Arthur in the Celtic Languages: The Arthurian Legend in Celtic Literatures and Traditions (Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages) 9781786833433, 9781786833440, 1786833433

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title Page
Copyright
Contents
Preface
Acknowledgements
List of Contributors
List of Illustrations
List of Abbreviations
Glossary of Welsh Terms
Introduction
Part One: Wales
The Beginnings of Welsh Arthurian Tradition
1 Arthurian references in Early Welsh Poetry
2 The Earliest Myrddin Poems
3 Trystan and Esyllt
Native Welsh Arthurian Tales
4 Culhwch ac Olwen
5 Breuddwyd Rhonabwy
Medieval Translations and Adaptations into Welsh
6 Brut y Brenhinedd
7 The First Adaptations from French: History and Context of a Debate
8 Owain or Iarlles y Ffynnawn
9 Ystorya Geraint fab Erbin
10 Historia Peredur ab Efrawg
11 Y Seint Greal
Influences and Re-compositions
12 Arthur in Trioedd Ynys Prydain
13 Arthurian References in Medieval Welsh Poetry, c.1100–c.1540
14 Later Hybrid Narrative Texts in Middle Welsh
15 Folklore and Popular Tradition
16 Arthurian Place-names of Wales
17 Arthurian Tradition in Modern Welsh Literature
Part Two: Cornish and Breton Traditions
18 Cornwall and the Matter of Britain
19 Arthur in Earlier Breton Traditions
20 Popular Traditions and the Work of Hersart de la Villemarqué
21 The Arthurian Legend in Modern Breton Culture
Part Three: The Gaelic World
Ireland
22 The Earliest Irish Material 2
23 Irish Translations and Romances
Scotland
24 Scottish Gaelic Literature and Popular Traditions
Bibliography
Index of Manuscripts
General Index

Citation preview

ARTHUR IN THE CELTIC LANGUAGES

ARTHURIA N LITERATURE IN THE MIDDLE AGES

IX

ARTHUR IN THE CELTIC LANGUAGES

THE A RTHURIAN LEGEND IN CELTIC LITE RATURES AND TRADITIONS

edited by Ceridwen Lloyd-Morgan and Erich Poppe

CARDIFF UNIVERSITY OF WALES PRESS 2019

© The Vinaver Trust, 2019

All rights reserved. No part ofthis book may be reproduced in any material form (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means and whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use ofthis publication) without the written permission ofthe copyright owner except in accordance with the provisions ofthe Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. Applications for the copyright owner's written permission to reproduce any part ofthis publication should be addressed to the University of Wales Press, University Registry, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff CFI0 3NS.

www.uwp.co.uk

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN 978-1-78683-343-3 e-ISBN 978-1-78683-344-0

The right ofthe Contributors to be identified separately as authors ofthis work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77, 78 and 79 ofthe Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

j) FSC

www.hc.O Alfred Nutt, review of Evans, White BookMabinogion, Folklore, 21 ( 1 9 1 0), 237-46 (p. 242, n. 1); Tatlock, Legendary History, pp. 195-6; cf Pade1,AMWL, pp. 54, 75-6, rejected by Brynley F. Roberts, 'Yr India Fawr a'r India Fechan', LlC, 13 (1 974-81), 281-3 (p. 283). See Haycock, Legendary Poems, pp. 405-6; Sims-Williams, Irish Influence, pp. 135--6. 72 O. 1. Padel, 'Oral and literary culture in medieval Cornwall', in Helen Fulton (ed.),Medieval Celtic

Literature and Society (Dublin: Four Courts, 2005), pp. 95-1 16 (pp. 1 1 3-15); Graham Thomas and Nicholas Williams (eels), Bewnans Ke: The Life of St Kea (Exeter: Exeter University Press, 2007), pp. xxxii-xxxiii; see also Padel, chapter 18, pp. 265, 269-70.

CUUiWCH AC OLWEN

79

n On Cai, see Pade1, AMWL, pp. 108- 1 1 ; Rachel Bromwich, TYP3, pp. 308- 1 1 ; on Bedwyr, Pade1, AMWL, pp. 1 1 2-13; Bromwich, TYP3,pp. 286-7; on Gwalchmai, Pade1,AMWL, pp. 1 17-18; Bromwich, TYP3, pp. 367-7 1 . " On Gwenhwyfar, see Pade1, AMWL, pp. 1 1 5-17; Bromwich, TYP3, pp. 376--EO. O n Arthur's possessions, see Patrick K. Ford, 'On the significance of some Arthurian names in Welsh', BEeS, 30 (1982-3), 268-73. On Caledfw1ch, see Sims-Williams, Irish Influence, pp. 1 65-66; Pade1, 'Oral and literary culture', pp. 1 12-13, 1 15. n Melville Richards (ed.), BreudwytRonobwy (Cardiff: University ofWales Press, 1 948), 8.25. 76 I am very grateful to Dr Ian Hughes for reading and commenting on a draft ofthis chapter. Any remaining errors are mine, however.

5 BREUDD WYD RHONAB WY

Catherine McKenna Breuddwyd Rhonabwy (The Dream of Rhonabwy), a prose narrative occupying 740 lines in the double-columned Red Book of Hergest (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Jesus College 1 1 1), dated c. l3 82-1405, participates in a number of medieval European literary genres and modes. It is a dream vision, an Arthurian tale, and a satire; it is also arguably intended as a kind of speculum principis or 'mirror for princes'. It has fasci­ nated readers and challenged critical interpretation at least since its publication in Lady Charlotte Guest's Mabinogion in the mid-nineteenth century l Like the influential thirteenth-century French Roman de la Rose and many other dream visions of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, including Chaucer's Book of the Duchess, House ofFame and Parliament ofFowls, Breuddwyd Rhonabwy centres on the description of a dream framed by an account of the environment in which the dreamer falls asleep and of his waking. The possibility that the author was familiar with the Roman de la Rose is tantalizingly suggested by the recorded fact that Llywelyn Bren, a fourteenth-century Welsh rebel against English rule, had in his possession at the time of his arrest in 1 3 16 a copy of the Roman 2 However, the differ­ ences between Breuddwyd Rhonabwy and the conventional medieval European dream vision are more striking than the similarities. Rather than growing drowsy in a locus amoenus, or conventionally 'pleasant place', for example, the dreamer falls asleep in most insalubrious circumstances. If the dream itself is allegorical, the allegory has proven intractable to any interpretation that evokes critical consensus. And the great French and English dream visions are poems, of course, while Breuddwyd Rhonabwy, like all medieval Welsh narrative, is in prose. Breuddwyd Rhonabwy is also anomalous as an Arthurian narrative; it is more a tableau than a story. Arthur sits encamped among lavishly equipped hosts from as far away as Denmark and Norway on the eve of the battle of Badon. He plays a board game with one of his men, he receives an embassy from an opponent seeking a truce, he takes counsel, he receives tribute from the Greek isles, he listens to a praise poem in his honour. Not much else takes place. The Arthur of Breuddwyd Rhonabwy is very much the emperor that Geoffrey of Monmouth makes him, but he performs no heroic deeds. Nor is he the centre around which his knights undertake their adventures, setting out from and returning to his court as they do in so many romances: his men surround him, but if any of them sets off on a quest, the narrator knows nothing of it. The tale has been read as satirical and parodic of, among other things, the Arthurian legend, dream-vision literature, the conventions of romance, the complexities of

BREUDD WYD RHONABWY

81

bardic poetry and story-telling in general. The main critical approaches to the text are described below, and it will be seen that they have in common a strong sense of ironic distance between the author and his material. The author's ability to weave the dream-vision genre and the Arthurian tradition into a text that consistently displays a keen awareness of its own prose style reveals a remarkably sophisticated literary sensibility. Like all medieval Welsh prose narratives, Breuddwyd Rhonabwy is anony­ mous, and we know almost nothing about who wrote any of the tales, or in what kind of setting. Our ignorance in this regard only amplifies our admiration for this text, so different from any other literary product of the Arthurian tradition and so different from other medieval Welsh tales .' Among the obstacles to interpretation is the fact that we do not know when Breuddwyd Rhonabwy was written. It is preserved in only one medieval manuscript, the aforementioned Red Book of Hergest. Lady Charlotte Guest included Breuddwyd Rhonabwy in the collection of translations that she published as The Mabinogion in seven parts between 1838 and 1845, and it has been regarded as a 'l\1abinogion' text ever since. However, the text does not appear in the mid-fourteenth-century W hite Book of Rhydderch (Aberystwyth, NLW, MSS Peniarth 4-5), the earliest manuscript source for the other ten tales included in what has corne to be known as the l\1abino­ gion. There are pages and even whole quires missing from the W hite Book, and in the past it was suggested that Rhonabwy had been contained in one of the missing quires. But Daniel Huws, the pre-eminent modem scholar of the structure of the W hite Book, does not believe that there is any real evidence of this ' Based on the manuscript source, then, we cannot date the text any earlier than c.1380, although few scholars would be inclined to assign it so late a date. There is one intemal clue to the date of the text. It opens with a reference to the reign of the prince l\1adog ap l\1aredudd in Powys: 'l\1adog son of l\1aredudd ruled Powys from one end to the other'.' l\1adog was an actual prince of Powys, and he died in 1 160; no prince ruled Powys 'from end to end' thereafter. 1160, then, is a terminus a quo for the text. The reference to l\1adog provides a basis for reading Breuddwyd Rhonabwy as a speculum principis. Within the first few lines, the reader learns that l\1adog 'had a brother whose rank was not equal to his' .' This brother, Iorwerth, is discontented with his status, and with l\1adog's offer to appoint him his penteulu, the captain of his personal military retinue: 'Iorwerth refused that, and went raiding in England, and he committed murder, and burned houses and took prisoners. ' 7 Such behaviour on the part of his brother implicitly threatens Powys with reprisals on the part of the l\1archer lords, and so requires Madog's intervention. He dispatches men throughout Powys to look for Iorwerth, and it is in the course of that search that Rhonabwy has his dream. Given this introduction, a reader might expect the dream itself to cast some light on the plight of the sovereign so undermined by the unruly behaviour of a member of his own family, to offer some guidance for the management of that situation or one like it.

