Perceval and Peredur: Summaries of the Stories

Peredur: A Grail Romance? Part II

During the 19th century Lady Charlotte Guest assembled eleven medieval Welsh tales from The White Book of Rhydderch and The Red Book of Hergest to form the collection commonly known as The Mabinogion. Lady Guest grouped the tales of her Mabinogion collection as the Four Branches of the Mabinogi, Culhwch and Olwen, Rhonabwy’s Dream, The Dream of Mascen Wledig, Lludd and Llefelys, and the Three Romances.

The Welsh texts referred to as the ‘Three Romances’, ‘Peredur son of Efrog’, ‘Geraint son of Erbin’, and ‘Owain, or The Lady of the Fountain’, have been subject to much debate by scholars owing to their correspondence with the French tales of Perceval, Yvain and Érec et Énide by Chrétien de Troyes. There is clearly a connection between the three Welsh Romances and their French counterparts but there seems little agreement about the precise ways in which they interrelate; the Three Welsh Romances are often dismissed simply as copies, or adaptions, of Chrétien’s works, which is the easiest option, as the Welsh manuscripts all came later. There can be no denying the French influence apparent in the Welsh tales, yet it is a more complex issue than just manuscript dating.

The greatest debate, however, is reserved for the question of Peredur son of Efrog’s relationship with Chrétien's Perceval (Conte du Graal). The impact of Chrétien's ‘Story of the Grail’ on Medieval literature cannot be over stated; the poem was responsible for an explosion of Continental Romance that followed, introducing The Grail to the Arthurian Cycle of the Matter of Britain. It seemed unlikely, if not impossible, that the French masterpiece could have derived from a little-known Welsh tale; it is therefore easier for many to to accept that Peredur must be derived from Perceval.

As the Welsh tale in its complete form as it appears in the White Book of Rhydderch (c.1350) and Red Book of Hergest (c.1375-c.1400), both manuscripts date around two hundred years after Chrétien’s story first appeared (1180-1190), it is usually accepted that Peredur is a translation and/or adaptation of Chrétien’s text. However, as other (incomplete) versions of Peredur can be found in earlier manuscripts this may not necessarily be the case.1

For purposes of comparison here are short summaries of Perceval, or the Story of the Grail, and Peredur son of Efrog.

Perceval, or, The Story of the Grail by Chrétien de Troyes

Perceval

Summary
Perceval of Wales (Perceval le Gallois) is raised in the Welsh woods by his mother to keep him away from civilization. One day, while out riding, Perceval encounters a group of knights (unnamed) and realizes he wants to be one. His mother tells him of his father and gives him personal advice. But despite her protests he leaves for King Arthur's court. He meets a young girl who predicts greatness for him but Kay, the Seneschal, taunts him. On his way to court, he meets the Red Knight and prophesies revenge on Kay. Then Perceval kills the Red Knight and takes his vermilion armour.

He reaches Gournemant’s castle who trains Perceval how to bear arms. He then decides to return to see his mother but Gournemant’s niece Blancheflor seeks his help. Perceval rescues her from her attackers who he captures and sends them to King Arthur's court to declare his vow of revenge on Kay.

Perceval sets out to return to his mother. During the journey he comes across the Fisher King fishing in a boat on a river, who invites him to stay at his castle. At the Fisher King's castle Perceval was first presented with a sword by the lord as an act of hospitality. Perceval then sat down beside him, and he was treated with the greatest honour. And in that hall was the brightest light could ever be created by candles. Then the Grail procession commenced:

"While they were talking of one thing and another, a boy came from a chamber holding a gleaming lance by the middle of the shaft, and he passed between the fire and the pair who were sitting on the bed. Everyone in the hall saw the bright lance and its shining head. And from the tip of the lance's head came a drop of blood; and right down to the boy's hand this drop ran. The lord's guest gazed at the wonder that had appeared that night, but refrained from asking how it came to be, because he remembered the warning of the one who'd knighted him, who'd taught him to beware of talking too much; he was afraid it might be frowned upon, so he didn't ask at all. Then two other boys appeared, holding candlesticks of fine gold, inlaid with niello, they were handsome boys indeed, and in each of the candlesticks they bore were at least ten burning candles. A girl who entered with the boys, fair and graceful and beautifully attired, was holding a grail between her hands. And she entered with the grail, so radiant a light appeared in the hall that the candles lost their brightness like the stars at the rising of the moon or sun. After her came another girl, holding a silver trencher. the grail which went ahead was made of pure, fine gold, inlaid with many kinds of jewels, the richest and most precious in earth or sea: the stones in the grail surpassed all other gems without a doubt. They passed before the bed as the lance had done, and entered another chamber. The boy saw them pass, but didn't dare ask who was served from the grail: he'd taken the words of wise Gorneman to heart. I fear he may suffer for doing so: I've heard it said that sometimes a man can talk too little as well as too much! But whether it was to bring him good or ill - I don't know which - he asked nothing."2

He wakes up the next morning to find the castle deserted; he resumes his journey home. On the journey he encounters a girl in mourning, who reprimands him for not asking about the grail, as that would have healed the wounded king. He then learns that his mother has died.

Perceval captures another knight and sends him to King Arthur's court with the same message as before. King Arthur sets out to find Perceval and, upon finding him, attempts to convince him to join the court. Perceval unknowingly challenges Kay to a fight, in which he breaks Kay's arm and exacts his revenge. Perceval agrees to join Arthur's court, but soon after a loathly lady enters and reprimands him again for failing to ask whom the grail served.

The story of the Grail effectively ends here with the remaining 3,000 lines or so of Chrétien’s poem dealing with Arthur's nephew and best knight Gawain, whose adventures are not directly pertinent to the quest. As Gawain takes centre stage Perceval literally disappears from the text except for one short later passage, in which a hermit explains that the grail contains a single host that miraculously sustains the Fisher King’s wounded father. It is as if another author had picked up the story.

The tale breaks off unfinished, interrupted when a messenger arrives at Arthur's court to request his presence at Gawain's upcoming fight against Guiromelant.3

*

Peredur, son of Efrog – author unknown

Summary

Peredur (Alan Lee)

Peredur inherits his father's lands in the north after his father and brothers all die in battle. The last of her son’s his mother tries to hide the idea of war from her young son and raises him in isolation in the woods. As he comes of age he meets a group of knights, Gwalchmai son of Gwyar, Gwair son of Gwystyl and Owain son of Urien. Peredur sets off for the court of King Arthur on a scraggy horse with a makeshift saddle and a fistful of sharp-pointed darts in his hand to learn how to become a knight.

At Arthur's court an unnamed knight insults the host and issues a challenge to all present. When Peredur arrives at the court the unnamed knight has departed and they laugh at him and his untidy, makeshift equipment and desire to become a knight. They tell Peredur that he must defeat the knight who insulted them if he wishes to become a knight himself. He accepts the challenge and seeks out the knight who he kills with a dart and takes the dead man's armour and horse.

Peredur decides he will journey through the land in the name of King Arthur until he has taken his revenge on the man named Cai who insulted him the most at the court. On his travels Peredur is attacked by many knights who he defeats but does not kill them. He sends them to Arthur's court to explain that they were defeated by Peredur. Cai becomes worried.

As Peredur journeys through the lands he came to a great, desolate forest, and at the edge was a lake, and on the other side was a large court and a fine fortress around it where a lame, grey-haired man is fishing. The grey-haired man reveals he is Peredur’s uncle, his mother’s brother, he asks if he knew how to strike with a sword. The man shows Peredur how to bear arms, and instructs him not to question the significance of all that he sees.

When he departs to comes to another great fortress in a forest. He enters and finds a grey-haired man sitting in the hall. The man asks him if he knew how to strike with a sword and tells Peredur to strike an iron column in the hall with a sword. He struck the column and it and the sword broke in two pieces. He put them back together and they became one. He did this two more times but on the third the sword and iron column would not join as before. The man tells him that he is the best swordsman in the kingdom and has gained two-thirds of his strength but the last third is yet to come. The man then tells him that he is his uncle, his mother’s brother and brother of the man whose court he was in last night.

“Suddenly he could see two lads entering the hall, and from the hall they proceeded to a chamber, carrying a spear of huge proportions, with three streams of blood running from its socket to the floor. When everyone saw the lads coming in this way, they all began weeping and wailing so that it was not easy for anyone to endure it. Yet the man did not interrupt his conversation with Peredur. The man did not explain to Peredur what that was, nor did Peredur ask him about it. After a short silence, suddenly two maidens entered with a large salver between them, and a man’s head on the salver, and much blood around the head.* And then they all shrieked and wailed so that it was not easy for anyone to stay in the same building. At last they stopped, and remained sitting as long as it pleased them, and drank. After that a chamber was prepared for Peredur, and they went to sleep.”4

Early the next day Peredur got up, and with his uncle’s permission he set off on further adventures in which he defeats several men and sends them to Arthur's court to tell his story. Eventually Arthur decides to venture out in search of Peredur. But on his journey Peredur has come upon the nine witches of Caerloyw who teach him horsemanship and how to master his weapons. Arthur finds Peredur who defeats each of Arthur's knights as well as Cai who is injured, jealous, and angry at Peredur. Another knight in Arthur's court named Gwalchmai befriends Peredur and leads him back to meet with Arthur who welcomes him into the court.

