WHY I AM ACCEPTING THE UTHER-SAWYL IDENTIFICATION

By now, my readers may know that for months I have struggled with the desire to place Uther Pendragon at the Ribchester fort as Sawyl Benisel.  This is because I happened to like the idea that Uther could be linked to the Sarmatian veterans at that site.

I have been given hope that this theory might work and that I can retain my proposed etymology for Eliwlad son of Madog son of Uther (Eliwlad demonstrating a metathesis in the first element, the original form being Eilwlad).  I've received this through none other than Dr. Simon Rodway, one of the foremost experts in early Welsh.

I had told him my idea for the word kawyl in one of the lines of the elegy poem on Uther.  I thought the context demanded cannwyll.  But he objected, saying

"This is perhaps possible, but three things make me uneasy.

1)      this requires positing an n-suspension.  These do occur occasionally in medieval Welsh MSS, but they are very rare.

2)      The single l would mean suggesting an Old Welsh exemplar, for which there is no other clear evidence in the poem.  Elsewhere the scribe has ll where needed, so if he was copying from an examplar with l for ll, then this would be the only occasion on which he didn’t correctly modernize.

3)      Supposing an n-suspension would only allow us to restore one n.  In an OW form, one would expect nt, nh or perhaps nn, but not n.

Overall, emendation to Sawyl, while totally speculative, involves less issues (eye-skip to kawell), and eil Sawyl, ‘a second Samuel’ gives plausible sense."

So what to make of this?  The elegy poem, interpreted with the word cannwyll, adequately explained Geoffrey of Monmouth's use of the comet motif and Uther's transformation into Gorlais.

Here are the lines of the "Marwnat Vthyr Pen" as I rendered them after considerable analysis and consultation:

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, 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 darkness:
Our God, Chief of the Sanctuary, transforms me.
It’s I who’s like (eil) a candle/luminary [transf. star, sun, moon; fig. leader, hero] or who's a second (eil) candle/luminary in the gloom:
I’d not give up fighting without bloodshed between two forces.

The problem as I see it has to do with the word 'eil'.  It can mean both like/similar to or second.  But given that the previous line has to do with a transformation of Uther by God, 'like' or 'similar to' is not a good meaning.  When you are transformed into something, you become that something.  Thus eil must mean 'second' in the line.  A second what?  If a second candle/luminary, then God could be the first such.  Yet we are not told God is the first luminary.  We would have to assume that was implied.

A 'second Sawyl', however, does fit much better. I've discussed before the Biblical story of Samuel (Sawyl is the Welsh form of Samuel).  He tends to the lamp that is kept lit at night in the sanctuary of Shiloh.  In the elegy, God is the 'Chief of the Sanctuary.'  A Dark Age chieftain with the name Sawyl could easily have been named after the Biblical hero and thus become, in the mind of the poet, a 'second Samuel.'  If his military exploits matched those of Samuel against the Philistines, then the comparison would be even more apt.

Of course, it goes without saying that if we adopt this reading, we lose the cannwyll which may have been used by Geoffrey of Monmouth to conjure his dragon-star story.  The word dragon in Welsh poetry is used metaphorically for a champion, hero, warrior, chieftain and the like.  Geoffrey's interpretation of Pendragon as 'dragon's head' would, therefore, appear to be another error.  However, as Sawyl does belong at or near Ribchester of the Sarmatian veterans, he certainly would have been well acquainted with their draco standard.  And I have provided detailed information elsewhere about the comet of 442 A.D. recorded in Irish and Continental sources.  We could, therefore, arrive at an appreciation for Geoffrrey's dragon-star and dragon-standard that is independent of his creative genius.

All of which leads me back to Eliwlad son of Madog son of Uther.  Eliwlad has remained resistant to etymologizing.  I recently proposed it might be from W. eiliw + gwlad for 'grief-prince.'  This was approved linguistically by Professor Peter Schrijver and others.  But it is rather unsatisfactory as a name and relies upon a use of gwlad that may only be present in Welsh in a couple of instances.  Dr. Simon Rodway still insists the exemplar of the name, found in later forms spelled Eliwlod and Liwlod, must have as its second element something terminating in -awd, not -ad.  But again, no decent etymology can be derived from such a spelling (whether we resort to -llawd or even -blawd).

I'd already pointed out that "The Dialogue of Arthur and the Eagle", in which the name Eliwlad/Eliwlat occurs, resembles another dialogue poem between a saint and a pilgrim.  My proposed etymology of Eilwlad would match in meaning the Irish Ailithir epithet belonging to Madog son of Sawyl.  Ailither designated a pilgrim.

The resistance to Eliwlad showing a metathesis of Eil- to Eli- is not universal.  Some top Celtic linguists had no problem with this - especially when I was able to show the metathesis happening in medieval Welsh MSS.  There are, however, some hold outs.  Dr. Rodway, for example, who has no problem with such a copying error providing the original form was extant somewhere.  Which it is not.

So what this all comes down to, essentially, is 1) accepting the emendation of kawyl to sawyl in the elegy poem and 2) allowing for Eliwlad to be from Eilwlad.   This wouldn't seem to be much to go on - until we factor in the Sarmatian angle.  I've recently worked hard confirming the new reading of the Lucius Artorius Castus memorial stone done by Dr. Linda Malcor and colleagues.  The significance of 'LAC' is that he was involved in the transfer to Britain of 5,500 Sarmatian elite troops and their use there when he was prefect of the Sixth Legion and, eventually, de facto governor of the province.  What this tells me is that if the Arthur name had been made famous in the North, as seems probable, then we should seek its continued use in the same region.  The most logical places to look for it would be York, where LAC was headquartered in the late 2nd century, or Ribchester, where Sawyl ruled in the 5th century.  An identification of Uther, Arthur's father, with Sawyl of Ribchester would satisfy these conditions remarkably well.

I have elsewhere offered yet more arguments for this identification.  While many are circumstantial in nature (e.g. Uther and Sawyl's connection to the god Mabon), the cumulative effect is such as to reinforce the Uther = Sawyl equation.  My book THE BATTLE-LEADER OF RIBCHESTER will shortly be reissued with some slight revisions.  Interested readers can find in that volume a longer treatment of my theory.