ARTHUR PENUCHEL OF YORK: CORRUPTION AND CHRONOLOGY

York

What textual evidence and theoretical extrapolation has told me in recent months is that the famous Arthur of Chapter 56 of the HISTORIA BRITTONUM and of the ANNALES CAMBRIAE is a figure who definitely belongs in the North.  To date, I've been able to isolate three possible origin points for this hero:

1) Birdoswald or Castlesteads in the Irthing Valley of Arthwys on Hadrian's Wall; the connection here is dependent on the name Arthur being linked to the Arth/'Bear' river name and, possibly, to Ceidio son of Arthwys, whose hypocoristic name in its fuller form would have meant something like 'Battle-ruler' or 'Battle-leader'

2) Ribchester; the link to the location is tenuous indeed, as it relies upon my hypothetical equation of the personal name Eliwlad, grandson of Uther Pendragon, with that of the Ailithir title applied to Madog son of Sawyl

3) The presence of an Arthur Penuchel, son of Eliffer of York, in a corrupt Triad

Readers may recall the following two posts:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/11/a-dark-agesub-roman-arthur-from-york.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2017/09/arthur-penuchel-and-medraut-son-of-lleu.html

In these articles, I treated of Arthur Penuchel ('Overlord'), son of Eliffer of York and a daughter of Cynfarch. This personage has been ignored by Arthurian researchers because the name only occurs in a corrupt Triad.  However, I had remarked that it was astonishing the only Dark Age British Arthur of the North to be mentioned in any source just happened to place him at York, the headquarters of the Roman period dux Lucius Artorius Castus.  The MS. containing the corrupt Triad has been given a very early exemplar (according to Rachel Bromwich).  I had tentatively suggested that the substitution of Arthur Penuchel in the Triad may actually represent a correction or an addition.

While I could have gotten past Arthur Penuchel as nothing more than a corrupt name, of more serious concern to me was the problem stemming from the standpoint of chronology.  I will repeat here for convenience the relevant genealogical framework for Penuchel and related characters:

          Cynfarch                       Arthwys

Llew   Urien   Efrddyl             Eliffer

Medraut                           Arthur Penuchel

The Arthur of the Welsh Annals fought at Badon (= Buxton in Derbyshire) c. 516 and died at Camlann (Camboglanna/Castlesteads on the Wall) in 537.  Urien, who would appear to belong to the generation before Arthur Penuchel, is thought to have been treacherously slain in 585 or 586.  Eliffer's sons Gwrgi and Peredur fought at Arderydd in 573 and perished at Carrawburgh on the Wall  (some 25 kilometers east of Birdoswald and roughly the same distance west of Arthur's Devil's Water/Dubglas at Linnels) in 580.

All of this seems to negate the possibility that Arthur son of Eliffer existed.  We can't even resort to the notion that Arthur's mother Efrddyl was much younger than Urien as she is represented in Welsh heroic poetry as mourning her brother's murder.

But while it is heresy to suggest that the dates recorded in the Annals might be wrong, I'm going to do just that.

In my book THE BEAR KING, I made my case for Arthur being Ceredig son of Cunedda (= Cerdic of the Gewissei).  One of the main reasons for my being attracted to Ceredig in the first place as a prime candidate for Arthur were the respective chronologies. Arthur, according to the HISTORIA BRITTONUM account, is nicely bracketed between the rise of Octha (the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE'S Aesc) to the kingship of Kent (488) and the rise of Ida to the kingship of Bernicia (547).  Cerdic of Wessex's dates run from 495 to 534.

Let us suppose the Welsh wished to counter the fame of the reputed founder of Wessex by offering in complete contradistinction their own hero.  How would they do it?  To do it right, in my opinion, their own man would have to be active at the same time as Cerdic.  

There may have been an additional factor we should consider when looking at the potential viability of Arthur Penuchel.  Urien was a very famous king of the North, praised by the likes of Taliesin. His origin lay in Annandale, but his power extended to the western end of the Wall and beyond.  His brother Llew (or Lleu) may be a reflection of the name of Roman Carlisle, Lugavalium, the fort that was 'Lleu-storng.'  Medraut, son of Lleu, is from the Latin name Moderatus and we know of a Roman period prefect of this name who left his name at Great Chesters on the Wall and Brough-under-Stainmore in Cumbria.  I've hypothesized that the name was preserved in the region.  

The sons of Eliffer at York are known to have fought on the Wall and in NW Cumbria.  A battle involving an Arthur son of Eliffer from York at Camboglanna would fit into this pattern. Although Efrddyl was Urien's sister, and her marriage to Eliffer at York points to an alliance between the two powers, there may well have been tension between the two at some point - quite possibly following the death of Urien (although see below).  Arthur of York may have moved against Cumbria in a perceived power vacuum or Medraut may have sought to expand to the south.  The Bremenium battle shared by Arthur and Urien has perplexed scholars.  But here is a new way of looking at this battle: suppose Arthur and Urien were fighting there side by side? It has been remarked before that the phrasing used of Urien at Lindisfarne is an echo of that used of Arthur at Badon.  

