Translated by the editor from the Latin text in E. K. Chambers, Arthur of Britain (London: Sidgwick. & Jackson, Ltd., 1927).

From BOOK I:

 But when he [Vortimer, son of Vortigern] died, the strength of the Britons dwindled away, hopes diminishing and fleeting; and indeed they would have then immediately perished had not Ambrosiusóalone of the Romans [249] surviving, who reigned as king after Vortigernóoverpowered the presumptuous barbarians with the distinguished service of the warlike Arthur. This is the Arthur about whom the trifles of the Bretons* rave even now, one certainly not to be dreamed of in false myths, but proclaimed in truthful historiesóindeed, who for a long time held up his tottering fatherland, and kindled the broken spirits of his countrymen to war. At last, at the siege of Mount Badon, trusting in the image of our Lord's Mother which he had sewn on his armor, rising alone against nine hundred of the enemy he dashed them to the ground with incredible slaughter. [250]

From BOOK III:

 At that time [c. 1066ñ1087], in a province of Wales which is called Ros, was found the tomb of Walwen, who was not unworthy of Arthuróa nephew through his sister. He reigned in that part of Britain which is still called Walweitha, a soldier highly celebrated for his deeds of bravery, but who was driven from the kingdom by the brother and nephew of Hengist (of whom I have spoken in my first book), first making them pay dearly for his banishment. He deservedly shared in his uncle's praising, because he prevented the fall of his collapsing country for many years. But the tomb of Arthur is nowhere seen, whence ancient dirges still fable his coming. Yet the sepulchre of the other, as I said before, was found above the seacoast in the time of King William, fourteen feet long. There, as certain people claim, he [Walwen] was wounded by his enemies, and cast forth from a shipwreck; by others it is said that he was killed by his fellow citizens at a public feast. Therefore, knowledge of the truth falls in doubt, although neither of these stories would fail as a defense of his fame. [250]

*Bretons. The Latin text reads Britonum, ìof the Britons,î but by the twelfth century when William of Malmesbury was writing the word always meant the Bretons of Armorica or Brittany in France, not the insular Roman Britons, Welsh, or Cornish. Editorís note.