Discussion of the Two Key
Sub-Roman Characters
by David H.R. Sims
GILDAS THE MONK
& MAELGWN THE MURDERER
Religion &
Politics
About AD 540, the monk,
Gildas,
compiled an extensive sermon, De Excidio et Conquest
Britanniae1,
in which he vehemently denounced the corruption and
torpidity of the contemporary British. As exemplars of
the current evil, he selected five rulers for especial
castigation viz.: Constantine
of Dumnonia (murder, adultery), Caninus
Aurelius2,
(parricide, adultery, general rapine), Vortipor
of Dyfed (murder, adultery, incestuous rape), Cynglas
of Rhos (seduction of a nun - the widowed sister
of his wife) and, at the top of his list, Maelgwn
Hir of Gwynedd, whose sins he expounded in the
greatest length and detail. Implying that he was
merely selecting from a much wider inventory, Gildas
alleged that Maelgwn had killed his uncle, the King,
in what was essentially a coup d'etat, taken Holy
Orders in a fit of remorse, broken them to marry and
after some years, murdered his wife and nephew in
order to marry the latter's widow, this second
marriage being conducted with some pomp and
circumstance. It is these murders which form the
subject of this essay.
Maelgwn
Hir was the great grandson of Cunedda,
a chieftain who had migrated with his band to Wales
from Manau Gododdin (traditionally) 146 years before
Maelgwn came to the throne3.
Such was the migrants' success that Cuneddan influence
extended over most of North and Central Wales. On the
Death of Cunedda's son, Einion
Yrth, it appears that the kingdom of greater
Gwynedd was divided between his sons, Owain Danwyn
(Rhos) and Cadwallon
Lawhir (Gwynedd proper). A third son, Einyaw4,
received nothing and it might be conjectured that he
predeceased Einion. The Harleian MS3859 genealogies
note a simple succession of sons; in Rhos, Cynglas
followed Owain, and Maelgwn, Cadwallon in Gwynedd. But
within this, a murder occurred. Recently, it has been
argued that Maelgwn's victim was Owain5
on the basis that since Maelgwn killed his
uncle, the King, and as Maelgwn was the son of
Cadwallon, the only qualified potential victim would
be Owain. However, if this theory is examined in
depth, certain weaknesses become apparent.
Now it
is clear from Gildas that Maelgwn overturned his uncle
in a coup of some violence -' you killed him and
nearly the bravest soldiers'... 'after your dreams of
rule by force had gone according to plan'6.
As there can be no doubt that Maelgwn ruled in Gwynedd,
it must be assumed that its control was the subject of
his coup. But, since Owain held Rhos, his removal
would have little bearing on the future of Gwynedd. It
could be argued that on the death of Cadwallon,
Gwynedd reverted to the suzerainty of Rhos, leaving
Maelgwn disinherited. However, if this were the case,
why then did Maelgwn annex only Gwynedd and not Rhos
as well. He did not, and the line of Rhos continued to
825AD7.
If only to protect his flank, the neutralisation of
Cynglas the eddling, should have been an essential
part of the plan, but Cynglas survived and flourished
to become a ruler sufficiently powerful and corrupt to
receive the bitter attention of Gildas. While there is
evidence that Cynglas fomented civil war, there is no
suggestion of his pursuit of a blood feud, which
surely would have followed the assassination of his
father. In truth, it is difficult to see any rationale
behind Owain as the victim.
There
is however, a further, equally valid, reason for
dismissing Owain as the potential victim. Gildas
actually described the deposed uncle as an 'avunculus'8
to Maelgwn. Specifically, this translates as the
brother of Maelgwn's mother. Given that he was the son
of Cadwallon, then the kingship is uniquely defined as
passing from Cadwallon to his brother-in-law, and this
excludes Owain and all other brothers or related kin9.
To achieve such a transfer peacefully, Cadwallon would
presumably have had to nominate a designated heir, a
course fraught with dangers for both of them in the
face of a disinherited son and anxious family members,
not mention the ambitious brother-in law. From the
dates calculated in the appendix and the absence of
any known ruler between Cadwallon and Maelgwn, it must
be surmised that any intervening reign was of some
brevity. It is more likely that the uncle seized the
throne. Presumably Gildas would have known this, but
he, usually voluble on the subject of tyrants10,
remains silent. While these possibilities cannot be
ignored, but overall they are hardly compelling.
Finally,
there is Cadwallon himself, and any consideration of
him in this context introduces the paradox that either
he did not rule Gwynedd, or that Maelgwn was not his
son. Now the former is known to be correct; therefore
the latter statement must be examined. It is generally
accepted that many genealogies, and especially their
earlier parts, are unreliable. Apart from simple
scribal errors such as the interpolation or removal of
persons, more sophisticated techniques included the
addition of spurious ancestries either real or
imagined to increase the prestige of the subject of
the genealogy or justify his position. In short, they
could easily become vehicles of propaganda11.
To complicate matters further, genealogies often
suffered confusion with regnal lists. Here familial
relationships could be distorted, and in many cases,
e.g. Powys12
and Wessex13,
the apparently smooth transitions of power seem to
mask some unpleasant internecine strife. The Harleian
Manuscript exhibits many of these irregularities.
There is true genealogy, as where descent is recorded
through the distaff side; there are cases where
brothers are noted. But there are also ancestries
reaching back to the Celtic
gods, to the cousin
of the Virgin Mary, to various roman officials,
and in one case, a whole series of roman emperors are
cited as son of - map........map. It must be
considered therefore that the Harleian document may
not be quite the ancestral list that it seems and that
there has been confusion or deliberate inclusion of
regnal lists in the manuscript. In which case, the
implied father/son relationship need not be regarded
as the actual state of their kinship, and therefore,
it can be argued that Cadwallon was the victim of
Maelgwn's coup. This being so, any ambiguities
concerning use of the term avunculus naturally
disappear as it would be assumed that Maelgwn was the
son of an unnamed daughter off Einion.
