tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post1192753114529716191..comments2023-11-29T07:39:34.401+00:00Comments on Carla Nayland Historical Fiction: CynddylanCarlahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-76460005589807663272009-07-22T17:09:37.182+01:002009-07-22T17:09:37.182+01:00Elizabeth - yes, I can see how the poetry would ha...Elizabeth - yes, I can see how the poetry would have inspired you. It has a haunting romantic quality that stays in the mind.Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-72923927936113448122009-07-22T11:50:02.853+01:002009-07-22T11:50:02.853+01:00Not bringing anything of historical strength or in...Not bringing anything of historical strength or intellect to this discussion, but to say that I read Cynddylan and a lot of other early Welsh poetry in translation many years ago and even in translation it all had a haunting resonance. I can't recall the name of the book - borrowed it from the library, but I copied several poems down into my research notes, such as Cynddylan, Dingodad's Speckled Petticoat, and one that eludes me about a seagull crossing the waters to a man's love. They were evocative and had a strong impact on my inspiration to write.Elizabeth Chadwickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911841862257909703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-38016739871321147182009-07-15T16:56:48.059+01:002009-07-15T16:56:48.059+01:00Gabriele - most history does :-)
Rick - Indeed! ...Gabriele - most history does :-)<br /><br />Rick - Indeed! Maybe some of the English considered themselves more 'Roman' than some of the Britons did. We will never really know, of course, but I do think the situation was likely to have been a lot messier and more complicated than a simple mono-ethnic conflict (Most conflicts are). The whole issue of what 'Roman', 'Briton', 'Saxon', 'Angle', etc meant at the time, and to whom, is a fascinating subject.<br /><br />CSAWales - Hello and welcome. There are many interpretations of the poetry (see this <a href="http://carlanayland.blogspot.com/2009/03/chester-in-seventh-century-fortress.html" rel="nofollow">earlier post</a> for a commenter arguing equally passionately for Cynddylan as a king of Dogfeiling!). Many historians don't consider the poetry historical at all, and they have a point. As is usually the case in this period, many different interpretations are possible.Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-57040159654780561692009-07-15T01:50:02.434+01:002009-07-15T01:50:02.434+01:00That translation of Marwnad Cynddylan is far from ...That translation of Marwnad Cynddylan is far from universally accepted. <br /><br />1. The lines immediately above the refrain "I shall lament..." refer to those "who give me welcome", not to Cynddylan.<br /><br />2. "gwerling Dogfeiling, Cadelling ffaw" (and Cadelling trais) hardly justifies a reading of "the king of Dogfeiling, oppressor (and terror to) the Cadelling". I read it as "the people (gwerin) of Dogfeiling, in the den (ffau) of the Cadelling" whom the author loved as they welcomed him to visit their lands or travel through them to visit more distant places.<br /><br />3. To conclude that Cynddylan was "King of Dogfeiling" based on this poem is unwarranted.CSAWaleshttp://www.ancientwalesstudies.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-43556292554219632532009-07-14T21:12:25.609+01:002009-07-14T21:12:25.609+01:00Lurking in this discussion is the question of how ...Lurking in this discussion is the question of how much the whole image of an Anglo-Saxon invasion or conquest, resisted by the Britons, was 'reconstructed' at a much later date. Obviously the language of lowland Britain eventually became English, but for all we know, proto-English troops in 450 regarded themselves as 'Romans' and Vortigern as a 'barbarian' interloper. :-)Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-43527661872740487092009-07-14T19:50:43.259+01:002009-07-14T19:50:43.259+01:00Lol yes, I know that sort of research.
But Welsh ...Lol yes, I know that sort of research.<br /><br />But Welsh history would provide some fine plotbunnies. :)Gabriele Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17205770868139083575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-56990532609774748042009-07-14T16:35:40.070+01:002009-07-14T16:35:40.070+01:00Rick - If I remember rightly, Mary Stewart took up...Rick - If I remember rightly, Mary Stewart took up the opposing factions theme in The Crystal Cave, which features a power struggle between Vortigern and the family of Ambrosius.<br /><br />Yes, Scots at the time would have meant Irish. Who you dreaded very likely depended on where you lived and who was therefore most likely to show up demanding money with menaces :-) HB was probably written in Gwynedd, and if the source material came from the same region it may just indicate that the local bogeymen in north-west Wales came from what's now Ireland and Scotland rather than from Germany and the Low Countries, which is entirely likely just from geography. It may not necessarily be generalisable to the whole province. HB gives the list in the context of a period of upheaval "for forty years" and in the next sentence says Hengest and Horsa arrived "In the meantime...". So it isn't entirely clear which is supposed to have come first or whether both were supposed to have happened at about the same time (I favour the latter, myself), and it's entirely likely that nobody knew the order of events by the time HB was written, which was 400 years or so after the fact.