YET ANOTHER REASON FOR BELIEVING ELIWLAD IS A WELSH VERSION OF IRISH AILITHIR

Professor Stefan Zimmer, a noted Celticist, is one of several such language experts who have lent support to the notion that Eliwlad derives via the Welsh from Irish Ailithir: 

"Your proposal to understand Eliwlad as a W 'translation' of Ir Ailithir looks quite attactive. Eli- might well stand for Ir ail(e), and tir is correctly translated as 'gwlad'. The respective range of meaning of both words is, of course, not perfectly identical.

But he added something else as a sort of side note and may, inadvertently, have provided a good explanation for why the Lleu death-eagle motif was borrowed from the MABINOGION by the author of the 'Dialogue of Arthur and the Eagle':

"We have to remind of an alternative, however, viz. that the 'other land' referred to might be the 'Otherworld' , so that the bearer of the epithet may have been named so for assumed/desired magical qualities."

What seems obvious to me is that Ailithir/Eliwlad was interpreted as being a designation for the Otherworld, a land of spirits who could assume the form of animals or birds. This alone would be sufficient to account for the presence of the spectral eagle in the poem. 

ELEUTHERIUS AND HIS SON GWRCI OF YORK: A REFLECTION OF ROMAN PERIOD NAMES IN THE DARK AGE NORTH?

Roman York

In the past, I suggested that the Dark Age Eliffer of York, from an original Greek name Eleutherius, was likely derived from a title given to Constantine the Great.  This was actually quite a good idea, but here I would like to offer another possibility.

Dr. Linda Malcor and colleagues have recently proposed a new reading for the memorial stone of Lucius Artorius Castus.  The claim is made by these scholars that Artorius was actually the acting governor from the period 187-191 A.D.  As it happens, an Eleutherius at Rome was pope from 174 to 189 A.D.  In other words, Artorius and Eleutherius were exact contemporaries.

Another suggestion I once made was that Gwrci, literally 'Man-dog', a son of Eliffer, was a Welsh attempt at the name Virius Lupus, Roman governor of Britain from 197 to c. 200  Eliffer's other son, Peredur, is simply 'Praetor.'

The corrupt TRIAD which makes an Arthur Penuchel the son of Eliffer immediately comes to mind.  While we cannot trust this corrupt reading - and it is chronologically impossible, in any case - I've often observed that it can scarcely be a coincidence that the one Dark Age Arthur of the North that we have a record of in the Welsh sources just happens to have been placed at York.  If nothing else, this may indicate a folk memory of the presence of Lucius Artorius Castus/LAC at that city during the Roman period.

So, what do we make of these apparent correspondences?  Do we assume that the 2nd century names have merely been brought forward several centuries to fill gaps in the historical or genealogical knowledge of the writers who themselves were composing works several centuries after the supposed reign of a Dark Age Arthur?  Or do we instead allow for the continued use of names in places where those names had been made famous?

Well, we cannot answer that question directly.  I think it quite possible that a 6th century Arthur was based at Ribchester, and have made my argument for that in previous posts.  We also know, thanks to archaeology, that someone in the sub-Roman and Dark Age North was trying his best to replicate the rule of the Roman period Dux Britanniarum.  And the effort paid off, for the North kept itself free of Germanic invaders for a considerable time, while the South, by comparison, did not fare at all well.

***

NOTE: Eleuthereos was also a title of the god Zeus, the Roman Jupiter.  This is interesting, given that the Arthur birth story is paralleled in that of Herakles, son of Zeus.

"ELEUTHEREUS (Eleuthereus), the form Eleutherius is certainly used in the sense of the deliverer, and occurs also as the surname of Zeus. (Plut. Sympos. vii. in fin.; Pind. Ol. xii. 1; Strab. ix. p. 412; Tacit. Ann. xv. 64.)" [https://www.theoi.com/Cult/ZeusTitles.html]

***

Some might wonder if the story of Eleutherius and Lucius of Britain should be given any currency.  In other words, might Lucius have been LAC?

Unfortunately, this does not seem at all likely.  According to WIKIPEDIA:

"In 1904 Adolf von Harnack proposed that there had been a scribal error in Liber Pontificalis with ‘Britanio' Britannia being written as an erroneous expansion for 'Britio' Birtha or Britium in what is now Turkey. The full name was 'Britio Edessenorum,' the citadel of Edessa, present day Şanlıurfa in Turkey. The name of the King of Edessa was Lucius Aelius Abgar.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abgar_IX.

RIBCHESTER 'ALONG THE LINE OF THE WALL' AND THE SARMATIAN CUNEUS

Sarmatian Cataphracts From Trajan's Column

Peter Verburgh (personal correspondence) has reminded me that the Ribchester fort of the Sarmatian veterans, which I've recently decided upon as the home and base of the famous 6th century Arthur, is listed among the 'per lineum ualli' in the NOTITIA DIGNITATUM. This is an important classification of Ribchester, as Arthur operated militarily at the Wall just south of Corbridge and at Castlesteads.

I'm quoting here the relevant portion of the N.D.:

Occ. XL:
DUX BRITANNIARUM*

17. Sub dispositione uiri spectabilis ducis Britanniarum:
18. Praefectus legionis sextae
19. Praefectus equitum Dalmatarum, Praesidio
20. Praefectus equitum Crispianorum, Dano
21. Praefectus equitum catafractariorum, Morbio
22. Praefectus numeri barcariorum Tigrisiensium, Arbeia
23. Praefectus numeri Nerviorum Dictensium, Dicti
24. Praefectus numeri uigilum, Concangios
25. Praefectus numeri exploratorum, Lauatres
26. Praefectus numeri directorum, Uerteris
27. Praefectus numeri defensorum, Braboniaco
28. Praefectus numeri Solensium, Maglone
29. Praefectus numeri Pacensium, Magis
30. Praefectus numeri Longovicanorum, Longouico
31. Praefectus numeri superuenientium Petueriensium, Deruentione
32. Item per lineam ualli:
33. Tribunus cohortis quartae Lingonum, Segeduno
34. Tribunus cohortis primae Cornouiorum, Ponte Aeli
35. Praefectus alae primae Asturum, Conderco
36. Tribunus cohortis primae Frixagorum, Uindobala
37. Praefectus alae Sabinianae, Hunno
38. Praefectus alae secundae Asturum, Cilurno
39. Tribunus cohortis primae Batauorum, Procolitia
40. Tribunus cohortis primae Tungrorum, Borcouicio
41. Tribunus cohortis quartae Gallorum, Uindolana
42. Tribunus cohortis primae Asturum, Aesica
43. Tribunus cohortis secundae Dalmatarum, Magnis
44. Tribunus cohortis primae Aeliae Dacorum, Amboglanna
45. Praefectus alae Petrianae, Uxelodunum or  Petrianis
46. 'Luguuallii'
47. Praefectus numeri Maurorum Aurelianorum, Aballaba
48. Tribunus cohortis secundae Lingonum, Congauata
49. Tribunus cohortis primae Hispaniorum, Axeloduno
50. Tribunus cohortis secundae Thracum, Gabrosenti
51. Tribunus cohortus primae Aeliae classicae, Tunnocelo
52. Tribunus cohortis primae Morinorum, Glannibanta
53. Tribunus cohortis tertiae Neruiorum, Alione
54. Cuneus Sarmatarum, Bremetenraco [Ribchester]
55. Praefectus alae primae Herculeae, Olenaco
56. Tribunus cohortis sextae Neruiorum, Uirosido

* From http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artsou/notitialist.htm

Observant readers will notice two things immediately.  One, the unit garrisoning Ribchester is referred to as a cuneus. This distinction is not found for any other unit in the N.D. 

Two, no commander is listed for this cuneus.  Again, this is the only instance in the entire text of the N.D. in which a unit commander is omitted.

