ELIWLAD AND AILITHIR: A PROVABLE FAMILY CONNECTION FOR THE HISTORICAL ARTHUR?

An Artist's Reconsctruction of the Ribchester Roman Fort, Lancashire

Over the past week, I produced the followed posts:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/01/whats-in-name-problem-with-arthur.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/01/banna-camboglanna-uxellodunumpetriana.html

As I went through them again, I realized I was STILL immensely dissatisfied with a problem that has haunted me for years now: the inability to be able to solidly identify Arthur's father Uther with a historically acceptable figure.  It is all well and fine to say that he may have been a man at the Banna Roman fort, where Dacians and their draco were present.  But at the same time I would have to say that he was Ceidio's father Arthwys, 'the man of the Arth [River].' Or, if we opt for Arthwys as Arthur (as Simon Keegan would have it), then Mar (= Fergus Mar/Mor of Dalriada, otherwise known as Gwrwst Ledlum by the Welsh) would have to be Uther.  And that is hardly satisfactory.

So I decided to review all my past research with an eye to finding something - anything - that might help us get a firmer grip on the slippery serpent that is Uther.  Bearing in mind, of course, that any Uther who wasn't in the North wasn't really worth considering.

One post in particular jumped out at me.  To be honest, I had more or less forgotten about it:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/10/eliwlad-grandson-of-uther-and-madog.html

When I re-read this piece, I was struck not only by the scholarly support for the idea - which was substantial and quite unexpected - but perhaps even more by the following passage:

--

Oliver J. Padel in ARTHUR IN MEDIEVAL WELSH LITERATURE states that

“Barry Lewis has pointed out that a sixteenth-century dialogue between a creiriwr [crair + -iwr in the GPC] (‘pilgrim’) and Mary Magdalene of Brynbuga (the town of Usk) is remarkably similar in both form and content to the dialogue with the Eagle…”

As this comparative treatment of the two poems appears to be accurate, and if I am right about Eliwlad being an interpretation or attempted translation of Ailithir, then we have two nearly identical poems featuring characters named ‘Pilgrim’.

--

Why did I abandon the notion that Uther Pendragon = Sawyl of Ribchester?  Well, because I felt that I had come up with one, maybe two etymologies for Eliwlad that might be superior to the Eliwlad = Ailithir theory.  I first proposed these alternative derivations in this post:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/11/eliwlad-and-occams-razor-bright-or.html

The problem with the alternative etymologies is obvious: they do not account for or, rather, sufficiently counter, other aspects of my argument in favor of Eliwlad = Ailithir.  And, indeed, this last article seems, on the whole, a bit forced and not very convincing.  Any workable etymology is a good etymology, but if the context in which it is found is ignored or doesn't seem to fit, then the validity of that proposed form must be called into question.

If I accept this reasoning - and I feel I must - then I can embrace the possibility, at least, that Uther did belong in the North and that he is to be identified with Sawyl of Ribchester.  Needless to say, a Chief Dragon at the fort where the Sarmatian veterans settled must surely have been called such because he was the magister draconum.  It would be difficult to maintain that the dragon of his epithet were merely a metaphorical term for a warrior, as is apparently true for the bulk of the instances in which the term is used in Welsh poetry.  The Sarmatians were famous for their draco standard and it is to be expected that the 5th-6th century descendants of Britons and Sarmatians at Ribchester would still be honoring inherited traditions.  It would not be surprising at all, therefore, if they designated their king or war-chieftain as the 'Terrible Chief-Dragon.'

BANNA, CAMBOGLANNA, UXELLODUNUM/PETRIANA AND ABALLAVA: THE ARTHURIAN 'CENTERS' ON HADRIAN'S WALL?

Birdoswald Roman Fort

In past articles and in my book THE ARTHUR OF HISTORY, I made my case for a number of possible Arthurian centers along the western section of Hadrian's Wall.  Here I wish to reiterate that argument in summary form, as only the other day (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/01/whats-in-name-problem-with-arthur.html) I decided once and for all on a purely Northern Arthur.

BANNA/BIRDOSWALD ROMAN FORT

Site of a known Dark Age hall.  Also the birthplace of St. Patrick.  The garrison of this fort was Dacian and the Dacians are often believed to be the people who introduced the draco standard into the Roman army.  Uther Pendragon may ultimately belong here, especially if his epithet is to be properly associated with a dragon standard or even a rank (such as magister draconum) and is not merely a metaphor for a warrior.  Birdoswald is on the Irthing, a river-name derived from a Cumbric arth, 'bear', preserved in Arthwys, 'man of the Arth', claimed as a brother of Eliffer of York in the early Welsh genealogies.  Ceidio son of Arthwys originally bore a name that meant something like 'Battle-ruler' or 'Battle-leader', a perfect match for the dux erat bellorum descriptor for Arthur in Chapter 56 of the HISTORIA BRITTONUM.  Arthur itself was associated by the Welsh with their word arth, 'bear'.  However, Arthur is actually the British form of Roman Artorius, a name born by the 2nd century Roman dux who was stationed at York.

CAMBOGLANNA/CASTLESTEADS ROMAN FORT

Like Birdoswald, this place is in the Irthing Valley.  The name accords with Arthur's Camlann.  He fought with or against Medraut/Modred/Moderatus here and both men perished.  

UXELLODUNUM/PETRIANA ROMAN FORT

There is a tradition that Stanwix (wrongly Etterby hard by) was referred to as 'Arthuri burgum', Arthur's fort.  This was the home of the largest cavalry unit in all of Britain and is considered to be the command center of the Wall.  There is some evidence of sub-Roman occupation.  The place is also called Petriana, actually the name of the garrison unit itself.  Although thought to be a mistake, it is possible the fort was called after its unit, Petriana thus being a sort of nickname for the site.  Petriana honors the unit's first commander T. Pomponius Petra.  Petra, of course, means "rock, stone", and one can't help but wonder if Stanwix, the Stone town, might not preserve a memory of Petriana.  I've pointed out before that a later Arthur of Dyfed in Wales is the son of Pedr/Petrus, and this same Arthur (Irish Bicoir is for Petuir, a variant of Pedr) is said to have killed the Irish king Mongan with a stone.  Might Petrus of Dyfed have named his son Arthur in honor of the earlier, more famous one of Petriana on the Wall? Ceidio son of Arthwys is the father of Gwenddolau, a chieftain (or place, as it means 'white dales') at Carwinley.  Stanwix is roughly equidistant between the Irthing and Carwinley.  It is also only a few miles to the east of Burgh-By-Sands/Aballava.  So while we might be wise to restrict Arthur's court to either Birdoswald or Castlesteads, there is the possibility that he operated out of the milliary cavalry fort of Uxellodunum.  

ABALLAVA/AVALANA ROMAN FORT

This site may be the prototype for Arthur's Avalon.  As apples have Otherworld properties in Celtic mythology (and did so, presumably, in Celtic religion), it is not inconceivable that the Apple Orchard Place had a sacred character and that being buried there was the equivalent of being conveyed to the Otherworld.  A goddess found at Aballava - Dea Latis - may well be the origin of the Goddess of the Lake story.  The lake in question would have been the extensive Burgh Marsh that once surrounded the fort.  

For the Northern battles of Arthur, I urge my readers to again consult my book THE ARTHUR OF HISTORY.  His military activity was confined primarily to a broad corridor along the Roman Dere Street, running from York in the south to the Firth of Forth in the north.  Badon is Aquae Arnemetiae (called in English batham/bathum) at Buxton in Derbyshire. A couple of his more Northern battles may actually belong to the later Arthur son of Aedan of Scottish Dalriada or even to Lucius Artorius Castus.  One (Breguoin/Brewyn/Bremenium) is also said to have been the site of a battle fought by Urien of Rheged. 

