Illtud the Knight Rides Again

                           

My readers by now know all too well how in past research I've demonstrated the very strong possibility that Uther Pendragon is a Welsh rendering of Latin descriptors and ranks given to Illtud in that saint's VITA. You also know that I've done everything in my power to destroy the theory, chiefly because I dislike trying to place Arthur's battles in the Southern arena.

Well, maintaining this anti-Illtud stance has become impossible.

I kept asking myself why Mabon is called the servant/slave (W. gwas) of Uther in the PA GUR. We know of only one instance in which Mabon could have been a slave, and that's during his long imprisonment in Gloucester. Bromwich and Evans, in their addition of CULHWCH AC OLWEN, discuss Mabon and his cousin Eiddoel, who are both prisoners at Caergloyw, otherwise called the fort of Glivi (Glefi), an eponym for Gloucester. 

This Eiddoel becomes Geoffrey of Monmouth's Eldol, ruler of Gloucester, while we find Eldad ( = Illtud) as that city's bishop.

I've pointed out before that the small kingdom of Penychen in southern Wales where Illtud was master of the soldiers was in the region of Glywysing, from Glywys, "men of Gloucester."

The PA GUR is much later than some scholars have thought, as it contains 

Cymracized forms of both Gaelic and English place-names. Thus the influence of Galfridian tradition, while not plainly evident, cannot be discounted.

With Illtud the terribilus miles, magister militum and princeps militum being a chief of warriors in Glywysing and then represented in Geoffrey's fiction as a bishop of Gloucester, and given, furthermore, the presence of the Church of Mabon of the Vale (modern Gileston) so close to Llantwit Major, I don't feel I can any longer deny the likelihood that Illtud as Uther is the master of Mabon.

What this means for subsequent Arthurian theory is something I'm going to have to take a long, hard look at once again.

And, of course, the specter of Sawyl Benisel continues to haunt the whole thing. As does, ultimately, rejecting the reading of ARMENIOS on the LAC stone in favor of ARMORICOS. In addition, we would be embracing the Irish connection implicit in an identification of Arthur's real father with Sawyl - a connection which explains the Arthurs who belong to Irish-descended dynasties in Britain. As a bonus, I get to keep my precious Northern Arthurian battles.

BUT ONLY IF THE SAWYL-ILLTUD CONFLATION WORKS. We might, instead, be stuck with Illtud.

Quite the can of worms. And one I'm going to have to take fishing with me soon.

NOTE:

My idea that Uther Pendragon is merely a title for Ambrosius as the latter is found in the HISTORIA BRITTONUM does not work.  

Why?

Because 'rex magnus', used of Ambrosius, would never have been rendered as Pendragon.  Straight-across translation into Welsh would be Rhi Mawr.  And while we are told that Vortigern was in dread (L. timore) of Ambrosius, 'terrible' is never applied to Ambrosius as an adjective.  

A follow-up piece to this article is now available here:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/10/must-we-stick-with-illtud-as-arthurs.html