St. Collen

ByS offers two versions of Collen’s pedigree as shown in columns 2 and 3:

Gen. ByS 52 ByS G 34 ByS G 35 B. Collen
4 St. Collen St. Collen
3 Gwennog Ethni Wyddeles Gwennog Ethni Wyddeles
2 St. Collen Coleddog Coleddog Matholwch
1 Pedrwn Cawrdaf St. Melangell Cawrdaf
0 Coleddog Caradog Freichfras [Rhicwlff] Ethni (Wyddeles) Caradog Freichfras
-1 Gwyn Llŷr Marini Tudwal Tudclyd Llŷr Marini Margred
-2 Einion Yrth Cedig Earl of Rhydychen
-3 Cunedda Wledig Dyfnwal Hen
-4 Ednyfed
-5 Macsen Wledig
-6 Llywelyn

Bartrum stated that the earlier one, shown in column 2, was probably more accurate. He reasoned that Ethni Wyddeles, the mother of Collen according to the later version, is in reality the mother of St. Melangell as indicated by ByS G 35 and ByS 53 (not shown above). Note, although Rhicwlff, the father of Melangell, was lost in ByS G 35 he is shown in ByS 53.

In fact, the later pedigree is the correct one and the B. Collen agrees with that version. The mistake that Bartrum made was to accept that the two instances of the name Ethni referred to the same person as was wrongly suggested only by the ByS G version . Evidence that they were not is provided by the Latin life. In it Melangell is said to be contemporary with Brochwel Ysgithrog, king of Powys. Bartum stated this was impossible but column 6 shows she was of gen. 1 and so the story, which explains why she became the patroness of hares, is chronologically correct.

The earlier version has confused Coleddog ap Cawdraf with Coleddog ap Gwyn who, according to triad 74, was an anheol, i.e. one who could not be expelled, of Arthur’s Court. This suggests  he may have been an earlier Coleddog than the individual in Collen’s ancestry and we may speculate that ByS 52 is referring to St. Colan of Cornwall.

The B. Collen relates a story of Collen as abbot of Glastonbury interacting with Gwyn ap Nudd. These two individuals were seperated in time by four generations which explains why the story is legendary in nature. It may be a symbolic reference to Collen removing vestiges of pagan belief from the Glastonbury area.

Advertisements

Maeswig Gloff and Mar ap Ceneu

Bartrum argued that Maeswig and Mar were names for the same individual. However, to understand why this was not the case we need to begin with Onnengreg f. Gwallog m. Leenog who ByS 48 tells us was the wife of Meurig ab Idno:

Gen. ByS 48 ByA 13 ByS 12
3 Elaeth Frenin
2 Meurig Onnengreg Meurig Mabon Deiniol
1 Idno Gwallog Idno Dunod Fwr Dwywai
0 Leenog Meirchion Pabo Post Prydyn Lleenog

ByA 13 provides additional information that Meurig had a brother named Mabon and that Idno was the son of Meirchion. We may, therefore, conclude Meirchion and Leenog were of the same generation. The question is which generation. Bartrum adopts the view that the father of Idno was Meirchion Gul, an assertion that appears in the ByS G 54 of c. 1510, see diagram below.

Descendants of Ceneu

However, this descent, which implies Idno’s father belonged to gen. -1, is not shown in any other source. ByS 12, see the table above, shows Lleenog belonged to the same generation as Pabo Post Prydyn who is known to have belonged to gen. 0, see Pabo and Sawyl, allowing us to conclude Meirchion and Leenog were also of that generation. We may now maintain that Maeswig Gloff, the  father of Leenog, was the son of Mar ap Ceneu as shown in the table below.

Gen. HG 9 JC 36 ByA 28c
2 (Beli)
1 Gwallog Gwallog Rhun Perweur
0 Leenog Leenog Rhun Ryfeddfawr
-1 Maeswig Gloff [Maeswig Gloff] Einion
-2 [Mar] Mar Mar
-3 Ceneu [Ceneu] Ceneu
-4 Coel Hen Coel Hen Coel Hen

ByA 28c demonstrates that Mar belonged to gen. -2 and so we can discount the possibility tha Maeswig was the father of Mar. Curiously,  Bartrum’s assertion, whether right or wrong, that Ceredig ap Gwallog died in 620 is more in line with my analysis rather than his own.

Peredur and Gwrgi

According to BGG 5 the twins Peredur and Gwrgi were 5 generations later than Coel Hen which would suggest they belonged to gen. 1. However, DSB 12(14) tells us they belonged to gen. 2, see the table below.

Gen. DSB 12(14)  
2 Peredur Gwrgi Estedich
1 Eliffer Gosgorddfawr Efrddyl Urien Rheged
0 Nyfain Cynfarch Cul
-1 Brychan Meirchion Gul

This contradiction can be resolved using HG 12 which states the father of Eliffer Gosgorddfawr was someone known as Letlwm, possibly a corruption of the individual’s actual name, see the table below. He was not Gwrwst Ledlwm who was another son of Ceneu ap Coel. Using BGG 5 and HG 12 the descent of the twins Gwrgi and Peredur from Coel Hen can be reconstructed.