82

CATHERINE MCKENNA

It has proven difficult for critics, however, to agree that there is any entirely persua­ sive correlation between the frame story of Madog and his intractable brother and the content of Rhonabwy's dream. The Red Book of Hergest is a substantial anthology of Welsh prose and poetry compiled some time after 13 82, and most likely before 1405, for Hopcyn ap Tomas, a Glamorgan gentleman with an omnivorous appetite for Welsh literature. The principal scribe of the Red Book was Hywel Fychan, who has been hesitantly described as its 'editor' as well.' Hywel was a professional scribe whose hand appears in several other surviving manuscripts, and it seems that Hopcyn commissioned him to compile a comprehensive library of Welsh literature to complement volumes of Welsh legal and religious texts also in the possession of Hopcyn's family. Breuddwyd Rhonabwy has been considered one of eleven 'Mabinogion' tales since Lady Charlotte Guest included it in her collection of medieval Welsh narrative texts. It does not occur in proximity to any of the other ten Mabinogion tales in the Red Book, however. Breuddwyd Rhonabwy follows Chwedlau Seith Doethion Rhufain, a Welsh version of the international 'Seven Wise Masters' cycle of parables. It is followed, in tum, by several prophetic texts, including Proffwydoliaeth Sibli Ddoeth, a Welsh version of the prophecy of the Tiburtine Sibyl. The manuscript context of Breuddwyd Rhonabwy associates it with tales of vision and prophecy, and with questions of inter­ pretation, wisdom, and the judicious use of power .' Any or all of these topics could be taken as relevant to the themes and concerns of Breuddwyd Rhonabwy, although the possibility cannot be entirely rejected that it occurs where it does in the Red Book simply because of the moment in the compilation of that volume when an exemplar of the text carne into the scribe's hands. W hether the codicological context of Breuddwyd Rhonabwy is regarded as significant or not, however, the fact remains that it has no connection with any of the other Mabinogion tales before the nineteenth century. Breuddwyd Rhonabwy opens, as has been noted, in the waking world and in histor­ ical time: the reader is transported to Powys during the reign of Madog ap Maredudd, whose death in 1 160 marked the end of a unitary kingdom of Powys, in central Wales. In the time of the text, the fragmentation that ensued upon Madog's death and the divi­ sion of his kingdom among several heirs is still in the future. There is an ominous cloud on the horizon, however, in the form of the discontent of Madog's half-brother Iorwerth Goch, who envies Madog's more exalted status. Despite Madog's effort to placate him with the position of penteulu, or chief of his household military retinue (an office of considerable dignity, according to the Welsh laws of court), Iorwerth remains alienated and hostile.lo Rather than serving the interests of his own family and countrymen, he embarks upon a series of raids across the border into England. Madog organizes a number of search parties to find Iorwerth and bring him back to court. One of these is a group of three men including Rhonabwy, who is identified neither by patronymic nor place of origin, but only by his name, which is otherwise unknown to early Welsh tradition.

BREUDD WYD RHONABWY

83

Not only was l\1adog ap l\1aredudd an historical figure; so too was Iorwerth Goch, Madog's half-brother on the father's side ll We know very little about Iorwerth, but when he appears in Brut y Tywysogion (the Chronicle of the Welsh Princes) in 1157, he is fighting alongside his brother l\1adog, and there is no record of the two ever having been at odds. When Iorwertb died, probably c.1I71, the great poet Cynddelw composed an elegy for him in which he is praised as a lord of Powys, and so certainly seems not to have ended his life as a rogue, whatever he may have been or done at some point in his youth.12 The threat posed by the behaviour of Iorwerth Goch and l\1adog's effort to bring his brother under his control constitute the frame within which the dream of Rhonabwy takes place. However, neither l\1adog nor Iorwerth is mentioned again in the text: it fails to return from the dream to the frame story, so that the connection between frame and dream, if any, must be constructed by the reader. Although this failure to make explicit the relationship of frame and dream is not unusual in the medieval dream-vision genre, Breuddwyd Rhonabwy has proven more resistant than most to the effort to discern a significant connection between the two. Rhonabwy sets out with two companions, and the story soon finds itself at the horne of a certain Heilyn Goch in an unknown location somewhere in Powys. A good deal of attention is devoted to a description of this unwholesome and inhospitable lodging, a house full of cattle and their excrement, fleas, dust and smoke. The travellers are fed poorly and given worn and filthy bedclothes to spread on the twigs that serve as their mattresses. As a liminal space at the edge of adventure, Heilyn Goch's house strikes a reader as the antithesis of the luxurious, refined and hospitable castles that knight protagonists happen upon in larlles y Ffynnon andPeredur. Rhonabwy abandons his flea-infested bed and lies instead on a yellow ox-hide that he has earlier noticed. When this hide is first mentioned, it is said that 'blaenbren oed gan vn onadunt a gaffei vynet ar y croen hwnnw' (good luck would befall whichever one of them got to lie on that skin).13 It is not clear whether this observation is narrato­ rial - a foreshadowing of what will happen when Rhonabwy chooses to sleep on it or an expression of the travellers' thought upon seeing it. In any case, this ox-hide has been compared to animal skins that appear in various Irish texts as aids to incubation - the production of a meaningful prophetic dream.14 In Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae, Brutus sleeps on the skin of a deer in the temple of Diana in order to invoke the goddess's guidance in his sleep. In the various comparanda, sleeping on an animal skin is a ritual act deliberately undertaken for the express purpose of inducing a dream that will guide the actions of a community in important matters. In Breuddwyd Rhonabwy, on the other hand, Rhonabwy lies on the yellow ox-hide as a last resort, seemingly in the hope of mere sleep, rather than revelation. Yet perhaps the narrator has winked to the audience with the reference to the blaen­ bren (lucky chance) that would attend the one who got to sleep on it. At this point, the text shifts from the frame into the dream vision proper. Rhonabwy falls asleep and immediately has a dream. This dream is not a breuddwyd, despite the

84

CATHERINE MCKENNA

title given to the text in the Red Book and in the colophon that declares 'a'r ystorya honn a elwir Breidwyt Ronabwy' (and this story is called The Dream of Rhonabwy)". Breuddwyd is the ordinary word in Welsh for a dream. In the text, Rhonabwy experi­ ences a drych. The most common meaning of drych is 'mirror', but it can also refer to an image or a vision. There may be an oblique reference here to one of the five classes of dream laid out in Macrobius's fifth-century Commentary on the Dream of Scipio, which was an important source of dream theory in the European Middle Ages, but given that no Welsh translation of Macrobius's Commentary exists, it is difficult to know which kind of dream might be referenced by the term drych. Because Rhon­ abwy experiences his dream 'as soon as sleep entered his eyes',16 and because the dream begins with an encounter with a ferocious looking rider, it is possible to inter­ pret it as a visum or phantasm a, which according to Macrobius 'comes upon one in the moment between wakefulness and slumber, in the so-called "first cloud of sleep" . . . a person . . . imagines he sees specters rushing at him or wandering vaguely about, differing from natural creatures in size and shape' 17 The dream itself has five main parts. Rhonabwy dreams that he and his companions are travelling across eastern Powys, near what is now Welshpool: they are in the March, an appropriate area in which to be searching for the truant Iorwerth. They are overtaken by a rider on a horse whose breath is powerful enough to pull them towards it. The rider identifies himself as Iddawg Cordd Prydein, or Iddawg the Agitator of Britain. Iddawg is otherwise virtually unknown to Welsh tradition, but here he describes himself as having served as a messenger between Arthur and his nephew Medrawd at the battle of Camlan. Unlike the figure of Iddawg, that battle was well known in Welsh tradition as the one in which Arthur fel!.18 The text of the dream begins, then, with an evocation of a catastrophic moment in British history that belonged to the distant past during the twelfth-century moment in which the story is set. Iddawg's epithet, Cordd Prydein, or 'Agitator of Britain', refers to his having delib­ erately incited battle between Arthur and Medrawd at Camlan by misrepresenting Arthur's messages. Although he reports that he subsequently performed seven years of penance, his history makes him a guide of questionable reliability for Rhonabwy. Iddawg is no Scipio Africanus, who serves as interpreter for his grandson of the vision recounted in Cicero's Somnium Scipionis and analysed in Macrobius's Commentary. Nevertheless, for the remainder of the dream, he serves that function for Rhonabwy. They travel together to a ford on the Severn, where the spectacle of a great military encampment is laid out before them. Arthur sits at the centre of this 'dygyfor 0 lu mawr' (muster of a great host), and Iddawg presents Rhonabwy and his companions to him. Arthur disparages the size of 'y dynyon bychein hynny' (these little people) and bemoans the fact that such vile men are defending the realm.l' Two themes emerge from this scene. First, as a number of scholars have noted, Rhonabwy moves further back into time from his initial encounter with Iddawg, a figure from the distant past to