Or you may access my original account of the Arthurian battles in the North here:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-arthur-of-history-chapter-three.html

WHAT'S IN A NAME: THE PROBLEM WITH ARTHUR

Jet Bear from Bootle, Lancashire

My readers over the years have either been interested in or bemused by (or even amused by) my attempts to account for the name Arthur as it appears in Chapter 56 of the HISTORIA BRITTONUM.  Over the last few years I have proposed a connection to 1) the Arthwys and River Irthing of the North 2) Ceredig son of Cunedda of the Afon Arth and his Arto- descendants and 3) the curious occurrence of incidents and names/titles seemingly involving a questionable Irish word art, 'stone'. 

But here is the problem with ALL of that: nowhere in the extant sources can we find a single instance of the name Arthur (even if a decknamen of a preexisting Irish or British name/title meaning 'Bear-king') being applied or related to another known historical personage.  And this is a HUGE, perhaps insurmountable problem for Arthurian researchers.  For without this early, attested identification of the name Arthur with a confirmed figure, any attempt to find the original Arthur is fraught with uncertainty.  And there is not a single (non-fringe, professional) scholar out there who will accept an Arthurian candidate without such an ironclad, substantiable identification.

So, what do we do?  Where do we go from here?

Well, we start - once again - in the North.  Given the new work done by Dr. Linda Malcor and her colleagues on the proper reading of the Lucius Artorius Castus memorial stone, there is no reason to doubt that this particular "Arthur" was quite famous in the North during the Roman period.  I and others (see below for three articles by Dr. Andrew Breeze, another recent "convert" to the idea of a Northern Arthur) have long held that any famous sub-Roman/Dark Age/Early medieval figure who bore this name must have been given it in honor of the Roman dux whose exploits in the region continued to be celebrated.  

The Dark Age Arthur, who originally belonged to the North, became subject to the usual transfer of legendary material to other places.  Chief among these were Wales and Cornwall, and even Brittany.  The reason why the Arthur of folklore, hagiography, etc., so easily took up residence in the South is simply because these lands continued to be 'Celtic' in a sense that was not true for the remainder of England or southern Scotland.  Where the English or other foreign invaders and settlers made their home, either forcing out or assimilating the indigenous population, the Cymric/Cumbric hero was replaced by Germanic exemplars.  

I've now come to believe pretty strongly that any attempt - including my own - to situate Arthur in the South is due to exactly this tendency of legends to migrate.  Arthur became bonded onto other personages.  A good example may be Ceredig son of Cunedda, whose kingdom had an Arth River and three of whose immediate descendants had bear names.  After all, this translocation of Arthur was indulged in by the Welsh in their literature and as we have precious little else to go on other than this body of work, one is hard pressed to be able to demonstrate that the hero belonged someplace else.  There are, in fact, really only three clues as to where the Northern Arthur came from and where he probably operated militarily.

Our first must be dispensed with, unfortunately, for it is based on a corrupt Triad.  This is the reference to an Arthur Penuchel, made son of Eliffer (Eleutherius) of York and a sister of Urien Rheged.  As Lucius Artorius Castus was based at York and we can expect his memory to have been preserved there more than elsewhere, it is tempting to suggest that this corrupt text really does prove he existence of such a man in the Dark Ages.  This is so despite the fact that the chronology is utterly wrong (Arthur came before Urien, not after).  Still, it shows that whoever created the corrupt Triad may have known of a British Arthur in the North.  

Secondly, there a strong indications that the Northern chieftain Arthwys, supposedly brother of Eliffer of York, points to the Irthing Valley and its two very important Roman forts, Banna at Birdoswald and Camboglanna (= 'Camlann') at Castlesteads.  I just discussed Arthwys's possible significance once again with Dr. Simon Rodway of The University of Wales and he generously supplied this detailed analysis of the name:

"-wys (< Latin -enses) does not denote a region, but rather the people who live there, and is added to a regional name, thus Lloegrwys 'people of Lloegr (England)', Rhegedwys 'people of Rheged', Monwys 'people of Mon (Anglesey)' etc.  There is an obscure -wys in the place-name Caerwys in Wales.

Glywys, being a personal name, is equivalent to Glevensis and means ‘a man of Glevum’ or Gloucester.  When explaining Arthwys in this way, we still have to interpret Arth as a place name.  So he would be 'a man of Arth' or, if you are right about the Irthing, then perhaps he was 'a man of [the River] Arth.'"

Fellow Arthurian theorist Simon Keegan has proposed that it is this very Arthwys who is Arthur.  While is he unaware of the meaning of Arthwys, and he misplaces the chieftain geographically, the notion cannot be summarily discounted.  Arthur could well have been 'a man of the Arth.' The name Artorius might well have been chosen for someone who ruled from the valley of the Bear River.

In my mind, Ceidio son of Arthwys is a more attractive candidate. The name Ceidio is a pet-form of one that would originally have designated this man as the 'Battle-ruler' or 'Battle-leader'.  And this kind of name may harken back to the dux title applied to Lucius Artorius Castus as well as to the dux erat bellorum used to describe the Dark Age Arthur.  Hybrid Roman-Celtic names are not uncommon in the period.

And, lastly, there are the battles of Arthur as these are found listed in Chapter 56 of the HISTORIA BRITTONUM.  Time and time again I've argued that all can quite efficiently be placed in the North without bending or breaking any linguistic laws.  While they can be made to conform to some of the battles of Cerdic of Wessex (= Ceredig son of Cunedda), with the remainder being assigned to other Gewissei captains, such a scenario smacks of the artificial.  In my opinion, there may have been an attempt at some point to transform the Northern Arthur into Cerdic.  By doing so the Gwynedd author of the HISTORIA BRITTONUM would have effectively been making Arthur a member of his dynasty's founding family - something that would have served the usual propagandist purpose. 

So once again I've come full circle.  Whenever I go looking for an Arthur in the South, I'm ultimately drawn inexorably back to the North.  I cannot shake the growing conviction that Arthur died at Camboglanna in the Irthing Valley, and that the "myth" of his magical conveyance to Avalon may betray the reality of a burial at Aballava/Avalana, the Roman fort at Burgh-By-Sands not many miles to the west.  If I'm right, then my best case of a historical Arthur remains my first book on the subject, THE ARTHUR OF HISTORY: A REINTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE. 

Having reached this conclusion, I've decided that the Arthur of my upcoming DARK AVALON series (see https://www.facebook.com/darkavalonbooks/) will be Ceidio son of Arthwys.  It is intriguing that according to Welsh genealogical tradition,  Ceidio was said to be the father of Myrddin's (= Merlin's) lord, Gwenddolau.

NOTE: Here is an article on the name Arthur from British place-name expert Dr. Andrew Breeze. He not only settles on Artorius as the prototypical form of British Arthur, but also insists the hero belonged in the North.  Dr. Breeze has also written on Arthur's battles in several journals.  While we do not agree on the locations of some of the battles, we do both hold that all seem to have belonged solely to Northern England and Southern Scotland.

https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/plg/med/2015/00000028/00000001/art00003?crawler=true

Coming Soon: WHAT'S IN A NAME: THE PROBLEM WITH ARTHUR

South Shields Bear Cameo

My readers over the years have either been interested in or bemused by(or even amused by) my attempts to account for the name Arthur as it appears in Chapter 56 of the HISTORIA BRITTONUM.  Over the last few years I have proposed a connection to 1) the Arthwys and River Irthing of the North 2) Ceredig son of Cunedda of the Afon Arth and his Arto- descendants and 3) the curious occurrence of incidents and names/titles seemingly involving a questionable Irish word art, 'stone'. 

