ARTHUR/CEIDIO SON OF ARTHWYS IT IS!

The following is a selection from an older post. I'm offering it here again for one simple reason: I'm now convinced that trying to pin down a real Uther Pendragon is an exercise in futility.  The name - or title - readily can be attached to any number of Dark Age chieftains.  Over time, I've suggested Ambrosius (who was never even in Britain),  Anblaud ("the very terrible") Wledig, Cunedda, Sawyl Benisel, St. Illtud, Urien of Rheged and the 'terrible warrior' or Manannan Mac Lir of the Irish COMPERT MONGAIN.  According to the "Gwarchan Maeldderw", the red dragon actually belonged to Vortigern! At one point I even pointed out the parallels between Uther and Julian, son of Constantine III (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2017/10/julian-dragon-and-his-draco-standard.html).   

What I keep coming back to is what seems like far more than a mere coincidence: the presence of both Dacians and Thracians in the Irthing Valley during the Roman period.  The Arthwys or 'man of the Arth' (an eponym not unlike Welsh Glywys, 'man of Glevum/Gloucester') who I've proposed as the father of Arthur/Ceidio may well have been a man who inherited the draco standard from these military units. He may thus have come to be referred to as the 'terrible chief-dragon' or even the 'terrible magister draconum.'  

While it remains true, of course, that Uther Pendragon could be nothing more than a borrowed figure or even utter fiction invented by Geoffrey of Monmouth, I urge my readers to go over this short piece again and consider the possibility that the father of Uther belongs the Banna Roman fort...

Sarmatian Draconarius from Chester

In my book THE ARTHUR OF HISTORY, I made a case for the Banna Roman fort at Birdoswald towards the western end of Hadrian's Wall as one of the possible ruling centers of King Arthur (alkthough I finally opted for the Roman fort at Stanwix).  At the same time I pointed out the proximity to this fort of another named Camboglanna, modern Castlesteads, which I thought might be Arthur's Camlann.  Just a few miles further to the west lay the fort of Aballava (variant Avalana), perhaps the factual basis for the legend of Avalon. Both Birdoswald and Castlesteads lay in the Irthing Valley.  Place-name expert Dr. Andrew Breeze had made the case for this river-name deriving from a Cumbric word meaning 'Little Bear.'  I had suggested that the Northern British chieftain Arthwys belonged here or that his name might well be an earlier territorial designation for the Irthing region.  More recently I was assured by North British place-name expert Alan James that the terminal of the Irthing may simply be that used in several other river-names, and that this may simply represent the 'Bear River.'

Something I didn't take into account was a possible connection with Uther Pendragon. While it is fashionable (and quite likely correct!) that this name/title means something akin to 'the terrible chief-warrior or chief-leader', I had once, more or less playfully, suggested Pendragon could stand for the known late Roman military rank of magister draconum, that is the head of the corp that carried the dragon standard. 

As it happens, the draco (see http://www.fectio.org.uk/articles/draco.htm) is traced to a number of cavalry peoples of the steppes, including Thracians and Dacians.  Some scholars have argued for the actual origin of the draco among the Dacians (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacian_Draco).  The Thracians themselves possessed a draco-like standard. Why are these facts significant in the context of Birdoswald and Castlesteads?

Because according to the NOTITIA DIGNITATUM, the First Cohort of the Dacians, Hadrian's Own, 1000-strong, was based at Birdoswald (see https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/org/2964).  Also, the First Cohort of Thracians appears with the Dacians on an inscription recording the building of the granary in the early 3rd century. 

When I first wrote about Arthur as Ceidio son of Arthwys of the Irthing Valley, I did not feel the argument was entirely convincing. But once we look at this candidate again in sufficient detail, I now feel differently.  

What we have with Ceidio is a man bearing a 'Battle-leader' name (= Arthur's dux erat bellorum title), who is born at a place named for a Bear River.  His father is claimed to also have had a son named Eliffer/Eleutherius, the ruler of York.  The York of the famous second century Lucius Artorius Castus. The same Eliffer who is given a son named Arthur Penuchel ('Overlord') in a corrupt TRIAD.  Ceidio's son was Gwenddolau, lord of Myrddin/Merlin.  Camlann and Avalon are both in close vicinity to Banna/Birdoswald, and all of Arthur's battles are to be found north and south of Hadrian's Wall, mostly along the Roman road of Dere Street.

