchman. Undoubtedly, it is Giraldus' first account of the exhumation in "Liber de Principis instructione" that is the more reliable of his two accounts, as it was written in 1193, just a few years after the actual exhumation.  However, in both writings, he perpetuates the details of the tombs discovery including that it was buried 16 feet in the ground, in a hollowed-out oak coffin. Giraldus writes, "What is now known as Glastonbury used, in ancient times, to be called the Isle of Avalon.  It is virtually an island, for it is completely surrounded by marshlands" (Liber).  Not only is Giraldus quite clear that Avalon is Glastonbury, he testifies to the geographical assumptions made today that hundreds of years ago Glastonbury was in fact, an island.  Notably, in both accounts he wrote, Giraldus explains how exactly Avalon came to be known as Glastonbury, explaining that another old name for Avalon is Ynys Gutrin, or Island of Glass, which became Glastonia, which became Glastonbury (Liber). 

           Giraldus wrote his second account of the exhumation at Glastonbury in "Speculum Ecclesiae" in 1216, and apart from differences in style, the accounts are much the same.  He makes the same claims regarding the discovery of the tomb, but he also asserts that the discovery of the tomb ends all the speculation that Arthur would ever return as King.  Of that particular part of Arthurian legend, he writes, "The result of all this is that they [the Bretons] really expect him [Arthur] to come back, [...], led astray by even greater stupidity, misfortune, and misplaced faith..." (Speculum).  So, while his second account of the exhumation is markedly more stylized as an actual story, the essential facts remain the same. 

           Another early account of the Glastonbury exhumation is that of Adam of Domerham, called Historia de rebus Glatoniensibus and written in 1290, nearly a century after the first account by Giraldus Cambrensis (Reno 241).  The difference in time alone is enough to cause various discrepancies between the two accounts, but there the essential story of the exhumation remains the same.  Adam's account differs mainly from Giraldus' in the notion that the new abbot (Henry of Sully) was admonished concerning Arthur's tomb because it was not honorable enough for such a king as Arthur, and this is what prompted the excavation (Reno 242).  However, because Adam held positions within the monastery, he would obviously want to promote Glastonbury's claim to Arthur as much as possible (Reno 242).  According to Reno, "...[the work] showed that the author not only had a vested interest in the well-being of Glastonbury Abbey, but also that he was in a position to help the monastery's cause" (241). While there are certainly other accounts that follow Giraldus and Adam, the question of time and removal from the actual event become more and more pronounced, making Giraldus' account the most likely to be accurate or closest to accurate. 

While the skeletons and sarcophagus found at Glastonbury would obviously be a key point in determining the validity of the tomb, since those items are not minutely recorded or even sketched, its difficult to consider them today.  However, the leaden cross found underneath the oak coffin is another matter.  Ditmas explains that the cross's existence was traceable up until the 18^th century when it was believed to be in the possession of Mr. Chancelor Hughes of Wales before it disappeared from record (23).  Quite obviously, this is much more recent and accessible than anything last recorded in the twelfth century, and in terms of the Avalon and Glastonbury connection, it was of course the inscription on the cross that named Glastonbury as Avalon.  On that subject, Ditmas writes, "The leaden cross is the most suspicious item with its inscription that not only identified the body but conveniently certified that Glastonbury and Avalon were one and the same place" (23).   

In "Liber de Principis instructione," Giraldus does mention the cross with some detail along with the coffin and bones.  He writes, "...beneath it [the sarcophagus], and not on top, as would be the custom nowadays, there was a stone slab, with a leaden cross attached to its under side" (Liber).  Giraldus also records the inscription on the cross as, "Here in the Isle of Avalon lies buried the renowned King Arthur, with Guinevere, his second wife" (Liber). Apart from the various statements that the inscription implies, especially that Guinevere was Arthur's second wife, the inscription clearly names the location of the tomb as Avalon.  Thus, Glastonbury is Avalon by virtue of the inscription on the cross.

