Geoffrey of Monmouth influence on the Arthurian Legend

“Culhwch and Olwen is an important tale in many respects. It is one of our earliest sources for information about the native Arthur, a repository of lore about characters from Celtic tradition, many of whom are otherwise unknown, and a mine of legal idioms of Celtic provenance. It is part myth, part folklore, and its language ranges from simple lists and catalogs to exuberant and alliterative passages in a high rhetorical style.”1

The date of the composition of Culhwch and Olwen has been accepted as the late 11th century for many years. Recently this dating has been challenged with a suggested date of the mid-12th century. Why does the date matter? The significance of these two dates means the text could have been composed either before (c.1100) Geoffrey of Monmouth produced his History of the Kings of Britain (Historia Regum Britanniae), c.1138, or shortly after (c.1150).

The impact that Geoffrey’s work had on the development of the Arthurian legend cannot be overstated, presenting a watershed moment. Texts produced before Geoffrey, and therefore considered free of his influence, are known as pre-Galfridian (from the Latin, Galfridus Monemutensis). The Arthur presented in later medieval texts, after Geoffrey, the knight in shining armour that the world is most familiar with, is a far cry and a world away from the man of earlier works before publication of the Historia Regum Britanniae (HRB).

However, at the time not everyone was convinced of Geoffrey’s claimed history of the kings of Britain; several contemporary historians accused him of making it all up and telling lies. It is difficult to substantiate many of Geoffrey’s claims; much of his work can be found in no other source which does indeed suggest that he used his creative talents to the full for much of his Arthurian story. However, there are still those today who use the HRB to reconstruct fanciful Arthurian histories and believe Geoffrey had in his possession a lost book. 

Before publication of Geoffrey’s Historia, Arthur was recorded as a soldier in the 9th century Historia Brittonum (aka Nennius), our earliest securely datable text in the argument for his historical existence, the battle leader (dux bellorum) of the armies of the kings of Britain, considered by most to be fighting Saxons in twelve victorious battles. However, around the same time Arthur was associated with supernatural marvels such as hunting the  giant boar Twrch Trwyth (or ‘porcum Troynt’ in the Historia Brittonum) and the ever-changing size of the grave of his son, Amr.

Arthur the soldier, rather than the boar hunter, is clearly the man that Geoffrey developed to become king and emperor, an international warlord and conqueror of much of northern Europe, even defeating the mighty Roman war machine in Gaul. After Geoffrey, the Arthurian legend was developed further in the Matter of Britain, Arthur largely relegated to the sidelines with his knights taking centre stage in stories including the Grail, The Lady of the Lake, Merlin, The Round Table, The Sword in the Stone and so on in a cycle of legends to become virtually unrecognisable from the soldier of the Historia Brittonum. As Thomas Green states:

“Geoffrey’s work, although titled a history and certainly a masterpiece by any standard, is highly inventive and cannot be considered to be in any way a reliable source of evidence for the history of the periods it describes or the existence of its subjects, as is now usually acknowledged. It is too late, too legendary, too untrustworthy and too full of evidence for it having been constructed and written with a strong and guiding authorial viewpoint, to have any value in these regards.”2

Significantly, it is the pre-Galfridian texts, those sources which were written before the Historia Regum Britanniae, that modern historians accept as reliable and useful in searching for the original Arthur. Green continues, “Allowing all this, there are, in fact, only four pieces of evidence which are generally agreed to possibly contain information of real historical value: the Annales Cambriae; the Historia Brittonum; the collection of heroic death-songs known as Y Gododdin; and the four or five occurrences of the name Arthur in sixth- and seventh-century contexts.”3

Clearly, these two branches of literature describe two very different Arthur’s; Geoffrey’s version, and the Arthur of native Welsh tradition. Geoffrey’s Arthur, he claimed, was based on historical material but thereafter developed into a figure of literature, whereas the earlier Arthur of Welsh tradition exhibited traits that had more in common with mythology than history.

From the 7th to 10th centuries, in Welsh tradition as portrayed in poetry and prose tales, Arthur is remembered as the great defender of the country, fighting witches, giants, magical boars, raiding the Otherworld. He is also a figure of immeasurable valour who great warriors are compared to in the early poems Y Goddodin (7th century), Marwnad Cynddylan (7th century) Geraint fab Erbin (9th century).4

In other early poems, ‘Pa gur yv y porthaur?’ (What man is the gatekeeper?) (10th century) and Preiddeu Annwn (9th century or earlier) Arthur is accompanied by gods from the Celtic pantheon, such as Gwynn ap Nudd, Lugh (Llwch Windy(?) Hand), Manawydan son of Llŷr, Mabon son of Mydron (listed in Pa gur as ‘Uthr Pendragon’s servant’). To this we can add the long list of heroes recalled by Culhwch (the so-called ‘Court List’) to invoke his boon which provides a valuable record of the nature of the early Arthurian context.5

Cei, Arthur’s constant companion from the very earliest accounts, is portrayed in Culhwch and Olwen as a semi-divine figure possessing superhuman abilities: “he could hold his breath under water for nine days and nine nights; a wound from Cei no doctor could heal; he could be as tall as the tallest tree in the forest when he wanted; whenever it was raining whatever he held in his hand would be dry; and when his companions were coldest he would be fuel to kindle their fire”. Clearly, these are not the abilities of a mere mortal.

As Patrick Ford reminds us, we should remember that despite its title, the tale of Culhwch and Olwen is essentially Arthurian and a collection of anecdotes about various heroes associated with Arthur’s court at Celliwig in Cornwall. This is a primitive court (Celliwig = ‘forest grove’) nothing like the grandiose setting we find in later Arthurian Romance of English, Continental and even Welsh tradition.6 It is worth noting is that although Geoffrey of Monmouth has Arthur’s conception and final battle, in which he is mortally wounded, both in Cornwall (perhaps he was familiar with a strand of the legend from south-west Britain?), he located Arthur’s court at Caerleon in south Wales. 

The HRB had huge influence on literature and oral tradition on Arthur in Wales, as elsewhere in Europe; the earliest Welsh versions of Geoffrey’s Historia, known as the Brut (collectively known as Brut y Brenhinedd = 'Chronicle of the Kings'), date from about the mid-13th century - hence, there is no evidence that Geoffrey’s history of the kings of Britain was translated into the vernacular until almost a century after its composition c.1138.

In accepting the later date proposed for the composition of Culhwch and Olwen by Rodway, i.e. c.1150, we find it is still earlier than the native Welsh tales The Dream of Rhonabwy and The Three Romances, also from the Mabinogion collection, which are all generally accepted as later than Geoffrey in date of composition (13th century) and all clearly display Galfridian influence.

If Idris Foster’s earlier date (c.1100) is accepted for the composition date of Culhwch and Olwen it can securely be considered free of Geoffrey’s influence but conversely, if Rodway’s later date is accepted we must consider the possibility of his influence on the text. Several points have been raised as portraying possible influence by Geoffrey. However, many commentators see the “crudity of tone” as representing the primitive pre-Galfridian concept of Arthur and his court. 

If the prose tale Culhwch and Olwen cannot be proven to predate the Historia Regum Britanniae is it possible to have a text post-dating it that is free of its influence? The tale is certainly independent of Galfridian influence in terms of content and represents Arthurian tradition before the great developments which are seen in Geoffrey’s work and in continental Arthurian literature.7

The editors of Culhwch and Olwen8 Bromwich and Evans have applied caution in seeing the tale as entirely free of Geoffrey’s influence and suspect several influences to have crept in to the text through the Brut, which as we have seen above, were written a hundred years before the Red and White book versions of the tale were composed.

JSP Tatlock, considered an authority on Geoffrey’s legendary history, argued for a post-Galfridian dating for Culhwch and Olwen and saw several elements of the tale deriving from it,9 such as: 

    • Arthur's weapons: sword, dagger, shield, lance and ship.

    • Arthur's wife: Gewnhyfwar 

    • The Gatekeepers recital: Arthur's invasion of Ireland / Conquest of Europe

    • The Three Realms of Ynys Prydein

In addition to to the above other possible influences have been mentioned:

    • Collecting Beards of Giants: Dillus Farfawg (CaO) = Ritho (HRB)

    • Appeal of the Irish Saints (CaO) = Appeal of Scottish bishops (HRB)

    • Arthur chases Modred to Cornwall (HRB) = Arthur chases Twrch Twyrth to Cornwall (CaO)

In the following posts we will examine each of these points in turn.