BREUDD WYD RHONABWY

85

be sure but one who speaks of Carnian in the past tense, to a moment in which Arthur is alive and evidently preparing for a great battle.20 Arthur, meanwhile, is well aware that Rhonabwy and his companions are visitors from what is, from his point of view, the future. Second, the passage introduces, albeit briefly, the notion of a Golden Age from which the twelfth-century present of the frame narrative represents a consider­ able deterioration. Some scholars have wondered whether Arthur's claim of superi­ ority for his own age represents an ironic observation on the author's part.21 At the conclusion of the encounter with Arthur, which constitutes the second part of the dream, Iddawg assures Rhonabwy that he will remember his dream by virtue of observing a magical stone in a ring on Arthur's hand. This narrative device serves to warrant the accuracy of the text as a representation of the vision, although the chal­ lenge to interpretation posed by that vision seems to counterbalance the importance of recalling it accurately. The only indication that Rhonabwy did indeed remember his dream is the existence of the text. Rhonabwy himself vanishes from sight when he awakens. The third part of the dream consists of a series of tableaux in which a series of troops are described in some detail, with particular attention to the colours of their cloaks and banners and of their horses' caparison. It is to this part of the text that a colophon at the end refers when it asserts that A llyrna yr achaws na wyr neb y breidwyt, na bard na chyfarwyd, heb lyuyr, 0 achaws y geniuer lliw a oed ar y rne[i]rch, a hynny 0 amrauael liw odidawc ac ar yr aruev ac eu kyweirdebeu, ac ar y lleIllleu gwerthuawr a'r rnein rinwedawl. (No one knows the dream - neither poet nor story-teller - without a book, because ofthe number of colours that were on the horses and because of the many llllusual colours both on the annour and their trappings, and on the precious mantles and the magical stones.)22

Several events punctuate these descriptions of the hosts. Addaon son of Taliesin rides his horse through the ford, splashing water all over Arthur, Bishop Bedwyn, and the other dignitaries attending him. Elphin strikes Addaon's horse with a sheathed sword. Addaon is angered, but agrees to accept the rebuke as cyngar (counsel). Caradog Freichfras, identified by Iddawg as Arthur's nephew and chief counsellor, urges Arthur to set off, as he has promised to be at the battle of Badon by noon, in order to fight with Osla Gyllellfawr (Osla Big-Knife). The army moves, as do Rhon­ abwy and Iddawg, nearer to the appointed site of the battle. There is commotion in the host as Cai arrivesY The general effect of this part of the text is of occasional ripples of movement in an otherwise fairly static tableau. Rhonabwy asks Iddawg to identify various figures, and the responses to his enquiries makes the text of Breuddwyd Rhanabwy a repository of names associated with the traditional lore of medieval Wales, as are the Triads af the Island afBritain and the court-list in Culhwch and Olwen. It is evident that contempo­ rary audiences valued this kind of material, but twenty-first-century readers may wish that Rhonabwy would ask more questions about the meaning of what he is seeing.

86

CATHERINE MCKENNA

The fourth part of the dream (Richards, 11-18; Davies, 220-4) begins with Arthur seating himself upon his mantle, Gwen, and inviting Owain ab Urien, who is standing nearby, to play gwyddbwyll, a board game with some affinity with chess, that is referred to in a number of Welsh texts.24 Their play is interrupted on six occasions by the arrival of a series of elaborately described young messengers. Each of the first three informs Owain that Arthur's gweisson bychein and mackwyeit (roughly, 'young lads and squires') are harassing Owain's ravens (brein).25 With each visit, the reported damage to the ravens is greater; the last of the first three messengers tells Owain that a number of the ravens have been killed, and the others injured so badly that 'na digawn yr vn onadunt kychwynnv y hadanedun gwryt y wrth y dayar' (not one of them can raise its wings six feet off the ground).26 In each case, Owain asks Arthur to stop these young fellows from assaulting his ravens, and in each case Arthur ignores the request and instructs Owain to make his next move in the gwyddbwyll game. On the third occasion, Owain instructs the messenger to raise the banner at the centre of the ongoing skirmish. This gesture allows the ravens to recover their strength, spread their wings, rise up into the air, and corne swooping down on the men who have been attacking them. The next three messengers report to Arthur, advising him that his noble 'young lads and squires' are being killed. In each case, Owain mimics Arthur's own earlier response, ignoring the emperor's requests that Owain call off the ravens and enjoining him to continue the game. On the third occasion, Arthur crushes the golden gwyddbwyll pieces to dust, whereupon Owain has his servant lower the banner, and 'y tagnouedwyt pob peth' (everything became peaceful) 27 The association of Owain ab Urien with a flock of ravens that constitutes his retinue appears elsewhere in Welsh tradition as well.28 Some scholars have regarded the term brain (ravens) or branes (flock of ravens) as a metaphorical reference to the warriors who attended the legendary figure of Owain.29 However, in Breuddwyd Rhonabwy, at least, they appear as actual birds that cannot lift their wings when injured, but when strong can swoop down on men to lift them up into the air and tear them to pieces. The gwyddbwyll game and the battle of Arthur's squires with Owain's ravens have seemed to many readers to be at the heart of Breuddwyd Rhonabwy, although their significance is far from clear. Rachel Bromwich suggested that it may be in this episode that the link between the frame and the dream vision is to be found. She proposed that the fignre of Arthur might represent l\1adog ap l\1aredudd, and that of Owain correspond to Iorwerth Goch. The crushing of the game pieces and subsequent lowering of Owain's battle standard would then signify the restoration of the coopera­ tion between l\1adog and Iorwerth that characterized their relationship as far as the historical records tell us.30 The text represents the latter stages of the battle of birds and boys as horribly noisy, what with the croaking and flapping of the ravens and the screams of the men, so that the descent of peace at last marks a very dramatic change for the audience in the texture of the narrative. The text devotes far more space, however, to description of the physical appearance and apparel of the six messengers, as well as of the tents from which the first three

BREUDD WYD RHONABWY

87

emerge, and the horses upon which the second three ride, and their caparison, than to the interaction of Arthur and Owain. These descriptions, like those of the encamp­ ment, account for the colophon's preoccupation with the bewildering references to colours in the text. And as Rhonabwy's response to the tableau of the third part was to ask Iddawg to identify various participants, at the end of the gwyddbwyll match and the skirmish between the two factions he inquires only about the identity of the six messengers. The final section of the dream continues the theme of peace emerging from conflict, as messengers arrive to ask Arthur for a truce (kygreir) 'hyt ym penn pythewnos a mis' (until the end of a fortnight and a month).31 Once again, however, no attention is paid to the implications of this development for the Arthurian imperium or for internecine discord in contemporary Powys. Rather, it is names that seem to be important, in this case those of more than forty named counsellors with whom Arthur consults regarding the proposed suspension of hostilities. The messengers have come from asia Gyllell­ fawr, Arthur's opponent in the now deferred battle of Badon. This name has been the source of some perplexity, as it occurs in Culhwch and Olwen as the name of one of the British warriors who participate in the hunt of the Twrch Trwyth, while Arthurian tradition would lead us to expect the opponent at Badon to be one of the Saeson, an Anglo-Saxon. The final section, and the tale, end on a note of triumph for Arthur, despite his having done nothing more than play a few rounds of gwyddbwyll and smashing the pieces. Poets appear and perform a poem praising him, a poem so well wrought in the self-consciously difficult and formally complex tradition valued by the bards that no one can understand it. Then a caravan of mules arrives, laden with tribute from as far away as the Greek isles. The gold and silver they bring, and the mules themselves, are reassigned to the poets. The company rise at Cai's command to accompany Arthur to Cornwall, and make such a commotion that Rhonabwy awakens, to discover that he has slept on the ox-hide for three nights and three days. And the text ends there, with no comment on Rhonabwy's response to the dream he has dreamed. Some of the challenges to interpretation of Breuddwyd Rhonabwy have been suggested in the course of the foregoing summary. There is general consensus that this text is a highly literary creation, and most critics who have written about it find in it some element of satire. The question of the object(s) of that satire, however, remains a topic of discussion. A number of scholars have read the tale, with its constant wandering away from any attempt to describe a coherent action, as a parody and critique of Welsh story-telling conventions, or as a reflection on the difficulty of the interpretation of signs.32 Others have read Breuddwyd Rhonabwy as political, rather than literary, satire, examining its critique of the self-destructive rivalries that under­ mined the status and stability of Powys after the death of l\1aredudd, or other aspects of the political fortunes of the Welsh princedoms or Wales as a whole.33 In a sense, the text moves backward in time, as has already been noted. In the Macrobian scheme, the most valuable dreams are those that predict the future. Welsh