At Arthur's court Peredur meets Angharad Law Eurog (Golden-Hand) who he immediately falls in love with, but she does not love him. Determined to win her love he swears that he will not "utter a word to any Christian" until his love is returned. The next day he leaves the court.

On his travels Peredur meets with many people, but none of them are Christian so he keeps his word to Angharad. He eventually returns to Arthur's court, unrecognisable he meets Cai who he refuses to speak to so Cai harasses him. Peredur returns to the court and is called the Mute Knight. Unaware of his true identity Angharad declares her love for the Mute Knight. Peredur finally breaks his silence.

Eventually Peredur's travels bring him to a town where the Empress of Constantinople is visiting. She is hosting a combat tournament to find the bravest man to marry. Peredur enters the contest as ‘the Knight of the Mill’ and wins. The Empress and Peredur rule in Constantinople for 14 years.

Later, a black-haired maiden arrives at Arthur’s Court at Caerllion riding on a mule. She greeted Arthur and all his retinue but voiced her anger at Peredur (here named as ‘Peredur Baladr Hir’) who she claims is not worthy because he failed to ask about the procession he witnessed at the court of the lame king. Peredur then set out on a journey to find out more about the woman. He learns about the Fortress of Wonders and seeks it out. When he finds the fortress the gates are open and he enters. A traditional board game named gwyddbwyll is being played in the courtyard. Peredur supports a side but his chosen side loses. He becomes angry and throws the pieces into the nearby lake. The black-haired maiden enters and tells Peredur that he made the empress lose her board, and the only way to get the board is to go to the Fortress of Ysbidinongyl, where a black-haired man is destroying much of the empress’s land. The black woman tells Peredur that if he kills him he will get the board but warned him he would not come back alive.

The black-haired maiden takes Peredur on a series of adventures; killing a stag and the blackhaired man from the slab. Then Peredur came upon a fortress in a river valley. He entered to see a lame, grey-haired man sitting at the end of the hall, with Gwalchmai sitting on one side of him. They made Peredur welcome, who then sat on the other side of the grey-haired man. Then a yellow-haired lad kneeled before him and said that he came in the guise of the black-haired maiden to Arthur’s court, and the episodes of the gwyddbwyll, the black-haired man from Ysbidinongyl, the stag, and the blackhaired man from the slab. And it was the same lad that had carried the head on the salver, all covered in blood, and the spear with the blood streaming along it from its tip to its hilt. The lad explains that the head was Peredur’s cousin’s, and it was the witches of Caerloyw who killed him, and they made his uncle lame. The lad claimed he was also cousin to Peredur, and added that it is foretold that he will avenge that.

Then Peredur and Gwalchmai with Arthur and all his retinue attacked the witches of Caerloyw who were all killed.

And that is what is told of the Fortress of Wonders.

*

Notes & References
1. Lowri Morgans, Peredur son of Efrawg: The Question of Translation and/or Adaptation
Handbook of Arthurian Romance; King Arthur's Court in Medieval European Literature, Edited by Leah Tether and Johnny McFadyen, De Gruyter, (paperback edition) 2019, pp.403-414.
2. The Complete Story of the Grail: Chrétien de Troyes' Perceval and its Continuations, translated by Nigel Bryant, DS Brewer, 2015 (paperback edition) 2018, pp.28-29.

3. It is difficult to provide a satisfactory précis for a text the length of Chrétien’s Perceval, over 9,000 lines, but hopefully I have included the salient points in respect to its correspondence with the Welsh Romance of Peredur. However, I am bound to have omitted a relevant point along the way.
4. Peredur son of Efrog, in The Mabinogion, Translated with an Introduction and Notes by Sioned Davies, Oxford University Press, 2007, p.73.

5. I have used the spelling 'Efrog' to be consistent with Sioned Davies translation.

(Edited 01/08/23)

*

Peredur: A Grail Romance?

Part I

A Welsh Romance
During the 19th century Lady Charlotte Guest assembled eleven medieval Welsh tales from the Red Book of Hergest (dated between c.1375-c.1400), to form the collection commonly known as The Mabinogion. In her 1906 edition, Guest published the tales in the following order:

The Four Branches of the Mabinogi, The Dream of the Emperor Maxen, Lludd and Llefelys, Culhwch and Olwen, Rhonabwy’s Dream, The Lady of the Well, Peredur son of Efrog, Geraint son of Erbin, Hanes Taliesin.

Although Guest referred to these tales collectively as “The Mabinogion” they do not share common authorship or date of composition, and content varies from tale to tale; only The Four Branches seem to have been intended as a serial work, and even then it is a loose connection. Although the tales contain older material found mainly in two manuscripts (in addition to the Red Book of Hergest, we find a similar collection in the White Book of Rhydderch, c.1350), it is generally accepted that they were written down between the 11th and 14th centuries, a period when native prose and poetry was susceptible to foreign influence. 

Guest regarded the term 'mabinogion' as the plural form of 'mabinogi' and subsequently entitled her collection accordingly. However, the term is a scribal error derived from the Welsh word 'mab' meaning ‘son, boy’; thus, its original meaning was ‘youth’ or ‘story of youth’. It has been suggested that the Four Branches may refer to the life of Pryderi who is the only character appearing in all four tales, being born in the First Branch and dying in the Fourth. ‘The Four Branches of the Mabinogi’ are the mabinogi proper, as it were, being the only tales in the manuscripts that refer to themselves as such. 

Guest’s grouping brackets the tales as The Four Branches, the four Native Tales, and the three Romances with the inclusion of the Hanes Taliesin as a twelfth tale, but this late story has no place among these earlier Medieval works as it does not appear in the Red or White Book manuscripts, being first recorded in the mid-16th century by Elis Gruffydd. 

In the White and Red Book manuscripts the following groupings are common to both: 

(i) The Four Branches of the Mabinogi;
(ii) ‘Peredur son of Efrog’, ‘The Dream of the Emperor Maxen’, ‘Lludd and Llefelys’;
(iii) ‘Geraint son of Erbin’, ‘How Culhwch Won Olwen’.

Rhonabwy’s Dream, which is not included in the earliest manuscript (The White Book), is usually included in scholarly editions at the end of the ‘collection’.

In grouping the tales for her edition of the Mabinogion, it is clear that Guest did not adhere to manuscript authority. Manuscript evidence does not suggest any particular groupings for the seven tales following the Four Branches, however, traditionally, the tales of ‘Peredur son of Efrog’, ‘Geraint son of Erbin’, and ‘The Lady of the Well’ have been known as ‘the three romances’.

Lady Guest noted similarities between the Welsh tales of Peredur, Owain and Geraint and Chrétien de Troyes, Perceval, Erec, and Yvain, noting that in their existing form the Welsh tales were by no means wholly Welsh. Subsequently, the Welsh texts have been grouped together from Lady Guest’s Mabinogion in the 19th century when the relationship between them and the three corresponding late 12th century French Romances were recognised by scholars. 

In the 1948 edition of The Mabinogion by Gwyn Jones and Thomas Jones the tales, (with Hanes Talesin omitted) are presented in the following order: 

i) The Four Branches of the Mabinogi;
ii) The Four Independent Native Tales (‘The Dream of Macsen Wledig’, ‘Lludd and Llefelys’, ‘Culhwch and Olwen’, ‘The Dream of Rhonabwy’);
iii) The Three Romances (‘The Lady of the Fountain’, ‘Peredur son of Efrawg’, ‘Gereint son of Erbin’).1

The grouping of the Welsh tales combined with the obvious parallels between the three French romances has nourished an assumption that the three Welsh texts form a collective unit, of similar date and authorship. That assumption has been further encouraged by the misleading modern practice of referring to them as “the three romances,” when in fact there is no evidence whatsoever that the three Welsh texts were seen as a group in the Middle Ages. In neither manuscript, as we have seen above, are Peredur, Owain, and Geraint presented as a group, in contrast to the compilers’ treatment of the Four Branches of the Mabinogi.

Following many years of debate between scholars examining and cross-examining narrative structure, style, motifs and themes, the relationship between the Welsh and French romances has never been satisfactorily determined. However, we cannot discount the prospect of direct influence of the French on the Welsh compositions. If it is accepted that the Welsh authors derived their romances from Chrétien’s works, they certainly adapted very freely. We could argue that it is more probable that both the Welsh authors and Chrétien de Troyes drew on a common body of narrative material, which many scholars conceive as being of Celtic origin.

Lady Guest noticed that the older 'native tales' such as Culhwch and Olwen display little Norman influence and the less ancient tales such as Geraint, Owain and Peredur contain many allusions to Norman customs. Guest considered that this was evidence that the “three Welsh romances” had probably migrated from Wales to France, then returned to their homeland after several centuries absence and were re-translated with Norman additions. Guest considered that an early form of the three Welsh romances lay behind Chrétien's romances.