Notes & References:
1.  Patrick K Ford, translator and editor, Culhwch and Olwen, in The Mabinogi and Other Medieval Welsh Tales,  University of California Press, 1977 (30th Anniversary Edition, 2008), pp.119-157.
2. Thomas Green, Concepts of Arthur, Tempus, 2007, p.10.
3. Green, Concepts, p.12.
4. Patrick Sims-Williams, The Early Welsh Arthurian Poems, in Rachel Bromwich, A.O.H. Jarman, Brynley F. Roberts (editors) Arthur of the Welsh, University of Wales Press, Second Edition, 2008, pp.33-72, states that the “difficulty of dating the Arthurian poems is still as severe as Jackson described it in 1959. …… secular and religious poems in Welsh were being written down at least as early as the first half of the tenth century, but the earliest extant poetic codex, the Black Book of Carmarthen, is no older than the thirteenth century…… contemporary manuscript evidence for early Irish and Welsh texts consists almost exclusively of glosses and short prose notes;……  Consequently early Welsh poems preserved in later poetic codices have to be dated partly by linguistic comparison with the Old Welsh glosses — a perilous exercise in view of the difference in genre and transmission — and partly on the basis of internal evidence of content and authorship.”(p.35)
5. Ford, The Mabinogion, p.121.
6. Ibid.
7. D Edel, The Arthur of 'Culhwch and Olwen' as a figure of epic-heroic tradition. Reading Medieval Studies IX, 1983.
8. Rachel Bromwich and D Simon Evans, Culhwch and Olwen: The Oldest Arthurian Tale, University of Wales Press, 1992.
9. JSP Tatlock The Legendary History of Britain, University of California Press, 1950.

* * *

Dating Culhwch: Manuscripts and Monarchs

The Date and Authorship of Culhwch and Olwen -Part II

"When one turns to observe the Welsh situation one is struck by the very different profile presented by the vernacular literature before approximately the end of the twelfth century. On the one hand there is a relatively substantial series of verse texts, assigned more or less securely to certain historical and chronological settings and beginning with the north-British compositions attributed to the sixth-century poets Aneirin and Taliesin; on the other hand, there is a total absence of narrative prose before the tales of Culhwch ac Olwen and the Four Branches of the Mabinogi, which are preserved in later manuscripts but are generally dated - very approximately it should be said - to the early and late eleventh century respectively." 1

Manuscript Dates
In the previous article Culhwch’s World: Giant Boars, Gatekeepers and Werewolves it was noted that the composition of the Medieval Welsh prose tale ‘Culhwch and Olwen’ consists of several archaic episodes brought together as an extended narrative in the well-known folklore theme of ‘The Giant’s Daughter’. Culhwch and Olwen is the longest and the earliest of the surviving native prose tales written in medieval Welsh preserved within the Red Book of Hergest (Llyfr Coch Hergest) and the White Book of Rhydderch (Llyfr Gwyn Rhydderch). The closeness of the texts indicates that these variants represent a single recension.

Deheubarth

The Red Book manuscript (Oxford, Jesus College, MS 111) was copied in the last quarter of the 14th century and contains a complete version of Culhwch and Olwen with a modernised text. The White Book manuscript was copied in the mid-14th century and contains a compendium of Welsh prose texts, now divided into two volumes, Peniarth MS 4 and Peniarth MS 5. The first volume contains the earliest copies of Middle Welsh tales collectively known as the Mabinogion in modern usage, consisting of 'The Four Branches’, 'The Dream of Macsen Wledig', 'Lludd and Llefelys', 'Peredur',  ‘Owain, or The Lady of the Fountain', 'Geraint and Enid' and an incomplete version of Culhwch and Olwen (here-on referred to as ‘CaO’).

Brynley Roberts argued that these stories are generally assumed to derive from traditional oral narratives recited by professional story-tellers to audiences in courts and aristocratic houses. However, he added that in their manuscript versions “none can be regarded simply as written, almost verbatim, copies of an orally performed text, and in every case, though to different degrees, they are literary compositions based on antecedent traditional narratives and reflecting some of their conventions”.2

Although the dating of these manuscripts is relatively secure within a margin, the dating of any work of literature can be problematic. The work may have been updated by copyists when the manuscript was rewritten, errors produced during copying are often evidence of this; accordingly, the work rarely shares the same date as the manuscript. But we must apply caution as some later poets have been known to use archaic language to purposefully mimic an ancient period or tone. 

As Proinsias Mac Cana states, "The criteria for dating these Middle Welsh tales are far from being clear-cut or decisive, and inevitably one must have regard to their relative as well as their absolute dating. In view of its older linguistic usage and vocabulary it is generally accepted that Culhwch ac Olwen was composed - in its extant form, as the provisio goes - some time before the Four Branches. Ifor William concluded that the latter were written c. 1060, but .... many scholars would prefer a less precise date, such as ‘the second half of the eleventh century’.....[one] assigns Culhwch to c. 1100. However, even if there is less than unanimity concerning the dating of the individual tales, there is, I think, universal agreement that Culhwch is the earliest of them in the form in which we have them."3

The French historian and Celtic linguist Joseph Loth argued for a composition date for CaO of the later 11th or early 12th century. In The Legendary History of Britain2 John (JSP) Tatlock claimed that Loth’s case was based on a weak argument, stating that on linguistic matters Loth rejected "several ancient-looking forms as without significance" and mentioned others such as the "archaizing of Welsh poetry in the 12th century" and offered only a single example which Tatlock considered convincingly of very early date.4

In their magisterial work Culhwch and Olwen: The Oldest Arthurian Tale5 Rachel Bromwich and D Simon Evans assert that all the evidence points to the last decades of the 11th century as the most likely date for the redaction of CaO in a form approaching that in which we now have it. Following Idris Foster they reaffirm the significance of the landing of Gruffydd ap Cynan at Porth Clais in the late 11th century in the dating of the prose tale.

Cantref of Cemais

A revival of interest in the countries past witnessed the cultivation of a new genre of prose which seemed to influence a cultural renaissance in Wales during the 9h -11th centuries. Bromwich and Evans claim this is reflected in CaO which shares a similar tone with more than one of the Lives of the Saints indicating a similar date, arguing that the language of CaO is archaic and belongs to the end of the Old Welsh (OW) period, showing a similar language to early poetry.6

Conceding that the text of CaO cannot be dated precisely, a composition date of c.1100 is certainly possible although it must be accepted that the tale has certainly received minor alterations and additions by later copyists since that date; as stated above, the version in the Red Book manuscript has been somewhat modernised in relative terms. There are even arguments for an earlier date, mid-11th century or even 10th century.7

This date of c.1100 has been accepted for the last hundred years or so without being seriously questioned. Recently this dating has been challenged and the early composition questioned, with the suggestion that these texts reached their current form in the late-12th or early-13th centuries, with revisions occurring up to the early-14th century.8

Simon Rodway of Aberystwyth University argues that the approximate date of 1100 has achieved “almost canonical status” perhaps, he adds, because it was the conclusion of Welsh and Celtic scholar Idris Foster of Oxford University who spent much of his professional life working on the text.9 Foster’s work forms the basis of the standard edition by Bromwich and Evans.10

St David's Cathedral

King William’s Visit to Wales
Rodway continues, claiming that the early date seems to have been influenced by historical events in Pembrokeshire in the second-half of the 11th century; it was Foster who initially suggested that two deliberate points in the text of CaO refer to events in 1081. In that year Gruffydd ap Cynan landed at Porth Clais and William the Conqueror made a well known pilgrimage to St David’s, an event that probably influenced the inclusion “Gwilenhin, king of France” in the text.

There are three kings of France listed in CaO: Iona king of France (otherwise unknown); Paris king of France, (whom the author claims ‘Caer Paris’ is named); and Gwilhenin king of France. The Breton Duke Alan Fyrgant (or Fergant) who both Loth and Tatlock identify as the 11th - 12th century Duke of Brittany Alan Fyrgant also appears in CaO as ‘Ysperni son of Fflergant, king of Armorica’.

Tatlock argues that there is every reason why Alan Fyrgant should have been known in Britain as his was son-in-law of William the Conqueror (Gwilhenin king of France) and ally of Henry I in 1106. The close association of the two seems to confirm that in CaO Gwilhenin is meant to represent William I. As Tatlock asserted, while some of the personal names used in CaO are merely traditional and some invented others are clearly historical.

Evidently Alan Fyrgant was well-known in Welsh tradition and is named in the Triads of the Island of Britain (Trioedd Ynys Prydein) in the Three Faithless / Disloyal War-Bands of the Island of Britain. This Triad records how the war band of Fyrgant deserted him during the night and left him to fight with only his servants at Camlan where he died. This may be an allusion to the so-claimed Breton retreat at the battle of Hastings. Significantly, neither Arthur or Modred, who both fell at Camlan according to the 10th century Welsh Annals (Annales Cambriae), appear in this Triad from the earliest series found in the Peniarth 16 manuscript.