But here is the problem with ALL of that: nowhere in the extant sources can we find a single instance of the name Arthur (even if a decknamen of a preexisting Irish or British name/title meaning 'Bear-king') being applied or related to another known historical personage.  And this is a HUGE, perhaps insurmountable problem for Arthurian researchers.  For without this early, attested identification of the name Arthur with a confirmed figure, any attempt to find the original Arthur is fraught with uncertainty.  And there is not a single (non-fringe, professional) scholar out there who will accept an Arthurian candidate without such an ironclad, substantiable identification.

So, what do we do?  Where do we go from here?

Those are questions I wish to explore - and hopefully provide answers for - in my next post.

AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT REPOST (GIVEN MY PREVIOUS POST ON ST. PATRICK AND CEREDIG WLEDIG)

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2017/10/appendix-xi-from-upcoming-revision-of.html

I did not always place as much emphasis on this "evidence" as I do now.  But if I'm right, and this hagiographical tale from the VITA of St. Germanus really does identify Ceredig with Arthur, then what I've suggested about the connection between St. Patrick and Arthur in my previous post may be correct.

ARTHUR THE STONE-KING (EVIDENCE FOR THE NAME ARTHUR FROM *ARTORIGOS)

Dumbarton Rock

Now that I have shown what I hold to be a clear and certain relationship between the Irish material on St. Patrick and Ceredig Wledig of Strathclyde and the sudden and otherwise totally mysterious appearance of Arthur after St. Patrick in the HISTORIA BRITTONUM, I have noticed something odd about a few of the early occurrences of the name Arthur.

In the Irish sources on St. Patrick and Ceredig, the latter is referred to as 'regis Aloo' or 'regem Aloo'.  This is generally accepted as meaning 'King of the Rock', i.e. the Al- of Alclud, the Rock of Clyde, now Dumbarton Rock or Dumbarton Castle.  The eDIL has the following listing for ail:

1 ail

Cite this: eDIL s.v. 1 ail or dil.ie/954

Forms: oil, oili

n i and k, f. (See Thurn. Gramm. § 320 and ZCP xvi p. 183 ). oil f. (g s. and n p. oili), IGT Decl. § 14 .

(a) boulder, rock: cid armbad spiritalis ind a.¤ . . . isi ede ind a.¤ rúnde, Wb. 11a19 . asind a.¤ `out of the rock', Ml. 93b9 . in lind . . ./ do ḟuc doib asind ailig (: maig), SR 4068 . dind a.¤ tuargabad asin tiprait, Trip.² 1067 . co mmemaid a chenn frisin n-ailich, 1507 . cobsaide ailech `firmness of rock', Thes. ii 356.4 . a.¤ (.i. cloch) trom, LU 9949 . petra lasin Laitneoir, a.¤ lasin nGaedel, Auraic. 1087 . dobertha ailge arda foa doitib, RC xii 434 § 37 . mo shuidiugad amal cech nailig ele isin múr clochisea, LB 157b8 . bás Mongāin . . . don a.¤ doteilcc Artūir air, ZCP vi 269 § 7 . enghuba esa ra ha.¤ , SG 366.25 . do bhí an oil ar muin Mhuire / far loigh tuir na trócaire (of the stone at the mouth of Christ's tomb), DDána 20.42 . atā foillicht a choss issin ailigh, Fl. Earls 208.22 . a.¤ .i. cloch, O'Cl. a.¤ áobhta .i. ail aithbhe .i. cloch frith ar tráigh, ib. With defining gen.: a.¤ chloiche large stone: ro bai a.¤ chloche ar a cind, IT i 82.2 . trascraid . . . oilche cloch forru, Aen. 2209 . darsin oilig cloiche, LB 126b23 . a.¤ adartha see 1 adrad. Fig. a a.¤ na sonairte (in a litany to the Trinity), Hib. Min. 43.12 . uathmar a.¤ (of God), SR 4773 . Of persons: ind a.¤ bratha . . . in t-occlaech ard allata, CCath. 2917 . in a.¤ mbratha nach fuilget nerta trenmiled, BB 419b16 . a.¤ coth- aighthe gacha comlainn, FM v 1340.17 . a.¤ ollaman a firmly established teacher, ZCP iv 237.27 . a.¤ firindi, Anecd. ii 8.24 ( Airne F. 272 ). ?Moisi mo cech n-a.¤ / i toisigecht in popail, SR 4451 . Aron ba amru cech n-a.¤ , 4513 .

In n.loc.: Colmán Alo, Thes. ii 269.41 (Ardm.) aduersum Coirthech regem Aloo C. king of Ail (Clúade), 271.33 . See also Hog. Onom.

Compd. ¤-bla stone boundary-mark, Laws iv 142.16 .

(b) grave-stone (cf. 3 oil): cu fil a ailcha imbi, Fianaig. 38.12 . cid glic fri ailchi uara `though he be cunning at carving cold stones', Fél. 188.9 . oil adhmaid a stone of remembrance, Ériu x 80 § 42 . beim fri ailchi aicetail .i. co mbi aicetul anma in fir nod cren accomul noguim .i. ogum na creca do beth illic firt, O'C. 484 ( H. 3.18, 251 ). iomdha oil úir san eing-se, DDána 92.2 . ail leachta grave-stone , Laws iv 142.17 Comm.

(c) monument, memorial(?) (cf. ailad?): forácaib ailgi ┐ airisni da márgnímaib, LL 221a33 ( TTr. 299 ). rolín in domun uili d'algib a nirt ┐ a níachais, 222a46 (ib. 380). d'ailgib ┐ d'air[is]nib a nirt, 225b45 (635). ailche ┐ airise a gnim, BB 414b45 . dia ailgib ┐ día gaiscedhaib, TTr.² 1501 .

(d) foundation, basis (of law, etc.): is and do-n-icfad na duba digeanna cen a.¤ cen fasach `without foundation without precedent', Laws v 480.20 . co nailchib roscud ┐ fasach ┐ testemuin, O'D. 2211 (Nero A vii 145b). breth cen ailig, Triads 244 .i. gan hailche 'na timchioll, .i. rosg ┐ fasach, p. 43 . Sencha . . . ni conberedh breth ngua gin teora ailche astudha cacha bretha, Laws i 24.23 . sruth do aill . . . do foxla ailche . . . imtha samlaidh in fer samailter fris; baidhidh droch leighniudha fortabhraidsi co nailchib testemna ┐ cedfaidhi, iv 356.12 . ni íadat iubaili for étechti a.¤ , LU 3473 `prescriptive periods should not close upon a foundation of illegality', SC p. 34 . is ae fo a.¤ .i. iubaile tsaorratha inso, Laws ii 198.2 Comm. ?laighidh a.¤ for naesaib, iii 220.21, 24 , 226.21 . a.¤ .i. dliged no briathra, O'Dav. 631 . a.¤ .i. dliged (B. na f.), ZCP v 486 § 6 . a.¤ (also ailech) anscui(ch) the lit. immoveable rock i.e. unshakeable testimony: for-toing a.¤ anscuichthe lais (.i. for-toing airdi no aimseir . . . no laid no litteir . . . it hē mairb in sin fortongat for biu, nī fortongar cenaib) an immoveable rock testifies along with him (i.e. a sign or time . . . or a lay or letter . . ., those are the dead that testify against the living, without them there is no over-ruling testimony) ZCP xv 361 § 46 (xvi 228) . feitheam for-toing fir fri hailche andscuithe, O'C. 1890 ( 23 P 3, 22 ). it he a secht in sin con- osnat cach n-imt[h]aithbech: fiadnaisi inraici, ailig anscui[ch]- thi . . ., Bürgschaft 21 § 62 . tri filidecht techtai, tri ailge anscuichthi, tri airmitin sen, ZCP xii 363.35 . ni ruc C. breth riam cen teora ailig ancsui[ch]thi breth occa .i. ailig aicnid gaisi etc., CF 73.4 ( SG 89.30 ). ?do fuair . . . a liomhdha (= líomhadh?) an algaibh `in the noble arts', Oss. v 146.5 . See also under 1 all

Cf. 1 ailech.

