REISSUING "THE ARTHUR OF HISTORY"

https://www.amazon.com/Arthur-History-Revised-August-Hunt/dp/1092772839/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1591970014&sr=8-2

I'm reissuing this title (with minor emendations). As a result of my recent finding regarding Uther Pendragon's true identity (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-disappointing-truth-about-uther.html), I can no longer sustain the Sawyl Benisel = Uther argument. Other related factors came into play as I made my decision on this matter. First, I'm now certain the 'kawyl' of the Uther elegy poem must be for can(n)wyl(l) and that this is where Geoffrey of Monmouth got his idea for Uther's star. Second, my second proposed etymology of 'Grief-lord' for Eliwlad, grandson of Uther, has received acceptance among Celtic and Welsh scholars. This means it cannot show a metathesis from Eilwlad, which they find implausible.

But mostly, my reasoning runs as follows:

The word dragon in Welsh poetic usage means warrior or chieftain (Koch, Bromwich, GPC, etc.). Geoffrey of Monmouth’s false reading of Pen-dragon as ‘Dragon’s head’ has, unfortunately, received much currency in the popular consciousness. Its actual meaning, wholly determined by the element order in the epithet (Dr. Simon Rodway, personal communication), is ‘Chief warrior/chieftain.’

Thus anyone seeking to associate Uther with the draco standard, based upon the Galfridian claim that a dragon-headed star was symbolized by the draco, is subscribing to a purely imaginative literary motif. There is no justification whatsoever to seek in the draco a connection with the late Roman army or even with early steppe peoples like the Sarmatians who introduced the draco into that army.

THE ARTHUR OF HISTORY avoids the problems created when we try to incorporate information gleaned from the Galfridian tradition. The only real shift in theory has to do with where Arthur should be placed in the North. My analysis of the place-names involved has always shown an Arthur on the west end of Hadrian's Wall, with campaigns running north and south of the Wall along Dere Street. A death at Camlan/Castlesteads on the Wall, and possible burial at Aballava (var. Avalana = 'Avalon') at Burgh-By-Sands, may be evidence of Arthur belonging to the Irthing Valley of the *Artenses (Welsh Arthwys), 'People of the Bear'. Shifting Arthur from Ribchester to the Wall was not, therefore, difficult.

If he were not a king or prince, then he would not show up in the royal pedigrees of the Men of the North. Not knowing his father's name, then, would be expected. However, if 'dux erat bellorum', his being a 'battle-leader', was an attempt in Latin to render a Cumbric personal name with the same meaning, we find a Ceidio in the genealogies. His name is hypocoristic for a 'Battle-leader' style name and as a son of Arthwys he appears to belong to the right region to be Arthur. This Ceidio's son, Gwenddolau, is said to be the lord of Myrddin (Merlin). Ceidio's name may be preserved in that of a pool that lies between Banna/Birdoswald and Camboglanna/Castlesteads in the Irthing Valley.

This is, quite simply, the best I can do. It does lack the glamour of Geoffrey of Monmouth's fiction, of course, and for that reason alone many will be unwilling to accept it. The draco standard is carried into battle by many Arthurian scholars and independent researchers/writers and is clung to very tightly. I feel it will be impossible to pry it from their grasp (or even from their cold, dead fingers!). But there really is nothing to the dragon story, and we must move on if we are to continue making progress in historical explorations of our beloved hero. I myself was mired in Geoffrey's fiction for way too long. We all want it to be true, or least to reflect some kernel of truth. Sadly, it does not.