The reference to Alan Fyrgant may be significant in dating of the composition of the Triad and although this could post date Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia, the absence of Modred certainly suggests it is free of Galfridian influence; the tangle of Modred, Gwenhyfar and Camlan is completely absent from pre-Galfridian sources.11

This supports Simon Rodway’s argument that a text that post dates Geoffrey can be free of his influence. However, Loth offered only one French word in CaO believing that the absence of French customs and manners indicated a date of no later than the beginning of the 12th century. Tatlock suggested to Loth’s single occurrence we could add the French names of France, Iona and Gwilenhin (Jehan, or Johan, and Guillaume). He also argued for the content and spirit of the text being relatively modern and less archaic than in the Four Branches, which Loth dates later.12

In CaO one of the tasks stipulated by the chief giant is that Culhwch must obtain the aid of Gwilenhin to hunt the boar Twrch Trwyth. Gwilenhin does indeed join the hunt but was killed by the boar at Aber Tywi. Who knows, perhaps the inclusion of an allusion to King William just to have him killed by the giant boar shows the author’s disdain for the Normans who were encroaching into Wales around this time.

In the same year that William visited St David’s, Gruffudd ap Cynan's returned from exile in Ireland landing at Porth Clais on his way to victory at the battle of Mynydd Carn. This is the exact same landing place as the giant boar Twrch Trwyth made on his arrival in Wales from Ireland in CaO.

Gruffudd ap Cynan was a descendant of the rulers of Gwynedd and seeing himself as the rightful heir had previously made an attempt to take the kingdom but was defeated by Trahaearn ap Caradog in 1075 and went into exile in Ireland. Gruffudd assembled an invasion force of Danes and Irishmen and sailed from Waterford in Ireland in 1081. He landed at Porth Clais and joined forces with Rhys ap Tewdwr, king of Deheubarth at St David’s making a pact to regain his territories.

The exact location of the battle of Mynydd Carn is unknown but is said to have taken place about a day's march north of St David's. Gruffydd and Rhys won the battle with Gruffudd taking control of Gwynedd and Rhys regained Deheubarth securing his position as the dominant Welsh ruler in South and West Wales. Gruffydd and Rhys would later take an active role in Welsh resistance to the Normans. King William acknowledged Rhys as ruler of Deheubarth, but he was required to pay the Norman monarch an annual tribute. Gruffudd was captured by Hugh the Fat of Chester and imprisoned for 12 years, but eventually escaped and reigned until 1137 becoming one of the most successful rulers of Gwynedd. 

Mynydd Carningli

Bromwich and Evans consider the route of the Trwch Twyrth through south Wales similar to that of Gruffudd after he landed at Porth Clais; after landing at Porth Clais the Twrch Trwyth made for the Preseli Hills, which is "about a day's march north of St David's".

However, as stated above, the site of the battlefield of Mynydd Carn remains undetermined, although all the sources appear to agree that the battlefield was located on high ground marked by a prominent cairn. The battlefields inventory states that “the location of the battle somewhere in northern Pembrokeshire within the Cantref of Cemais (possibly in the vicinity of the range of hills between the north Pembrokeshire coast and the Afon Gwaun represented by Mynydd Carningli, Mynydd Llanllawer and Mynydd Dinas).”13

Archaic Language
Gruffudd ap Cynan’s landing at Porth Clais in and the route to Mynydd Carn does seem remarkably similar to the route of the Twrch Trwyth, and may well have provided inspiration for the author of CaO, but this does not necessarily confirm a composition date around the end of the 11th century. Commentators have also noted archaic-looking features in the language of the text. Bromwich and Evans claim that the language of CaO belongs to the end of the Old Welsh period - considered to extend to the mid-12th century.

Brynley Roberts argues for the White Book version containing many linguistic and syntactic archaisms, which sits well with Welsh saga englynion and early court poetry suggesting that the final written version of the CaO does indeed belong to the same period as this poetry, that is around 1100. Roberts adds that “crudity of tone and archaic social and legal customs may be further evidence of an early date as none of the other mabinogion stories lacks so completely conventional signs of civilized relationships.”14

The orthography of the White Book version has certain ‘quirks’ as Rodway calls them, (largely removed from the Red Book version) but, he argues, there are very few Old Welsh orthographical features or errors as such that would suggest a misreading of an Old Welsh exemplar. However, Rodway concedes that the language of the text is certainly archaic when compared to other prose tales which postdate it. He continues, that when the language of the tale is compared to datable poetry it is apparent that it could have been composed as late as the second-half of the 12th century. 

Rodway reminds us that the orthographical revolution which marked the transition from Old Welsh to Middle Welsh was at least partly triggered by contact with the Old French orthography of the Norman-sponsored Cistercian abbeys such as Tintern (1131) and Whitland (1140) that were quickly adopted by the native princes.

Rodway contends that there is nothing in the language of the text of CaO which demands its date to be determined as the turn of the 11-12th centuries, indeed, he sees nothing in the language which would push it back conclusively to the 11th century and argues there are "convincing orthographical arguments" for pushing its date forward by some fifty years at least. Rodway believes that there is convincing orthographical evidence for a date in the second half of the 12th-century. If Rodway is correct and the tale was composed as late as the mid-12th century it would of course postdate Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae. However, even with an uncertain date it is significant that most scholars are in agreement that the text of CaO is free of Galfridian influence.15

The Historia Regum Britanniae, a work that traced the descent of the Britons back to Brutus the Trojan and changed Arthurian literature across Europe, was published around 1138 and immediately became what we would term today as “a bestseller”. Its influence on subsequent Arthurian literature in Wales and further afield was so prevalent that, as Rodway argues, there has been a reluctance to accept that an Arthurian text composed in the post-Galfridian period, that is after 1138, would be free of its influence.

Geoffrey’s work was immensely influential in Wales with adaptations of his Historia, known as Brut y Brenhinedd (Chronicle of the Kings), produced from the mid-13th century. The Brut was so popular that over sixty versions survive. However, these were not straight forward translations of Geoffrey’s work into Welsh; they largely followed the original Latin but contained additional information by way of marginal glosses and extra commentary, name and geographic corrections.

Although Foster came to the conclusion that CaO was composed c.1100, he argued that there is no perceptible influence from Geoffrey of Monmouth in the portrayal of Arthur and his court. And there has been very little dissension since.

Tatlock, considered an authority on Geoffrey’s Historia, cites several themes in CaO that may have derived from influence of Geoffrey.16 Bromwich and Evans have applied a more cautious approach but concede that Geoffrey’s influence may be detectable through the Welsh Brut.17 Although these versions first appeared in Wales around a hundred years after Geoffrey’s Historia, the earliest versions of the Brut are dated about a hundred years prior to the White or Red Book versions of Culhwch and Olwen.

Dating potential for Galfridian influence on Culhwch and Olwen: 

c.1100 - composition of Culhwch and Olwen (Foster, Bromwich and Evans)
c.1138 – Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae
1150 – composition of Culhwch and Olwen (Rodway)
1250 - Earliest Brut composed
1350-80 – composition of White and Red Book manuscripts respectively.

Notes and References:
1. Proinsias Mac Cana, On the early development of written narrative prose in Irish and Welsh, Etudes Celtiques, vol. 29, 1992, pp. 51-67.
2. Brynley F. Roberts, Culhwch Ac Olwen, The Triads, Saints’ Lives, in The Arthur Of The Wel Sh: The Arthurian Legend In Medieval Welsh Literature, Edited By Rachel Bromwich, A.O.H. Jarman, Brynley F. Roberts, University of Wales Press, 1991, pp.73.
3. Proinsias Mac Cana, On the early development of written narrative prose in Irish and Welsh
4. JSP Tatlock The Legendary History of Britain, University of California Press, 1950.
5. Rachel Bromwich and D Simon Evans, Culhwch and Olwen: The Oldest Arthurian Tale, University of Wales Press, 1992.
6. Bromwich & Evans, CaO, UWP, 1992, Introduction pp.lxxxi-lxxxii.
7.  D Edel, The Arthur of 'Culhwch and Olwen' as a figure of epic-heroic tradition. Reading Medieval Studies IX, 1983.
8. Simon Rodway, The Date and Authorship of Culhwch and Owen: A Reassessment, CMCS 49, Summer 2005, pp.21-44.
9. Rodway Ibid.
10. Bromwich & Evans, Culhwch & Olwen, UWP, 1992.
11. Rebecca Shercliff, Arthur in Trioedd Ynys Prydain  in Arthur in the Celtic Languages: The Arthurian Legend in Celtic Literatures and Traditions, Ceridwen Lloyd-Morgan & Erich Poppe (editors), UWP, 2019, pp.175-76.
12. Tatlock, Legendary History.
13.  RCAHMW, Battlefields Inventory, Jan 2017.
14. Brynley F. Roberts, Culhwch Ac Olwen, The Triads, Saints’ Lives, in The Arthur Of The Welsh: The Arthurian Legend In Medieval Welsh Literature, Edited By Rachel Bromwich, A.O.H. Jarman, Brynley F. Roberts, University of Wales Press, 1991, pp.73-74.
15. Simon Rodway, Culhwch ac Olwen, in Arthur in the Celtic Languages: The Arthurian Legend in Celtic Literatures and Traditions, Ceridwen Lloyd-Morgan & Erich Poppe (editors), UWP, 2019, pp.67-79.
16. Tatlock, Legendary History.
17. Bromwich & Evans, Culhwch & Olwen, UWP, 1992.