In Irish we find the following word for stone (the entry is from Professor Ranko Matasovic's AN ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF PROTO-CELTIC):

*arto- 'stone' [Noun]

GOlD: Mlr. art

GAUL: artuass 'stones' (Todi)

ETYM: This is a rather weak etymology, since the Mlr. word is known only

from glossaries (its gender and stem formation are unknown), and the

meaning of the Gaulish noun is not ascertained (cf. Lambert 1994: 74).

REF: LEIA A-91.

And from the eDIL:

2 art

Cite this: eDIL s.v. 2 art or dil.ie/4322

Forms: a.

n expld. in glossaries as stone: a.¤ .i. cloch nō leac ligi cuius diminutiu[um] artēne .i. cloichēne, Corm. Y 26 . a.¤ .i. aill, Ält. Ir. Dicht. ii 27 § 1 (reading of BB). fúigfe an lása é 'na Art / acht grása Dé 's a dhaonnacht (pun on the name Art), L. Cl. A. Buidhe 243.11 . a.¤ solid, strong, stout, a stone . Also dim. airtine pebble , P. O'C. Note also compds. artchaireal or artchailéar a quarry or stone pit . artghaineam stony sand, coarse gravel , P. O'C. Note also (perh. merely an inference from anart): crúaid `a.¤' a ṡenainm go fír is `anart' ainm do mhaoithmhín, Met. Gl. 15 § 34 . a.¤ ┐ anart cruaid ┐ maoth, O'Mulc. 56 .

There have been attempts in the past to derive the Arthur name from *Arto-rigos, 'Stone-king.'  These attempts don't really work very well, but as with a 'Bear-king' original from the Irish or British, Arthur/Artorius could well have been chosen as a decknamen for Stone-king.  

Two additional points need to mentioned, as I feel they cannot be stressed highly enough.  

First, Arthur son of Bicoir the Briton (almost certainly an Irish corruption of Petuir, one of the spellings for Petr/Pedr of Dyfed) is said to have slain the Irish king Mongan with a stone (lapide).  

Second, Pedr is itself from Latin Petrus, from the Greek petra, 'a rock, a crag, stone'.  

Now, we might reasonably ask ourselves why Arthur was chosen as the name of Pedr's son.  Could it not be that Arthur's original name, in the Irish, was from *Artorigos, and meant 'Stone-king'?  One could think of no more appropriate name for the son of a man named "Rock/Stone", i.e. Pedr.

But if this is all so, then do we have the wrong Ceredig for Arthur in Ceredig son of Cunedda?  Was Arthur, in reality, the regis/regem Aloo Ceredig Wledig of Strathclyde?

We must remember that Aedan of Dalriada named his son Arthur, and the latter name is known to have come from the British.  Aedan had very close relations, peaceful and otherwise, with Strathclyde.  What more reasonable assumption to make than that Arthur of Dalriada was named for Arthur of Strathclyde, i.e. Ceredig Wledig the Stone-king?

Granted, we must be careful here.  As stated above in the listing for *arto-, the actual existence of the word is not confirmed outside of Irish glossaries.  Still, I have tried in a number of ways to account for the name Arthur in Chapter 56 of Nennius.  There are really only two possibilities.  One I have discussed in detail in my book THE BEAR KING and in various blog posts. If we opt for Arthur as a decknamen of a 'Bear-king' title or name, then we are looking at Ceredig son of Cunedda.  The Afon Arth in Ceredig's Ceredigion seems to have been viewed as a holy river, and we have three Arto- or 'bear' names in the genealogy of Ceredig's close descendants. 

But here is the problem with that scenario.  NOWHERE is Ceredig son of Cunedda called the Bear-king or Arthur/Artorius.  At least not in any of our extant sources.  On the other hand, Ceredig of Strathclyde, the king with whom Patrick had dealings, was referred to as the 'King of the Rock.' This title might easily have been associated with an *Artorigos/'Stone-king' and thus with Arthur/Artorius.

Ancient and modern authorities have confused the two Ceredigs.  It is thus possible to make a case for either one of them being the Arthur of the HISTORIA BRITTONUM.  

So, how do we decide between them?  I am, of course, limiting my choice of Arthurian candidates here, but to be honest, I feel strongly that the 'Patrician testimony' in regards to a Ceredig is sufficient to account for the appearance of Arthur in Nennius.

What we can say about Ceredig Wledig of Strathclyde is this: wledig, according to the GPC, means

"lord, king, prince, ruler; term applied to a number of early British rulers and princes who were prominent in the defence of Britain about the time of the Roman withdrawal; (possibly) commander of the native militia (in a Romano-British province)."

In other words, this answers nicely for Arthur as the 'dux erat bellorum.'

Well, we should go to the battle list.  Alas, as I've shown in my two books THE ARTHUR OF HISTORY and THE BEAR KING, the Arthurian battles can be placed in the North or the South. If in the south, we are looking at an Irish or Hiberno-Irish mercenary (or 'federate') allying with the English against Britons who were enemies of the High King of Wales.  If in the north, we are looking at a war-leader who may have genuinely led campaigns against the English from Northumberland to Derbyshire. Certainly, the Strathclyde kings were powerful; Rhydderch, a descendant of Ceredig Wledig, attacked the English in SW Scotland (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-new-and-certain-identification-of.html). 

However, we must not forget that the HISTORIA BRITTONUM was written in Gwynedd, where the royal family traced its descent to Cunedda and his sons.  One of those sons was reputedly Ceredig. Still, Gwynedd, in its desire to idenitfy Ceredig of the Patrician tradition with its own Ceredig, may have taken undue liberties.  It would not be at all unreasonable to assume that they had 'co-opted' Ceredig of Strathclyde by choosing to make him one of their own.

At the same time, the Irish may have co-opted a Bear-king of Ceredigion by interpreting Ceredig son of Cunedda's name/title as being falsely derived from *arto-, 'stone.' 

I cannot emphasize enough the difficulty here in deciding between Ceredig of Strathclyde and Ceredig son of Cunedda as the true, original Arthur. However, for me at least, the deciding factor is the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE'S entries on Cerdic of the Gewissei.  There is no doubt in my mind that this Cerdic is Ceredig son of Cunedda.  The Gewissei battles do appear to correspond with those of Arthur in the HISTORIA BRITTONUM.  The respective chronologies match nicely as well. The Arthur name for Ceredig would have been substituted for a 'Bear-king' original.  An association of the name Arthur with a 'Stone-king' looks to be a clever play on words or simply a mistaken interpretation derived from an Irish source.  

 

  

Coming Soon: ARTHUR THE STONE-KING (EVIDENCE FOR THE NAME ARTHUR FROM *ARTORIGOS)

Dumbarton Rock

WHY ARTHUR COMES AFTER ST. PATRICK IN NENNIUS'S HISTORIA BRITTONUM

Ceredigion Coast

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/01/yet-another-reason-to-favor-my-ceredig.html

A NEW IDENTIFICATION OF THE NORTH BRITISH GOD VETERIS

Snake and Boar from Veteris Altar

Altar to Mogons Vitiris at Netherby, Cumbria

(see https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/971)

Most authorities have thought that the name Veteris or Vitiris rather transparently draws upon the Latin veteris, meaning in this context something like “the Old One” (veteris as a genitive singular of vetus ‘old’).  There are other theories, of course, but none are particularly convincing.[1]  It is a shame that we don't know anything about this deity, given that Veteris was one of the most important gods of Northern Britain during the Roman period.

In the past I tried to make a case for his name being of Germanic origin:

"... something akin to Old English hwyttre, hwitere, forms of the word hwit, meaning “white”?  I thought of this because the Chesterholm Roman fort was called Vindolanda, the ‘White Moor/Heath’.  This fort has the second highest concentration of dedications to Veteris; only Carvoran has more.  And this means Vindolanda could, conceivably, be the cult center of Veteres.  Netherby, where we find Mogons Veteres, is hard by the ‘White Dales’ of Myrddin.

