Talk:Preiddeu Annwfn

matching peir (line 13)
I removed the following:

mentioning that he received his gift of song from a magical cauldron .... (presumably different from the one previously mentioned)

as it depends on Koch rather, and diverges from most renderings. (Depends how you read "vyg") Redheylin (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I forgot I did that, did the same again then saw had been reverted. I meant yg, not vyg. The line is;

yg kenneir or peir pan leferit.

The "yg" does not have to be read as "my"; The "Early Welsh Glossary" gives; 1. yn (nas.) prep. in, into, upon. 2. yn (voc. ) forming adverbs and with predicative noun and adjective. 3. yn (an) our.

Nobody reads the previous line - yg kaer pedryuan pedyr ychwelyt - as "MY fort" etc.

Rather "the song itself" seems to declare that it came from the cauldron, while there is nothing but the analogy of Bran to say the poet claims to be Taliessin, and the cauldron of the head of Annwfn is not the cauldron of Cerridwen. The removed assertion requires a citation. Redheylin (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It has a citation; to the translation by Sarah Higley, available from the Camelot Project website. That text refers explicitly to the story of "Cerridwen's cauldron in 'The Tale of Gwion Bach'... in which the magic brew that will confer poetic and magic power is stolen from Afagddu by the young Taliesin. It is to this story that the poet in Preideu Annwn clearly refers, as the cauldron is literally the source of his 'foremost utterance.'" It is based on that work that the line is included. Your view sounds interesting, but if it doesn't appear in a reliable published source, it sounds like original research. I'm not saying that the Higley translation is the only or even best translation to use, but it was what I had when I started the article. At any rate the the line ought to stay in as it appears in the source barring the inclusion of reliable sources advancing an alternate view. I have since gotten some other sources that I haven't gotten around to adding in here, which do present certain different interpretations than Higley (though not on this point, iirc.) I'll try to work on this soon.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Higley is very perceptive and competetent. I see that she has indeed asserted the above, so it can obviously be stated here, though it should be attributed inline, because it is a personal view, and not stated as uncontested fact in the lede. I am surprised she said it so certainly. If she had said this about, say, "Kadeir Teyrnon" I could understand. However; it is not "original research" to see plainly that there is nothing in a text to back a given assertion, any more than it is "original research" to choose a translation if you cannot read the poem. Incidentally, it is even wrong to say that Taliessin "stole" the power, at least as far as the H Tal is concerned. I rather think that Marged Haycock will differ with this "Cerridwen" view, for one, and there is of course the mute testimony of all translators that make no mention of this "my" reading. Skene, for example, has;


 * In the first word from the cauldron when spoken


 * another online version gives;


 * The first word from the cauldron, when was it spoken?


 * which is wrong, by the way, and I do not like to see mistaken ideas included, even if they have been published. So I will not introduce wrong to balance wrong but Higley has been sloppy here and so the article as it stands has been unbalanced by reliance on a single authority. If you are after a neutral article, I'd appreciate it if you'd examine those new sources you mention and apply the counterbalance yourself. Please note that the more unusual and idiosyncratic an idea, the less chance there is of finding an explicit refutation. It will not be OR to point out that no other commentator mentions this "obvious fact". Redheylin (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My only point was that we have to go with what published sources say; we can't go with our own readings of the text. Verifiability, not truth and all that. I don't claim that Higley's is the best edition; it's just the one I had at hand. If you have access to others, by all means add them in; if they are more eminent than Higley then we can draw more from them (and I would assume that Haycock's text will be.) I will look at the other sources I have, and try to work in additional material.--Cúchullain t/ c 02:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My point is; that the matter is verifiable directly from the text itself, which is readily available. To reduce to the absurd, if we find a spelling mistake in some authority, we need not insist upon a specific correction of that instance by some other authority. If someone says something or other is "clearly implied" where no such clear implication is visible to us, we should treat that remark with caution: this is not imposing "our own reading". Nor does it mean that the article draws upon primary sources.


 * Mostly Higley is right on the ball, but she has overstated the case here. There is no such "clear implication" in the poem that the poet is meant to be Taliessin - we derive that from the other material. The poem says "the cauldron of the chief of Annwfn", whereas Cerridwen's cauldron is - Cerridwen's. This is just obvious. I do not dispute that the cauldron symbolises what Higley calls "poetic initiation", just that it refers directly to the "Ha T" (which, remember, was written some 700 years later!).