While in my book THE BEAR KING I tried to make a case for Ceredig son of Cunedda/Cerdic of the Gewissei being Arthur, I'm now fairly certain that if he were, it's only because the real Northern Arthur was relocated in legend to the South.  One thing I have definitely concluded: the Arthur who is found in Chapter 56 of Nennius's HISTORIA BRITTONUM owed his name to that of York's Lucius Artorius Castus.  And this means that he belongs to the North, and that he must have ruled from a place with close ties to York.  The Stanwix/Uxellodunum Roman fort between the Irthing Valley's Camboglanna/Camlann and the 'Avalon' at Aballava/Avalana was the Roman command center of the Wall and as such was the most likely place to have maintained this kind of special relationship with York.  Etterby adjoining Stanwix was actually locally known as 'Arthur's burg.'

More on all this can be found below.  This is from yet another old post, much of the material of which was eventually incorporated into my book THE ARTHUR OF HISTORY...

In the Welsh genealogies we encounter a chieftain of the North named Eliffer Gosgorddfawr (Eleutherius of the Great Retinue). Eliffer’s epithet is significant. This ‘great retinue’ may be a memory either of the Sixth Legion, which was stationed at York, or of a comitatensis.

Eliffer’s real father is thought to have been one ARTHWYS (although see Chapter 5 and Appendix II for this personal name as a possible territorial designation) and he had a son named Peredur, the Welsh form of the Roman rank of Praetor (hence the later Peredur son of Ebrauc, the latter being an eponym for the city of Eboracum/York, headquarters of the Roman praetor).

During the Roman period, the governor of Northern Britain at York was a Praetor, or to be more specific, a Praetorian Prefect. I do not hold to the idea that Peredur is instead from *Pritorix, the handsome king, fair-shaped king (see Rachel Bromwich’s Triads of the Island of Britain, p. 561).

Eleutherius is a Greek name, and these were popular in northern Europe in the 5th century. It means "Liberator", and this is certainly significant.

Why? Because York is famous for its association with Constantine the Great, who not only declared himself emperor while at the city, but went out of his way to present himself as the Liberator of Rome and, indeed, of the world (see

laweb.usc.edu/centers/clhc/events/feature/documents/Lenski_ConstantineUSC.pdf). Greek writers, of course, when speaking of him as the Liberator used words derived from eleutheros/ eleutheria.

I would surmise that a sort of "cult" of Constantine the Great might have existed in 5th century York and that Eleutherius as a name was actually originally derived from Constantine's Liberator title. [The ‘The Twenty-Four Mightiest Kings’, Custennin Fendigaid, i.e. the Welsh version of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Constantine III, is called Waredwr, ‘the Deliverer’. This suggests that Constantine III was here confused with the earlier Constantine the Liberator.]

Eliffer's sons Peredur and Gwrgi are recorded as fighting at a place called Caer Greu (‘Fort Greu’) and at Arfderydd/Arthuret just NW of Carlisle. Greu has been tentatively related to W. creu, ‘blood’. I would propose that Caer Greu/Creu is

Carrawburgh, i.e. the Roman fort of Brocolitia, on Hadrian’s Wall. English 'Carrawburgh' could easily reflect something like very early Old Welsh *'Cair Carrou'. The extant form of 'Caer Greu' could be the regular Middle Welsh reflex of this. Carrawburgh is not far from Corbridge, where Arthur's Dubglas River battles were fought (see Chapter 3).

Their presence at Arthuret shows that they were active in the same area as Arthur, who died in battle at Castlesteads/Camboglanna on the Wall not far to the east (see again Chapter 3).