Old English hwīt (comparative hwītra, superlative hwītost),  “white”
Proto-Germanic *hwītaz, from Proto-Indo-European *kweit-. Cognate with Old High German wīz (German weiß), Old Norse hvítr (Swedish vit).
Spellings in declension such as hwitre, etc.

When I wrote to Professor Ranko Matasovic about this, he responded thusly:

“OE hwitere is a good formal match to Viteris. But the word for 'white' is inherited in Germanic, of course (cf. its correspondent in Lith. kviečiai 'wheat'); it is not a borrowing from Celtic. Irish h-prothesis is much older, and in Greek h- is from *s- or *sw-, so the spelling hv- in Vitires probably indicates that the name is not Celtic."

However, as it turns out the majority of the worshipers of Veteris appear to have been Celtic.  There is an excellent and detailed treatment of this god at http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/6643/2/6643_3946-vol2.PDF. Other Germanic etymologies are briefly discussed in this source, although any that rely upon (or resort to?) late Norse names can be ignored. The summary from the study is particularly enlightening:

"Thus it is that the god Veteris (in whatever variation of

the spelling) was a god who appealed to the lower strata
of society. The cult in its Romanised form flourished

mainly on the Hadrianic frontier probably during the third

century AD and perhaps beyond. It is possible that

Veteris was imported from abroad by auxiliary soldiers but

more probable that an indigenous deity is in question.

Addressed by his votaries in various forms - singular

and plural~ masculine and feminine and perhaps even neuter

- the deity seems ill-defined and amorphous as might befit

a vague and primitive spirit of nature. Yet the Celtic

symbolism detected on some of the altars suggests a

concern with hunting and fertility, healing and

protection. There is a similarity to the dedications to

Belatucadrus~ yet to be discussed, and it may be that, as

will be suggest for Belatucadrus~ Veteris should be

regarded as the god of a specific community. If of course

Veteris is regarded as imported, then that community is

not likely to represent an indigenous tribal grouping but

rather an assemblage of incomers. On the other hand~ if

the indigenous nature of Veteris is accepted, then a

native tribal group is the likely source of the cult.

That this tribal group was not the same as that belonging

to Belatucadrus is suggested by the fact that despite some

overlapping, the distribution of the dedications to the

two deities does not coincide. A location within the Tyne 

Gap would seem called for. In addition, from what has been 

said, the attractive hypothesis suggests itself that the deity 

belonging to this tribal group was not only pre-Roman but 

pre-Celtic. This could account for some of the difficulties in

interpretation and~ while it cannot be proved~ the

possibility of such antiquity should be recognised."

I've gone so far as to propose Celtic roots for the name.  Dr. Simon Rodway of The University of Wales suggested the following:

“Welsh gwid derives from a participle *wi-to- 'hunted, desired' or *wi-ti- 'the hunt, enjoyment (of food)' according to GPC. The second form looks compatible with the forms in Viti-, but does not explain those in *Vete- (unless these are examples of Vulgar Latin <e> for <i>). As for the ending -ris, it could be from -ri:x 'king'. Kenneth Jackson (LHEB 535, 625) states that -x (i.e. /xs/) had become -s in Brittonic 'by the fifth century'. This is rather late, and at any rate it has been challenged by Patrick Sims-Williams. However, one might compare a 3rd century inscription from Housesteads on Hadrian's Wall: CVNARIS < *Cunori:x 'hound-like king'. Here the change of composition vowel /o/ > /a/ suggests this is probably an Irish name. So, Irish influence could account for -x > -s in your name too. Alternatively, there are Vulgar Latin examples of -s for -x, e.g. felis for felix.”

Alas, the -ris for -ri:x does not work as many of the inscriptions come from the 2nd century.  

A rather brilliant idea, I thought, seeks to connect Veteris with an ancient root for 'willow.'  This could be significant given the god Esus's connection to this tree.  I will have more on Esus below.

Proto-Celtic *weti- 'withe' [Noun]

GOlD: Mlr.feith [i f] 'some kind of twining plant'

W: MW gwden, gwyden [f] 'withe' [GPC: withe; rope (coil, band, &c.) of plaited withes (esp. for traces), snare, noose, hangman’s halter.]

BRET: MBret. gueden, MoBret. gwedenn [f]

CO: OCo. guiden gl. circulus, MCo. gusen [Singulative]

PIE: *weyh,t-i- 'willow, withe' (IEW: 1122)

But again, if the name Veteris is from 'willow' we can't account for the -ris terminal.  No matter what we do in terms of etymology, we end up coming back to the Latin word for an old/ancient deity.  The problem has always been: just who or what is the Old God?

Well, when we look at the distribution of the Veteris inscriptions, we notice something fascinating.  The heaviest concentration of altars is found at Carvoran and the second largest at Vindolanda.  While Vindolanda lies just south of the Wall, between these two forts is Aesica, the 'Place of [the god] Esus.'  Oddly enough, we have not found a single dedication to Esus. [For a good treatment of Esus, see http://www.chronarchy.com/esus/aboutesus.html.]

The iconography for Veteris may provide a clue as to this god's identity. On a Veteris altar at Netherby two trees are depicted.  Accompanying the trees are a boar and a snake.  The trees are generally described as apple trees. The following is from https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/352614/Anna.Thesis.v2correct.print.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y:

"Only one of these [altars to Veteris] has reliefs, possibly telling us something about the character of Veteris. RIB 973 only bears the inscription deo hveteri, or “To the god Hveter”, on the front. On the left side however, we can see a scene of a tree and a snake encircling it. The right side shows another tree and the snout and forefeet of a boar, which is all that remains of a fuller representation. These scenes are often interpreted as alluding to two of the works of Hercules, that is the apple tree of the Hesperides guarded by the serpent-like dragon Ladon and the Erymanthian boar... The boar and snake, especially within scenes set in nature, in this case the forest, were also common elements in Celtic religion and mythology. However, the Romano-British context of the find in Netherby, where the soldiers of the Roman fort Castra Exploratorum were stationed, does suggest that Interpretatio Romana would be likely. Also, the altar shows two spiralled columns between both sides and the middle panel and the top is decorated with a frieze of geometrical shapes. This gives the altar the look of a Roman temple, which was a practice unknown to the people of Britain before the Roman conquest. This altar is made with an incredible skill not seen on any other altar to Veteris, which are all rather plain." 

The god Esus is portrayed on a relief as a heavily muscled figure chopping down a willow tree.  In other words, he physically resembles Hercules.  I would add that the Erymanthian boar is associated with cypress trees.  One of the Hesperides, viz. Aegle or Aigle, was a willow tree goddess. 

So might Veteris be Esus?  I think this is possible.  How?

Here is what Professor Ranko Matasovic had to tell me about the divine name Esus:

"I think the name comes from PIE *h1esh2os "lord", and is cognate with Latin erus 'lord, master', Hittite ishas 'id.'. The spelling aesus stems from a period when Latin /ae/ and /e/ were no longer distinguished, so I believe the spelling Esus (found in Lucan) is original."

This etymology is generally accepted, although (as I've mentioned above) other ideas have been proposed.  For example, it has been traced to either PIE *eis- "passion or fury", *ais- "to respect, to honor", Italic aisus, esus, "god,", the Breton word (h)euzuz, meaning "terrible" or esu, "good" (cf. Gk. eus and also archaic Indic asura). There may be more proposed derivations out there somewhere; I have not done a comprehensive search for such.  

