User talk:Cagwinn

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bannaventa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brittonic language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

On PEREDUR...

Hi Cagwinn,

I was just looking over your edits of the Perceval page, and as I'd rather not get into any misunderstandings, I would like to ask you some questions about PEREDUR. As far as I know, there are two reasonable positions about the tale: One is that it was based off a body of Celtic materials also used by Chretien, the other that it was based off Chretien's romance and the continuations themselves. While you might hold a different opinion, there doesn't seem to be any consensus.

My personal opinion is that, due to the parallels in wording between it and Chretien's story, the third part of the tale, beginning immediately after Peredur is with the empress, is an amalgam based on Chretien, the continuations, and tradition. The parts before that are so radically divergent from Chretien's story that they seem to be taken from traditional sources. I am not pretending to be an expert -- this is an imperfect opinion based on the few materials I've read. Phi (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There may be some native material woven in, but drawn from various sources and not originally concerning any character named Peredur (and the name of the story's hero, Peredur fab Efrawc, is derived from a late 12th century Welsh translation of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae); the story is primarily an adaptation of Chretien's Perceval and the various Old French continuations of Chretien's unfinished tale. For more on this, see John Carey, Ireland and the Grail, Celtic Studies Publications, 2007. Cagwinn (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Peredur fab Efrawc could also come from Welsh tradition, I think -- a half-remembered version of Peredur fab Eliffer. I know your claim about its being a complete adaptation of Chretien and his continuators. I'm saying it's not the consensus. Carey's opinion is no doubt a reasonable one. I'm saying it's not the only one. I don't have Carey's book on hand. Could you cite some of his support? A summary of the arguments? Phi (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not correct. It has long since been proven that Peredur m. Efrawc is derived from Geoffrey's HRB (via the Welsh Brut translation; see Glenys Goetinck's edition of Peredur, p. 23ff.); the only connection to Peredur m. Eliffer is that Geoffrey pilfered the name for his totally a-historical character Peredurus (whom he places in the 3rd century BC!! The historical Peredur m. Eliffer dates to the 6th century AD). Geoffrey did not intend for this Peredurus to be identified with the historical 6th Peredur m. Eliffer, he just borrowed the name for his fictitious account of the pre-historic British kings (which were mostly of his own invention). I don't have time to type up quotes from Carey's book for you - you'll have to get it form the library. Cagwinn (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't think it's consensus that PEREDUR is a Welsh retelling of the romance PERCEVAL and its continuations. It could also be the case that it's based on a Celtic original. Goetinck actually argues for that, from what I remember reading her...Phi (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again, see Carey for more a summary of more recent scholarship on the subject. You will find few Arthurian scholars today who support the notion that Peredur is anything other than an adaptation of Chretien and the Continuations, with some native flourishes added in for flavor. Cagwinn (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. I've just checked out the book, and it says that the tale did draw upon PERCEVAL for the third part. This I've agreed to if you look at my first post, since I have this idea that a Welsh redactor, seeking to make more parallels with the PERCEVAL poem, tacked on material after PEREDUR's original ending. If I was unclear the rest of the time, I apologize -- sometimes my communication skills are very awkward. Still, the bulk of the story is native in character, especially the large amount of material from Angharad to the Empress of Constantinople, with some scraps of Chretien and the continuations filling in the third part of the tale. I mean, I hardly think

Aside from this, the other piece of evidence he cites are parallels between PEREDUR and PERCEVAL in the dialogue between Gwalchmai/Gauvain and Peredur/Perceval after the "blood on the snow" episode. The scholarship looks older, from 1890 and 1968, but it still holds. If you'll bear with me, I'd like to ask some questions, since I've just checked that part of both stories. They parallel quite well -- very well, in fact -- and they are more courtly than material found in native Welsh tales like Culhwch and Olwen, but I'll have to ask: Why can't a Welsh author, working under the influence of French culture but not necessarily French sources, include courtly elements in his work? Culhwch is older and pre-Galfridian, well before any chivalry could have been associated with any Arthurian heroes. But couldn't French culture have eventually taken root enough so that it would impact the Welsh Arthurian stories? Phi (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

And yes, I'm always amazed that Geoffrey's king-list comes from his probably-intentional misreading of genealogies...Phi (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)