Posts
By
Dane Pestano and contributing editor, Mak Wilson,1
©
2017. Composed in Sussex, England.
Abstract
The tyrant Cuneglasus appears in a polemic written by a sixth century monk called Gildas in his work: De excidio et Conquestu Britanniæ (‘On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain’ – shortened to De Excidio), where all of Cuneglasus’ various crimes and sins are laid bare by its author for all to see, along with those of four other tyrannical rulers of the Britons.2 In looking at the life of Cuneglasus from Gildas’ words we will try to disentangle the historical Cuneglasus from perceived links with King Arthur by various authors. The main points below will be discussed.
The tyrant Cuneglasus appears in a polemic written by a sixth century monk called Gildas in his work: De excidio et Conquestu Britanniæ (‘On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain’ – shortened to De Excidio), where all of Cuneglasus’ various crimes and sins are laid bare by its author for all to see, along with those of four other tyrannical rulers of the Britons.2 In looking at the life of Cuneglasus from Gildas’ words we will try to disentangle the historical Cuneglasus from perceived links with King Arthur by various authors. The main points below will be discussed.
- By the twelfth century Cuneglasus has been assumed by some, to have been Arthur;3 as Geoffrey of Monmouth may have disguised him in his description of Gildas’ five kings, which he made follow Arthur in kingship in his History of the Kings of Britain; and certain Arthurian glosses were added to the Historia Britonnum in the early thirteenth century that have been seen to be related to Gildas’ description of Cuneglasus.4
- Assertions that Cuneglasus was 'King' Arthur may have been made because of the ‘bear’ reference to Cuneglasus in De Excidio (as Welsh Arth can mean ‘bear’),5 and, perhaps, because Geoffrey gave Arthur a 'special weapon', Caliburnus (later called Excalibur), just as Cuneglasus is described as having “arms special to thyself”.
- Geoffrey also used the form of Arthurus when referring to Arthur in his Prophecies of Merlin (c. 1130CE), a name that can be derived from the Greco-Romano cosmological and mythological figure, Arcturus (Greek Arktouros); an imagery that some have read into Gildas’ words regarding Cuneglasus (as Arcturus > Arthurus > Arthur).
- It could also be argued that by the twelfth century Cuneglasus had contributed to the legend of Arthur by hagiographers who portrayed a rather more brutal, tyrannical Arthur, prone to murder, civil war and rebellion, in Wales.
- From here it has also been suggested that the link with Cuneglasus and Arthur was picked up by the French Romance writers who tell the story of the False Guinevere, seemingly shadowing the story of Cuneglasus having driven away his wife and courted his wife’s sister. Mallory’s ‘Castle of the Chariot’, perhaps the Grail Castle, has also been seen as a reference to Cuneglasus, and Gildas’ use of the chariot metaphor.6
- Cuneglasus has been linked to a fort called Dinarth in Rhos, north Wales, due to the words of Gildas, and also to other possible forts in Ceredigion. We will discuss the validity of this in relation to a proposed metaphorical reading of Gildas' words.
In looking at all these arguments, on a line by line
basis from Gildas’
De Excidio,
the metaphorical and biblical nature of some of Gildas’ polemics
against Cuneglasus will be examined and presented in a revised form
and a solution to the difficult subject of Gildas’ confused
translation of Cuneglasus
into Latin ‘tawny butcher’ will also be attempted.
The map below is a rough guide to Wales in the mid sixth century, with tyrants placed in approximate places as discussed in this work; including some of the later medieval names for the kingdoms. It presumes Maglocunus had deposed other tyrants in the north as described by Gildas and so a larger7 Gwynedd is indicated than would normally apply later. It should not be taken as definitive in any way.
The map below is a rough guide to Wales in the mid sixth century, with tyrants placed in approximate places as discussed in this work; including some of the later medieval names for the kingdoms. It presumes Maglocunus had deposed other tyrants in the north as described by Gildas and so a larger7 Gwynedd is indicated than would normally apply later. It should not be taken as definitive in any way.
Cuneglasus8
the bear.
(De excidio, §32) “Ut quid in nequitiae tuae volveris vetusta faece et tu ab adolescentiae annis, urse, multorum sessor auriga que currus receptaculi ursi, dei contemptor sortisque eius depressor, Cuneglase, Romana lingua lanio fulve. Quare tantum certamen tam hominibus quam deo praestas, hominibus, civibus scilicet, armis specialibus, deo infinitis sceleribus? Quid praeter innumerabiles casus propria uxore pulsa furciferam germanum eius, perpetuam deo viduitatis castimoniam promittentem, ut poeta ait, summam ceu teneritudinem caelicolarum, tota animi veneratione vel potius hebetudine [nympharum] contra interdictum apostoli denegantis posse adulteros regni caelestis esse municipes suspicis? Quid gemitus atque suspiria sanctorum propter te corporaliter versantium, vice immanis leaenae dentium ossa tua quandoque fracturae, crebris instigas iniuriis?”9
“Why dost thou, also, wallow in the old filth of thy wickedness, from the years of thy youth, thou bear, rider of many, and driver of a chariot belonging to a bear's den, despiser of God and contemner of His decree, thou Cuneglas[us] (meaning in the Roman tongue, thou ‘tawny butcher’). Why dost thou maintain such strife against both men and God? Against men, thine own countrymen, to wit, by arms special to thyself; against God, by crimes without number? Why, in addition to innumerable lapses, dost thou, having driven away thy wife, cast thine eyes upon her dastardly sister, who is under a vow to God of the perpetual chastity of widowhood, that is as the poet says, of the highest tenderness of heavenly nymphs, with the full reverence, or rather bluntness, of her mind, against the apostle's prohibition when he says that adulterers cannot be citizens of the kingdom of heaven?
