Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 February 2021
In a chapter of my Celtic Myth and Arthurian Romance I attempted to prove that the repeated correspondence between the adventures of Cuchulinn in Irish saga and those of Gawain in Arthurian romance could be accounted for only on the hypothesis that the intermediate Welsh figure was Gwri; and that this hypothesis was the key to many things in Arthurian nomenclature. My statement of the case, though it has convinced a number of the most competent judges, suffered from the fact that the interpretation of one Welsh name was questionable, and of another erroneous, that it involved the inconclusive and unessential derivation of the name Cuchulinn from a hypocoristic form of Curoi, and that the argument did not start from the most advantageous point of departure. In the following article I endeavor to remedy those defects.
1 R. S. Loomis, Celtic Myth and Arthurian Romance, Columbia Univ. Press. 1927, Chap. V.
2 Gwrvan I interpreted as Little Gwri on the authority of Ivor B. John, who on p. 375 of Nutt's edition of Guest's Mabinogion (London, 1904) translated Gwrvan Little Man, apparently taking -van to be the lenated form of man, which means little. Prof. Gruffydd rejects altogether the interpretation of -van as little, but accepts Gwrvan as based on Gwri. Sir John Morris-Jones kindly writes me: “It appears to me as certain that Gaulish Viro-mandus-Welsh Gwrvan as that Gaulish Penno-ouindos = Welsh penwyn: and if that is so, the second element of Gwrvan cannot be the Welsh adj. man ‘small’.” “It appears to me as if the two old names Gwri and Gwrvan had been mixed up, or that Gwri's epithet has been applied to Gwrvan.”
3 Gwmach the Giant I interpreted, through an inexcusable confusion, as Big Gwri. Prof. Gruffydd pointed out that nach has no such meaning, but agreed that Gwmach likewise is probably developed from or confused with Gwri.
4 It should be remembered, however, that competent Celtists agree that the name Cuchulainn was probably not the orginal form, but is an etymologised form, invented as a pretext for the Hound of Culann episode.
5 GL. Kittredge, Study of Gawain and the Green Knight.
6 Loomis, op. cit., pp. 10-17, 21-23: Romanic Rev., XV, 280.
7 Loomia, op. cit., pp. 158 ff.
8 In Kilkwch and Olwen we read merely that Gwalchmai “never returned home without achieving the adventure of which he went in quest. He was the best of footmen and the best of knights. He was nephew to Arthur, the son of his sister, and his cousin.” There is no reason to believe that this is genuine Welsh tradition, for even Kilkwch, dated 1075-1125, has been slightly contaminated by French influence, and we know that by 1096 Breton conteurs were telling tales of Arthur in French.
9 J. D. Bruce, Evolution of Arthurian Romance, I, 192.
10 Loomis, op. cit., p. 6
11 Revue Celt., XVI, 84 ff.
12 J. Loth, Mabinogion (1913), 1,264: Skene, Four Ancient Books, I, 262.
13 J. Loth, op cit., 1.276. Thete Gweirs are said to be Arthur's uncles, brothers of his mother, whereas Gawain was Arthur's nephew. But this list of Arthur's warriors in Kilkwck it notoriously corrupt, and nephews might easily be converted
14 Sommer, Vulgate Version, III, 269 f.
15 Skene, Four Ancient Books, I, 265.
16 The two parts of the name occur in successive lines: “The shining sword of Llwch was lifted to it, And in the hand of Lleminawc it was left.” The analogy of Llwch Llawynnawc, also a warrior of Arthur's, leaves little doubt that these two parts belong together.
17 Loth, op. cit., I, 335.
18 Loomis, op. cit., pp. 46 f. M. Ferdinand Lot (Romania, LIII, 403) admits the derivation of Lleminawc from Loinnbheimionach but denies the derivation of Llwch from Lug for two unsound reasons. He says that the final consonant g had ceased to be pronounced. If he is talking of the period before 1000, when these stories passed from Goidels to Brythons, he is mistaken. Prof. Bergin writes me, “There can be no doubt that in Old and Middle Irish it was a spirant like the g in German Tage.” The second reason for M. Lot't rejection is that Irish Lug is represented by Llew. But Lieu, according to the eminent Celtist, Prof. F. N. Robinson, it probably a cognate and not a derivative of Lug, and Llew is simply a substitute for Lieu. Cf. Sir John Morris-Jones, in Cymmrodor, XXVIII, 239. M. Lot's statement is both inaccurate and incondutive.
19 Ibid., 348. Huth Merlin, ed. Paris, Ulrich, I, 225 ff.
20 Bistoria Regum Britannise, Bk. X.
21 The Rev. Acton Griacom kindly informs me that thit reading hat the support of the most ancient texts.
22 Malory, Morte d' Arthur, Bk. VII, chap. 35. Crestien de Troyes, Ivain, 1.2398.
23 Cf. Lynete's treatment of Gareth in Malory with Orgeuilleuse' treatment of Gawain in Crestien's Conte del Graal, ed. G. Baist, 11. 6440 ff. Compare also the combination of Beheading Test and Temptation, familiar in Gawain and the Green Knight, in Gareth's adventure with Lyones.
24 Cf. the romances of Libeaus Desconus and Le Bel Inconnu.
25 J. Loth, op. cit., I, pp. 277 f.
26 Renvue Celt., XXXIII, 460 f.
27 J. Loth, op cit., I, 79 f.
28 Sir John Morris-Jones writes: “Gwallt Avwyn no doubt means ‘with hair like reins;‘” but he suggests that it is a corruption of Gwallt Eurin.
29 Loomis, op. cit., 63.
30 Loth, op. cit., 1,110; Historia Meriadoci, ed. J. D. Bruce, p. 55.
31 J. Rhys, Hibbert Lectures, p. 501.
32 Loth, op. cit., I, 109 ff.
33 Folklore Record, IV, 23, 26.
34 Folklore, XXVII, 49.
35 Bricriu's Feast, ed. G. Henderson, Irish Tests Society, II, 129.
36 Zeitschrift fur Celtische Philologie, IX, 194.
37 Bricriu's Feast, p. 101.
38 Miscellany of the Celtic Society, ed. J. O'Donovan, p. 8.
39 J. MacNeill, Celtic Ireland, p. 49 f.
40 Rhys, op. cit., p. 472, n. 2.
41 Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie, IX, 194; Eriu, II, 21.
42 I. Hull, Cuchulinn Saga, pp. 282-5.
43 H. O. Sommer, Vulgate Version, II, 367.
44 Ibid., 253;IV,61; VI,338; VII.31. Potvin, Perceval le Gallois, II, 243; III,331.
45 White Book Mabinogion, ed. G. Evans, col. 211.
46 English Studies, IX, 157.
47 J. Rhys, op. cit., 472, note 2.
48 Celtic Review, X, 273.
49 White Book Mabinogion, ed. G. Evans, col. 87. Within three lines of each other occur the lenated form of Ciluathwy and Giluathwy.
50 Loomia, op, cit., pp. 15, 49.
51 J. Loth, Mabinotion, I, 318-21.
52 C. Potvin, Perceval It Gallois, I, 64 ff. Translated by S. Evans, High Hist., Everyman ed., pp. 64 ff.
53 Loomis, op. cit., pp. 68 ft
54 Ibid., 66. Cf. Thurneysen, Irische Helden- und Königsage, p. 445.
55 Loti, op. cit., II, 336, 329.