But what I wondered whether the god-name could be from Proto-Celtic

*ay-sso-, *ay-to- ‘life, age’ [Noun] 

GOID: OIr. aes, oes [o n]; cf. OIr. aesta 'old, ancient'

W: OW ois [f] ‘age’, MW oes [GPC 'age, long indefinite period; century']; OW oit [f and m] ‘time, period’, MW oed 
BRET: OBret. oit, MBret. oet 
CO: OCo. huis gl. seculum, Co. oys 

PIE: *h 2 ey-(wo)- ‘age’ (IEW: 17f.)

Or, if not from this root, could it be that in Britain the divine name Esus were interpreted as if it came from *ay-sso-?

This did not seem like a ridiculous notion to me.  So, as I always do, I went and asked the experts.

Dr. Simon Rodway contributed this:

"*aysso- (to use Matasovic’s notation), according to Jackson’s chronology (LHEB, 329-30) would give *ɛ:ss- (with long open e) by about the 1c. AD, *ɛis(s) (with glide i) by the 6c. and Welsh ois by early or mid-8c. (recte c. 800, because some of Jackson’s datings of Old Welsh texts are too early). Might there have been an early (mistaken) connection with Esus/Aesus? Not impossible, I think, but the quality of the vowel in Esus is unclear and the etymology unprovable."

To which Professor Peter Schrijver added:

"I find it very hard to make any pronouncement on the etymology of an extremely short string ES in which the first element is unstable (AES) and the second could be a number of earlier phonological structures (st, ts, tt, ss, s). But even if Esus were not actually from the root *aysso-, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the name could easily have been wrongly interpreted in this fashion."

These are not exactly resounding endorsements of my solution to the problem posed by the name Veteris.  But, given the degree of scholarly uncertainty about the meaning of Esus, I feel justified in proposing that either the name is from a root meaning 'old' or, more likely, the worshipers of Esus in Britain interpreted their god's name as meaning the Old/Ancient One and so substituted Latin Veteris. 

I've asked several other leading Celtic linguists about this matter.  Once I hear back from them, I will post their responses here.

[1]

Two names of dedicators to Veteres are worth singling out.  These are Senaculus and Senilis.  

https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/1699

for Senaculus

and

RIB 3339 Vindolanda Inscription a.d. 43-410
Veteribus posuit Senilis


Both names (see https://www.asnc.cam.ac.uk/personalnames/search.php?s_element=seno-) contain Celtic *seno- 'old.'

To my mind, this is yet more evidence for Veteres as the Old God.  

NOTE ON MYRDDIN AND VETERIS

Given that the Netherby Roman fort with its Veteris altars is directly between Myrddin's/Merlin's/Llallog's/Llallogan's Carwinley and Arthuret, I've often wondered if some aspect of the god may be involved in the story of this famous Welsh madman and prophet.

Firstly, the Veteris iconography at Netherby includes what appears to be an apple tree and a boar.  We are reminded immediately of Myrddin's apple tree and pig in the early Welsh poetry.  

Secondly, if Veteris is Esus, the latter's willow tree may be present in the Myrddin story.  For we are told that Merlin is buried at the Powsail or 'Willow Pool', now Drumelzier Burn on the Tweed. This is a relocation of the Willow Pool near the confluence of the Esk and the Liddel (the Liddel has a tributary called the Tweed or Tweeden, which Brythonic place-name expert Alan James believes may well be ancient). 

Thirdly, according to Anne Ross and Don Robbins in their THE LIFE AND DEATH OF A DRUID PRINCE, Esus may be one of the gods involved in the Triple Sacrificial Death.  He seems to have been offered victims by hanging and stabbing, much as was said to be true of the Germanic god Odin. Merlin undergoes such a ritualized execution (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-triple-sacrifice-of-merlinllallogan.html), although in the past I and others have firmly connected this with the similar triple death of the god Lleu in the MABINOGION.

And fourth, the Llallog/Llallogan nickname of Myrddin derives from Welsh llall, which has as one of its definitions '(the) second', according to the authoritative GPC.  One of the altars to Veteris at Netherby was dedicated by an Aelius Secundus.  This is probably mere happy coincidence, but it is interesting, nonetheless.

Coming Soon: A NEW IDENTIFICATION OF THE NORTH BRITISH GOD VETERIS

Image of Esus on the Gallo-Roman Pillar of the Boatmen, first century CE

(Photo Courtesy Wikipedia)

THE TRIPLE SACRIFICE OF MERLIN/LLALLOGAN AND THE GOD LLEU

The Sacrifice of Lleu

A friend of mine recently wrote to me and confessed that she was somewhat troubled by the claim that the sacrifice of the god Lleu in the MABINOGION was mirrored by that of Merlin as Lailoken (Llallogan).  To her, there seemed to be some key differences in the two accounts of sacrificial ritual.

She pointed out the following, which I'm choosing to represent in tabulated form:

LLEU                                                   LAILOKEN

Goat                                                     Stoned by Shepherds

Goronwy's spear                                  Stake

Bathtub                                                Fishpond

Llallogan/Merlin is said to be stoned by shepherds in such a way that he fell off the bank of the river into a fishpond, where he was impaled on a stake (presumably of a fish weir).  As he was hanging upside down, the upper half of his body was under the water and hence he drowned.

Lleu, on the other hand, is said to stand with one foot on a goat's back, another on the rim of a bathtub, and to have been speared while in that position by Goronwy Pefr.

How are we to reconcile these two accounts?

Well, as I demonstrated in my book THE MYSTERIES OF AVALON,

"... the triple sacrifice of Lleu would have been enacted every year.  Lleu’s annual death occurred originally at February 1 or Imbolc, if calculated around 1200 A.D.: the goat and bathtub of Lleu’s death scene represent, respectively, the goat of Capricorn and the water-bearer of Aquarius. In 3000 BCE, the sun was between these two signs on the Winter Solstice."

This was a clever interpretation of Lleu's death-scene, but did not really tell the whole story.

Originally, the goat would have butted or bucked off the god so that he fell into the bathtub at the moment he was transfixed by the spear.  The goat is the animal of shepherds, and I believe what we have in this case is not a example of Dumezil's Tripartite mythological theory of social stratification, but a division of the cosmos into the three levels.

Goat/shepherds - Earth

Spear/stake - Heaven (as the god's spear is a lightning spear, something proven when Lleu's own

weapon pierces a great stone Goronwy later attemtps to use as a shield)

Bathtub/fishpond - the watery underworld, or at least the watery entrance to the Otherworld

The idea, of course, is quite profound: the god cannot be killed unless he is in all three places at once.  Or, to look at it another way, his death exists only at the point where all three realms of the universe converge, if ever so fleetingly.

Granted, there is an apparent contradiction between hanging upon a stake and simply being run through by a spear.  But we need to remember that with the Celtic god Esus, as well as the Germanic god Odin, hanging and spearing were conjoined actions, with the tree being emblematic of the sky.  When Lleu is killed, he perches as a putrefying eagle in an oak tree that symbolizes the heavens.  Thus the stake, standing like a tree, performs both the function of the lightning-spear and that of the gallows-tree.  

CRUDELISQUE TYRANNI AND UTHER PENDRAGON

From my most recent post at https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/01/yet-another-reason-to-favor-my-ceredig.html:

I would also point out that the crudelisque tyrranni description given to Coroticus is interesting.  Uther (uthr) has among its several meanings cruel (GPC: fearful, dreadful, awful, terrible, tremendous, mighty, overbearing, cruel; wonderful, wondrous, astonishing, excellent), while teyrn (cognate with Latin tyrannus) has much the same meaning as Pendragon.  We are reminded of the Nennius interpolation which says that  Arthur was called "in British mab Uter, that is in Latin terrible son, because from his youth he was cruel."  If Arthur really is Ceredig son of Cunedda, and he was confused with Ceredig Wledig of the North, the cruel tyrant, then it may be that Uther Pendragon is not Arthur's father at all, but Arthur himself.  