Why
dost thou provoke, by thy repeated injuries, the groans and sighs of
saints, who on thy account are living in the body, as if they were
the teeth of a huge lioness that shall some day break thy bones?
[...]”
...and
he goes on for a while longer after this with some Biblical examples,
ending with....
“Otherwise thou shalt know and see, even in this world, how evil and bitter it is to have abandoned the Lord thy God, and that His fear is not with thee, and that in the world to come thou shalt be burnt in the hideous mass of eternal fires, without, however, in any way dying. For the souls of sinners are as immortal for never-ending fire as those of the saints are for joy.” 10
The
Latin name Cuneglasus is from Brythonic *Cunoglastos
- Cunoglasos.
Brythonic *cune
means ‘hound’, 'dog’, ‘wolf’ or ‘lord’11
and *glasos
(Welsh glas)
is normally used for ‘blue’ or ‘green’ (sometimes ‘silver’);
it can also mean ‘grey’ in Cornish and Gaelic.12
Gildas’ suggestion that it meant ‘tawny butcher’ will be
resolved below when we come to discuss that part of his tirade.
Most
scholars identify this man with Cinglas
from the tenth-century North Welsh genealogies13
of the small kingdom of Rhos,
with its llys
(fort/court) at Dinerth/Dinarth
(now Bryn Euryn)
in what is now mid-North Wales. Another Rhos in West Wales has also
been suggested, because of a Dinarth
in Ceredigion, near the Avon
(River) Arth.14
The hill fort of Llandewi, Aberarth in Ceredigion has also been
suggested as an alternative ruling site for the rulers of this
kingdom, as the archaeology suggests a possible
early medieval enclosure there.15
This second position would make sense if Gildas were moving in a
geographical clockwise direction with his tyrants’ locations,
otherwise he has jumped Gwynedd, which follows Cuneglasus if he were
from Rhos. Of course, perhaps he had no choice since Maglocunus (the
next in line for Gildas’ quill lashing) attracted far more of his
time; in fact, more ink is spilled on him than the other four leaders
put together, portraying him as the most powerful of the five.
Like others, Nicholas Higham suggested the power-base of Cuneglasus to have been the area that became the North Wales cantref 16 of Rhos. He notes that in the ninth century the kingdom of Powys was ruled from their Gwynedd (Venedotia) overlord’s fort of Deganwy, which lies only five miles west of Dinerth as the crow flies. This is why he suggests Gwynedd (and therefore Maglocunus) may have also ruled Rhos, and it in turn may have encompassed what had been the Romano-British Deceangli region (what became medieval Tegeingl) and part of what became northern Powys. Therefore, between Gwynedd and Rhos, perhaps, all of what is now north-west to north-east Wales was under their rule, and even perhaps, in Gildas’ time.17 If this were the case, it would seem Cuneglasus would have to have had some kind of power for Gildas to focus on him also, unless his marital crimes were enough to get his attention; that and, possibly, his familial relation to the next tyrant to get Gildas’ tirade. Of course, Cuneglasus himself couldn’t have ruled Gwynedd at the time if Maglocunus was its ruler, and the most powerful in the region, hence why it is thought that Rhos could have been a sub-kingdom of Gwynedd, or a tribute polity. If this is all the case, however, it is hard to understand how Cuneglasus could still have held power in the region, being in such close proximity, unless he was one of the tyrants that Maglocunus removed from power, but did not kill. If Cuneglasus was given an association by Gildas with a fort whose name contained -arth, which is by no means certain,18 we would suggest that Ceredigion or the area that became Powys, as Gildas may have implied, would be a more suitable kingdom, being far enough away from Maglocunus to be viable.
