Monday, August 24, 2026

THE FATHERLESS WELSH ARTHUR AND THE CASE FOR AEDAN OF DALRIADA'S SON AS 'THE' ARTHUR

Dunaverty Castle, Kintyre

The other day I was having an engaging conversation with Dr. Ken Dark regarding his new book TRADERS AND TYRANTS: TINTAGEL, ARTHUR AND THE LOST KINGS 
(https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/tyrants-and-traders-9781350519411/). In this title, Dr. Dark reiterated the argument he first presented in "A Famous Arthur in the Sixth Century? Reconsidering the Origins of the Arthurian Legend", Reading Medieval Studies (Volume 26, 2000, pp. 77–95).  In both works he very tentatively identifies the Arthur of the HISTORIA BRITTONUM and the ANNALES CAMBRIAE as Arthur son of Pedr of Dyfed, backdated to fit in with the Badon of Gildas.

What I came back with in our discussion was this:

If Arthur is son of Pedr, why the subterfuge when it comes to our HB/AC man? Why does Arthur in ALL THE WELSH MATERIALS always lack a patronymic? We don't find Uther attached to him until Geoffrey of Monmouth.  I've shown Uther Pendragon to be a Welsh rendering of the Latin military terms used to describe St. Illtud, and that Uther himself was then identified with the terrible warror of the COMPART MONGAN, allowing for the incorporation of the Arthur birth story.  

So if Arthur doesn't have a father, who is he?  Must we settle on the early 3rd century L. Artorius Castus?

We would think that someone, somewhere, certainly would have corrected the Uther fiction - would have, in fact, screamed to the heavens - that Arthur was Pedr's son.

Instead, Arthur consistently has no patronymic. Not in the poetry, not in the saints' lives, not in stories - nowhere. In constrast, characters in his orbit all have patronymics.

How do we find our way out of this predicament?

Well, there is an oddity in the Dalriadan royal genealogies which Bannerman discussed, but never really resolved satisfactorily, in my opinion: Artur of Kintyre is given two fathers.

Artur son of Conaing son of Aedan son of Gabran son of Domangart son of Fergus

Artur son of Aedan son of Gabran son of Domangart son of Fergus

Conaing is an early version of the Irish rendering of the Old English word for "king", cyning.  According to Bartrum, we find this borrowing in Welsh as well.  From his A WELSH CLASSICAL DICTIONARY:

"CYNIN. See also Conigc, Cunin, Cynan, Cynon.
Anglo-Saxon cyning, ‘king’, yielded Welsh Conigc Cynin, and Irish Conaing. See OP II.421,
LBS II.262, F.J.Byrne, Irish Kings and High Kings, 1973, pp.111-2."

So, what if we do something like this:

Conaing, wrongly thought to be a personal name, was originally merely a title used by the English for Aedan, inserted into an alternate Dalriadan genealogy.

Could Conaing then have been taken by the Welsh as the noun "king" and so Arthur "son of the king" lost his proper patronymic? And that such was only to be supplied by Geoffrey of Monmouth much later in his fictional history?

If we might allow this, THE Arthur, who lacks a patronymic everywhere prior to Geoffrey, was actually Arthur son of Aedan "the king".

Okay, that's well and fine as a loose idea, but can we tighten it up any?

Perhaps so.

I've done extensive work recently on Arthur's Camlan battle, and have been able to make a couple of potentially valuable new observations.  First, I've been able to show that the AC 537 year entry for Camlan accords with year entries in the Irish Annals that contain the death of Comgall son of Domangart of Dalriada.  I was, to say the least, surprised that no one seems to have considered this unusual, given that we have a historical Dalriadan Arthur.  The Irish entries were even stranger, though, when one remembers that a later Domangart, brother of the Dalriadan Arthur, is said to fall together with that Arthur in battle.

As if that were not enough to cast doubt on the 537 entry, there was another very off-putting element present in the AC account: the death of Medraut.  I was able to demonstrate that the death of Comgall son of Domangart in 537 was re-entered in an Irish annal for 545, where it was paired with the same plague mentioned in the AC Camlan entry.  This pointed to the Gallic St. Medard, who died in this year at Noyens, the ancient Noviomagus.  Medard is easily metathesized to Medrad. There were two Noviomagus places in Britain, one at Crayford and one at Chichester - both scenes of battles in the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE.  The eponymous Cissa, founder of Chichester, is said to have fought at a Cymenesora on Selsey Bill near Chichester, and I've shown how Cymenesora can easily have been brought into accord with the Welsh Camlan.

At the time, that's really all I could do with the mess that was the AC 537 Camlan entry.

But then I remembered that I had done another piece on the Welsh Camlan at its localization in NW Wales:


The idea was pretty simple: that the Afon Gamlan was chosen as the battle-site because it was on the Afon Mawddach.  The Mawddach, in turn, derived from a root word or name Mawdd.  With the help of noted Brythonic place-name expert Alan James, it became apparent that the etymology for and meaning of Mawdd could be related to that of the Maeatae/Miathi.  According to Irish sources, Artur son of Aedan was said to have died either in Circenn or while fighting the Miathi.  

It thus appeared to me that the Afon Gamlan on the Mawddach was a relocation of the Northern Miathi battle.

The Irish sources also have varying accounts of when Artur's brother Domangart died.  I would refer my readers to John Bannerman's STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF DALRIADA for details, but essentially Domangart is said to have died with Artur, but also with Bran, who is thought to have perished in a separate battle with the English.  

Now, Artur son of Aedan's death is said to have happened sometime between 590-596, but probably in 590, according to Bannerman.  The same scholar thinks Bran died fighting the English in 598.  

A backdating of the Miathi battle in 590 to the AC's 537 or 545 means we are looking at a gap of 53 or 45 years, respectively.  If we use the actual annal date of 596, we have a gap of 59 or 51 years.

Just for fun, I decided to use 598 as a starting point.  That yields a 61 year gap.  If we take that 61 one years and add it to the AC Badon entry of 516, we arrive at 577.  That is the year, according to the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE, that the Gewissei defeated the Britons at Dyrham and took the city of BaĆ°anceaster or Bath. I'm found of citing Graham Isaac's extensive treatment of the name Badon, which strictly from the linguistic point of view must represent a purely British reflection of Old English Bathum.  

Before anyone makes a big deal about that last revelation, let me be quick to say that while it's an interesting numbers game, it's not a necessary piece of my argument regarding Artur son of Aedan as THE Arthur.  It is enough for us to demonstrate that it looks as if the Welsh may have backdated Arthur's death to fit Gildas' Badon battle fought c. 500 and that they relocated the fatal Miathi battle to NW Wales.

If this is what happened, where does that leave the Arthurian battles of the HB (minus Badon) and my belief that these belong properly to L. Artorius Castus?

Well, the Arthur name, which is a British version of Roman Artorius, entered the Dalriadan house when Aedan married the niece of a British king. A daughter of Aedan was named Maithgemma, the Irish name for bear, so it is possible Arthur was chosen for a son because the Britons believed it contained their word for bear, 'arth' (Irish 'art').  Or the opposite may have been the case. Best guess makes this British king out to be Rhydderch of Strathclyde.  The Artorius name had to come from somewhere, and my guess is that the Britons at Alclud had a folk memory of a great Roman hero who had been a part of the Emperor Septimius Severus' devastating war against a couple tribal confederations of Northern Britain.  Castus, if I'm right about the reading of ARM.GENTES on his memorial stone, went against the Maeatae and the Caledonii.  I've always remarked on the similarity of this possibility with the Irish claim that Artur son of Aedan died fighting the Miathi.  In my treatment of the HB battles, I opt for Dunipace as the Bassas, a site directly between two hillforts of the Miathi.

It is entirely possible that Artur son of Aedan was a mercenary captain, maybe even a sort of federate in the old Roman sense.  He might well have fought all the HB battles in the North.  Or he fought some of them (we know Aedan and has sons fought against the English more than once) and the others were drawn from legendary encounters featuring Castus.  But at least this scenario allows us to narrow down the Arthurian battles to just two historical candidates.

Arthur son of Pedr of Dyfed would then not be hard to explain.  As with Dalriada, the Dyfed dynasty originated with an Irish tribal group, in the latter case the Deissi.  Any famous half-British half-Irish Dalriadan Arthur may well have had his name become popular enough to be picked up by the Dyfed royal family.  It is true that both dynasties had strong equine affinities
(see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2026/01/stones-and-horses-on-reaching-final.html), and these may have contributed to the use of the name.  So might the presence in the Deissi pedigree of an Artchoirp.

The hypothesis floated above has the advantage of helping us understand how the famous Arthur could have lost his patronymic, and it allows us to have a valid historical candidate (or two) for that Arthur.  




Posted by at No comments:

Monday, July 20, 2026

A POSSIBLE ASTRONOMICAL CORRESPONDENCE FOR ARTHUR'S SWORD IN THE ANVIL

Orion's Sword


Dr. Linda A. Malcor and John Matthews have recently published a new book on the Arthurian motif of the sword in the anvil (not sword in the stone!).  This book was just discussed on Richard Johnson's wonderful O'R GOLWG YouTube channel:


Unfortunately, in the co-authors' attempt to trace the mythological nature of the sword in the anvil, they neglected to closely examine the context in which that motif is found in the Arthurian tradition.

