Talk:Iolo Morganwg

Bias?

I do think this article is a little biased. The emphasis appears to be that *most* of Iolo's work is forgery and I don't think that's fair...James Frankcom (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say that exactly. What it does say are that a large number of manuscripts he published as authentic medieval texts were actually his own forgeries (poems of Dafydd ap Gwilym, the "third series" of Welsh Triads and other texts in the Myvyrian Archaiology, the Barddas, etc.) He did publish a book of his own English language poetry under his own name, and of course all of his own letters and papers were obviously not forgeries (though these frequently dealt with his forgeries as if they were authentic). He also collected a number of genuine manuscripts. His legacy is largely as a forger, due to the wide influence his fake medieval text have had on Welsh studies, but he did a lot of other things as well, and the article notes it. There is a good discussion of Iolo by Mary-Ann Constantine in the book Fakes and Forgeries, most of which is on Google Books here, I would like to work it into the article at some point.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the argument here is that the sources cited (three of the five citations are from single source) refer to Morganwg's forgeries without ever providing evidence that the forgeries were actually forged. In fact, the source, Jone's Celtic Encyclopedia, repeatedly mentions that it is unknown which of the collections Morganwg published are authentic and which are forgeries (a bit of information which was left out of this article). Several of his supposed forgeries have later been found to pre-date Morganwg's works, conclusively proving that at least several "forgeries" were not forgeries, but rather authentic texts, which Morganwg erroneously belived to be older than they were. I am not saying that Morganwg didn't forge some of his collections--that is certainly the majority consensus of the literary community--only that the charge of forgery has not been proven. The belief that Morganwg was a forger is just that: (unproven) belief. 121.67.207.44 (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree that it is wrong to claim something a forgery unless conclusive evidence is provided. In the case of this fellow, bias against the Welsh in British academia could have been a significant factor in declaring this man's collections to be "forgeries" without demonstrating the fact conclusively. One labeled a forger, the accusation lives on with no substantiation. This not only blackens the man's name, unjustly, but it also prevents the documents in his collection from being evaluated on their own merits.Cadwallader (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC).

Forgery?

As far as I have been able to find, all references to Iolo as a forger point to another reference to him as a forger--creating a "circle" of references. Source 1 cites source 2, which cites source 3, which in turn cites source 1. The ONLY "evidence" I've been able to find is from a Prof. Griffith J. Williams (1892-1963) who, at the Carnarvon Eisteddfod in 1919, provided "conclusive proof" that Iolo was the author of 18 poems attributed to Dafydd. An article in The Welsh Outlook, v.8 No.9 (1921) by M. Llewellyn Williams counters each of G.J. Williams' points, including making note that G.J. had previously published articles prejudicing himself against Morganwg, presenting evidence that 4 of the 18 "forgeries" were in fact authentic and gave considerable doubt to the forged status of another, showing that the editors--not Morganwg--made the claim that the documents were authentic (even then, the claim is subject--in at least one set of 16 submissions, the editors only cited Morganwg as the contributor--not author), as well as showing that Morganwg's own notes on his submissions showed that Sion Bradford (d. 1780) NOT himself made the attribution of the works to Dafydd. Those 18 poems were the only "forgeries" which were published during Morganwg's life. All other documents published before his death have been properly attributed to known sources, or self-identified as original.

After his death, however, Morganwg's son collected all of his manuscripts with the intent to have them published, but died before he was able to complete the editing. John Williams purchased the manuscripts from Taliesin's estate and published Barddas in 1862, without Morgang's notes. It was John Williams, not Iolo or Taliesin, who claimed that everything contained was authentically ancient.

Additionally, a list of "forgeries" attributed to Morganwg have been known to be medieval (none of it is "authentically ancient", at least in written form). The Mabinogi (except The Dream of Rhonabwy) appeared in White Book of Rhydderch (1325) and Red Book of Hergest (1410), Y Gododdin is recorded in Book of Aneirin (13th C.), Cad Goddeu is found in the Book of Taliesin (14th C.)--all of these are KNOWN to be medieval texts, which appear, in some form, in Barddas.