See the next 26 pages on Academia.edu
Follow me on Academia.edu
Like others, Nicholas Higham suggested the power-base of Cuneglasus to have been the area that became the North Wales cantref 16 of Rhos. He notes that in the ninth century the kingdom of Powys was ruled from their Gwynedd (Venedotia) overlord’s fort of Deganwy, which lies only five miles west of Dinerth as the crow flies. This is why he suggests Gwynedd (and therefore Maglocunus) may have also ruled Rhos, and it in turn may have encompassed what had been the Romano-British Deceangli region (what became medieval Tegeingl) and part of what became northern Powys. Therefore, between Gwynedd and Rhos, perhaps, all of what is now north-west to north-east Wales was under their rule, and even perhaps, in Gildas’ time.17 If this were the case, it would seem Cuneglasus would have to have had some kind of power for Gildas to focus on him also, unless his marital crimes were enough to get his attention; that and, possibly, his familial relation to the next tyrant to get Gildas’ tirade. Of course, Cuneglasus himself couldn’t have ruled Gwynedd at the time if Maglocunus was its ruler, and the most powerful in the region, hence why it is thought that Rhos could have been a sub-kingdom of Gwynedd, or a tribute polity. If this is all the case, however, it is hard to understand how Cuneglasus could still have held power in the region, being in such close proximity, unless he was one of the tyrants that Maglocunus removed from power, but did not kill. If Cuneglasus was given an association by Gildas with a fort whose name contained -arth, which is by no means certain,18 we would suggest that Ceredigion or the area that became Powys, as Gildas may have implied, would be a more suitable kingdom, being far enough away from Maglocunus to be viable.
See the next 26 pages on Academia.edu
Follow me on Academia.edu
1 Thanks
and appreciation goes to Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews for help with
the Latin and Charles Evans-Gunther for help with the structure and
a peer review to formalise the final version. Special thanks to Mak
Wilson, whose many contributions and help with the copious
editing has been invaluable.
2 Maglocunus,
Aurelius Caninus, Constantine and Vortiporus.
3
See: Mark Devere Davis’s theory concerning Cuneglasus and Arthur-
http://www.angelfire.com/md/devere/urse.html
[Accessed
8th
February, 2017]
Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman, King
Arthur: The True Story, Bit Bound,
1992, and Graham Phillips the Lost
Tomb Of King Arthur, 2016, who
suggest Owain Danwyn (whom they call, Owain Ddantgwyn), the
genealogical father of Cinglas (Cuneglasus) could be Arthur, but
this is easily disproved. Latin is more precise than English and
when Gildas used the word uncle
when describing the man Owain killed to grab power, he used the
Latin word “avunculus”.
The precise meaning is ‘one’s mother’s brother’ – in other
words the maternal uncle. Owain Danwyn was Maelgwn’s (i.e.
Maglocunus’s) paternal uncle. Many scholars suggest the word was
used just a general meaning for uncle, but this is the sixth century
and Gildas was clearly a well education member of the religious
class. He would have used Latin in its correct form. Thanks to
Charles Evans-Gunther for pointing this out.
4
A. O. Anderson, “Gildas and
Arthur.” The Celtic Review, vol.
8, no. 30, 1912, pp. 149–165. www.jstor.org/stable/30070428.
[Accessed
8th
February, 2017]
5 For
example by Steve Blake and Scott Lloyd, Pendragon: The Definitive
Account of the Origins of Arthur, The Lyons Press, 2004.
6 Ibid.,
Mark Devere.- This castle was, however, in
Lambeth, London. From the Book of
the Queens Maying- Le Morte d’Arthur Book XIX chapter I,
http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/mart/mart455.htm
[accessed 8th
February, 2017] .
7 As
portrayed in the eleventh to twelfth century Saints' lives where
Maglocunus rules all of the north.
8 Gildas
wrote the name as Cuneglase,
in the vocative, as was Urse.
9 We
will also consider readings from the simplified De Excidio,
Avranches PL.162 MS, which is twelfth century but possibly
from a family of MSS dated to around the ninth to tenth century.
That reading is in the appendix.
10
From the Winterbottom translation.
11 Thomas
O’Sullivan, The De excidio of
Gildas: Its Authenticity and Date, Leiden:
Brill, 1978, p.27.
12 Ibid.
13
Harleian genealogy
3: [H]iguel map Caratauc map Meriaun map Rumaun map Enniaun map
Ytigoy map Catgual Crisban map Cangan map Meic map Cinglas
map Eugein dant guin map
Enniaun Girt map Cuneda. Source:
http://www.kmatthews.org.uk/history/harleian_genealogies/3.html
[Accessed
8th
February, 2017]. Thomas O’Sullivan noted that the Rhos genealogy
may not have been well preserved by their overlords and sometimes
enemy, Gwynedd (The De Excidio of
Gildas: Its Authenticity and Date,
1978, p.108).
14
Castle of Dinerth (Welsh: Castell
Dineirth, Castell
Dinerth, or Castell
Allt Craig Arth) is in the Welsh
county of Ceredigion, West Wales. No evidence of an early medieval
settlement has been found but there are remains of a promontory
fort, which the Normans may have built over.
15
See August Hunt’s
Shadows in the Mist website: The Probable ruling center
[sic] of Ceredig/Arthur in Ceredigion.
http://mistshadows.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/coming-soon-probable-ruling-center-of.html
[Accessed
8th
February, 2017]
16 Cantref
= hundred towns.
17
Nicholas Higham, The
English Conquest,
Manchester University Press,
1994, pp.179-180
18 We
will discuss this further below. Gildas would need to have been
layering several metaphorical meanings over this one line concerning
the refuge of the bear.
