Chapter IX · Place-name Stories
Reading edition
The Dindṡenchas is a collection of stories (senchasa), in Middle-Irish prose and verse, about the names of noteworthy places (dind) in Ireland—plains, mountains, ridges, cairns, lakes, rivers, fords, estuaries, islands, and so forth …. But its value to students of Irish folklore, romance (sometimes called history), and topography has long been recognized by competent authorities, such as Petrie, O’Donovan, and Mr. Alfred Nutt.
Whitley Stokes.
ii. 56b:—Drystan son of Taỻwch with the swine of March ab Meirchion while the swineherd went on a message to Essyỻt. Arthur and March and Cai and Bedwyr came all four to him, but obtained from Drystan not even as much as a single porker, whether by force, by fraud, or by theft.
iii. 101c:—The third was Trystan son of Taỻwch, who guarded the swine of March son of Meirchion while the swineherd had gone on a message to Essyỻt to bid her appoint a meeting with Trystan. Now Arthur and Marcheỻ and Cai and Bedwyr undertook to go and make an attempt on him, but they proved unable to get possession of as much as one porker either as a gift or as a purchase, whether by fraud, by force, or by theft.
In this story the well-known love of Drystan and Essyỻt is taken for granted; but the whole setting is so peculiar and so unlike that of the story of Tristan and Iselt or Iseut in the romances, that there is no reason to suppose it in any way derived from the latter.
The next portion of the Triad runs thus:—
1 30b:—And Pryderi son of Pwyỻ of Annwvyn who guarded the swine of Pendaran of Dyfed in the Glen of the Cuch in Emlyn.
The next story in the Triad is, if possible, wilder still: it runs as follows:—
ii. 56c:—The third was Coỻ son of Kaỻureuy with the swine of Daỻwyr Daỻben in Daỻwyr’s Glen in Kernyw. Now one of the swine was with young and Henwen was her name; and it was foretold that the Isle of Prydain would be the worse for her litter; and Arthur collected the host of Prydain and went about to destroy it. Then one sow went burrowing, and at the Headland of Hawstin in Kernyw she took to the sea with the swineherd following her. And in Maes Gwenith in Gwent she dropped a grain of wheat and a bee, and ever since Maes Gwenith is the best place for wheat and bees. And at Ỻonyon in Penfro she dropped a grain of barley and another of wheat: therefore the barley of Ỻonyon has passed into a proverb. And on Rhiw Gyferthwch in Arfon she dropped a wolf-cub and an eagle-chick. The wolf was given to Mergaed and the eagle to Breat a prince from the North, and they were the worse for having them. And at Ỻanfair in Arfon, to wit below the Maen Du, she dropped a kitten, and from the Maen Du the swineherd cast it into the sea, but the sons of Paluc reared it to their detriment. It grew to be Cath Paluc, ‘Palug’s Cat,’ and proved one of the three chief molestations of Mona reared in the island: the second was Daronwy and the third was Edwin king of England.
iii. 101b:—The second was Coỻ son of Coỻfrewi who guarded Daỻwaran Daỻben’s sow, that came burrowing as far as the Headland of Penwedic in Kernyw and then took to the sea; and she came to land at Aber Tarogi in Gwent Is-coed with Coỻ keeping his hold of her bristles whithersoever she went on sea or land. At Maes Gwenith in Gwent she dropped three grains of wheat and three bees, and ever since Gwent has the best wheat and bees. From Gwent she proceeded to Dyfed and dropped a grain of barley and a porker, and ever since Dyfed has the best barley and pigs: it was in Ỻonnio Ỻonnwen these were dropped. Afterwards she proceeded to Arfon (sic) and in Ỻeyn she dropped the grain of rye, and ever since Ỻeyn and Eifionyđ have the best rye. And on the side of Rhiw Gyferthwch she dropped a wolf-cub and an eagle-chick. Coỻ gave the eagle to Brynach the Goidel of Dinas Affaraon, and the wolf to Menwaed lord of Arỻechweđ, and one often hears of Brynach’s Wolf and Menwaed’s Eagle [the writer was careless: he has made the owners exchange pests]. Then she went as far as the Maen Du in Arfon, where she dropped a kitten and Coỻ cast it into the Menai. That was the Cath Balwg (sic), ‘Palug’s Cat’: it proved a molestation to the Isle of Mona subsequently.