<br /><br />Gabriele - about Cynddylan in particular? Never say never (and the Heledd poetry has tremendous scope for a story) but this isn't specifically directed to that end. It's part of trying to understand how seventh century Britain worked. The other day I was typing up another post, which came to 1100 words after I'd summarised all the notes, and it turns out that underlies all of one line in <i>Exile</i>. This may very well be similar :-)Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-18097549290203019882009-07-13T15:49:38.178+01:002009-07-13T15:49:38.178+01:00Wow, you put a lot of research into that. Is there...Wow, you put a lot of research into that. Is there a novel lurking, lol?<br /><br />The Welsh seemed to have been proud of their - mostly alleged - Roman heritage all the way to Edward I who deliberately modeled Cearnarfon Castle after Constantinople in an attempt to claim that tradition for his own rule.Gabriele Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17205770868139083575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-57675818995767783822009-07-13T04:55:57.647+01:002009-07-13T04:55:57.647+01:00I think I've seen mentions elsewhere of the &#...I think I've seen mentions elsewhere of the 'party' interpretation.<br /><br />Also I find it interesting that the 'dreads of the people of Britain' are the Scots (presumably then meaning Irish), Picts, and Romans ... but not the Saxons. Unless this refers to the period before Vortigern, in the tradition, invited them over. (Even if Lundenwic was full of Saxons, presumably they weren't the troublemaking kind that made the news.)<br /><br />And yes, regional and 'national' disputes are not mutually exclusive!Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-28544626763056859042009-07-12T10:58:04.588+01:002009-07-12T10:58:04.588+01:00Quite so, and it could also be consistent with reg...Quite so, and it could also be consistent with regional variation; if Ambrosius and/or Arthur were associated with, say, the south and east of the Roman province, the people of the north and west may not have been all that interested in them (or may even have been hostile) until they became figures of legend. It's noticeable that HB has very little to say about Ambrosius. He gets a mention twice (if indeed they are the same individual), once as the magical boy with no father - but who then says his father was a Roman consul - who frightens Vortigern with prophecy, and once in passing as "the great king among the kings of Britain". HB has much more to say about Vortigern, and to a lesser extent about Arthur and Vortigern's sons. It's also noticeable that HB brackets Ambrosius with the Picts, Scots and Romans as one of the three dreads of the people of Britain during Vortigern's rule, "In his time, the natives had cause of dread, not only from the inroads of the Scots and Picts, but also from the Romans, and their apprehensions of Ambrosius." This would fit with the material having been derived from a region (or faction) that was hostile to Romans in general and Ambrosius in particular. Conversely, Gildas was clearly pro-Roman and pro-Ambrosius and has nothing good to say about anyone or anything else.<br /><br />It can be taken as evidence that there was a massive faction fight in post-Roman Britain between a sort of British/Celtic anti-Roman party led by Vortigern, and a pro-Roman party led by Ambrosius, and that is certainly one interpretation. I think it can also be seen as a conflict between regions with different attitudes to Rome (rather than a conflict between political factions spanning the entire province), with Gildas and HB drawing their material from different regions. As usual, the two interpretations aren't mutually exclusive; regional leaders each with a voice of some sort on some kind of national council covers both.Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-81200263170266013302009-07-11T02:30:47.940+01:002009-07-11T02:30:47.940+01:00Another possibility is that Ambrosius and Arthur w...Another possibility is that Ambrosius and Arthur weren't regarded as so relevant in the generations just following - at any rate in Gwynedd - as they came to be later on. Which segues neatly to your earlier point about attitudes toward Roman rule. People in Gwynedd might have regarded the whole A-A enterprise as a costly nuisance, only deciding much later that it was a glorious struggle against the English pig-dogs. :-)<br /><br />I have heard a variant of the clogs-to-clogs proverb - 'rags to riches to rags in three generations.'<br /><br />And yes, genealogies could easily be retrospectively cleaned up!Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-80472909775324508442009-07-10T22:12:03.011+01:002009-07-10T22:12:03.011+01:00It's more a matter of interpretation than corr...It's more a matter of interpretation than correction as such! Your point that nobody was trying to claim descent from Ambrosius or Arthur still stands, as does the observation that Gwynedd's dynasty claims Cunedda (who came from Manau Gododdin, outside the Roman province) as its founder, not a Roman figure. (More on Powys in a later post). <br /><br />The grandfather as the equivalent of "since forever" dovetails very nicely with a common feature of early English genealogies, that the founder figure is very often the grandfather of the first really important king. E.g. the East Angles called themselves Wuffingas according to Bede, and Wuffa was the grandfather of Raedwald (who was Bretwalda in the 620s and very likely the Sutton Hoo man).