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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

More recent analysis of the language of Culhwch ac Olwen places the composition after Geoffrey of Monmouth's HRB, though it does not show much in the way of Galfridian influence (see Simon Rodway, Dating Medieval Welsh literature, CMCS, 2013; he has suggested a composition in the second half of the 12th century). For a post-Chretien dating of Peredur, see also Andrew Breeze, “Peredur son of Efrawg and windmills”, Celtica 24 (2003): 58–64. Cagwinn (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some more books for you to check out: Ian Lovecy, "Historia Peredur ab Efrawg", in: R. Bromwich, et al. (eds.), The Arthur of the Welsh, 1991 (paperback, 1995) pp. 171-182. Helen Fulton, A Companion to Arthurian Literature, 2008, p. 133-134: https://books.google.com/books?id=qqVxhFxzPFQC&pg=PA133#v=onepage&q&f=false

I'm familiar with Breeze's argument, as I first read about it browsing the Wiki page a year ago, but I don't see how it changes my point. I'm reading THE ARTHUR OF THE WELSH, though I've been more interested in the Welsh Arthurian poems, and have been mostly reading it for that. I've read the PEREDUR essay, and I like how Carey (p. 249) used PERLESVAUS to counter the assumption that the revenge Peredur takes out for his beheaded cousin is just an invention of the author. The revenge motif is there even in the Fourth Continuation, though the head of the cousin is now a body on a bier. It's an intuition I've had for a while.

That's an aside, though. Rodway's opinion is not the final say on this subject, and most scholars would, I presume, be willing to agree with Bromwich in dating it to c. 1100. The book you linked to actually backs up the point I've been trying to make, which is that PEREDUR is not simply a version of Chretien's romance. Large chunks of it are probably from tradition. Also, you didn't answer my question about the Welsh including courtly motifs. I'd like it if you could. Phi (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, my point is that it's not like OWAIN/YVAIN and GEREINT/EREC. It's far more complex, pointing to perhaps an even synthesis of tradition and French culture in general. Even if you don't accept my point that PEREDUR is based on tradition for the bulk of the narrative, you could at least admit that it's not like OWAIN or GEREINT, which are most certainly translations of French romances with little Welsh motifs added to make it adaptable. PEREDUR departs far more greatly from the romance than either of them. Phi (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rodaway himself admits that he is not the final opinion on the matter, but the evidence he presents in his book bolsters his argument on Culhwch ac Olwen's dating; the 1100 date favored by Bromwich, et al., was always based on flimsy evidence, anyway. As far as we can tell, the character of Peredur m. Efrawc did not exist prior to Chretien de Troyes writing Perceval, so there can hardly have been a pre-Chretien Peredur tale; the fact that the character's name was drawn from a Welsh translation of Geoffrey of Monmouth, the earliest MSS of which dates to the mid-13th century century, further supports the argument that Peredur is post-Chretien. Regarding your question about courtly material, I don't really understand your point - obviously a Welsh author familiar with French culture could have incorporated elements from it into a native tale - but that doesn't seem to be the case here, as there is no evidence for a pre-Norman Peredur tale. What we have here is a Welsh author reacting to French Perceval romances and adding in some traditional Welsh motifs to make the story more palatable to a Welsh audience. Cagwinn (talk)

I don't have the authority to judge whether the Bromwich case is based on flimsy evidence, but I'd like to hear you tell me why you and Rodway think it's the case. You're presenting it as though he has the final say on the subject, but maybe I'm reading you incorrectly.

Cagwinn, the evidence you're using to support the idea that there's no evidence for a pre-Norman PEREDUR tale seems weak to me. One of the reasons is that a Welshman would not rewrite traditional material with courtly elements unless it was given to him in his source. I was arguing that it wasn't, and you seem to agree with me. Moreover, even if PEREDUR took elements from Geoffrey of Monmouth, how would that affect the argument I'm making, which is that the author took traditions he was familiar with about the figure Peredur and modified them as much as he wanted? I mean, the tale of PERCEVAL has clear Celtic characteristics, so you'd think Welshmen would have an older analogue character, even if his adventures were episodic. Even Carey says that "there are indications that the image of the severed head was associated with the Grail feast from the beginning" (248).

Angharad/Peredur is taken from Welsh tradition, but their story is laden over with courtly elements. There are so many departures the author takes from Chretien, as many scholars have pointed out, that it can't be relied on as "a Welsh author reacting to French Perceval romances and adding in some traditional Welsh motifs to make the story more palatable to a Welsh audience." He's not doing just that. He's inserting chunks of narrative and elements whose aspects cannot be deduced from PERCEVAL.

Also, the Wiki page disagrees with you on your stance -- scholars still debate as to how it's related to Chretien's poem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peredur_son_of_Efrawg#Sources_and_analogues. 68.42.93.234 (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You say " I'd like to hear you tell me why you and Rodway think it's the case. You're presenting it as though he has the final say on the subject, but maybe I'm reading you incorrectly." in response to me saying "Rodaway himself admits that he is not the final opinion on the matter"??? If you can't be bothered to carefully read what I write and then claim I am saying the opposite of what I have written, this conversation is over. Cagwinn (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry, but you're just throwing it out there as if it's this knock-down argument. I read what you wrote quite carefully, and I'm getting a little irritated from this conversation too, actually. Still, I'd like to hear the evidence presented.Phi (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]