12 Days of Celtic Myth 3.11 - Horses

[@KrisHughes]

ONLINE CLASSES: Intro to Celtic Mythology starts 4th January tinyurl.com/ICM25 Rashiecoats starts 15th January tinyurl.com/rashie25 Tales of the Old North starts 29th Jan. PAY-WHAT-YOU-CAN tinyurl.com/TON25 PLEASE support me on Ko-fi! (or take a class). With the political and economic uncertainty at the moment, my teaching income has dropped. Please support me on Ko-fi at: ko-fi.com/krishughes Thanks! You can always find out about upcoming classes at: tinyurl.com/GDclasses

[@jamesrussell8571]

Sovereignty isn't merely political but deeply tied to the health and harmony of the land. I agree with your interpretation of horses and the loss of sovereignty in the Mabinogi. Your insights resonate with my understanding of the sacred connection between humans, the land, and spirits. The symbolism of horses as sovereign beings and their treatment reflecting harmony-or its loss-resonates deeply with my Druidic and Animistic perspectives on balance and responsibility. Blessings, James Russell /|\

[@GemmaFinnegan]

I agree with your analysis regarding horses and their deep symbolic connection to the land and sovereignty across Celtic myth and legends. It's a theme that occurs in many different stories and your excellent summation of the Mabinogi's repeated references to horses is well presented. Your horse goddesses course in November has piqued my interest!

[@our-story7721]

Again, I find myself out of my depth (of my knowledge) to answer this question, and maybe that's why I was unable to answer previous questions, as I am as new to this channel and your views, as I am to any and all Celtic History, Mythology, and Culture, therefore I am unable to comment on your interpretation or views, as I have nothing to compare them to, nor am I familiar with the works enough to have formed my own opinion 😕 However, I am glad of your candor, and your style of tutoring, not dissimilar to the style of my teachers at school (some 40+ years ago). For now, I am willing to accept your interpretation as my starting point for my journey, and maybe we should revisit this question on 5th April, by which time I feel I will not feel like Brân, as he travelled to Ireland! You may recall my mention of Graham K Griffiths and his 2003 publication. In this work, he finds the head and arm of a giant! He likens this head to that of Brân, as it seems to be shoulder deep, guiding a ship on its journey. He also likens this image to be like a figurehead to this Ark, and as Brân, it may well have give guidance or counsel to the captain or crew. I also recall that Graham felt, that if this French facing head was an image of Brân, then its heart would be at the White Hill in London! Now here is where I have a dilemma, you may recall that I said my sponged text was so large that it formed the landscape of these stories, and the text told the stories of what happened on the landscape! So now I have a Catch 22, or a chicken and egg situation! How can the very landscape tell the story of what happened upon it? Or at least Graham's interpretation. Graham had a simple answer based upon and within his faith. He felt that the landscape today had been molded by God, and never appeared as, or been viewed as, it is today, that is to say, it never looked like it does today, until today. Unfortunately, this is where I have to quote my friend, who like Graham, moved on in his journey in 2024, and say "I don't buy that buddy!". Unfortunately Graham was not expecting me to question his creationist theories, or my filling in bits he had ignored, as they went beyond his Glastonbury reference points. And here, we seem to have circled back to familiar ground! The Glastonbury reference's had only been discovered when Katherine Maltwood read the Arthurian Manuscripts, and felt she recognised the descriptions of the landscape around Glastonbury. Which means that the Arthurian Stories are set within a Zodiacal Landscape! At least within the Glastonbury Manuscripts. AND OMG EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED! 🤯 (

[@wanderplea]