88

CATHERINE MCKENNA

tradition, however, values the past as a source of meaning and wisdom.34 Indeed, the Welsh lexicon conflates history and prophecy. Brut, or brud, derived from the name Brutus, eponymous founder of the kingdom of Britain in the tradition established by Geoffrey of Mornnouth, carne to be used as a generic term for a historical chronicle, such as Bruty Brenhinedd and Bruty Tywysogion. No later than the fourteenth century it had corne to refer to prophecies of the future as well. It is not unfitting, then, that a Welsh author should combine the literary mode of the dream vision with traditions of a glorious British past; a similar impetus informs Breuddwyd Macsen Wledig, the Mabinogion dream-vision tale that glorifies the role of the British themselves in constructing the monuments of Roman Britain and indeed in the history of the Roman Empire on the Continent.Jj The Arthur of Breuddwyd Rhonabwy is something of an enigma, however. He is in some ways a very Welsh Arthur, different from Geoffrey's Arthur or the Arthur of French romance. The multiplicity of names poured into the text, many of thern shared with the court-list and other episodes in Culhwch and Olwen, is one aspect of that distinctive Welshness. So too are the bits of story and descriptions of attributes provided by Iddawg when he identifies various participants for Rhonabwy. This cyfar­ wyddyd, or traditional lore, is the kind of material that we find in the Welsh triads.36 The two battles referenced are Badon and Carnian, both of them mentioned in Welsh Latin sources, the Historia Brittonwn and the Annales Cambriae respectively .'7 And the place to which Arthur and his retinue return once the truce has been effected is Cornwall, as it is in Culhwch and Olwen, rather than Caerleon in Wales, the more usual site of Arthur's court in Geoffrey and the French romance tradition. It is apparent that the author is familiar with some version of Geoffrey ofMornnouth as well as with native Welsh tradition, however. Several of the names derive from Geoffrey's account of Arthur in his Historia, including those of Cadwr, Earl of Corn­ wall and Hywel son of Emyr Llydaw.38 Although most references in the text identify Arthur simply by name, he is on four occasions referred to as amherawdyr (emperor).39 This title, along with the concluding scene in which tribute arrives from the Greek isles, suggests the wide European stage that Geoffrey constructed for his Arthur. And indeed, the panoply of tents and armour and caparison that threaten to sink the story by their textual weight evoke an Arthurian milieu much closer to Geoffrey's, or even that of the French romances, than of such Welsh sources as Culhwch and Olwen and the saints' lives. The idiosyncratic nature of Breuddwyd Rhonabwy's Arthur is one of the many features of the text that make it difficult to read. Despite the grandeur of his encamp­ ment, despite his own golden chair, silken mantle and gwyddbwyll set with gold pieces, this Arthur does ahnost nothing. His defeat and the disappearance of his world are presaged from the start of the dream, when Iddawg speaks of his own role in the disastrous battle of Carnian, an event that for Rhonabwy belongs to the distant past. Arthur's triumph at Badon is deferred beyond the chronological boundary of the

BREUDD WYD RHONABWY

89

dream, and so, as far as the text is concerned, never happens. Despite Arthur's complaint at the beginning of the dream that 'truanet gennyf vot dynyon ky vawhet a hynny yn gwarchadw yr ynys honn gwedy gwyr kystal ac a'e gwarchetwis gynt' (I feel so sad that scum such as these are protecting this island after such fine men that protected it in the past),40 the tale offers no instance of heroism on the part of the men of the Arthurian world. Thus, it is possible to read Arthur and his men as themselves one of the objects of satire in Breuddwyd Rhonabwy. It is not only the stylistic flourishes of story-telling that are held up to ridicule, but the supposed past that they hold up as an ideal. Yet perhaps it is only the fainl3ant king of romance that our author disdains, situating him and his elaborately decked-out retinue in an assertively Welsh context in order to highlight the absurdity of his inaction. The dream-vision mode calls attention to itself as something constructed in the imagination, fiction rather than history. The object of its satire may well be fiction too. Yet, perhaps the Arthur of Breuddwyd Rhonabwy does accomplish something, after all. When he smashes the gwyddbwyll pieces, 'everything became peaceful', and when he and his forty-odd counsellors accept asia's truce, peace descends on a larger scale, if only temporarily. It is difficult, then, if not impossible, to recover the rhetorical intentions of the author of Breuddwyd Rhonabwy or a clear sense of the text's reception by its contem­ porary audience (and dates of composition between the second half of the twelfth and the early fourteenth century have been suggested). There is no doubt, however, that it stands out as one of the most distinctive Arthurian fictions of the British Middle Ages. As Ceridwen Lloyd-Morgan has written, 'in its selective use of traditional material within an original narrative, in its use of the dream framework and in its satirical intent, Breuddwyd Rhonabwy is essentially innovatory' 4!

Notes 1

The standard edition of our text is Melville Richards (ed.), Breudwyt Ronahwy allan 0 'r Llyfr each

o Hergest (Cardiff: University ofWales Press, 1948).

2 RalphA. Griffiths, 'The revolt of Llywelyn Bren, 1 3 1 6-17', in Ralph A. Griffiths, Conquerors and Conquered in Medieval Wales (Stroud: Alan Sutton Publishing and New York: St. Martin's Press, 1 994), pp. 84-9 1 . See also 1. H. Matthews (ed.), CardiffRecords, 4, p. 58. 3 For a discussion of the possible affinity of Breuddwyd Rhonabwy with later medieval and early rnooem areithimt pros, 'prose orations', see o. 1. Padel, AMWL, pp. 98-9; Ceridwen Lloyd-Morgan, 'Breuddwyd Rhonabwy and la!er Artburian li!erahrre,' inAoW, pp. 183-208 (pp. 189-90); 1. K. Bollard, 'Traddodiad a Dychan yn Breuddwyd Rhonabwy', LlC, 13 (1985), 155-63 (pp. 159-60). , Daniel Huws, 'Llyfr Gwyn Rhydderch', inMWM, pp. 227-68 (p. 246, n. 25). 5 Here and throughout I quote the translation of Sioned Davies, The Mahinogion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 2 1 4-26. This quotation, p. 214. Powys is in central Wales: see map in Davies, Mahinogion, p. xl. 6 Davies, Mahinogion, p. 214.

90

CATHERINE MCKENNA 7 8

Davies, Mahinogion, p. 214. Daniel Huws, Repertory ofMedieval Welsh Manuscripts and Scribes (forthcoming), Oxford, MS Jesus College 1 1 1 . 9 For a more extended discussion of the manuscript context of BreuddwydRhonabwy, see Catherine McKenna, 'What Dreams May Come Must Give Us Pause', CMCS, 58 (2009), 69-99, esp. 72-4. See also Daniel Huws, 'Llyfr eoch Hergest', in Iestyn Daniel, Marged Haycock, Dafydd Johnston and JeIlllY Rowland (eds), Cyfoeth y Testun: Ysgrifau ar Lenyddiaeth Gymraeg yr Oesoedd Canol (Cardiff: University ofWales Press, 2003), pp. 1-30 (pp. 4-7). 1 0 On the office ofpenteulu, see Dafydd Jenkins (ed. and trans.), The Law ofHywel Dda: Law Texts from Medieval Wales (Llandysul: Gomer, 1 986), pp. 8-1 1 . 1 1 P. c . Bar1rurn (ed.), Early Welsh Genealogical Tracts (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1 966), p. 103, 8h. 12 The extant records pertaining to Iorwerth Goch are discussed in Rhian M. Andrews and David Stephenson, 'DroigArgoed: Iorwerth Goch ap Maredudd, c. I I I 0-71 CMCS, 52 (2006), 65-9 1 . 1 3 Richards,BreudwytRonabwy, p. 2.25--6; Davies, Mabinogion, p. 215. 14 Dafydd Glyn Jones, 'Breuddwyd Rhonabwy', in Geraint Bowen (ed.), Y TraddodiadRhyddiaith yn yr Oesou Conal (Llandysul: Gomer, 1 974), pp. 176-95 (p. 1 79), cites the account by Geoffrey Keating, Faras Feasa ar ilirinn (ed. and trans. David Cornyn, Irish Texts Society 4 (London, 1 902), pp. 348-49 1), of druids lying on the flesh side of the hides of sacrificed bulls spread on wattles for the purpose of conJunng. 15 Richards,BreudwytRonabwy, p. 21 .9; Davies, p. 226. 16 Davies, Mahinogion, p. 2 1 5 . 17 William H. Stahl (ed. and trans.), Macrobius, Commentary on the Dream of Scipio (New York: Columbia University Press, 1 952), I.iii.7, p. 89. 1 8 Our earliest reference is in theAnnales Cambriae. See 101m Morris (ed. and trans.), Nennius, British Histories and the WelshAnnals (London: Phillirnore, 1980), pp. 45,85. 19 Richards,BreudwytRonabwy, pp. 6-7; Davies, Mabinogion, p. 217. 20 See especially Edgar M. Slotkin, 'The Fabula, Story andText ofBreuddwydRhonabwy', CMCS, 18 (1 989), 89-1 13 (pp. 96-7). " See especially Helen Fulton, 'Cyd-destun Gwleidyddol Breudwyt Ronobwy', LlC, 22 (1 999), 42-56. 22 Richards, BreudwytRonabwy, p. 2 1 ; Davies, Mabinogion, p. 226. 23 Richards,BreudwytRonabwy, pp. 7-8; Davies, Mabinogion, pp. 218-19. 24 Gwyddbwyll has a precise cognate in Irishjidchell, a board game referredto in many medieval Irish "