I will explore the reason for this exception and apparent oversight below.  But first, here are the relevant definitions associated with a cuneus:

cuneus (m. pl. cunei)
1. Literally ‘a wedge’, a type of formation in that shape used in battle and countered with the forceps (Fest. s.v.; Veg., DRM 3.19; Aul. Gell. 10.9.1). 2. An irregular auxiliary unit, often mounted (ND Or. XXXIX.1–9. RIB 882; 1594). See also caput porcinum and forceps [Cowan 2007]

caput porci(num) (n. pl. capita porcorum)
Literally ‘pig’s head’, an informal term referring to the battlefield tactic known as the cuneus. Veg., DRM 3.19; Amm. 17.13.9. [Cowan 2007]

forceps (f. pl. forcipes)
Literally ‘pincers’, a battlefield formation used to counter the cuneus by mirroring its shape (centre held back and flanks advanced). Aul. Gell. 10.9.1. See also forfex [Cowan 2007]

forfex (f. pl. forfices)
Literally ‘shears’ or ‘claw’, a battlefield formation used to counter the cuneus by mirroring its shape (centre held back and flanks advanced). Fest. s.v.; Veg., DRM 3.19. See also forceps [Cowan 2007]

- from https://perlineamvalli.wordpress.com/2018/05/24/the-roman-army-a-to-z-cuneus/

A good description of cunei can be found at:

http://lukeuedasarson.com/Cunei.html

The Sarmatian cuneus would have been composed of somewhere between 200-300 heavy shock troops, so-called "cataphracts", a terms borrowed from the Greek and meaning (from the Lewis and Short Dictionary at PERSEUS):

"I. mailed, in mail (of soldiers and their horses), Sall. ap. Non. p. 556, 16 sq. (id. H. 4, 57 Dietsch).—As subst.: cătă-phracti , ōrum, m., mailed soldiers, Sisenn. ap. Non. 1. 1.: “loricatos, quos cataphractos vocant,” Liv. 35, 48, 3; 37, 40, 5 al.; Prop. 3 (4), 12, 12; Serv. ad Verg. A. 11, 770; Front. Princ. Hist. 5, p. 247 Nieb.; Inscr. Orell. 804."

It was the job of such heavily armored units to smash through enemy lines with a tightly grouped cavalry charge.  To quote from Richmond's study of the Sarmatians at Ribchester ("The Sarmatae: Bremetennacum Veteranorum and the Regio Bremetennacensis", THE JOURNAL OF ROMAN STUDIES, Vol. 35, Parts 1 and 2, 1945, pp. 15-29):

"They [the Sarmatians] were remarkably equipped for war, men and horses being clothed from head to foot in mail after the manner of Persian catafractarii, and carried a heavy spear requiring the use of both hands... It was without doubt these heavy cataphracts whom the Imperial staff, ever anxious to develop their cavalry arm, desired to acquire; for Roman experience had shown that, while the Sarmatian cavalry were at a disadvantage when off their gaurd or hampered by snow or mud, no ranks could withstand their charge in the battle-line. In the Roman service many defects could be cured or remedied by drill and discipline, and it became the view of later Roman military experts that cataphracts rendered the best service both in breaking a battle-line and in pursuing broken infantry."

But why for ONLY the Cuneus Sarmatarum is no commander listed?  Well, the answer to that question may be answered here:

"Interestingly, the officer recorded in RIB 583 as commanding the unit is a centurion deputised from Legio VI victrix, so it may be the case that the lack of a (formal?) commanding officer recorded in the Notitia is not an inadvertent scribal omission, but may reflect a more-or-less permanent state of affairs in actuality."

- from http://lukeuedasarson.com/NDDuxBritCunSarm.html

The inscription the author of that Website is alluding to is to be found at https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/583.  It reads:

"To the holy god Apollo Maponus for the welfare of our Lord (the Emperor) and of Gordian's Own Unit of Sarmatian cavalry of Bremetennacum Aelius Antoninus, centurion of the Sixth Legion Victrix, from Melitene, acting-commander and prefect, fulfilled his vow willingly, deservedly. Dedicated 31 August in the consulship of the Emperor Our Lord Gordian for the second time and of Ponpeianus."

Now, if in the late period (that recorded by the Notitia Dignitatum) a lower-level officer of the Sixth Legion at York was designated as the commander of the Cuneus Sarmatarum, we can postulate an even closer connection between a 6th century Arthur at Ribchester with the memory of the dux (and de facto governor) Lucius Artorius Castus from York.

Finally, if the cuneus of Sarmatian cataphracts were commanded by an officer detached from the Sixth Legion at York, this may have been because this allowed the unit to be used anywhere at anytime - in short, whenever an elite "shock' heavy cavalry was needed to break a battle-line.  It goes without saying that the Sixth Legion would have been responsible for determining where and for what reason this force was sent into action.

However, Dr. Benet Salway adds (via personal correspondence):

"As for the cuneus of Sarmatae in Britain, I don’t think you can build anything on the lack of mention of commander. It seems to be consistent scribal practice across the ND (east and west) not to list commanders for cunei (see http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0212/Y.HTM), even in lists, such as this one, which give commanders for other types of units.

I am not sure what this means for the command structure of cunei."

I'm seeking more information on this subject from experts in the late Roman army and, as always, will post results of my queries here.

UPDATE:  

The following was sent to me by Professor Roger Tomlin:

"In Dietrich Hoffmann's great book on the Notitia and the late-Roman army, the author analyses the evolution of cunei from larger cavalry units. It strikes me there isn't much epigraphic evidence of what their commanders were called: I suppose praepositi. For what it's worth, the centurion Aelius Antoninus at Ribchester is said to be praepositus, which you might press to mean acting-commander at that date; and I expect you could find centurions who are acting-commanders of part-mounted cohorts, if not cavalry alae.

I took a quick look at Michael Speidel's Denkmäler, and there are centurions active there, even though the equites singulares were entirely cavalry. And what about No. 27, an altar dedicated by Ulpius Marcellus ex decurione factus (centurio)? I think we should be cautious about thinking cavalry and infantry careers were entirely distinct. After all, every equestrian prefect of an ala in the early Empire had previously commanded an infantry cohort."

MATOC AILITHIR AND ELIWLAD SON OF MADOG: WHY I'M COMMITTING TO AN ARTHUR AT RIBCHESTER

Ribchester Roman Fort, Lancashire

"Arthur learns, by rather stolid questioning, that the eagle is his nephew Eliwlad, son of Madog son of Uther - a rare instance of a paternal relative for Arthur."

- Oliver Padel in ARTHUR IN MEDIEVAL WELSH LITERATURE

It's been several months since I first made a preliminary identification of Eliwlad son of Madog son of Uther with Matoc Ailithir son of Sawyl Benisel. Since then, I've continued my Arthurian research, always striving to precisely pinpoint Arthur geographically.  As none of my efforts were yielding what I thought to be truly significant results, I continued to explore the apparent Eliwlad-Ailithir connection in the hopes of strengthening my argument.  The result was a revision of an earlier post, which my readers may find here: 

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-fairly-radical-revision-on-my-earlier.html

In this piece I will avoid rehashing what I consider to be the linguistic evidence for the identification of the two names.  Instead, I wish to concentrate on providing a philosophical explanation for why I feel compelled to take such a stance on this particular theory.

1) Given the acknowledged fraudulent nature of the Galfridian genealogy, and the associated dislocation of Arthur from the North to the South of Britain, I've long realized that unless we were able to a legitimate ancestral trace someone in the early Welsh material that any attempt to find either the real birthplace or power center of Arthur was doomed to failure. Arthur can be put just about anywhere, but unless we can prove the veracity of where we place him based upon the known location of his father, we are merely guessing and cannot expect anyone to take our theory seriously.  Certainly, no established academic will pay any attention to it.  The search for such a genuine line of descent is complicated by the fact that we don't know if a) Uther Pendragon was really Arthur's father prior to the work of Geoffrey of Monmouth or b) whether Uther Pendragon is a name + epithet or merely a title meaning 'Terrible Chief-warrior/dragon.'  The only thing that is evident to anyone who has studied the Arthurian corpus is that any family link other than that claimed by Geoffrey of Monmouth seems nonexistent.

2) Over the years I've south to put Arthur in both the North and the South.  Gradually, I came to accept the very high probability that he should be assigned to the North.  After plotting out the HISTORIA BRITTONUM'S Arthurian battles, two hypothetical genealogical ties seemed to suggest that Arthur belonged either to the Irthing Valley on Hadrian's Wall (a territory perhaps denoted by the eponym Arthwys, 'man of the Arth', which happens to contain Camboglanna/Camlann) or to York (as a corrupt TRIAD makes Arthur the son of Eliffer of that city, and York was the base for the Roman period Lucius Artorius Castus).  