Elsewhere, I have shown some of the sources that may have contributed to the sword in the anvil story (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2026/04/the-non-mystery-of-arthurs-sword-in.html).  But I had not delved into any possible astronomical significance of the story for many years, having been dissatisfied with earlier efforts to do so.  

I now feel, though, that is often the case, any underlying astronomical symbolism, while in a sense profound, may not be that complicated. 

Robert de Boron first recounts the story in his MERLIN romance.  There we learn the following:

Kay is knighted on All Hallows or 1 November (the old pagan Samhain).  

The sword first appears at Christmas, 25 December (close to the winter solstice).

The next drawing and replacing of the sword happens at Candlemas on 2 February (1 February having been the pagan Imbolc).

The next drawing and replacing happens at Easter, which can fall on various dates between 22 March and 25 April.

The final drawing of the sword - with it not being placed back in the anvil - happens at Pentecost, which depending on the date of Easter can fall between 10 May and 13 June.

Now, various writers on the subject have chosen to emphasize the medieval significance of the Christian liturgical year with its round of festivals.  And it is true that holy days were often selected for medieval knighting and coronation ceremonies.  

However, what about the possibility that Arthur's sword was related to Orion's weapon?  This may seem on the surface a silly idea, but note below what Orion does during the year when viewed from the latitude of London:

Beginning in October at 51.5°N latitude (the latitude of London, Calgary, and Voronezh), the Orion constellation shifts into its late-night and early-morning viewing window, transitioning from a pre-dawn feature into a classic evening winter fixture. 

At 51.5°N latitude (the latitude of cities like London, Calgary, or Berlin), Orion the Hunter returns to the evening sky in early November, rising in the east-southeast at approximately 9:00 PM local time. By mid-to-late November, it emerges even earlier, becoming clearly visible by 8:00 PM.

At 51.5°N latitude (such as London, UK), Orion is highest in the southern sky around midnight in mid-December. Because the Earth's orbit shifts the constellation earlier by two hours each month, you can see it highest around 10 p.m. in mid-January, 8 p.m. in mid-February, and 6 p.m. in mid-March.

At 51.5° N latitude (the latitude of London, Calgary, and Voronezh), the constellation Orion dominates the southern sky during prime evening hours at the beginning of February. 

At 51.5° N latitude (the latitude of London, UK, and southern Canada), Orion is visible low in the southwestern sky at sunset during Easter, quickly sinking and setting due west by mid-evening. Because Easter occurs in early spring (late March to mid-April), Orion is ending its winter-long dominance of the northern night sky.

At 51.5° N latitude, Orion completely disappears from the evening sky in late April to early May. As spring progresses, the constellation sinks lower into the western horizon and becomes entirely lost in the sun's evening glare.Throughout May and June, Orion is positioned directly behind the Sun from Earth's perspective, making it completely invisible. It remains hidden from the night sky until late July or early August, when it finally reappears just before dawn in the eastern sky.

If we overlap the sword in the anvil's dated events with the movement of Orion's sword, we have this:

1) Kay is knighted when Orion first becomes prominent in the evening sky.

2) The sword first appears in the churchyard at midwinter, when Orion is at its highest in the southern sky around midnight.

3) The sword is drawn and replaced at the beginning of February when Oriion dominates the sky.

4) The sword is drawn and replaced as Orion is beginning to lose dominance in the sky.  

5) At Pentecost (if falling in early May), Arthur draws the sword for the last time, as it disappears in the sky and cannot be returned to the anvil (i.e. it does not set back into the earth).

This arrangement of the sword in the anvil story in accordance with an easily observable celestial phenomenon seems preferable to the tenuous connections Malcor and Mathews have sought to attach to the Arthurian motif.  




Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, July 9, 2026

SULIS OF BATH AND SULIS OF CASTENNEC: A STRANGE CORRESPONDENCE INVOLVING ST. GILDAS

Castennec Hill (ancient Sulis/Sulim), Oppidum of the Osismii


Hermitage of St. Gildas at Castennec

Whenever we treat of Brittany it is important we bear in mind that it was subject to heavy migration from Britain in the 5th-6th centuries.  And this means that traditions and place-names could be brought from the latter island to the Gallic pennisula.

Still, I appear to have discovered (?) something odd about a well-known Gildas/Gueltas site in Morbihan.

According to legend, in 538 Gildas and a companion monk found an oratory or hermitage in a cave next to Castennec.  Why is this interesting?  Well, Castennec Hill is accepted as the location of a Sulis or Sulim hilltop fortification, thought to be an oppidum of the Osismii tribe.  The name is this hillfort preserves the goddess name Sulis, who was the tutelary deity of Aquae Sulis in Britain.

There are a great many Websites that discuss this location and St. Gildas' connection with it.  What follows is just a quick sampling:











Now, the British Aquae Sulis became known as Bath to the English, and our best linguists are sure that Gildas's Badonicus = Bathum. [1] The same is true of the later Welsh form of the name, Caer Faddon.  This is so despite an apparent traditional identification of Badon in the Welsh Annals and The Dream of Rhonabwy with the Liddington Badbury, something I've written about elsewhere in considerable detail.  The has always existed the possibility that a Badon/Bathum could have been confused at some point with the Baddan- of Baddanbyrig.  Or vice-versa.

What I'm a bit surprised about is that no one seems to have suggested (?) that given a Gildas at a Sulis site - a site on a fortified hill - that it is quite possible the Bath name from the British Aquae Sulis had at some point in the transmission through the centuries of Gildas's RUIN OF BRITAIN been transferred to the Breton Sulis location.  This would have been a fairly natural legendary development, I would think.  And if this is the way Badonicus came to be, then the original site of the Badon battle was neither Bath nor Badbury in Britain, but Castennec Hill in Brittany.  

I've before suggested that the English name Bathum may have been used in preference to the pagan-charged Sulis.

We may recall that Brittany, like Britain, had been subjected to heavy Saxon raids.  And, indeed, during the later Roman period Armorica comprised the Tractus Armoricanus et Nervicanus under the command of a dux responsible for defending the peninsula against seaborne Germanic invaders. Saxons were the chief foe.

On the map at the top of the page we can see another interesting name next to Gueltas and Castennec - Gamblen.  While the etymology of this place-name is not the same as that of the Camlan of Welsh sources (my research, not yet confirmed, shows it to be from the same initial element, meaning 'crooked', but a second derived from the Celtic word *lindo- for 'pool'), it is interesting to find such a river-bend name so close to what may have been the original Badon hillfort.

Some time ago I had written about an unusual Breton "Badon" place-name in the same region:


When I wrote that piece I had no idea about the presence of the nearby Sulis oppidum.

There is really no "safe" conclusion to draw from all this.  To begin with, the identification of the Breton St. Gueltas and St. Gildas has always been somewhat suspect.  And, again, we have the problem of British immigrants bringing their own place-names and traditional histories or folktales into Brittany.  But it is hard to ignore the obvious correspondence that exists between two confirmed ancient sites dedicated to the worship of Sulis and their connection with St. Gildas.  

[1]

Dr. Graham Isaac with an authoritative discussion of the Badon place-name (via personal correspondence):

"Remember in all that follows that both the -d - in Badon and the -th- in OE Bathum are pronounced like th in 'bathe' and Modern Welsh - dd-. Remember also that in Old English spelling, the letters thorn and the crossed d are interchangeable in many positions: that is variation in spelling, not in sound, and has no significance for linguistic arguments.

It is curious that a number of commentators have been happy to posit a 'British' or 'Celtic' form Badon. The reason seems to be summed up succinctly by Tolstoy in the 1961 article (p. 145):

'It is obviously impossible that Gildas should have given a Saxon name for a British locality'.

Why? I see no reason at all in the world why he should not do so (begging the question as to what, exactly, is the meaning of 'British locality' here; Gildas is just talking about a hill). This then becomes the chief crutch of the argument, as shown on p. 147 of Tolstoy's article: 'But that there was a Celtic name ‘Badon’ we know from the very passage in Gildas under discussion'.

But that is just circular: ' "Badon" must be "Celtic" because Gildas only uses "Celtic" names'. This is no argument. What would have to be shown is that 'Badon' is a regular reflex of a securely attested 'Celtic' word. This is a matter of empirical detail and is easily tested; we have vast resources to tell us what was and was not a 'Celtic' word. And there is nothing like 'Badon'.

So what do we do? Do we just say that 'Badon' must be Celtic because Gildas uses it? That gets us nowhere.

So what of the relationships between aet Bathum - Badon - Baddanbyrig? The crucial point is just that OE Bathum and the Late British / very early Welsh Badon we are talking about both have the soft -th- sound of 'bathe' and Mod.Welsh 'Baddon'. Baddanbyrig, however, has a long d-sound like -d d- in 'bad day'. Both languages, early OE and Late British, had both the d-sound and the soft th-sound. So:

1) If the English had taken over British (hy-pothetical and actually non-existent) *Badon (*Din Badon or something), they would have made it *Bathanbyrig or the like, and the modern names of these places would be something like *Bathbury.