<br /><br />The tendency for dynasties to fall apart through laziness or general ineptitude is encapsulated in a saying from northern England: "Clogs to clogs in three generations". <br /><br />I rather suspect that the same sort of thing applied to early medieval dynasties, and the neat lists of father-to-son successions for hundreds of years in the genealogies contain a fair dollop of polite fiction, or at best a messy succession with a lot of fights between brothers and half-brothers.Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-89364920634842017122009-07-10T21:46:53.963+01:002009-07-10T21:46:53.963+01:00I stand corrected. For this purpose it doesn't...I stand corrected. For this purpose it doesn't matter that a genealogy is dubious or fictitious; its existence is enough to show the desire for continuity with the past.<br /><br />And plausibly, from the successions you've mentioned, traditional legitimacy was taking hold before 600. Broadly I'd expect it to emerge effectively by the third generation; by then, in everyday human terms, a dynasty has 'always' ruled.<br /><br />Though in different historical contexts dynasties have often run down by the third generation, from getting lazy so to speak. Ibn-Khaldun regarded three generations as the 'normal' lifetime of a dynasty of emirs.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-68284695904702949972009-07-10T12:53:06.183+01:002009-07-10T12:53:06.183+01:00True about Ambrosius and Arthur, but the dynasty o...True about Ambrosius and Arthur, but the dynasty of Powys traced its descent back to Magnus Maximus via Vortigern. It may have been entirely fictitious (!), but nevertheless somebody was still trying to claim it. And the genealogy of the kings of the East Angles contains Caesar, which must surely be about as historical as the name of Woden immediately before it, but which is still an indication that Roman legitimacy was considered a good thing to have, or pretend to have. Even if for all practical purposes a warband was what mattered, claiming membership of an illustrious dynasty was evidently also important, at least to some.<br /><br />I think it's worth considering whether Roman rule was necessarily viewed the same way by everyone in the Roman province. The standard modern approach is to lump the whole province into a homogenous culture labelled "Romano-British" and assume it was much the same from Kent to Anglesey and Cornwall to Carlisle. But before the Romans show up what you see is local and regional variation in material culture going right back to the Neolithic - the one consistent feature is inconsistency, as I once saw it described. The various tribes had different attitudes to the Romans when Caesars 1 and 2 arrived, and only a few tribes joined Boudica's revolt. It would not be surprising if different attitudes and cultures carried on prevailing right through Roman government, so that some areas of Britain bought in to Roman rule (mostly the lowlands, where you get towns and villas, and perhaps also the areas with a lot of retired soldiers and/or locals working for and dependent on the army), while other areas regarded Rome as a military occupier and conceded grudging respect at best. If different attitudes to Roman rule existed, that might affect whether successor rulers wanted to claim Roman legitimacy.<br /><br />It may well have been a warlord free-for-all in some areas at some times, but by the late sixth/early seventh century traces of dynasties are starting to appear fairly widely. There are theories that the appearance of very rich ('princely') graves in 'Anglo-Saxon' cemeteries, which starts about 550 AD give or take, is a physical manifestation of stable dynasties starting to take root. Although being a capable warlord was almost certainly still necessary, it may not have been sufficient. I think a case can be made for the late sixth/early seventh century marking the emergence of the sort of traditional legitimacy you mention.Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-40980891864678699902009-07-09T16:35:02.750+01:002009-07-09T16:35:02.750+01:00Conquest -> Rulership. Not always, of course, b...Conquest -> Rulership. Not always, of course, but not a bad way to bet!<br /><br />And not just 'the importance of warfare' - in the later Heroic Age all of these guys must have been warlords, because what else was there? <br /><br />In the earlier Heroic Age there was still some tradition of Roman legitimacy, at least among Britons, as reflected in Gildas' account of Ambrosius. But by the later Heroic Age all of that was gone. No Welsh ruler even claimed to be a rightful successor to Ambrosius or Arthur. <br /><br />The English had the concept of a Bretwald, but that was an aspirational claim, not an established one. I've speculated on the possibility that the title or concept had roots in a would-be English Stilicho, but if there ever was one he is lost not only to history but legend; Bede has no such concept.<br /><br />Over time the new dynasties would acquire traditional legitimacy, but that takes time, and a degree of stability. I doubt there was much of it yet in the period that we are discussing.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-51569285006085309642009-07-09T12:46:26.719+01:002009-07-09T12:46:26.719+01:00Rick - Penda's alliance with various Brittonic...Rick - Penda's alliance with various Brittonic kings lasted from at least 633 to Winwaed in 655. It's the best documented inter-ethnic alliance, in part because it fought against Northumbria so Bede knew the details and wrote them down, but I very much doubt it was the only one.