           Unfortunately, in the present, because the cross has disappeared with other evidence of the tomb, historians and researchers rely on a drawing made of the cross in 1607 by Camden (Ditmas 23).  However, even from the drawing, inconsistencies are clear.  Alcock explains, "...it is quite certainly not an inscription contemporary with Arthur's death in the first half of the sixth century" (77-78).  Here, she refers to the type of script in which the inscription is written which is inconsistent with the script that would have been used in the sixth century, leading to the belief that the cross at least was forged later.  Alcock continues, "But we may suppose that the Glastonbury forger knew just enough to tell him that a contemporary script would not do, but not enough to be able to reproduce an authentic sixth-century script" (79).  Thus, it is difficult to make precise conclusions based on information gleaned from Camden's drawing, and even if one assumed that due to the script inconsistencies, monks forged the cross later to prove Arthur was buried in Glastonbury, that does not necessarily negate the legitimacy of the tomb itself.

           Supporting evidence for the existence of Avalon at present day Glastonbury Abbey includes the very geography of Glastonbury Abbey and Tor, which generally coincide with descriptions of Avalon.   The obvious objection to this argument, however, is that Avalon is clearly described as an island, and Glastonbury is certainly not an island.   However, Reno explains, "...topographers have no difficulty in accepting the terrain around Glastonbury in the fifth century as having been under water, a boggy, swampy area of changing scenes, depending upon the moisture and the season" (227). Still, while this picture of Glastonbury flows nicely with the Avalon described in literature, it is hardly proof that the two places are actually one.

           Today, the lack of physical evidence that is available and especially the inconsistencies in evidence that is available leads many to believe that the Glastonbury exhumation was nothing more than a hoax to promote the welfare of the Abbey.  There are several theories behind why the monks or leaders of Glastonbury Abbey would go to such great lengths (creating the cross and tomb) of the legendary King Arthur at Glastonbury.  Firstly, in 1184, not even a decade earlier than the exhumation, Glastonbury Abbey was laid to waste by a fire, which consumed a considerable amount of Glastonbury's buildings and wealth (Ditmas 24).   Obviously, the naming of Glastonbury as the mystical Isle of Avalon would dramatically increase the Abbey's fame and fortune. 

Additionally, it is possible that the "discovery" of Arthur's tomb was made to placate and please the monarch of the time, Henry II.  In his accounts, Giraldus is also makes interesting assertions regarding the involvement of Henry II in the exhumation of the tomb at Glastonbury.  According to Giraldus, there existed in the Abbey documents that pointed to the existence of Arthur's tomb that helped the monks choose a location in which to dig.  He writes, "There had been some indications in the Abbey records that the body would be discovered on this spot, and another clue was provided by the lettering carved on the pyramids..." (Giraldus, Liber).  However, he goes on to make it clear that Henry II ultimately brought about the beginning of the excavation.  He explains, "...it was Henry II, King of England, who had told the monks that [...] they would find Arthur's body buried at least sixteen feet in the ground, not in a stone coffin but in a hallowed-out oak bole" (Giraldus, Liber).  Offering the simple explanation that Henry II learned this information from local storytellers and legend, Giraldus accepts this as fact and goes on to describe the tomb itself.  Still, the fact that Henry II apparently knew of the tombs existence, and not only its exact location but what the tomb would look like, could be another indication that the tomb was not a legitimate archeological find but a hoax for the benefit of the Abbey and monarch. Similarly, Ditmas explains that the benefit of the exhumation was two-fold for the Abbey: "The first would please the royal patron of the abbey who now had proof that his adversary was incontestably dead; the second brought added fame to the site..." (21). 

