The Reign of Arthur

by Christopher Gidlow

  There are three warriors mentioned in the poem, possibly described as wizards: Mabon, son of Modron, servant of Uther Pendragon; Kyscaint, son of Banon, and Guin Godybrion. Another warrior, Mabon, son of Mellt, would stain the grass with blood. Given that Modron derives from matrona (matron/mother) it could be that this is the same person as Mabon, son of Modron, with first a matronymic then a patronymic given, or they may be intended as separate warriors.

  One familiar name is mentioned. Kei hurries before ‘Rieu Emreis’ (the kings or local lords of Ambrosius). What this means is unclear. Does the writer think that Emreis is a place, Dinas Emrys, for example, or are these the ‘kings of the Britons’ among whom Ambrosius is a (great) king, as the Historia tells us? Are the Rieu Emreis the warriors of the poem, and if not are they adversaries, allies or rivals of Kei? One thing seems fairly clear: if the Black Book spelling is original, the poem must post-date Nennius, who gives Ambrosius’s name in the older form of Embreis.

  The poem breaks off in the middle of the description of Kei’s adversary, Palug’s Cat. We cannot tell how many more men were to be enumerated (perhaps Medraut, Anir and Gereint, the other names so far associated with Arthur would have featured). We never find out to whom Arthur was seeking admittance.

  For anti-Arthurians, this poem is the smoking gun. Up until this point, none of the references to Arthur seem inherently mythological. Pa gur makes no claims about Arthur, but here he seems clearly guilty by association. His companions are slayers of witches, lions and dog-heads. Arthur’s overthrow of 940 men in a single charge is seen as of like nature to the hyperbole of Kei and Beduir killing by the hundred.

  There is no denying that Arthur is in very odd company here. Manawidan ab Llyr is none other than Mannanan Mac Lir, a euhemerised Celtic sea god in the Irish Lebor Gabala. He is the title character of one of the four medieval Welsh tales called the ‘Mabinogi’. In both sources he is seen as a prehistoric figure, not a sixth-century Saxon-fighter. Mabon, son of Modron, is the most clearly mythological figure. He is the Celtic god Apollo Maponus, worshipped in pre-Christian times in the Hadrian’s Wall area. Their presence does not give us much cause to hope that Fair Kei, Lluch Windy-hand and Anguas the Winged were real inhabitants of Dark Age Britain. And the same might also be said of the man who introduces them, Arthur himself.

  The anti-Arthurian position is that Pa gur presents the mythical ‘reality’ from which a seemingly Dark Age historical figure has been spun. In this view, Arthur and his superhuman warriors are inhabitants of the timeless never-never land of the Mabinogion. These mythical fighters of lions, man-eating cats, hags and dog-headed creatures have been transposed to a historical milieu, facing the more realistic Saxons. Support for this comes from Arthur’s inflated total of kills at the battle of Badon, his hunt for the boar Troynt and his association with a marvellous tomb.

  Some of this could be cleared up by a more accurate dating of Pa gur. It should post-date Nennius, if the form Emreis is anything to go by, making it, possibly, contemporary with Annales Cambriae. If it is later than Nennius, then it cannot have influenced him.

  There is no connection between Arthur, the sixth-century leader of the Britons at the siege of Mount Badon and the figure in Pa gur. No one else in the Gododdin is a mythical superman. For the poet to say that Guaurthur was no Arthur, if Arthur was a superhuman monster-killer would surely diminish his achievement and the pathos of his passing. Arthur in the Gododdin was, from any rationale, a real person. None of the other ‘best men in the world’ feature in the poem, even though some are supposedly defenders of the Gododdin stronghold, Eidin.

  The siege of Mount Badon was not a mythical occurrence. It was a real event of the year when the equally real Gildas was born. The British commander was a real man. We would have to accept the far-fetched conjecture that the man who led the British at the battle has been forgotten, in favour of a figure of mythology. How could that have happened? Cassivelaunus features in mythical company in the Mabinogion, but no-one forgot his role as the adversary of Julius Caesar. Historia Brittonum wishes to set the record straight that Britons had a heroic past, with victories against the Saxons, and it seems odd that, among all the real characters, the writer had to pick a mythical monster-slayer to lead these campaigns. Such an inclusion would greatly diminish the effect of the history, throwing the whole concept of a British resistance into doubt.