YET ANOTHER REASON TO FAVOR MY CEREDIG = ARTHUR THEORY

From The Tripartite Life of Patrick: With Other Documents Relating to that Saint

edited by Whitley Stokes

According to Nicholas J. Higham (see https://books.google.com/books?id=dn11DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=nicholas+j.+higham+moses+joshua&source=bl&ots=npHhnjKoFk&sig=QybB4c9HCnwnPkT1NSGY03gzSzk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwimqsuDsePfAhWLL3wKHVaIDm8Q6AEwCHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=nicholas%20j.%20higham%20moses%20joshua&f=false), the account of Arthur is found after that of St. Patrick because the former was thought of as a British Joshua, while the latter was an Irish Moses.  This is an interesting idea, to be sure, but I think there is a much more literal reason why the HISTORI BRITTONUM'S famous Chapter 56 follows that of Chapters 54-5.

I'd long been aware of St. Patrick's letter [1] to the Strathclyde king Coroticus, called Ceredig in the early Welsh genealogies.  But I did not know that this same king is mentioned in Muirchu's Life of St. Patrick.  

From https://www.confessio.ie/#:

I.29

(1) I shall not pass over in silence a miraculous deed of Patrick's. News had been brought to him of a wicked act by a certain British king named Corictic, an ill-natured [actually infausti is 'unfortunate' or 'ill-omened'] and cruel ruler.(2) He had no equal as a persecutor and murderer of Christians. Patrick tried to call him back to the way of truth by a letter, but he scorned his salutary exhortations. (3) When this was reported to Patrick, he prayed to the Lord and said: 'My God, if it is possible, expel this godless man from this world and from the next.'(4) Not much time had elapsed after this when (Corictic) heard somebody recite a poem saying that he should abandon his royal seat, and all the men who were dearest to him chimed in.Suddenly before their eyes, in the middle of a public place, he was ignomiously changed into a fox, went off, and since that day and hour, like water that flows away, was never seen again.

Latin:

I.29

(1) Quoddam mirabile gestum Patricii non transibo silentio. Huic nuntiatum est nequissimum opus cuiusdam regis Brittanici nomine Corictic infausti crudelisque tyrranni. (2) Hic namque erat maximus persecutor interfectorque Christianorum. Patricius autem per epistolam ad uiam ueritatis reuocare temptauit; cuius salutaria deridebat monita.(3) Cum autem ita nuntiarentur Patricio orauit Dominum et dixit: "domine, si fieri potest, expelle hunc perfidum de praesenti saeculoque futuro". (4) Non grande post ea tempus effluxerat et musicam artem audiuit a quodam cantare quod de solio regali transiret, omnesque karissimi eius uiri in hanc proruperunt uocem.Tunc ille cum esset in medio foro, ilico uulpiculi miserabiliter arepta forma profectus in suorum praesentia ex illo die illaque hora uelut fluxus aquae transiens nusquam conparuit.

This story is repeated in Jocelyn (see http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18482/18482-h/18482-h.htm):

CHAPTER CL.

A wicked Tyrant is transformed into a Fox.

In that part of Britain which is now called Vallia, lived a certain tyrant named Cereticus; and he was a deceiver, an oppressor, a blasphemer of the name of the Lord, a persecutor and a cruel destroyer of Christians. And Patrick hearing of his brutal tyranny, labored to recall him into the path of salvation, writing unto him a monitory epistle, for his conversion from so great vices. But he, that more wicked he might become from day to day, laughed to scorn the monition of the saint, and waxed stronger in his sins, in his crimes, in his falsehoods and in his cruelties. The which when Patrick heard, taught by the Divine Spirit, he knew that the vessel of evil was hardened in reprobation, prepared in no wise for correction, but rather for perdition; and thus he prayed unto the Lord: "O Lord God, as thou knowest this vulpine man to be monstrous in vice, do thou in a monstrous mode cast him forth from the face of the earth, and appoint an end unto his offences!" Then the Lord, inclining his ear unto the voice of his servant, while on a certain time the tyrant stood in the middle of his court surrounded by many of his people, suddenly transformed him into a fox; and he, flying from their sight, never more appeared on the earth. And this no one can reasonably disbelieve, who hath read of the wife of Lot who was changed into a pillar of salt, or the history of the King Nabuchodonoser.

Commentators on this chapter in Jocelyn make the observation that Vallia = Wales.  This is an error, of course, for Ceredig son of Cunedda's kingdom of Ceredigion in western Wales.  This is proof positive that the two Ceredig's were confused in tradition.  

What is obvious to me, therefore, is that the compiler of the HISTORIA BRITTONUM, in summarizing the Vita sancti Patricii, either confused this British king Coroticus/Ceredig for Ceredig son of Cunedda/Arthur or was simply reminded of the Gwynedd hero who bore the same name.  In either case, he quite naturally followed his section on Patrick with that of Arthur.  

In this sense, then, Arthur does not suddenly appear "out of the blue", as it were.  Rather, a name identical to his is found towards the end of the Life of St. Patrick - the life that is presented to us in truncated form in the HISTORIA BRITTONUM.

According to P. C. Bartram,

"The date of the raid by Coroticus was put by J.B.Bury in 458 (Life of St.Patrick, pp.195, 303).
This assumed the traditional date of 432 for Patrick's mission to Ireland. But James Carney, putting
Patrick's mission in 456, has suggested 471 for the date of the raid."

Cerdic of the Gewissei/Ceredig son of Cunedda is, according to the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE, active from 495-534.  

I would also point out that the crudelisque tyrranni description given to Coroticus is interesting.  Uther (uthr) has among its several meanings cruel (GPC: fearful, dreadful, awful, terrible, tremendous, mighty, overbearing, cruel; wonderful, wondrous, astonishing, excellent), while teyrn (cognate with Latin tyrannus) has much the same meaning as Pendragon.  We are reminded of the Nennius interpolation which says that  Arthur was called "in British mab Uter, that is in Latin terrible son, because from his youth he was cruel."  If Arthur really is Ceredig son of Cunedda, and he was confused with Ceredig Wledig of the North, the cruel tyrant, then it may be that Uther Pendragon is not Arthur's father at all, but Arthur himself.  

[1] Letter to the soldiers of Coroticus

1

I declare that I, Patrick, – an unlearned sinner indeed – have been established a bishop in Ireland. I hold quite certainly that what I am, I have accepted from God.[Nota] I live as an alien among non-Roman peoples, an exile on account of the love of God – he is my witness that this is so. It is not that I would choose to let anything so blunt and harsh come from my mouth, but I am driven by the zeal for God. And the truth of Christ stimulates me, for love of neighbours and children: for these, I have given up my homeland and my parents, and my very life to death, if I am worthy of that. I live for my God, to teach these peoples, even if I am despised by some.

2

With my own hand[Nota] I have written and put together these words to be given and handed on and sent to the soldiers of Coroticus.[Nota] I cannot say that they are my fellow-citizens, nor fellow-citizens of the saints of Rome, but fellow-citizens of demons, because of their evil works. By their hostile ways they live in death, allies of the apostate Scots and Picts. They are blood-stained: blood-stained with the blood of innocent Christians, whose numbers I have given birth to in God and confirmed in Christ.

3

The newly baptised and anointed were dressed in white robes; the anointing was still to be seen clearly on their foreheads when they were cruelly slain and sacrificed by the sword of the ones I referred to above. On the day after that, I sent a letter by a holy priest (whom I had taught from infancy), with clerics, to ask that they return to us some of the booty or of the baptised prisoners they had captured. They scoffed at them.