 * The Skene and Koch versions are available online. I made the translation below but I am not trying to include that reading in the text, just make it clear that there is undue weight here on one person's reading. It's OK, no big. Thanks for all your hard work. Redheylin (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have not seen the Koch translation online; do you have a link? I would think the Skene translation would be rather outdated for us to use. I have altered the wording per your concerns. At any rate this poem is cryptic enough that we really need to cite sources for any and all interpretation (something I did not do properly when I started the article). I have altered the wording per your concerns, and specified the two pieces of evidence cited in Higley's note: the magical cauldron, which she relates to the traditional story that eventually appeared in the Hanes Taliesin, and the connection with the Second Branch, which mentions Taliesin in connection to what is clearly a related tale of a high-casualty sea adventure involving a magical cauldron. I will look for my other books and try to incorporate their material; notably, one book I has discusses the different stanzas as allusions to different episodes. To me this argument seems more sensible than the suggestion that all the whole poem refers to one adventure.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Marged has "It was concerning the cauldron that my first utterance was spoken". Koch (Celtic Heroic Age): "my poetry was uttered from the cauldron". In haste, Cavila (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cavila - hasty but useful, thanks! It shows that Higley follows Koch and that Haycock differs, as I suspected. Cu, whereas I think Higley is reliable with occasional minor lapses, Skene's edition is unreliable with occasional patches of usefulness. I can no longer find the Koch version - it was posted on a university course site as a resource and may have been taken down at the end of the year. I took a chance and pasted it below. It says "based on" - it is VERY based on! - and the changes were made by a lecturer in MW, presumably to avoid copyright, so it is a valid source. Wish I'd taken down all the details, though.

Re the "different episodes" - again that idea is mentioned here but not amplified. It could be, but this time Higley will be the couterweight - see the discussion of the structure of Welsh lyric in her book at

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=diCUQOoLziIC&pg=PA188&lpg=PA188&dq=higley+spoils&source=bl&ots=7-cqCZ-Cip&sig=uGtMlP8KZgulotT-L00eR4Zh8Ew&hl=en&ei=v3CNSqa5I96gjAfsrIT0DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6

where she basically says (I think rightly) that these are songs that depend upon repetition and non-sequential allusion - effectively that there's no more narrative sequence here than in "Like A Rolling Stone" but a series of vignettes, not a series of episodes, tied together with repetition. Obviously there's comparatively little "action" after the first couple of stanzas, so I do not go for the "seven episodes" theory but, once again, if it is notable, verifiable, attributed and balanced it ought to be in there.

BTW, the Diwrnach sequence in Culhwch is also much cited. Redheylin (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the argument in the book I read (Thomas Green's Concepts of Arthur) was more or less akin to what Higley says - that these are rather allusions to episodes and bits of traditional lore that would have been familiar to the reader. Thinking of it I doubt he was saying that the allusions were necessarily divided up by stanza, as some stanzas contain more than one reference, and the later stanzas go on their own track entirely. What he does note is that some of the Caer names do appear elsewhere in Welsh literature, and thus are likely to be references to different places rather than multiple names for one place (off the top of my head the ones I can remember appearing elsewhere are Caer Ochren and Caer Vandwy.) Loomis was the one who read it as more of a narrative or cohesive strand of narratives, but he was looking at it from the perspective of Arthurian narratology.


 * There are a few things that most of the sources are likely to agree on. Most obviously, Stanza II contains a clear reference to the well-known cauldron-raiding story that later appeared in Culhwch (with the otherwordly destination replaced with Ireland and the pen annwfn replaced with Diwrnach) and in the Second Branch (with Arthur himself replaced with Bran the Blessed and company). I recall one of my sources noting that the connection between the episode alluded to in Preiddeu Stanza II and the Diwrnach adventure is strengthened even further by the (much later) list of the Thirteen Treasures of Britain, which gives the Cauldron of Dyrnwch the Giant similar properties to the cauldron of the pen annwfyn in Preiddeu.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It depends which came first - C and O or "The Spoils". I think that C and O refers to Taliessin. That's why I can't engage in arguments that let us interpret the latter by means of the former. As for the Bran story, I have no idea. I rather think both are quite strongly influenced by similar Irish material. Take your point about the 13 treasures, and it is right that Vandwy, at least, occurs elsewhere - in the Black Book. You know, we are a little inconsistent here - when I worked on "Cad Goddeu", it was all Nash, Skene and Graves, and no Koch, Haycock et al. Here it is the other way around. Fraid I do not have that many books, myself. Anyhow it is OK for now, but I think Higley lets us lay more stress on the claims of superior knowledge that help make sense of the latter half, which was often cut by people who were wanting just a proto-grail adventure of Arthur. Redheylin (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Priddeu Annwfn

 * I adore the sovereign lord of the royal land -
 * May his dominion extend over the reaches of the cosmos!


