Counselling the Prince Advice and Counsel in Thirteenth Century Welsh Society

© 2009 The Author. Journal compilation © 2009 The Historical Association and Blackwell Publishing.
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Oxford, UK

HIST

History

0018-2648

1468-229X

XXX

Original Article

COUNSELLING THE PRINCE

KATHRYN HURLOCK

Counselling the Prince: Advice and Counsel in

Thirteenth-Century Welsh Society

KATHRYN HURLOCK

Manchester Metropolitan University

Abstract

In thirteenth-century Gwynedd, advice and counsel were sought through a variety of
means. Whilst some of them, such as consultation of leading magnates and prelates, were
common to much of Europe, the princes of Gwynedd still relied on traditional methods
of counsel, most notably the advice given by court poets through their works. This article
demonstrates how this very public method of advice was employed, the reaction of the
princes to it, and its role as part of the machinery of the court. It then considers how the
advice of the poets contributed to, and reflected, the move away from confederate con-
sultation with the other princes of Wales to the use of a body of ‘counsellors’ drawn from
Gwynedd as the thirteenth century progressed, a style of leadership which brought
Gwynedd into line with wider European methods of governance.

ne of the defining features of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries
was the rise of administrative and bureaucratic mechanisms
across the medieval west. In larger kingdoms, such as England,

this growth involved the development of several departments, each with
its own specific role.

There were, of course, exceptions, and while

research has been done on Staufen Germany, for instance,

other regions

of medieval Europe that do not quite fit this pattern have not received
similar attention. One such place was the north Welsh principality of
Gwynedd, which used its own methods of seeking counsel and advice,
without developing the mechanisms used in larger, more centrally controlled

For example, the chancery and exchequer. See David Carpenter, ‘The English Royal Chancery in

the Thirteenth Century’, and Nick Barratt, ‘Finance on a Shoestring: The Exchequer in the Thir-
teenth Century’, in

English Government in The Thirteenth Century

, ed. Adrian Jobson (Woodbridge,

2004), pp. 49–69, 71–86; M. T. Clanchy,

From Memory to Written Record: England, 1066–1307

(Oxford, 1992), esp. pp. 44 –80. For the development of governance in Wales in the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries, see R. R. Davies,

The Age of Conquest: Wales 1063–1415

(Oxford, 1987) [hereafter

Davies,

Age of Conquest

], ch. 9.

Bjorn Weiler,

Kingship, Rebellion and Political Culture: England and Germany, c.1215–c.1250

(2007).

KATHRYN HURLOCK

countries.

Greater administrative rule developed under Llywelyn ap

Iorwerth (d. 1240), and continued during the rule of his son and grandson,
Dafydd ap Llywelyn (d. 1246) and Llywelyn ap Gruffydd (d. 1282), but
they still relied on traditional methods of seeking advice; at times, the
princes of Gwynedd also consulted their fellow-rulers in mid- and south
Wales, such as the princes of the principalities of Powys and Deheubarth,
and were advised by the court poets, whose works often criticized
princely action, and suggested how good rule could be maintained.

Although this poetry and the governance of medieval Wales have been

analysed on several occasions, notably by Morfydd Owen, D. Myrddin
Lloyd, Ceri Lewis and David Stephenson,

the two themes have not yet

been brought together in order to allow a comparison of the counsel of
the poets and the changing role of those who advised the prince. Nor has
it been judged in the context of the demise of the princely confederation,
as illustrated by the Welsh chronicles and the surviving acts of the Welsh
princes. This study uses the example of thirteenth-century Gwynedd to
explore what is ultimately a pan-European phenomenon. It argues that
the princes of Gwynedd were increasingly concerned with seeking advice
and counsel in ways common to other European rulers, most notably via
a more defined group of counsellors; it also highlights the variety of
mechanisms by which common principles (in this case the giving of
advice) were handled.

This article therefore sheds further light on the

way in which the court of Gwynedd sought to rule all of Wales, looks at
how this affected the way advice was sought and given, and thus allows
the increase in references to the need for political unity in the Welsh
poetry to be contextualized.

At the beginning of the thirteenth century, the Welsh princes sought

formal advice both from the other princes of Wales and from a body of
men drawn from their own lands. Advice from a confederacy of princes,
however, began to wane in importance as the rulers of Gwynedd sought
to assert their hegemony, and thus relied increasingly upon advice from

Huw Pryce, ‘Welsh Rulers and European Change,

.1100 –1282’ [hereafter Pryce, ‘Welsh Rulers’],

Power and Identity in the Middle Ages: Essays in Memory of Rees Davies

, ed. Huw Pryce and

John Watts (Oxford, 2007), p. 43.

Morfydd E. Owen, ‘Literary Convention and Historical Reality: The Court in the Welsh Poetry

of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries’,

Etudes Celtiques

, xxix (1992) [hereafter Owen, ‘Literary

Convention and Historical Reality’], 69–85; D. Myrddin Lloyd, ‘The Poets of the Princes’ [hereaf-
ter Myrrdin Lloyd, ‘Poets of the Princes’], in

A Guide to Welsh Literature

, ed. A. O. H. Jarman and

Gwilym Rees Hughes (Cardiff, 1992), pp. 157–88, and Ceri W. Lewis, ‘The Court Poets: Their
Function, Status and Craft’ [hereafter Lewis, ‘Court Poets’], ibid., pp. 123–56; David Stephenson,

The Governance of Gwynedd

(Cardiff, 1984) [hereafter Stephenson,

Governance

The development of Welsh responses to changes in European culture, politics and society has

been skilfully elucidated by Pryce, ‘Welsh Rulers’, pp. 37–51.