4

So I don't know which is the cause of the greatest grief for me: whether those who were slain, or those who were captured, or those whom the devil so deeply ensnared. They will face the eternal pains of Gehenna[Nota] equally with the devil; because whoever commits sin is rightly called a slave and a son of the devil.[Nota]

5

For this reason, let every God-fearing[Nota] person know that those people are alien to me and to Christ my God, for whom I am an ambassador[Nota]: father-slayers, brother-slayers, they are savage wolves devouring the people of God as they would bread for food.[Nota] It is just as it is said: ‘The wicked have routed your law, O Lord’[Nota] – the very law which in recent times he so graciously planted in Ireland and, with God's help, has taken root.

6

I am not forcing myself in where I have no right to act. I have a part with those whom God called and destined to preach the gospel, even in persecutions which are no small matter, to the very ends of the earth. This is despite the malice of the Enemy through the tyranny of Coroticus, who respects neither God, nor his priests whom God chose and granted the divine and sublime power that whatever they would bind upon earth would be bound also in the heavens.[Nota]

7

Therefore I ask most of all that all the holy and humble of heart should not fawn on such people, nor even share food or drink with them, nor accept their alms, until such time as they make satisfaction to God in severe penance and shedding of tears, and until they set free the men-servants of God and the baptised women servants of Christ, for whom he died and was crucified.

8

The Most High does not accept the gifts of evildoers. The one who offers a sacrifice taken from what belongs to the poor is like one who sacrifices a child in the very sight of the child's father.[Nota] Riches, says Scripture, which a person gathers unjustly, will be vomited out of that person's stomach. The angel of death will drag such a one away, to be crushed by the anger of dragons. Such a one will the tongue of a serpent slay, and the fire which cannot be extinguished will consume.[Nota] And Scripture also says: ‘Woe to those who fill themselves with what does not belong to them’.[Nota] And: ‘What does it profit a person to gain the whole world and yet suffer the loss of his or her soul?’[Nota]

9

It would take a long time to discuss or refer one by one, and to gather from the whole law all that is stated about such greed. Avarice is a deadly crime.[Nota] Do not covet your neighbour's goods. Do not kill. The murderer can have no part with Christ. Whoever hates a brother is guilty of homicide. Also: Whoever does not love a brother remains in death.[Nota] How much more guilty is the one who stained his hands in the blood of the children of God, who God only lately acquired in the most distant parts of the earth through the encouragement of one as unimportant as I am!

10

Surely it was not without God, or simply out of human motives, that I came to Ireland![Nota] Who was it who drove me to it? I am so bound by the Spirit that I no longer see my own kindred. Is it just from myself that comes the holy mercy in how I act towards that people who at one time took me captive and slaughtered the men and women servants in my father's home? In my human nature I was born free, in that I was born of a decurion father.[Nota] But I sold out my noble state for the sake of others – and I am not ashamed of that, nor do I repent of it. Now, in Christ, I am a slave of a foreign people, for the sake of the indescribable glory of eternal life which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.[Nota]

11

If my own people do not recognise me, still no prophet is honoured in his own country.[Nota] Could it be that we are not of the one sheepfold, nor that we have the one God as our Father? As Scripture says: ‘Whoever is not with me is against me’;[Nota] and ‘whoever does not gather with me, scatters’.[Nota] But it is not right that one destroys while another builds.[Nota] I do not seek what is mine: it is not my own grace, but God who put this concern in my heart, that I would be one of the hunters or fishers whom God at one time foretold would be here in the final days.[Nota]

12

They watch me with malice. What am I to do, Lord? I am greatly despised. See – your sheep around me are mangled and preyed upon, and this by the thieves I mentioned before, at the bidding of the evil-minded Coroticus. He is far from the love of God, who betrays Christians into the hands of Scots and Picts. Greedy wolves have devoured the flock of the Lord,[Nota] which was flourishing in Ireland under the very best of care – I just can't count the number of sons of Scots and daughters of kings who are now monks and virgins of Christ. So the injuries done to good people will not please you – even in the very depths it will not please.[Nota]

13

Who among the holy people would not be horrified to take pleasure or to enjoy a banquet with such people? They have filled their homes with what they stole from dead Christians; they live on what they plundered. These wretched people don't realise that they offer deadly poison as food to their friends and children. It is just like Eve,[Nota] who did not understand that it was really death that she offered her man. This is how it is with those who do evil: they work for death as an everlasting punishment.

14

The Christians of Roman Gaul have the custom of sending holy and chosen men to the Franks and to other pagan peoples with so many thousands in money to buy back the baptised who have been taken prisoner. You, on the other hand, kill them, and sell them to foreign peoples who have no knowledge of God. You hand over the members of Christ as it were to a brothel.[Nota] What hope have you in God? Who approves of what you do, or who ever speaks words of praise? God will be the judge, for it is written: ‘Not only the doers of evil, but also those who go along with it, are to be condemned’.[Nota]

15

I do not know what to say, or how I can say any more, about the children of God who are dead, whom the sword has touched so cruelly. All I can do is what is written: ‘Weep with those who weep’;[Nota] and again: ‘If one member suffers pain, let all the members suffer the pain with it’.[Nota] This is why the church mourns and weeps for its sons and daughters whom the sword has not yet slain, but who were taken away and exported to far distant lands, where grave sin openly flourishes without shame, where freeborn people have been sold off, Christians reduced to slavery: slaves particularly of the lowest and worst of the apostate Picts.

16

That is why I will cry aloud with sadness and grief: O my fairest and most loving brothers and sisters whom I begot without number in Christ,[Nota] what am I to do for you? I am not worthy to come to the aid either of God or of human beings. The evil of evil people has prevailed over us.[Nota] We have been made as if we were complete outsiders. Can it be they do not believe that we have received one and the same Baptism, or that we have one and the same God as father.[Nota] For them, it is a disgrace that we are from Ireland. Remember what Scripture says: ‘Do you not have the one God? Then why have you each abandoned your neighbour?’[Nota]

17

That is why I grieve for you; I grieve for you who are so very dear to me. And yet I rejoice within myself: I have not worked for nothing;[Nota] my wanderings have not been in vain. This unspeakably horrifying crime has been carried out. But, thanks to God, you who are baptised believers have moved on from this world to paradise. I see you clearly: you have begun your journey to where there is no night, nor sorrow, nor death, any more.[Nota] Rather, you leap for joy, like calves set free from chains, and you tread down the wicked, and they will be like ashes under your feet.[Nota]

18

And so, you will reign with apostles and prophets and martyrs. You will take possession of an eternal kingdom, as he (Christ) testifies in these words: ‘They will come from the east and from the west, and they will recline at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of the heavens.[Nota] Left outside are dogs and sorcerers and murderers; with the lying perjurers, their lot is in the pool of eternal fire’.[Nota] It is not without cause that the apostle says: ‘If it is the case that a just person can be saved only with difficulty, where will the sinner and the irreverent transgressor of the law find himself?’[Nota]

19

So where will Coroticus and his villainous rebels against Christ find themselves – those who divide out defenceless baptised women as prizes, all for the sake of a miserable temporal kingdom, which will pass away in a moment of time. Just as cloud of smoke is blown away by the wind,[Nota] that is how deceitful sinners will perish from the face of the Lord. The just, however, will banquet in great constancy with Christ. They will judge nations, and will rule over evil kings for all ages.[Nota] Amen.

20

I bear witness before God and his angels that it will be as he made it known to one of my inexperience. These are not my own words which I have put before you in Latin; they are the words of God, and of the apostles and prophets, who have never lied. ‘Anyone who believes will be saved; anyone who does not believe will be condemned’ – God has spoken.[Nota]

21

I ask insistently whatever servant of God is courageous enough to be a bearer of these messages, that it in no way be withdrawn or hidden from any person. Quite the opposite – let it be read before all the people, especially in the presence of Coroticus himself. If this takes place, God may inspire them to come back to their right senses before God.[Nota] However late it may be, may they repent of acting so wrongly, the murder of the brethren of the Lord, and set free the baptised women prisoners whom they previously seized. So may they deserve to live for God, and be made whole here and in eternity. Peace to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.