2) If the British had taken over OE Baddanbyrig, they would have kept the d-sound, and Gildas would have written 'Batonicus mons', and Annales Cambriae would have 'bellum Batonis', etc. (where the -t- is the regular early SPELLING of the sound -d-; always keep your conceptions of spellings and your conceptions of sounds separate; one of the classic errors of the untrained is to fail to distinguish these). 

I imagine if that were the case we would have no hesitation is identifying 'Baton' with a Badbury place. But the d-sound and the soft th -sound are not interchangeable. It is either the one or the other, and in fact it is the soft th -sound that is in 'Badon', and that makes it equivalent to Bathum, not Baddanbyrig. 

(That applies to the sounds. On the other hand there is nothing strange about the British making Bad-ON out of OE Bath -UM. There was nothing in the Late British/early Welsh language which corresponded to the dative plural ending - UM of OE, so it was natural for the Britons to substitute the common British suffix - ON for the very un-British OE suffix -UM: this is not a substitution of SOUNDS, but of ENDINGS, which is quite a different matter. That Gildas then makes an unproblematic Latin adjective with -icus out of this does not require comment.)

To conclude:

1) There is no reason in the world why a 6thcentury British author should not refer to a place in Britain by its OE name.
2) There was no 'British' or 'Celtic' *Badon.
3) 'Badon' does not correspond linguistically with OE Baddanbyrig.
4) 'Badon' is the predictably regular Late British / early Welsh borrowing of OE Bathum.

Final note: the fact that later OE sources occasionally call Bath 'Badon' is just a symptom of the book-learning of the authors using the form. Gildas was a widely read and highly respected author, and Badon(-is) (from Gildas's adjective Badon -icus) will quickly and unproblematically have become the standard book-form (i.e. pri-marily Latin form) for the name of Bath. Again, all attempts to gain some sort of linguistic mileage from the apparent, but illusory, OE variation between Bathum and Badon are vacuous."





Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, July 7, 2026

BADON WAS FOUGHT IN BRITTANY, NOT IN BRITAIN?

NOTE: Since working on this piece, I've proposed a new etymology for Baden, Morbihan, Brittany: Breton bodenn, 'harbor'. This may be for Port Blanc or the Port de Larmor-Baden.  I do not think there is a problem with a form Baden, found relatively late (13th century).  The real question is whether Gildas' Badon - supposedly in England - could have influenced the spelling of an earlier Bodenn.  Or, as is equally possible, Badon is a misrendering of Bodenn and the battle in question was fought not in Britain, but in Brittany or Little Britain.  




Baden Commune, Morbihan

For a very long time now, historians have been stymied or nonplussed by the short passages in Gildas on Ambrosius Aurelianus and Badon:

After a certain length of time the cruel robbers returned to their home. A remnant, to whom wretched citizens flock from different places on every side, as eagerly as a hive of bees when a storm is threatening, praying at the same time unto Him with their whole heart, and, as is said, burdening the air with unnumbered prayers, that they should not be utterly destroyed, take up arms and challenge their victors to battle under Ambrosius Aurelianus. He was a man of unassuming character, who, alone of the Roman race chanced to survive in the shock of such a storm (as his parents, people undoubtedly clad in the purple, had been killed in it), whose offspring in our days have greatly degenerated from their ancestral nobleness. To these men, by the Lord's favour, there came victory.

tempore igitur interueniente aliquanto, cum recessissent domum[38] crudelissimi praedones, roborante deo reliquiae, quibus confugiunt undique de diuersis locis miserrimi ciues, tam audie quam apes alueari procella imminente, simul deprecantes eum tot corde et, ut dicitur, innumeris ‘onerantes aethera uotis’, ne ad internicionem usque delerentur, duce ambrosio aureliano[40] uiro modesto, qui solus forte romanae gentis tantae tempestatis collisione occisis in eadem parentibus purpura nimirum indutis superfuerat, cuius nunc temporibus nostris suboles magnopere auita bonitate degenerauit, uires capessunt, uictores prouocantes ad proelium: quis uictoria domino annuente cessit.

26. From that time, the citizens were sometimes victorious, sometimes the enemy, in order that the Lord, according to His wont, might try in this nation the Israel of to-day, whether it loves Him or not. This continued up to the year of the siege of Badon Hill, and of almost the last great slaughter inflicted upon the rascally crew. And this commences, a fact I know, as the forty-fourth year, with one month now elapsed; it is also the year of my birth.

26. ex eo tempore nunc ciues, nunc hostes, uincebant, ut in ista gente experietur dominus solito more praesentem israelem, utrum diligat eum an non: usque ad annum obsessionis badonici montis[41], nouissimaeque ferme de furciferis non minimae stragis, quique quadragesimus quartus[42] (ut noui) orditur annus mense iam uno emenso, qui et meae natiuitatis est.

I came to realize after considerable research that Ambrosius Aurelianus was a strange, conflated version of the prefect of Gaul of that name and his son and namesake, St. Ambrose.  I've written a considerable amount on this subject, and have confirmed (at least to my satisfaction) that the A.A. who appears in Britain, later under the Welsh guise of Emrys, is a complex folklore figure.  One of my better pieces on this can be found here:


I was thinking along these lines the other day when it occurred to me that as the prefect of Gaul might well have been involved in Brittany or Little Britain, and Gildas himself was present on that peninsula.  The Rhuys Peninsula of the Breton Gildas, as it happened, is very close to a Baden* place-name.  In the Baden commune is actually found an ancient church dedicated to St. Gildas.  The Baden place-name itself traces back to the 13th century and is of unknown etymology.

For some good links on Baden, see the following:



Baden - Baden

Baden , in Breton Baden , remains unexplained.

The oldest known spelling - in 1430 - is Badan , which we find in the year 1430 in the archives of the chapter of Vannes.

HervƩ Abalain, professor at the UBO, would lean towards an anthroponym. No relation with the Baden of our Germanic neighbors has been demonstrated.



Shows  back to the 13th century.





Etymology :

* Dauzat and Rostaing (1978): " Badan , 1430; obscure ".

* Erwan Vallerie (1995): " Baden , 1267; Baden , 1304; Baden , 1387; Badan , 1430; Baden , 1453; Baden , 1516; Badain , 1731"

* Ɖditions Flohic (1996): " It remains obscure and debated because the connection with the Anglo-Saxon name has not been demonstrated ."

* HervƩ Abalain (2000): " Baden , anthroponym only "


St. Gildas in Baden.


Note 1 : au village de MoustĆ©rian ou MoustĆ©ran, on remarque quelques vestiges qui passe pour ĆŖtre ceux d'une chapelle de saint Gildas. C'est lĆ , dit-on, que se serait embarquĆ© saint Bieuzy (blessĆ© Ć  mort et se rendant chez l'abbĆ© de Rhuys) dont la "vie" a Ć©tĆ© Ć©crite qu'en 1659. Il est fort possible qu'il y ait eu Ć  cet endroit un Ć©tablissement monastique dĆ©truit par les Normands au XĆØme siĆØcle.

In the village of MoustƩrian or MoustƩran, we notice some remains that are believed to be those of a chapel of Saint Gildas. It is said that it was there that Saint Bieuzy embarked (mortally wounded and on his way to the abbot of Rhuys), whose "life" was only written in 1659. It is quite possible that there was a monastic establishment here, destroyed by the Normans in the 10th century.

From Professor Matthieu Boyd I have this (personal correspondence):

Short answer to an etymology: no.

The answer from 1803 is that it means "baths" like the German towns in -bad: "Pour les villes de Baden en Suabe, en Suisse, en Bretagne, personne n'ignore que c'est de bad bain, qu'elles ont pris leur nom" (p. 49 in the "Belles-Lettres" section at https://www.google.com/books/edition/M%C3%A9moires_de_l_Acad%C3%A9mie_royale_des_scie/zH_NAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq).

But that seems like that's probably overreach. There are places in Brittany with "bath" names, from Latin balneus, but those are all Bain in French, Baen in Breton, e.g. Bain-de-Bretagne.

HervƩ Abalain, Noms de lieux bretons (Jean-Paul Gisserot, 2000), in contrast to the "Bain" names gives "Baden" as:

- Baden (56 [=Morbihan]), Baden (anthroponyme seul)

I don't have Albert Deshayes' placename dictionary here to check what he says.

Rosenzweig's topographical dictionary of the Morbihan (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Dictionnaire_topographique_du_d%C3%A9parteme/jcsFAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1, p. 4) says the name goes with a creek of the same name and was attested as Badan in 1430.

Now, something that we have overlooked when it comes to Gildas in Britain and in Brittany is the very real possibility that the movement of tradition from one place to the other may have been transmitted in either direction. What I mean by that is that a tradition of a battle near where a St. Gildas was in Brittany could have at any time been transferred in story to Britain.  I'm talking about a sort of migrating legend here.  The difference between a spelling like Badan and Badon may be important for modern linguists, but it was of negligible significance for ancient hagiographers and chroniclers.  Non-standardized spelling was pretty much the rule of the day, in fact, in many instances.  Of course, it is possible Baden in Morbihan was identified with a similarly spelled place in Britain, i.e. one of the Bath or Badbury place-names. 