Several aspects of this article can be compared more fully to developments in Europe, for which

see Timothy Reuter, ‘Assembly Politics in Western Europe from the Eighth Century to the Twelfth’
[hereafter Reuter, ‘Assembly Politics’], in

The Medieval World

, ed. Peter Lineham and Janet L. Nelson

(2001), pp. 432–51; the articles in

Political Assemblies in the Earlier Middle Ages

, ed. P. S. Barnwell

and Marco Mostert (Turnhout, 2003); Judith Ferster,

Fictions of Advice: The Literature and Politics

of Counsel in Late Medieval England

(Philadelphia, 1996).

COUNSELLING THE PRINCE

men of the prince’s lands and household. The magnates from other
principalities in Wales, such as Powys and Deheubarth, were occasionally
called upon to provide advice and counsel, but they were not consulted
on a regular basis when events concerned only Gwynedd. The most
important members of Llywelyn ap Gruffydd’s group of advisers were the
magnates, such as his brother Dafydd ap Gruffydd, Gruffydd ap Madog,
Hywel ap Maredudd and Hywel ap Rhys Gryg (disinherited landless
men dependent on the prince

), but they were joined at times by the

Welsh bishops from north Wales as well as the Cistercian abbots of Valle
Crucis and Cymer Abbey.

On matters relating specifically to Gwynedd,

advice tended to be sought from the prince of Gwynedd’s patrimony,
drawn from members of the secular and religious world, as in September
1273, when Llywelyn ap Gruffydd explained to Reginald de Grey that he
could not answer his questions because he ‘did not have any of his council
with him apart from his brother Dafydd and the Bishop of Bangor’.

times, the advice of others princes was sought, such as prince Gruffydd
ap Gwenwynwyn of Powys and Maredudd ap Rhys Gryg, prince of
Deheubarth, though not on the scale it had been in the first half of the
thirteenth century; they were present when discussing Simon de Montfort’s
proposed alliance with Llywelyn ap Gruffydd in 1265, and were referred
to in the terms of the Treaty of Montgomery two years later.

Their

inclusion highlights the fact that decision-making pertaining to the various
parts of Wales still relied to some extent on mutual cooperation, as it
was not taken as given that the prince of Gwynedd could act on behalf
of all the princes of Wales.

Aside from the nobles who provided advice and counsel to the prince

of Gwynedd, the most important person was the seneschal or distain
who acted as the prince’s chief adviser. The most famous man to hold this
office was Ednyfed Fychan (d. 1246), seneschal to Llywelyn ap Iorwerth
and his son and heir, Dafydd (d. 1246). His significance was reflected in
the number of times he appeared as a witness, or acted as an envoy on
Llywelyn’s behalf, so frequently in fact that Henry III, king of England,
ordered his treasurer to present Ednyfed with a silver cup while he was
staying in London, before Ednyfed’s departure for the Holy Land.

Ednyfed was the founding father of a dynasty of men who counselled the
princes of Gwynedd, and his family, like those of other leading officials,
grew wealthy through lands and privileges granted by the prince, both as

J. Beverley Smith,

Llywelyn ap Gruffudd

(Cardiff, 1998) [hereafter Smith,

Llywelyn ap Gruffudd

p. 311.

Ibid., pp. 122–3, 126–30, 312, 379–81.

The Acts of Welsh Rulers 1120 –1283

, ed. Huw Pryce with Charles Insley (Cardiff, 2005) [hereafter

Acts of Welsh Rulers

], p. 555, #378.

Littere Walliae preserved in Liber A in the Public Record Office

, ed. J. G. Edwards (Cardiff, 1940)

[hereafter

Littere Walliae

], pp. 4, 21, 99, 184 –5; Smith,

Llywelyn ap Gruffudd

, pp. 310 –11.

Stephenson,

Governance

, p. 208.

KATHRYN HURLOCK

a reward for service, and in order to keep them loyal to him.

The rise

of a more formalized bureaucracy and the loose development of the idea of
a ‘council’ was one way in which the princes were able to maintain the
allegiance of their leading men, and confirms an observation made by
Robin Frame, that the growth of the ‘council’ ‘produced a class of men with
a stake in its continuance, and in the promotion of princely jurisdiction.’

Although the princes of Gwynedd increasingly relied on the advice of

the leading men of the principality as the thirteenth century progressed,
traditional sources of advice and counsel were still used as an alternative
in an area that had no real governmental structure. The most important
of these sources were the court poets.

There were different grades of

poet at the prince’s court, the highest being the

pencerdd

(or chief of

song), followed by the

bardd teulu

(a court poet). The

pencerdd

was an

independent craftsman, rather than part of the court (unlike the

bardd

teulu

), and was free to travel from one court to another across Wales,

serving more than one patron. The Welsh laws allowed him to perform a
work addressed to another ruler, if one for the lord of the court in which
he currently resided was not forthcoming: ‘if he has nothing to sing of
him, let him sing of another king’.