Let us now consider the hunt somewhat more in detail, with special reference to the names mentioned; and let us begin with that of Twrch Trwyth: the word twrch means the male of a beast of the swine kind, and twrch coed, ‘a wood pig,’ is a wild boar, while twrch daear, ‘an earth pig,’ is the word in North Wales for a mole. In the next place we can practically equate Twrch Trwyth with a name at the head of one of the articles in Cormac’s Irish Glossary. There the exact form is Orc tréith, and the following is the first part of the article itself as given in O’Donovan’s translation edited by Stokes:—‘Orc Tréith, i. e. nomen for a king’s son, triath enim rex vocatur, unde dixit poeta Oínach n-uirc tréith “fair of a king’s son,” i. e. food and precious raiment, down and quilts, ale and flesh-meat, chessmen and chessboards, horses and chariots, greyhounds and playthings besides.’ In this extract the word orc occurs in the genitive as uirc, and it means a ‘pig’ or ‘boar’; in fact it is, with the usual Celtic loss of the consonant p, the exact Goidelic equivalent of the Latin porcus, genitive porci. From another article in Cormac’s Glossary, we learn that Tréith is the genitive of Triath, which has been explained to mean a king. Thus, Orc Tréith means Triath’s Orc, Triath’s Boar, or the King’s Boar; so we take Twrch Trwyth in the same way to mean ‘Trwyth’s Boar.’ But we have here a discrepancy, which the reader will have noticed, for twrch is not the same word as Irish orc, the nearest form to be expected in Welsh being Wrch, not Twrch; but such a word as Wrch does not, so far as I know, exist. Now did the Welsh render orc by a different word unrelated to the Goidelic one which they heard? I think not; for it is remarkable that Irish has besides orc a word torc, meaning a ‘boar,’ and torc is exactly the Welsh twrch. So there seems to be no objection to our supposing that what Cormac calls Orc Tréith was known in the Goidelic of Wales as Torc Tréith, which had the alliteration to recommend it to popular favour. In that case one could say that the Goidelic name Torc Tréith appears in Welsh with a minimum of change as Twrch Trwyth, and also with the stamp of popular favour more especially in the retention of the Goidelic th, just as in the name of an ancient camp or fortification on the Withy Bush Estate in Pembrokeshire: it is called the Rath, or the Rath Ring. Here rāth is identical with the Irish word ráth, ‘a fortification or earthworks,’ and we seem to have it also in Cil Râth Fawr, the name of a farm in the neighbourhood of Narberth. Now the Goidelic word tréith appears to have come into Welsh as trēth-i, the long vowel of which must in Welsh have become oi or ui by about the end of the sixth century; and if the th had been treated on etymological principles its proper equivalent in the Welsh of that time would have been d or t. The retention of the th is a proof, therefore, of oral transmission; that is to say, the Goidelic word passed bodily into Brythonic, to submit afterwards to the phonological rules of that language.
A little scrutiny of the tale will, I think, convince the reader that one of the objects of the original story-teller was to account for certain place-names. Thus Grugyn was meant to account for the name of Garth Grugyn, where Grugyn was killed; Gwys, to account similarly for that of Gwys, a tributary of the Twrch, which gives its name to a station on the line of railway between Ystalyfera and Bryn Amman; and Twrch Ỻawin to account for the name of the river Twrch, which receives the Gwys, and falls into the Tawe some distance below Ystrad Gynlais, between the counties of Brecknock and Glamorgan.
1. A banw is killed at Mynyđ Amanw.
2. A twrch is killed in the same neighbourhood, where there is a river Twrch.
3. A swine called Gwys is killed in the same neighbourhood still, where there is a river called Gwys, falling into the Twrch.
4. A banw and a benwic are killed in Dyffryn Amanw.
5. Grugyn is killed at a place called Garth Grugyn.
Thus in five cases out of the six, the story accounts for the place-name, and the question now is, can that be a mere accident? Just think what the probabilities of the case would be if you put them into numbers: South Wales, from St. David’s to the Vale of the Usk, would supply hundreds of place-names as deserving of mention, to say the least, as those in this story; is it likely then that out of a given six among them no less than five should be accounted for or alluded to by any mere accident in the course of a story of the brevity of that of Twrch Trwyth. To my thinking such an accident is inconceivable, and I am forced, therefore, to suppose that the narrative was originally so designed as to account for them. I said ‘originally so designed,’ for the scribe of the Red Book, or let us say the last redactor of the story as it stands in the Red Book, shows no signs of having noticed any such design. Had he detected the play on the names of the places introduced, he would probably have been more inclined to develop that feature of the story than to efface it.
That is how a portion of the Math story is made to account for a series of place-names, and had the editor of the Kulhwch understood the play on the names of places in question in the story of Twrch Trwyth, it might be expected that he would have given it prominence, as already suggested. Then comes the question, how it came to pass that he did not understand it? The first thing to suggest itself as an answer is, that he may have been a stranger to the geography of the country concerned. That, however, is a very inadequate explanation; for his being a stranger, though it might account for his making blunders as to the localities, would not be likely to deter him from venturing into geography which he had not mastered.