Alas, while the Dacian draco was present at Banna/Birdoswald in the Irthing Valley, and we can thus imaginatively concoct a ruler who was called after this venerated battle standard/mythological creature, there's no literary or archaeological evidence for such a person there.  I could not, therefore, in good conscience, predicate a historical Arthur's presence in that region.  And this is true even though it seems certain he died fighting at Camboglanna.  For we know two sons of Eliffer of York fought at Arthuret just north of the western end of the Wall, and died fighting along the middle section of the Wall at Carrawburgh.  

Further study of the corrupt TRIAD which mentions an Arthur Penuchel son of Eliffer proved profoundly disappointing.  Not only was there no honest way to confirm the reference as an addition to or correction of the original TRIAD, but a son of Eliffer, being a contemporary of Urien of Rheged - who's sister Eliffer married - was a chronological impossibility for our Arthur.

3) And so I circled back around to Eliwlad.  Having, to the best of my ability, confirmed that this name was a Welsh version of Irish Ailithir, there was simply no ignoring the obvious implication of such an identification.  That is, Eliwlad son of Madog was a garbled/mangled attempt at Matoc Ailither.  This revelation - for I do not know what else to call it! - intellectually forced me to accommodate the notion that Arthur was a son of Sawyl Benisel of Ribchester, the Roman fort of the Sarmatian veterans. Ribchester during the Roman period had a very close relationship with the York of LAC, and the Sarmatians themselves, like the Dacians at Banna, were known for their draco standard.  Thus it was distinctly possible for Sawyl to have been referred to as the Terrible Chief-dragon.  Furthermore, Ribchester was in the North, where Arthur had to be, and could easily have been the base of a man who was fighting up and down Dere Street to the east.  

4) I long struggled with major caveat: even if I were right about Eliwlad = Ailithir, was it not conceivable that whoever wrote 'The Dialogue of Arthur and the Eagle' had merely found a reference to Matoc Ailithir and had decided to associate him in a fictional story with Madog son of Uther?  That the author took it upon himself to create the name Eliwlad out of Ailithir?  And that, as a result, there was no real relationship whatsoever between Arthur and Sawyl Benisel?

Well, this possibility must remain a concern.  I cannot deny it.  Still, one might wonder why anyone would go to the bother to so conjure another member of Uther's family.  I mean, Madog was already there.  Why not simply make him into a spectral eagle in an oak tree?  Or use anyone else in this role, for that matter?  Granted, Matoc Ailithir was a saint, and it makes sense to have a saint's spirit dispense homely Christian wisdom to the ignorant secular king. But if the author of the poem knew who Matoc Ailithir was, and that his father was Sawyl Benisel, why take him away from his real father and make him a false son/grandson of Uther?  Why, in the context of a didactic englyn, risk having your intended audience cry foul over the inclusion of such a deception?  Yes, I'm well aware of the depths to which pious fraud can stoop, and am quite familiar with the often outrageous fantasies manifested in hagiography.  Yet this doesn't seem to be an instance of either. 

It seems to me (and I understand completely if others disagree with me) that Eliwlad son of Madog, i.e. Matoc Ailithir, betrays an authenticate genealogical link to Uther Pendragon.  And that would mean, once again, that Uther = Sawyl. 

5) According to Rachel Bromwich (see Sawyl Ben Uchel in her TRIADS, p. 496), "The genealogies assert that Sawyl was a contemporary of Urien Rheged, and that like Urien he was fourth in descent from Coel Hen."  If this is true, then we have the same chronological issue with Sawyl that I discussed above in the context of Eliffer father of Arthur Penuchel.  However, I have checked the genealogies in Bartram, Harleian, etc., and this statement on the part of Bromwich is incorrect.  

Sawyl - Pabo Post Prydain - Ceneu - Coel Hen

Urien - Cynfarch - Meirchiaun - [Gwrwst Ledlwm] - Ceneu - Coel Hen

Sawyl is third in descent from Coel Hen.  

Urien is (skipping Gwrwst Ledlwm/Fergus Mor, a Dalriadan intrusion into the pedigree) fourth in descent from Coel Hen. 

When we take this in account, and remember that these royal genealogies in all likelihood merely reflect a very rough approximation of actual generations, and given that relationships were certainly manipulated for political and social purposes, I do not think that it is unreasonable to suppose that Sawyl could have been the father of the Arthur who fought at Badon (Bathum/Batham-Aquae Arnemetia-Buxton) c. 516 and at Camlann (Camboglanna-Castlesteads) c. 537.

6) Eliwlad could be a hopeless corruption of another name.  If so, no one seems to have any idea what that original name might be.  Or Eliwlad could be a Cornish name that a Welshman has tried to render into his own tongue.  Again, an exhaustive search of Cornish names (and Cornish name-elements) has failed to produce a viable derivation.  

CONCLUSION

That pretty much sums up what I believe to be my justification for opting for Sawyl Benisel as Uther Pendragon, the father of the famous 6th century Arthur.  As always, should I discover valuable new information in the future, I reserve the right to change my mind.  Provisionally, though, this is the absolute best I can do in my quest for a historical Arthur candidate.  

  

Coming Soon - MATOC AILITHIR AND ELIWLAD SON OF MADOG: WHY I'M COMMITTING TO AN ARTHUR AT RIBCHESTER

Ribchester Roman Fort (Artist's Reconstruction)

THE VULTURES OF THE ALAE: MABON SERVANT OF UTHER PENDRAGON IN THE 'PA GUR' POEM

Sarmatian Cavalry

In the early Arthurian poem the PA GUR, the hero Mabon (= the god Apollo Maponus) is called one of the 'vulture [GPC, 'predatory birds'] of Elei.'  Elei (or Elai) is the ancient name for the Ely River in southern Wales.  A reference to the Ely is puzzling, as every other place-name mentioned in the poem is in northern Britain.  And, indeed, excepting the Elei, the place-names do not take us further south than Derbyshire.  

Patrick Sims-Williams, in Note 28, p. 63, to his "The Early Welsh Arthurian Poems" (in THE ARTHUR OF THE WELSH), says this about the word vytheint:

"Vytheint 'vultures' (line 11) is an emendation of the meaningless vythneint '?eight streams'. a scribal error perhaps influenced by awareness that Elei was the name of a stream, or by confusion with the word gwyth, pl. gwytheint, 'stream'."

Before I discuss his note, it is important to point out that a Mabon is metaphorically compared to a bird in a Taliesin poem.  From Bartram's A CLASSICAL WELSH DICTIONARY:

"Another poem in the Book of Taliesin, Kychwedyl am dodyw (BT 38-39), but probably not Taliesin's genuine work, describes the battles of Owain ab Urien. It mentions Mabon four times and 'mab Idno' occurs in the same poem. We learn that Mabon was a fierce warrior, but it is not clear whether he was for or against Owain:

'Unless they were to fly with wings they could not escape from Mabon without slaughter.'

(BT 39.3). See John Morris-Jones in Cy. 28 (1918) pp.198-9; TYP p.434. The mention of 'mab Idno' suggests that we have here Mabon ab Idno of the ‘Hanesyn Hen’ tract."

What I think we may have in Line 11 of the PA GUR poem is a garbled reference to Latin alae:

al.ae                N      1 1 GEN S F                 

al.ae                N      1 1 LOC S F                 

al.ae                N      1 1 DAT S F                 

al.ae                N      1 1 NOM P F                 

al.ae                N      1 1 VOC P F                 

ala, alae  N  F   [XXXAO]  

wing; upper arm/foreleg/fin; armpit; squadron (cavalry), flank, army's wing

What I'm suggesting is that at some point elai/elei was wrongly substituted for alae.  As soon as that was done, vytheint, here symbolic of the predatory birds of the cavalry wing or wings, was associated with a word for streams.  Please understand I am not trying here to establish a linguistic relationship of any kind between elei/elai and alae.  Rather, I'm proposing a couple of simple errors which led to a line that does not fit the context of the poem.  

Mabon was, instead, a 'vulture of the [cavalry] wing', indicating that he was a horse warrior who rode so quickly none could escape him.