Sure, it is possible that this Baden name has been transported from Britain to Brittany, and plunked down amidst Gildas sites because, well, it was Gildas' Badon.  But that seems rather unlikely to me.  Especially given that his A.A. was in Gaul, of which Brittany was a part.  Not in Britain.

However, the Breton specialists cannot make anything out of this Baden. In short, it does not look like a Breton place-name at all.  That fact lends support to the idea that an immigrant from Britain brought it to Brittany and intentionally applied to to a region ripe with Gildas sites. 

But, if we do have both an Ambrosius Aurelianus and a Badon in Brittany, not Britain, then I have no hestitation in saying that Arthur's name has merely been attached to the battle site because he was a famous legendary British hero.

AND WHAT MIGHT THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ARTHUR'S CAMLAN?

I feel the same lack of confidence regarding Arthur's Camlan.  For one, if he were attached to a Badon battle dated traditionally c. 500-520, then his death-date at Camlan may well have been fudged to accord with Badon.  We know Dyfed was at war with its Gwynedd neighbors to the North from early on (and, in fact, later struggles between the two regions is enshrined in the tale MATH SON OF MATHONWY).  It is quite credible that an Arthur who dies at the Afon Gamlan/Camlan might actually be Arthur son of Pedr of Dyfed.  The chronological adjustment would not have been difficult to make, especially given that the war-leader of the Camlan entry is not provided with a patronymic. 

In fact, I will go further with this: Medraut/Modred is from L. moderatus.  There is a very interesting Welsh word that conveys the same meaning:

GPC

pwyllus 

[pwyll1+-us] 

a.

Pwyllog, a chanddo’r gallu i wneud penderfyniadau cyfrifol, doeth, cymedrol, rhesymol, synhwyrol, dwys, call, meddylgar, ystyriol; gochelgar, gofalus, hamddenol, araf:

•  characterized by deliberation, discreet, wise, moderate, rational, sensible, grave, prudent, thoughtful, considerate; cautious, careful, leisurely, slow. 

This brings to mind the famous Pwyll Lord of Dyfed, hero of the Mabinogion story.  Pwyll's son, Pryderi, is said to have conquered Ystrad Tywi and Ceredigion.  

It would be fitting if Arthur son of Pedr of Dyfed died fighting with a warrior/chieftain whose Latin name had been chosen as a deckname for the mythical Pwyll. 

I had earlier come up with an idea for Camlan as a reflection of the death of Arthur of Dalriada in battle against the Miathi:


While that is a possibility, it still leaves us with the problem of the Dalriadan Arthur fighting the Miathi, which itself looks to be a folk memory of L. Artorius Castus fighting the Maeatae.

And, indeed, the profound skepticism with which I now view both Badon and Camlan in an Arthurian context has me perilously close to seeing the HB Arthurian battles - excepting Badon, of course - as a perfect campaign list for L. Artorius Castus under Severus and Caracalla.  More and more, I'm seeing the great Arthur of the HB as a ghost of an early 3rd century dux of British legions sent against the Maeatae and the Caledonii.  A ghost whose name was taken by Irish coming into Britain centuries later, Irish who were intent on making themselves as British - and as Romano-British - as possible. 

To have that, I must opt for my own proposed reading of ARM(ATAS) GENTES for the lacuna of the Castus memorial inscription. 

*
My friend and fellow Arthurian enthusiast/independent scholar Chris Gidlow has notified me that the Baden site has been discussed before in 'Will the Real King Arthur Please Stand Up' by Ronald Miller.  Thus I did not originate this idea.  
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, July 6, 2026

Ambrosius Vs. Vitalinus, Son of Vitalis and St. Ambrose With the Two Vitalises

The Martyrdom of Saint Vitalis by Federico Barocci

I once tried to make a case for Vitalis, father of the Vitalinus who supposedly fought Ambrosius at Wallop, being either a Latinization of the AS personal name Fitela, found in a place-name close to Amesbury, or that Fitela may have contributed to a Vitalis being located in the region:


At the time, I did not have the benefit of being able to access some wonderful source materials which appear to show that Fitela was, indeed, Latinized.  These sources (the URLs of which are supplied below) record instances of Vitalis being used for Fittleton and similar place-names elsewhere in England.

I asked Dr. Richard Coates about the matter.  What follows is our discussion on the subject:

Richard,

The older place-name books all give an OE Fitela for Fittleton in Yorkshire. But I find some excellent recent sources giving L. Vitalis...

Any idea which is right?



Fitela could be a (weak masculine) adaptation of Vitalis, but only after Latin [w] had become [v] in a Western Romance language. [v] >> [f] presents no problem in OE, because early <f> may well often represent  [v]. But the date of first usage is critical.

So Fitela is more likely, later being Latinized as Vitalis. Correct?

Possibly.

When I was exploring the Fitela-Vitalis connection, I had missed something, however.  For it turns out that St. Ambrose (who, apparently, was conflated with his Gallic prefect father of the same name) had to do with not just one, but two saints named Vitalis.

In the first instance, Ambrose was involved in the translation of relics of a St. Vitalis of Bologna.  But it is the second Vitalis who is more interesting.  He was a saint of Ambrose' own Milan who was martyred in Ravenna by being tossed into a well (L. puteus).  See



pŭtĕus, i, m. (neutr. collat. form of the plur. pŭtĕa, ōrum, Varr. ap. Non. 217, 4) [root pu-, to cleanse; whence also purus, putus, purgo],
a well: puteum fodere, Plaut. Most. 2, 1, 32 (379): ex puteis jugibus aquam calidam trahi, Cic. N. D. 2, 9, 25; id. Div. 1, 50, 112: virgines se in puteos abjecisse, id. Prov. Cons. 3, 6; Plin. 9, 25, 41, § 80; 37, 9, 43, § 127; Plin. Ep. 2, 17, 25; 5, 6, 25: putei perennes, Hor. Ep. 1, 15, 15: puteum vitare patentem, id. ib. 2, 2, 135 et saep. —Of a cistern, Auct. B. Alex. 5 fin.—Prov.: in puteum conicere, to throw away, Petr. 42, 7.—
Transf., a pit, Verg. G. 2, 231; for storing grain in, Varr. R. R. 1, 57, 2; in mines, a pit, shaft, Plin. 33, 4, 21, § 68; 33, 6, 31, § 95; an air-shaft, air-hole, Vitr. 8, 6; a dungeon for slaves, Plaut. Aul. 2, 5, 21 (347); 2, 7, 3 (365); Col. 1, 6.

His sons, Gervasius and Protasius, were later exhumed by St. Ambrose.  Another set of saints - Celsus and Nazarius - are also dug up by Ambrose.  I have elsewhere associated this with the motif of Emrys digging up the two cinerary urns at Dinas Emrys. 

It is the martyrdom by being deposited in a well that here should concern us.  Why?  Because of the accepted etymology of Ambrosius's Wallop battle site.

Wallop is from the AS and means "valley of the well/spring". Hence Geoffrey of Monmouth's 'springs of Galabes' of his Merlin-Ambrosius story.

From Bosworth and Toller on the place-names first element:

willa
noun [ masculine ]

willa, wella, wylla, an. ; m.
A well, spring, fountain (lit. and fig.)

So, the placement of Vitalinus, son of Vitalis at Wallop looks to be yet more fraudulent history in the HB, as well as being more evidence for Ambrosius being Continental and of the 4th century, not of the 5th century.




Posted by at No comments:

Friday, June 26, 2026

EMBREIS GULETIC, MABON AND THE RED DRAGON OF WALES

A Double Urn Cinerary Burial

Having just written this piece on Emrys and Mabon -


- I felt I should tie up the loose ends with a closer look at the origin of the Red Dragon of Dinas Emrys.  While I'll felt fairly confident about my findings on this subject for many years now, a sort of summary was long overdue.

The story of the Red Dragon as found in the HISTORIA BRITTONUM is as follows:


iterum puer ad magos dixit “proferte
mihi quid est in stagno.” et siluerunt et non potuerunt reuelare illi. et ille
dixit illis “ego uobis reuelabo. duo uasa conclusa sunt in eo. et sic
inuenietis.” uenerunt et uiderunt sic. et puer ad magos dixit “quid in uasis
conclusis habetur?” at ipsi siluerunt et non potuerunt reuelare illi. at ille
asseruit “in medio eorum tentorium est. separate ea et sic inuenietis.” et
rex separari iussit et sic inuentum est tentorium complicatum sicut dixerat.
iterum puer interrogauit magos eius “quid in medio tentorii est? etiam
nunc narrate.” et non potuerunt. et dixit puer “duo uermes sunt in eo,
unus albus et alter rufus. tentorium expandite.” et extenderunt et duo
uermes dormientes inuenti sunt. et dixit puer “expectate et considerate
quid faciant uermes.” et coeperunt uermes ut alter alterum expelleret;
alius autem scapulas suas ponebat ut eum usque ad dimidium tentorii
expelleret, aliquando usque ad oram tentorii pellebat. et sic faciebant
tribus uicibus. tamen tandem infirmior uidebatur uermis rufus, et postea
fortior albo fuit et extra finem tentorii expulit. tunc alter alterum secutus
trans stagnum est et tentorium euanuit.