<br /><br />Meghan - yes, the lines are beautiful. <br /><br />Rex Icelingas - I agree that the title of 'Powys' may well refer to Cynddylan's de facto power rather than to his origin, and if so he may well have acquired it by conquest, especially as he is stated to be 'oppressor of the Cadelling'. In that context it may be significant that the poetry refers specifically to 'Tren' as his patrimony and doesn't say that Powys was. Whether the suffix indicated conquest is an interesting question. It certainly seems to have indicated rulership, because you find it applied to e.g. Urien Rheged at the same sort of period. My guess is that it was applied to the boss, whether he got the job by inheritance or conquest. Given the importance of warfare in early medieval Britain they might have amounted to much the same thing! Even a son and heir might have to defeat assorted uncles, cousins and brothers before he was acknowledged as ruler - this applied in medieval Wales (Llewellyn Fawr in the 12th C leaps to mind, and didn't Owain Gwynedd also have a troublesome brother?) - and may well have applied in earlier centuries as well.<br /><br />Constance - I don't know of any, but if you Google for Welsh poetry sites you might find something, or someone who can help.Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-74376154513921421292009-07-09T01:46:32.022+01:002009-07-09T01:46:32.022+01:00Is there anywhere to hear these read? I know enoug...Is there anywhere to hear these read? I know enough about Welsh pronunciation to tangle my tongue. I'd love to hear the poems read by someone able to do so properly, with feeling. Like hearing Rilke in German, even if I don't know all the words, it sounds ...right.Constance Brewerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17964121072645959593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-30058330930632637222009-07-08T22:10:03.230+01:002009-07-08T22:10:03.230+01:00I always believe Powys to have been pretty fragmen...I always believe Powys to have been pretty fragmented until possibly the rule of Cyngen Glodrydd(5th Cent).Naturally theres the Vortigern dynasty we associate nr Builth,the dynasty of Casnauth along the Marches posibly and that of Cadell around the area of Llangollen,but I do think there were possibly more that got annexed over time.<br /><br />Im thinking that Cynddylan`s nickname of `Powys `dosent refer to his origin,especially given the evidence moving towards his association with the Gwynedd dynasty.Would `Powys `perhaps be added to his name in the way `Germanicus` or `Gothicus` was added to the name of a Roman Emperor after he had defeated a foe?Rex Icelingasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-30258153519553357062009-07-08T19:47:15.635+01:002009-07-08T19:47:15.635+01:00I love lines like "oaken silence" and &q...I love lines like "oaken silence" and "stubborn in battle." <br /><br />As usual you provide us with so much interesting information! Thank you again!Meghanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03375626649089998707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-55270452934976890312009-07-08T14:48:17.698+01:002009-07-08T14:48:17.698+01:00Not knowing any Welsh, I suppose 'Cadelling...Not knowing any Welsh, I suppose 'Cadelling' could be sheer coincidence, but it sure caught my eye. And Cynddylan himself evidently fell fighting alongside Penda with a bunch of other Welsh rulers.<br /><br />As for survival times of wooden buildings, we were just talking about the 'temporary' East Bergholt bellhouse, going on 500 years old.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-85280719820466784822009-07-08T11:45:35.819+01:002009-07-08T11:45:35.819+01:00The original Welsh is "Cadelling", so it...The original Welsh is "Cadelling", so it isn't an artefact of translation. Presuambly it reflected usage either at the time the poem was written down or in whatever the source material was, or both. I've said before that I think the early English and Brittonic heroic warrior classes had a lot more in common with each other than modern stereotypes make out, and it wouldn't surprise me if a few language constructions had hopped across. <br /><br />More on the situation in Powys in a later post (this one had already got quite long enough!)<br /><br />The last grand rebuilding at Wroxeter can't be dated precisely (alas, no coins!) but the excavators thought it was built some time in the range of 530 to 580. It would presumably then have stood for some time before falling down or being dismantled.<br /><br />If Cynddylan was Penda's ally at Maes Cogwy/Maserfelth in 642, and was killed at Winwaed in 655, we can reasonably say that he lived somewhere in the 600-650 period, approximately. So if the last grand rebuilding at Wroxeter was built towards the later end of the archaeologists' estimate and stood for 70 years or so, or was built at the early end of the range and stood for 120 years or so (easily possible given that some medieval timber buildings are still standing today having survived 500+ years), then it could well have been contemporary with Cynddylan. One could speculate that if Cynddylan ruled Wroxeter, then it could have been his death in battle that finished off the town as a major power centre and left it to dwindle down to the small village it is today.Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-45802629193288516142009-07-08T04:43:02.262+01:002009-07-08T04:43:02.262+01:00Someone obviously mourned him, but presumably not ...Someone obviously mourned him, but presumably not the Cadellings, which raises questions about the whole situation of Powys at the time. (And is the OE-sounding 'ings' ending a coincidence, or much later convention?)<br /><br />The fact that Cynddylan's territory might have included Wroxeter naturally gets my attention, but I assume he is quite some time after the period of classical style architecture there.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.com