Clearly the authors of the White Book and Red Book manuscripts, the only two medieval manuscripts containing all of the so-called “three Welsh romances”, failed to see any connection between them and did not originally perceive them as a group at all. Owing to the absence of manuscript authority it must therefore be admitted that the grouping of these texts together in editions of the Mabinogion since the 19th century, which has undoubtedly influenced readers perceptions of them, that the concept of the “three Welsh romances” must be recognised as a modern construct.2

The Source of the Grail
However, there is an undeniable connection between the three Welsh Romances ‘Peredur son of Efrog’, ‘Geraint son of Erbin’, and ‘The Lady of the Well’ and their French counterparts of 'Perceval', 'Erec et Enide', and 'Yvain' by Chrétien de Troyes. The relationships between these texts has furnished much scholarly debate since it was recognised back in the 19th century yet the greatest disagreement has been the question of whether the Welsh text Peredur son of Efrawg is a translation and adaptation of Perceval, or Chrétien's source.

Perceval, or Le Conte du Graal (The Story of the Grail) is the earliest of the Grail romances, written in Old French by Chrétien de Troyes between 1180 and 1190, left unfinished the tale was the last of his works. Chrétien is credited with introducing the ‘Grail’ to Arthurian romance, the most important text of the Arthurian Cycle of the Matter of Britain. However, as noted above, a Celtic origin for the Grail has been claimed by some scholars which see the derivation of Chrétien’s Perceval from the Welsh Peredur as critical in their argument.

Chrétien’s Grail (or ‘graal’) is a mysterious serving dish carried in a procession with a lance and other talismans before Perceval at the castle of the lame Fisher King. Perceval fails to ask crucial questions about the Grail which would have cured the Fisher King's wound and prevented the imminent devastation of the land.

Perceval arrives at the Grail Castle, to be greeted by the Fisher King.
From a 1330 CE manuscript of Perceval ou Le Conte du Graal by Chrétien de Troyes (BnF Français 12577, fol. 18v)

At the Fisher King's castle Perceval was first presented with a sword by the lord as an act of hospitality. Perceval then sat down beside him, who treated him with the greatest honour. And in that hall was the brightest light could ever be created by candles. Then the Grail procession commenced:

"While they were talking of one thing and another, a boy came from a chamber holding a gleaming lance by the middle of the shaft, and he passed between the fire and the pair who were sitting on the bed. Everyone in the hall saw the bright lance and its shining head. And from the tip of the lance's head came a drop of blood; and right down to the boy's hand this drop ran. The lord's guest gazed at the wonder that had appeared that night, but refrained from asking how it came to be, because he remembered the warning of the one who'd knighted him, who'd taught him to beware of talking too much; he was afraid it might be frowned upon, so he didn't ask at all. Then two other boys appeared, holding candlesticks of fine gold, inlaid with niello, they were handsome boys indeed, and in each of the candlesticks they bore were at least ten burning candles. A girl who entered with the boys, fair and graceful and beautifully attired, was holding a grail between her hands. And she entered with the grail, so radiant a light appeared in the hall that the candles lost their brightness like the stars at the rising of the moon or sun. After her came another girl, holding a silver trencher. the grail which went ahead was made of pure, fine gold, inlaid with many kinds of jewels, the richest and most precious in earth or sea: the stones in the grail surpassed all other gems without a doubt. They passed before the bed as the lance had done, and entered another chamber. The boy saw them pass, but didn't dare ask who was served from the grail: he'd taken the words of wise Gorneman to heart. I fear he may suffer for doing so: I've heard it said that sometimes a man can talk too little as well as too much! But whether it was to bring him good or ill - I don't know which - he asked nothing."3

Chrétien's Grail procession is barely 200 lines of a poem in excess of 9,000, yet this mysterious episode supplies the title and overshadows the whole work. Leaving his tale unfinished was perhaps Chrétien’s master stroke, thereby ensuring the mystery of the Grail endured, which it certainly has for a thousand years. 

As for Chrétien's source, he claimed he was given a book by Count Philip of Flanders (Alsace). It seems unlikely Chrétien invented this statement as Philip outlived Chrétien by several years before he died in 1191. Yet nothing is known of this book and its origin cannot be considered any more than speculation.

Chrétien simply called the vessel carried in the enigmatic procession 'un graal' (a grail) as if it would be well known and understood by his audience and it should provide no mystery as the name of a common dish or a flat serving tray. Later texts described it as a cup, goblet or, in religious versions, as the chalice of the Eucharist it became “The Holy Grail”.

Writing shortly after Chrétien, probably within 20 years, a French poet named Robert de Boron gave the Grail a Christian dimension in his two poems written at the beginning of the 13th century; the 'Joseph d'Arimathe' and the 'Merlin'. These two works, along with a third unfinished part, the ‘Perceval’ are thought to have formed a greater opus 'Le Roman de l'Estoire dou Graal' which told the early history of the Grail. 

According to Boron, the Grail was a vessel used at the Last Supper which Joseph of Arimathea then used to catch the last drops of blood from Jesus’ body at the Crucifixion. Boron’s work has been interpreted as stating that the Grail was brought to Avalon (Glastonbury). Boron's 'Joseph d'Arimathie' provides the first history of the Grail but does not mention the bleeding lance but it does appear later in the Didot Perceval, a Grail text written between 1190 to 1215 AD, thought to be a representation of Boron's final work (the Perceval). The gleaming lance of Chrétien's Grail procession then developed into the spear of Longinus, the centurion who pierced the side of Jesus as he hung on the cross, supposedly found at Antioch in 1089; as with the Grail, Christianised as another relic of the Passion.4

As stated, Chrétien never finished his story which led to at least four different writers producing Continuations over the next 50 years in attempts to bring the tale to a satisfactory conclusion. An introduction to Chrétien’s story was included as “The Elucidation” and also a prologue known as “Bliocadran” which apparently was the name of Perceval’s father. 

In addition to the four Continuations several writers produced versions to provide the complete Grail story, and include some material apparently omitted by Chrétien: As we have seen above, Robert de Boron wrote within twenty years of the Perceval and introduced a Christian element to the Grail Story. Wolfram von Eschenbach produced an 'adapted' translation into a High German epic at the beginning of the 13th century known as Parzival. Wolfram added an Oriental element to his version of the tale in which the Grail is a mysterious stone left on earth by banished angels.

Another version, also written around the beginning of the 13th century in Old French prose was the Perlesvaus, known in English as The High History of the Grail. This tale includes many obscure elements that defy satisfactory explanation. It has been said that Perlesvaus has more decapitations than a French revolution. The local geography used in Perlesvaus has led to claims that it was written by a monk from Glastonbury Abbey. A fragment found at nearby Wells Cathedral in Somerset adds weight to the Glastonbury case.

And many more so-called Grail texts emerged over the next few centuries, all claiming to be the “True story” of the Grail. But there can only be one; a Welsh or French text.

Notes & References
1. The  order adopted by Sioned Davies in her edition of The Mabinogion, Oxford University Press, 2007: The Four Branches of the Mabinogi, Peredur son of Efrog, The Dream of the Emperor Maxen, Lludd and Llefelys, The Lady of the Well, Geraint son of Erbin, Culhwch and Olwen, Rhonabwy’s Dream.
2. Ceridwen Lloyd-Morgan & Erich Poppe, The First Adaptions from French: History and Context of a Debate, pp.110-116, in Arthur in the Celtic Languages, Ceridwen Lloyd-Morgan & Erich Poppe, editors, University of Wales Press, 2019.
3. The Complete Story of the Grail: Chrétien de Troyes' Perceval and its Continuations, translated by Nigel Bryant, DS Brewer, 2015 (paperback edition 2018), pp.28-29.
4. See: The First Grail Maiden 

* * *

The Fortress Kingdom

The Wars of Æthelflæd and Edward the Elder, 899–927
Paul Hill

In the first book of a four part series The Kingdom of the Anglo-Saxons: The Wars of King Alfred 865-899 (March 2022) by author Paul Hill investigated the tactics of 9th century warfare which changed in Alfred’s time in response to the devastation of the Danish invasions from set-piece battles to a grander network of fortifications, known as burhs.

The burh had been a successful instrument of war during the Mercian domination of the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy in England, c.716 and c.825, known as the Mercian Supremacy. It is without doubt that Alfred adopted this policy from the Mercians.

The success of Alfred's strategy led to the recovery of Wessex but to obtain peace with the Danes he had to accept partition of the country and cede a large part of the country in the creation of the Danelaw in a boundary roughly from London to the Wirral.

Following Alfred's passing his daughter Æthelflæd and eldest son Edward strove to recover the Danelaw through expansion of this network of fortifications throughout Mercia and the East Midlands. Paul Hill’s latest book, and second in the series, The Fortress Kingdom is the story of Æthelflæd and Edward's wars against the Danes.

Alfred’s daughter Æthelflæd and her husband Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians, commissioned the construction of a series of strongholds from 907, if not earlier. Æthelflæd and Æthelred established a network of burhs (fortified enclosures) across English Mercia in the west while the Danes held eastern Mercian under the Danelaw.