Edited 01/04/23

* * *

Culhwch’s World: Giant Boars, Gatekeepers and Werewolves

“The Welsh tale Culhwch and Olwen is the oldest Arthurian tale that has been preserved in the manuscripts. The extant redaction has been dated to the second half of the eleventh century but its orthography, vocabulary, syntax, and, moreover, certain stylistic and narrative features, suggest that a written version of parts of it may have existed a century earlier.” 1

The Date and Authorship of Culhwch and Olwen -Part I
The Twrch Trwyth refused to give up the comb, razor and shears lodged between his ears requested by Arthur and pledged to go to Arthur's country and cause as much evil as he could. On the next day the gigantic boar left Ireland and landed at Porth Clais in Dyfed, south-west Wales. A cove at the mouth of the River Alun in St Bride’s Bay just south of St Davids still bears this name today.

Many years ago Celtic scholar John Rhŷs suggested that the hunt for the Twrch Trwyth across South Wales resembled an extended dindsenchas following a trail of swine-related place-names through the landscape. In Irish literature the dindsenchas, meaning "lore of places”, are onomastic texts recounting the origins of place-names and traditions, concerning events and often mythic and legendary figures associated with them. Perhaps an influence from Irish place-name stories should not be surprising as Porth Clais and St David's were places of passage between these two Celtic lands.

Hunting the great boar Twrch Trwyth, one of the tasks set by the chief giant Ysbaddaden for Culhwch to achieve if he were to marry his daughter Olwen, is without doubt the climax of the tale of Culhwch and Olwen. The scene of the hunt presents a detailed geography across South Wales from Pembrokeshire to the Severn estuary, revealing an author who must have possessed extensive knowledge of the area if not a local themself. Indeed, it has been noted that the language of the tale portrays a southern bias, however, this may be expected as the text is preserved only in southern manuscripts.

Hunting the Twrch Trwyth (Alan Lee)

 
The Path of the Boar
The tale of Culhwch and Olwen (here-on referred to as ‘CaO’) is preserved in two medieval manuscripts; an incomplete version in the White Book of Rhydderch, mid-14th century, where about a third of the final text is missing, and a complete version in the late-14th century Red Book of Hergest. The two versions seem to descend independently from a lost exemplar with neither manuscript ascribed to an author. Comparing the first two thirds of the two texts there is very little material difference but the language of the Red Book version has been consistently modernised; accordingly some of the linguistic features may reflect the language of the copyist rather than the author. Neither manuscript provides a title for the tale but a colophon included in the Red Book version states "and that is how Culhwch won Olwen daughter of Ysbaddaden Bencawr".

Both White and Red book manuscripts were compiled for patrons from south Wales, Ceredigion and Gower respectively. In both manuscripts CaO is grouped with other native tales that we know under the modern label 'Mabinogion' yet the tale of Culhwch displays the most archaic language of the collection.

Rachel Bromwich & D. Simon Evans argue that linguistic evidence points to an important monastic centre such as St David's, Carmarthen or Llandeilo Fawr in south-west Wales as the place of the authorship of CaO. They claim that comparisons can be made with the language spoken today in certain areas of south Wales, notably Pembroke, West Glamorgan and north Carmarthenshire and see the setting of CaO against the background of the language spoken in this area, relating it to a local scriptorium where such Old Welsh documents were written.2

This line of reasoning suggests that CaO was produced at a monastic centre which lay close to the route taken by the Twrch Trwyth. Seeing correspondence between the language of CaO and the further contents of the mid-13th century Black Book of Carmarthen, particularly the poem Pa Gur yw y Porthaur (What Man is the Gatekeeper?), (here-on referred to as ‘Pa Gur’) Bromwich and Evans see the priory at Carmarthen as the most likely place where the tale was inscribed and argue that CaO, like the Black Book, belongs to Carmarthen.3

The dialogue poem Pa Gur is the most substantial Arthurian work in the Black Book but is incomplete owing to some missing pages from the manuscript. It may be the remnant of a long Arthurian saga consisting of a catalogue of pre-existing folkloric tales but unfortunately many of these episodes are now lost to us. Pa Gur is then perhaps best seen as a summary of many earlier mythical Arthurian tales that have been assembled together to construct one poem and can consequently be taken as indicative of the nature of the Arthurian world in Welsh literature in the 9th-10th centuries’.4

It is apparent from the surviving part of the poem that Bedwyr and Cai, particularly the latter who is heavily featured in Pa Gur, are Arthur’s main accomplices. Throughout the early stratum of the Arthurian legend we find Bedwyr and Cai as Arthur’s constant companions; we see this in CaO, in the Welsh Triads and the Vita Sancti Cadoci. As Patrick Sims-Williams states the saint’s life is useful for dating purposes as it was composed by Lifris of Llancarfan c.1100, adding that a similar date and south-eastern provenance would suit Pa Gur.5

Sims-Williams has suggested that Pa Gur may have been written near the south-east Welsh border, the very area where the core of the Mirabilia are concentrated. He sees the inclusion of “the vultures of Ely and all three of them wizards" in the poem as key to identifying the location of its composition. The Afon Eléï (River Ely) rises at Tonyrefail and flows through the five valleys of the Rhondda Fawr, Rhondda Fach, Cynon, Taf and Ely of south-east Wales.6

If Sims-Williams is correct in locating the author of Pa Gur here it confirms a body of Arthurian lore was extant in this region from an early date, almost certainly circulating in oral form prior to the composition of the Arthurian battle list in Historian Brittonum. Indeed, if Pa Gur is the earlier text, which is probable, it is almost certain that the author of CaO knew of it.

The Battle of the Werewolves
There are similar allusions in both CaO and Pa Gur to a body of Arthurian episodes that are now lost to us but evidently the audience of the time were assumed to be familiar with.7 Furthermore we find that Pa Gur contains some overlap with CaO, both tales clearly reflecting an early mythological Arthur, fighting witches and supernatural monsters, a character of a similar vein to the Arthur of the Mirabilia.

The Mirabilia displays an Arthur in a supernatural world which appears to be at odds with the military exploits of the Arthur in the battles of the Historia Brittonum contained in the same manuscript. Here the dux bellorum is heralded as a historical figure who was the victorious leader of the Britons in twelve battles fighting back against the Saxon advance. But this two-fold Arthur of the Historia Brittonum and the Mirabilia is precisely the same as we find in CaO and Pa Gur.

In CaO the gatekeeper boasts of military exploits in which he has accompanied Arthur in various battles at such faraway places as Scandinavia, India, Africa, Greece and so on, and yet in the same text Arthur is fighting supernatural monsters such as giants, magical boar and witches. This is exactly what we find in the primary (pre-Galfridian) Arthurian traditions, which depict the great Arthur and his band of men as the mighty defenders of the land against every kind of danger.8

Significantly, in Pa Gur we find Arthur fighting at the battle of ‘traethev Trywruid’ (the shores of the Tryfrwyd) mentioned as Arthur’s 10th battle on the bank of a river called Tribruit in the Historia Brittonum.9 This the only battle from the Historia attributed to Arthur in a Welsh non-Galfridian early source and here it is recorded as a traditional Arthurian battle against werewolves.10 In an earlier passage in Pa Gur Arthur and his men are fighting against an army of ‘cinbin’ (dogheads) at the mountains of Eidin which is followed by the conflict at the river Tribruit where his adversary is called Garwlwyd (Rough-Grey).

In the Welsh Triads we find a character called Gwrgi Garwlwyd (Man-Dog Rough-Grey). He killed one of the Cymry everyday and two on Saturday to avoid killing on Sunday. This is clearly the same character as that of Pa Gur who here again features as a werewolf. As Thomas (Caitlin) Green suggests, this casts doubt on the value of the Historia and the authenticity of the Arthurian battle list therein as a historical source.11 As can be demonstrated with other battles in the list, here the battle at the river Tribruit appears to have been lifted from an earlier source (Pa Gur) and used in the creation of a catalogue of Arthurian victories (Historia Brittonum).

