|
|
Post by Heron on Aug 14, 2011 21:08:46 GMT -1
The latest number of the journal Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies contains an article by Ronald Hutton outlining a view that the hitherto accepted derivations of characters from The Mabinogion as Brythonic deities is not justified.
He doubts that Mabon son of Modron is derived from Maponos son of Matrona. He also doubts that Rhiannon is derived from *Rigantona, which effectively means that there was no goddess of that name as no other evidence exists except the philological evidence linked to the medieval texts. In the process he also rejects the argument about sovereignty as based only on a back projection from a medieval text and therefore not attested in Antiquity. Similar doubts are cast on Lugus as a pan-celtic deity. Much of his objection is based on scepticism about linguistic evidence alone being sufficient to clinch the
pagan origins, though he does develop other arguments.
Some of us might feel that this undermines some of the assumptions that underlie our practice. If Hutton's views have any validity (and some specialists, like Megli, might be inclined to challenge them in the journal itself as I know he has with Hutton directly) we would not be able to rely on attributions that we take for granted as being validated by scholarship. I've discussed this on my Gorsedd Arberth blog and tried to outline an alternative approach.
It would clearly be useful to have some discussion about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by nellie on Aug 15, 2011 4:49:04 GMT -1
I am a firm believer that the Gods continue to present themselves in any way we and they communicate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 15, 2011 8:20:42 GMT -1
I will wait and see what response he gets from linguists as to the likelihood of that side of his argument.
But as nellie says, we have tapped into something that is answering to those names and fulfilling those roles. I dont see us so much as starting with the name and going from there, more s finding the most appropriate name for something already there and already with form and function.
|
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Aug 15, 2011 10:03:18 GMT -1
My name is spelt Neil but has been variously spelt otherwise such as Neal, Neale, Niel etc. Using academic vigour as is being raised here, should I therefore not respond except to the correct spelling? (Angels on a pinhead......)
RR
|
|
|
|
Post by Midori on Aug 16, 2011 18:44:35 GMT -1
I agree, RR,
Regional pronunciation differences is what I see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 16, 2011 20:30:11 GMT -1
heron, do you have an electronic version of his paper by any chance? I would be interested to have a look through at his arguments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Aug 16, 2011 21:03:05 GMT -1
I agree, RR, Regional pronunciation differences is what I see. It's not got anything to do with regional pronunciation. The philologists have identified patterns of sound changes from Brythonic to early Welsh which would mean that Rigantona would become Rhiannon, Maponos would become Mabon etc, and so have concluded that Rhiannon and Mabon must have developed from those earlier forms. Hutton insists that this does not constitute sufficient proof that they actually did develop from those earlier forms. |
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Aug 16, 2011 21:06:33 GMT -1
heron, do you have an electronic version of his paper by any chance? I would be interested to have a look through at his arguments. No. But individuals can subscribe to the magazine for £10 a year. Or order a single copy for £5 from the Dept of Welsh at Aberystwyth. |
|
|
|
Post by deiniol on Aug 16, 2011 21:52:12 GMT -1
The philologists have identified patterns of sound changes from Brythonic to early Welsh which would mean that Rigantona would become Rhiannon, Maponos would become Mabon etc, and so have concluded that Rhiannon and Mabon must have developed from those earlier forms. Hutton insists that this does not constitute sufficient proof that they actually did develop from those earlier forms. What on earth does he propose they do come from then? |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 17, 2011 9:46:09 GMT -1
No. But individuals can subscribe to the magazine for £10 a year. Or order a single copy for £5 from the Dept of Welsh at Aberystwyth. Heron, do you have a URL for the site where you can order from? i di a search on the Aber website and dept. website and couldn't spot anything. I might just have been a little dim at hat lime last night. |
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Aug 17, 2011 10:35:53 GMT -1
The philologists have identified patterns of sound changes from Brythonic to early Welsh which would mean that Rigantona would become Rhiannon, Maponos would become Mabon etc, and so have concluded that Rhiannon and Mabon must have developed from those earlier forms. Hutton insists that this does not constitute sufficient proof that they actually did develop from those earlier forms. What on earth does he propose they do come from then? He seems to be claiming to be agnostic about this!  You could, of course, write a reply in the journal. |
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Aug 17, 2011 10:40:37 GMT -1
No. But individuals can subscribe to the magazine for £10 a year. Or order a single copy for £5 from the Dept of Welsh at Aberystwyth. Heron, do you have a URL for the site where you can order from? i di a search on the Aber website and dept. website and couldn't spot anything. I might just have been a little dim at hat lime last night. No web contact details in the journal itself. The editors's research page on the Aber site is here : www.aber.ac.uk/en/cymraeg/ymchwil/patrick-sims-williams/But the journal just has postal details. Order from CMCS, Department of Welsh, Old College, King Street, Aberystwyth SY23 2AX £5 for the single issue which includes postage. There are two book reviews by Megli in there too. |
|
|
|
Post by megli on Sept 5, 2011 22:54:56 GMT -1
RH, whom I respect greatly, isn't in any way a philologist or linguist and would freely admit such himself, so his arguments in the cases Heron identifies are IMHO very weak----because he has quite deliberately chosen to ignore linguistic arguments in which he can't intervene personally/professionally. He would say, with characteristic humility, that he has chosen this line because he's not expert enough to weigh that particular kind of evidence. But I fear, however, that that kind evidence might be, in fact, really rather crucial in this case.
I do not feel he has altered the original consensus in the field: though the article is as always lucid and worth a read.
|
|