This may not be as outlandish idea at it first may seem. Elei was in at least one case in the PA GUR identified with another place in Britain.  So there is ample room for confusion in this line. From an earlier piece on this subject:

A complicating factor is the presence of Gwyn Godyfrion amongst the wythaint/birds of prey of Elei.  Once we drop the intrusive prefix Go- ("under"), we have the place-name Waendofron (965-971), modern Wendover in Buckinghamshire.  According to Ekwall, this is a British name for the clear chalk stream at the place, corresponding to Welsh gwyn, 'white', and dwfr, 'river.' Wendover is near to Aylesbury, and it is likely Ayles- (from AS Aegeles/Aegles/Eiles-) has been fancifully linked to Elei. The problem is that there is absolutely no justification for placing Mabon servant of Uther Pendragon at Wendover or in the Vale of Aylesbury.  Dyfrion/dybrion, 'water(s)', is attested in Welsh according to Dr. Simon Rodway of The University of Wales.  Patrick Sims-Williams (in his "The Early Welsh Arthurin Poems", THE ARTHUR OF THE WELSH, p. 40) says "The epithet , which is perhaps a place-name, looks as if it contains OW dubr 'water' (cf. Old Irish fodoborda(e) 'underwater, aquatic'?)." 

Maponus was worshipped at the Ribchester Roman fort, which I have identified as the home of Arthur's father Sawyl Benisel (= Uther Pendragon).  And we have some evidence of an ala of Sarmatians based there:

https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/org/1912

http://roman-britain.co.uk/military/alaisar.htm

https://books.google.com/books?id=3gz8CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA402&lpg=PA402&dq=%22Ala+sarmatarum%22&source=bl&ots=GiOrA1Gl1Q&sig=ACfU3U1smyp6hMAC6nkfQwPjLff_wN4Elw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwirjeazypPhAhUJh1QKHdnlAYMQ6AEwBHoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Ala%20sarmatarum%22&f=false

https://www.jstor.org/stable/526988?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://books.google.com/books?id=WZ7HAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA421&lpg=PA421&dq=%22Ala+Sarmatarum%22&source=bl&ots=DUY3FQmIXD&sig=ACfU3U2zUibRcJBJFEPu2xEpkxlNKKfEJQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi54uXsy5PhAhWQ_1QKHUYHDMIQ6AEwCHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Ala%20Sarmatarum%22&f=false

A Fairly Radical Revision on My Earlier Piece on Sawyl of Ribchester as Arthur's Father

ELIWLAD GRANDSON OF UTHER AND MADOG AILITHIR 

SON OF SAWYL: MY FINAL STATEMENT ON A POSSIBLE 

ARTHURIAN-SARMATIAN CONNECTION (MAJOR REVISION OF A 

PREVIOUS POST)

Maponus Stone From Ribchester

The following post represents some selections from previous studies dealing with the personal name Eliwlad and with Sawyl Benisel of Ribchester.  I've now come to the conclusion that Eliwlad does, in fact, represent a Welsh attempt to render Irish Ailithir. No other proposed etymology for the name Eliwlad works.  One can, with considerable difficulty, concoct a few three part names beginning with the El- prefix ('many'), but the problem with this is that we do not, anywhere, have comparanda for such a formation.  In other words, all extant El- names are composed of only two elements.  Thus it is highly improbable that any postulated three-part El- name can be allowed.  In addition, if we seek a two-part El- name, no etymology is forthcoming from -iwlad.  

Professor Marged Haycock (personal correspondence) did come up with what looked like a promising etymology:

"Possibly elyf/elyw + gwlad in the ‘flaith’ sense.  Lord who has cattle, riches. etc."

But Dr. Simon Rodway stressed that this was not possible:

"In the Black Book of Carmarthen orthography, eliw stands regularly for elyf, plural of alaf, not for eliw, which is what we consistently have with Eliwlad. In other words, in the MSS in which Eliwlad occurs, i is not otherwise used for y. Elyf (a pl.)  + gwlad isn't at all compelling on formal grounds, anyway."

And Prof. Peter Schrijver agreed with him on this point:

"Simon certainly knowns what he is talking about, and to assume that consistent -i- in Eliwlad stands for -y-, as your etymology would presuppose, is problematic (unless it is a fossilized name, which seems to me unlikely because *elyf-wlad should be an eminently transparent compound)."

There thus seems to be no four-letter sequence that could possibly compose the first element of the name.

Eliwlad is found in the Welsh didactic poem 'The Dialogue of Arthur and the Eagle'.  The text of this poem may be found in Jenny Rowland's EARLY WELSH SAGA POETRY, while a translation (which Rowland assisted with) can be found in the pamphlet"Arthur's Talk With the Eagle" by Gwyneth Lewis (Tavern Books, 2010).  Ifor Williams' text can be found at the following link, and I am posting his version as a footnote [1] below:  http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/eagle-w.html.  The English translation available at http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/eagle.html is very old and, in my estimation, not reliable.  The best recent scholarly translation and detailed discussion can be found in Nerys Ann Jones's ARTHUR IN EARLY WELSH POETRY.  

For an important post on Ribchester's relationship with York, see  https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/10/bremetennacum-and-eboracum-special.html.  And for Maponus (= Mabon, Uther Pendragon's "servant") at Ribchester, see https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/583.

On the date and significance of 'The Dialogue of Arthur and the Eagle', here is a brief discussion by Thomas Green in his Arthuriana: Early Arthurian Tradition and the Origins of the Legend, pp. 267-8:

To this we might add what Bromwich has to say on Eliwlad in her TRIADS, p. 346:

As for the name Sawyl Benisel, father of Matoc/Madog - as it is found in the Irish sources - this account is definitive:

from EARLY LITERARY CHANNELS BETWEEN IRELAND AND BRITAIN

Clark Harris Slover

Studies in English

No. 7 (November 15, 1927)

"The scoliast's preface to the Hymn of Sanctan in the Irish Liber Hymnorum contains the statement that the author made the hymn as he was going from Clonard westward to Inis Matoc. He was a brother to Matoc and had followed him to Ireland, and they were both Britons. Sanctan did not have the knowledge of the Irish language up to that hour, but God gave it to him quickly. Con­firmation of the British origin of Sanctan and Matoc is afforded by the LL tract on the mothers of Irish saints, where we find that Dechtire, daughter of Muiredach Muinderg, king of Ulster, was wife of Samuel Chendisil, and had two sons, Sanctan and Matoc.

Samuel Chendisil is the same as the Samuel Pennissel of Welsh tradition. The name means "low-head." He is men­tioned in the tenth-century genealogies attached to the Historia Britonum in MS Harleian 3859 as son of Pappo Post Priten. He appears also in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia regum Brittaniae (III, 19)  as successor of Ryd­derch in the kingship. The relation between him and Samuel Bennuchel ("high-head") is interesting. Samuel Bennuchel is mentioned in the Welsh Triads as one of the three haughty men of Britain, and also as a member of King Arthur's court in the romance of Kulwch and Olwein. 

There is no doubt that they are one and the same person, for the genealogies from MS Hengwrt 536 (14th cent.) substi­tute Sawyl Penuchel for Samuel Pennissel as son of Pappo Post Priten, and the Brut Tyssilio, a Welsh redaction of Geoffrey's Historia, makes a similar substitution. J. Loth thinks that the substitution first occurred in the Triads; that the writer, feeling that "low-head" was a poor name for a haughty man, changed the original name Pennissel to Pen­nuchel ("high-head") .

Various Irish references to Sanctan show that the same confusion obtained in Ireland. The passage in the Book of Leinster already quoted says he was son of Cendissel ("low-head"). Another reference to Sanctan is glossed cendmar ("great head") .Still another refers to bishops Santan, Sanctan, and Lethan as sons of the British king Cantoin. Whatever this last name may mean, it falls in with the others in this tradition, for it contains the cenn ("head") element." 

***

I have discovered in early Irish sources variant spellings for Irish ailithir, "pilgrim, foreigner" (literally, aile + tir, 'other land'), an epithet for St. Madog son of Sawyl Penisel (or Penuchel).   One of these spellings was Elithir.  This last example satisfied the requirement of Eliwlad, the first element of which could not directly be derived from the Welsh cognate of Irish aile/eile, i.e. 'all' (although see below under  SCHOLARLY SUPPORT FOR ELIWLAD = AILITHIR/ELITHIR).  Welsh has alltud, 'other people/country', allfro, 'other land', and the late occurring allwlad, 'other country', for "foreigner."   In Welsh, ail/eil is "second."