           Despite the vast amount of speculation and skepticism that inevitably surfaces with mention of the Glastonbury exhumation, the fact remains that there is not conclusive proof that Glastonbury is or is not the same as Arthur's Avalon.  Alcock writes, "Whether an authentic or a bogus burial was involved, the reasons for doing it at that juncture might be the same: either political, to counter the Celtic unrest inspired by Arthur of Brittany, or financial, to raise funds for a building programme" (74).  Less skeptical specialists on the subject such as Geoffrey Ashe point out, "Certainly no iconoclasm has yet ruled out the belief that Glastonbury was either Avalon or Avalon under another name to at least a part of pre-Christian Britain" (29).  Thus, there is no real conclusion to be made about the Glastonbury and Avalon link aside from stating the possibility of it.

Although Glastonbury is generally thought of as the most likely candidate to be officially named Avalon, there are other possible locations for the mystical isle as well.  Because there is considerable emphasis on the fact that Arthur was born away on a barge to Avalon after his last battle, questions have been raised in the favor of locating Arthur's Avalon in present day Burgundy, France at the town Avallon.  Reno notes that, "...With the Battle of Camlann being fought at Charford, the barge could have set sail at Southampton Water and crossed the channel to the Avallon of Burgundy" (257).  In addition to this, Reno also relies on geographic references in present day France to the Ile de France, with Avallon being located on its borders and Arthur's ties to Gaul to strengthen the idea that the legendary Avalon may not be Glastonbury but rather the town of Avallon (258).  Unfortunately, because of Glastonbury's archeological claims, speculation about Avallon is often over-shadowed and far less comprehensive, and if Glastonbury's strong ties to Avalon are questionable at best, Avallon's are even more so. 

           Despite all of the work done throughout the ages to legitimatize the existence of the legendary King Arthur, there remains very little proof of his existence, and while the exhumation of his supposed tomb at Glastonbury gave hope, the tomb and cross have disappeared over time.  Like to Arthur himself, the mystical Isle of Avalon, Arthur's last destination, has disappeared into legend as well, leaving behind only traces of proof.  The truth about the existence of Avalon will perhaps be forever a mystery without definitive evidence to either support or negate it.  Still, it is perhaps Marion Zimmer Bradley's Lancelet who states the problem of Avalon most clearly, "I do no know why I am homesick for Avalon – I did not live long there [...] And yet I think it is the fairest place on all earth – if indeed it is on this earth at all" (Mists 321).

Bibliography

Alcock, Leslie. Arthur's Britain: History and Archaeology AD 367-634 New York: St. Martin's Press, 1971

Ashe, Geoffrey.  King Arthur's Avalon: The Story of Glastonbury Dutton: 1957, 1958

Berkeley, Mary A. "Glastonbury and the Grail Legend." Folklore 31(1920): 307-319 (Full-text via JSTOR)

Bradley, Marion Zimmer.  The Mists of Avalon  New York: The Ballantine Publishing Group 1982

Bradley, Marion Zimmer.  The Lady of Avalon 

Ditmas, E.M.R. "The Cult of Arthurian Relics" Folklore 75(1964): 19-33

Gerald of Wales.  "Liber de Principis instructione."  Britannia.com.  25 March 2008.  http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/debarri.html

Gerald of Wales.  "Speculum Ecclesiae."  Britannia.com.  25 March 2008.  http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/debarri.html

Lacy, Norris J, Geoffrey Ashe.  The Arthurian Handbook.  New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc.  1988

Malory, Thomas.  Le Morte darthur.  Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Monmouth, Geoffrey of.  The History of the Kings of Britain.  New York City: Penguin Books, 1966. 

Nitze, W.A. "The Exhumation of King Arthur at Glastonbury." Speculum.  9(1934): 355-361 (Full-text via JSTOR)

Parry, Joseph D.  "Following Malory out of Arthur's World." Modern Philology  95(1997): 147-169 (Full-text via JSTOR)

Reno, Frank D.  The Historic King Arthur: Authenticating the Celtic Hero of Post-Roman Britain.  Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1996

Tennyson, Lord Alfred. Idylls of the King. Ed. J.M. Gray.  England: Penguin Books, 1996.