texts. See Jan Niehues, 'All the king's men? On Celtic board-games and their identification', in Franziska Bock, Dagmar BroIlller and Dagmar Schluter (eds), Allerlei Keltisches. Studien zu Ehren von Erich Poppe. Studies in Honour ofErich Poppe (Berlin: Curach Billm Publications, 201 1), pp. 45--60. 25 Richards,BreudwytRonabwy, p. 13. 26 Richards,BreudwytRonabwy, p. 14; Davies, Mabinogion, p. 222. 27 Richards,BreudwytRonabwy, p. 18; Davies, Mabinogion, p. 224.

28

The references to Owain's ravens are assembled and discussed in TYP3, pp. 469-70. " See TYP3, pp. 469-70. See also Regine Reck, chapter 8, p. 1 19. 30 Rachel Bromwich, 'Cyfeiriadau Traddodiadol a Chwedlonol y Gogynfeirdd', in Morfydd E. Owen and Brynley F. Roberts (eds), Beirdd a Thywysogion: Barddoniaeth Llys yng Nghymrn, Iwerddon a 'r Albon (Cardiff: University ofWales Press, 1996), pp. 202-18 (p. 2 1 4). 31 Richards,BreudwytRonabwy, p. 19; Davies, Mabinogion, pp. 225--6. " For this view, see especially Dafydd Glyn Jones, 'Breuddwyd Rhonabwy', pp. 176-95; Brynley F Roberts, 'Tales and romances', inA. o. H. Jarman and Gwilyrn Rees Hughes (eds) , A Guide to Welsh Literature, vol. 1 (Swansea: Christopher Davies, 1976; new edn, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1 992), pp. 203-43 (pp. 23 1-4); 1. K. Bollard, 'Traddodiad a Dychan yn Breuddwyd Rhonabwy',

BREUDD WYD RHONABWY

91

pp. 155-63; Edgar M. Slotkin, 'The Fabula, Story and Text ofBreuddwydRhonabwy', pp. 89-1 13; Sarah Lynn Higley, 'Perlocutions and Perlections in the Dream ofRhonahwy: An Untellable Tale', Exemplaria, 2 (1990), 537--6 1 ; Kirstie Chandler, 'The Humour in Breuddwyd Rhonabwy', SC, 36 (2002), 59-7 1 ; McKeIllla, '"What Dreams May Corne Must Give U s Pause'. 33 For political approaches, see especially Helen Fulton, 'Cyd-destun Gwleidyddol Breudwyt Ronabwy', pp. 42-56, and 1. Angela Carson, 'The Structure and Meaning of The Dream ofRhonabwy', Philological Quarterly, 53 (1 974), 289-303. 34 On this topic, see especially Patrick Sims-Williams, 'Some fimctions of origin stories in early medieval Wales', in Tore Nyberg, 10m Pio, Preben Meulengracht Sorensen and Aage Trommer (eds), History and Heroic Tale: A Symposium (Odense: Odense University Press, 1 985), pp. 97-1 3 1 . 35 Brynley F. Roberts (ed.), Breudwyt Maxen Wledic (Dublin: DIAS, 2005). Translated in Davies, Mabinogion, pp. 103-10. 36 On cyfarwyddyd, see Sims-Williams, ' Some FllllCtiOns of Origin Stories in Early Medieval Wales', pp. 100-1. 37 Moms, Nennius, British Histories and the Welsh Annals, pp. 35, 45, 76, 85. 38 Richards, BreudwytRonahwy, pp. 10, 19; Davies,Mabinogion, pp. 220,225. 39 Richards, BreudwytRonahwy, pp. 5, 7, 12. 40 Richards, BreudwytRonahwy, pp. 6-7; Davies, Mahinogion, p. 217. 41 Ceridwen Lloyd-Morgan, 'Breuddwyd Rhonabwy and Later Arthurian Literature,' p. 193.

MEDIEVAL TRANSLATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS INTO WELSH

6 BRUT YBRENHINEDD

Katherine Himsworth Introduction In about 1136 Geoffrey of Monmouth (c.l090-1155) wrote his Historia Regwn Britanniae (HRB), in which he claims to trace the history of the kings of Britain from the escape of Aeneas after the fall of Troy down to the last British king, Cadwallader, who ceded the sovereignty of Britain to the Saxons. The picture that Geoffrey of Monmouth paints of a decline in the fortunes of the Britons is a gloomy one for the Welsh, and Geoffrey does not mince his words about the responsibility that the Welsh bear for this. Geoffrey speaks of the Welsh as 'Degenerati autem a Britannica nobili­ tate Gualenses' (unworthy successors to the noble Britons) who, 'nunc sibi, interdum Saxonibus ingrati consurgentes externas ac domesticas clades incessanter agebant' (squabbling pettily amongst themselves and sometimes with the Saxons, kept con­ stantly massacring the foreigners or each other).l But despite this the Historia had considerable appeal in medieval Wales as well as elsewhere. The themes that Geoffrey weaves through his narrative, those of the unity of Britain, a single kingship, sovereignty and its loss, are ones that will have found resonance in Wales. So will his borrowing of Welsh names, his incorporation of Welsh traditions, including the prophecy of Merlin, with his promise of ultimate restoration of British sovereignty.2 And in particular the prominence given to Arthur, who is trans­ formed from a fignre of supernatural legend to a successful military leader, makes it scarcely surprising that there are about sixty extant copies of one or other Welsh trans­ lation of Geoffrey's Historia. They became known as Brut y Brenhinedd (BB), with the term Brut (pI. Brutiau) taken from the name of Brutus, who in Geoffrey's work was the founder of the British kingdom.3 In the Welsh translations, the story of Arthur, even without the story of his conception at Tintagel, takes up about one fifth of the

Historia. Study of the early versions of the Brut, and the relationship between them, has continued intermittently over the last 150 years 4 This has led to the conclusion that by the end of the thirteenth century there were at least three independent Welsh transla­ tions, which are to be found in the extant Llanstephan 1 (List I),' Peniarth 44 (P44)' and Dingestow Court (NLW 5266) manuscripts 7 There are later manuscripts which, while not necessarily direct descendants, are closely related to these, including four surviving manuscripts - MSS NLW 3036B, Peniarth 45 (P45), Peniarth 46 (P46) and Cardiff Libraries, MS Havod 1 - that are all from the same family as NLW 5266 and

96

KAlHERINE HIMSWORTH

all date from the fourteenth century. Collectively these have become knmvn as the Dingestow Version (DV). Much valuable work has been done to analyse the relation­ ship ofthese manuscripts to one another, which shO\vs that NLW 5266, P45 and P46 are part of a branch in the family that is distinct from the other early manuscripts (Havod 1, NLW 3036B and the later, fifteenth-century, Peniarth 22).8 There is also a fourteenth-century manuscript - Havod 2 - which belongs to the Llanstephan Version (L1V). In addition there are two Welsh versions of the Brut of which the earliest extant copies date from the fourteenth century. The first is the Liber Coronacionis Britanorum (LeB), which is to be found in the Peniarth 21 (P21) and 23 (P23) manuscripts.9 P21 may only be a few decades later than the P44, List 1 and NLW 5266 manuscripts,lO but it is the subsequent manuscript in this version, P23, which bears the title Liber Cora­ nacionis Britanorum in its colophon (and is the only illustrated BB manuscript). Patrick Sims-Williams suggests that the lost archetype of P21 and P23 might date back at least to the mid-thirteenth ceniuryY The second version is the Cleopatra (Cleo) Version,12 a particularly distinctive translation of Geoffrey's Historia.13 The earliest extant manuscript is BL MS Cotton

Figure 1 : The y Ol.lllg Myrddin (right) advising king Gwrtheym Gwrtheneu. (National Library ofWales, MS Peniarth 23, f. 61r)