The Black Book of Carmarthen
(National Library of Wales)

The Grip of the Gatekeeper
Both Pa Gur and CaO contain an episode with a gatekeeper setting certain conditions before he admits one to the Court. In both accounts the gatekeeper is named as Glewlwyd Gafaelfawr (Bold Grey Mighty-Grasp). In CaO the guest (Culhwch) must convince the gatekeeper of his right to enter Arthur’s court, but in Pa Gur the role is reversed and it is Arthur who must get past the gatekeeper and gain entry, presumably to his own court? Cai meets a similar recalcitrant gatekeeper in CaO when he attempts to gain entry to the fortress of the giant Wrnach Gawr. Bromwich questions if Glewlwyd had originally been the gatekeeper at the court of the giant Wrnach Gawr?12

Arthur’s recital of his warriors in Pa Gur in order to gain entry to the court is reminiscent of the so-called ‘Court List’ in CaO. The relationship between Pa Gur and CaO proves to be problematic; besides Glewlwyd the gatekeeper, Arthur, Cai, and Bedwyr, a number of characters reappear in CaO, such as Mabon son of Modron and Mabon son of Mellt (perhaps the same person with matronymic and patronymic?), the sea-god Manawydan son of Llŷr and Lluch Llauynnauc/Llwch Llawwynnyawc, who is generally accepted as being the god Lugus (Irish Lugh, Welsh Lleu).

There is clearly further overlap here with the early poem Preiddeu Annwn (The Spoils of Annwn) from the 14th century Llyfr Taliesin (Book of Taliesin), in which Arthur and his retinue journey to the Otherworld in the ship Prydwen to steal the cauldron of the Chief of Annwn. Here we find the character Lluch Lleawc which may be a variant of Llwch Llawwynnawc (as above) from CaO. An 8th century date has been suggested for the poem but anywhere between the 9th and 12th century is probable.13

Considering the length of CaO and its inventories, around 250 characters appear in the ‘Court List’, a degree of overlap is perhaps not surprising. However, many characters and places in Pa Gur are not recalled in CaO and some prominent Arthurian characters are notably absent from the Court List.14

Amr, Arthur’s son as noted in the Mirabilia and appended to the 9th century Historia Brittonum, is not listed in the Court List; the nearest we get is an Amren son of Bedwyr. He may be identical with Hir Amren who appears in the episode of the Black Witch, but is not Arthur’s son. In CaO Arthur’s son is named as Gwydre who is killed by Twrch Trwyth at the battle of Cwm Cerwyn in the Preselis. After this fleeting mention in CaO Gwydre is unheard of again and unknown elsewhere.

Llachau, as with Cai and Bedwyr, belongs to the earliest stratum of Arthurian tradition in Wales, appearing as one of The Three Well-Endowed Men of the Island of Britain in the earliest series of Triads (Trioedd Ynys Prydein, Peniarth 16), in Pa Gur fighting alongside, or possibly against, Cai, and in the 13th century Black Book poem The Conversation between Gwyn ap Nudd and Gwyddno Garanhir, where he is mentioned as Arthur’s son, yet he is entirely absent from CaO. Llachau later appears as Loholt of Arthurian Romance.

Medrawd first appears in the 10th century Welsh Annals where he is recorded as falling at Camlann along with Arthur. From this simple chronicle entry it is impossible to know if he was fighting against or alongside Arthur. It is only in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s 12th century History of the Kings of Britain, and later texts influenced by that work, that he becomes Arthur’s arch-nemesis.

The absence of Medrawd and Arthur’s two sons Amr and Llachau from CaO supports the probability that this tale is older than the introduction of these characters in to the Arthurian legend.

As we have seen the tale of the hunting of the Twrch Trwyth, evidenced by the place-name story of Carn Gaffalt included in the 9th century Mirabilia, confirms the boar hunt was in existence before CaO was composed in its current form probably in the late 11th century.

The World of Culhwch
Clearly then, as a literary composition, CaO includes a number of earlier oral legendary Arthurian tales assembled together under the umbrella of the folklore tale-type known as the ‘giant’s daughter’ to create the tale as we know it. The most obvious examples of such pre-existing Arthurian tales incorporated into CaO are:

• the tale of the boar hunt has been in existence since at least the 7th century as witnesses by an obscure reference to fighting the Twrch Trwyth in a river included in Y Goddodin; the original tale alluded to here may have involved Arthur and his men fighting with the boar in the river Severn as recorded in CaO,
  
  
• the story of the hunting of the giant boar Twrch Trwyth has been associated with Arthur from at least as early as the 9th century on the evidence of the Mirabilia (appended to the Historia Brittonum) but must have existed as an oral tale many years before being written down probably in the previous century,

• the concept of a mythical boar has its origins in pagan Celtic religious beliefs (note similar tales in Irish mythology),
  
  
• In CaO Arthur travels to Ireland his ship Prydwen to seize the cauldron of Diwrnach Wyddel: "Caledfwlch was seized by Llenlleog Wyddel who swung it in a circle, killing Diwrnach Wyddel and his retinue entirely".

• An identical scene is described in the 9th century (or earlier poem) Preiddeu Annwn when Arthur travels to the Otherworld in his ship Prydwen to seize the cauldron of the chief of Annwfyn:
  "The flashing sword of Lleawch, has been lifted to it.And in the hand of Lleminawc, it was left".

• In Preiddeu Annwn Arthur journeys to the Otherworld to release the prisoner Gweir. 
  In CaO Arthur must release the prisoner Mabon son of Modron to hunt the Twrch Trwyth.
  Mabon tells us that "never has anyone been as imprisoned in an imprisonment as mournful as mine: neither the imprisonment of Llud Llaw Ereint, nor the imprisonment of Graid son of Eri."
  This is an allusion to a variant of Triad 52, The Three Exalted Prisoners, in which Mabon uab Modron is named as one of three famous prisoners along with Llŷy Llediaith and Gweir ap Geirioed.15
  
  
• In these early tales Arthur’s companions are drawn from the pantheon of ancient gods: Mabon ap Modron (the Romano-British god Maponos and Modron is in all probability related to the Gaulish goddess Dea Matrona), who in CaO is clearly related to the Mabon ap Mellt from Pa Gur. In the same poem we have references to the sea-god Manawydan son of Llŷr and the god Lugus (Irish Lugh, Welsh Lleu).

As with the hunt for the Twrch Trwyth, the raid on the Otherworld features in several pieces of Arthurian literature. The repetition of these tales in early sources strongly suggests we are scratching the surface of the provenance of the Arthurian legend.



Notes & References:
1. D Edel, The Arthur of 'Culhwch and Olwen' as a figure of epic-heroic tradition. Reading Medieval Studies IX, 1983, pp. 3-15.
2. Culhwch and Olwen: An Edition and Study of the Oldest Arthurian Tale, introduction and notes by Rachel 'Bromwich and D. Simon Evans, University of Wales Press, (English edition) 1992.
Bromwich and Evans, who as editors of the preparatory material for an edition of this tale, which was left unfinished by the late Sir Idris Foster at his death, acknowledge their use of the work of Sir Idris including his unpublished MA dissertation ‘Astudiaeth o Chwcdl Culhwch ac Olwen’. completed in 1935.
3. Bromwich & Evans, Ibid., p.lxxxii-lxxxiii.
4. Brynley F Roberts, Culhwch ac Olwen, The Triads, Saints’ Lives, in Arthur of the Welsh, University of Wales Press, 2007, pp.73-96.
5. Patrick Sims-Williams, The Early Welsh Arthurian Poems, in Arthur of the Welsh, University of Wales Press, 2007, pp.33-72.
6. Ibid.pp.39-40.
7. Oliver Padel, Arthur in Medieval Welsh Literature, University of Wales Press, (new edition) 2013, pp.11-25.
8. See: Thomas Green, Chapter 3: The Nature of Arthur: ‘a mighty defender’? in Concepts of Arthur, Tempus, 2007, pp.93-130.
9. Padel, Arthur in Medieval Welsh Literature, p.22
10. Thomas Green, Concepts, p.33
11. Ibid.
12. Rachel Bromwich, Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain, University of Wales Press, (Third Edition) 2006, p.362.
13. Sarah Higley (translator), Preiddeu Annwn: The Spoils of Annwn, from: The Camelot Project 2007, 
14. Patrick Sims-Williams, The Early Welsh Arthurian Poems.
15. Rachel Bromwich, Trioedd Ynys Prydein.

Edited 09/03/23

* * *

Culhwch and the Quest

Carn Cafall: Arthur’s Stone
Situated 1529 feet up on the southern edge of a windswept hill between Rhayader and the Elan Valley reservoirs in Mid Wales are three, possibly once five, prehistoric cairns which furnished its name. This is Carn Gafallt, a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSI), where, according to ‘The Mirabilia’, a collection of toponymic tales appended to the 9th century Historia Brittonum, Arthur’s dog Cafall left his paw print in pursuit of the supernatural boar Twrch Trwyth. This was no ordinary stone, as men would come and take the stone away but the next day it would be found back on its pile.  The core of these tales in The Mirabilia are concentrated in south-east Wales and the English border where the author claims to have witnessed several himself.

