RETURN TO CONTENTS

As an introduction to the detailed later discussion we will first summarize our perspective of Arthurian and Welsh Celtic mythology. We must emphasize that this is but a part of a far larger body of information contained in the totality of major Indo-European mythology – Welsh Celtic, Irish Celtic, Germanic (mainly Nordic), Greek, Persian, and particularly Indian. Taken together they permit the reconstruction of many parts of an "original" Indo European mythology. The role of Indian mythological and religious works cannot be over emphasized since it alone is vastly larger than all the other sources combined; consequently, in general, each of the other mythologies finds counterparts in India rather than elsewhere.

We shall attempt to summarize those aspects of the other mythologies which link with Welsh Celtic, but the reader should be aware that knowledge of all of the mythologies is essential to properly appreciate their interconnected nature.

And Arthurian mythology is a major part – but still only a part – of Welsh Celtic Mythology. However, the number of documents devoted to Arthur and his times overshadows the sum of all those describing other legends, and for this reason alone we must give pride of place to Arthur. And, as we will show, the incredible present fascination with the Arthurian legends is hardly new since the writing and re-writing of the tales has been going on for at least the past 800 years.

To most people the legend of Arthur is undoubtedly seen as a romanticized but largely true version of the struggle of a heroic British king who was the ideal warrior with a magic sword called Excalibur, and who was always pure at heart. After a struggle to prove his right to the throne – with the aid of the powerful magician, Merlin - he defeated his internal enemies and overcame the invaders. He attracted the finest knights to his court and created a circle – a Round Table – of these courageous warriors. After their success in war. as devout Christians, they undertook a higher task and strove to find the Holy Grail – the cup from which Jesus drank. But human weaknesses were not overcome by fleshly desires, and Arthur was betrayed by the infidelity of his wife, Guinevere, with the greatest of his knights, Lancelot. And a sin of his youth where he begot an incestuous son, Mordred, with his half sister, Morgan, led to a final battle with Mordred, and the fatal wounding of Arthur. But Arthur did not die since he was taken away to the magic island of Avalon where he still lives, to come again when his country again needs him.

But, unfortunately, even when the magic is taken out, almost none of this story has any basis in truth. There was indeed an invasion of Britain in the Sixth Century AD, and there is a slim reference to a Roman-British man who rallied the disheartened British and fought successfully against Saxon invaders. And this man may even have been called Arthur though the name that has come down to us is different, Aurelius Ambrosius.

But the legends of Arthur are from Welsh folklore, and, we believe, are far, far, older than Roman and British times.

We believe that the Welsh monk Nennius, probably completely honestly, identified the great Welsh hero who rallied the Britons with King Arthur of Welsh folklore, and so the legend of Arthur had its beginning.

The first full telling of telling of the traditional story of Arthur was in 1136 AD. The entire tale of Arthur might have been still-born if it was not for the fact that it was the culmination of a supposed "History of Britain", written by a Norman-Breton priest called Geoffrey of Monmouth, and it suited the views of both Welsh and Normans of his time. His book, called "A History of Britain", written in Latin, gave a history of the British from their origin from Brutus as a descendant of refugees from Troy (similar to that claimed in Irish mythology) up to the death of Arthur. It claimed to have been a translation of "a little Welsh book", given to him by another priest, Walter Map, but such an original document has not been satisfactorily identified. It apparently created a furor in Geoffrey’s own time with noisy supporters and opponents. But, detractors notwithstanding, it made its way to the Norman and French courts of northern France and, in a remarkable odyssey, spread through the courts of England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain – not to speak of Wales. It so fascinated the courtiers of Europe that it was added to for hundreds of years, and appeared in many different languages in different forms. For example it was translated from Latin into French and then into English, as well as into Welsh with whom it was understandably popular. And these legends were not simply based on a translation of Geoffrey’s work since they were added to, both from the imagination and probably from additional, but unknown, Celtic sources.

It is only fair to note that many serious scholars support the view that an "Arthur" truly existed in Britain at the time of the first Saxon invasions and that he played an important role in fighting them (see, for example, "The Age of Arthur" by John Morris). Indeed, examination of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s book shows that he apparently added his (somewhat imperfect) knowledge of British and Roman history to the mythological "history" which is clearly not factual. Since we are only interested in the mythological or folklore aspects, our interest in the possibly factual historical contents is limited and essentially is only to identify and separate them.