One of my strongest arguments for the identity of Uther Pendragon was to relate him to the decapitated head of Urien Rheged.  I wrote several posts about this, some of which may be found here:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/11/urien-pen-and-dragon-repost-of-udd.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-text-of-pen-urien-from-canu.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/12/mabon-son-of-modron-gwas-of-uther.html

As Rachel Bromwich points out, the elegy for Uther falls in an odd place in the MS. Here again is her note on the subject:

The guide-title mar. vthyr. . . dragon together with the abbreviated red title

marwnat vythyr pen show that the poem was thought to be an elegy for Uthr

Bendragon at some stage in its transmission. However it stands somewhat apart

from the group of elegies, sandwiched between two prophetic poems, Dygogan

awen and Kein gyfedwch.1 The first poem prophesies the coming of a series of

promised deliverers, a llyminawc who will overcome Anglesey and devastate

Gwynedd (lines 14-22), a ‘man from hiding’ (gwr o gud) who will wage war on

the foreigners (lines 24-6), and another ‘with far-ranging forces’ (pellennawc y

luyd) who will bring joy to the Britons (lines 27-9). The second prophecy,

patently late, mentions the oppression by foreigners, including Norman rulers.

Neither of these prophecies mentions Uthr Bendragon, or his son, Arthur,

although he could conceivably be one of the unnamed saviours of the poem

Dygogan awen.

While not otherwise (to my knowledge) found among the list of expected messiahs in Welsh tradition, who would have been more natural in this role than the great Urien of the North?

Arthur's appearance in the elegy may have been all that was necessary for Geoffrey of Monmouth or his source to have made Uther the father of Arthur.  But as I have pointed out more than once, the only purpose of the line mentioning Arthur in the elegy is to emphasize the relative greatness of Uther's military exploits.  Arthur's name occurs in the GODODDIN poem in the same context, only in reverse.  In this last source another hero, though performing brave deeds, falls short of the paragon of martial power as exemplified by Arthur.  Haycock's note on the elegy line reads thusly:

14 nawuetran yg gwrhyt Arthur Nawuetran ‘ninth part’ with yg gwrhyt

understood as ‘of my valour’ (gwryt ~ gwrhyt). Arthur has a ninth part of the

speaker’s valour. This seems to have more point than ‘I have shared my refuge, a

ninth share in Arthur’s valour’, TYP3 513, AW 53. Gwrhyt ‘measure’ is not

wholly impossible — ‘one of the nine divisions [done] according to the Arthurian

measure/fathom’, etc., or ‘a ninth part is in [a place] called Arthur’s Measure or

Span’, the latter like Gwrhyt Kei discussed TYP3 311, and other Gwryd names

discussed G 709-10. The phrase is exactly the same as in §18.30 (Preideu

Annwfyn) tra Chaer Wydyr ny welsynt wrhyt Arthur.

What I would like propose, then, is simply this: Arthur and Urien were roughly contemporaries.  The former hailed from York of the Brigantes, while the latter came from what had anciently been the homeland of the Anavionenses and Carvetii.  Both had significant military successes, sometimes, perhaps, in conjunction with each other.  But when Urien died there was a falling out between the princes of York and Carlisle and this led to the fatal clash of Arthur and Medraut at Camboglanna.  

Alternately, Medraut and Arthur may have fought on the same side at Camboglanna.  As Banna has been shown to be a power center during the sub-Roman and early medieval period, another chieftain there may have attracted the unwanted attention of allies based at York and Carlisle.  If Medraut's connection with Llew/Lleu is correct, then it is unlikely he was the ruler at Banna.  Surely, he belonged to Carlisle or environs.  

If we wish to retain the pleasant myth of Arthur's passing to Avalon, in this geographical context the Aballava/Avalana Roman fort at Burgh-By-Sands, then we must presume a peaceful relationship continued to flourish between York and Rheged.  Arthur Penuchel's mother did, after all, come from Rheged.  Thus a burial at York, while an expected development following Arthur's death at Camlann, need not be a historical requirement.  And this is especially so if Aballava was still considered a sacred place in the 6th century.

Does any of this justify us in proclaiming Arthur Penuchel of a corrupt Triad a valid candidate for the famous Dark Age Arthur of the North?  Well, I will only say this in conclusion: the name Arthur is indisputably from Roman/Latin Artorius.  The place where the name would have been best remembered, treasured and passed down to subsequent generations would be York.  And this is precisely because York was the headquarters of Lucius Artorius Castus.  The new reading of the LAC memorial stone, soon to be published by Dr. Linda Malcor and colleagues, shows once and for all that this Roman dux must have been quite famous in North Britain.  While his name could have been preserved elsewhere in the North, no really strong case can be made for that happening anywhere other than York.  

I will leave it up to my readers to decide for themselves, then, whether Arthur Penuchel, once made more palatable by a fairly major chronological adjustment, can be identified as the Dark Age Arthur.