Here are some of the books providing the spelling Elithir:

https://books.google.com/books?id=FQu0JKB_1gUC&pg=PA355&lpg=PA355&dq=%22elithir%22%2B%22pilgrim%22&source=bl&ots=NSkTwScygL&sig=DZkKzNIi7m98jc8K6cqQAKCcHe8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAjoD50_bWAhVI12MKHSDEAaQQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&q=%22elithir%22%2B%22pilgrim%22&f=false

 https://books.google.com/books?id=d8k_AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA558&lpg=PA558&dq=%22elithir%22%2B%22pilgrim%22&source=bl&ots=RlEYVof7wh&sig=Cz54s3ccztT72jCpRGlc1FJEoew&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAjoD50_bWAhVI12MKHSDEAaQQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=%22elithir%22%2B%22pilgrim%22&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=wkVu5aheCCQC&pg=RA4-PA87&lpg=RA4-PA87&dq=%22elithir%22%2B%22pilgrim%22&source=bl&ots=x8V9lOgcHE&sig=COjXKifwiP-FE5yBidMZ_9sZcQs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAjoD50_bWAhVI12MKHSDEAaQQ6AEILDAC#v=onepage&q=%22elithir%22%2B%22pilgrim%22&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=c_gUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=%22elithir%22%2B%22pilgrim%22&source=bl&ots=EfBagwDm-U&sig=-zDj4KGRtim6asEOvnUTjxsMoz4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAjoD50_bWAhVI12MKHSDEAaQQ6AEIMDAE#v=onepage&q=%22elithir%22%2B%22pilgrim%22&f=false

Etc. - including the actual texts alluded to in these sources, some of which are available online.

In other words, I could make an argument again for Eliwlad being 'other land', an exact equivalent of the Irish Ailithir epithet given to Madog son of Sawyl.

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’.  I have found the text of the Mary Magdalene/creiriwr poem here: https://books.google.com/books?id=pavuAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA318&lpg=PA318&dq=mary+magdalene+brynbuga+pilgrim&source=bl&ots=8OqWJ7aJOM&sig=ACfU3U2Hl0CeSUhpnmMMa8kwzFH6EB63pw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjn-YD-4uPgAhUCoZ4KHUBkCHoQ6AEwCXoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=mary%20magdalene%20brynbuga%20pilgrim&f=false.:

SCHOLARLY SUPPORT FOR ELIWLAD = AILITHIR/ELITHIR

"Your proposal to understand Eliwlad as a W 'translation' of Ir Ailithir looks quite attactive. Eli- might well stand for Ir ail(e), and tir is correctly translated as 'gwlad'. The respective range of meaning of both words is, of course, not perfectly identical.

If  'pilgrim' really is the "primary meaning" of ailithir, then this word is beyond any doubt a bahuvrîhi compound, designating somebody 'who is characterized by another [foreign] land', obviously in the sense that (s)he has visited a [remarkably] foreign land, is acquainted with it, etc.

Professor Stefan Zimmer

[As a side note, Professor Zimmer may, inadvertently, have provided a good explanation for why the Lleu death-eagle motif was borrowed from the MABINOGION by the author of the 'Dialogue':

"We have to remind of an alternative, however, viz. that the 'other land' referred to might be the 'Otherworld' , so that the bearer of the epithet may have been named so for assumed/desired magical qualities."

What seems obvious to me is that Ailithir/Eliwlad was interpreted as being a designation for the Otherworld, a land of spirits who could assume the form of animals or birds. This alone would be sufficient to account for the presence of the spectral eagle in the poem.]

"Irish aili- does not have a diphthong ai in the first syllable but a fronted low simple vowel [ae] (approximately as in Engl. back) followed by a palatalized -l´-. I find it quite plausible that this would have been borrowed immediately as W eli-.

Professor Doctor Peter Schrijver

“I don’t disagree with anything Zimmer or Schrijver say."

Dr. Simon Rodway

“I think that -wlad cannot be anything else but gwlad 'country', and your idea that Eliwlad is a reinterpretation of Ailithir seems plausible to me.  If Eliwlad developed directly from the British, we would expect *Eilwlad."

Professor Ranko Matasovic

“It looks perfectly possible to me that Eliwlad represents British *Aljowlatos 'other land'.  Eliwlad/t is a plausible rendering of Eilwlad. One certainly finds occasional <e> for <ei> in MW, and metathesis is always possible. If it’s not from *aljo-, I have no idea.”

Professor Richard Coates

“First it appears to me that you you must be right in identifying gwlad as the second element. This is indeed the regular cognate of flaith in Irish, but the latter, a feminine i-stem, originally also had an abstract meaning ‘lordship, sovereignty’, and its application to a person is a secondary process in Irish (retaining the feminine gender!) for which there are several parallels, such as techt meaning not only ‘going’ but also ‘messenger’, cerd both ‘craft’ and ‘craftsman’, etc.

Your proposed adaptation of aili- to eli-, on the other hand, would have to have been purely formal, since Irish and British continue two different variants of the same word ‘other’, Ir. aile (also 'second') < *aljo- and e.g. Middle Welsh. all < *allo-. British ail, 'second', is from *aljo-.

But apart from this formal misgiving, I do admit that your derivation would make for a nice contextual fit!“

Professor Jurgen Uhlich

THE ANCIENT ELEGY FOR UTHER AND THE NAME SAWYL

In Marged Haycock's translation of the MARWNAT VTHYR PEN, the 'Death-Song of Uther Pen[dragon],' we appear to find the chieftain actually calling himself Sawyl.   This is what Haycock has in her notes to Line 7 of this elegy:

 7 eil kawyl yn ardu G emends kawyl > Sawyl, the personal name (from Samuelis

via *Safwyl). Sawyl Ben Uchel is named with Pasgen and Rhun as one of the

Three Arrogant Men, Triad 23, as a combative tyrant in Vita Cadoci (VSB 58);

and in CO 344-5. Samuil Pennissel in genealogies, EWGT 12 (later Benuchel),

Irish sources, and in Geoffrey of Monmouth. Other Sawyls include a son of

Llywarch, and the saint commemorated in Llansawel: see further TYP3 496,

WCD 581 and CO 104. Ardu ‘darkness, gloom; dark, dreadful (GPC), sometimes

collocated with afyrdwl ‘sad; sadness’ (see G, GPC).

Initially, I refused to get too excited about Uther calling himself a 'second Samuel'.  I mean, this was, after all, an emendation.  However, I asked Welsh language expert Dr. Simon Rodway of The University of Wales about the authority who made this emendation - one that was accepted by Haycock herself.  Our discussion on this matter ran as follows:

"Geirfa Barddoniaeth Gynnar Gymraeg, by John Lloyd-Jones...

Cited several times by Marged Haycock in her edition of the Uther poem, and  she adopts many of his emendations.

A trustworthy, well-respected source, in your opinion?  Or is his work somewhat outdated or even obsolete?"

"It’s a very good piece of work, which I often use. It’s much more comprehensive than GPC [Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru, 'Dictionary of the Welsh Language']."

Such an unqualified, professional academic opinion of Lloyd-Jones changed everything!

As for how the error could have occurred, Dr. Rodway suggested the following scenario:

"It can’t be a case of miscopying a letter, but it could be eye-skip - when a copyist’s eye skips inadvertently to another nearby word resulting in an error.  In this case, he would have eye-skipped to the preceding line's 'kawell' to get the /k-/ fronting what should have been 'sawyl'.  Was not an uncommon error, so quite plausible.  Also, kawell and kawyl are unlikely to be the same word.  The poets avoided repeating words in consecutive lines. In cases where this does occur (very rare) it could be scribal error."

The important first several lines of the elegy can be translated as follows:

Neu vi luossawc yn trydar:

It is I who commands hosts in battle:

ny pheidwn rwg deu lu heb wyar.

I’d not give up between two forces without bloodshed.

Neu vi a elwir gorlassar:

It’s I who’s styled 'Gorlassar' [= Geoffrey of Monmouth's Gorlois]:

vy gwrys bu enuys y’m hescar.

my ferocity snared my enemy.

Neu vi tywyssawc yn tywyll:

It is I who’s a leader in darkness:

a’m rithwy am dwy pen kawell.

