Talk:Ceridwen

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mythology Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

No mention of modern-day attitudes to her in this article?

What about Ronald Hutton's extremist "argument" (zealously so, as far as I can gather) that Cerridwen is not a goddess in any way, shape or form (alleging there to be "no evidence", though what he considers "evidence" he does not say); and that her name means "Crooked Woman" (which, so far as I am aware, is an incorrect translation--he does not even cite his source, nor what lead him to this conclusion!). But, I have a lot of problems with Ronald Hutton's lit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.120.81.11 (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've substantially changed the following text in the article, removing most of the references:

Ronald Hutton suggests that Ceridwen was created solely for the Tale of Taliesin, the earliest surviving text of which dates to the mid-16th century.^[1] However, references to Ceridwen and her cauldron, and indeed to Taliesin as the bard of Elffin, are found in the work of the Poets of the Princes, e.g. Cynddelw Brydydd Mawr, and thus can be dated to the 12th century.^[2] References to Ceridwen's cauldron (pair Ceridwen) are also to be found in some of the mythological poems attributed to the legendary Taliesin in the Book of Taliesin.^[3]

This wasn't fairly representing Hutton's argument, since Hutton claims that the Tale of Taliesin was probably a 9th century composition (based on its language), despite only being extant in a 16th-century text. The "Poets of the Princes" are the same Gogynfeirdd who Hutton is saying changed Ceridwen's character, elevating her to the status of a goddess. They cannot, therefore, be taken as prior examples!

The Book of Taliesin is a different story, since this is generally considered to contain some of the oldest poems in Welsh, including some that probably date to the 6th century. I haven't checked the claim that the phrase pair Ceridwen appears in these early poems, but for the moment I'll leave that statement in the article.

In case anyone is wondering, the reference removed is not a critique of Hutton's theories or dating, but a source-work for the tales, predating the publication of Hutton's books. Fuzzypeg★ 21:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what are Hutton's credentials as a scholar in the field of medieval Welsh literature? I've read both of the 16th century texts of Hanes Taliesin in the original Welsh and am certainly not alone in judging that it was not composed (as such) in the 9th century. The language is nothing like the Welsh of that period. The question of the age and provenance of the materials within the Tale is a different matter altogether. "The "Poets of the Princes" are the same Gogynfeirdd who Hutton is saying changed Ceridwen's character, elevating her to the status of a goddess. They cannot, therefore, be taken as prior examples!" - fair enough, but only if you add "according to Hutton", as I have done: this is his theory and should be presented as such. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You add "I haven't checked the claim that the phrase pair Ceridwen appears in these early poems, but for the moment I'll leave that statement in the article." You better had. I added the reference to the occurences of the phrase pair Ceridwen in Llyfr Taliesin. It is properly referenced, sourced as it is from John Gwenogvryn Evans' standard edition of the text of the Book of Taliesin. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine he's really saying that the tale as we have it dates to the 16th century, I'm sure he's just saying that some version of the general Taliesin story may date to then. Am I correct, Fuzzypeg? The story is referred to in some of the BT poems, such as the one you're alluding to, and possibly Preiddeu Annwfn. But at any rate, as with any article this one will benefit from proper attribution of the material.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed this back to the source, Ifor Williams (which I had to get on interloan). Hutton cites Sir Ifor Williams for his dating, but Williams actually says something quite different: he says that the Hanes Taliesin is a late composition, which incorporates certain themes and fragments from much older compositions such as those found in the Book of Taliesin. Williams postulates that both early and late works surrounding this magician-shape-changer Taliesin reflect a popular myth which appeared some time after 900, but which incorporates elements of older pagan mythology.

So Hutton has got this completely switched around. Let's summarise: Williams says the poetry of the Book of Taliesin fed into the later Hanes Taliesin, and both are partially derivative of themes from paganism. Hutton reverses this, saying the Hanes Taliesin fed into the later Book of Taliesin, and neither show any trace of pagan themes.

Hutton's entire argument about Cerridwen not being a goddess thus dissolves. Oh, and Hutton cites chapter 4 of Williams' book, which only has 3 chapters. Fuzzypeg★ 22:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Fuzzypeg is back! (and with Ceridwen) I'm so psyched, it's inappropriate.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know (and it's pretty far), there isn't any source connecting Ceridwen with Bridget--or any divinity for that matter, though her use of magic DOES point one in that direction--or for that matter, a name like Pridwen. The only name in Welsh literature that looks like Pridwen (and the spelling probably doesn't make much of a difference) is Arthur's ship Prydwen, mentioned in Culhwch ac Olwen and the Preiddeu Annwn. A connection to the Welsh name for Britain, Prydein, is probably very very vague any small on account on the similarities of the first element of the names and the spelling. So if the person who posted the relevant info would mention their sources, that would be much appreciated. And hopefully the source won't be written by someone named Graves or from Morgannwg. Ryan 06:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it's been two months and there's still no source for this, I'm removing the sentence; I agree it's pretty bogus. Also removed the dubious claim that "some say" Taliesin is "the man upon whom the myths of Merlin were based." I can find no evidence of this and it is unsourced. Toastedcheese 02:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the written pronunciation guide, "(pronounced [kɛrˈɪdwɛn] ... Ce-RID-wen)," to (... Ce-rid-WEN). Written emphasis on the third syllable of the word better reflects the spoken emphasis on the audio guide. Inflections are highly subject to a listener's knowledge and sensitivity, however, and I defer to more practiced Welsh speakers/listeners than I. The final sentence in the Introduction, regarding the designation of Cerridwen as "the Celtic goddess of rebirth, transformation, and inspiration" in modern paganism lacks a source or sources for the claim. Diana E. Meter (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote reference 7 to the Tale of Taliesin refers to Charlotte Guest’s translation as inaccurate. Would it not be better to refer to an accurate translation such as that by Patrick Ford? He has produced both a scholarly edition of the text and, separately, an English rendering included with his translations of the Mabinogi tales. Crychydd (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll do this unless anyone thinks the current footnote needs to remain, but as it stands it is more of a statement than a footnote. Crychydd (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]