The right of the

pencerdd

to solicit

the patronage of another was occasionally curtailed in the last years of
native rule,

perhaps as a way of controlling the bards, who might

otherwise deprecate their former patrons in another’s court. The status and
rights of the chief poet were enshrined in Welsh law, and he held his land
free of service and sat in a privileged position next to the prince’s heir.

J. E. Lloyd’s assertion that the

pencerdd

‘filled no place in the service of

the crown’

cannot be supported, for although the

pencerdd

was not an

officer of the court, the fact that he presented his poetry to the court
meant that he did indeed play an important role in serving the princes of
Wales. Rhian Andrews has emphasized that the court poet ‘could make

Ednyfed’s sons Goronwy and Tudur were seneschals of Gwynedd under Llywelyn ap Gruffudd.

J. Beverley Smith has claimed that Ednyfed’s lineage ‘could reasonably be judged to have provided,
to a greater degree than any other, the continuity and stability within the community by which the
prince’s rule could be sustained’. See Smith,

Llywelyn ap Gruffudd

, pp. 265, 312–14.

Robin Frame,

The Political Development of the British Isles, 1100 –1400

(Oxford, 1995) [hereafter

Frame,

Political Development

], p. 120.

Martin Aurell has demonstrated that Occitan and Catalan poetry was used in a similar way in the

south of France, but that the political poetry employed there was written with the aim of performing
in a theatrical sense in front of an audience. It was similar to Welsh court poetry as regards the spread
of propaganda and the bolstering of the status and rights of the prince or lord: the poets disseminated
messages in favour of their patrons, and do not appear to have fulfilled the role of adviser and
sometime critic as the Welsh poets could. See Martin Aurell,

La vielle et l’épée: Troubadours et politique

en France au XIIIe siècle

(Paris, 1989).

Dafydd Jenkins, ‘

Bardd Teulu

and

Pencerdd

’ [hereafter Jenkins, ‘

Bardd Teulu

’], in

The Welsh King

and his Court

, ed. Thomas Mowbray Charles-Edwards, Morfydd E. Owen and Paul Russel (Cardiff

2000) [hereafter

The Welsh King

], p. 160.

Ibid., p. 164.

Melville Richards,

The Laws of Hywel Dda (The Book of Blegywryd)

(Liverpool, 1954), pp. 25,

41.

J. E. Lloyd,

History of Wales

(2 vols., 3rd edn., 1939), ii. 530.

COUNSELLING THE PRINCE

or break a king’,

and the poet Prydydd y Moch (fl. 1174 –1220), court

poet in Gwynedd, threatened the prince ‘with public disgrace’ as both he
and his courtiers failed to appreciate his poetry.

The relationship

between patron and poet was important, as the bards acted to validate
the status of the prince through praise, explanations of genealogy and
prowess, and comments on the rule of their patrons.

The chief poet was expected to deliver two poems to the court when

required, one praising God, and the second praising their lord. A third
poem was also delivered to the lower hall by the bard of the bodyguard.
The traditional theme of this poetry was that of the prince as a great
military leader. Llywelyn ap Iorwerth was thus described as ‘guardian
shield/bold in battle . . . attacker, assaulter’ by Llywarch ap Llywelyn,
who praised his ‘Red-stained’ retinue for continuing to fight against the
English.

The idea that the prince was a fount of justice and a generous

patron was also particularly important to the bards, and they encouraged
the cultivation of these qualities. In the same poem,

In Praise of Llywelyn

ab Iorwerth

, Llywarch described the prince as ‘Even-handed . . . Man

who prizes not misers . . . A merciful ruler’, and, perhaps hoping that
this description would become self-fulfilling, ‘open handed to bards’.

The wisdom of their rule and their consultation of the council were also
important, as Dafydd Benfras praised Llywelyn ap Iorwerth as ‘Llywelyn,
ruler of rulers, a gentle advocate in the council of the wise’.

The flip side of this praise was that the poets also composed works

criticizing the Welsh princes, advising them on how they should conduct
themselves. The freedom to criticize publicly the actions of the ruling
elite was not common in thirteenth-century Europe: English parliaments
and leading men sometimes criticized the king, although not always with
success, and criticism was only really tolerated in twelfth-century Italy
and Central Europe because of the lack of hierarchical control.

Welsh

critical poetry was, however, part of a wider Indo-European tradition
that cast the poet in the role of ‘judge of the sovereign’.

Sometimes the

poets were also members of the prince’s body of counsellors. Einion ap

Welsh Court Poems

, ed. Rhian M. Andrews (Cardiff, 2007) [hereafter Andrews,

Welsh Court

Poems

], p. xxviii.

Ibid., p. 97;

Gwaith Llywarch ap Llywelyn ‘Prydydd y moch’

, ed. Elin M. Jones with Nerys Ann

Jones (Cardiff, 1991), pp. 78 –9.

Joseph P. Clancy,

Medieval Welsh Poems

(Dublin), pp. 159–60.

Ibid.

Lewis, ‘Court Poets’, p. 153.