If
Maelgwn exhibited a naked political ambition in
removing his uncle, what were his motives for killing
his wife and nephew? Gildas was clear on this point.
Maelgwn and his paramour were steeped in sin and their
wedding could only be possible through the death of
their respective partners. Maelgwn was a strong king.
He was a successful king. There is little reason to
doubt that he could be ruthless on occasion, or that
he possessed an appetite for women, but neither is
there any evidence to suggest that he was psychopathic
or politically naive, and the deaths of prominent
members of the ruling family would certainly have
immediate internal consequences. Even if he had become
insanely infatuated (and it is fair to assume that he
had power to possess any women he wanted), he could
have incarcerated or demoted his wife, or exiled his
nephew. In short, he had no need to kill them; thus
the Gildasian view of unbridled lust lacks credence,
and other motives must be sought. Were they perhaps
caught in flagrante delicto? This certainly would lead
to the demise of the nephew and perhaps the wife as
well. But then there is the curious feature of the
public marriage that rests ill with the evidence at
hand.
To
rulers such as Maelgwn, marriage was a complex affair
carrying distinct dynastic and political overtones.
The Gildasian theory would therefore demand a devotion
and public display of affection virtually unique to
the age. However, there are also precedents for
marriage as a unifying gesture between warring
factions, where the victor married the widow of the
deposed/defeated/deceased party14,
and this might seem to have more credibility. The
following scenario is certainly incorrect in absolute
detail, but in broadest outline, it would appear to
provide an adequate explanation of events.
Nesta,
wife of Maelgwn, is the daughter of the exiled Pennine
King, Sawyl
Penuchel, scion of a family not unused to
intrigue. It is becoming increasingly likely that
Maelgwn's illegitimate son, Rhun,
will succeed his father and with this, her influence
is set to diminish considerably, or perhaps, this is
already happening. There is however a nephew at court
married to Sannan, the daughter of Cyngen
Powys. He is ambitious but without any real hope
of advancement. Nesta cultivates him, and in passing
notes that it would not be the first time that a
nephew has overthrown his uncle. Maelgwn discovers the
plot and has the conspirators executed. But he is left
with a problem since divisions remain between himself
and the cowed supporters of Nesta. To unify and cement
support, he marries Sannan in a ceremony of some
magnitude, which incidentally brings closer ties with
Powys.
The
scenario receives some support from subsequent events.
Eurgain, the daughter of Nesta, eventually married Elidyr
of the house of Dumnagual
Hen. On the death of Maelgwn, he led an attack on
Gwynedd, designed to wrest the crown from Rhun. The
invasion, which also initiated a conflict that rumbled
on for some years, was defeated and Elidyr killed.
While it is true that descent through the bastard line
was not common, it seems clear that Rhun was the
accepted ruler, and that Eurgain knew it. Therefore it
might be argued that their motive was spurious as to
the question of legitimacy but was fueled by the twin
factors of greed and revenge.
What,
then, can be concluded from the foregoing. At one
level, it is nearly certain that Maelgwn was guilty of
one murder (his uncle) but his involvement in the
deaths of his wife and nephew is much less clear. The
De Excidio is a biased, bigoted work, but it remains
the only document of any contemporary value. If the
scenario outlined above has any accuracy, then either,
Gildas was unaware of what transpired or he did know
but distorted the facts. In either case, it bodes ill
for credibility, and while his big, bad, five were
hardly candidates for a tea-time visit to a maiden
aunt, it might now be questioned whether they were
really as evil as they were portrayed. At a different
level therefore the essay demonstrates the inherent
pitfalls arising from taking Gildas at face value.
Next: Appendix:
A Note on Dates
Footnotes:
- The
Gildasian quotes are taken from the translation
given in the web site 'The
Ruin and Conquest of Britain AD 400 - AD 600'
maintained by Howard Wiseman.
- The
exact identity of Aurelius Caninus is unknown.
David Nash Ford has suggested Cyngen
Glodrydd, and this would be consistent with the
Gildasian addiction to arcane Latin puns. Cynan
Garwen, his grandson, would probably be too
late for consideration. It has also been suggested
that the Latin name is indicative not of wit, but
of a dissolute descendant of Ambrosius.
- Historia
Brittonum.
- There
is evidence that Einyaw was actually a half
brother to Cadwallon, and Einion has been credited
with two further sons Llyr and Tegog (Jesus
College MS20; The Bulletin of the Board of Celtic
Studies 20 (1963); Bartrum, P.C. (1963&7)
'Pedigrees of the Welsh Tribal Patriachs' in
National Library of Wales Journal 13 & 15)
- Phillips
& Keatman.
- Gildas,
quoted in Wiseman.
- Annales
Cambriae.
- Gildas
('Maelgwn Gwynedd' in Bartrum, P.C. (1993) A
Welsh Classical Dictionary.)
- It
might be argued that, used loosely, avunculus
could refer to any uncle, either paternal or
maternal. However Gildas was fastidious to the
point of pedantry in his Latin terminology, and it
would seem totally at variance with he rest of the
work for him to use a word in anything other than
an exact sense.
- In
the context of those who usurp power or acquire it
by dubious means.
- For
a simple, accessible discussion of the problems
raised by genealogies, see Alcock, or Brooke.
- See
the EBK on Britannia's Probable
descent of the Kings of Pengwern & Glastening.
- Brooke.
- King
Cnut I of Denmark, England & Norway
(995-1035); King Henry VII of England (1457-1509);
etc.
Sources
|