  If Nennius did make use of Pa gur-like sources, his use of them would defy explanation. The chronological placing would be arbitrary. With no Saxons or other historical opponents, the poem gives no clues as to the date it is supposed to be set. Historia Brittonum covers the whole of British history from the Trojan War to the seventh century. If the writer simply wanted to include a local hero, surely we would have expected to find his monster-slaying exploits in the distant past, not in an era covered by other historians.

  The ambience of the Historia and the poem is completely different. In the Historia, Arthur is a Christian warlord, fighting against pagans. His companions are the kings of the Britons. Nennius shows no knowledge of his wonderworking companions. If Arthur could be given a spurious historical career, why not Kei, Beduir and the others? The Historia’s battle locations are generally obscure, while Pa gur has chosen familiar ones like Edinburgh and Anglesey. All indications are that the background of Pa gur is not that drawn on by the Historia, if such legendary material even existed at that time.

  It is far more plausible that Arthur the warleader acted like a magnet, attracting to his banner legendary characters from different mileux. We know this process continued through the Middle Ages. Culhwch and Olwen, for example, places legendary Irish characters among his men. If Arthur is equally a mythical character, why must he play a secondary role to the other legendary warriors? It was a poet of limited imagination who could only think of Arthur ‘playing’ or distributing gifts. The legendary material, clearly, featured Kei and the other ‘best men in the world’ attached here to Arthur.

  Before the tenth century, Arthur appeared as a more or less lone character. His manpower is provided by the kings of the Britons. Any idea that he has a famous warband of his own is absent. However, in Gereint, we see, with the poet, the ‘brave men of Arthur’. Did he mean the ‘best men in the world’, the legendary warriors accompanying Arthur? Was he numbering Gereint among them, figuratively perhaps, rather than placing him historically in the late fifth or early sixth centuries? Witnessing the heroic accomplishments of Gereint, the poet might feel he is seeing again feats such as those attributed to Kei and the other ‘brave men of Arthur’.

  Everything indicates that it is the superhuman warriors who are an accretion to the Arthur story. There is no description of them in any source composed before the Black Book poems. Even the most ‘mythological’ construction it is possible to put on the Historia Brittonum battle-list, that Arthur killed 940 men single-handedly, leaves no space for the supermen of Pa gur.

  Pa gur shows the direction the Arthurian legends are to take. Arthur is relegated to the background, while heroic champions dominate the picture. The brave men will emerge decisively into Welsh legend in the first Arthurian prose tale which survives, Culhwch and Olwen.

  Spoils of the Otherworld

  Another poem cited in favour of the ‘mythological Arthur’ is found in the Book of Taliesin. Some of the Taliesin poems concern Urien Rheged and his son Owain, figures from late sixth-century northern Britain. They may be the work of the historical Taliesin, given as a contemporary of Neirin in Historia Brittonum. Other works in the book have a mythological bent. They date from the early Middle Ages, and are generally considered more recent than the Black Book. One of the poems is Arthurian. It is called Preideu Annwfyn – the booty of the otherworld. Dates for this range from the late ninth century to the early twelfth century. As with all the Welsh materials, dates for composition are continually being revised. Here, an early date would suit the idea that Arthur was primarily mythological and that famous French romances like t
he Holy Grail derived from partially discernible Welsh originals. A later date would prove the reverse. For argument’s sake, we will assume it pre-dates Culhwch and Olwen.

  Preideu Annwfyn is told in the first person. The poet takes on the persona of Gwair, singing before the spoils of Annwfyn. He is held prisoner in Caer Sidi, bound by a heavy gold chain ‘according to the tale of Pwyll and Pryderi’. As Caer Sidi means ‘Fairy Fort’, we assume some otherworldly location.

  Gwair sings: ‘Three loads of Prytwen we went there. But for seven, none returned from Caer Sidi.’ Later he sings: ‘Three loads of Prytwen, we went on the sea.’ From this it is generally inferred that Prytwen is a ship in which Gwair and his companions sailed. If that is the case, the writer implies a shuttle service, ferrying the companions to the otherworld in three batches, which seems unlikely. The companions went together to Caer Sidi, in which case ‘the fullness of Pytwen’ is used as a measure of how many men went on the expedition, presumably far more than seven. Perhaps the capacity of Prytwen was a known bardic image, three times which would be a large number, of which seven would be a significant small fraction. For example, if the capacity of Prytwen were taken as 70, three times this would be 210, meaning that one man in 30 had survived. It does not, however, necessarily imply that all the men actually travelled in Prytwen.