I believe that I very much agree. As you asked the question I realised that I had never actually asked myself this question. When I have approached the Mabonogi it was with an intense focus on the women in the tales, only moving my awareness from them to Bendigeidfran because I love him. I will admit, the Fourth Branch is the hardest for me to wrap my head around. Perhaps it is the most culturally jarring to me as well as being a storyscape in which it is hard for me to love or attach to any of the characters. But, now that I have heard your theory of this through-line in the tales, particularly the culmination of the creation of forced, artificial sovereignty… click! A door has opened in my mind. Thank you! I need to ponder it and go over the tales again (I mean, I’ll never be done with that-that’s the fun part!), but I feel that I very much agree. I think I have sort of bounced around the fringes of the idea during these 12 days, as my answers have included mentions of “the people in charge” and the frustration around that, and I was particularly thinking about the times that we live in, but I couldn’t quite put it into words (and seemingly still can’t 😅) And I agree we need to look into the wound no matter how difficult it is to do so, because these tales are very relevant now to the world we live in. Happy New Year Blessings! (P.S. a random aside, not part of answer just fun: I showed my partner the film “Y Mabonogi” in 2023 to try to introduce him to the world my brain has been living in, and he was tracking with everything pretty well until we got to the Fourth Branch stuff, and then he very much was like “wtf is going on?” and I was like “honestly I don’t really know” 😅 Of course, the very fun way that they animated Gwydion revealing himself to Aranrhod each time he tricks her really tickled our funny bones and became a bit of a meme in our home that continues to delight us.)

[@achandler540]

I agree with you. The first branch starts out with a leader's chase after a sovereignty figure. In the subsequent branches, leaders seem to drift further and further away from a place of respect and harmony with sovereignty. I think the vivid description of the mutilation of the horses is meant to gruesome so we don't forget the severity of the damage and disrespect that is committed throughout the four branches. I wish there was a fifth branch that taught a path forward to restore the damage, but maybe that is something that we are meant to contemplate. Maybe we are the ones who in our outrage at the treatment of the horses, must take action in the world.

[@Evan-dwi]

Happy New Year Kris! I do agree with your overall comparative reading through the branches and the central message of Sovereignty. Especially if we are inclined to believe these were tales taught to young nobles, the variety and severity of misconduct or mistreatment within these stories may have been intended to elicit response for further discussion. Or even as a way to determine who had a good mindset amongst the potential future rulers. I do wonder where Cigfa fits into this narrative thread. Is she not equal to Blodeuedd in terms of Sovereignty? Yet the closest she comes is telling Manawydan what not to do (and usually being ignored). Though perhaps this is connected to Pryderi's own failure to properly accept his royal role and duties.

[@wanderplea]

❤Cigfa❤

[@Evan-dwi]

Not saying it's the same story or necessarily something that the Mabinogi story tellers would have had in mind, but burning children of a sacred/sovereign Queen seems particularly poignant. "Mechi. Son of *Morrigan. According to the Dindshenchas, *Mac Cécht killed him on the River Barrow. Mechi was revealed to have three hearts, each with a serpent in it, which could have caused disaster for Ireland if they were not stopped. Mac Cécht burned him and threw the ashes into the river." from Mackillop Dictionary of Celtic Mythology.

[@karriek.3429]

Your classes were my introduction to the four branches, so your theory is the one I'm familiar with. It certainly FEELS true to me. I did get the sense the other day when we first encountered Efnisein's horse-slashing that there was more to it than just him acting out of some slight about inheritance...but again, I got that sense because I had recently taken your course on Celtic Horse Goddesses! So yes, I agree with it. I'm looking forward to studying more and challenging the theory to see if I hold to it more or gravitate toward others. I'm inclined to hold to it more because it reinforces my personal outlook and beliefs, so I suppose that means it's all the more important for me to seek out other perspectives.

[@wanderplea]

Ditto-definitely aligns with my beliefs as well so I am also inclined to hold onto it.

