HB 62 starts thus:
“Tunc Dutigirn in illo tempore fortiter dimicabat contra gentem Anglorum.”
“Then Outigern at that time bravely fought against the English nation.”

Dutigirn detail © British Library Board Harley MS 3859 f.188v.

Note, since the name Dutigirn is unknown, it was considered a corruption of Outigern whose modern form is Eudeyrn. This passage immediately follows a reference to Ida son of Eobba. Moreover, the following text indicates Eudeyrn was a contemporary of Talhaearn, Aneirin, Taliesin, Blwchbardd and Cian, as well as Maelgwn Gwynedd. All this information points to Eudeyrn being of gen. 1. The problem is that although a ruler of that name appears in gen. -14, namely Eudeyrn ab Eifudd, none appears in gen. 1. However, it is to be noted that the name of the Eudeyrn, just mentioned, is corrupted to Keyeirn in MG 1 and Kyndeern in JC 5. We may, therefore, speculate that Dutigirn was actually Cyndeyrn, the corruption occuring in the opposite sense.

Gen. ByS 14 ByS 6b
-3 Kuneda wledic
-2 Keredic
-1 Garthawc
0 Kyngar
1 Vryen (llu) Lewdwn luydawc Kyndeyrn
2 Ewein Denw
3 Kyndeyrn garthwys

Cyndeyrn Garthwys must be excluded from consideration as he appears two generations later. It follows a likely candidate for Outigern is Cyndeyrn ap Cyngar.

J. Gwenogvryn Evans noted how the names of the rulers are given at the end of HB 62 and the start of HB 63:[1]

[I]da the son of Eobba
[ ]unc dutigirn in his time flourished Tal., etc
[M]ailcun king of Gwynedd
[A]dda the son of Ida, etc

The entries in square brackets shown above are not there in the manuscript. Those letters were for the rubricator to enter. The mistake that has been perpetuated is to have accepted that the start of the second line above should have the letter ‘T’ for the word ‘Tunc’, meaning ‘Then’. Evans noted that all the other names, Ida, Mailcun and Adda, have the personal name followed by some words to identify the person. He correctly concluded that M]unc is the name that precedes dutigirn.

However, Evans erred when he interpreted ‘Munc’ as ‘Magnus’. In reality, ‘Munc’ was ‘Mungo’, the pet name of Kentigern. Although, Evans referred to this in his footnote he rejected the idea as he claimed there was no evidence of Kentigern at St. Asaph. He did not realise there were two Cyndeyrns, a northern and a southern one, as pointed out at Jocelin’s Life of Kentigern. To conclude, ‘Munc dutigirn’, that is Mungo Cyndeyrn, was Cyndeyrn ap Cyngar.

[1] Evans, J.G., 1924, Cy. vol. 34, 7.

The two Deiniols

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

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

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.

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.

ByS 13 gives Sawyl the incorrect cognomen Benuchel. It should have been Benisel. As indicated on the chart, the Pabo of ByS 13 did not have the cognomen Post Prydyn, see Pabo and Sawyl.