Gen. BGG 5 HG 12
2 Gwrgi Peredur Gwrgi Peredur
1 Eliffer Gosgorddfawr Eliffer Gosgorddfawr
0 [Letlwm] Letlwm
-1 Arthwys [Arthwys]
-2 Mar [Mar]
-3 Ceneu Ceneu
-4 Coel Hen Coel Hen

Hywel, father and son

 

Gen. ChB ByS G 24a
5 Conobertus
4 Alanus II
3 Salomon II
2 Hoelus III
1 Alanus I Cristiolus Rystvd
0 Hoelus II Howel vychan
1 Hoelus Magnus Howel
-2 Budicius Emyr Llydaw
-3 Audroenus
-4 Salomon I
-5 Gralonus
-6 Conanus Meriadocus

The two Deiniols

There were two Deiniols who have become conflated and their pedigrees are shown in the table below:

Gen. ByS 12 ByS F 13
2 Deiniol
1 Dunod Fwr Dwywai
0 Pabo Post Prydyn Lleenog Asaph Deiniolfab
-1 Sawyl Benisel Gwenasedd
-2 Pabo (Post Prydyn) Rhain Dremrudd

Note, St. Asaph’s sister was one of the wives of Maelgwn Gwynedd and the mother of Eurgain. Maelgwn’s Wife and the Ring describes an incident involving her as well as St. Asaph. The Daniel referred to as having died in the reign of Constantine in the HRB was Deiniolfab, the brother of St. Asaph.

As indicated by the AC, Dunod Fwr died in 595. According to the HRB he was at Arthur’s coronation. He was also present at the battle of Arderydd. It was his son who predeceased him in the year 584 as indicated by the AC. His death is mentioned together with the battle of the Isle of Man and, perhaps, the two are related.

Tewdrig

The pedigrees in the first table relate to Tewdrig, son of Llywarch, king of Gwent who is mistakenly given a father named Teithfall in two of the documents, a conflation with the Tewdrig of the second table below. The BLD tells of his martyrdom. It was foretold that following his victory over the Saxons there would be peace for 30 years. The renewed conflict is referred to in the ASC under the year 577. The BLD also mentions Teilo receiving gifts from him.

Gen. ABT 15a HG 28 JC 9a JC 10a MP 3 seg.
19 Morgan
18 Caradog Caradog
17 Iestyn Iestyn
16 Gwrgan Gwrgan
15 Ithel Ithel
14 Idwallon Idwallon
13 Morgan Mawr Morgan Hen Morgan Hen Morgan (Mwynfawr) [Hen]
12 Owain Owain Owain Owain
11 Hywel Hywel Hywel Hywel
10 Rhys Rhys Rhys Rhys
9 Arthfael Ithel Arthfael Arthfael Arthfael
8 [Gwriad] Athrwys Gwriad Cenedlon Gwriad
7 [Brochwel] Ffernfael Brochwel Briafael Frydig Brochwel
6 Rhys Ithel Rhys Llywarch Rhys
5 (Ithel) [Einudd] [Einudd] Einudd Tewdwr Einudd
4 Morgan (m. Athrwys) Morgan Morgan (m. Athrwys) Peibio Glafrog Morgan (m. Athrwys)
3 Meurig Athrwys Meurig Erb Meurig
2 Tewdrig Tewdrig Tewdrig Dyfrig St. Tewdrig
1 (Teithfall) [Llywarch] Llywarch [Efrddyl] (Teithfall) [Llywarch]
0 Nynnio Nynnio Peibio Nynnio
-1 Erb Erb Erb
-2 Erbic Erbic Erbic

The pedigrees in the second table are relevant to the earlier Tewdrig ap Teithfall, king of Garthmadrun.

Gen. JC 1a
JC 1b
V. Cadoci 46a
V. Cadoci 46c
1 Cadog Cadog
0 Cynog Gwladus Gwladus
-1 Brychan Brychan Brychan [Brychan]
-2 [Anlach] Marchell Anlach Marchell
-3 Coronac Tewdrig [Coronac] Tewdrig
-4 Eurbre Wyddel Teithfall Eurbre Wyddel  Teithfall
-5 Teithrin Brusc
-6 Briscethach

The word ‘map’ in the Welsh genealogies

E. W. B. Nicholson explained the origin of the use of the word ‘ap’ in the Welsh genealogies, see The Dynasty of Cunedag and the ‘Harleian Genealogies’. Take HG 1. Notice the repetition in the names: Cein, Guorcein, Doli, Guordoli, Dumn and Gurdumn. In the manuscript the names are listed in columns preceded by the word ‘map’ as indicated by Phillimore, see The Annales Cambriae and Old-Welsh Genealogies from Harleian MS 3859. These six names appear thus:

map. Cein.
map. Guorcein.
map. doli.
map. Guordoli.
map. dumn.
map. Gurdumn.

Nicholson explains (p. 65) that the manuscript we have is a copy of an original which was of a different form. He writes:

My next point is that in their original form these were not all of them certainly ‘genealogies’ in the modern sense of the word-that, in fact, No. 1 is not a genealogy but a table of succession. Part, at least, of the original table had no map’s, but the preposition guor, ‘over’, in their place.

He then presents how the original table would have shown these names:

guor cein doli
guor doli dumn
guor dumn Amgueryt

In the later versions of the manuscript, the word ‘guor’ was replaced by the word ‘map’ at the start of each line presumably because it involved less repetition, there being no need to restate the last name in one line as the first name in the next. However, accidently the ‘guor’ in just the above three lines of the text were left in, thus generating three fictitious names: Guorcein, Guordoli and Gurdumn. Nicholson goes on to state:

In other words, we have before us what may not be a table of direct blood-descent at all, but only of succession

The above three lines of the text would thus read:

Before Cein, Doli
Before Doli, Dumn
Before Dumn, Amgueryt

showing no assertion of a son-to-father relationship.