In the past, many scholars have suggested that Arianrhod lied about the status of her maidenhood. Modern (and usually pagan) scholars are beginning to get it right, however.
It is likely that the tale of Arianrhod came about at a time when the Welsh were moving from the old matriarchal structure to a more warlike and patriarchal one.
Remember the foot-holder thing? Math was only really "king" when he was at war. When he was home, he had to put his foot in Goewin's lap. Basically, he was ceeding his power, by un-grounding himself. Even if he was king in name, his power and right to the crown came from Goewin.
In these ancient times, the king's power came from the Land (and its peoples, no doubt) and Kings often - maybe even usually - made a Sacred Marriage with the land, often in the form of union with a High Priestess or daughter of a king.
In these times, rulership was passed matrilineally. A king's heir was his sister's son, not his own. It makes sense, actually. In those days before paternity tests, a king had no way to know who the father of his wife's children were. He could know (except in situations of complete trickery) that he and his sister had sprung from the same womb, and that the children of her own womb were his kin.
So what's with the focus on maidenhood? Why does a woman have to be a virgin/maiden to pass on the right of kingship?
The first thought that springs to mind is that if she has children or lovers of her own, then the king is in danger of being supplanted by one of those. Maintaining her virtue means cutting down on contenders for the throne.
Additionally, if a woman has children, a husband or lovers (read "other desires and obligations") she may be less effective at ruling her land and peoples. If she herself is "married to the land" then her focus will be on doing what is best for that, without excess complications. So it may be that such women were kept virginal so that they wouldn't be focused on "other issue(s)".
Then we have the "untouchable" factor. A woman who is a known virgin and bound to stay that way, is more likely to be left alone by other men. As such, Gilvaethwy's rape of Goewin was a rape not only of a woman, but of the kingship and land itself. Frankly I'm surprised Math was as lenient as he was.
We also have a probable dissonance in the definition of "virgin" and "maiden". When Math asked Arianrhod if she was a maiden, it seems he meant the newer definition of virgo intacta (posessing a hymen). It is probable that Arianrhod meant the older definition of, "a woman belonging only to herself".
Therefore despite what earlier scholars have suggested, it is unlikely that Arianrhod "lied" or had any idea that her definition and his did not coincide. No wonder then, her fury at being brought to the castle, tricked into giving birth and being shamed before Math's court.
Some, noting the phallic nature of a wand, suggest that Math had his way with her, to prove that she was a virgin. Considering the story of Goewin, this makes little sense. Goewin had been Math's footholder for an unnamed time, and she was still a virgin until Gilvaethwy raped her. It would seem that having sex with your next potential virgin footholder would be counter-productive.
Others suggest that Gwydion had an incestuous relationship with Arianrhod and was the father of her children. This also makes little sense. With all the to-do regarding Goewin, he would have known exactly what Math meant by "maiden" and if he was sleeping with her, would have known she was no "virgin". After spending three years as various animals, would he have wanted to tempt Math's wrath by bringing him a footholder that didn't fit the criteria?
Other texts give the name of Arianrhod's consort. as Nwyvre ( or name him as Lliaws son of Nwyfre). If anything, it seems more likely that Nwyvre is the father of her children. We'll talk about him another time.
No comments:
Post a Comment