BRUT Y BRENHlNEDD

97

Cleopatra B.v, which dates from the first half of the fourteenth century,14 but its origins go back at least a century before this, as parts of it - including very clearly the story of Arthur - are related to the earlier LCB.15 The next extant manuscript in this Version is the mid-fifteenth-century MS NLW 7006, the Black Book of Basingwerk. It is still considered that the P44, List I and Dingestow Versions reflect three inde­ pendent translations of the Latin. But the relationship between the DV, LCB and the Cleo Version is currently under scrutiny. There are similarities between the DV and the LCB, which are apparent in the Arthur story, but the fact that the LCB preserves in Geoffrey's narrative detail that is missing in the extant DV manuscripts, and vice versa, suggests that one cannot regard LCB as a derivative of the DV (or vice versa). This has led Sims-Williams to deduce that they must share a lost common source, which he terms Brut x.16 The Cleo Version may also fit into this scenario. The many similarities between the Cleo and LCB manuscripts, which are particularly evident in the Arthur story, suggest that the DV, LCB and Cleo manuscripts, but not P44 and LlV, may share a common ancestor.17 A further question that has been reopened concerns an early section of the Brut, which includes the story of King Lear,18 where it has been traditionally thought that the DV copied the LlV Work in progress suggests that this is not necessarily the case and that, for this part of the Brut, it is possible that the source of LlV, as well as of DV, LCB and the Cleo Version, is a lost Brut ancestor.19 Further work on the Welsh Brut manuscripts has now been greatly facilitated by the fact that their publication has moved on apace in recent years. The first diplomatic edition to be published, by Gwenogvryn Evans in 1890,20 is that in the Red Book of Hergest, which is an amalgamation of LlV and DV21 This was followed by publica­ tion, with translation, by John Jay Parry of the Cleo manuscript22 in 1937 and by Henry Lewis's Brut Dingestow in 1942.23 Brynley Roberts's selection from the List I manu­ script was published in 1971 but thereafter there were no further editions published until the situation was transformed in 2013 by the creation of two websites that provide edited transcriptions of all early Welsh prose, in the thirteenth century and from 13001425 respectively.24 A website of fifteenth-century prose has now also been created, though the number of manuscripts on the site is still limited.25 We now have, therefore, a wealth of easily accessible material on which to draw, which makes comparison of the early Brutiau much easier. In discussing these I tend, for the sake of simplicity, to attribute omissions, additions and other changes in these manuscripts to the scribe of the extant copy, but it should be borne in mind that the scribe responsible for the change might well be that of an earlier copy. Of course where two or more manuscripts share wording that is different from that of other manuscripts the likelihood is that they share a common source.

98

KATHERINE HIMSWORTH Arthur in the Brutiau

Despite the appeal of Arthur to both scribes and their audiences, the differences between the versions in the telling of the story for the most part reflect those to be found in the rest of the Brut. But there are some, if not many, changes that the scribe's admiration for Arthur may have inspired. The LlV manuscripts are distinguished by their faithfulness to the Latin original.26 As in the rest of the Brut, there seems to be a reluctance on the part of the creator of LlV to omit elements that are present in the Latin, even where this leads to a signifi­ cantly longer and sometimes laborious rendering into Welsh. There are only rare examples in the Arthur story of LlV omitting something that is present in the Latin. Equally, there are only rare instances of LlV introducing something that is not in the Latin; one of these is the insertion, after the scribe has recounted Arthur's pardon to the Scots and his return to York, that 'kanys pan devthant er anreythwyr henny e fIoes sampson archescop. a seyth escyb y gyt ac ef hyt en llydav ac eno en anrydedvs ed erbynnywyt. hyt e dyd dywethaf oy wuchwed' (after the arrival of these ravagers [i.e. the Saxons1 Archbishop Samson and seven other bishops fled to Brittany and were received there with honour to the end of their days).27 Could this have been something of which the LlV scribe was himself aware, perhaps from oral tradition? All the other manuscripts are shorter and demonstrate skilful abbreviation. Roberts, in writing about MS NLW 5266, accords particular acclaim to the translator for his skill in condensing the Latin text while retaining the whole of the story in a Welsh that is fluent, with echoes of traditional style.28 P45 and P46 (related to NLW 5266 through a cornmon archetype) tend to go beyond this, omitting words, phrases or even whole sentences that they perceive as unnecessary (and in so doing perhaps losing something of the richness of the language). It is, however, noticeable that in the Arthur story the P45 scribe does not abridge his material as radically as he does in the rest of the Brut. He tends rather to retain the detail that is also present in NLW 5266, with this perhaps reflecting his personal interest in the story. In comparison the approach of the scribe of P46 is more akin to his approach in the rest of the Brut, excising what is in his view unnecessary. In all the manuscripts there is a tendency to shorten speeches but not to omit lists of names, or the description of the elaborate festivities at Caerleon. In comparison with MS NLW 5266 and its close relatives, MS NLW 3036B is more conservative and avoids innovation. But the scribe of the Havod I manuscript, which otherwise has much in common with NLW 3036B, is an energetic if perhaps erratic practitioner of abbreviation.29 He shortens some passages much more than others, which is very evident in other parts of the Brut and appears to reflect his personal interest. He does not, for example, abridge the story of King Lear, which he may well regard as a good story, to the same extent as that of Vortigern, who, as the king accred­ ited with inviting the Saxons to Britain, has less appeal for him. And his compara­ tively long rendition of the Arthur story may reflect the pride he feels in its telling. He

BRUT Y BRENHlNEDD

99

omits some detail, for example that of the battle with the Saxons at Lincoln, but takes care to list in full the names of the Britons (or their allies) that support Arthur. Indeed for long sections of the text he changes very little; the story of Arthur's dream of the bear and the dragon is told in the exact detail given in the other DV manuscripts. A tendency to shorten speeches, such as those of Arthur and the Roman general Lucius Hiberius, is to be found also in LCB and the Cleo manuscript (and reflects the fact that they both draw on the same source); it is ahnost as if the scribes tire of a speech, having started with a fairly full record. And the scribe of the Cleo manuscript goes further in curtailing the text than does LCB. For example, at the end of Arthur's speech to his men before his battle with Lucius he promises them that they will march on Rome and will have the enemy's gold, silver, palaces, towers, castles, cities and the spoils of victory.3D The DV manuscripts vary this to 'eu heur ac eu haryant. Ac eu kestyll. ac eu llyssoed. ac eu dinassoed. Ac eu tir ac eu daear. ac eu golut' (their gold and silver and castles and courts and cities and their country and land and riches).31 LCB promises them 'ev tir ac ev dayar ac ev kestyll nac oy hevr nac ev aryant' (their country and land and castles and gold and silver),32 while the Cleo manuscript curtails this further to ' 0 bob da or a vo ymmediant ynnev' (all the riches in my possession) 33 Should one detect in the Cleo scribe a measure of impatience with detail? The Latin text records that, following receipt and the reading of Lucius' letter, Arthur retires with his earls to the giants' tower above his gateway, to determine how they ought to reply to such demands. As they begin to climb the steps, Cador, duke of Cornwall, in happy mood, smiles before responding to the king. The DV manuscripts translate this faithfully, including in this case Havod 1. LCB offers a slightly shorter version. But the Cleo manuscript scribe goes further in having simply 'A gwedy gwarandaw 0 arthur yr hynn a oed yn y llythyr; ef a aeth y gymryt y gynghor. Ac yna y dywat katwr iarll kemyw' (and after Arthur had heard what was in the letter he went to take advice. And then Cador, duke of Cornwall, said), which loses the detail and, in particular, the happy mood of Cador.34 Similarly abrupt is the Cleo manuscript rendering of the return of Arthur to York to celebrate Christmas after pardoning the Scots. When he enters the city, he is saddened to see that its churches have been abandoned. The pagans' fury has been such that archbishop Samson and other men of the Christian faith have been driven out and divine services are no longer held in the half-burnt churches. In the Cleo manuscript this narrative is reduced to: Ac odena y doeth arthur hyt ynghaer efrawc; a daly llys ynodolic a orne efyno. A phan weles yr eglwisseu gwedy ev distriw; a Had y rneibion nen 011 or saesson; drwc Ull ganthaw.35 (Then Arthur returned to York and held a Christmas court there. When he saw that the churches had been destroyed, and all the scholars killed by the Saxons, he was sad.)

But while the scribe of the Cleo manuscript can in places give the impression that he is in a hurry to get on with the story, in others he is as fulsome as the other versions. The

100

KATHERINE HIMSWORTH

festivities at Caerleon are described at just as much length as are Arthur's exploits with the giant on St Michael's mount, and the lists of those on both sides in the battle between Arthur and the Romans are just as complete.