The Celts, not the Germans, were the barbarians of Europe in the years surrounding the birth of Christ. It is probable that both the Irish (Q-Celtic) and Welsh (P-Celtic) peoples originated in the lands of northern Europe in the region of the Baltic Sea. Both groups probably moved south then west and the Irish finally arrived in Ireland, by sea from Spain according to their traditions. But the Welsh Celtic peoples occupied what is now Spain, France, northern Italy, southern Germany, the lands to the east north of Greece and even arrived in Turkey. To illustrate, their name for their land was Galicia or Galatia, and this name is still found in southern Poland (or the Ukraine), and in Spain, and St Paul in his "Letter to the Galatians", was writing to a "Welsh" speaking group in Turkey.

The Celtic move into Britain was largely to find a safe haven from the Romans, and Julius Caesar pursued them there after subjugating the other Celtic lands. England and Wales fell under Roman rule for about 400 years and Latin became the language of the elite there. But unlike France and the other lands where the Celtic language disappeared, Welsh re-surfaced fully when the Roman legions departed as the empire weakened and Saxon and other pirates raided and then invaded Britain. A very important consequence of the Roman withdrawal was that many Celts fled from Britain to the relative safety of northern France, founding the state still called Brittany. The cross-channel links remained strong for hundreds of years and Welsh-speaking Bretons were a major part of the Norman forces who conquered Britain. A consequence of this was that Welsh legends must have survived in Brittany though we have none which have survived in Welsh language document like the Welsh Mabinogion, and they may have been entirely oral. A fact which derives from this that at least as many Welsh tales have come to our knowledge through their survival (in French) in northern France as have come from Britain.

Since the Arthurian legends are of Welsh Celtic origin we would expect that most of the sources would be in the Welsh language; this is not so perhaps because the European language of literacy was Latin, but some important Welsh documents have survived. They mostly stand by themselves, and are best discussed separately.

The most important is called the "Mabiniogion" a collection of eleven Welsh stories which became well known when they were translated into English and published in 1863. The origin of the name Mabinogion has not, in my judgment, been satisfactorily explained, and our studies suggest an alternative explanation. In truth it is only the first four which should be so called since they alone end specifically identified as "Mabinogi", and, of all sources, they alone portray a mystical world that is clearly very ancient and not part of the Christian world that pervades Arthurian stories. These four, surely the oldest, have no mention of Arthur, and while the other tales include King Arthur, it is essentially only to include him and his court as a part of other adventures.

And the tales of Arthur lack much detail and do not look much like latter accounts. Arthur’s parentage is not mentioned, there is no mysterious birth, no Merlin, and though there is a final battle between Arthur and Mordred, this is a result of a misunderstanding, not malevolence. But there is a Queen Gwenhwyfar, but no Lancelot and betrayal of Arthur by the pair.

The other source is "Trioedd Ynys Prydain", or "The Triads of the Island of Britain", a collection of ninety-six three-line rhymes which record people and events that occur in Welsh lore as triplets. They were probably intended a mnemonics only and are often terse and enigmatic. These have been collected and magnificently analyzed by Rachel Bromwich, and, although the title is in Welsh, the rest is in English. The age and origin is not clear and it is probable that they are a mixture of truly ancient sources and later history.

These are the accounts of the clerics Gildas (about 540AD), Bede (about 700 AD), and Nennius (about 800 AD).

Gildas was a monk who gives the earliest account of the Saxon invasion and the British resistance. He tells of a British leader of Roman ancestry who rallied the Britons and inflicted defeats on the Saxons – but he is clearly named "Ambrosius Aurelianus", not "Arthur". He also says that the Saxons were traitorously invited to come to Britain by an un-named British leader.

Bede writes very briefly of the Saxon invasion and also gives the name of Ambrosius Aurelianus for the British leader; he also gives a name of the British king who invited the Saxons as Vortigern.

But Nennius, a Welsh monk, writing much later, opens up the "history" in a striking way since he tells of the descent of the Britons from Aeneas, a survivor of fallen Troy; via a Roman consul called Brutus who gave the Britons their name (similar to Irish tradition). He then adds something of Roman occupation of Britain, and expands the story of the traitorous British ruler who he also calls Vortigern. But Nennius expands the Vortigern tale to include a magical boy "Merlin, also called Ambrosius". And, with no indication of how he came on the scene, a leader called Arthur appears, who is victorious in twelve battles.

This book was written in about 1136 AD, and is, in the writer’s opinion, perhaps the most important single Arthurian work , since it is the only document which includes fragments of the oldest Indo European legends and also gives the first full account of the story of Arthur and his family.