  In Culhwch and Olwen, Prytwen is said to be Arthur’s ship, probably a direct inference from Preideu Annwfyn. Geoffrey of Monmouth, apparently from an older source, gives Pridwen as the name of Arthur’s shield. In as far as it means ‘white face’, and that the shields of the Gododdin and the other early poems are white, this seems rather more likely than ‘ship’. I think it possible that Arthur is understood in the poem to be a giant. The Dream of Rhonabwy is explicit that Arthur is gigantic, and in Preideu Annwfyn, he takes the part of Bran in the Mabinogi, who is so large that no ship can hold him. The capacity of his shield could be described by a poet as being able to hold many men.

  Through the poem runs the refrain ‘save seven, none returned from . . .’. Unless Gwair had the misfortune always to take part in disastrous expeditions with the same result, the verses all refer to the same adventure, with synonyms given for the otherworldly fortress. Gwair says that his song is heard in Caer Pedryvan (four-cornered) which must be the same as Caer Sidi, where he is imprisoned. It is later called the staunch door of the island, implying, as does the sea voyage, that the castle is on an island. The poem makes it clear that Arthur leads the expedition. ‘And when we went with Arthur, a famous toil, save seven none returned from Caer Vedwit [drunkenness]’, ‘but for seven, none returned from Caer Rigor [numbness]’, ‘Three loads of Prytwen went with Arthur, save seven none returned from Caer Golud [obstruction]’ and so on, with the name given as ‘Caer Vandwy’, and Caer Ochren’ (meanings unknown).

  What happened on the expedition is not clear. The poet sings of various objects and phenomena (the speckled ox, the lost grave of a saint) but whether to demonstrate an episode on the quest, his wide knowledge, or the inscrutability of the universe is impossible to tell. Two episodes stand out. In one we learn: ‘Beyond Caer Wydyr [glass] they could not see Arthur’s valour, the three-score hundred men who stood on the wall. It was difficult to speak to their watchman.’

  More comprehensibly, the first incident concerns the Chief of Annwfyn’s cauldron. This is warmed by the breath of nine maidens and will not boil the food of a coward. This seems to be the booty of the otherworld, as no other objects apart from the ox’s collar are referred to. ‘Lluch Lleawc’s sword was raised for it and in a keen hand it was left.’ He might be defending or seizing the cauldron. Either way, only he, Arthur and Gwair are named in connection with the expedition.

  Lluch is a familiar name from the early poems (there is another one in the Stanzas on Graves). Whether we are to understand that there was one character with various surnames or that there are several Lluchs distinguished by their surnames is uncertain. No more than one Lluch is named in each poem, making the latter less likely. Although Arthur is said to be the leader, he takes no part in the action. Instead, a great warrior performs amazing feats, here connected with the cauldron of Annwfyn.

  We can easily demonstrate that the story has no necessary connection with Arthur. The story of Pwyll and Pryderi exists. It is found in the four branches of the Mabinogi preserved in the early fourteenth-century White Book of Rhydderch, alongside explicitly Arthurian tales. Fragments of it are known earlier still, in a manuscript, Peniarth 6, written c. 1225.

  The story of Pryderi is spread unevenly through the Mabinogi. He is born in the first ‘branch’, the son of Pwyll, Lord of Dyfed, known as the Chief of Annwfyn because he once swapped places with the King of Annwfyn for a year. The magic cauldron features in the second branch, here connected not with Annwfyn but with Ireland. The British sail across the Irish sea, led by their gigantic King Bran, who has to wade. Although the Britons are victorious, only seven survive to return with their wounded king. Bran is so badly wounded that his body has to be amputated, his head staying alive for the next eighty years. Of the seven who return, one is Pryderi, another Manawydan, son of Llyr (the heroes of the next branch) and a third, Taliesin himself, presumably to tell the tale. Pryderi is killed in the fourth branch and buried in North Wales (his tomb is mentioned in the Stanzas on Graves). The tales are set in pre-Roman times.