What was it, then, that hid from him a portion of the original in this instance? In part, at least, it must have been a difficulty of language. Let us take an illustration: Gwys has already been mentioned more than once as a name applied to one of Twrch Trwyth’s offspring, and the words used are very brief, to the following effect:—‘And then another of his swine was killed: Gwys was its name.’ As a matter of fact, the scribe was labouring under a mistake, for he ought to have said rather, ‘And then another of his swine was killed: it was a sow’; since gwys was a word meaning a sow, and not the name of any individual hog. The word has, doubtless, long been obsolete in Welsh; but it was known to the poet of the ‘Little Pig’s Lullaby’ in the Black Book of Carmarthen, where one of the stanzas begins, fo. 29a, with the line:
Oian aparchellan. aparchell. guin guis.
The late Dr. Pughe translated it thus:
Listen, little porkling! thou forward little white pig.
I fear I should be obliged to render it less elegantly:
Lullaby, little porker, white sow porker.
In the summary I have given of the hunt, I omitted a number of proper names of the men who fell at the different spots where the Twrch is represented brought to bay. I wish now to return to them with the question, why were their names inserted in the story at all? It may be suspected that they also, or at any rate some of them, were intended to explain place-names; but I must confess to having had little success in identifying traces of them in the ordnance maps. Others, however, may fare better, who have a better acquaintance with the districts in point, and in that hope I append them in their order in the story:—
1. Arthur sends to the hunt on the banks of the Nevern, in Pembrokeshire, his men, Eli and Trachmyr, Gwarthegyđ son of Caw, and Bedwyr; also Tri meib Cleđyv Divwlch, ‘three Sons of the Gapless Sword.’ The dogs are also mentioned: Drudwyn, Greid son of Eri’s whelp, led by Arthur himself; Glythmyr Ledewig’s two dogs, led by Gwarthegyđ son of Caw; and Arthur’s dog Cavaỻ, led by Bedwyr.
3. He turns to bay a second time in Cwm Kerwyn, and kills Gwydre son of Arthur, Garselid Wyđel, Glew son of Yscawt, and Iscawyn son of Bannon or Panon.
4. Next day he is overtaken in the same neighbourhood, and he kills Glewlwyd Gavaelvawr’s three men, Huandaw, Gogigwr, and Penn Pingon, many of the men of the country also, and Gwlyđyn Saer, one of Arthur’s chief architects.
5. Arthur overtakes the Twrch next in Peuliniauc (p. 512 above); and the Twrch there kills Madawc son of Teithion, Gwyn son of Tringad son of Neued, and Eiriawn Penỻoran.
6. Twrch Trwyth next turns to bay at Aber Towy, ‘Towy Mouth,’ and kills Cynlas son of Cynan, and Gwilenhin, king of France.
7. The next occasion of his killing any men whose names are given, is when he reaches Ỻwch Ewin (p. 515), near which he killed Echel Vorđwyd-twỻ, Arwyli eil Gwyđawg Gwyr, and many men and dogs besides.
8. Grugyn, one of the Twrch’s offspring, goes to Garth Grugyn in Keredigion with Eli and Trachmyr pursuing him; but what happened to them we are not told in consequence of the omission mentioned above (p. 515) as occurring in the manuscript.
10. Ỻwydawc goes to Ystrad Yw, where he is met by the Men of Ỻydaw, and he kills Hirpeissawc, king of Ỻydaw, also Ỻygatruđ Emys and Gwrbothu Hên, maternal uncles to Arthur.
CLVTORIGI FILI PAVLINI MARINILATIO
The idea that the story of Twrch Trwyth was more or less topographical is not a new one. Lady Charlotte Guest, in her Mabinogion, ii. 363–5, traces the hunt through several places called after Arthur, such as Buarth Arthur, ‘Arthur’s Cattle-pen,’ and Bwrđ Arthur, ‘Arthur’s Table,’ besides others more miscellaneously named, such as Twyn y Moch, ‘the Swine’s Hill,’ near the source of the Amman, and Ỻwyn y Moch, ‘the Swine’s Grove,’ near the foot of the same eminence. But one of the most remarkable statements in her note is the following:—‘Another singular coincidence may be traced between the name of a brook in this neighbourhood, called Echel, and the Echel Forđwyttwỻ who is recorded in the tale as having been slain at this period of the chase.’ I have been unable to discover any clue to a brook called Echel, but one called Egel occurs in the right place; so I take it that Lady Charlotte Guest’s informants tacitly identified the name with that of Echel. Substantially they were probably correct, as the Egel, called Ecel in the dialect of the district, flows into the upper Clydach, which in its turn falls into the Tawe near Pont ar Dawe. As the next pool mentioned is Ỻwch Tawe, I presume it was some water or other which drained into the Tawe in this same neighbourhood. The relative positions of Ỻwch Ewin, the Egel, and Ỻwch Tawe as indicated above offer no apparent difficulty. The Goidelic name underlying that of Echel was probably some such a one as Eccel or Ecell; and Ecell occurs, for instance, in the Book of the Dun Cow, fo. 80b, as the name of a noble or prince. In rendering this name into Welsh as Echel, due regard was had for the etymological equivalence of Goidelic cc or c to Welsh ch, but the unbroken oral tradition of a people changing its language by degrees from Goidelic to Welsh was subject to no such influence, especially in the matter of local names; so the one here in question passed into Welsh as Eccel, liable only to be modified into Egel. In any case, one may assume that the death of the hero Echel was introduced to account for the name of the brook Egel. Indications of something similar in the linguistic sense occur in the part of the narrative relating the death of Grugyn, at Garth Grugyn. This boar is pursued by two huntsmen called Eli and Trachmyr, the name of the former of whom reminds one of Garth Eli, in the parish of Ỻanđewi Brefi. Possibly the original story located at Garth Eli the death of Eli, or some other incident in which Grugyn was concerned; but the difficulty here is that the exact position of Garth Grugyn is still uncertain.