Geoffrey was a Welsh speaking Breton priest of Oxford who arrived in Britain as part of the Norman invasion.and who simply claims to be translating "a little Welsh book" into Latin. The account was eagerly accepted by the Welsh since it gave them ancient standing in Britain, and it did not harm the standing of the Normans and their Breton allies.

But the book was controversial from its beginning, and its status is still a matter of debate. This is easy to understand since the first third gives a "history" of British kings and events from the fall of Troy until the coming of the Romans that is a mass of unfamiliar names and details. The next portion is a apparently a mixture of Geoffrey’s limited knowledge of the Roman domination of Britain coupled with an account of the Saxon invasion, based at least partially on Nennius. But here, for the first time, we hear of the magical boy called Merlin. And the last third is an account of the overthrow of the traitorous British king and the Saxons by the family of Arthur and the glorious reign, conquests, and death of Arthur.

But, as in the Mabinogion, many later key events of Arthur’s life are not present. Merlin is prominent, but there is no sword in the stone. And Mordred, who is only said to be his nephew, is faithful to the end, and dies in a battle for Arthur’s cause, not in a war against him. In addition, as we shall discuss later, there is no Lancelot who loves Guinevere and betrays Arthur.

Geoffrey’s critics must have been infuriated by its success, since not only was it translated into Welsh (many copies of these survive), but it was also promptly translated into French by Robert Wace and , in this form was immediately known to the French as well as Norman courts. Futhermore this rhyming version was then translated in the late 1200’s into English by an English priest called Layaman. These versions are generally known as "Bruts", after the Welsh name, "Brut, Y Brehinedd". These versions differ somewhat from the original, but have basically the same content except that the Welsh versions have Welsh spelling of the names.

But not all continental legends derived from Geoffrey’s work, at least not from is alone. For whatever reason the Arthurian legend became incredibly popular in the courts of Europe and Chrestien de Troyes in northern France wrote five Arthurian books between 1170 and 1182, "Erec et Enide", "Cliges", "Yvain", and an uncompleted story about Parsifal called "Li Conte du Graal". For the first time the gallant Lancelot appears and the consensus is that Lancelot was conceived as a French hero to balance the British emphasis. And we see that the Grail now makes its appearance.

But, it would be wrong to assume that Chrestien’s additions were simply fictional, since, although we have no Breton documents, the Welsh stories were as much native to the Bretons as to the Britons. For example, the story of Parsifal is clearly derived from the Welsh Peredur who is found in the Mabinogion, and, as we will see later, the continental sources add some important links to Indo European legends that are unique.

Chrestien was by no means the only French writer of Arthurian stories, and there is a massive compilation this literature which is known as the "Vulgate", since it was written in the vulgar French tongue, not in Latin. In fact, by far the largest source of Arthurian legends is of French origin.

Some of the most important of the continental versions are German. There are two stories, the "Parzival" of Wolfram von Eschenbach and the "Tristan" of Gottfried von Strassbourg. The last of these apparently had a British source which was based on Drystan of the Mabinogion, but this has not survived. But Wolfram openly says that his story was derived from that of Chestien. Wolfram claimed to be illiterate Spanish and Italian variants and extensions of Chrestien’s work are known, and that the written version came from a scribe listening to his telling of the story; odd though this may seem, this could account for the odd spelling of many of the names. But Wolfram added a large part to the beginning of the book which is not found in Chrestien’s work or anywhere else; he claims that this was told to him by "Master Kyot of Provence", and this is all we know of the source. But there must have been some such source (more likely Breton than Provencal) since it contains information that is clearly derived from old legends.

The moral is that though earlier versions are less likely to have suffered from changes by later writers, the many different ways in which the Welsh legends may have survived means that there may be authentic parts of old legends in later documents.

We now come to the version of Arthur’s story that is so popular that it often seems to be taken as the only version that need be read. Its popularity is easy to understand since it is written in English and is one of the books produced by the first English printer, Caxton in 1436 AD. But the reader should remember that Malory frequently refers to "the French book" as his source, and this is a famous example of "the French connection". And we should remember that over 200 years have passed since the story told by Geoffrey and this is ample time for adding to the tales.

However, things are not quite what they seem since even the identity of the author is in doubt, and Malory leaves much out as well as adds important facets. Arthur’s strange conception and the importance of Merlin are prominent, and the romance and tragedy of Lancelot and Guinevere are now firmly embedded in the story. And now we have the knightly Christian ethic in full flower together with the search for the Grail. And the tragic death of Arthur (if indeed he does die) at the hands of his incestuous son provide a crowning climax.