Again, the boy said to the wizards “Tell me what is in
the pond.” And they were silent and could not tell him. And he said to
them “I shall tell you. Two vessels are contained in it. And you will find it
so.” They came and saw it was so. And the boy said to the wizards “What
is held in the sealed vessels?” And they were silent and could not tell him.
But he declared “There is a tent in the middle of them. Break them and
you will find it so.” And the king ordered them to be broken, and so a
folded tent was found, just as he had said. Again, the boy asked his
wizards “What is in the middle of the tent? So tell me now.” And they
could not. And the boy said “There are two worms in it, one white and the
other red. Unfold the tent.” And they unfolded and two sleeping worms
were found. And the boy said “Watch and think about what the worms will
do.” And the worms began, one to push out the other; the other, though,
placed its shoulders so that it could push it to the half of the tent,
sometimes it drove it right to the door of the tent. And they did this on
three occasions. However, eventually the red worm appeared the weaker
but afterwards was stronger than the white and pushed it from the
bounds of the tent. Then one chased the other across the pond and the
tent vanished.

Emrys interprets this marvel as follows:

regni tui est figura tentorium. duo uermes duo dracones sunt. uermis rufus draco
tuus est et stagnum figura huius mundi est. at ille albus draco illius gentis
quę occupauit gentes et regiones plurimas in brittannia et pęne a mari
usque ad mare tenebunt. et postea gens nostra surget et gentem
anglorum trans mare uiriliter deiciet. 

The tent is a symbol of your kingdom. The two worms are two dragons.
The red worm is your dragon and the pond is a representation of this
world. But that white dragon is of that people that has occupied peoples
and many regions in Britain and will control it almost from coast to coast.
And afterwards, our people will rise up and manfully throw the people of
the English across the sea.

Now, I have a great many articles treating of this folktale. A couple important ones are provided here:



Along with a good recent article on serpents in the Roman lararium:


In brief, what we have in the Dinas Emrys story is Emrys causing to be excavated two cinerary urns.  Inside the urns are the cloth-wrapped bone remains of cremated warriors or chieftains (i.e. "dragons"). The use of the word tent (tentorium) may be a confusion for the pall (L. pallium) that could be draped over the urns. Red and white were traditional colors for Otherworld animals in Welsh tradition and I've discussed before the red and white sexual dimorphism of the Common European Viper in Britain.  After the discovery of the urns the story veers in another direction. The two dead dragons ("sleeping" is a metaphor for death in this context) are associated with the frequently paired snakes of the Roman lararium.  These creatures themselves have been linked to the geni loci, protective spirits of places.  And from there it was an easy step to make one into the genius loci of the British and the other the protective spirit of the Saxons.  

But the real question is why Emrys is the one who reveals the two geni loci at Dinas Emrys?

Well, if I'm right and the historical Ambrosius (himself a conflation of the Gallic prefect and his saintly son) was also combined with Mabon, we need only remember that Mabon was identified in the Roman period with Apollo.  And what was Apollo most famous for?

He slew the Python, a great serpent-dragon who guarded the sacred omphalos at Delphi in Greece.  And what was the omphalos? The symbolic center of the world.   As the guardian of this place, the Python served the function of a genius loci. 

In Britain, the omphalos was Stonehenge at Amesbury, transferred in legend to Dinas Emrys in Gwynedd.

Perhaps the most important conclusion from all of this is that the Red Dragon of Wales does not represent a relic of the Roman draco, a conclusion we might draw from the account of Uther's standard in the pseudo-history of Geoffrey of Monmouth.  Instead, it quite plainly stands for the genius loci of the British people.  Monmouth's fable is due entirely to his misinterpreting the Pendragon epithet.  To him, the term meant 'the Dragon's head.'  In reality Pendragon means either 'Chief-warrior' or 'Chief of warriors' (Bromwich, TRIADS). The attempt to then relate Uther's draco standard to the Sarmatian dragon standard is misplaced.  For not only had the draco in the Late Roman period become a "standard" standard (if my readers will permit the bad pun) for the entire army, but there is, in fact, absolutely no evidence for a draco existing among the Sarmatians (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/02/there-is-absolutely-no-evidence-for.html).



Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, June 25, 2026

Oengus Mac Og of Bri Liath/Leith and Embreis Guletic of Campus Elleti: A Further Examination

Hill of Uisneach

Many years ago I pointed out that the story of Emrys ( = Ambrosius, 'the divine/immortal one') shared an important motif with that of the Irish youthful god, Oengus Mac Og.  Here are the two relevant passages on these characters, drawn from the British and Irish sources:

From the "Historia Brittonum":


[§41] Following the advice of his wizards, the king sent envoys through the
whole of Britain to find a child without a father. And examining all the
provinces and many regions, they came to the Field of Elletus, which is
in the region that is called Gleguising. And some boys were playing a
game of ball; and, look, two were arguing among themselves and one said
to the other “O man without a father, you will have nothing good.” But
they carefully asked the boys about the boy, and asking the mother if he
might have a father, she denied it and said “I do not know how he was
conceived in my womb. But I know one thing: that I have not ever known a
man.” And she swore to them that he did not have a father. And they led
him away with them up to King Guorthigirn and brought him before the
king...

And the king said to the youth “By what name are you called?” He replied 
“I am Ambrosius,” that is he was seen to be Embreis Guletic. And the king said 
“From what family are you sprung?” And he, “My father is one of the consuls 
of the Roman people.”And the king gave him the citadel with all the provinces 
of the western zone of Britain. 

From "The Wooing of Etain":


2. The Dagda meanwhile brought his son to Midir's house in Bri Leith in Tethba, to be fostered. There Aengus was reared for the space of nine years. Midir had a great playing-field in Bri Leith. Thrice fifty lads of the young nobles of Ireland were there and thrice fifty maidens of the land of Ireland. Aengus was the leader of them all, because of Midir's great love for him, and the beauty of his form and the nobility of his race. He was also called in Mac Oc (the Young Son), for his mother said: "Young is the son who was begotten at the break of day and born betwixt it and evening."

3. Now Aengus quarreled with Triath son of Febal (or Gobor) of the Fir Bolg, who was one of the two leaders in the game, and a fosterling of Midir. It was no matter of pride with Aengus that Triath should speak to him, and he said: "It irks me that the son of a serf should hold speech with me," for Aengus had believed until then that Midir was his father, and the kingship of Bri Leith his heritage, and he knew not of his kinship with the Dagda.

4. Triath made answer and said: "I take it no less ill that a hireling whose mother and father are unknown should hold speech with me." Thereupon Aengus went to Midir weeping and sorrowful at having been put to shame by Triath. "What is this?" said Midir. "Triath has defamed me and cast in my face that I have neither mother nor father." "Tis false," said Midir. "Who is my mother, from whence is my father" "No hard matter. Thy father is Eochaid Ollathair," said Midir, "and Eithne, wife of Elcmar of the Brug, is thy mother. It is I that have reared thee unknown to Elcmar, lest it should cause him pain that thou wast begotten in his despite." "Come thou with me," said Aengus, "that my father may acknowledge me, and that I may no longer be kept hidden away under the insults of the Fir Bolg."

5. Then Midir set out with his fosterling to have speech with Eochaid, and they came to Uisnech of Meath in the center of Ireland, for 'tis there that was Eochaid's house, Ireland stretching equally far from on every side, south and north, to east and west. "Before them in the assembly they found Eochaid. Midir called the king aside to have speech with the lad. "What does he desire, this youth who has not come until now?" "His desire is to be acknowledged by his father, and for land to be given to him," said Midir, "for it is not meet that thy son should be landless while thou art king of Ireland." "He is welcome," said the Eochaid, "he is my son. But the land I wish him to have is not yet vacant." "What land is that?" said Midir. "The Brug, to the north of the Boyne," said Eochaid. "Who is there?" said Midir. "Elcmar," said Eochaid, "is the man who is there I have no wish to annoy him further."

6. "Pray, what counsel dost thou give this lad?" said Midir. "I have this for him," said Eochaid. "On the day of Samain let him go into the Brug, and let him go armed. That is a day of peace and amity among the men of Ireland, on which none is at enmity with his fellow. And Elcmar will be in Cnoc Side in Borga unarmed save for a fork of white hazel in his hand, his cloak folded around him and a gold brooch in his cloak, and three fifties playing before him in the playing-field; and let Aengus go to him and threaten to kill him. But it is meet that he slay him not, provided he promise him his will. And let this be the will of Aengus, that he be king for a day and a night in the Brug; and see that thou not yield the land to Elcmar till he submit himself to my decision; and when he comes let Aengus plea be that the land has fallen to him, and that he in fee simple for sparing Elcmar and not slaying him, and that what he had asked for is kingship of day and night, and" said he, "it is in days and nights that the world is spent."

7. Then Midir sets out for his land, and his foster-son along with him, and on the Samain following, Aengus having armed himself came into the Brug and made a feint at Elcmar, so that he promised him in return for his life kingship of day and night in his land. The Mac Oc straightway abode there that day and night as king of the land, Elcmar's household being subject to him. On the morrow Elcmar came to claim his land from the Mac Oc, and therewith threatened him mightily. The Mac Oc said that he would not yield up his land until he should put it to the decision of the Dagda in the presence of the men of Ireland.