As far as I can tell, all of the claims that Morganwg forged ANYTHING stems either from G.J. William's prejudiced, and faulty "evidence" or by misrepresentation of the editors and publishers.

REF: http://yba.llgc.org.uk/en/s-WILL-EDW-1747.html http://celticscholar.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/introduction-to-welsh-mythology/ http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/884/ http://www.iolomorganwg.wales.ac.uk/dylanwad-centenary.php http://wbo.llgc.org.uk/en/s2-WILL-JOH-1892.html http://welshjournals.llgc.org.uk/browse/viewpage/llgc-id:1311205/llgc-id:1314490/llgc-id:1314494/getText

(P.S. Please forgive my bad formatting. I'm not a wiki guru)Gawain VIII (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

As an afterthought: It seems to me that G.J. Williams's "proof" of Morganwg's forgeries follows the logical fallacy of Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (after this, therefore because of this). Since Morganwg's poems appeared to be the same as to the pieces attributed to Dafydd, Morganwg MUST have written the Dafydd odes. However, we know that Morganwg was an admirer, and emulator of, Dafydd--it seems perfectly logical that their two styles were similar.Gawain VIII (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep. I'm not sure whether the article has been pared back too much owing to the discussion above, but the current article presents next to no discussion of the discovery of his forgeries let alone presenting the discoverers' arguments establishing the forgeries. The article very much needs this, along with discussion of which works are known to be cleared, which known to have been forged, which uncertain, and which (going from the above discussion) known to be untrue but from an earlier date than Iolo himself. — LlywelynII 08:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Republicanism and Political Religion : Rousseau's Social Contract, Hobbes Leviathan etc

I was just dropping by to paste this address into an email : this represents Iolo as being some kind of a kook - but his Neo-Druidry has its origins - at least in part - in his politics. Iolo Morganwg did not just sign himself " The Bard of Liberty " out of a fit of sentimentality - he was openly and actively a Republican in Wales when it was very dangerous to be so ... As I understand it he does not change from being a Druid to being a Unitarian : these are expressions of the same thing - Republican political religion. My apologies but I am in a rush : if you do not understand that Iolo is a Republican in Wales practising " civil religion " then you do not understand anything about what he was talking about. DaiSaw (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iolo Morganwg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170215125044/http://www.iolomorganwg.wales.ac.uk/ to http://www.iolomorganwg.wales.ac.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iolo Morganwg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101117215438/http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/888/ to http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/888/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

British Museum claim

I was not logged in, but this edit was me, removing a claim from the "Exposure" section which read

"He also created the Coelbren y Beirdd, an alphabet. The British Museum holds records of the Coelbren writing system dating back more than 2,600 years, in the form of a Coelbren and its runic system imprinted on a clay tablet discovered in the Ancient Middle Eastern Assyrian Library collection of Ashurbanipal, excavated in 1849 by Austen Henry Layard."

I went looking to see if I could find where else online was saying this (which was not just copying the text of this article) and after an admittedly cursory search, I think I found the source. It seems like the idea that Coelbren was discovered in the Library of Ashurbanipal originates from a pair of fringe history authors (Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett, who are mentioned in Talk:Coelbren y Beirdd), who's work tends towards a kind of Welsh nationalist mythic pseudohistory mixed with British Israelism, and specifically their book "The Discovery of The Ark of the Covenant", which is about as reliable as one would expect for a book claiming that the Holy Grail as well as the Ark of the Covenant are hidden in secret tunnels under a nondescript hill in the Welsh countryside.

So I feel reasonably confident in removing the claim, as opposed to just putting in a , and hopefully have not committed a great editing etiquette faux pas on my very first try.

𒆳𒄷 (kur^mušen) 11:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Removing References

I note that much of the discussion surrounding his "forgeries" is taken from a now long defunct blog by an author who lists her profession as "technologist". Neither fact seems to make their use - and they are used a lot - suitable for an entry in an encyclopedia I am sure there must be more reliable sources. I would not like to remove these until a more experienced editor has a look. Would anyone be so kind? PythagorasDyscalculia (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)