GEOFFREY OF MONMOUTH'S GORLOIS/STAR TRANSFORMATION AND THE UTHER ELEGY

Comet Hale-Bopp Showing Green and Blue Colors

So what keeps me awake at night?

What I've come to think of as the 'Comet Conundrum.'  In brief, this problem has to do with Geoffrey of Monmouth's story of Uther's comet and that king's transformation into Gorlois.  If we look at the "Marwnat Vthyr Pen" poem, and interpret the relevant line as containing the word cannwyll, which can mean "star", we have the following translation:

It is I who commands hosts in battle:

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

It’s I who’s called gorlassar [the very blue or blue-green or, given the context, perhaps 'the great blaze, conflagration'; cf. Irish forlassar, from the intensive prefix plus lasar, 'fire, flame']:

my ferocity snared my enemy.

It is I who’s a leader in (tywyll) darkness:

Our God, Chief of the Sanctuary, transforms me.

It’s I who’s like ['eil' here means like/similar to, not 'second' - unless God is to be considered the 'first'] a (canwyll) candle/luminary [transf. star, sun, moon; fig. leader, hero] in the gloom:

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

Such a rendition of this section of the elegy allows us to account for both Geoffrey's star - which he pointedly says is Uther himself - and the latter's transformation into Gorlois (given that Gorlois is derived from Uther's gorlassar epithet).

And what is wrong with that, the reader might ask?  

Quite simply that while cannwyll is certainly possible for kawyl, a far simpler emendation to the text opts for Sawyl, a personal name that I have linked to Sawyl Benisel of the Ribchester fort of the Roman period Sarmatian veterans.  While the identification of Uther with Sawyl is tempting (see my work on Eliwlad son of Madog son of Uther as a memory of Madog Ailithir son of Sawyl), if we drop cannwyll from the poem, we lose the star's literary origin.  We also lose what seems an uncanny contextual fit.  For the two lines which end with 'in darkness' and 'in the gloom' seem thematically linked.  Marged Haycock, in a note to the poem, says "Cannwyll is sometimes a rhyme partner for tywyll (e.g. AP line 88 cannwyll yn tywyll; CC 18.13; R1056.15)." A luminary that was also a leader in the gloom echoes the earlier leader in darkness.

I'm also unhappy with the use of Uther Pendragon, the Terrible/Horrible (or Cruel) Chief-warrior or Chief of warriors being used consistently for Sawyl Benisel.  I mean, why not simply use this chieftain's name?  Pendragon could easily have been appended to his name in lieu of his proper epithet, Benisel. Plus there does not seem to be anything terrible about Sawyl.  In fact, he fathered several well-known saints and married an Irish princess. 

On the other hand, the credulisque tyrannus is treated so badly, St. Patrick says of what he has done to Christians -

Et contigit scelus tam horrendum ineffabile..

This unspeakably horrifying crime has been carried out...

[Letter to the soldiers of Coroticus 17]

Once again, this seem to fit the King of Alclud quite well, and Sawyl not at all.

Sure, if I'm right and Sawyl belongs at Ribchester, he may have been associated with the Sarmatian draco which might have still been in use by the warriors who resided there.  And so the man who was 'humble' (Benisel, Pen-isel, literally 'low-head') took on another title that, oddly enough, has the format of name + epithet instead of merely epithet.  But how reasonable is this to propose?

A final issue is what Geoffrey of Monmouth had before him when he told his story of Uther.  Are we to believe that he had a Welsh elegy poem that had sawyl written for kawyl, yet he opted instead to have Uther appear as a dragon-comet?  It seems to me we must instead assume that what he had for kawyl was cannwyll and although the poem was using the word metaphorically, he chose to see 'star' in the word (perhaps influenced by the Continental and Irish records for the comet of 442 A.D.).  In reality, as far as the elegy narrative is concerned, there was no star.  Uther was merely the luminous leader of battle in a dark time.  

I simply cannot account for the presence of the star in his story in any other way.  And that means that although based solely on the number of copying errors required for sawyl vs. cannwyll the former is to be slightly preferred, we must instead prefer the latter as the most likely original spelling for the extant kawyl.

And, indeed, for what it's worth, this is what my gut instinct has been saying all along.

Now, if Sawyl is not present in the Uther elegy, and we cannot easily account for why Uther Pendragon as either a name + epithet formula or simply a descriptor was substituted the Sawyl Benisel, how do we find the real father of Arthur?