P. S. Barnwell, ‘Political Assemblies: Introduction’, in

Political Assemblies in the Earlier Middle

Ages

, ed. P. S. Barnwell and Marco Mostert (Turnhout, 2003) [hereafter

Political Assemblies

], p. 6;

for the right to speak at Italian civic assemblies see Edward Coleman, ‘Representative Assemblies
in Communal Italy’, in Political Assemblies, pp. 205–6. The poet Luc de la Barre criticized Henry
I of England, who subsequently ordered that he be blinded ‘as punishement for his scurrilous
songs’. See The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, 6: Books 11, 12 and 13, ed. Marjorie
Chibnall (Oxford, 1978), pp. 353–5.

Catherine A. McKenna, The Medieval Welsh Religious Lyric: Poems of the Gogynfeirdd, 1137–

1282

(Belmont, 1991), pp. 4 –5.

KATHRYN HURLOCK

Gwalchmai, from around 1216 to 1223, fulfilled both roles for Llywelyn
ap Iorwerth; unfortunately, however, no surviving examples of his poetry
give an indication of the direction of his advice, so assessments cannot be
made as to whether and how one role affected the other.

Although the poetry that criticized, advised and counselled the

princes formed what was essentially part of the court entertainment, the
poet’s words were powerful, and were difficult to ignore. In the fifteenth
century, Dafydd ab Edmwnd claimed that the wrath Dafydd ap Llywelyn
had incurred from the bards had led to his demise in 1246: ‘The one who
was killed at Aber, was afflicted with fear of the bards, Dafydd, who
exchanged this life for the next, he was removed from the world for
offending the bards.’

Their very position at court meant that their

views were expressed in front of an audience, making their suggestions
and analysis particularly potent: ‘His fame is heard | beneath the circuit
of the sun’, noted one poet.

‘I know wherever I shall stab’, Llywarch ap

Llywelyn warned Dafydd ab Owain Gwynedd, ‘poisonous will be my
tongue of constant wrath for which no balm grows.’

In the twelfth

century, Cynddelw Brydydd Mawr (fl. 1155 –1200) had taken the side of
the men of Powys against their rulers, so the idea of protesting against the
actions of the princes of Wales through poetry in the thirteenth century
did have its precedents.

The status of the poets meant that they could

risk criticizing the princes in a way that the leading men of the court or
other officials could not.

After the death of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn on St David’s Day in 1244,

when he fell from the Tower in London and broke his neck, Dafydd
Benfras took the opportunity to counsel against disputes over land: ‘Let
us give more heed to preaching. | We have all been guilty of hubris and
overreaching.’

His comments were intended as a criticism of the actions

of Dafydd ap Llywelyn, Gruffydd’s younger but legitimate brother, who
had imprisoned both Gruffydd and his eldest son, Owain, in 1240.
Hywel Foel also wrote a poem asking for the release of Owain ap Gruffydd
from prison, and stated explicitly that Llywelyn ap Iorwerth had
exceeded his authority in imprisoning him in the first place.

In the following

Peredur I. Lynch, ‘Court Poetry, Power and Politics’ [hereafter Lynch, ‘Court Poetry’], in The

Welsh King

, p. 170. Roger Boase has noted that in Spain ‘many writers and poets, such as Juan de

Mena and Fernán Diaz de Toledo, were court officials.’ See Roger Boase, The Troubadour Revival:
A Study of Social Change and Traditionalism in Late Medieval Spain

(1978), p. 73.

Gwaith Dafydd ab Edmwnded

, ed. Thomas Roberts (Bangor, 1914), p. 85; translation from

Lynch, ‘Court Poetry’, p. 177.

Attributed to Taliesin. See Paul Russel, ‘Canu I Swyddogion Llys y Brenin’, in The Welsh King,

pp. 553, 556.

J. E. Caerwyn Williams, The Poets of the Welsh Princes (Cardiff, 1994), p. 40.

T. M. Charles-Edwards and Nerys Ann Jones, ‘Breintiau GwÁr Powys: The Liberties of the Men

of Powys’, in The Welsh King, p. 192.

Jenkins, ‘Bardd Teulu’, p. 163.

Myrrdin Lloyd, ‘Poets of the Princes’, p. 184.

Gwaith Bleddyn Fardd a beirdd eraill ail hanner y drydedd ganrif ar ddeg

, ed. Rhian M. Andrews,

N. G. Costigan, Christine James, Peredur I. Lynch, Catherine McKenna and Morfydd E. Owen
(Cardiff, 1996), p. 194.

COUNSELLING THE PRINCE

year Dafydd ap Llywelyn was forced to hand Gruffydd and Owain over
to Henry III, as part of the Treaty of Gwerneigron; the king swiftly
imprisoned them both in the Tower. Dafydd Benfras’s views on Gruffydd’s
imprisonment echoed those of many of the nobility of Wales who sided
with Gruffydd, and clearly angered Dafydd ap Llywelyn. Consequently,
the poet Dafydd Benfras, and another of the prince’s critics, Einion Wan
(fl. 1230 – 45), went into exile soon thereafter.