But how many readers – and scholars – are aware of and note that Arthur was not the perfect being that most people imagine. For at the end of the first Book, Arthur has all the children born on May-Day sent to sea in an unmanned boat since Merlin has warned him that one of these will cause his death; and the only survivor is his son or nephew, Mordred. This is not the image which even scholars apparently wish to publicize and the entire incident is simply not found even in scholarly works where completeness may be expected.

Arthurian mythology is so extensive that it is impossible to cover its full range in a document of this type. The best we can do is to give a very brief overview of the type of information contained in the sources and select a few significant examples of the content. The content of all the sources is given fully in the complete document. And we must emphasize that the mythology as a whole is fragmented and that a great deal has simply been lost. This latter comment applies particularly to the absence of the stories of gods, demons, and mysteries which are found in all other mythologies but which have presumably been lost because of the strength of Christian beliefs.

The Mabinogion and the Triads are mostly useful because of their genealogical information and not because of their stories. This is all we can expect from the Triads because they are just snippets of information, but the Mabinogion contains long and complex stories where we might expect more.

The stories of significance are just two.

First comes the confirmation that there was a conflict between Arthur and his nephew, Medrawd (the Welsh form of Mordred). But it is made very clear that this was in the nature of a misunderstanding (albeit obviously a severe one) and not a result of a deep seated hate. Specifically there is a character in the "Dream of Rhonabwy" called Iddawg, who was "the Churn of Britain" since he was one of the messengers between Arthur and Medrawd before the final battle, and he couched the messages in "the rudest possible way" because he wanted war.

The second are the accounts of Pryderi who is the central figure of the first four books that are truly the Mabinogion. His importance lies in our possible identification of him with the apparently later Peredur who became Percival and Parzival on the Continent, and who we identify with a character of Indian myth.

The genealogical information in the Mabinogion is very extensive (far more than elsewhere) but given in fragments and not easy to interpret. Readers familiar with Malory and such later tales will not expect to find much more than Arthur’s immediate family who are few in number, but the Mabinogion contains much more. For example, we are given names of Arthur’s sons, of cousins, and "men from Caer Dathal, related to Arthur on his father’s side". And Caer Dathal is the home of the great king Math, uncle of Gwydion, and so that here is another probable link to Arthur.

But the mere presence of a few names shows the importance of the sources, in particular the wizard Gwydion, and Rica.

The importance of Gwydion has been clear ever since Robert Graves pointed out the equivalence of his name with Gwoden, the oldest form of the Norse god later called Woden and then Odin. These names are also equivalent to the name of Gadhin as a name of the Indian king of the gods usually called Indra, a discovery first noted by the present writer and which spurred the present study of Indo European mythology.

But Rica is a different case in that it shows the importance that a minor fact can have. He is mentioned but twice as the father of Gormant, but the second time we are told that Gormant was "Arthur’s brother on his mother’s side; his father was chief elder of Cornwall". This can only mean that Rica was a previous husband or lover of Eigr (the Welsh Igraine) before Uther, and Gormant was Arthur’s half-brother. The importance lies in the similarity of "Rica" with an Indian name with a similar relationship our identification of "Arthur" in Indian legends.

The accounts of Gildas, Bede, and Nennius are brief and are included in the later stories so that we need not discuss them here. In addition, the major themes are generally covered in the later section which gives parallels in other mythologies and will be discussed there.

However in the case of Geoffrey of Monmouth we should point out something that had not been previously seen, namely, that the extensive list of rulers and others given in the first part of his history actually contains a single list of kings which has been repeated some five or six times. Some names in this "kinglist" appear several times, for example "Sisillius" which appears in exactly this form four times, and, with small variants, Morvid/Morvidus/Mordred. Some names appear just twice, some more frequently, and some are not repeated at all. And, as might be expected, there are variations in the spelling which make some identifications more speculative. But the fact remains that there is duplication which indicates that the stories themselves – not just the names of persons – are likely to have been artificially separated and should be recombined.

Intriguing though this is we have not – as yet – been able to combine them in a coherent fashion. We should note that this repetition and separation of generations (and presumably the stories) is found in several Indo European mythologies, notably Irish and Indian, and is a potential source of difficulty in interpretation.

Another point of considerable interest is that we have found that the accounts of Arthur’s life given in Geoffrey and by Malory are completely compatible, and can in fact be interleaved with no difficulty. This combined account is, we believe, the best the examine when discussing the story of Arthur.

Here we shall give a few key examples of parallels in Arthurian and Indian mythology, based upon similarities in names and the themes.