Our God, Chief of the Sanctuary [kawell with the meaning of cafell

here; see Note 2 below], transforms me:

Neu vi eil Sawyl yn ardu:

It’s I who’s a second Sawyl in the gloom:

ny pheidwn heb wyar rwg deu lu.

I’d not give up the fight between two forces without bloodshed.

GORLASSAR

The allusion to Sawyl/Samuel and the sanctuary plainly refers to the Biblical Samuel, who received his call as prophet from Yahweh while sleeping at night in the Shiloh sanctuary. 

But what about Gorlassar?  For it is this descriptor, meaning literally 'very blue or very green or very blue-green' (or even a very bluish or greenish grey), which Geoffrey converts into the separate personage of Gorlois.  In Geoffrey's tale, Uther is transformed by Merlin into Gorlois.  But in the elegy the one who transforms Uther is none other than God.  And the actual transformation is into the second Sawyl, the Biblical Samuel being the first, of course.

What, then, is the significance of gorlassar in this context?

Well, the word is used for Urien as well, and Welsh scholars are united in relating this to W. llasar, a sort of blue enamel used to decorate shields and perhaps weapons and armor as well.  I've proposed other possibilities in the past, but the martial quality of the elegy leads me to believe the scholars are right in this instance.  

I had flirted with the notion that 'kawyl' was an error for cannwyll, defined in the GPC as follows:

"candle, luminary, transf. of star, sun, moon, lamp; fig. of light, brightness, instruction, leader, hero"

This is a possible error, according to Dr. Rodway:

"A copyist might have missed an n-suspension over the a, and single n for double nn is quite common in Middle Welsh MSS."

As "star" is a transferred meaning of cannwyll, and "gloom" is mentioned in the same line, I sought to link kawyl to the dragon-star in Geoffrey of Monmouth's story.  The problem with this idea is that whatever or whoever kawyl is, it is the object or subject of the transformation by God in the previous line.  Given the pronounced military aspect of the poem, a supposed transformation by God into a star seems out of context.  Even if we take this figuratively, i.e. that cannwyll means leader, Uther was already designated that 2 lines up.  That would make this reference not only unduly repetitive, but redundant.

'Eil' is also a bit of a problem, as it can mean 'second', 'like or similar to' or 'descendant of' (cf. the well-known example of Dylan eil Ton).  But, again, as Uther is transformed, he can't merely be like something or similar to something.  Nor does it make sense for him to be transformed into the descendant of someone. He must become a second _awyl and this strongly suggests the _awyl in question is a person.  A second cannwyll would make sense only if God in the preceding line were the first such.  The transformation of Uther into Sawyl would be in keeping with the Arthur birth story, which echoes the birth stories of both Hercules and the Irish Mongan son of Fiachnae (in the former, Zeus transforms into a man's wife; in the latter, Manannan mac Lir does the same thing) - as long as we bear in mind that gorlassar/Gorlois is not what/who he changed into.  Gorlois as the product of the transformation is Geoffrey of Monmouth's reinterpretation - or misinterpretation - of the episode. 

As Sawyl Benisel/Benuchel had been given a Biblical name, and some of his sons became saints in Wales and Ireland, it would make sense for the poet to celebrate a connection between him and the divine. We need not be put off by someone like Sawyl bearing the title Uther Pendragon, the Terrible Chief-dragon, as the draco was an object of veneration among the Sarmatians who settled about Ribchester.  Pendragon could also represent the late Roman rank of Magister Draconum, master of the draco corp. 

MADOG ELITHIR/ELIWLAD AND THE IRISH CONNECTION

To quote P.C. Bartram in his A CLASSICAL WELSH DICTIONARY, "He [Sawyl] is evidently the same as Samuel Chendisil the father of Matóc Ailithir and Sanctan by Deichter daughter of Muredach Muinderg, king of Ulster (MIS §1 in EWGT p.32)."

Deichter is an interesting name.  A much earlier Deichter was the mother of the famous Irish hero Cuchulainn, who was first called Sétanta. Scholars are still debating whether Sétanta should be related to the name of the Setantii tribe in Britain.  Sawyl ruled over what was once the Setantii tribal region.

If this Deichter were also Arthur's real mother, then we could once again account for why subsequent Arthurs all belonged to Irish-founded dynasties in Britain.  And this is a requirement for ANY identification of the earlier Dark Age Arthur. 

In fact, my main reason for settling on this particular theory for a famous Northern Arthur of the 6th century is precisely because I've been unable to find another who has demonstrable Irish ties of any sort.  For example, we cannot link an Arthur at York with the Irish.  Nor can we link an Arthur in the Irthing Valley with the Irish.  WHAT IT ALL COMES DOWN TO IS THIS SIMPLE FACT: FOR IRISH-DESCENDED ROYAL FAMILIES IN THE FOLLOWING GENERATION (7TH CENTURY) TO NAME THEIR SONS ARTHUR, THEY HAD TO HAVE A VERY GOOD REASON FOR FINDING THE NAME TO BE IMPORTANT.  AND THE ONLY CONCEIVABLE REASON FOR THAT WOULD BE IF THE FAMOUS ARTHUR WAS HIBERNO-BRITISH IN TERMS OF HIS LINE OF DESCENT. ONE MIGHT TRY AND MAKE A CASE FOR HIS HAVING MARRIED AN IRISH WOMAN, AS GEOFFREY OF MONMOUTH'S GUINEVERE IS PLAINLY THE IRISH SOVEREIGNTY GODDESS FINDABHAIR (SOMETHING I HAVE DISCUSSED AT LENGTH ELSEWHERE). BUT THAT IS FICTION; ARTHUR HAD TO POSSESS FINDABHAIR BEFORE HE COULD CONQUER IRELAND. WE HAVE NO OTHER EVIDENCE THAT ARTHUR HAD AN IRISH WIFE. THE ONLY OTHER POSSIBILITY IS THAT THE 6TH CENTURY ARTHUR HAD AMONG HIS RETINUE IRISH MERCENARIES.  THEY WERE SO IMPRESSED WITH AND FOND OF THEIR BRITISH LEADER THAT HIS REPUTATION SPREAD TO DYFED AND DALRIADA.  UNFORTUNATELY, WE CANNOT PROVE THAT ANY SUCH IRISH MERCENARIES WERE USED BY ARTHUR.  WHAT WE CAN PROVE IS THAT SAWYL MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF AN IMPORTANT KING AMONG THE IRISH.  IF ONE OF HIS SONS BY THIS PRINCESS WERE ARTHUR, WE CAN ACCOUNT FOR THE POPULARITY OF THE NAME IN THE SUBSEQUENT GENERATION.

THE HOME OF SAWYL BENISEL: SAMLESBURY BY RIBCHESTER

Samlesbury Church on the River Ribble

For a nice history of Samlesbury, see

http://www.britishhistory.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol6/pp303-313.

My own extensive treatment of the place-name’s etymology is as follows:

Sawyl (Samuel) Benisel ("Low-head"), another son of Pabo,  is dated c. 480.  On the Ribble, not far south of “regio Dunutinga”, is a town called Samlesbury. The place-name expert Ekwall has Samlesbury as “Etymology obscure”, but then proposes OE sceamol, “bench”, as its first element, possibly in the topographical sense of “ledge”. Mills follows Ekwall by saying that this place-name is probably derived from scamol plus burh (dative byrig). However, sceamol/scamol is not found in other place-names where a “ledge” is being designated. Instead, the word scelf/scielf/scylfe, “shelf of level or gently sloping ground, ledge” is used.

The complete history of this place-name has been kindly supplied by Mr. Bruce Jackson, Lancashire County Archivist:

A D Mills:  'A Dictionary of English Place-Names'; Oxford University Press, 1991, page 284

'Samlesbury Lancs.  Samelesbure 1188.  Probably "stronghold near a shelf or ledge of land".  Old English scamol + burh (dative byrig).'

