TWO MADOGS, TWO FATHERS, TWO PLACES: DECIDING ON THE RIGHT ARTHUR

Roman Ribchester

Where does Arthur belong?  That is a question that can only be answered when we ask 'Where does Uther belong?' And that second question can only be answered when we ask 'Who is Uther?'

I've been asking all three questions for a very long time now.  And I have some answers - of a kind.

What it boils down to is this: I have two possible Uthers, both of whom had sons named Madog at the right time period.  

1) Sawyl of Sarmatian Ribchester.

2) Cunedda of Dinas Emrys, if he may be allowed to stand for Emyr Llydaw (the Llydaw in question being found in the name of a lake near Dinas Emrys).  While Cunedda = Uther can disputed, the only good candidate for an Arthur originating from this region of Wales is Ceredig son of Cunedda/Cerdic of the Gewissei, whom I have treated of elsewhere in great detail.  

Within the last few days I discovered that Eliwlad son of Madog son of Uther had been relocated in legend from Nantlle in Gwynedd to Cornwall.[1]  Nantlle is close to Caer Dathal (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/01/caer-dathal-and-its-ancient-ruler.html). According to 'Culhwch and Olwen', this last place was inhabited by men who were related to Arthur's father.  Dathal could even be the birthplace of Arthur, replaced in Geoffrey's fiction by Tintagel/Dundadgel the second spelling is said by Eilert Ekwall and others to be the local form of Tintagel).  Arth- or 'bear' names are found in Ceredig's line of descent for the kingdom of Ceredigion, and they may have originated because of the Afon Arth situated centrally in that realm.

The difference between these two Uther candidates is profound.  Sawyl's situation in the North allows for an expected transmission of the Arthur name from Artorius, undoubtedly an echo of the famous Roman Lucius Artorius Castus of the 2nd century. We can also retain the Arthurian battles that seem to match perfectly sites in the North.  

If we go with Cunedda, on the other hand, we are forced to interpret the Welsh battle names as attempted translations of the battle sites of Cerdic and his successors in the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE.  

Still, either model is possible. How to decide between them?

The choice of Uther Pendragon as the designation for Arthur's father represents the crux of the matter.  Cunedda was quite famous among the Welsh.  Although his origin is Irish (from Drumanagh, not Manau Gododdin), he was proudly claimed as the progenitor of the princely line of Gwynedd.  He supposedly chased other Irish out of Wales.  I cannot conceive of a reason why his name would be hidden or forgotten, i.e. suppressed.  He was already called Wledig, a perfectly good Welsh title.  Why then make up a descriptor that mimics a name + epithet formula?  

The same is not true of Sawyl.  The chieftain of Ribchester had the misfortune of being identified with an identically named man in South Wales. This southern Sawyl had a decidedly nasty disposition.  See my post at https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-two-sawyls-or-does-arthur-belong-at.html.  It would have been wise to hide the true identity of Arthur's father, had his reputation become so unsavory. [The alternative for a man from Ribchester, where the Sarmatian draco would have been revered, is for Pendragon to refer to this standard in the title 'Chief-dragon', or even for the late Roman rank of magister draconum to be preserved in the epithet.]

We have a similar problem with Arthur as simply Arthur, versus Ceredig as Arthur.  Once again, Cunedda and his sons (or teulu) were incredibly famous in Wales.  Nennius resided in Gwynedd, and it is not logical that he would have sought to disguise the identity of the chieftain who had given his name to the Kingdom of Ceredigion.  Nor does it make sense to conceal the identity of the man who, as Cerdic of Wessex, had great success militarily in southern England.  I once thought that this may have been done precisely because the English claimed Cerdic as their own founder of Wessex and the Welsh needed a hero to counter the heroic tradition of their enemy.  But why use Cerdic at all if that were the case?  Find another hero.  Make one up.  Or, if you want to claim your own chieftain as a primary warrior-savior, do your best to present him in a favorable light.  Don't go hiding his name under another name or title.  

For these reasons, I must continue to opt for Sawyl of Ribchester as Arthur's father.  The testimony of the Welsh sources on Eliwlad son of Madog son of Uther, who appears to belong at Nantlle and not Bodmin, is insufficient as a basis for deciding on Ceredig son of Cunedda as Arthur.  After all, whoever wrote "The Dialogue of Arthur and the Eagle" and placed Eliwlad at the Cornish Cutmadoc place-names could well have known about a Coed Madog in Nantlle.  And because he did so, he borrowed the motif of Lleu as death-eagle in an oak for his character Eliwlad.  In neither case can we say that the Madog place-names at Nantlle or in Cornwall should be taken as "proof" that Madog son of Uther belonged to one or the other location. 

Caer Dathal, as the home of the bear god Math son of Mathonwy, may have been linked to Arthur's family for no other reason than Arthur was believed to contain the Welsh word for bear, 'arth.' 

I will remind my readers that Madog son of Sawyl is not found in the Welsh sources - only in the Irish.  Geoffrey of Monmouth knew nothing of Eliwlad son of Madog.  The preservation of the names and their connection with Uther are found only in the surviving didactic poem.  I take this as an instance of chance survival.  By the time this poem was composed, the fact that Madog was the Madog Ailithir ('other-land', a word for pilgrim) son of Sawyl, and that Eliwlad should be Eilwlad, 'other-land', had been forgotten.  Eliwlad son of Madog should be Madog Eilwlad. The final blow seems to have been a simple eye-skip copying error in the Uther elegy poem, MARWNAT VTHYR PEN, where sawyl came to be written kawyl.  And even if Sawyl were present in the poem at Geoffrey's time or somewhat earlier, it may simply have been taken metaphorically.  Not as an actual declaration of identity.   

[1]

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/05/a-shocking-discovery-real-location-of.html

The date of the Madog sites at Nantlee are unknown.  Here is the relevant information from Nia Gruffydd...

"It seems to be the Madog descended from Cilmin Droed Ddu. I know the link below is in Welsh, but you can see the genealogy. Taken from the local history site Cof y Cwmwd. 

https://cof.uwchgwyrfai.cymru/wici/Cilmin_Droed-ddu"

[Google translated site: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=cy&u=https://cof.uwchgwyrfai.cymru/wici/Cilmin_Droed-ddu&prev=search]

“It was probable that there was only one Coed Madog originally, but was divided in time to Plas Coedmadog, Coedmadog Farm, Coedmadog Uchaf and Brynmadog. Most of the village of Tal-y-sarn was built on the grounds of Plas Coedmadog in the second half of the nineteenth century. As it happens, I've traced some of the history.

In the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, Coedmadog was part of the Glan'rafon estate, in the parish of Llanbeblig, which is in Waunfawr. In the family tree page in JE Griffith's book, Pedigrees (p. 195) there is a note stating that Ellis Glynn of the Bryn Gwydion family sold Coed Madog to his cousin William Wynn of Glan'rafon, who died in 1700. The Gwydions of Bryn Gwydion, Pontllyfni are of the same family as the Glyns, Glynllifon who are descended from Cilmin Droed-ddu. None of that helps explain who Madog was, however.

All I can add, though, is that an auction catalog of 1845 notes a variation of the name - "the valuable freehold estate called Coed Madog otherwise Coed Gwyn." 

Nia Gruffydd

Rheolwr Llyfrgelloedd Gwynedd / Gwynedd Libraries Manager

Canolfan Llyfrgell Caernarfon,

Caernarfon, Gwynedd  

Adding to this, the folks at https://historicplacenames.rcahmw.gov.uk/ have told me:

"It's impossible to say who the Madog in question was, but he was presumably a local nobleman, saint, or otherwise significant person."