Lastly, our information as to the hunting of Twrch Trwyth is not exclusively derived from the Kulhwch, for besides an extremely obscure poem about the Twrch in the Book of Aneurin, a manuscript of the thirteenth century, we have one item given in the Mirabilia associated with the Historia Brittonum of Nennius, § 73, and this carries us back to the eighth century. It reads as follows:—
Est aliud mirabile in regione quæ dicitur Buelt. Est ibi cumulus lapidum, et unus lapis superpositus super congestum, cum vestigio canis in eo. Quando venatus est porcum Troit, impressit Cabal, qui erat canis Arthuri militis, vestigium in lapide, et Arthur postea congregavit congestum lapidum sub lapide in quo erat vestigium canis sui, et vocatur Carn Cabal. Et veniunt homines et tollunt lapidem in manibus suis per spacium diei et noctis, et in crastino die invenitur super congestum suum.
Another name which I am inclined to regard as brought in from Goidelic is that of Gilvaethwy, son of Dôn: it would seem to involve some such a word as the Irish gilla, ‘a youth, an attendant or servant,’ and some form of the Goidelic name Maughteus or Mochta, so that the name Gilla-mochtai meant the attendant of Mochta. This last vocable appears in Irish as the name of several saints, but previously it was probably that of some pagan god of the Goidels, and its meaning was most likely the same as that of the Irish participial mochta, which Stokes explains as ‘magnified, glorified’: see his Calendar of Oengus, p. ccxiv, and compare the name Mael-mochta. Adamnan, in his Vita S. Columbæ, writes the name Maucteus in the following passage, pref. ii. p. 6:—
Nam quidam proselytus Brito, homo sanctus, sancti Patricii episcopi discipulus, Maucteus nomine, ita de nostro prophetizavit Patrono, sicuti nobis ab antiquis traditum expertis compertum habetur.
Fer co n-ilur gnim dar ler
A man of many feats beyond sea,
Labraid swift of Hand on Sword is he.
Gan uath hen gan gouannon.
With Math the ancient, with Gofannon.
Before closing this chapter a word may be permitted as to the Goidelic element in the history of Wales: it will come again before the reader in a later chapter, but what has already been advanced or implied concerning it may here be recapitulated as follows:—
It has been suggested that the hereditary dislike of the Brython for the Goidel argues their having formerly lived in close proximity to one another: see p. 473 above.
The tradition that the cave treasures of the Snowdon district belong by right to the Goidels, means that they were formerly supposed to have hidden them away when hard pressed by the Brythons: see pp. 471–2 above.
The sundry instances of a pair of names for a single person or place, one Goidelic (Brythonicized) still in use, and the other Brythonic (suggested by the Goidelic one), literary mostly and obsolete, go to prove that the Goidels were not expelled, but allowed to remain to adopt Brythonic speech.
Evidence of the indebtedness of story-tellers in Wales to their brethren of the same profession in Ireland is comparatively scarce; and almost in every instance of recent research establishing a connexion between topics or incidents in the Arthurian romances and the native literature of Ireland, the direct contact may be assumed to have been with the folklore and legend of the Goidelic inhabitants of Wales, whether before or after their change of language.
The common point of view from which our ancestors liked to look at the scenery around them is well illustrated by the fondness of the Goidel, in Wales and Ireland alike, for incidents to explain his place-names. He required the topography—indeed he requires it still, and hence the activity of the local etymologist—to connote story or history: he must have something that will impart the cold light of physical nature, river and lake, moor and mountain, a warmer tint, a dash of the pathetic element, a touch of the human, borrowed from the light and shade of the world of imagination and fancy in which he lives and dreams.