72 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2°«» S. VIII. July 23. '59. 



King of the Dalraiad Scots, a J>. 607. He fought 

 at the battle of Arderydd (probably Alrdrie, near 

 Glasgow) in 577, as the ally of Gwenddoleu ab 

 Keidio, against Rhydderch Hael, King of Strath- 

 clyde. That battle was one of principles, and the 

 last eflfort of expiring Druidism to resist the ad- 

 vances of Christianity. Gwenddoleu represented 

 the old religion, of which the bard Merddin was 

 also one of the chief supporters, both in arm and 

 song. Rhydderch the Generous, with Drywen, son 

 of Nudd the Generous, and the sons of Eliffer (or 

 Oliver) "the large retinued," supported the Chris- 

 tian cause, and achieved a decisive triumph. 



Neither the Triads nor any other Kymric docu- 

 ments attribute cannibalism to Aeddan ; but the 

 Triads connect something of the kind with the 

 North British chief Gwenddoleu, or rather with 

 two birds kept by him, and called Adar Llychwin. 

 Mr. Humphreys Parry (^Cambro- Briton, i. 441.) 

 translates this name brown birds ; but the words 

 mean rather " the birds of the White Lake ;" and 

 there is an independent legend connected with 

 them, which I send you herewith. 



But though the Triads do not impute canni- 

 balism to Aeddan, nor directly to Gwenddoleu, 

 they do expressly impute it to Ethelfrith and the 

 Angles of Northumbria. I subjoin translations 

 of two of them : — 



"Three heroes who were Bards performed the three 

 beneficent slaughters of the Isle of Britain, The first 

 was Gall, the son of Dysgyvedawg (literally Learning- 

 drinker), who killed the two Ederyii Llychwin of Gwend- 

 doleu ab Ceidio : there was a yoke of gold upon them ; 

 and they devoured daily two bodies of the Kj-mry at 

 their dinner, and two at their supper. The second was 

 Ysgavnell, the son of Dysgyvedawg, who killed Edelfled 

 (lege Ethelfrith), King of Lloegria, who required every 

 night two noble maidens of the nation of the Kymry, 

 and violated them, and the following morning he slew 

 them and ate them. The third was Difedel the son of 

 Dysgyvedawg, who slew Gwrgi Garwlwyd (literally the 

 Rough Grey Dog-man), that was married to the sister of 

 Edelfled, and committed treachery and murder conjointly 

 with Edelfled upon the nation of the Kymry ; that Gwrgi 

 killed a male and female of the Kymry daily and de- 

 voured them ; and on the Saturday he killed two of each, 

 that he might not kill on the Sunday. And these three 

 men, who achieved the three beneficent assassinations, 

 were Bards." — Historical Triads, Third Series, No. 46. ; 

 Myv. Arch. ii. 65. 



This Sabbatarian cannibal was a degenerate 

 Briton. He had probably been taught by his 

 countrj'men to „" keep holy the Sabbath day ; " 

 but he became a cannibal in consequence of his 

 having associated with the Angles, as we are told 

 in another Triad, in which the names of Gwrgi 

 and Aeddan are conjoined : — 



" The three arrant traitors who were the cause that the 

 Saxons took the crown of the Isle of Britain from the 

 Kymry. One was Gwrgi Garwlwyd, who, after getting 

 a taste for human flesh at the court of Edelfled, King of 

 the Saxons, liked it so much that he would eat- nothing 

 but human flesh ever afterwards ; and, therefore, he and 

 his men united themselves with Edelfled, King of the 



Saxons, so that he used to make secret incursions among 

 the nation of the Kymry, and took male and female of 

 the young, as many as he ate daily. And all the lawless 

 men of the nation of the Kymry hastened to him and the 

 Saxons, where they obtained their fill of prey and spoil 

 taken from the natives of this Isle. 



" The second was Medrawd (Modred), who with his 

 men became one with the Saxons, to secure himself the 

 kingdom against Arthur ; and by reason of that treachery 

 many of the Lloegrwys (i.e. the British Ligures) became 

 Saxons. 



" The third was Aeddan the Traitor, of the North, who 

 gave himself and his men, within the limits of his do- 

 minions, to become Saxons, so as to be enabled to main- 

 tain themselves in usurpation and depredation under the 

 protection of the Saxons. And because of these three 

 arrant traitors, the Kymry lost their land and their 

 Crown in Lloegria (England) ; and if it had not been for 

 these treacheries the Saxons could not have gained the 

 island from the Kymry." — Triads, Third Series, No. 45. ; 

 Myv. Arch. ii. p. 65. 



Your readers must form their own conclusions 

 as to the historical value and credibility of these 

 cannibal statements ; but the imputation against 

 Aeddan ab Gavran is erroneous. He certainly 

 was no partisan of the Angles ; and though he 

 sided with one party of Britons against another 

 at the battle of Airdrie, it is but justice to his 

 memory to bear in mind that he assisted the 

 Britons at the battle of Cattraeth (Catterick, 

 Yorkshire), in the great attack upon Ethelfrith 

 in A.D. 603. 



It should also be observed that the third series 

 of Triads is the latest, and cannot claim a higher 

 antiquity than the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries. 

 The two other series, one probably as early as 

 the fourteenth century, present several variations. 

 Neither of them imputes cannibalism to Edelfled 

 or Ethelfrith (c/. No. 37., Myv. Arch. ii. p. 9., 

 and No. 28. p. 13.) ; both reduce Gwrgi's allow- 

 ance to one-half; and the oldest doubles the 

 supper allowance of " the Birds of Gwenddoleu," 

 which guarded his gold and silver. And indeed 

 there seem to be good grounds for absolving 

 Gwrgi also from the charge of cannibalism. He 

 is probably the same person as the " Twrch, a 

 grey-headed counsellor," named (v. 39.) by Aneu- 

 rin the contemporary of Ethelfrith. The bard 

 speaks of him in favourable terms, and commends 

 him for having come from Ethelfrith's camp to 

 ofler terms of conciliation, which were injudi- 

 ciously rejected. He also attributes to Twrch a 

 high reputation as a warrior, and implies that he 

 was more sinned against than sinning; and that 

 forcible dispossession of his lands by his coun- 

 trymen was the cause of his alliance with the 

 Angles. 



These considerations weaken the force of the 

 Triadic statements, and render it necessary for us 

 to have much more conclusive testimony before 

 the imputation of cannibalism can be accepted. 

 Ethelfrith's depredations rendered him and his 

 memory, as well as that of his ally, justly hateful 