Archaeological evidence suggests a network of major royal settlements that were substantially fortified in the 8th and early 9th centuries were rebuilt in the late-9th and early-10th centuries by Æthelred and Æthelflæd, and continued by the Lady of the Mercians alone following Æthelred’s death in 911. In this process they were joined after the death of King Alfred by his eldest son Edward the Elder, brother of Æthelflæd.

Some burhs may have been purely military in character, and the struggle to locate them today suggests they did not develop beyond the wars of Æthelflæd. However, during the 10th and 11th centuries many of these burhs developed into boroughs with an urban character, as is the case with the five shire towns.

The five boroughs of of Danish Mercia were crucially important to the existence of the Danelaw with the five towns of Leicester, Nottingham, Derby, Stamford and Lincoln firmly under the control of the Vikings by the 9th century.

The Mercian Register (Annals of Æthelflæd) records that in 917 Æthelflæd took possession of the stronghold of Derby. By 918 Æthelflæd had made further in-roads into the The Five Boroughs and took control the stronghold of Leicester and ejected the raiding-parties there. It seems York was her next target, as the Register records the people there had pledged their allegiance to the Lady of the Mercians, but 12 days before mid-summer she suddenly died at Tamworth.

By the time that Æthelflæd died at Tamworth in 918, the task of subduing the Danes in Mercia was nearing completion. After his sister’s death Edward moved quickly to extend his overlordship of Mercia into direct rule.

*

In 2018 I ran a series of articles on this blogsite to commemorate the 1100th anniversary of the death of Æthelflæd, the lady of the Mercians. [See: Æthelflæd & the Vikings ]

Several books were published around the same time to mark this very special lady: Founder, Fighter, Saxon Queen by Margaret C Jones; Æthelflæd by Tim Clarkson; The Warrior Queen-The Life and Legend of Æthelflæd by Joanna Arman; Mercia-The Rise and Fall of a Kingdom by Annie Whitehead; and Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians by David Horovitz. Brief mention was made of Æthelflæd: England’s Forgotten Founder by Tom Holland due publication 2019.

Whereas it is no longer my intention to provide book reviews on this blogsite, I want to mention this book by Paul Hill as an important addition to the bibliography of Æthelflæd, the Lady of the Mercians:

The Fortress Kingdom
The Wars of Æthelflæd and Edward the Elder, 899–927
By Paul Hill
Pen & Sword Military
ISBN: 9781399010610
Published: 4th October 2022

From the publisher:
"In this the second part of his four-volume military and political history of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom, Paul Hill follows the careers of Æthelflæd, Alfred the Great’s eldest daughter, and Edward the Elder, Alfred’s eldest son, as they campaigned to expand their rule after Alfred’s death. They faced, as Alfred had done, the full force of Danish hostility during the early years of the tenth century, a period of unrelenting turbulence and open warfare. But through their military strength, in particular their strategy of fortress building, they retained their hold on the kingdom and conquered lands which had been under Danish lords for generations.

"Æthelflæd’s forces captured Derby and Leicester by both force and diplomacy. Edward’s power was always immense. How each of them used forts (burhs) to hold territory, is explored. Fortifications across central England became key. These included Bridgnorth, Tamworth, Stafford, Warwick, Chirbury and Runcorn (Æthelflæd) and also Hertford, Witham, Buckingham, Bedford and Maldon (Edward), to name a few."

* * *

Glastonbury Pilgrimages 2023

 Next weekend sees the Annual Glastonbury Pilgrimages on 7/8/9 July

The first pilgrimage to Glastonbury in modern times was in 1895 to celebrate the beatification of Abbot Richard Whiting, on the anniversary of his martyrdom 1539, when thousands of pilgrims from all over the country arrived by train and climbed the Tor where Mass was said. 

Pilgrimages took place after both World Wars by pilgrims in thanksgiving for their survival.

Every year since the early 1950’s (except for the COVID pandemic years) the Clifton Diocesan Glastonbury Pilgrimage has been held in Glastonbury.

Program for Sunday 9 July [click top right to open in PDF]

Schedules:

The Glastonbury Pilgrimage Association

The Pilgrimage is focused on the celebration of the Catholic Faith among traditional Anglicans in Britain.

Glastonbury Pilgrimage 2023 - Our Lady Queen of Peace

Friday 7th July 2023

5.00 pm: Vigil Mass in the Undercroft of the Lady Chapel

Saturday 8th July 2023

12.00 noon: Solemn Concelebrated Mass sung in the Nave of the Abbey Church 

2.00pm: Sacrament of Anointing

3.00 pm: Procession of the Blessed Sacrament to the Abbey for Solemn Benediction in the Nave of the Abbey Church

*

Clifton Annual Diocesan Pilgrimage to Glastonbury 2023 - Mary, Queen of Peace

Sunday 9th July 2023

11.30am: Holy Rosary in the Shrine Church

12.00 noon: Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament followed by Silent Adoration in the Shrine Church, until 3pm.

2.15pm: Rosary Procession from the Abbey, through Glastonbury Town Centre, returning to the Abbey via the Magdalene Street Gate, opposite the Shrine Church.

3.30pm: Mass in the Abbey celebrated by Rt. Rev. Declan Lang, Bishop of Clifton.

*

Arthur: The King in the West

 Part I: Goreu,  the Shepherd's Son

In the tale Culhwch and Olwen, Goreu the son of Custennin the shepherd (Custenhin heussawr: previously named as Custenhin Amhynwyedic) is often overlooked as a minor character. However, a closer reading shows Goreu to be an important figure with a significant role in the tale, albeit somewhat minimalized in its current form, indicating he was at one time well-known in Welsh tradition.

In Culhwch and Olwen six of his specially gifted warriors are selected by Arthur to complete the impossible tasks set out by the chief giant Ysbadadden Bencawr to be completed before Culhwch can obtain the hand of his daughter Olwen.

Arthur selected his most loyal companions Cai (who had magical qualities) and Bedwyr (who never feared the quest), with Cynddelig Gyfarwydd (the guide), Gwrhyr Gwalstawd Ieithoedd (knew all languages), Gwalchmai son of Gwyar (he never come home without succeeding in the mission and was the best walker and the best rider, and son of Arthur’s sister), and Menw son of Teirgwaedd (he could cast a spell so that no one could see them, but they could see everyone).

Arthur’s six men set off with Culhwch and soon came to a great plain where they could see a caer made of stone and mortar, the greatest of all caers in the world. As they walked towards it they came upon a great flock of sheep and a shepherd. The shepherd tells the men that Ysbadadden Bencawr owns the caer. He says he is Custennin, son of Mynwyedig, and because of his wife Ysbaddaden Bencawr has despoiled him.

The men tell the shepherd that they are Messengers of Arthur, here to ask for Olwen. The shepherd tells them that no-one who has come to ask for that has left with their life.

Culhwch gave the shepherd a gold ring but it would not fit his finger so he put it in a glove which he gave to his wife when he returned home. At first he tells her he found it on a corpse but admits it was given to him by "Culhwch son of Cilydd son of Celiddon Wledic, from Goleuddydd daughter of Anlawd Wledic his mother, and he comes to ask for Olwen.”

The shepherd’s wife had two feelings: she felt joy at the coming of her nephew, her sister's son; and sadness because she had never seen anyone go with his soul still with him who had come requesting that.

When Arthur’s men came to the court of Custennin the Shepherd, his wife opened a coffer at the end of the hearth and out came a youth with curly yellow hair. When asked why the boy was kept in hiding, the woman said "This one is all that's left of the twenty-three sons of mine, killed by Ysbaddaden Bencawr. I have no more hope for this one than for any of the others.”

Cai said, "Let him keep companionship with me, and we will not be killed unless we are killed together." And so the boy joins the quest. They set off first for the last of the forty tasks demanded by the Chief Giant, the Sword of Wrnach Gawr

When they arrived at at the fortress of Wrnach Gawr the gatekeeper says they cannot enter unless they have a craft. Cai was admitted as he was a swordsmith, and later Bedwyr as he had a skill. The others went in with the young lad, the only son of Custennin the Shepherd, attached to him over the three baileys until they were inside the caer. Impressed with the lad the men of Arthur said to the son of Custennnin "The Best of men you are!" And from then on he was known as “Gorau son of Custennin.” They dispersed to their lodgings that they might slay those who lodged them, without the Giant knowing.

After slaying Wrnach Gawr, Gorau then joins Arthur and his men hunting the Twrch Trwyth.

Finally, at the end of the tale, it is Gorau who actually beheads the chief giant, Ysbaddaden Bencawr, “….. Gorau son of Custennin laid hold of him by the hair of his head, and dragged him behind him to the mound and cut his head off and placed it on the stake of the rampart. And he overcame his caer and his territory.”1

Goreu, evidently, is a significant character in Culhwch and Olwen; as a giant-slayer he assists Cai in killing Wrnach Gawr, and it is he, rather than Culhwch, who finally cuts off the head of the hero’s nemesis Ysbaddaden Bencawr. 