The most striking example is the many points of similarity between the story of Arthur and the Ramayana, one of the major epics of India. There are over twenty of these. To mention but the main similarities, both the youthful Arthur and Rama are guided by a magus (Merlin and Vishwamitra respectively). Lancelot who is friend and ally of Arthur but loves his queen and Rama’s brother and companion Lakshmana is said by Shita to be in love with her. A demon called Lankesha abducts the queen and takes her south over the sea while Lancelot takes his queen south, over the sea to France. In both cases the queen is recovered by her husband, and in both she is tainted by a suspicion that she was not forced to go with her abductor; the Pope and the Indian gods respectively tell the husbands to take the queen back. In Malory the queen enters a nunnery, and in the Ramayana she is banished.

But perhaps the most striking single incident,because of the identical names and the theme, is probably the battle between Balin and his brother. In Malory the knight Balin comes to fight his brother simply because each is in full armor and refuses to be the first to raise his helmet and declare his identity; they give each other mortal wounds before revealing their faces and then die. In the Ramayana, the monkey Sugriva is induced by Rama to kill his brother Balin the king because Rama wishes Sugriva to become the sovereign and use his armies to help recover his abducted wife, Shita. Balin is killed, but not by Sugriva who is unable to overcome him, but with an arrow fired by Rama. The parallel is not complete because only one brother dies in the Indian legend, but the identical name of Balin and the fact that the two brothers fight is surely beyond coincidence. Although not identical, Geoffrey’s story of the conflict between Belinus and his brother Brennius probably has the same source, though they do not kill each other (they are reconciled by their mother).

And, outside the context of the Ramayana, we note that the uncle of Krishna (one of whose names is Mridu) tries to kill him as a baby while Mordred’s uncle, Arthur, also tries to kill him as a baby but is ultimately killed by him.

Most importantly we note the remarkable resemblance between the characters of the greatest magus of India and Merlin. Both guided their youthful charges, Rama and Arthur, both were leaders in war, both were tempted by seductresses, and both are said to be still alive. We do not have a close match in names, but Mitra and Myrddin (the Welsh Merlin) are similar.

Finally we note that the difficulty in fitting the character and role of "The Fisher King" in Arthurian stories presents no problem if we refer to Indian legend since the magician Vishwamitra was literally born of a fish who has swallowed his father’s semen. And as Merlin was the child with no father so Vishwamitra too could be said to have no human father.

This account has two aspects, the question of the identity of the Celtic character, and the relationship to the Indian Prahrada. While the epic of the Ramayana is well known, the story of Prahrada is likely to unfamiliar. Our full account gives Prahrada’s story in detail,but here we shall only indicate it as in the comparison given below.

The Celtic account is fairly straightforward since scholars have shown that Percival of Chrestien de Troyes is derived from the Welsh Peredur despite the fact that the names are a little different. And the identity of the German Parzival and Percival is unquestioned. The question of equating Peredur and Pryderi is not new to scholars, but, it must be said, the main point is the similarity of names.

However, if we are allowed to merge the Celtic exploits we see a number of parallels with Prahrada.

First, the father of Pryderi is Pwyll the possible son of Arawn, and Prahrada’s foster-father is Pulastya, son of Arvan. But the father of Parzival is Gahmuret, and Prahrada’s is Garutmat. The uncle of Peredur is the Fisher King while the father of Prahrada is Vishwamitra, born of a fish. The elder brothers of both Peredur and Prahrada die, both Peredur and Prahrada lose their thrones. And finally, Pryderi is killed by Gwydion and Prahrada by Gadhin.

Having read a considerable number of the purported accounts of the legend of Arthur, it is clear that many are superficial, and even those of scholars are incomplete. There is a strong tendency to preserve the idealistic character of Arthur, and, in particular ignore the particularly nasty episode where he causes the deaths of the children born on May-Day in an attempt to kill his nephew or son, Mordred. And this latter is at the urging of the great magician Merlin.

And it is difficult to understand why the Arthur of the Mabinogion has been so ignored. Granted that the Welsh stories are clearly incomplete, but they give detailed accounts that must reach back into Celtic folklore. In this regard we would particularly make the point of considering the genealogical information. It is not easy to follow since it consists of a series of short statements of relationships, but this information is not given elsewhere and there is ample evidence of a large numbers of relatives of Arthur.

Furthermore, while the dismissal of the first part of Geoffrey of Monmouth is completely understandable – in no way is it a history of Britain – there is no excuse for not recognizing it as a mythological account, comparable to those found in Irish lore for example.