8. Then they appeal to the Dagda, who adjudged each man's contract in accordance with his undertaking. "So then this land accordingly belongs henceforth to this youth," said Elcmar. "It is fitting," said the Dagda. "Thou was taken unawares on a day of peace and amity. Thou gavest thy land for mercy shown thee, for thy life was dearer to thee than thy land, yet thou shalt have land from me that will be no less profitable to thee than the Brug." "Where is that?" said Elcmar. "Cleitech," said the Dagda, "with the three lands that are round about it, thy youths playing before thee every day in the Brug, and thou shalt enjoy the fruits of the Boyne from this land." "It is well," said Elcmar; "so shall it be accomplished." And he made a flitting to Cleitech, and built a stronghold there, and Mac Oc abode in the Brug in his land.

This interesting correspondence between Emrys and Oengus took on a new importance when I learned that Gileston in Glamorgan, which was just across the River Thaw from the Elleti place-name (more on this below; for I will rest content with relaying the Book of Llandaf's description, which situates Elleti between the Penmark estate and the River Thaw), had originall been called the Church of Mabon in the Vale (Bro, or the Vale of Glamorgan). 

St. Giles Church, Gileston

Now the Mabon saint at Gileston was quite possibly a Christianized version of the god Mabon, possibly being presented originally as a sort of nickname for Christ as the Divine Son of God.  But the proximity of the name to Elleti did not seem to be a coincidence.  Especially as the Welsh PA GUR poem has Mabon as one of the raptors of Elai, i.e. the Ely River just to the east of Penmark.  So, quite literally, Elleti was sandwiched between two locations sacred to Mabon.  

Mabon, of course, is often viewed as the Welsh equivalent of the Irish god Mac Og, "Young Son."

We should notice that Oengus is taken from Bri Leith (or Liath) to the Hill of Uisneach. This is also known as the Hill of Killare and is the location from which Geoffrey of Monmouth claims the stones of Stonehenge near Amesbury were taken by his Merlin Ambrosius.  Thus when we read the HISTORIA BRITTONUM story we know that Dinas Emrys in Eryri/Snowdonia is a relocation of Amesbury.  And this makes sense, as we know the HB also has Ambrosius/Emrys as Wallop in Hampshire not far to the SE of Amesbury.  We can assume, then, that what was given to Emrys was not western Wales, but lands west of Amesbury.  Dinas Emrys itself probably replaced Vespasian's Camp hillfort at Amesbury. 

This still leaves open the question of why the story was relocated to Dinas Emrys in Gwynedd.  And, certainly, what appears to be an identification of Emrys with Mabon complicates the actual historical nature of Ambrosius, whom I've shown in other contexts to be a folk conflation of St. Ambrose and his father, a 4th century prefect of Gaul.

I once proposed that Vortigern had been, in the usual folkloris sense, linked falsely to Magnus the Tyrant, who had met with St. Ambrose at Aquileia.  Now while Aquilea is not said to derive from the Latin word for eagle - aquila - it may well have been associated with that word.  The same was true of Eryri, the mountainous region wherein Dinas Emrys is found.  This name does not, in fact, come from the W. eryr, 'eagle', but the presence in Nantlle of the god Lleu as death-eagle may well suggest that common belief interpreted Snowdonia as being named for eagles.  If so, then Magnus the Tyrant and St. Ambrose at Aquileia may well have been transported in story to Eryri.  

The same process might tell us why Emrys was at Elleti.  While this last is a campus or plain in the HB, in the Book of Llandaf we find it as a palud, i.e. a "a swamp, marsh, morass, bog, fen, pool" (palus via Lewis and Short). This suggested to be the Continental Arelate, capital of Magnus the Tyrant, a Gaulish place-name meaning "by or next to [Are-) the marsh" (cf. W llaid and llaith in the GPC).  Elleti may also have been fancifully linked to Oengus Mac Og's Bri Leith/Liath. 

But while this supplies us with part of the rationale we need for explaining why Emrys was placed at Dinas Emrys, there may well be more to the story. This is especially true is I'm right about Emrys 'the Divine/Immortal One' being conflated with Mabon son of Modron.

We possess a 'Stanza of the Grave' that places the grave of Mabon the Swift, son of Modron, in Nantlle - yes, the same place where Lleu (another sun god) is found dead in eagle form.  Did the Welsh identify Lleu and Mabon?  Possibly; see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/11/lleuelys-and-dragons-of-dinas-emrys.html.  What we do know is that in Welsh tradition Lleu is made Lord of Gwynedd in much the same way Emrys is later said to take on that role.  

For the best recent discussion of this particular stanza, I quote the entire section from THE MEDIEVAL WELSH ENGLYNION Y BEDDAU THE ‘STANZAS OF THE GRAVES’, OR ‘GRAVES OF THE WARRIORS OF THE ISLAND OF BRITAIN’, ATTRIBUTED TO TALIESIN, Edited and Translated from the Black Book of Carmarthen and Other Manuscripts, with an Archaeological, Historical, Linguistic, and Literary Commentary by PATRICK SIMS-WILLIAMS:

III.16 Mabon son of Madron in Nantlle, Crn.

W Y Bedd y gorthir NanllaĆ»*
ni wyr neb i gyneddvau
Mabon vab Madron glau.
*an crudely formed, resembling cm, em, im; Ć» altered from n.

N Y bedd ygorthir NanllaĆ»
Ni wyr neb i gyneddvaĆ»
Mabon vap Madron glaĆ»

T Y Bedh yngorthir nanllaĆ» ny wyr nep y gynnedhfeĆ»
Mabon vap madron glaĆ».*
*a altered to e in different ink.

Y bedd y gorthir Nanllav
ni wyr neb i gyneddfav
Mabon vap Mydron* glav
*y altered from a.

B Y bed yngorthir* Nanįø·au
89 Ni uyr neb i gyneįøfau+
Mabon vap Madron glau.
*o deleted between h and i. +y over c or beginnings of an a.

Index col. 3 Mabon ab Madron bd at Nant Ī»ay. – 87.

To make 7 syllables in line c Bedd could be supplied before Mabon, as suggested by
Thomas Jones, comparing Series IV; but perhaps the 6-syllable lines are effectively
dramatic as they stand in both cases.295 The four manuscripts of Series III are in basic
agreement in this stanza. The variants of the proper names given in the Myvyrian
Archaiology text derive from late misreadings and emendations. Cwm Llau in line
a is first found in NLW 2020ii, 91v, where it is Ieuan Fardd’s rationalisation of Ncm
lhaƻ296 in the copy of W in NLW 1506, Book III, 73r. Mydron in line c originates with
the alteration of a to y by P, which was followed by the derivatives of P, including Dr
Davies in Peniarth 98ii. The only other occurrence of this Mydron outside derivatives
of P is, as far as I know, ‘Mabon am Mydron’ in the poem Pa gur in the Black Book
of Carmarthen.297 This is probably the source of P’s emendation, for a transcript of
it, with the reading mydron, appears earlier in the same manuscript (Peniarth 111, p.
54), just before Series I on p. 56. The variant Modron first appears in another text of
Series III by Evan Evans in NLW 2040, p. 155, which is ultimately derived from P.
It is probably an emendation of Mydron made in the light of the regular form of the
name, which is Modron.
Mabon and his mother Modron are the well-attested characters in Culhwch
and Olwen and elsewhere, generally supposed to be euhemerised Celtic divinities,
Maponos and *Mātrŏna.298 The form Madron here looks like a corruption of Modron
(< Mātrŏna) under the influence of the name Madrun (< VL Mătrōna), the name of a
Welsh saint.299 Influence from the adjective madron ‘dizzy’ is also possible.
NanllaĆ» is Nantlleu in Arfon (SH 5053), colloquially Nanlle/Nanlla, which plays
a prominent part in the Four Branches in the story of Lleu, who is clearly its eponym
there.300 No Welsh literary source associates Mabon with this area, and there are no
known dedications to Maponos here or in any other part of Wales. A Rhiwabon (SH
4841) in Llanystymdwy, Crn., about seven miles south of Nantlleu, is presumably
from *Rhiwfabon,301 and it is possible that Moel Faban in Llanllechid (SH 6368),
on the other side of Eryri, also contains the name Mabon,302 perhaps assimilated to
maban, baban, ‘baby’. As Mabon occurred as an ordinary Brittonic personal name,
however,303 the original eponyms of Rhiwabon and Moel Faban need not be Mabon
ap Modron. Yet they may have got associated with him subsequently, which might
lead to the localisation of stories about Mabon in Gwynedd. There is a prominent
Carn Fadryn/Fadrun304 in LlÅ·n (SH 2735), which may have influenced the corruption
to Mabon vab Madron in the englyn. A rare hint of a possible association between
Modron and Arfon comes from the Arfon poet Gruffudd ap Tudur Goch of Dinlle (fl.
1352), who alludes obscurely to gwlad Gwydion (Arfon?) and Modron (MS medron),
in two adjacent lines.305
In the French romance Le Bel Inconnu and its Middle English version Libeaus
Desconus, an enchanter Mabon (ME Maboun) appears as the oppressor of the ‘citĆ© de
Sinaudon’, which is clearly somewhere in Snowdonia.306 Roger Loomis identified it
with Segontium, the Roman site near Caernarfon (Caer Saint, SH 4862), but there is
no solid evidence for this,307 and Leland, listing ‘Castelles in Cair Arvonshire’, refers
to what is clearly the hillfort (SH 7604 7784) on Conway mountain308 as ‘Sinnodune
a mile from Conwey. The fundation of a greate thing yet remayne there’.309 While it
is possible that the association of Mabon and Snowdonia is part of the development
of the Mabon story outside Wales,310 it may have been taken over from a Welsh
tradition about Mabon which is also reflected in the grave-stanza. The appearance
of ‘Rey mabun’ among the titles of lost French lays in a thirteenth-century list from
Chester311 shows that more material about Mabon circulated than now survives.
There are a number of early remains, including a small Iron Age fort, in the
Nantlle area which may have been associated with Mabon.312 In 1849 John Jones
(‘Cilmyn’), rector of Llanllyfni, stated that the remains ‘of Mabon, on the uplands of
Nanlley, were discovered in an urn, imbedded in a carnedd, near a Druidical circle’,
and in 1853 he referred to
the grave of Bedwin the Brave, on the sloping side of Moel Tryfan, and that of Mabon
the son of Madron, further on, on the uplands of Mantlef [sic], both of which were
accidently discovered a few years ago imbedded in a carnedd.
The same year, he expanded this report:
On the uplands of Nantllef several Druidical remains were to be seen a few years ago,
which, together with the grave of Mabon, have disappeared under an accumulation of
refuse from the slate quarries, and an interesting circle of upright stones sacrilegiously
appropriated towards the erection of fences, and for other agricultural purposes. Between
these uplands and Caernarvon Bay may be seen the slopes of Tryfan … .313
This is geographically vague, and the forms of the proper names are based on those
in Peter Bailey Williams’s translation of Englynion y Beddau, to which he refers. It
must be regarded as very doubtful whether the carneddi referred to were traditionally
known as the graves of Mabon and Bedwyr.
In early Welsh story, cynneddf (line b) is frequently used to refer to the magical or
supernatural attribute or peculiarity of an object, place, or person.314 The peculiarities
of graves and tumuli are a common feature of the mirabilia genre. The author of the
englyn probably has in mind such things as the graves which change size or remove
lethargy in the mirabilia section of the Historia Brittonum, §§73–74, the gorsedd at
Arberth in the Four Branches,315 and the Irish graves which cause onlookers to laugh
aloud.316 By ‘ni wyr neb i gyneddfav’ he presumably means either that no one knows
all the properties Mabon’s grave may have, or that the grave may be presumed to
have special properties, even though no one in fact knows what they are. Perhaps the
reason for this remark is that already in Welsh tradition Mabon was regarded as a
magician, as in foreign romance.