[@WORD_VIRUS]

I would say I’m not nearly well studied enough at this point to agree or disagree, but the connection to sovereignty and the horses is an interesting one. My first thoughts upon revisiting this episode went (no surprise) to the Icelandic Sagas and the relationship that Medieval Scandinavians held with their horses. I believe there is a very similar episode to this in the Saga of Hrolf Kraki involving the mutilation of a king’s horses when visiting the hall of a foreign king, but I will have to doublecheck on that because I’ve been feeling rather under the weather today and I’m afraid my memory is a little fuzzy…

[@aria9756]

Your theory makes sense! It helps me to see how a myth can be different than a mere narrative (richer perhaps). I'm inclined to respect your knowledge and experience that you've gained through study and practice, but at the same time, I'm always naturally very contrary, so it also makes me feel curious about other interpretations. I think a myth can be somewhat like a mirror, in that I have to bring myself to it so that's part of what gets reflected back. I've always been quite jumpy around horses, which I suppose is out of respect for their power. Those kinds of feelings of awe and respect, even fear, are brought forth whenever I encounter horses. So I have to think that the mutilation of the horses is like an attack on Matholwch's power. Still seems like kind of a surface level interpretation from me. But how does power connect to sovereignty? What is their relationship? What is sovereignty and who grants it? These are the questions that rise up from me. When you lay all the branches out like that and break it down, showing how one leads into the next, the connections become more clear. But yes. What you're saying makes sense and you speak with a clear level of insight, it just does make me curious how else we can interpret them.

[@annitelford8437]

After another night tossing and turning I realised I didn’t know enough about sovereignty to pass any opinion on your analysis. So up and off up Trusty’s Hill with the dogs to see if standing in the kingstone where Urien of Rheged probably claimed his sovereignty would bring any kind of insight. It didn’t, so back down the hill and off to the books for more practical research. At least we had a great walk in the sunshine. Searching through a variety of texts I am left still thinking I don’t know enough to decide. My gut says your analysis seems to make sense, the links between woman and horses, the great mare and kingship seem clear however, me being me I want some historical/archeological support. Is there any? Both Fraser 2009 ‘From Caledonia to Pictland’ and Koch 2006 ‘Celtic Culture’ suggest the structure of Celtic Society was moving from ‘farming democracies’ to ‘kingships’ and the struggle for power (sovereignty) between the freemen and the emerging kings kings was very real. Then, as the Christ priests moved in and demanded the right to coronate kings, arguing sovereignty is awarded by God, the people were further removed from sovereignty, the Female Devine and her power, is lost. So far so good, all seems to be supporting the analysis. Then I hit Sessle, E (1994) who uses feminist critique to analyse the Maeb sovereignty myths. She argues that reducing such powerful women to a monolithic function is reductionist, that the feminine characters in Celtic myth are much more than mere sovereignty figures. I don’t have access to her work, just a few refs to it. I need to stop looking and write a comment. So here it is. At this point in time, with the knowledge I have, your analysis seems accurate. Phew.

[@jenniferreid-k1p]

This is the branch that I tend to struggle to see the traces of divine in. The other three branches all have easily seen other-world links but despite Brans talkiing decapitated head and time defying feasts, this branch always reads to me far more like a straight war story. It has just never seemed to fit for me. As such although I clearly see the links between Rhiannon and the horse goddess/soverignity of the land role, I simply cannot see it in the second branch. I think one problem I have is that Branwen just seems to me far to passive to represent anything other than a wronged woman, a pawn in the battle of the menfolk, I cannot see her as a soverignity figure -even if she is the queen. The horses seem to me more linked to Matholwch's power simply as an important part of his wealth and property - their destruction by Efynision an act to provoke war - rather than anything else. So for me this branch just doesn't seem to link to female soverignity figures/ land soverignity figures at all. For me it is all about the masculine -and not the masculine in conflict with the feminine, the disregard is man for man rather than man disregarding land. For me the horses here are just horses - their mutilation just an act of hatred and cruelty, an example to young nobles of how not to act, how not to respond to percieved slights with violence as this just leads to more and more violence and destruction.

[@tampablue6678]

I believe your analysis is absolutely plausible. I am focused on Irish polytheism, and after that, I pay more attention to the overarching Celtic world/culture/history. Truthfully, 95+% of what I know about the Welsh I have learned from your classes. So, I have to stop at saying it sounds plausible.