He acts as a kind of doublet of the hero of the tale, sharing several important features with Culhwch: both are cousins to King Arthur and to each other; both are descendants of Anlawdd Wledig by one or other of his numerous daughters, one of whom was Arthur’s mother Eigr (=Igerna in Historia Regum Britanniae). A fourth cousin was St Illtud, whose mother was Rieingulid, (‘gentle princess’), daughter of ‘Anblaud king of Brittannia’.

The relationship of ‘cousin’ between Arthur, Culhwch, Illtud and Goreu, all sons of the daughters of Anlawdd Wledig, seems to derive from pre-Geoffrey Arthurian tradition. The Life of St Illtud, where this relationship is first documented, has certainly been dated prior to Geoffrey’s Historia Regum Britanniae.

Goreu also appears in the Triads where he is presented as the releaser of Arthur from his three imprisonments, a feat which seems to mirror the stories in which Arthur himself is distinguished as a famous releaser of prisoners, as in Culhwch and Olwen and in the poem Preiddeu Annwfn (Spoils of Annwn):

52. Three Exalted (Supreme) Prisoners of the Island of Britain: 

Llr Half-Speech, who was imprisoned by Euroswydd,
and the second, Mabon son of Modron,
and third, Gwair son of Gweirioedd.

And one (Prisoner) was more exalted than the three of them, he was three nights in prison in Caer Oeth and Anoeth, and three nights imprisoned by Gwen Pendragon, and three nights in an enchanted prison under the Rock of Echeifyeint. This Exalted Prisoner was Arthur. And the same lad released him from each of these three prisons: (that lad was) Goreu, son of Custennin, his cousin.2 

Culhwch and Goreu are both almost unknown outside the tale of Culhwch and Olwen and triad 52: Culhwch himself is once referenced in the Canu Heledd: “Cynddylan, a warrior like Culhwch, a lion, a wolf-pursuing attacker,”3 Goreu’s name appears briefly in both the Mabinogion tales of ‘Geraint son of Erbin’ and ‘The Dream of Rhonabwy.’

Goreu is described in Culhwch and Olwen as ‘the one son of Custennin the Shepherd’, yet the interpretation of this name later in the tale as meaning ‘Best’ comes somewhat under suspicion owing to the early appearance of Guoreu, and its variants Gurai, Guorai. Rachel Bromwich notes that Gurou, Guorou is an attested personal name and suggests that Goreu = ‘Best’ may be another fanciful onomastic explanation given once more for a personal name whose composition was either misunderstood by the redactor, or he was making a deliberate pun upon it.4 

Consider the two versions of the episode at the caer of Wrnach Gawr; the translation of the Red Book text: 

‘And there was much discourse among those who were without, because that Kai and Bedwyr had gone in. And a young man who was with them, the only son of Custennin the herdsman, got in also. And he caused all his companions to keep close to him as he passed the three wards, and until he came into the midst of the castle. And his companions said unto the son of Custennin, " Thou hast done this ! Thou art the best of all men." And thenceforth he was called Goreu, the son of Custennin. Then they dispersed to their lodgings, that they might slay those who lodged therein, unknown to the Giant.’5

The White Book text:

“And a great debate there was among the men outside. In came Cai and Bedwyr, and in came the young lad with them - the only son of Custennin the Shepherd. What he did, [along] with his companions who had stuck by him, was to go over the three baileys until they were inside the caer, as if it was nothing to them. Spoke his companions to the son of Custennnin "The best of men you are!" From then on he was known as Gorau son of Custennin. They dispersed to their (allotted) lodgings so they might bring about the deaths of those who lodged there, without the knowledge of the giant.”6 

John MacQueen has noted that the text of this passage of Culhwch and Olwen from the Red Book version differs considerably from the White Book. MacQueen argues that the disparity cannot be the result of mere scribal carelessness, but must result from either the Red Book scribe not copying from the White Book, or he found difficulty in understanding this passage so that he deliberately altered the text in the interest of clarity and correctness as he saw it. He detects a problem with the translation of a key phrase absent from the Red Book, which he considers due to a misunderstanding of the Welsh text. However, he admits that as a whole the paragraph remains obscure.7 

MacQueen suggests that the Red Book scribe did not understand why Goreu was called ‘Best’; he knew that it was in some way as a consequence of his gaining entry to Wrnach Gawr’s caer, but could not himself give a more precise reason. Cai and Bedwyr had already gained entry to the caer with the giant’s approval. For Custennin’s son to be described as ‘best of men’ there must have been some difficulty for him and Arthur’s men to gain entry without the giant’s permission and as a consequence he performed some outstanding task.

As Bedwyr was the only man to receive permission to accompany Cai, the rest of Arthur’s men, along with Goreu, had no permission to enter the fort. They had no alternative but to go across the three walls which cannot have been an easy feat as the caer was constructed of stone and mortar, ‘the greatest and of the world's forts’. Their manner of entry enabled them to take the lodging keepers by surprise, and slay them. MacQueen offers the following translation of the key phrase:

“Together with the companions who stuck to him, he crossed the three walls effortlessly until they entered the fort”. 

Compare with Sioned Davies translation:

“He and his companions, who stuck close to him, crossed the three baileys, as though it were nothing to them, until they were inside the fort.”8 

He suggests that this may mean no more than that they followed him closely, but it is just possible, MaQueen suggests, that we are to understand that Goreu carried his companions (perhaps magically) over the fortifications. We should not find this surprising as all of Arthur’s six messengers on this mission possessed supernatural qualities as noted above.

MacQueen sees the translation of ‘effortlessly’ (note both Parker and Davies give ‘as if it was nothing to them’) as the key to the whole episode; it is the very effortlessness of their entry which so impressed the intruders that they called the son of Custennin ‘best of men’. This phrase of course, is the main single omission on the part of the scribe of the Red Book (as in Guest’s translation above).

MacQueen argues that the confusion demonstrates the failure of previous translators of the tale to grasp the importance of the White Book text for this passage. All previous translations,9 he asserts, have been based on the Red Book text, while the central point of Goreu’s name cannot be grasped without the text of the White Book.

MacQueen’s observation that the missing text from the Red Book version of the tale in the early translations of The Mabinogion has led to some confusion as to the naming of Goreu, clearly carries some merit. Yet, surely this feat, which implies he carried his companions effortlessly over the fortifications into the caer, deserves a more rewarding name than ‘Best’ which is hardly imaginative or descriptive of his special ability as we might expect with an appropriate epithet.

Bromwich and Evans offer an alternative explanation in consideration of the name of the boy’s father, Custennin; that the name Goreu could have originated from an incorrect division of ‘Custennin Gorneu’ (Constantine of Cornwall), as attested in Bonedd y Saint and elsewhere in genealogies where Old Welsh ‘Corneu’ = Middle Welsh ‘Cernyw.’ 

Noting that it may be significant that the same epithet ‘of Cornwall’ in OW spelling occurs in Bonedd Gwŷr y Gogledd (Descent of the Men of the North)  no:13 ‘Huallu mab Tutvʋlch Corneu tywyssaʋc o Kernyʋ a Dywana merch Amlaʋt Wledic y vam’ (Huallu son of Tudfwlch Corneu prince of Cornwall and Dywana daughter of Amlawd Wledig his mother).10

Bromwich and Evans further speculate that Goreu’s mother, who is never named in Culhwch and Olwen, yet is sister to Culhwch’s mother Goleuddydd daughter of Amlawd Wledig, may be the Dywana daughter of Amlawd Wledig who was married to Tudfwlch Corneu, prince of Cornwall of BGG:13 . 11 

It is certainly tempting to accept that the name Goreu may have arisen as a corruption of Gorneu = ‘of Cornwall’; an onomastic explanation for the whole of Dumnonia, the old kingdom of the south-west of Britain comprising Devon, Cornwall and the Summer County (part of Somerset).12 Thus, the name may well be an allusion to Constantine of Cornwall (Custennin 'Gorneu'). 

Arthur’s relationship (cousins) with Goreu son of Custennin demonstrates that he had been brought into contact with members of the Dumnonian dynasty possibly at an early date. Bromwich ponders if this was due to the existence of the tale of Culhwch and Olwen, or another lost story in which Arthur and Goreu had already been brought together. 13 This would explain Arthur’s affinity for the south-west of Britain as in the tale his court is at Celli Wig in Cornwall, and when the giant boar Twrch Trwyth heads toward the Severn Arthur summons all the men of Cornwall and Devon (Dumnonia) to meet him at Aber Hafren (the estuary of the Severn), and vows “he will not go to Cornwall while I am alive.”14

It is with the name of Constantine (= Custennin) that Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae and the Brut (the Welsh versions of Geoffrey’s Historia) attach the Arthurian pedigree to that of the rulers of Dumnonia. Indeed, according to Geoffrey, Arthur’s grandfather is named Constantine (Arthur m. Uthur m. Custennin, etc.); Arthur is conceived at Tintagel castle, identified as the seat of the kings of Dumnonia; and it is at the River Camblan (Camel) that Arthur is mortally wounded in his final battle; Arthur is then succeeded by Constantine, son of Cador.