Translation

The grave in the upland of Nantlleu
whose attributes no one knows
(is the grave of) Mabon son of Modron the swift.

Dinas Emrys (SH 6049) and Nantlle are only half a dozen
miles apart – and note that the lands of Beddgelert Priory reached as far north as the
headwaters of Dyffryn Nantlle at Drws-y-coed (SH 5453)...

I would add only that according to the MABINOGION tale "Math Son of Mathonwy", the god Lleu become ruler of all Gwynedd, much as it would appear Emrys does in the HISTORIA BRITTONUM.  

The 'clau' or "swift" epithet supplied for Mabon in this stanza may also be significant.  I say this because I've successfully identified the famous - but long lost - fortress of Caer Dathal with Dinas Emrys (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/01/dinas-emrys-as-caer-dathal-late.html).  My identification of the two forts relies on Dathal, a presumed Irish name containing a stem meaning 'swift', lying behind the Latin Celeritas, which we find preserved as Celert/Gelert at Beddgelert hard by Dinas Emrys.  Could Mabon's 'swift' epithet have been linked to these other two names?

All of this became even more seriously muddled when Geoffrey of Monmouth decided to bring his northern Myrddin (as Merlin) down to Eryri and identify him with Emrys of Dinas Emrys. I've written extensively on the nature of Myrddin.  While he does have Lleu attributes, and I once considered him a sort of human avatar of the god, eventually I came to the conclusion that his characteristics as they are found in the earliest Welsh sources and Irish analogs suggested a deified spirit of a warrior slain in battle (or one who perished through a goddess produced battle-panic).  For only a few of my pieces on this possibility, see 
https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/05/myrddin-cult-of-dead-vs-cult-of-saints.html,
https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/03/myrddin-llallawgllallogan-gwyllon.html,
https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/05/st-martin-and-myrddin-christian-saint.html and
https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2023/02/merlin-aka-myrddin-sans-geoffrey-of.html.






Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, June 6, 2026

THE ARGUMENT AGAINST CASTUS IN 160S ARMENIA


"At this time, moreover, came the Parthian war, which Vologaesus planned under Pius⁠ and declared under Marcus and Verus, after the rout of Attidius Cornelianus, than governor of Syria.⁠ And besides this, war was threatening in Britain, and the Chatti⁠ had burst into Germany and Raetia.  Against the Britons Calpurnius Agricola⁠ was sent..."


The argument for L. Artorius Castus, prefect of the Sixth Legion at York, leading British legionary vexillations to Armenia in the 160s can be summarized as follows:

1) The British governor Priscus is sent to Armenia to command the army there.
2) ARMENIOS does fit in the lacuna on Castus' memorial stone.
3) The preferred date of the stone allows for the early Severan period (although barely).
4) Shortly after the victory in Armenia, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus militarily reorganize Dalmatia as a buffer zone between Italy and the invading Marcomanni. This reorganization could account for the formation of Castus' province of Liburnia.

I once thought this a very strong case in support of the Armenian theory. But I no longer hold to that view. Many of the reasons why I changed my mind have been expressed elsewhere. In this piece I wish to concentrate on one overlooked fact: the condition of Roman Britain just before and right after Priscus's brief tenure as governor of the province.

The British governors during the period in question are as follows (from A. Birley's THE ROMAN GIVERNMENT OF BRITAIN):

JULIUS VERUS 

"His governorship of Britain is datable to 158 by the Ravenglass diploma and
the inscription from Birrens, north of the western end of Hadrian’s Wall. As
the diploma was issued in February, he must have arrived in Britain at latest in the previous year. But it could well have been even earlier. The inscription from Newcastle reveals the arrival, under Julius Verus, of soldiers from each of the three British legions, who had been ‘contributed to the two German armies’. Coins of 155 show ‘Britannia subdued’, suggesting that there had been military problems there.⁴⁸ What they were is not clear, but it is surely preferable to discount supposed evidence in Pausanias (8. 43) for hostile action by the Brigantes involving an attack on the (otherwise unknown) ‘Genunian district’.⁴⁹ At any rate, it seems likely that Verus, as governor of Lower Germany, was well placed to bring back to Britain men who who had been serving in Germany, perhaps to use their skills at frontier construction at a time when the limes in Upper Germany was being extended to the outer line.⁵⁰ He may have been appointed to deal with the trouble after only a short stay in
the Rhineland. The epigraphic record of his activity extends from the southern Pennines, at Brough-on-Noe, to the outpost fort at Birrens, north of the western end of Hadrian’s Wall. He was also active at Corbridge. Another inscription, not mentioning his name, is dated by the consuls of 158 to his governorship, and records rebuilding work on Hadrian’s Wall itself.⁵¹ The archaeological evidence from the Antonine Wall indicates that it was evacuated at about this time—for good: the second Roman occupation of Scotland had thus lasted at
the most for some eighteen years. Verus’ successor may have completed the withdrawal and one or two outposts may have been retained.⁵² One of his legionary legates, of VI Victrix, was probably Q. Camurius Numisius Junior, who took up the post after commanding another legion, which can be interpreted as an appointment to deal with a crisis (LL 28). Measures taken by Verus or his immediate succcessors may have included the following, all datable to the ‘mid-Antonine period’: the abandonment of all or most of the
Cumbrian system of towers and milefortlets; further replacement of the western, turf part of Hadrian’s Wall in stone; the construction of the ‘Military Way’ as a lateral road just south of the Wall, with a new bridge across the North Tyne at Chesters (Cilurnum); and perhaps also over the Irthing at Willowford; a new fort on the wall at Newcastle (Pons Aelius); the rebuilding of that at South Shields at the mouth of the Tyne; a bridge over the Tyne at Corbridge (Coria); and perhaps new forts at Chester-le-Street (Concangis) and Lanchester (Longovicium). There was no doubt further rebuilding at other forts
as well.⁵³ Quite when Verus was replaced is difficult to establish; his successor is slightly tenuous (28). He disappears from sight for a few years, but reappears in the early 160s, after dramatic developments at the other end of the empire."