Eliffer’s wife Efrddyl, daughter of Cynfarch son of Merchiaun, is said to have had three children: Gwrgi, Peredur and either Ceindrech or Arddun Benasgell (sometimes called 'Wing-head'; however, as asgell can also mean 'spear' or even 'wing of an army', her epithet may mean instead either 'Spear-head', a reference to her weapon, or 'Spear-chieftain', or even 'Chieftain of the Army Wing'). Arddun is elsewhere said to be the daughter of Pabo Post Prydyn. But in the slightly corrupt Jesus College MS. 20, Arddun’s name is replaced by ARTHUR PENUCHEL.

Rachel Bromwich discussed this supposed corruption in her revised edition of ‘The Triads of the Island of Britain”, and I am quoting her here in full:

“Ardun Pen Askell is probably the correct form of the name of the sister of Gwrgi and Peredur… But if is likely that it is this name which has been corrupted to arthur penuchel in Jes. Gens. 20… The manuscript is of the turn of the 14th/15th century, but with indications of having been copied from an earlier exemplar… These points suggest that the triad may be as old as any that hav been preserved in the earlier collections… And in fact the context in which the triad is cited in Jes. Gens. 20 points to the probable source which inspired its composition This is the allusion to the progeny of Nefyn daughter of Brychan which is contained in the tract De Situ Brecheniauc, preserved in a thirteenth century manuscript, which has been copied from one of perhaps the eleventh century.”

We should pay a bit more attention to this alteration.

Why? Firstly, although it has been customary to view the alteration as a corruption, we cannot be sure that this is so in this particular context. It could represent, in fact, a CORRECTION or even a SUBSTITUTION.

Or an ADDITION: in 'The Dialogue of Myrddin and Taliesin", we are told of the "seven sons of Eliffer.”  While this may be mere poetic rhetoric, the possibility that Eliffer had sons in addition to Peredur and Gwrgi leaves for an Arthur among them.

The truly remarkable thing about this “corruption” of Arthur Penuchel is that it is found attached to the royal house of York – the one place we know of that had seen a Roman period camp prefect named Artorius, and the one place where the name may have been remembered by Britons claiming Romano-British descent. This is simply too big of a coincidence, in this author’s opinion. Of all the other lines of descent for the Men of the North the name could have been attached to, it was attached only to the family of Eliffer/Eleutherius.

What we may have then, is this: a southern pedigree running Cynfarch-Constantine-Uther- Arthur and a northern one that is very similar, but relies upon the maternal line, i.e. Cynfarch, brother of Urien/Uther Pen- Efrddyl daughter of

Cynfarch, brother of Urien and wife of Eleutherius/”Constantine”-Arthur.

The Arthwys preferred as the father of Eliffer displays the Celtic arth, 'bear', component and the Welsh interpreted the Arth- of Arthur in the same way. Recently, the Roman name Artorius as been etymologized as deriving ultimately from the Celtic, meaning "Bear-king" (see Stefan Zimmer’s “The Name of Arthur – A New Etymology”, Journal of Celtic Linguistics, 13, 2009, 131- 6; there, Artorius is shown to be from Celtic *Arto-rig-ios, ‘Bear-king’). If the arth/’bear’ component was already in Arthwys’s family, then it is not unreasonable to suppose that his grandson also bore this component as part of his own name. The name Arthur is indisputably from the Roman Artorius.

Penuchel, the epithet assigned to this Arthur, is given a couple different meanings. Patrick K. Ford of Harvard, translator of the Mabinogion, rendered Penuchel (in the context of Sawyl Penuchel of Samlesbury hard by Ribchester) as ‘Overlord’. The GPC dictionary, on the other hand, reading it as ‘high-head’, gives it a transferred sense of ‘haughty, arrogant’. 'Overlord' would fit the context better, as this would be a good description of the role Arthur is said to have played in the 'Historia Brittonum' of Nennius. When I wrote to Professor Ford and asked him why he had chosen the rendering 'Overlord', he replied:

"The answer is a choice based on context and the semantic fields of penn and uchel."

It should be stressed that Penuchel as an epithet for Sawyl of Ribchester is a later replacement for an earlier Penisel, 'low-head' or 'the humble' – perhaps better, 'under-lord'.