Notes & References
1. Culhwch & Olwen – Will Parker
Parker’s online translation follows Bromwich and Evans edition of Culhwch ac Olwen which in turn follows the White Book of Rhydderch up until the point where the latter breaks off, towards the end of the Wrnach Gawr episode. Thereafter, the text of the Red Book of Hergest version is followed.
2. Rachel Bromwich, Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain (TYP), Fourth Edition, University of Wales Press, 2014, p.146.
3. Thomas Jones: The Early Evolution of the Legend of Arthur, Nottingham Medieval Studies, 1964.
4. Bromwich,TYP, p.364.
5. Culhwch and Olwen, from The Mabinogion, trans. Lady Charlotte Guest, Dent, First Edition 1849, This Edition 1906.
6. Culhwch & Olwen - Will Parker. The incomplete White Book text breaks off after Cai beheads Wrnach Gawr with his own sword and they lay waste the caer. (See note 1).
7. John MacQueen, Etudes Celtiques, Vol.8, 1958, pp.154-63.
8. How Culhwch won Olwen, from The Mabinogion, trans. Sioned Davies, Oxford University Press, 2007, p.202.
9. i.e. prior to MacQuuen’s essay of 1958.
10. Rachel Bromwich and D. Simon Evans, editors, with introduction and notes, Culhwch And Olwen: An Edition and Study of the Oldest Arthurian Tale (CaO), University of Wales, 1992, p.140.
11. Bromwich & Evans, CaO, p.115.
12. The kingdom of Dumnonia (in reality a Greater Cornubia) named after the British Celtic tribe the Dumnonii, existed in Sub-Roman Britain between the late 4th and late 8th centuries AD. The name survives in modern day Devon, the Saxon name derived from the late-Celtic form, Dyfneint.
13. Bromwich, TYP, p.148.
14. Davies, How Culhwch won Olwen, p.211.

* * *

King Arthur’s Sister

 The Daughters of Anlawdd Wledig Part II

In Part I we discussed how the Daughters of Anlawdd Wledig were used as a device to link a character to King Arthur. Geoffrey of Monmouth seemed unaware of this character but used a similar device to provide characters with a relationship to Arthur.

The Cousin from Brittany
According to Geoffrey of Monmouth, Utherpendragon and Igerna had two children, Arthur and Anna [viii.20].  When a large Germanic fleet returned to ravish the cities of Albany during the King’s illness, Loth of Lodonesia, “a valiant man, mature both in wisdom and age” was put in command of the British forces. As a reward for his prowess the King had given him his daughter and put him in charge of the kingdom while he was ill [viii.21].

A little later, after Utherpendragon has passed after being poisoned by the Saxons at Verulamium (St Albans), Geoffrey has the young King Arthur call upon his nephew Hoel(us), (or Howel) of Brittany for military assistance [ix.2]. Hoel arrived at Southampton with 15,000 armed warriors and with Arthur they marched to the town of Kaerluideoit which was besieged by the Saxons [ix.3]. In the History of the Kings of Britain both Hoel of Brittany and Cador, Duke of Cornwall, forget Cai and Bedwyr, stand out in military expertise and in supporting Arthur in the recovery of Britain from the Saxons and later in the Gallic campaign against the Romans, reflecting Geoffrey’s apparent admiration for these two kingdoms, particularly Brittany. Indeed, Hoel commands the British fourth division at the decisive battle of Saussy in the defeat of the Romans [x.6]. It is Hoel’s niece Helena that that is killed by the Giant of Mont-Saint-Michel. Arthur avenges her death and recalls his encounter with the giant Retho on Mount Arvaius (Snowdon) [x.3]. The tale of the beard collecting giant Retho is reminiscent of the fate of Dilius Farchog in Culhwch and Olwen but Geoffrey appears to have obtained his tale from an independent source.

Geoffrey states that Hoel was the son of Arthur’s sister, and therefore his nephew, and his father was Budicius (II), King of the Armorican Britons. [ix.2] This is a direct contradiction of Geoffrey’s previous statement, noted above, that Arthur’s sister Anna was married to Loth of Lodonesia [viii.22]. Geoffrey only gives Arthur one sister, which he named Anna, so we presume this must also be Anna but Geoffrey does not name Hoel’s mother.

There is considerable confusion here on Geoffrey’s part. Later he states that during the days of Aurelius Ambrosius, Loth had married the King’s own sister and had two sons by her, Gualguanus (Gawain) and Mordredus, who were Arthur’s nephews [ix.9]. This statement can only mean “the sister of Aurelius Ambrosius”. Thus, Hoel of Brittany is Arthur’s first cousin, not his nephew. This confusion continued in the chronicle tradition reappearing in Wace and Layamon, although most later sources recognised Hoel as Arthur's cousin.11

Aurelius is the brother of Utherpendragon, Arthur’s father, and second son of Constantine II [vi.5]. At the time of his father’s assassination he was considered too young for kingship and when Vortigern had the elder brother Constans killed, Aurelius was secreted away to Brittany with his younger brother Utherpendragon and raised by King Budicius (I) [vi.8]. The two surviving sons of Constantine would later return to Britain and subdue the Saxons; “but first they will burn Vortigern besieged in his tower” as Merlin predicted [viii.2].

In Geoffrey’s work Hoel figures prominently as Arthur’s close friend and ally throughout his life, yet he is completely unknown in pre-Galfridian tradition and was certainly introduced to the Arthurian story by Geoffrey. 

Rachel Bromwich sees a possible explanation for this is to be found in Geoffrey’s attitude to his source-material. Almost certainly of Breton stock himself, Geoffrey’s sympathies were always with the emigrant colony, as opposed to the native Welsh themselves. This is demonstrated by Geoffrey’s apparent admiration for Hoel’s military prowess and constant loyalty to Arthur in the recovery of Britain and the Gallic campaign, as noted above, in preference to heroes of Welsh Arthurian tradition such as Cai and Bedwyr.

Geoffrey decided to provide Arthur, the hero of his story, with a rival nephew who should be of Breton birth. He took a name that was frequent among Breton nobles and introduced (invented) Hoel(us) to the Arthurian tradition. For the father of this Duke of Brittany he used a traditional ruler of Breton Cornubia: Budic, a man who figures frequently in the ecclesiastical tradition, appearing in several Saints’ Lives and may even be historical.

According to Geoffrey Hoel’s mother was Arthur’s sister, yet he deliberately maintained silence as to her name; certainly no mention of Anlawdd Wledig here. As noted above, Geoffrey had already listed Arthur’s sister Anna as the mother of Mordredus and Gualguanus, Geoffrey’s name for Arthur’s nephew Gwalchmai. Yet, in Welsh tradition, as shown in one version of Bonedd y Saint, Gwyar is listed as the mother of Gwalchmai …. and one of the daughters of Anlawdd Wledig.12

In Culhwch and Olwen, Gwalchmai son of Gwyar is named as Arthur’s nephew, a member of his court and one of the ‘Six Helpers’ whom Arthur appointed to assist him in the quest for Olwen, as ‘he was the best of walkers and the best of riders. He was Arthur’s nephew, his sister’s son, and his cousin.’ In Culhwch and Olwen he is listed as Gwalchmai mab Gwyar, where Gwyar is assumed to be his mother who was Arthur’s sister.  The use of the matronymic is unusual, but not impossible, but most heroes listed in the Court List are designated by their patronymic. In De Rebus Gestis Anglorum (1125) William of Malmesbury maintains the same uncle-nephew relationship between Gwalchmai and Arthur:

“At this time was found in the province of Wales called R(h)os the tomb of Walwen, who was the not degenerate nephew of Arthur by his sister.”

Here William used the Norman form of the name ‘Walwen’ which corresponds to the Welsh Gwalchmai. The site of Walwen/Gwalchmai’s grave has been the subject of much debate. William adds that it “was found in the time of king William upon the sea-shore, fourteen feet in length” which seems to echo the entry in the Stanzas of the Graves which states the grave of Gwalchmai is in Peryddon. 

The location of Peryddon has been the subject of much discussion over the years as several rivers claim this name; it is said that Peryddon was an alternative name for a section of that great Welsh river the Dee. Geoffrey of Monmouth names a 'fluvium Perironis' which early Welsh translations render as Afon Peryddon. The 12th century Book of Llandaf makes reference to Aber Periron in the vicinity of Rockfield, about 2 miles from Monmouth, Geoffrey’s home town if we are to assign any relevance to his name. Geoffrey was of Breton stock and it is doubtful he was actually born at Monmouth, but he was certainly familiar with the geography of the area placing King Arthur’s court at nearby Caerleon.