The Portrayal ofArthur There are no striking differences between the Welsh manuscripts and the Latin origi­ nal in the picture that they paint of Arthur; clues to the feelings or prejudices of the scribes are few and far between. But some of the pride that the Welsh scribes must have felt in the portrayal of Arthur as a European emperor can be seen in minor changes; a number of embellishments to the family and attributes of their hero, whether by omission or addition, creep in. Again it is the LCB and, more particularly, the Cleo manuscript that are most distinctive. Early in the story both LCB and the Cleo manuscript add to the detail of the lineage of Arthur's family that is given in the other versions. Geoffrey records, as do all the Welsh manuscripts, that Arthur takes for his wife Ganhumara (Gwenhwyfar or Guin­ evere), a woman of noble Roman ancestry who was brought up at the court of Duke Cador. Both LCB and Cleo expand on this to say that while Gwenhwyfar's mother was of Roman ancestry, she was (on her father's side) the daughter of 'og(y)rvan gawr', the giant (G)og(y)vran.36 Gogfran or Ogfran Gawr is the name given to Gwen­ hwyfar's father by the Welsh poets and in legend37 and this addition brings something of the otherworldly to Arthur's ancestry. The scribes may take pride in the military qualities of Arthur's leadership, but there are occasional signs that they are wary about suggesting too much emotion on his part. When the Scots and the Picts plead for mercy Arthur is moved to tears of pity, which the LlV faithfully translates. But it is the only version to do so, although the DV manu­ scripts have him moved by compassion and mercy. LCB and Cleo suggest that he shows greater detachment, with LCB saying that he was advised to show mercy and Cleo (in a much abbreviated version) that Arthur spared the lives of the Scots and the Picts 'drwy gwedi hynny 0 wyrda' (in response to the entreaties of these nobles).38 Similarly, when Chelricus arrives in Scotland with 600 ships, Arthur sends for his nephew Hoelus who comes from Brittany to help and is received with due honour; they share many embraces. This display of affection is translated in LlV but not in the other Welsh versions, which only translate the first part of this sentence. (In the Cleo manuscript the emphasis is changed to 'a llawen uu arthur wrthaw'(Arthur welcomed him)).39 At a less personal and more ceremonial level, the LCB and the Cleo manuscript are keen to describe the pomp that is accorded to Arthur. At his celebrations at Caerleon, the Latin text is relatively restrained in describing the flamboyance and pageantry of the occasion. The guests travel with 'such ostentation of trappings, mules and horses

BRUT Y BRENHlNEDD

101

as defies description', which is faithfully reflected in 'a chymyrred mvlot a meyrch a megys oed dyrys y datkan6 ar ryhyr y escry6enn6' in Havod 240 and also in the DV manuscripts, as in 'A chymeint 0 adurn muloed a meirch a guisgoed. ac ameu. a oed gan ba6b 0 hynny ac yd oed ulin y datcanu'.41 However, for LCB and the Cleo manuscript this does not do justice to the splendour of the occasion. LCB tells us that 'nid oed ar y dayar na meirch na dillat na thlyssev nac arvev na main na gernrnev well nac amlach noc a doeth yr wled honno' (nowhere on the earth were there finer horses or gowns or jewels, precious stones or gems than carne to that land) 42 And the Cleo manuscript elaborates further that never had there corne to one country: o wyrda a gwraget cia. a rneirch da. ac adar a chwn. Athlyssieu mawr weirthiawc. ac eur llestri. a gwisgoed odidawc: 0 bali aphorffor assyndal ac errnyn kyrneint ac a doeth ynO.43 (so many noble men and women, fine horses, birds and dogs, jewels of great value, golden vessels and fine clothes ofbrocaded silk and purple and sendal and ermine as carne there).

This might suggest an increasing influence of the romance tradition in other lan­ guages, and in particular that the Welsh scribes might have been familiar with Wace's Brut of 115 5,44 but there seems to be no firm evidence that this was the case." In most ofthe manuscripts opportunities are taken to underline the achievements of Arthur. There is evident pride in Arthur 's decision to conquer all Europe, with all the manuscripts except the LlV drawing attention to the fact that the whole of Europe equates to a third of the whole world - which probably nicely reflects a slightly exag­ gerated interpretation of the medieval geographical concept of a world, divided (if unequally) into three between Asia, Africa and Europe. This desire to draw attention to the grandeur of Arthur's position may also give rise to DV's technique of expanding the lists of his supporters and advisers. For example, when Arthur retires to London after besieging Colgrimus in York he seeks to consult 'clero et primatibus tocius potestatis suae' (all the clergy and nobles of the realm) 46 LlV (and P23) translate this as 'holl gwyrda e teyrnas 0 yscolheygyon a lleygyon' (all the nobles ofthe realm, both clergy and laity)47 and the Cleo manuscript speaks simply of 'y holl wyrda' (all the noblemen).48 However, the DV manuscripts expand this to a longer list of 'holl wyrda y deyrnas. yeirll a bar6nyeit a marchogyon urda61. Ac esgyb ac abadeu ac athraon' (all nobles of the reahn, earls and barons and dubbed knights and bishops and abbots and scholars ) 49 This might reflect a simple desire on the part of the original translator to resolve the ambiguity in the Latin, but one can sense the pride with which the scribe of the archetype of the DV manuscripts lists the ranks of Arthur's advisers. Similarly, before listing those invited to the celebrations at Caerleon in detail, all the manuscripts, except again LlV, expand on the Latin. The DV manuscripts describe the guests as 'y brenhined ar tywyssogyon. ar yeirll ar bar6nyeit ar marchogyon urda6l ar guyrda' (the kings, princes, earls, barons, dubbed knights and nobles)'" from all the

102

KATHERINE HIMSWORTH

countries that Arthur has conquered. P23 and the Cleo manuscript go beyond this. They summon, rather than invite, the guests, with P23 stressing 'every' king, prince, earl, baron and dubbed knight" and the Cleo manuscript adding that the other honour­ able nobles cannot be numbered beside these: 'ar ny ellit ev rif am law hynny'. 52 There appears to be gratification in the number and importance of those around Arthur, whether this be an indication of the inclusive nature of Arthur 's decision-making or simply of pride in the range of high-ranking members of his retinue or the guests that he had at his beck and call. Description of courtly life is embellished. Loth's son Gawain, a boy of twelve, is placed by his uncle in the service of pope Sulpicius, who makes him a knight. Even the LlV manuscripts expand on this to say that ' ac y gan e gwr hvnnv e kymyrth ef arvev en kyntaf' (and it was from this man that he [Gawain1 first received his arms). 53 All the other manuscripts go beyond this in spelling out that Gawain was there to learn 'moes a deuodeu a milr6yaeth' (courtesy and etiquette and warfare)54 or 'marchogaeth a llad a chyledef' (horsemanship and swordsmanship). 55 Perhaps also in order to enhance the real-world attributes of Arthur and thus to give added credence to his military achievements, there are instances where the Welsh versions suppress the otherworldly (despite the references by LCB and the creator of the Cleo Version to Gwenhwyfar's giant father). 56 Archbishop Dubricius, who conse­ crated Arthur, is said in the Latin to have healing powers, but this is omitted in the Welsh versions. And in the lavish description of Caerleon, there is a college of two hundred scholars who, by observing the stars, can foretell the portentous events of the future. The LlV manuscripts do their best to translate this literally. But all the other versions shorten the text significantly and omit altogether the suggestion that the scholars can foretell the future. The DV manuscripts abridge the passage to 'deu cant yscol. Ac athrawon yn canu yndunt amryualon geluydodeu' (two hundred schools with learned men pronouncing on diverse arts); 57 the LCB and Cleo manuscripts state simply that 'yn enwedic ydoed yno y saith gelvydyd' (there were in particular, the seven arts). 58

Portrayal ofArthur's Enemies The heroic image ofArthur is also enhanced by a sometimes grudging and understated view of the Saxons and their prowess on the field of battle. The scribes find it difficult to acknowledge the compliments that Geoffrey pays to the opponents of the Britons. For example, when Chelricus comes to Scotland, according to the Latin he brings with him 'sexcentas naues milite forti oneratas ' (six hundred ships laden with brave knights)59 - but none of the Welsh manuscripts, not even the LlV manuscripts, acknowledges the knights as brave. Subsequently, when the Saxons make a stand in the forest of Colidon, according to Geoffrey they defend themselves valiantly and slaughter the Britons. The LlV

BRUT Y BRENHlNEDD

103

manuscripts translate this faithfully; the DV manuscripts, however, do not give the Saxons credit for their valour, although they do acknowledge their success, with 'aerna ny bu uechan a wnaethant or brytanyeit' (the destruction they made of the Britons was not small).60 In the Cleo Version this narrative is, typically, shortened considerably and the Cleo manuscript prefers to speak only of 'kyfranc kalet yryngthunt. a llad llawer 0 bop tu' (a fierce battle between them, with many slain on all sides).61 This contrasts with the immediately preceding description of Arthur and Hoelus fighting the Saxons at Lincoln, where the Cleo scribe adds 'yn wychyr creulon' (boldly and fiercely).62 The LCB manuscripts go yet further and have the Britons fighting the wily and cunning Saxons 'y wrawl athrvgar' (valiantly and mercilessly).63 Similarly, when battle takes place in Somerset after Arthur hurries to lift the siege at Bath, according to Geoffrey 'Ipsi tota die uiriliter resistebant, Britones usque proster­ nentes' (the Saxons fought back valiantly all day, cutting down the Britons without respite).64 No manuscript has the Britons being cut down - a rare example of an omis­ sion on the part of the creator of the LlV although he, and only he, does go on to acknowledge that the Saxons fought back valiantly. The DV manuscripts relate only that many are killed on both sides while the LCB speaks of a fierce and brave battle. The DV manuscripts concede that the following day it is the bravery of the Saxons that is denying Arthur victory, but not the LCB, which continues to attribute ferocity and bravery to the Britons. The words with which the Saxons are described betray the feelings or prejudices of the scribe and the terminology can be colourful, if a little repetitive. In the Latin the Saxons are described on a number of occasions as pagans, thus underlining the contrast between them and the Christian Britons, and in List I this is translated into Welsh simply as 'pagan' or 'Saxon' without elaboration. The DV translation is similar. Greater emotion is shown, however, when the Latin invites it by reference to the Saxons as 'periuros et latrones' (disloyal thieves)" or 'proditione paganorum' (treacherous pagans).66 Here even in List I Modred's army, which has corne to Britain from foreign kingdoms to steal their titles, is described as 'lladron twyllwyr eskym6n' (excommuni­ cated deceiving thieves) 67 And when Archbishop Dubricius, in his address to Arthur 's army in Somerset, speaks of 'treacherous pagans' all the DV manuscripts amplify this to 'ysgymun estra6n genedyl paganyeit saesson' (the accursed, alien nation of Saxon pagans ').68 In other parts of the Brut the Havod I manuscript is notable for the venom with which the scribe describes the Saxons, making particular use of ' deceivers', 'traitors' and, in particular, 'excommunicated', but the scribe appears more restrained in the Arthur story and only occasionally adds to the wording used in the other DV manu­ scripts. It is the LCB manuscripts in which the feelings of the translator become most apparent, through the addition of words such as 'treacherous, false' and, again, 'excommunicated'. While this is consistent throughout the Brut, in the Arthur story LeB uses 'excommunicated' as many as nine times in referring to Arthur's enemies.