Granted, the established chronology for the Eliffer dynasty does not exactly support my contention that Arthur of the North was a son of Eliffer. Obviously, Arthur was not a contemporary of Urien! But Arthur may have been born to

Eliffer and Efrddyl very early on, while their sons

Gwrci and Peredur were produced years later.

Finally, the chronologies that have been worked out for these early Men of the North are rough approximations and thus cannot be relied upon for any kind of precise dating.  I will discuss below the very real possibility that Arthur was not a son of Eliffer, but his brother.

The Dalriadan Connection

At this point in our exploration of Arthur’s real parentage, we must pause to consider the implications of the intrusion of the founder of the Scottish Dalriadan dynasty into the early British pedigrees. For sources on the following details, please see P.C. Bartram’s relevant works.

I’ve already mentioned that Arthwys was the father of Eliffer – but this is so only in the PREFERRED genealogy. Preferred primarily for the purposes of establishing a reasonable chronology, that is. But an early version of Eliffer’s pedigree lists Gwrwst Ledlwm as his father. Because this Gwrwst is said to have had a son name Dyfnarth, P. K. Johnstone long ago suggested that Dyfnarth was, in fact, Domangart, son of Fergus Mor of Dalriada. I agree with his assessment, and for good reason: Arthwys’s father is said to be one Mar, whose name is spelled Mor in later versions of the pedigree.

In other words, Mar/Mor = Fergus Mor = Gwrwst

Ledlwm. [Mor is ‘great’ in Irish, but the cognate word in Welsh was mawr. Mor in Welsh means ‘sea’.]

Mar is also made the father of Lleenog, father of Gwallog of Elmet. But a conflicting genealogy claims that Lleenog’s father was one Maeswig. Mar (and his son Arthwys) are also thrust into the pedigree of Pabo Post Prydyn, otherwise the

son of Ceneu.

Arthur of Dalriada is made variously the son of Aedan or of his son, Conaing (the latter name being a borrowing of English cyning, ‘king’, and so merely a confused reference to Aedan himself as King of Dalriada?). This Dalriadan Arthur was named after his more famous predecessor, who according to a corrupt source may have been a son of Eliffer of York (although see below for Arthur as a brother of Eliffer).

Why Was Arthur’s Parentage Forgotten?

It was only natural for Arthur to become attached to Ambrosius as Uther Pendragon, for other than Arthur, Ambrosius – though a fiction transplanted from Gaul - was the most famous commander of the period. The process was undoubtedly made easier by the supposed Constantine connection, something that became attached to Dumnonia in the southwest of England precisely because the royal house there had as its semi-legendary progenitor Geraint, himself patterned after Gerontius, the British magister militum of Constantine III. York, too, had its “cult of Constantine (the Great).” Thus it was not difficult to transfer Arthur from the region of York to that of Dumnonia.

But none of this explains why Arthur’s real father’s name was forgotten.  As it turns out, I believe this may have happened precisely because Arthur himself went by another name.

The personage we will be considering was not a son of Eliffer of York, but actually his brother.

                                                         Jet bear from Bottle, Lancashire

                                         Sardonyx cameo of a bear found 

                                                        at the Roman fort of Arbeia, South 

                                                        Shields, Tyne and Wear

   1st-2nd century AD Roman discoid jasper 

  plaque with chamfered rear edge, intaglio image 

   of an advancing bear with tree behind.

Arthur Dux Bellorum and Ceidio son of Arthwys

There has always been a problem with the ‘dux bellorum’ title applied to the legendary Arthur.

To begin, there is a misconception that the socalled title actually appears this way in the text of Nennius’s Latin HISTORIA BRITTONUM. In fact, it does not. The text actually reads ‘sed ipse dux erat bellorum’, ‘but he himself was leader of battles’. As has been discussed before by experts in early Medieval Latin who have studied Nennius, this is NOT a title. It cannot be equated, therefore, with the dux legionum rank of the third century Roman Lucius Artorius Castus, who led a single campaign against the Armenians. It certainly can’t be compared with the same man’s rank of praefectus (castrorum) of the Sixth Legion at York. For a good discussion of the ranks held by LAC, see http://www.christophergwinn.com/celticstudies

/lac/lac.html.