The 10th century Armes Prydein (The Prophecy of Britain), a prophetic poem from the Book of Taliesin, records a stream named Aber Peryddon which had to be crossed when traversing into Wales. Perhaps the best candidate for the Peryddon may be at Rhos, Pembrokeshire, where a stream at Sandyhaven Pill runs down from Castell Gwalchmai (Walwyn's Castle) into Milford Haven, corresponding with William of Malmesbury’s account above.13

The name ‘Walwen’ corresponds to Geoffrey of Monmouth’s ‘Gualguanus’ whom Geoffrey presents as Arthur’s nephew by his sister Anna [ix.9]. It seems almost certain that Geoffrey knew of William of Malmesbury’s account, and maintained the relationship between Arthur and Gualguanus. The name Walwen/Gualguanus also corresponds to Gauvain of the French romances and to the English Gawain. Variants of the name appear on the Continent, such as the Breton name ‘Galvaginus’ on the Modena archivolt in Italy which depicts a pre-Galfridian version of Gwenhwyfar/Guinevere’s abduction, (at Modena depicted as Winlogee).

By giving Arthur’s sister Anna as the mother of Gualguanus, Geoffrey caused considerable confusion among Welsh sources. In the 14th century ‘Birth of Arthur’ an attempt was made to reconcile the native tradition with that of Geoffrey by replacing Anna as the name of Arthur’s sister with that of Gwyar:

‘Gwrleis and Eigyr had two daughters, Gwyar and Dioneta. Gwyar was (living as) a widow in her father’s court, and Hywel her son with her, after the death of Ymer Llydaw her husband. And Uthyr caused Lleu ap Cynfarch to marry her, and they had children: that is two sons, Gwalchmei and Medrawd, and three daughters, Gracia, Graeria, and Dioneta.’14

Arthur’s sister Anna is unknown before Geoffrey and therefore we could opt for Gwyar as the original name of the sister of Arthur and the mother of his nephew Gwalchmai. However, we must be cautious in forcing conclusions as Rachel Bromwich considers it probable that Gwalchmai was an addition to the story of Culhwch (in which he plays no essential part), and that he was introduced to the tale under the influence of Brut y Brenhinedd, where we find the Welsh counterpart of Gualguanus (Gawain) referred to constantly as Gwalchmai ap Gwyar.15 However, there is no suggestion that Geoffrey invented Gwalchmai; on the contrary, he is a figure of Welsh tradition from the earliest stratum of the Arthurian legend along with Cai and Bedwyr. (See: The Search for Lud for a discussion Gwyar’s origins).

As we have seen above, Geoffrey states that Hoel was the son of Arthur’s sister and his father was Budicius (II), King of the Armorican Britons. The Welsh versions of Geoffrey’s Historia, ignorant of either Hoel or his mother in any native source (as the relationship did not exist before Geoffrey), countered Geoffrey’s invention with the vague allusion to ‘a certain ruler of Brittany’ who had married a sister of Arthur.16

This ruler of Brittany consistently appears as ‘Emyr Llydaw’ the father of Hoel. We find 'emyr' is a generic noun meaning 'emperor, king, prince, leader’; perhaps borrowed from the Latin 'imperium'; ‘Llydaw’ being the regular Welsh name for Brittany or Armorica. ‘Emyr Llydaw’ therefore, literally means 'ruler of Brittany'.

Rachel Bromwich concludes that these instances point towards Emyr Llydaw being originally a generic term for any unspecified ruler of Brittany, but later came to be interpreted as a proper name denoting a particular person. This is exactly what we find in the Welsh versions of Geoffrey’s chronicle (Brutiau) where Emyr Llydaw has become a personal name, displacing Budicius but belonging distinctively to Welsh and not Breton tradition.17

Emyr Llydaw was a device used by many of the Breton saints in a similar function to that of Anlawdd Wledig to demonstrate a relationship to a hero of note or a royal line. Indeed, early versions of Bonedd y Saint name Emyr Llydaw as the grandfather of five Welsh saints, to which later versions complimented at least another three.

Evidently the term ‘Emyr Llydaw’ was known to the Welsh scribes long before Geoffrey wrote his Historia as we find it in Englynion y Beddau: The Stanzas of the Graves. Collected in the 13th century Black Book of Carmarthen, yet the earliest series of 73 stanzas has been dated to the 9th or 10th century. Further series of stanzas appear in later manuscripts; Red Book of Hergest, Peniarth MS98B, Wrexham MS1, but these need not concern us here.

A character named as ‘Beidawg the Red’ appears in three consecutive stanzas from the early series which Thomas Jones suggests, that although known to us only from the Stanzas of the Graves, indicates he was a significant figure who’s tale has been lost. Jones cites stanzas 37 and 38 which both begin ‘Pell y vysci’ (Long past and hidden the turmoil he caused) which he states are not formal grave stanzas and their source could have been a series of elegiac englynion from some lost story of Beidawg the Red who lies buried in Machawy.18

The third stanza here includes the earliest mention of Emyr Llydaw, his father.

36. The grave of Beidawg the Red in the region of Rhiw Lyfnaw,
the grave of Lluosgar in Ceri,
And at the Ford of Brydw the grave of Omni

37. Long past and hidden the turmoil he caused and his wealth,
the soil of Machawy covers him:
long [and] white the fingers of Beidawg the Red

38. Long past and hidden the turmoil he caused,
the soil of Machawy upon him,
Beidawg the Red, son of Emyr Llydaw19

Machawy has been identified with the valley of the river of that name where it joins the Wye just to the east of the village of Erwood just a few miles north of Glasbury. This is the site where, according to the Welsh chronicle O Oes Gwrtheryn, a battle was fought when Gruffudd, the son of Llywelyn was victorious, and an English bishop (Leofgar of Hereford) was slain. The Anglo Saxon Chronicle (D Manuscript) records this for the year 1056. The Chronicle of John of Worcester adds that these events took place at `Clastbyrig? identified as Glasbury on the River Wye.20

John K Bollard notes that in all three instances the manuscript records the name as ‘Beidauc Rut’; the similarity of the name to Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Budicius, King of the Armorican Britons and father of Hoel, will be immediately obvious. The inclusion of the name in the early series of Englynion y Beddau may suggests the possibility that ‘Emyr Llydaw’ had already developed into a proper name in early Welsh tradition.21

Conclusion
What does all this tell us about Geoffrey’s influence on Culhwch and Olwen? As we have seen, Culhwch is noted as Arthur’s cousin as their mothers are both daughters of Anlawdd Wledig. This character is generally regarded as a device introduced simply to provide heroes with a relationship to Arthur, such as St Illtud. Geoffrey was clearly unaware of this fictitious relationship and therefore did not include Anlawdd Wledig in his chronicle. Instead he used “Arthur’s sister” to effectively perform the same function. He admired the Bretons and introduced Hoel, Duke of Brittany, son of Budicius, as Arthur’s best general and ally displacing the traditional characters of Cai and Bedwyr. But when it came to the mother of Hoel, Geoffrey clearly became rather confused seemingly forgetting that he had initially mentioned only one sister of Arthur; Anna, mother of Gualguanus and Mordredus.

As an Arthurian character Emyr Llydaw displaces Budicius and finds his way into the lists in Breuddwyd Rhonabwy and Geraint ap Erbin, both dated after Geoffrey’s chronicle, but not in the earlier Culhwch and Olwen.22

Notes & References:
11. Geoffrey of Monmouth: History of the Kings of Britain, trans. Lewis Thorpe, Penguin Books, 1966, p.214 and p.333.
12. Rachel Bromwich, Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain, Fourth Edition, University of Wales Press, 2014, p.369.
13. John K Bollard & Anthony Griffiths, Englynion y Beddau: The Stanzas of the Graves, Gwas Carreg Gwalch, 2015, p.70.
14. Bromwich, TYP, p.370.
15. Bromwich, TYP, p.368.
16. Bromwich, TYP, p.399.
17. Bromwich, TYP, p.348.
18. Thomas Jones, The Black Book of Carmarthen, ‘Stanzas of the Graves’, Sir John Rhys Memorial Lecture, British Academy, 1967, p.104.
19. Jones, Stanzas of the Graves, p.125.
20. CBHC - Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales: Glasbury-On-Wye; Battle in Machawy Valley 
21. John K Bollard, Anthony Griffiths,  Englynion y Beddau: The Stanzas of the Graves, Gwasg Carreg Gwalch, 2015.
22.   - Brynley Roberts, Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia and Brut y Brenhinedd, in Arthur of the Welsh, p.111.

* * *

The Daughters of Anlawdd Wledig

Part I

Can we detect the influence of Geoffrey of Monmouth on the oldest Arthurian tale of Culhwch and Olwen? Arthurian texts composed before Geoffrey published his ‘History of the Kings of Britain’ (Historia regum Britanniae, c.1138) are generally considered to be free of his influence and texts written after this, when the Arthurian legend underwent monumental change, generally contain some detail introduced by Geoffrey. As we have seen in previous posts it is impossible to accurately date the medieval Welsh prose tale of ‘Culhwch’; composition dates range from the late-11th century to the mid-12th century; is it possible an Arthurian text composed after Geoffrey’s magnum opus could be free of his influence as most Celtic scholars claim?

The first detail in Culhwch and Olwen that may reveal Galfridian influence is Culhwch’s relationship to Arthur.