104

KATHERINE HIMSWORTH

Just occasionally it is other enemies of Arthur whose attributes are ignored or understated. When the Roman tribune Frollo challenges Arthur to a duel, he is praised as tall, bold and with strong qualities; this is reflected in the DV manuscripts, as well as in the LlV manuscripts, but is omitted from LCB and the Cleo manuscript. The Scots and Picts, and other enemies, are usually referred to by their proper names. While 'barbarian' is sometimes used in the Latin to refer to the Scots and Picts, it is never used in the Welsh, but this may reflect the fact that the term is not attested in Welsh until the sixteenth century.69 In referring to the Scots and Picts a form of the word paganieit is occasionally used, but to translate a Latin word other than paganWi, such as 'traitors '.

Other Variations Throughout the Brut there are differences in the numbers used by the different ver­ sions, which can sometimes be useful in establishing the exact relationship of the different manuscripts. But it may be a mistake to read too much into them - they may reflect oral tradition known to the scribe or a simple misreading of Latin numerals. The latter could be the case in the confusion over the length of time that Arthur stays in Britain after his return from Iceland 70 Some manuscripts have, like the Latin, twelve years, but P45, Havod I and 3036B have ten years. P23 (but not P21, which has twelve) has forty (devgain),71 which may reflect a misreading of the Latin 72 It is also P23 that confusingly has 6,000 men brought by Duke Guitardus of Poitou to the relief of the Britons, where all the other manuscripts (including P21) have only 3,000. Further confusion seems to reign where the number is more complicated. The clearest example of this is in the numbers given for the forces summoned by Arthur and Lucius when the latter sets out to invade Britain. The LlV and DV manuscripts all correctly translate the 183,200 knights contributed to Arthur's forces by the French. But P23 has 403,000 ('teir mil a phedwarkant 0 viloed')73 and Cleo 292,200 ('deucant marchauc, a deudeng mil .a phedwar vgeint Mil. a deu cant Mil. ' )"4 Similarly the 400,100 figure that is said to be the number of forces mustered by Lucius from the forces of the kings of the east as well as the ranks of the senators is rendered correctly by List I but others struggle; NLW 5266 has 400,140 ('seith ugeint a phetwar canrnil'),75 as do P23 and Cleo ('devgeinwyr a chanwyr a phedwarkanrnil 0 vilioed') 76 P45, P46, Havod I and NLW 3036B on the other hand all have 407,000 ('seith mil a phedwar can mil') 77 A few other features distinguish the different Welsh manuscripts. There are occa­ sional differences between the manuscripts in terms of their use of direct speech; the LlV manuscripts retain indirect speech where this is used in the Latin whereas the other manuscripts sometimes change this to direct speech. But more distinctive are the additions to be found in each of the manuscripts, if most particularly in the Cleo

BRUT Y BRENHlNEDD

105

manuscript. As I mention earlier, even the LlV manuscripts includes reference to the flight of Archbishop Samson and seven other bishops to Brittany - a detail that appears in no other manuscript. And all the DV manuscripts (but only the DV manu­ scripts) have Dubricius going to Ynys Enlli (Bardsey Island) when he retires as a hermit. The LCB and Cleo manuscripts share certain changes and additions. They add colour, for example, in the Duke of Cornwall pursuing the remnants of the Saxon army to Thanet 'megis llew lluchedenawl' (like a gleaming lion) 78 They both add detail of the lineage of Beli and Constantine when Hoelus talks about the Sibyl's prophecies corning tme. And when Arthur 's reputation spreads to the farthest comers of the world, both LCB and Cleo have it spreading expressly to Rome. But the Cleo manuscript is distinguished from all the other manuscripts by more frequent differences, in content as well as style 79 For example, when Arthur returns to York to find the churches destroyed he finds also that the Saxons have killed all the clergy ('llad y meibion lien 011 or saesson'),80 whereas the other manuscripts simply have them driven out. Then there is the addition of a chronology to anchor the events of the narrative; for example, when Arthur returns to Britain after the surrender of all the Gallic provinces the scribe gives this a date of 535, when 'y cavas theophilus ysgolheic y ssarthyr y gan y kythreul. drwy nerth yr arglwides veir. yr hwn arodassei ef ar wriogaeth idaw'81 (through the power of the Virgin Mary, the scholar Theophilus retrieved from the devil his contract which he had given him). This is a rare reference to Theophilus; the only other reference in early Welsh prose is in the thirteenth-century Peniarth 14.82 This illustrates a further idiosyncrasy of the Cleo scribe - the inclusion of refer­ ences to the Virgin Mary. The Latin text records that St Mary is depicted on Arthur 's shield Pridwen, and Arthur, in fighting the Saxons, unsheathes his sword Caliburnus, calls out the name of the Virgin and hurls himself upon the ranks of the enemy. All the manuscripts mention Mary on these occasions. But only the Cleo scribe has Arthur calling her to mind subsequently when he handles Caliburnus, whether fighting the giant or the Romans; for example, when the giant grapples with Arthur and Arthur, 'gan goffau Meir' (calling Mary to mind),83 rallies to slay the giant.84 In the Cleo manuscript the mountains of St Michael are, interestingly, surrounded not by (an arm of) the sea but by a river. This might be influenced by an acquaintance with the work of Gerald of Wales; in describing the isle of Avalon, Gerald refers to the glassy colour of the river which flows round the island in the marshland, although this is clearly a reference to Avalon and not St Michael's Mount." Or the scribe, who it is thought may have written his manuscript at the northern (albeit north-eastern) abbey of Valle Crucis, might have been acquainted with the use of avon (river) as an arm of the sea in, for example, Afon Menai (the Menai Straits). At the end of the Arthur story the influence of Gerald may also be visible in the Cleo manuscript. All the manuscripts, with the exception of List I, conclude with the

106

KATHERINE HIMSWORTH

intriguing statement ' Ac ny dyweit y llyuyr amdana6 a uo diheuach na hyspyssach no hynny' (And the book does not say anything more certain or clearer than that about him).86 The Cleo scribe, however, precedes this sentence with the Glastonbury epitaph. A version of the epitaph is quoted by Gerald, who claimed, in both Liber de Principis instructione and Speculum Ecclesiae, that he was at Glastonbury in 1190 and witnessed the uncovering of King Arthur's grave. 87 But that used by the Cleo scribe is different. It is the version also included in Cardiff Libraries, MS 2.611, a manuscript written around 1300; the distinctive feature in the two manuscripts is the confusing order ofthe lines: Qui mme mores probitas cornrnendat laude perhenni Hie iacet Arthurus fios regurn gloria regni Qui meruit celos uirtuturn prole fecunda Arthuri iacet hie coniunx turnulata secunda.88 (Here lies Arthur, the flower of kingship, the kingdom's glory, whom his morals and virtue commend with eternal praise. Arthur's forhmate wife lies buried here, who merited heaven through the happy consequences of her virtues.)89

The Cardiff manuscript may have been penned near the Franco-German border or in Wales, but even if the former it seems that it may well have found its way to Wales later.90 Did the Cleo scribe have access to this manuscript, or was there an earlier exemplar common to both?

Notes 1 Michael D. Reeve and Neil Wright (ed. and trans.), Geoffrey a/Monmouth The History a/the Kings a/Britain (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2007), pp. 280-1 . This includes the Latin Vulgate Version and an English translation. 2 For full discussion of these see Sian Echard, 'Geoffrey of Monmouth', inAolvfIL, pp. 45-66; Brynley F. Roberts, 'Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia Regum Britanniae and Brut y Brenhinedd', in AoW, pp. 97-116; and Oliver Padel,AMWL, pp. 72-