Prehistoric cairns on Carn Gafallt

In the mid-19th century Lady Charlotte Guest, translator of the Mabinogion, sent a colleague up the hill to find the stone with the dog’s paw print. He apparently found a stone on top of one of the ancient cairns which he considered matched the description in “Nennius” (Historia Brittonum) but whether it was Carn Cabal or not Lady Guest is non-committal and leaves it to others to determine:

"Carn Cavall, or, as it is generally pronounced, Corn Cavall, is a lofty and rugged mountain, in the upper part of the district anciently called Buellt, now written Builth, in Breconshire. Scattered over this mountain are several cairns of various dimensions, some of which are of very considerable magnitude, being at least a hundred and fifty feet in circumference. On one of these carns may still be seen a stone, so nearly corresponding with the description in Nennius, as to furnish strong presumption that it is the identical as to furnish strong presumption that it is the identical object referred to. It is near two feet in length, and not quite a foot wide, and such as a man might, without any great exertion, carry away in his hands. On the one side is an oval indentation, rounded at the bottom, nearly four inches long by three wide, about two inches deep, and altogether presenting such an appearance as might, without any great strain of imagination, be thought to resemble the print of a dog's foot . . ."1

An illustration of the stone was included in Lady Guest’s 1849 edition of the Mabinogion. However, when Oliver Padel climbed the hill a hundred and fifty years later he could not locate the stone on the occasion of his visit on 20th February 1993. Padel quipped that “no doubt it had been removed less than a day previously, and was still on its way back”.2 

There is another ‘Arthur’s Stone’ or ‘Maen Arthur’ (sometimes called ‘Carreg Arthur’) some fifteen miles to the west of Carn Gafallt at Rhos y Gafallt in north Ceredigion. Brynley Roberts suspects there may have been another legend here of a removed stone which persistently returned to its place. As with Carn Gafallt the stone appears to be missing today. The local woodland has been named after the stone, Coed Maen Arthur, in the Ystwyth valley near Pont-rhyd-y-groes. From here a waymarked walk leads to Castell Grogwynion, one of the largest hill forts in Wales.

In this vicinity we also find an earthwork named ‘Llys Arthur’ (Arthur’s Court) an old Roman site at the head of the Castell valley. However, the association of this site with Arthur cannot be dated prior to the 18th century (like so much of the birth of Arthurian tourism) when it arrives for the first time on Lewis Morris’s 1748 map of the Mannor of Perverth.

Not far from Maen Arthur and Llys Arthur is the site where Arthur’s companions Cai and Bedwyr plucked the beard of the giant Dillus Farfog in the tale Culhwch and Olwen, the earliest of the Mabinogion tales and the first Arthurian narrative text.

Giants' Country
One of the tasks sets by Ysbaddaden Chief Giant was to obtain a leash for one of the dogs in the hunting of the Twrch Twyrth. Ysbaddaden says, “There is no leash in the world that can hold Drudwen the whelp of Graid son of Eri except a leash made from the beard of that man. But it must be pulled from his beard with wooden tweezers while he is alive, since it will become brittle in death.”

In the tale we find Cai and Bewyr, Arthur’s companions from the earliest stratum of the legend, at Pumlumon (Plynlimon) in the Cambrian Mountains, barely 20 miles north-west of Carn Gafallt and the Elan Valley. The tale would appear to be localised at Ysbyty Cynfyn, north of Pont-rhyd-y-groes where we find Maen Arthur and Llys Arthur as noted above. On the A4120 road from Devil's Bridge to Ponterwyd we find Erwbarfe (erw = an old land measure, acre + barfa = a number of small peaks), Chris Grooms suggests that Welsh 'barfau' = beards, may be a reference to the tale of Dillus.3 

Pumlumon Fawr from Llyn Llygad Rheidol

While Cai and Bedwyr were sitting on top of Pumlumon on Carn Gwylathyr they saw smoke to the south were Dillus Farfog is roasting a wild boar. After taking his fill of meat Dillus fell asleep. When Cai was certain that Dillus was asleep, he dug a huge pit under his feet, and struck him with an immense blow and squeezed him into the pit. They then completely plucked his beard with the wooden tweezers. And then they killed the giant outright.

After plucking the beard they took the leash to Arthur in Celli Wig in Cornwall, and then Arthur sang an englyn in which he implied that Cai would not have beaten Dillus in a fair fight. This led to a rift between Arthur and Cai, “and, thereafter, Cai would not concern himself with Arthur if he was in need”. 

Pumlumon (Five Peaks) is the highest point of the Cambrian mountains in mid-Wales, from which the rivers Severn, Wye and Rheidol all rise. The name Garn Gwylathyr is otherwise unknown. Rachel Bromwich and D Simon Evans4 suggest a possible identification with the cairn on the top of Drum Peithnant (Y Garn). Chris Grooms suggests the elusive Garn Gwylathyr is probably to be identified with Y Garn near the slopes near the source of the river Wye (Gwy + llethr = slope).5

However, the Boar hunt as detailed in Culhwch and Olwen does not get as far north as Pumlumon, or indeed Carn Gafallt where Arthur’s hound left his paw print, and takes place across South Wales. The boar hunts, featuring Arthur’s dog Cafall, are just two in a series of impossible tasks set by the chief giant but form the bulk of the story. Culhwch and Olwen is the longest of the surviving Welsh prose tales. 

‘Culhwch and Olwen’ probably first appeared in written form in the late-10th or early-11th century. The text survives as an incomplete version in an early 14th-century manuscript known as the White Book of Rhydderch and a complete text is found in the slightly later manuscript called the Red Book of Hergest (c.1375–1425).  Lady Charlotte Guest produced the first translation of the story into modern English which was included in her translation of The Mabinogion, a collection of medieval Welsh tales containing much pre-Christian Celtic mythology. 

Culhwch and Olwen is the most archaic text in the Mabinogion collection and often referred to as ‘the Oldest Arthurian tale’ for good reason as it is argued that certain features indicate an oral existence of parts of the tale which was written in South Wales, probably the St Davids area, c.1090.6

Culhwch's quest is the well-known tale-type celebrated as 'Six Go Through the World' or more popularly as 'The Giant's Daughter'. According to Bromich  & Evans7 the core of the story, can be traced to the Greek tale of the Argonauts and a Celtic parallel 'The Wooing of Emer'. 

Culhwch and Olwen - Red Book of Hergest

The Quest
In the tale Arthur’s is required to help his first cousin Culhwch marry Olwen the daughter of the chief giant Ysbaddaden. Culhwch’s step-mother has set a condition on him that Olwen is the only girl he can wed. The giant knows that he is fated to die once his daughter marries and will therefore do all he can to prevent it, he therefore sets a series of “anoethau”, difficult or impossible tasks, for the would-be-groom to complete. 

These tasks are focused on the preparation of the wedding feast and grooming the giant. A series of boar hunts is the main focus of the tale, taking up nearly half of the forty tasks, in which firstly Culhwch has to obtain the tusk of the boar Ysgithyrwyn in order to shave Ysbaddaden and then to acquire the razor, comb and shears lodged between the ears of the supernatural boar Twrch Trwyth to dress the hair of the giant. 

Bromwich & Evans see the tale as forming three distinct parts:

1. The first begins with the birth of Culhwch and the quest imposed upon him by his wicked stepmother which brings him to Arthur’s court.

2. Secondly, Culhwch and his companion’s reception at the fortress of the chief giant, who then lists the anoethau or difficult tasks imposed on them by the giant.

3, The third part is constructed from the accomplishment of ten of these tasks – which mirrors traditions of certain archetypal feats which traditionally performed by Arthur and his men.8

Each of the first two sections ends with a long list; the first the so-called Arthurian Court List containing over two hundred names of men and women invoked by Culhwch as guarantors of the privileged gift that he demands from Arthur when he is accepted as his kinsman, an act symbolized by the cutting of Culhwch’s hair by Arthur. Culhwch then demands that Arthur obtains for him Olwen the chief giant’s daughter.

The second part is the list of forty anoethau imposed by the chief giant of which the boar hunts take over nearly half and without doubt the hunting of the Twrch Twryth is the climax of the story.

Of the forty tasks set by the chief giant we are only told of ten that are completed, otherwise if the story detailed how each task was completed it would have been a very long tale indeed. It is apparent that the author of the tale utilized existing folk-tales for those tasks that we are told are achieved: the freeing of prisoners; the taking of the giant's sword; taking feeding vessels (cauldrons); the taking of the giant's beard; and the boar hunts.9

In summarising the tale Doris Edel sees Culhwch and Olwen as consisting “of a series of originally independent Arthurian adventures, the majority of which stem from native epic-heroic tradition. This Arthurian material, with some later accretions, is brought together within the framework of the story of Olwen's wooing by Culhwch - this framework being formed by a combination of the step-mother theme with the theme of the quest for the bride. The fusion of the Arthurian episodes with the story of the wooing has only been partly realized, which is attested by the fact that Culhwch, the suitor, is not once mentioned during the accomplishment of the tasks set by Olwen's father.”10

Culhwch is only successful with the assistance of Arthur and a selection of his followers with super-powers. Indeed, the 'followers' more-or-less take over the tasks eclipsing Culhwch's part in the quest: after assisting him in finding the giant's fortress and declaring his love for Olwen, he is not heard of again until the end of the story. As the chief giant points out, the result is entirely down to Arthur and his men.