A Lad of Noble Birth
Culhwch was of noble birth, the son of Cilydd, son of Celiddon Wledig, and Goleuddydd daughter of Anlawd Wledig, king of Britain. Very early in the tale we are told that Culhwch is cousin to Arthur. His mother Goleuddydd fell ill and died of the sickness. His father remarried and Culhwch’s stepmother placed a destiny on him that he will not get a wife until he got Olwen daughter of Yspaddaden Bencawr, chief giant.

His father said to him, "It will be easy to get that, boy…… Arthur is your cousin. Go to Arthur, for the cutting of your hair, and ask him that as a boon to you."

Culhwch set off on his steed for Arthur’s court. After finally getting past the gatekeeper Glewlwyd Gafaelfawr, Culhwch rode in on his horse and addressed Arthur as “Penn Teyrned” (Chief of Lords) of this island and demanded his gift. Arthur told the lad he may have anything he names except for his weapons or his wife Gwenhwyfar.

When Arthur told him to name his gift Culhwch requested that he first trim his hair. Arthur took a gold comb and silver shears and combed his hair, and said that he knows that the “chieftain” sprung from his own blood and asked who he was. The barbering ritual is a recurring theme throughout the tale but at Arthur’s court it seems to mark Culwch’s coming of age; prior to this he is termed a lad or boy but after he is referred to as ‘chieftain’. The grooming session has also been seen as a form of male bonding between kinsmen.1

Culhwch told Arthur he is son of Cilydd son of Celiddon Wledig and Goleuddydd, the daughter of Anlawdd, was his mother. Arthur said this must be true and immediately recognised him as a kinsman, telling him to name his gift. Culhwch then requested Arthur get him Olwen daughter of Yspaddaden chief-giant and invoked her in the name of Arthur’s warriors. A long list follows, the so-called ‘Court List’ of around 260 characters but Arthur only calls on half a dozen of these to actually assist him in obtaining the giant’s daughter. And so the quest began.

In his ‘Historia’ Geoffrey of Monmouth claims that Arthur's mother's name was Ygerna, yet the Welsh redactors corrected this to ‘Eigr’ (or Eygyr) as the earlier form of the name in the Brut y Brenhinedd (the Welsh versions of Geoffrey’s chronicle). They also make Arthur’s own mother a daughter of Anlawdd Wledig confirming that he and Culhwch are indeed cousins.

Celtic scholars have questioned whether Eigr daughter of Anlawdd was a traditional figure; the name of Arthur’s mother is not attested in any pre-Galfridian source and this name looks suspiciously similar to the name used by Geoffrey for Arthur’s mother, ‘Ygerna’ (or Igerna). The Welsh version of Geoffrey’s chronicle known as the Dingestow Brut corrects her name to Eigr and claims she is a daughter of Anlawdd Wledig, sometimes recorded as ‘rex Britanniae’ (King of Britain). Anlawdd is a shadowy figure whose only role in extant Welsh texts and genealogies appears to be to act as a device which allows heroes such as Culhwch and Arthur to be cousins through the relationship of his four, or sometimes five daughters.2 

Arthur’s Other Cousin
Rachel Bromwich and D Simon Evans observe that Culhwch and Olwen is a story full of doublets, both in personae and in incidents. The prose tale in its final 14th century form as we have it would appear to be an assemblage of at least two variants of an ancient tradition of a supernatural boar hunt in which Arthur and his hound participated. 

The forty tasks demanded by Olwen’s father Ysbaddaden for his daughter’s hand contains several doublets such as the two boar hunts, the release of two prisoners and then there is Goreu, son of Custennin the Shepherd, who is like a double of Culhwch and perhaps the hero of a variant tale, although outside of the main story, as with Culhwch, he is almost unknown in Welsh tradition. Goreu, like Culhwch, is cousin to Arthur, his mother is also one of the five daughters of Anlawdd Wledig3 and therefore also cousin to Culhwch. 

When Custennin the Shepherd shows his wife a gold ring that Culhwch gave him, she reveals that he is her nephew as he is her sister’s son.4 As Culhwch’s mother was Goleuddydd daughter of Anlawd Wledig, her sister (Custennin’s wife and mother of Goreu) must also be a daughter of Anlawd Wledig. That Goreu is Arthur’s cousin is confirmed in Triad 52.5

Goreu's father, Custennin, is brother to Ysbaddaden who is therefore his uncle. Ysbaddaden has dispossessed Custennin of his lands and is responsible for the deaths of twenty-three of his sons; being the last remaining son Goreu was brought up in hiding from the giant. Goreu appears in the attack on the fortress of the giant Wrnach and is later named as one of the hunting party in pursuit of the Twrch Trwyth. Goreu is not heard of again until the end of the tale when he beheads Ysbaddaden (one might expect this to be be performed by Culhwch himself) and so avenging the deaths of his father and brothers.6

St Illtud

It appears that Arthur had further relatives through the daughters of Anlawdd Wledig. In addition to Culhwch and Goreu we find Saint Illtud was another cousin of Arthur. In the Life of St. Illtud, c.1140, Illtud was the son of ‘Bicanus’ a Breton prince, who’s parents wanted him to take up service in the church but he chose a military career and moved to Britain to become one of Arthur’s knights and was known as Illtud Farchog (Illtud the Knight). He later returned to the clerical life founding the celebrated monastery in what is now Llantwit Major in South Wales. His mother was Rieingulid, and she was of course one of the daughters of Anlawdd Wledig making him cousin to King Arthur.

Anlawdd Wledig appears to derive from the Lives and Genealogies of the Welsh Saints, indeed the Life of St Illtud provides the earliest known instance of his name as ‘Anlaud Britannie rex’. In one version of Bonedd y Saint, Gwyar is listed as the name as another of the daughters of Anlawdd Wledig making her son Gwalchmai (the origin of Gawain) another of Arthur’s cousins. In Culhwch and Olwen, Gwalchmai and his brother Gwalhafed (the origin of Galahad) are both named as sons of Gwyar.7

“[Arthur] ... calls Gwalchmai son of Gwyar, for he never returned home without the quest he might go to seek. He was the best on foot and the best on a horse. He was Arthur’s nephew, his sister’s son, and his cousin.”8

However, considerable confusion prevailed in Welsh sources when Geoffrey of Monmouth claimed Arthur’s sister as the mother of Gualguanus, Geoffrey’s name for Gwalchmai, making him Arthur’s nephew.9 

The daughters of Anlawdd Wledig appears to have been employed purely as a device to attach a relationship to Arthur, in these cases the cousins Culhwch, Goreu, Gwalchmai and Illtud. Ironically, Arthur did not have a genealogy until these relationships emerged in the 12th century, The Life of St Illtud being the first written around 1130-40, contemporary with Geoffrey of Monmouth but certainly free of his influence.

Brynley F Roberts sees Anlawdd Wledig as a function rather than a person: “He is an ‘empty’ character who is never given a narrative context but who exists merely so that his daughters may be the mothers of heroes who are all, therefore, cousins to Arthur. The Life of Illtud and Culhwch ac Olwen both use this convention to relate their heroes (Illtud, Culhwch, Gorau) to Arthur.”10

Anlawdd Wledig is noticeably absent from the Triads of the Island of Britain (TYP), early Welsh poetry and tales. As noted above, he is first found in the Life of St Illtud, yet outside of the of the Lives and Genealogies of the Welsh Saints, Anlawdd is almost unknown. We can therefore conclude, that his name was borrowed, perhaps independently, from the ecclesiastical tradition to provide a fundamental link between Arthur and his cousins.

As we have seen, this tradition was known by the Welsh writers of the Brut, a hundred years after Geoffrey, but a hundred years before the Red or White Book versions of Culhwch and Olwen. Significantly, Geoffrey of Monmouth did not use the function of Anlawdd Wledig to furnish Arthur’s relationships, however, he did use a similar device.

>> Part II: King Arthur's Sister

Notes & References
1. Sarah Sheehan 'Giants, Boar-hunts, and Barbering: Masculinity in "Culhwch ac Olwen"' Arthuriana Vol.15 No.3 (Fall 20005) pp.3-25.
2. Rachel Bromwich, Ed & Trans, with Introduction and Commentary, Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads Of The Island Of Britain, University of Wales Press, Fourth Edition, 2014, pp.365-7.
3. Bromwich, TYP: p.366.
4. Patrick K Ford, Trans and editor, The Mabinogi and other Medieval Welsh Tales, Berkley, 1977, 30th Anniversary Edition, 2008, p.134.
5. Bromwich, TYP, p.146-152.
6. Rachel Bromwich and D. Simon Evans, editors, with introduction and notes, Culhwch And Olwen: An Edition and Study of the Oldest Arthurian Tale, University of Wales, 1992, pp.xxix – xxx.
7. Sioned Davies, Trans and editor, The Mabinogion, Oxford University Press, 2007, p.188.
8. Sioned Davies, The Mabinogion, p.190,  Patrick K Ford, The Mabinogi, p.132.
9. Bromwich, TYP: p.369.
10. Brynley F Roberts, Culhwch ac Olwen, The Triads, Saints’ Lives, Arthur of the Welsh, Wales University Press, p.95, fn.31.

* * *