David Mills:  'The Place Names of Lancashire';  Batsford, 1976 (reprinted

1986), page 130

'? burh on a shelf of land (OE sceamol + -es (possessive) + burh, in the

form byrig (dative)

Samerisberia 1179 (Latin)

Samelesbure 1188

Samlesbiry 1246

The original settlement was probably around the church which stands by the R. Ribble, at the foot of the 168 foot ridge to which the first element may refer.  The derivation from OE sceamol, however, involves taking as base later forms of the name in 'sh-', such as Shamplesbiry 1246, which, though not uncommon, are far less frequent than forms in 's-'.  If the 's-' forms are original, the etymology is less certain.  There is much variation in the representation of the first element in early records - e.g. Sambisbury c.1300, Sammysburi 1524, Samsbury 1577.  There is today no village around the church; the main settlement moved to the south, to SAMLESBURY BOTTOMS, (Old English botm, 'valley bottom', here referring to the valley of the R. Darwen in which the hamlet stands), where a community grew up around the cotton mill which was built there c1784.'

Eilert Ekwall:  'The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names';

Oxford University Press, 1960, page 403

'Samlesbury La [Samerisberia 1179, Samelesbure 1188, -bur 1212,

Schamelesbiry 1246, Scamelsbyry 1277.  Etymology obscure.  If the name originally began in Sh-, the first element may be Old English sceamol 'bench' &c. in some topographical sense such as "ledge".'

Eilert Ekwall:  'The Place-Names of Lancashire'; Manchester University

Press, 1922, page 69

'Samlesbury (on the Ribble, E. of Preston):  Samerisberia 1179, Samelesbure

1188, 1194, Samelesbur', Samelisbur' 1212, Samelesbiri 1238.  Samelesbiry,

Samelesbiri, (de Samlebir, Samlesbiry, Samplesbiry) 1246, de Samelesburi

1252, Samlisbyri 1258, Samlesbury 1267, 1311 etc., Samlisbury, Sampnelbiry,

Sampnesbiry 1278, Samesbury 1276, 1278, Samlesbur' 1332, Samsbury 1577;

Shamplesbiry, de Schamelesbiry, -byr 1246, Scamelesbyry, Shampelesbyri,

Shapnesbyri 1277.

The old chapel of Samlesbury stands on the S. bank of the Ribble, with Samlesbury Lower Hall some way off on the river.  I take this to be the site of the original Samlesbury.  The etymology is much complicated by the variety of the early spellings.  The forms with S- are in the majority, but there are a good many with Sh-, and it is not easy to see why S- should have been replaced by Sh-, whereas S- for Sh- is easily explained by Norman influence.  If the original form had Sh-, I would compare the following names:  Shamele (hundred Kent) 1275; Shalmsford (Kent); Shamelesford 1285, Sahameleford 1275, perhaps Shamblehurst (Hants):  Samelherst, Scamelherst' 1176, Schameleshurste 1316.  All these may contain Old English sceamol "bench, stool," or some derivative of it.....The meaning of this word in topographical use is not clear, but very likely it may have been something like "ledge, shelf".....In this case the word might refer to a ledge on the bank of the Ribble.  In reality, Samlesbury Lower Hall stands on a slight ledge (c 50 ft above sea level), which stretches as far as the church.

If the spellings in Sh- are to be disregarded the etymology is much more difficult.  The first element is hardly the personal noun Samuel .  It it is a personal noun, as the early forms rather suggest, it may be a derivative of the stem Sam- found in German names.  This stem is not found in English names, but the related stem Som occurs in Old English Soemel and perhaps in the first element of Semington, Semley, Wilts.  Burh in this name, as in Salesbury, may mean "fortified house, fort" or "manor"...’

Henry Cecil Wyld and T Oakes Hirst:  'The Place Names of Lancashire';

Constable, 1911, page 226

'Samlesbury

1178-79     in Samesberia

1187-88     de Samelesbure

1189-94     Samlisburi

1227          Samlesbiri

1228          Samlesbyr

1246          Samelesbiri

1259          Samelebir

The first element is undoubtedly the Hebrew personal noun Samuel.  This does not appear to have been popular amongst the English in early times.....It is not recorded by Bjorkman [Erik Bjorkman:  'Nordische Personennamen in England'; Halle, 1910] as having been adopted by any Norseman in this country, but Rygh mentions a Norwegian place name Samuelrud ["Norske Gaardnavne Kristiana", 1897, volume ii, page 201].  In volume i the same writer records Samerud (pp 7 and 9), but says that this is possibly a Modern name.'

John Sephton:  'A Handbook of Lancashire Place-Names':  Henry Young, 1913, page 23

'A parish 4 miles east of Preston.  Early forms are Samerisberia,

Samelesbure.  First theme is the scriptural name Samuel .  Ancient Teutonic names are also found from the root Sama.....' .

I would suggest as a better etymology for Samlesbuy  “Sawyl’s fort”. There are, for example, Sawyl place-names in Wales (Llansawel, Pistyll Sawyl, now Ffynnon Sawyl).  Richard Coates, of the Department of Linguistics and English Language at The University of Sussex, says of Samlesbury as “Samuel’s Burg”:

“After a bit of extra research, it seems that all the spellings in <Sh-> and the like are from just 2 years in Lancashire assize roll entries (1246 and 1277). That makes them look more like the odd ones out and <S-> more like the norm. I'm coming round to preferring your interpretation, even though Ekwall in PN La (p. 69) simply rejects the idea it might come from "Samuel". Brittonic *_Sam(w)e:l_ (<m> here is vee with a tilde - nasalized [v]) is a good etymon for the majority of the forms, including the modern one, of course.”

Dr. Andrew Breeze of Pamplona, another noted expert on British place-names, agrees with Dr. Coates:

“I finally looked up _Samlesbury_ last night and feel sure you are right. The form surely contains the Cumbric equivalent of Welsh _Sawyl_<_Samuel_. Your explanation of this toponym in north Lancashire is thus new evidence for Celtic survival in Anglo-Saxon times.”

Bremetennacum Veteranorum, Ribchester Roman Fort

Bremetennacum

NEW EXCAVATIONS AT THE RIBCHESTER FORT

An excavation project within the Roman fort at Ribchester has only recently been undertaken by the archaeology department of the University of Central Lancaster:

http://www.uclan.ac.uk/news/ribchester-roman-dig-bbc.php

When I wrote to Dr. Duncan Sayer, one of the directors of the dig, and asked if they had yet found any evidence for sub-Roman use of Bremetennacum Veteranorum, he replied with this exciting news:

“Yes, I believe we have identified some evidence of sub-Roman occupation within the fort at Ribchester. Certainly the abandonment date of AD370 is no longer really tenable and at this early state in the project we are reasonably convinced they have structures and workshops that relate to a later-Roman and sub Roman phase of activity.”

PABO POST PRYDAIN AND HIS SONS (A MAP)

The above map shows the geographical relationship of Pabo Post Prydain (of the Papcastle Roman fort in Cumbria) and his "sons" Cerwyd(d), an eponym for the Carvetii tribe, Dunot of Dentdale and Sawyl of Samlesbury near the Ribchester Roman fort. Sawyl's son St. Asa belongs at Llanasa and Llanelwy/St. Asaph just a little to the SW of Samlesbury in Flintshire, while a church to his son Sanctan can be found at Kirksanton in southwestern Cumbria:

For more on Sanctan, see https://books.google.com/books?id=a_1fAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=chendisil&source=bl&ots=hy_TsaWT3F&sig=ACfU3U0PeMe8M8291HhlEH9pgQ5zJssvpg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjL2tLCmebgAhUSip4KHaB1A-MQ6AEwB3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=chendisil&f=false.

The headwaters of the Rivers Dent and Ribble are literally right next to each other:

THE SETANTII TRIBE

Sawyl Benisel at Ribchester inhabited a region that was once controlled by a Romano-British tribe called the Setantii.  The Setantii tribal territory embraced the Ribble, Samlesbury and Ribchester's Roman fort.