Poetic opposition to the

imprisonment of one prince by another was echoed later in the thirteenth
century. When Llywelyn ap Gruffydd imprisoned one of his brothers, he
was reminded by Hywel Foel ap Griffi (fl. 1255 –77) that, ‘only God has
the right to dispossess a man.’

This public method of criticizing princely rule in Wales was unusual

when compared with other European countries, where criticizing royalty
in public was generally avoided, as it could lead to serious reprisals.
Songs of protest were composed in fourteenth-century England which
criticized royal officials, but, unlike the Welsh poetry, they do not appear
to have been performed at the royal court.

Tim Reuter noted that when

disputes arose at assemblies where the leading men of the realm were
gathered together, they disturbed those present, who were shocked at the
outbursts and sought to restore peace.

He goes on to explain that the

reasoning behind these responses stemmed from the fact that these men
reacted so strongly to deviations from the norm, because they had no
way in which to express such criticism of their royal leaders. ‘To oppose,
or contradict in public’, he continues, ‘was to insult; and to insult, in a
society in which the protection of one’s honour was a trip-wire defending
the protection of one’s property and rights and hence one’s power and
standing, was to invite feud.’

Reuter conceded that this practice began

to change in the thirteenth century, but it appears that it was already the
norm in Wales. This worked only in principle – private meetings were less
likely, at least theoretically, to produce circumstances in which such criticism
would prove dangerous. However, the fact that the poets often delivered
their works during public gatherings suggests that they had an unusual
degree of licence. If their criticism cut too close to the bone they could be
punished. Nevertheless, they were still able to express disapproval and
disagreement in front of the whole court.

Lynch, ‘Court Poetry’, p. 177.

‘Ni fedd namyn Duw digyfoethu’, in Gwaith Bleddyn Fardd ac Eraill o Feirdd Ail Hanner y

Drydedd Ganrif ar Ddeg

, ed. Rhian M. Andrews, N. G. Costigan (Bosco), Christine James, Peredur

I. Lynch, Catherine McKenna, Morfydd E. Owen and Brynley F. Roberts (Cardiff, 1996), pp. 23,
125; translation in Lynch, ‘Court Poetry’, p. 179.

J. R. Maddicott has argued that they were composed by the clergy who voiced the grievances

of the poor, and concludes that the poems, which ‘must so signally have failed to entertain’, ‘did
not circulate widely’. See J. R. Maddicott, ‘Poems of Social Protest in Early Fourteenth-Century
England’, in England in the Fourteenth Century: Proceedings of the 1985 Harlaxton Symposium,
ed. W. M. Ormrod (Woodbridge, 1986), pp. 134 –7.

Reuter, ‘Assembly Politics’, p. 439.

Ibid.

KATHRYN HURLOCK

Elidir Sais (1195–1246) was one of Llywelyn ap Iorwerth’s most

ardent critics and advisers. When the prince seized power at the turn of
the thirteenth century, he did so at the expense of his uncles and cousin.
Elidir complained in his poetry that Llywelyn was violating the Welsh
laws of inheritance, and cautioned against the folly of attacking the lands
of those who held them by right:

‘Think what you do’, he advised,
‘when you commit aggression over a border,
bringing everyone down to his knees.
Be a supporter of the weak,
be just and gentle to those of rightful descent,
let there be mercy within your strongholds of stone,
and the love of God.’

When Dafydd ab Owain was deprived of his lands, Elidir likened it to
the loss of Jerusalem to Saladin in 1187. Elidir tended to use religious
themes when he gave advice. In his poem, It Must Someday Be Answered,
he warned:

Breaking the commandments, upholding thieves,
Oppressing the poor, I know does not prosper . . .
Think, wicked man, because it is laid down
That with God there is no disputing.

Elidir was the most forthright of the bards in providing counsel and criticism.
Whereas others spoke of the prince’s need to be a strong leader, just and
benevolent, Elidir mentioned specific grievances. Llywelyn was clearly
not pleased to receive such candid criticism, and where other bards
managed to secure absolution by producing a poem begging to be forgiven,
Elidir’s work appears to have fallen on deaf ears,

and he was instead

sent into exile in England, where he apparently remained until Llywelyn
died in 1240. Political songs in England, especially in the latter half of
the thirteenth century, also offered some form of censure, but they differed
from those in Wales; in England the role and status of the poets in relation
to the royal court were not enshrined in law (as it was in Gwynedd).
Moreover, the provision of praise, advice and censure was part of the
poets’ role in Wales. In England, critical works were often anonymous,
such as the libel on the bishops of Winchester, Norwich and Bath, rather
than part of a very public composition and delivery of poetry linked to a
specific author.

Davies, Age of Conquest, p. 239.

Myrddin Lloyd, ‘Poets of the Princes’, p. 177; Gwaith Meilyr Brydydd a’i ddisgynyddion, ed.

J. E. Caerwyn Williams (Cardiff, 1994), p. 337.

Ibid., p. 339; Anthony Coran, The Penguin Book of Welsh Verse (Harmondsworth, 1967), p. 124.

Myrddin Lloyd, ‘Poets of the Princes’, p. 177.

Thomas Wright’s Political Songs of England: From the Reign of John to that of Edward II

, ed.

Peter Coss (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 6 – 8. For a background to English political songs, see Peter
Coss’s introduction, pp. xi–lxviii.