  Although some details of Preideu Annwfyn are not repeated, the Mabinogi cover the same story of Pwyll and Pryderi which the poem gives as its source. In prose the story has no Arthurian elements at all. It is inconceivable that Arthur was removed from a tale which originally featured him, in the early thirteenth-century heyday of the Arthurian legends. It is far more likely that the poet has grafted Arthur on to pre-existing material relating to Pryderi. It is another example of the ‘best men in the world’ being attached to the figure of the pre-eminent warleader.

  Proof that the legendary material in Preideu Annwfyn existed independent of any connection with Arthur is found in Historia Brittonum. Early in the book, the writer presents an account of the settlement of Ireland: ‘Three sons of Miles of Spain [or ‘a soldier of Spain’] came with thirty keels between them and thirty wives in each keel . . . they saw a glass tower [turris vitrea] in the midst of the sea, and saw men upon the tower, and sought to speak with them, but they never replied . . . [one ship was wrecked] the other ships sailed to attack the tower . . . the sea overwhelmed them and they were drowned, and not one escaped [save] the crew of that one ship that was left behind because of the ship-wreck’ (HB 13).

  This is, effectively, the story found in Preideu Annwfyn: the glass fort beyond the sea, the guards on the wall, the difficulty in talking to them, the tiny number of survivors. If the capacity of Prytwen were seventy, then the ratio of survivors-to-slain would be identical. The Taliesin poet has added the Arthurian context to a story which in the early ninth century existed without it. In this case, we have the evidence to show that Arthur is not the mythological hero of an assault on the otherworld, inserted into real history. The process here is unarguably the reverse; a poet has plucked Arthur from a historical context and added him to a legendary tale. The Taliesin poet would have had an easy job doing this if he knew Historia Brittonum. All that was needed to make the Glass Tower episode Arthurian was to change the hero from ‘Militis Hispaniae’ to ‘Arthuri Militis’, as he is described in the Mirabilia.

  The process is the same as in Pa gur: legendary warriors, the ‘best men in the world’, Gwair, Llwch, Pryderi, have become ‘brave men of Arthur’, bringing their exploits with them. The process of accretion to Arthur becomes abundantly clear in the first surviving prose legend – Culhwch and Olwen.

  ‘How Culhwch Won Olwen’

  Culhwch and Olwen appears in the White Book of Rhydderch and, slightly updated, in the later Red Book of Hergest. Its language and content date it to the tenth or eleventh century, and for argument’s sake we will accept the earlier date favoured by its most recent editors, Bromwi
ch and Evans. It cannot go back much further than this because of its dependence on the Black Book poems.

  The story is a display of virtuosity and wide knowledge. On a frame similar to the classic tale of Jason and the Argonauts are hung several encyclopaedic compilations of legendary knowledge. Culhwch, son of Kilyd, son of Kyledon Wledic (the ruler of Caledon), is cursed by his wicked stepmother never to wed except to Olwen, daughter of Chief Giant Yspadaden. The giant is a homicidal maniac armed with poisoned stone spears who needs mechanical aid to raise his enormous eyelids. He sets Culhwch a series of impossible tasks to complete before he can marry Olwen. Culhwch succeeds, Yspadaden is killed and the couple wed and live happily ever after.

  Culhwch taunts the giant after each task is set: ‘That will be easy for me to get, though you think it will not be easy’, and reveals why at the end of the episode: ‘my lord and cousin Arthur will get everything for me’. This must have come as a shock to the giant as many of his ‘impossible’ tasks involved securing the cooperation of Arthur’s men. For instance ‘Arthur and his companions must come and hunt [the boar] Twrch Trwyth, for he is a powerful man, yet he will not come for he is under my thumb’.

  The reference to Twrch Trwyth, the boar Troynt from the Mirabilia, is an indication of the writer’s erudition. He can be assumed to know most of the material we have already covered. He is not necessarily an independent witness to the traditions he relays.

  After setting out Culhwch’s birth and curse, the author turns to Pa gur. In his version, the hero Culhwch comes to Arthur’s court. He asks the question: ‘Is there a porter?’, and is answered by Glewlwyt Gavaelvawr. Glewlwyt recites a catalogue of strange faraway places, including Caer Oeth and Anoeth. Arthur lists his own inviolate possessions but it is left to Culhwch to enumerate the warriors of Arthur.