I think the best solution was something I offered in this recent article:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/04/chapter-2-arthurs-ancestry-restoring_7.html

Coroticus or Ceredig of Strathclyde as crudelisque tyrannus would nicely account for the Welsh Uther Pendragon.  In that piece I explored several other reasons why Coroticus is perfect for Arthur's father.

The only problem I can see with that post is my striving, somewhat desperately, to associate the star-gorlassar transformation of Uther with Coroticus' transformation via druidical spell into a little fox.  There is really no reason to have to resort to that.  

As I've shown above, Geoffrey's story of Gorlois and the star is derived from a imaginative interpretation of the elegy poem.  He went even further when he mistranslated Pendragon into the 'Dragon's head', something that allowed him connect the epithet with both the comet and the Roman draco standard.  Underneath this is hidden the real story of Uther's transformation, and that is alluded to only in the TRIADS.   For when the Welsh tell us that Uther taught an enchantment to Menw, and this is found in a context which is replete with animal transformations - Menw himself having changed into a bird in CULHWCH AND OLWEN - we are being reminded of Coroticus' becoming a fox through magical agency.  

The word used for Uther's enchantment is Welsh hut (hud), and this is by definition a spell or charm resulting from the practice of magic, wizardry, sorcery or even witchcraft.  It is decidedly not a transformation brought about by God.  We are not talking in this context about God making Uther into the shining hero of the Britons against their pagan enemies.

What this tells me is that a) Uther knew how to transform into an animal b) he taught that skill to Menw, who used it to become a bird c) there must have been a story in which Uther himself became an animal and d) we have such a story in that of Coroticus as a fox.

Madog is still probably important - precisely because his name means 'fox.'  To the above-mentioned essay I recently added this statement about the 'Madawg drut ac Erof' poem...

In https://books.google.com/books?id=8Y2CO10-vsgC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=%22coroticus%22%2B%22lupi+rapaces%22&source=bl&ots=6hUjX-Pu-Vsf&sig=ACfU3U0Y8gCwGArj7XXgHRUAf1_ET1aQjg&hl=en&ppis=_e&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiH4I_0psjoAhVQj54KHdl5CWUQ6AEwAXoECAsQLw#v=onepage&q=%22coroticus%22%2B%22lupi%20rapaces%22&f=false, Maire Johnson provides some excellent footnotes regarding this episode:

“Frustrated at Coroticus’ unrepentant attitude, the saint’s letter calls the leader and his gang of noble toughs a pack of ‘rapacious wolves’ (lupi rapaces) several times…

The mean form of the king’s new shape mocks Corictic’s virile warrior prowess and acts as a vulpine echo of the historical Patrick’s accusa-tion that Corictic and his ruffians were lupi ra-paces… It is also possible that here Muirchu may have been comparing Corictic/Coroticus to King Herod, whom Jesus calls a fox in Luke 13:32.”

The reference here to Herod as a fox is interesting, as in the Book of Taliesin we find a poem called Madawg Drut ac Erof.  The poem is odd, in that the first part tells of the death of Madawg son of Uther, while the second tells of Herod (= Erof).  But if we remember that Herod was called a fox and Madawg means fox, the pairing suddenly makes a great deal of sense. 

I am reminded of the interesting correspondences that exist between the family names in "The Dialogue of Arthur and the Eagle" and various animals.  Arthur, throughout the poem, is referred to as a bear. These relationships can best be seen in column form:

 Uther Pendragon/dragon

Arthur/bear   Madog/fox

Eliwlad/eagle

On the one hand, this pattern may be due to nothing more than poetic fancy.  Or it may demonstrate a tendency in the royal family to subscribe to a peculiar brand of totemism.  

CONCLUSION

My research indicates that Arthur's father Uther Pendragon is the crudelisque tyrannus Ceredig of Alclud.  The descriptor was used so that the morally objectionable character of Ceredig could be avoided and he could be recast in a more favorable mould. The magical qualities of Uther can be found in Geoffrey's interpretation of the elegy and in Ceredig's transformation into a fox. The fox is present in the name Madog, used for a son of Uther.  As far as Arthur is concerned, a hero from ancient Dumnonia in the North meets all the necessary criteria.  We can account for his later presence in southern Dumnonia and even in Domnonee, Brittany.  We can explain why Aedan of Dalriada named a son after him. Etc.

This all works so well, in fact, that I will be recasting THE ARTHUR OF HISTORY one last time to reflect my findings.  I genuinely feel that I've not only done my utmost to reveal the true nature of Uther Pendragon, but that in doing so I have come up with perhaps the only valid theory to date for a historical Arthur.