"......  the tale as a whole is strongly dominated by the figure of Arthur and Culhwch disappears completely from the scene until the final episode.”11 

Notes & References
1. Lady Charlotte Guest, translator, The Mabinogion, Dent, 1906, (Reprinted 1910), pp.332.
2. Oliver Padel, The Nature of Arthur, in Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies, No 27 1994, p.3 fn 8.
The Mirabilia claims “….. and men come and carry the stone in their hands for the space of a day and a night, and on the morrow it is found upon its pile”.
3. Chris Grooms, The Giants of Wales: Cewri Cymru, Edwin Mellen Press, 1993, p.167-8.
4. Rachel Bromwich & D Simon Evans, Culhwch and Olwen, UWP, 1992, p.148.
5. Grooms, op.cit.
6. Will Parker, Culhwch and Olwen
7. Rachel Bromwich & D Simon Evans, Culhwch and Olwen, UWP, 1992, Introduction.
8. Ibid.
9. - Brynley Roberts, Culhwch Ac Olwen, The Triads, Saints Lives, in Arthur of the Welsh, UWP, 1991 (Reprint 1999), p.76.
10. Doris Edel, The Arthur of 'Culhwch and Olwen' as a figure of epic-heroic tradition. Reading Medieval Studies, IX. 1983, pp. 3-15.
11. Ibid.

* * *

The Date of the Mirabilia

“Certainly there is much about the early Arthurian tradition that might fit a god or supernatural hero. ……... This Arthur seems to belong in a world of ‘magical realism’, set apart from the abodes of man.”1 

It is generally accepted that the case for a “historical” Arthur begins with the battle list contained in the 9th century Historia Brittonum (History of the Britons, dated AD 829/30), the earliest surviving copy found in the Harleian manuscript 3859 dated AD c.1100. A single chapter provides the earliest narrative of Arthur in which he appears as ‘dux bellorum’, commander of the armies of the kings of Britain. The Harleian manuscript is the earliest and most complete text, possibly a direct copy of the original. The archetype may well have been the “certain very ancient book in the British language” presented to Geoffrey of Monmouth by Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, which provided much of the source material for his 12th century 'The History of the Kings of Britain' (Latin: De gestis Britonum, or Historia Regum Britanniae).2

The Historia Brittonum was commonly referred to as “Nennius” following the preface in several manuscripts attributing the work to a cleric of this name who claimed to be “disciple of Saint Elved” (Elvodugus) commonly identified with Elfodd bishop of Bangor AD 755. But the assertion of Nennian authorship has largely been rejected ever since David Dumville claimed the preface to be a secondary addition, however, some scholars still argue for retention of Nennius’s authorship. 

Contained within the same manuscript and appended to the first sixty-six chapters of the Historia Brittonum is a collection of British genealogies, the Welsh Annals (Annales Cambriae), a list of the Cities of Britain (Civitates Brittaniae) and an untitled list of topographic marvels called the 'Wonders of Britain' (Mirabilia Britanniae). 

From the earliest references a figure called Arthur, we assume the same character as featured in the battle list, became attached to marvellous landscape features. Two such items are recorded in this list of ‘marvels’ or ‘wonders’ appended to the Historia Brittonum as chapters 67-76. The first marvel is the story of Carn Cabal (Cafall) a stone bearing the footprint of Arthur’s dog made when hunting the giant boar Twrch Trwyth:

1. “There is another wonderful thing in the region which is called Buelt. There is in that place a heap of stones, and one stone superposed on the pile with the footprint of a dog on it. When he hunted the boar Troynt, Cabal, who was the dog of Arthur the soldier, impressed his footprint on the stone and Arthur afterwards collected a pile of stones under the stone, whereon was the footprint of his dog, and it is called Carn Cabal. And men come and carry the stone in their hands for the space of a day and a night, and on the morrow it is found upon its pile”3 

Carn Cabal (illustration from Guest's Mabinogion)

The second records the ever changing size of the tomb of Arthur's son Amr (Anir): 

2. “There is another wonder in the country called Ergyng (Ercing). There is a tomb there by a spring, called Llygad Amr (Licat Amr); the name of the man who was buried in the tomb was Amr. He was the son of the warrior Arthur, and he killed him there and buried him. Men come to measure the tomb, and it is sometimes six feet long, sometimes nine, sometimes twelve, sometimes fifteen. At whatever measure you measure it on one occasion, you never find it again of the same measure, and I have tried it myself.”4

From this evidence as presented in the same manuscript it would appear that there were two Arthurs; a battle leader (the dux bellorum) of the post-Roman period, and a mythological figure associated with landscape features as seen in The Mirabilia. Clearly, the Arthur of The Mirabilia is at odds with the Arthur of the Nennian battle list; however, if the battle list in the Historia Brittonum was not a historical record but a legendary account then the two Arthurs become compatible.

Thomas Green has suggested that some of the entries in the Arthurian battle list have a mythological characteristic to them, arguing that a good case can be made for seeing Cat Coit Celidon (‘Battle of Coed Celyddon, the Caledonian Forest’) as the entirely mythical 'Battle of the Trees' recorded in the poem 'Kat Godeu' from the Book of Taliesin. Similarly, Green suggests the attack on the fort of Guinnon has all the appearance of an Otherworldly battle of the sort recorded of Arthur in the 8th-century (or earlier) Preiddeu Annwn. And the tenth, the ‘battle on the bank of a river which is called Tribruit’ is suspiciously similar to the Arthurian battle Traeth Tryfrwyd recounted in the poem Pa Gur? (What Man is the Gatekeeper?) in which Arthur is fighting werewolves (dogheads) and Garwlwyd who is also found in the Triads as Gwrgi Garwlwyd ('Man-dog Rough-grey') who killed one of the Cymry every day, and two on Saturday to avoid killing on Sunday. The fact that a battle from a mythical Welsh poem fought against supernatural creatures on the shore of the Tryfrwyd also appears in a so-called 'historical record' of the Historia Brittonum speaks volumes as to the author's sources and must cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the Arthurian battle list contained at Chapter 56.

There has been much debate as the dating of Pa Gur? Current opinion favours a 10th-century composition, although arguments have been forwarded for a 9th or even 8th-century origin. However, the poem clearly reflects an early mythological Arthur, fighting witches and supernatural monsters of a similar vein to the Arthur of The Mirabilia and Culhwch and Olwen. Patrick Sims-Williams suggests the poem may have been written near the south-east Welsh border, incidentally where the core of The Mirabilia are concentrated. If Sims-Williams is correct in locating the author of Pa Gur here it confirms a body of Arthurian lore was extant in this region from an early date, prior to the composition of the battle list in Historian Brittonum chapter 56.

Celtic scholar John Rhys,5 amongst others of the period, saw the primary figure as mythological from the pre-Christian Celtic world, and the leader of the sub-Roman period as a secondary development. Few Arthurian scholars would agree with Rhys today as the pendulum swings back favourably towards belief in a historical Arthur.

In a recent series of articles we have looked as evidence for a pre-Nennian Arthur, that an Arthur extant prior to the battle list of the Historia Brittonum which recorded Arthur the dux bellorum as victorious in twelve battles culminating in the battle of Badon. We find evidence for the existence of an Arthur by four individuals all so named ‘Arthur’ in the period AD 550-650.  All these individuals had links with Irish royal families in western areas of Britain but none could be considered 'THE ARTHUR' of Badon from the Historia. However, it must be noted that that the 9th century Historia Brittonum and 10th century Annales Cambriae are the first texts to associate the battle of Badon with Arthur; contemporary sources such as Gildas (later followed by Bede) failed to link the victory with Arthur.  

It is commonly believed that these four men of Gaelic descent must have been named after the memory of some military superhero from previous generations. The contemporary Welsh would not use the name ‘Arthur’ as if it carried some taboo, but this clearly did not apply to the Irish immigrants. Were these four men named after the battle leader at Badon or a surviving tradition of a mythological figure with origins in the pre-Christian world of the Celts, as envisaged by John Rhys?

To determine if Rhys was correct in arguing for a mythological primary figure we must consider which came first; the battle leader or the figure of the supernatural world? In doing so we are pitching Arthur the dux bellorum of the Historia against the Arthur of supernatural wonders of The Mirabilia.