This description applied to Arthur in the HB seems to have led to him being referred to in subsequent sources as simply a miles or ‘soldier.’ The idea has often been floated that this means Arthur was not a king and, in fact, may not even have been of royal blood. Truth is, Arthur may not have been king – if he predeceased his father, for instance. We do not have to resort to the 2nd-3rd century Roman soldier Lucius

Artorius Castus to account for the 5th-6^th century chieftain being considered only a ‘leader of battles.’

But if not a title, could this Latin phrase have designated a secondary, purely British name belonging to Arthur?

Myself and others have pointed out that attested early names such as Cadwaladr, (“Catu-walatros) ‘Battle-leader’, Caderyn (Catu-tigernos), ‘Battle-lord’, Cadfael (Catu-maglos), ‘Battle-prince’, Caturix (a Gaulish god), ‘Battle-king’, could have yielded a description such as ‘dux erat bellorum’. No names of this nature appear to have been known in the North (where I’ve shown Arthur to belong) during the Arthurian period.

However, it has recently occurred to me that my tentative genealogical trace of Arthur to Arthwys, the latter being a name or a regional designation of the valley of the River Irthing on the western part of Hadrian’s Wall, may hold the clue to unraveling the dux bellorum mystery. Arthur died at Camboglanna/Castlesteads on the Cambeck, a tributary of the Irthing.

The son of Arthwys in the genealogies is given as Ceidio, born c. 490 (according to P.C. Bartram), quite possibly the same chieftain whose son is mentioned in the ancient Gododdin poem as ‘mab Keidyaw’. John Koch and others have discussed Ceidio as a by-form of a longer two element name beginning with *Catu-/Cad-, ‘Battle’.

Dr. Simon Rodway was kind enough to write the following to me on Ceidio:

“Ceidiaw is a 'pet' form of a name in *katu- 'ba tle' with the common hypocoristic ending -iaw (> Mod. Welsh -(i)o) found in Teilo (Old Welsh Teliau) etc., and still productive today (Jaco, Ianto etc.). And yes, it's not possible to say what the second element would have been. But the forms you suggest [Cadwaladr, Cateryn] are among the candidates, especially as this man was a chieftain of Y Gogledd [the North] at the head of some of the royal genealogies. ”

In other words, this Ceidio would originally have had a full-name of the type Cadwaladr or Cateryrn. Unfortunately, we can never know what the second “dropped” element of his name might originally have been. However, if Roman naming practices had been preserved in the North during Arthur’s time, we would reasonably expect a form such as X Artorius Z, where X, the praenomen, was the given name, Artorius was the nomen, i.e. gens or clan name, and Z was the cognomen, i.e. the name of the family line within the gens. A Cad- name, shortened to Ceidio, might well have been one of Arthur’s other names.

Of course, by the time of the 5th-6th centuries, the Roman gens name Artorius may well have been given to a prince as his praenomen. If the name had retained its status as a gens name, then that would mean someone in the Irthing River region actually traced his descent from Lucius Artorius Castus. While this could be either a genuine or fabricated trace, it is also possible the name was remembered as belonging to a famous figure of legend and passed on to a favorite son for that reason alone.

In the contents description of the Harleian recension of Nennius, we find the phrase ‘Arturo rege belligero’, something usually translated as “King Arthur the warrior”. More accurately, this is ‘Arthur the warlike or martial king’. Suppose we allow for rege belligero as an attempt at a literal Latin rendering of something like Cadwaladr or Cateryn?

The fifth century St. Patrick, who I’ve shown came from the Banna fort on Hadrian’s Wall at modern Birdoswald on the Irthing, is known to have had a typical Roman style ‘three-part’ name: Patricius Magonus Sucatus. Patricius is believed to have been his Christian name, assumed after his conversion, but it is just as possible he bore a classic Roman-structured name from birth.

If I’m right about Arthur being a son of Arthwys – or being FROM Arthwys – and we can allow for Ceidio son of Arthwys having originally born a name like Cadwaladr or Cateryn, then it is not inconceivable that Arthur DOES appear in the Northern genealogies after all.

Arthur and Ceidio would be one and the same man.