COUNSELLING THE PRINCE

Throughout the thirteenth century, the poets dwelled on the idea that

Wales would be stronger if only it were unified and led by one man, a
theme that was particularly pronounced in the works of Dafydd Benfras
(fl. c.1230 – 60), Llygad G∑r (fl. c.1260 –70) and Llywarch ap Llywelyn.

There was also a definite move away from confederate counsel of princes
from all over Wales towards rule from Gwynedd.

The crux here is

whether the poetry reflected the change or encouraged it in the first
place. Admittedly rule from Gwynedd might arguably limit the number
of places where a poet might exhibit his craft; they did, after all, travel
between courts, and limiting the power of the southern princes would
remove a source of patronage. Thus perhaps the poets would not encourage
the supremacy of Gwynedd over all others. The decline, however, was
already well underway as, after the death of the Lord Rhys of Deheubarth
in 1197, the southern principality fragmented under the strain of inter-
necine strife. Moreover, the poets were accustomed to expressing their
own opinions, and if they were astute, they would no doubt have realized
that for Welsh power to succeed, Wales needed to unite under one leader
who could offer some measure of resistance to the English king. Thus
their poetry, part-propaganda, part-advice, reflected both their own
wishes and those of the princes of Gwynedd.

In the first decades of the thirteenth century, the rise of Llywelyn ap

Iorwerth marked the development of a ministerial elite, which was
needed if Llywelyn was to control Gwynedd effectively. The introduction
of taxation, the systematic development of castles and the improvement of
economic exploitation all required a more efficient method of governance.

So too did the expansion of Gwynedd’s control into other Welsh lands.
J. Beverley Smith has noted that, ‘A great deal rested upon the ability of
the prince and his leading advisors to harmonise the demands of his
direct lordship over Gwynedd with his indirect lordship over the broader
territories.’

They did not form a clearly defined ‘council’ as such, though

at times they were referred to in these terms. J. Watts has commented
that the men who fulfilled administrative posts in the English court ‘were
frequently to be found about the king and were often regarded as his
counsellors because of their responsibilities [but that] this does not make
them a council as such’.

The importance of these advisers was such that

the court poets, namely Elidir Sais, Dafydd Benfras and Bleddyn Fardd,
began to address poetry to them as well as to their princely patrons.

Lewis. ‘The Court Poets’, p. 153; Myrddin Lloyd, ‘Poets of the Princes’, p. 178.

For a brief overview of the changes, see Littere Wallie, pp. xli–xliii.

Frame, Political Development, p. 119; Pryce, ‘Welsh Rulers’, p. 41.

Smith, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, p. 114.

J. Watts, ‘The Counsels of King Henry VI, c.1435 –1445’, English Historical Review, cvi (1991),

282.

Owen, ‘Literary Convention and Historical Reality’, p. 80; Gwaith Dafydd Benfras ac Eraill o

Feirdd Hanner Cyntaf y Drydedd Ganrif ar Ddeg

, ed. R. Geraint Gruffydd, Nerys Ann Jones, Peredur I.

Lynch, Catherine McKenna, Morfydd E. Owen and Gruffydd Aled Williams (Cardiff, 1995), p. 33.

KATHRYN HURLOCK

In these eulogies their praise was often specifically aimed at the advice
the ministers provided to the prince: Gruffydd ab Ednyfed (fl. c.1246 –56)
was ‘lord’s counsel like Airgol Llawhir’, and Goronwy ab Ednyfed
(fl. c.1258 – 68) was a man ‘whose word was completely wise’.

The consultation of a body of counsellors occurred early in Llywelyn

ap Iorwerth’s rule. In the summer of 1211, after he had been defeated
following King John’s invasion of north Wales, Llywelyn decided to act
upon the advice of a group of advisers. According to the native Welsh
chronicle, Brut y Tywysogyon, Llywelyn ‘being unable to suffer the
oppression of the king [John], by the counsel of his leading men, sent to
the king [John] his wife, who was daughter to the king, to make peace
between him and the king on whatsoever terms she could’.

It was the

first time Joan was used as an intermediary between her husband and
King John. The terms imposed by the treaty were harsh – Llywelyn lost
Gwynedd east of the Conwy, cattle, horses, and allegiances, gave hostages
to John (including Llywelyn’s own illegitimate son, Gruffydd), and
Llywelyn was forced to agree to leave his lands to the English crown
should Joan die without having produced an heir. A group of counsellors
was clearly used more frequently than the Brut reveals, but their role in
the decision-making process here was obviously explained by the author
in order to attribute the outcome of Joan’s intercession to the prince’s
advisers, as well as to the prince, removing the burden of sole responsibility.
Martin Aurell has remarked that in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries
‘collective action lent more weight to royal orders; distanced responsibility
from the prince, and, if necessary, allowed him to blame political mistakes
on one of his advisors.’

Llywelyn made the decision with his leading

men but without the support of the other rulers of Wales because John
had succeeded in separating Llywelyn from the support of Powys and
Deheubarth, making it impossible for them to form an alliance against
him.

This formed the origins of the rise of the idea of drawing advice

and counsel solely from Gwynedd in the thirteenth century. Although the
decision to consult his ‘ministerial elite’ had been forced by circumstance,
it was clear that the prince was already using a consultative body in the
decision-making process.