Nicholas Higham poses the question, “If a ‘mythological’ Arthur was already the subject of storytelling in Wales when the Historia was written in 829–30, then might this be the ultimate source of the ‘historical’ figure who first appears therein? In that case Arthur’s emergence into history could be secondary to the figure of pagan mythology.”6

The case for a mythological Arthur rests on a body of Medieval Welsh literature where we find this same figure of Arthur leading a band of warriors raiding the Otherworld and stealing magic cauldrons, fighting giants, witches and hunting supernatural monsters. This Arthur was able to pass at will between the realms of myth and man; clearly this is clearly beyond the capabilities of a historical figure.

The essence of this mythological Arthur is found in the tale Culhwch and Olwen, poems such as Pa Gur? and Preiddeu Annwn, and of course The Mirabilia. Although these works are contained in later manuscripts their origins have been dated to the 9th and 10th centuries. It is significant that these early tales and poems include references to Arthur the ‘soldier’ (Latin = ‘miles’); yet this figure is a far cry from the King Arthur of Britain who becomes conqueror of Europe as portrayed by Geoffrey of Monmouth in the 12th century. In the vast majority of pre-Galfridian (before Geoffrey) texts, Arthur is involved in predominantly supernatural adventures. For this reason alone it is essential that Geoffrey’s impact on the Arthurian legend is fully appreciated and not underestimated.

The Wonders of Britain
The list of topographic marvels known as the Wonders of Britain (Mirabilia Britanniae) has been generally accepted as part of the original content of the Historia, but it is separated from the first sixty- six chapters in the earliest complete text (the Harleian MS 3859) by British genealogies, the Welsh Annals (Annales Cambriae), and the list of the Cities of Britain (Civitates Brittaniae).

The Historia has come down to us in several versions in over fifty manuscripts including, Harleian 3859, Chartres 98, Vatican Recension, Sawley Recension and even an Irish version, but unfortunately the archetype is no longer in existence. The Mirabilia does not appear in the Vatican recension but it is otherwise a near ubiquitous element of the Historia in its later recensions. Higham considers that The Mirabilia is unlikely to be of the same hand as the Historia with both the Civitates and The Mirabilia being very different in both style and purpose to the first sixty- six chapters of the Historia. Higham argues that The Mirabilia is therefore better treated as a separate text which was assimilated to the Historia.7

In most current versions of the Historia, The Mirabilia can be found as chapters 67-75, consisting of twenty marvels, immediately following chapter 66. The first mirabile listed is found at Loch Lomond in Scotland,8 however, without doubt the primary group are located in south- east Wales, the Severn valley, Ceredigion and the southern March (2–7, 9–14). Found in the midst of these is a miraculous ash tree found beside the river Wye said to bear apples (8). A further four have been appended (15–18) which are found in Anglesey with the final two relating to Ireland completing the list. 

Locations of The Mirabilia (after Higham, 2018)

In writing his chronicle of the The History of the Kings of Britain Geoffrey of Monmouth drew on many sources. It is evident from his use of certain mirabilia that he used a copy of the Historia Brittonum or the original thereof. Geoffrey has Arthur in Scotland following his victory over the Scots and Picts, in which he blockaded his enemies for a fortnight at Loch Lomond, where his companion Hoel is amazed by the sixty rivers, islands, crags, and eagles’ nests of the loch. This is a direct lift of features attributed to Loch Lomond in the Historia Brittonum. Hoel is then told about two other wonders by Arthur, which also derive directly from the Historia Brittonum. It is likely Geoffrey used these wonders simply to show some knowledge of Scotland.9 

The Historia goes South
The author of The Mirabilia seems to have drawn from existing groups of marvels in compiling his list, drawing the first four marvels, the Anglesey and the Irish items, probably from separate sources. Yet, the central group, marvels 5 to 14, are noticeably different in their presentation; each are are short individual narratives on their own merit, rather than a simple annotated list. This suggests that the author was personally acquainted with this group of marvels from south-Wales and the Marches. For example, in reference to measuring Amr ‘s tomb he claims “I have tried it myself”.10 

This bias suggests that the text originated from this area and the author likely from this area himself. Whereas it is clear that the first sixty-six chapters of the Historia Brittonum are a product of North Wales for Merfyn Frych, king of Gwynedd. Indeed, Higham sees The Mirabilia, as appended to the Harleian manuscript, as a work complete in itself and copied from a south Welsh archetype written no earlier than the mid- 950s - over a century later than the Historia.11 

Higham argues that although the genealogies attached to the Historia, as noted above, seem to derive from a north- Welsh genealogical collection, this was then “fleshed out and adapted to the needs of Dyfed’s court” in the 950s. Likewise, the Annales Cambriae were compiled in their extant form in the south, no earlier than 954. On that basis, he argues, the Harleian is best understood as a text copied from a manuscript written at St David’s in or after the mid-10th century. Higham suggests that both the Civitates and The Mirabilia are likely to have been attached to the Historia there and should be treated as independent texts written in southern Wales. He argues that it is very likely that the archetype of the Historia was limited to the first sixty- six chapters.

This is nothing new, it was suggested by Joseph Stevenson back in the early 19th century, who wrote in a the Preface to his translation of the Harleian Historia Brittonum, “The genealogies of the Saxon monarchs, and the Treatise de mirabilibus Britanniæ, formed, as we may believe, no part of the original work; but being of remote antiquity, and found in the greater number of the manuscripts, they have been inserted in the present edition.”12 

Higham concludes that, “It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the Civitates and The Mirabilia are very unlikely to have been written by the Historia’s author. If it had not come south earlier, then the Historia may have reached Dyfed with Merfyn’s great- grandson, Hywel Dda, when he became king c.904”13 

There is no reason why we should interpret Higham’s argument as dating The Mirabilia to the mid-10th century, however, we can accept the case he presents for the date The Mirabilia became attached to the Historia. As Higham points out, it is very likely that The Mirabilia was in existence in south Wales as a separate, independent text long before being appended to to the Harleian manuscript. As we have seen above Stevenson regarded The Mirabilia as “being of remote antiquity.”

In truth we do not know when The Mirabilia was first written down, however as Rachel Bromwich states, the tradition of Carn Cafall and the hunting of the Twrch Twyrth was certainly already ancient by the 9th century.14

The two Arthurian marvels are both in origin folkloric explanations of topographical features. However, Brynley Roberts suggests the specific Arthurian elements appear to be later accretions, providing evidence that “by the 9th century Arthur had become a popular hero inasmuch that folklore motifs were being attached to his name and that he was a figure of sufficient fame to attract local legends into his orbit.” 15

Roberts adds that this was a feature of the later development of the Arthurian legend and examples of Arthurian topography are widespread, however, these two Arthurian marvels (Carn Cabal & Amr’s tomb) are the earliest examples which can be securely dated. Indeed, these two Arthurian marvels bear all the hallmarks of being a direct product of their author who had first hand knowledge of the topographic folklore of south-east Wales and along the English border long before their attachment to the Historia Brittonum.16

Individually these two marvels may not provide substantial evidence for Arthurian origins but when  combined together with other evidence, such as the hunt for the Twrch Twyrth, they achieve greater significance in the study of the provenance of the Arthurian legend.

Notes & References
1. Nicholas Higham, King Arthur: The Making of the Legend, Yale University Press, 2018, pp. 149-50.
2. Geoffrey of Monmouth claims to have translated the “certain ancient book in the British language” into Latin for his History of the Kings of Britain. No doubt much of his source material was taken from the Historia Brittonum, however, the extant versions of the HB are all in Latin, not the British tongue. Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, had obtained this “ancient book” from Wales (Bern MS).
3. John Morris, ed & trans, Nennius: British History and the Welsh Annals, (Arthurian Period Sources, 8), Phillimore, 1980
4. Ibid.
5. John Rhys, Studies in the Arthurian Legend, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1891.
6. Higham, 2018, p7.
7. Higham, 2018, pp. 179–80
8. Morris, 1980; in his translation of the Historia Brittonum, incorrectly translates stagnum Lumonoy as “Loch Leven” when it should read as “Loch Lomond”.
9. Ben Guy, Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Welsh Sources, in A Companion to Geoffrey of Monmouth, Brill, pp.31–66.
10. Brynley F. Roberts, Culhwch Ac Olwen, The Triads, Saints’ Lives, In Rachel Bromwich, A.O.H. Jarman, Brynley F. Roberts, Editors, The Arthur Of The Welsh: The Arthurian Legend In Medieval Welsh Literature, University Of Wales Press, 1991 (Second Edition, 2008), p.89-90.
11. Higham, 2018, p.226
12. Joseph Stevenson, Nennii: Historia Britonum, Preface, p.xviii, 1838.
13. Higham, 2018, p.180
14. Rachel Bromwich & D Simon Evans, Culhwch and Olwen: An edition and Study of the Oldest Arthurian Tale UWP 1992, Introduction, p.lxvi.
15. Roberts, 1991, p.92.
16. Ibid.

Edited 8/12/22

* * *