From A.L.F Rivet & Colin Smith’s The Place-names of Roman Britain, p 456-457:

“SETANTII

DERIVATION. This ethnic name is mysterious; there seem to be no British roots visible, and very few analogues anywhere of names in Set-. It is tempting, in view of Ptolemy's variants which show Seg- (Seg-) both for the port-name and the river-name, to suspect some confusion with the Seg- of Segontium, a possibility that occurred to Rhys (1904) 315 with regard to the river, though eventually he seems.to wish to main tain Setantii as a proper form. The strongest argument for so doing is provided by Watson CPNS 25, who points out that the first name of the Irish hero Cuchulainn was Setanta (from an earlier *Setant(os) : 'the Setantii were an ancient British tribe near Liverpool. . . the inference is that Setanta means "a Setantian" and that Cuchulainn was of British origin'. But the relation between these two names has been questioned. There is a full exposition of the problem by Guyonvarc'h in Ogam, XIII, (1961), 587-98, with discussion of views of Mac Neill, Osborne, and others, including Brittonic-Goidelic transferences in both historical and phonetic aspects. The essence of the matter is that it is tempting to see in this name Irish sét ('path'; = British *sento-, for which see CLAUSENTUM), but *-ant- suffix (as in DECANTAE) is Brittonic only, for -nt- does not exist in Goidelic. The name might be based on a divine name *Setantios, not otherwise known, and he in turn might be related etymologically and by sense to the goddess Sentona, perhaps 'wayfarer' (see further TRISANTONA). Clearly there is an additional problem in reconciling the a/e vowels in these forms (Trisantona, Gaulish Santones) if they are indeed connected. There, for the présent, the matter rests; but it is as well to reiterate that one cannot base too much speculation on forms recorded by Ptolemy alone, particularly when, in numbers, the MSS of his work record attractive variants.

IDENTIFICATION. Presumably a minor tribe, but since they appear only as part of a 'descriptive' name in the coastal list (next entry) and not in their own right in the full list of tribes, they probably formed part of the Brigantian confederacy. If the river name seteia is directly connected with them, they should have stretched along the Lancashire coast from the Mersey to Fleetwood.”

[1]

Ymddiddan Arthur a'r Eryr

Jes. MS 3

Llyma yr mod y treythir o englynyon yr eryr

Es ryfedaf kann wyf bard.

o vlaen dar ae vric yn hard.

py edrych eryr py chward.

Arthur bellglot ordiwes.

arth llu llewenyd achles.

yr eryr gynt ath weles.

Ys ryfedaf o tu myr

as gofynnaf yn vyuyr

py chward py edrych eryr.

Arthur bellglot engyhynt

arth llu llew[e]nyd dremynt

yr eryr ath welas gynt.

Yr eryr a seif ymbric dar.

[pei] hanfut o ryw adar

ny byd[ut] na dof na gwar.

Arthur gl[edy]fawc aruthyr

ny seif dy alon rac dy ruthyr

mi yw mab madawc [uab] uthyr.

Yr eryr ny wn dy ryw

a dreigla lgyngoet kernyw

mab madawc uab uthur nyt [byw].

Arthur ieith ****r*lit

***h gwyr * nyt gwaret lit

eliwlat gynt ym gelwit.

Yr eryr golwc diuei

ar dy barabyl nyt oes vei

ae ti eliwlat vy nei.

Arthur dihafarch ffossawc.

diarwrein arllwybrawt 

ys gwiw kystlwn o honawt.

Yr eryr barabyl eglur

a dywedy di wrth arthur

beth yssyd drwc y wneuthur.

Medylyaw drwc drwy aferdwl

a hir drigyaw yny medwl.

rygelwit pechawt ardwl.

Yr eryr barabyl diwc.

am a dywedy yn amlwc.

y wneuthur beth yssyd drwc.

Medylyaw brat anghywir

a chelu medwl yn hir.

kwl a phechawt y gelwir.

Yr eryr barabyl tawel

am a dywedy di heb ymgel

beth am peir fford y ochel.

Gwediaw duw pob pylgeint

a damunaw kereifyeint

ac er[chi]* canhorthwy seint.

Yr eryr parabyl doethaf

yttyhun ygouynnaf.

bod crist py delw y haedaf.

Karu duw o bryt vnyawn

ac erchi arch kyfyawn

ath ved nef a bydawl dawn.

Yr eryr gwir euenygi

ys llwyr y gorfynnaf ytti.

ae da gan grist y voli.

Arthur gwryt gadarnaf

arth gwyr gwrodeu pob eithyaf.

pob yspryt molet y naf.

Yr eryr ratlawn blegyt

athovynnaf heb ergryt

pwy yssyd naf ar pob yspryt.

Arthur nyt segur lafneu

rudyeist ongyr yggwaetfreu

crist yw cret vi nam amheu.

Yr eryr ratlawn adef

ath ovynnaf o hyt llef

beth oreu y geissyaw nef.

Ediuarwch am drossed 

a gobeth ran dang*nefed

hyñ ath beir yr drugared.

Yr eryr barabyl didlawt

ath ofyñaf arderchawc ardraeithawt

beth waethaf gyt a phechawt.

Arthur arderchawc doeth|ieith

gwedy profer pob kyfyeith

gwaethaf yw barñ añobeith.

Yr eryr barabyl gynyd.

ath ofynnaf dros dofyd

o añobeith beth yssyd.

Haedu hirboen uffernawl

a cholli duw yn dragywydawl

a chael cwymp anesgwrawl.

Yr eryr [i]eith ymadaw

ath lwyr ofynnaf rac llaw

ae gwell dim no gobeithaw.

Arthur arderchawc kyman

or myn eluyd kael kyfran

wrth gadarn gobeithet gwañ.

Yr eryr parabyl kywir

yttyhun y gofynnir

ponyt kadarn perchen tir.

Arthur geldyfawc wy*t

*na choll dofyd yr alaf

y kydernit ywr pennaf.

Yr eryr parabyl diheu

ath ovynnaf ar eireu

ponyt wyf gadarn inheu.

Arthur peñ kadoed kernyw

arderchawc luydawc lyw

y pennaf kydernit y[w] [d]yw.

Yr eryr ieith diarfford

gnawt gogorus ualdord

beth a ryd duw yr gosgord.

Gosgord nyw kywir voli

ac nyt kywir gyfarchei

ny dyt duw vessur arnei.

Yr eryr nefaw[l] dy̴ghet

or ny chaffaf y welet

beth a wna crist yr ae kret.

Arthur wydua llewenyd

wyt lluoessawc argletryd

ty hun dydbrawt ae gwybyd.

Yr eryr geir diamuarn

ath ofynnaf yn gadarn

ae dydbrawt y rodir y varn.

Arthur arderchawc wydua

yth dyd dyffed ny phalla

duw ehun a varn yna.

Yr eryr [barabyl cyhoed]

ath ovyn perchen * toruoed

beth dydbrawt a wna y pobloed.

Arthur arderchawc dam|re

arth gwyr wirodeu heilde

yna y gwybyd pawb y le.

Mi ae gofynneis y goffeiryeit

ac y esgyb ac y y̴gneit

pa beth oreu rac eneit.

Pader a maeyeit a bendigedic gredo

Ae cano rac eneit

hyt angheu goreu gordyfnot.

Ys kyrchych fford a delych

dy allu vyd da dangnofed

nyth didra ar adneu reddruga.

Syberw segur dolur

Ar eu knawt mynet dros vessur

ys dir nychyaw ny bo pur.

Anudon am dir a brat arglwyd 

a diuaño dy law gar

dyd | brawt bydawt ediuar.

Ac velly y teruyna eglynyon yr eryr.

Yr eryr barabl difrad,

Os ti ydyw Eliwlad,

Ai gwiw ymladd am danad?

Arthur ddihafarch ateb,

Ni saif gelyn i'th wyneb,

Rhag angau ni ddiainc neb.

Yr eryr iaith ddiymgel,

A allai neb drwy ryfel

Yn fyw eilwaith dy gaffel?

Arthur bendefig haelion,

O chredir geiriau'r Ganon,

A Duw ni thycia ymryson.

SOURCE

Williams, Ifor. "Ymddiddan Arthur a'r Eryr" Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies. vol. 2. (1925-25) p. 269-86

[2]

cafell (pl. -au/-oedd only) < cavella  ‘sanctuary, temple, cell’, 14th c. +

"For semantic reasons, the interpretation of GPC (as a variant of cawell, see below) seems unlikely to me. I should rather presume a double meaning of British Latin cavella. The difference of W -f-(-v-) : -w- (OW kauell) could have been introduced as a means of differentiation."

from Dating the loanwords: Latin suffixes in Welsh (and their Celtic congeners) by Stefan Zimmer

"As cawell and cafell are phonological variants of the same word, you could easily make a case that they originally had the same semantic range."  

- Simon Rodway (personal correspondence)