On the significance of the Newcastle inscription from The Chattan War, the Brigantian Revolt and the Loss of the Antonine Wall, M. P. Speidel, Britannia , 1987, Vol. 18 1987, pp. 233-237:

"The fact that in the years from 151 to 155 expeditionary armies had come to Germany is of great interest in assessing the move there to the outer limes. The Chatti must have posed a major threat to both German provinces and their allies, and indeed, six years later, in a large-scale attack, they invaded Upper Germany as well as Raetia. In the great second-century drama of the European nations hurling themselves against the frontiers of the Empire, the Chattan war, or threat of war, of 151-155 is thus revealed as the first act. The second act was played in Britain. A part of Pedo's field army had come from Britain, while other British forces had gone to Lower Germany, as the Newcastle inscription shows. Just how large these forces were is, of course, not known but one may argue that with most troops having fixed duties even a draft of two thousand men might be a large part of those in the British army who were actually free to take to the field. Their absence, no doubt, enticed the Brigantes to revolt, thus bringing about the first loss of the Antonine Wall. Then, under Julius Verus the British expeditionary force came back, and a succession of Rome's best generals restored the Antonine Wall in the years 158 to 161. Yet things did not end there. The marshals that were sent to Britain to restore the Wall had brought with them German and Raetian troops as shown by the Ribchester inscription and by an altar set up by Raetian troops at Birrens. From what we know of the strategy of the High Empire, withdrawal of troops from a frontier sector for campaigning elsewhere laid that sector open to attack. Indeed, just then, in 161/2, the Chatti invaded both Upper Germany and Raetia, weakened by the absence of field troops. This, no doubt, brought about the speedy return of most of the German and Raetian troops to their home frontiers and ruled out further reinforcements for Britain, thus leading to the second loss of the Antonine Wall around 163."

STATIUS PRISCUS

"Statius Priscus’ governorship was very brief, not more than a year at most, starting in summer 161. But his career throws a good deal of light on the workings of the military system. The name Statius is fairly common, and the other items in his nomenclature are also too indistinctive to indicate his origin, except for the tribe Claudia, found more frequently than elsewhere in regio X of Italy and in certain communities of the northern provinces.⁶⁸ Northern Italy, where a good many Statii are attested, or one of the cities of the Dalmatian coast look likely areas for his home.⁶⁹ Colchester (Camulodunum) is also just possible: a first-century legionary named Statius, with the tribe Claudia, derived from there,⁷⁰ and Priscus’ first appointment, as prefect of the Fourth Cohort of Lingones, stationed in Britain, would suit such an origin.⁷¹ Equally, the governor who probably gave him his commission, Julius Severus (Gov. 21), was himself from Dalmatia and perhaps offered him the post because he was a fellow-countryman. He was no doubt taken from Britain to the Jewish war, for service in which he received a decoration, by Severus. There is no need to suppose that Priscus took his cohort to Judaea. More likely Severus promoted him to be tribune in the Syrian legion III Gallica, which participated in the war; he probably went on to serve as tribune in a detachment of the Upper Pannonian legion X Gemina, also participating in the Jewish war. Since a third tribunate followed, in another legion of Upper Pannonia, it may be conjectured that he returned to that province with X Gemina and was retained there, as tribune of I Adiutrix.⁷² After this he finally entered the third militia, as prefect of an ala in Cappadocia; and then moved to the procuratorial career with a rather lowly post as sexagenarius, in charge of the vicesima hereditatium, the 5 per cent inheritance tax, in two Gallic provinces.⁷³ Thereafter he changed course markedly by entering the senate. It must be inferred that Antoninus Pius granted him the latus clavus. Priscus may have owed his advance to the patronage of Lollius Urbicus (Gov. 24), whose influence in the 140s was no doubt considerable. But he did not receive any remission (except that he was excused the vigintivirate), unlike many who transferred from the equestrian career to the senate at other periods, such as the reign of Vespasian or during the Marcomannic Wars. This reflects the conservatism of the reign. Priscus must have been well over 30 when he entered the senate as quaestor, and well over 50 when he became consul. Still, once he had held the compulsory Republican magistracies, he had the type of career enjoyed by men like Julius Agricola (Gov. 11), Julius Severus (21), and Lollius Urbicus (24): only two posts, the first a legionary command, between praetorship and consulship. His governorship of Upper Dacia, immediately preceding his consulship, is dated closely by diplomas, to 13 December 156 and 8 July 158, and a dedication he made at Apulum as consul designate can be assigned to autumn 158.⁷⁴ Before that he had commanded the Carnuntum legion XIV Gemina, perhaps when Claudius Maximus, the friend of M. Aurelius, was governing Upper Pannonia (he is attested there in 150 and 154). Priscus’ consulship as ordinarius for 159 was a remarkable honour for a novus homo—only one other man of comparable background, the jurist Salvius Julianus, received similar distinction during this reign. One reason in Priscus’ case was no doubt his military success in Dacia, revealed by inscriptions from that province.⁷⁵ After his consulship he had a brief spell as curator of the Tiber, but before the end of 160 must have become governor of Upper Moesia, where he is attested in office on 8 February 161.⁷⁶ He was still there, not surprisingly, after the death of Pius the following month, as shown by his dedication in honour of M. Aurelius and L. Verus, set up after he had been appointed to Britain. It may have been the sudden death of a recently appointed governor of Britain (Gov. 28), or perhaps just the difficult military situation in the north of the province, that led the emperors to transfer Priscus there soon after their accession. As stated by the HA: ‘a British war was also threatening’ in 161 (M. Ant. Phil. 8. 7) and had to be dealt with by Priscus’ successor (Gov. 30).⁷⁷ Priscus can only have spent some months in Britain when a more serious crisis occurred in the East: the defeat and death of the governor of Cappadocia and the invasion of Syria by the Parthians.⁷⁸ Priscus was chosen to deal with this crisis, and won a major victory, capturing the Armenian capital Artaxata (HA M. Ant. Phil. 9. 1, cf. Verus 7. 1) and founding a new one, which he garrisoned (Dio 71. 3. 1¹). These successes allowed L. Verus to assume the title Armeniacus in 163.⁷⁹ The satirist Lucian alleges that a contemporary historian described ‘how Priscus the general merely shouted out and twenty-seven of the enemy dropped dead’ (How to Write History 20). Hardly serious evidence, but perhaps Priscus had an aggressive style of leadership. The choice of Priscus to be recalled from Britain to deal with a crisis in the East exactly parallels the sending of Julius Severus (Gov. 21) to Judaea thirty years earlier. Severus was described as ‘the foremost of Hadrian’s leading generals’ in that connection (Dio 69. 13. 3, see Gov. 21). Priscus, after his success in Dacia in the late 150s, was no doubt equally highly rated. These two cases underline the high military status of Britain and its governors. He is not heard of again, and may have died soon afterwards. No children are recorded, but M. Statius Longinus, governor of Moesia Inferior under Macrinus, might be a descendant.⁸⁰"


SEXTUS CALPURNIUS AGRICOLA

"The context of the sentence in
the HA which refers to his dispatch ‘against the Britons’ suggests that he wasreplaced in Germany by Aufidius Victorinus and transferred to Britain in
autumn 161 or early 162 at the very latest.⁸⁶ It indicates that there were hostilities in progress in Britain (already referred to in HA M. Ant. Phil. 8. 7, quoted under Gov. 29).⁸⁷ A mention in Polyaenus’ Strategica (6, pr.) of ‘the Britons being defeated’ may refer to this war, since the work was dedicated to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus in 162. From the inscription at Ribchester it can be
inferred that he took some extra cavalry from Germany with him—unless they had been sent under one of his predecessors. The dedication at Corbridge firmly dates his governorship to the year 163 and has already disposed of the possibility that he was the predecessor of Priscus, rather than his successor.⁸⁸ The distribution of his inscriptions, at
Carvoran on Hadrian’s Wall, and Vindolanda, just south of the wall, as well as at Corbridge, also at Ribchester, and perhaps at Hardknott, in north-west England, indicates that Hadrian’s Wall and the Pennines were occupied at the time. It now seems clear that the Antonine Wall had been given up under Julius Verus several years earlier (see under Gov. 27)."

And the Ribchester inscription as discussed by M. P. Speidel, once again from his The Chattan War, the Brigantian Revolt and the Loss of the Antonine Wall, Britannia , 1987, Vol. 18 1987, pp. 233-237:

"The armies of Germany were nearest to Britain, and so often did drafts of them cross the Channel4 that the 'upper province' of our text surely must mean that of Germany rather than of Pannonia, Dacia or Moesia, none of which is known to have sent provincial drafts to Britain. One will not go far wrong, then, in assuming that horsemen from Upper Germany were stationed at Ribchester.5 The date of the inscription is given by the joint reign of the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus from 161 to 169; hence our text is likely to mention the name of Sextus Calpurnius Agricola..."

It seems reasonable to me to present the following scenario and then ask an obvious question:

War is threatening in Britain at the outset of the Armenian War. This was when Priscus was recalled from Britain and sent to the East. His predecessor was only in Britain a very short time - and was perhaps killed there. Before that Julius Verus had brought troops from the Continent when the Antonine Wall was lost. It is reasonable to assume Priscus, sent to Britain in an emergency capacity, had also taken troops with him. And his successor Agricola probably also took troops.

Given all of the above, can we justify proposing that Priscus is at all likely to have removed three legionary detachments under the command of a prefect of the Sixth Legion and sent them to Armenia? In other words, does it make sense to consider a major troop withdrawal headed by an officer belonging to a legion that was responsible for defending the North at a time when the North was in constant turmoil and was regularly receiving reinforcements from the Continent?

I feel the only proper answer is plainly "No."



Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)