Despite the early origins of the use of the advisers in this way, it was

not until the time of Dafydd Benfras (fl. 1230 –60) that the idea of
rulership from Gwynedd over Wales and the use of a ‘council’ began to

‘Cyngor llyw fel Aergwl Llawhir’. J. Gwenogvryn Evans, The Poetry in the Red Book of Hergest

(Llanbedrog, 1911), pp. 1384. 23–4; ‘kwbylddoeth y ymadrawdd’, Llawysgrif Hendregadredd,
ed. Rh. Morris-Jones and T. H. Parry-Williams (Cardiff, 1991), 75.25; translations from Owen,
‘Literary Convention and Historical Reality’, p. 81.

Brut y Tywysogyon, or Chronicle of the Princes: Red Book of Hergest Version

, trans. Thomas

Jones (Cardiff, 1955) [hereafter Brut: Red Book], pp. 191–2. For the text of the subsequent agreement,
see Acts of Welsh Rulers, pp. 386 –8, #233.

Martin Aurell, The Plantagenet Empire 1154 –1224, trans. David Crouch (Harlow, 2007), p. 34.

Davies, Age of Conquest, p. 295.

COUNSELLING THE PRINCE

appear in the works of the court poets. In the years before this, Llywelyn
ap Iorwerth had continued to gather advice from his own men and from
the other princes of Wales. In 1212, he ‘summoned the council of his
leading men’ when concluding a peace treaty with Philip Augustus, king
of France.

The alliance proposed here between Wales and France was

important because it would allow the Welsh to take lands from King
John while he was busy dealing with the threat of the French king.

the same year Llywelyn entered a ‘solemn pact’ with Gwenwynwyn and
Maelgwyn a Rhys, Madog ap Gruffydd Maelor and Maredudd ap
Rhobert, and was ‘united together’ with Gwenwynwyn and Maelgwyn
again later against King John, suggesting that rule by a confederacy of
princes was still strong.

In many ways this form of counsel was more

important at the time: it is fair to say, for example, that the treaty with
Philip would only really have worked with the support of other princes,
and so Llywelyn referred three times to his fellow rulers. As R. F. Treharne
has observed, the treaty was aimed at ‘binding not merely Philip and
Llywelyn as individual rulers, but rather the realm of France and the
principality of North Wales – an alliance of states, not of individuals’,

an aim which could not be met if only Llywelyn wanted the treaty to
succeed. To that end, he informed the French king that he was pledging
himself and his heirs to the union, and had agreed to Philip’s terms ‘with
the consent of all the princes of Wales’.

Their inclusion in the decision-

making process shows how matters had changed in the year since Joan
had been sent to her father, as Llywelyn’s power was now sufficiently
strong that an alliance between all the princes against the English crown
was conceivable. It also suggests that the other Welsh princes were
still sufficiently independent of the English crown for their support of
Gwynedd’s policies to be important. Llywelyn went on to say that ‘in
unanimous confederation’,

the princes had decided to resist their enemies

and won back lands taken by the English.

In 1212, it was still considered

necessary to rule using the advice of all the princes of Wales.

The use of a confederation of princes continued throughout the 1210s

and 1220s. In 1215, Llywelyn ap Iorwerth ‘by the counsel of all the
princes of Wales along with him, led a host, by their common counsel,

Acts of Welsh Rulers

, p. 392, #235. Owain Gwynedd’s attempts to forge an alliance with Louis

VII of France in 1168 also appear to have relied on the cooperation of other Welsh rulers. See Huw
Pryce, ‘Owain Gwynedd and Louis VII: The Franco-Welsh Diplomacy of the First Prince of
Wales’, Welsh History Review, xix (1998), 1–28.

Ifor W. Rowlands, ‘King John and Wales’, in King John: New Interpretations, ed. S. D. Church

(Woodbridge, 1999), p. 283.

Brut: Red Book

, p. 195.

R. F. Treharne, ‘The Franco-Welsh Treaty of Alliance in 1212’, Bulletin of the Board of Celtic

Studies

, xviii (1958) [hereafter Treharne, ‘Franco-Welsh Treaty’], 71.

Acts of Welsh Rulers

, p. 392, #235.

Ibid.

The alliance came to an end in the following year when Innocent III advised Llywelyn to abandon

his friendship with France. See Treharne, ‘Franco-Welsh Treaty’, 72.

KATHRYN HURLOCK

against Carmarthen.’

Llywelyn had succeeded in forming a confederation

with all the princes of Wales bar Rhys and Owen ap Gruffydd and
Madog ap Gruffydd. After taking the royal castle at Carmarthen in
Deheubarth, they moved on to Llanstephan, Laugharne, St Clears and
Cardigan. When the men of Cemais surrendered the castle of Newport
to Llywelyn, the option was taken to destroy it rather than hold it, a
decision made not by Llywelyn, but ‘by common counsel’.

This ‘common

counsel’, however, still operated in parallel with a body of advisers in
Gwynedd. In the same year, ‘all the princes of Wales, for the most part,
and all the learned men of Gwynedd’ were summoned to Aberdyfi, to
determine the division of land.