 * Perfect was Gweir's prison in the Faery Fort.
 * Due to the ministry of Pwyll and Pryderi
 * none before him had entered therein.
 * In the heavy blue chain a faithful servant kept him
 * and for the Spoils of Annwfn keenly he chanted
 * and unto Doom shall continue in bard-orison.
 * Three fulnesses of Prydwen we entered in:
 * Save for seven none came up from Fort Faery.


 * Composed for renown am I, a verse heard
 * four times over in the four-quartered fort
 * in the song of the cauldron when first it gave voice,
 * warmed by the breath of nine maidens.
 * The Chief of Annwn's cauldron, who finished
 * the rim around its edge with pearl,
 * swore never should it cook a coward's food?
 * A bright flashing sword was raised to it
 * and it was left in the hand of Llenlleawc
 * and lanterns shone before Hell's mouth's door
 * and when we went in with Arthur trouble glittered:
 * Save for seven none came up from Fort Mead-mad.


 * Composed for renown am I, a verse heard
 * on the stone-doored isle in the four-quartered fort.
 * Tranquillity and obscurity mingled
 * shiny wine their drink before their retinue.
 * Three fulnesses of Prydwen we went upon the main,
 * Save for seven none came up from Castle Rigor.


 * I am not meet for petty men, the book a boss:
 * They saw not Arthur's virtue beyond the Fort of Glasses.
 * Three score centuries of men stationed on the wall:
 * to speak with its sentinel was not easy.
 * Three fulnesses of Prydwen we went with Arthur,
 * Save for seven none came up from Fort Hindrance.


 * I am not meet for petty men, slack their habit:
 * They know not, they, on what day who was made,
 * what hour of the fine day was born to whom,
 * who made him who went not to the dale of Tefwy.
 * They know not, they, the great Speckled Ox in headgear
 * with seven-score links in its collar-chain.
 * And when we went with Arthur, a sorry visit,
 * Save for seven none came up from Fort Divine Height.


 * I am not meet for petty men, slack their spirit:
 * They know not, they, what day the Chief was made,
 * what hour of the fine day was born the owner,
 * what a beast they keep with its silver head.
 * When we went with Arthur, a sorry strife,
 * Save for seven none came up from Fort Hoar-side.


 * Monks throng like a kennel of pups
 * from disputing with the masters who instruct them
 * whether the run of the wind is one, or one the ocean's waters
 * or one the spark of fire - an illimitable clamour.


 * Monks mass like a pack of wolves
 * from disputing with the masters who instruct them -
 * They know not when deep dark and dawn divorce
 * nor who sends the wind, nor who moves it,
 * where it disappears to, what land it strikes.


 * A hallowed grave in dying, with the grave an altar:
 * I adore the sovereign lord, the great,
 * That I be not sad, Christ grant me.

Another version
Substituting source URL:

http://www.courseweb.uottawa.ca/CLT1170/preiddeuannwvyn2006.htm

Redheylin (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Why Welsh?
Why is the title of the page in Welsh? Redheylin (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Redheylin. That's how the poem is best known in reliable sources, though I guess that Preiddau Annwn Preiddeu Annwn (without the f) is a tad more common. Also, if you want to point readers to more in-depth literature on the subject, they will have better luck looking for the poem under the Welsh name. Cavila (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Google Hits:
 * "Spoils of Annwfn" = 18,600
 * "Preiddeu Annwfn" =  4,450
 * "Preiddau Annwn"  =     11

Redheylin (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, slip of the mouse! What I meant was Preiddeu Annwn, per reliable secondary sources published in the last three decades or so, like Marged Haycock, Norris J. Lacy, John Carey, etc. No doubt Google hits will give you different results (especially where Preiddeu Annwn gets a translation), but then the great Godzilla that's called Google is hardly representative of modern usage in RS. Cavila (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm getting somewhat more Google results for "Preiddeu Annwn" than "Preiddeu Annwfn" (5,960 to 4,710, respectively). "Annwfn" just happened to be the spelling used in the book I referred to when I began the article; as one can see it is not even the spelling used in Higley's online edition that I ended up using for most of the material. I have no preference, though I tend away from the (partial) English translation as not well established and not totally accurate. However, Google hits carry a lot of weight around here for some people, as seen, for example at the travesty recorded here and here, where it was decided that the title of one of the most important novels in the English language was ambiguous with a metal band named after it.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's natural that sources aimed at translation and exegesis of the Welsh poem would use the Welsh title - and these are certainly the most important modern scholarly sources. I do not think Prof. Lacy would claim anything more than that he follows these scholarly sources. The same goes here for "Kat Godeu". I have gone out of my way to make sure a little of the original is visible in the text - poetry deserves that - but I still doubt whether Welsh page titles are quite wiki-style. Cavila, I have to point out that your recent addition "Battle of Gwen Ystrad" (for which many thanks!) differs. A simple consistency looks appropriate. Redheylin (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)