There is no suggestion, however, that

those who provided counsel to princes in the other principalities were
required to attend the meeting. Llywelyn’s position in 1216 was such that the
meeting took place ‘before Llywelyn’, emphasizing his control over Wales.
Already the body of men who provided counsel to the prince of Gwynedd
was considered equal to the confederation of princes, with Llywelyn
relying on its advice for matters touching lands outside Gwynedd.

References to the advice of these men being sought during the decision-

making process are included in the acts of the Welsh princes or recorded
in the chronicles for two main reasons: first, as a way of either validating
a decision, as in 1216, and secondly, as a means of explaining a potentially
unpopular decision which appears to have been the case when Joan was
sent to entreat with her father in 1211. This latter motive appears to have
been one of the primary factors behind the references to the advice of the
council in 1230, when Llywelyn sought the aid of his council in dealing
with William de Braose. In April of that year, William was ‘caught in
Llywelyn’s chamber with the king of England’s daughter, Llywelyn’s
wife’,

for which he was subsequently hanged on 2 May at Llywelyn’s

manor of Crogen. The execution of William de Braose could have had
significant repercussions for the proposed match between Llywelyn’s son
and heir Dafydd, and William’s daughter Isabel. To this end, soon after
William’s death, Llywelyn wrote to Isabel’s mother, Eva, to inform her
that he ‘could not have prevented the magnates of his land from making
the judgement they had made, knowing the punishment for the dishonour

Brut y Tywysogyon or The Chronicle of the Princes, Peniarth MS. 20 Version

, trans. Thomas

Jones (Cardiff, 1952) [hereafter Brut: Peniarth], p. 91.

Brut: Red Book

, p. 205.

Ibid., p. 207. The Peniarth MS 20 version of the Brut reads ‘after almost all of the leading men

of Wales had assembled there before the Lord Llywelyn and all the learned men of Gwynedd’, sug-
gesting that the other princes had to argue the case for the division of lands in order to persuade
not only Llywelyn but his council too. See Brut: Peniarth, p. 92. The wording of the Brenhinedd
suggests, like the Red Book of Hergest Version, that the princes and council were equals. Brenhinedd
y Saesson, or The Kings of the Saxons

, trans. Thomas Jones (Cardiff, 1971), p. 215.

The lands under question lay in Dyfed, Ystrad Tywi, Ceredigion, Cantref Mawr and Cantref

Bychan. Brut: Red Book, p. 207.

Brut: Peniarth

, p. 102.

COUNSELLING THE PRINCE

and insult to him’.

J. J. Crump has argued that Llywelyn was not happy

with the magnates’ decision, but was forced to accept it,

although Huw

Pryce’s assertion that the aim of this letter was ‘to play down his own
role in William’s execution’

appears closer to the mark. It seems

unlikely that Llywelyn would have balked at William’s execution as
Crump has suggested; he had imprisoned his wife for a year because of
her infidelity, and it is unlikely that he would have excused her alleged
lover. It is possible that Llywelyn did really have little choice in William’s
fate once its outcome had been left to his advisers; this does not mean,
however, that he did not agree with the result.

Llywelyn’s decision to inform Eva de Braose that her husband’s execution

was the result of the verdict of his counsellors was thus clearly part of an
attempt to safeguard his son’s marriage. To this end he wrote to Eva’s
brother, William Marshal, second earl of Pembroke, ‘informing the earl
that the magnates of Llywelyn’s land would not bear not having passed
the sentence on William de Braose which they passed’. The letter goes on
to ask the earl whether the match between Dafydd and Isabel was to go
ahead.

Relations between Llywelyn and Eva were still problematic in

the following month, with Eva instructing her chaplain to excommunicate
the Welsh prince every Sunday.

A dispute over the holding of hostages

was the subject of a letter in June or August, when it was claimed that
Llywelyn was holding members of William de Braose’s former retinue ‘in
his prison, acting according to the advice of his council’.

Again, Llywelyn

was referring to his leading men in matters concerning relations with the
Braoses in order to legitimize his decisions regarding the de Braoses. As
part of Isabel’s marriage portion, she was to receive the lordship of Builth,
which would have provided the house of Gwynedd with a substantial
territorial holding in mid-Wales, and with this in mind it appears that
Llywelyn was trying to stamp his dealings with Eva de Braose with some
degree of businesslike neutrality. Thus, Llywelyn sought to distance
himself from the decision to execute William by laying the judgment at
the door of others, and attributed the continuing imprisonment of
William’s men to them. By avoiding a declaration of his own thoughts
on the matter, he was able to appeal successfully to Eva de Braose and
William Marshal, despite Eva’s evident hatred of Llywelyn, to uphold
the proposed marriage alliance.

Acts of Welsh Rulers

, p. 428, #261. The magnates were probably driven by more than just a

desire to see the insult to their prince punished, as a division of the de Braose inheritance would
have suited the Welsh councillors, many of whom were enemies of the de Braose family. See Pryce,
‘Negotiating Anglo-Welsh Relations: Llywellyn the Great and Henry III’, in Bjorn K. U. Weiler
and Ifor W. Rowlands, England and Europe in the Reign of Henry III (1216 –1272) (Ashgate, 2002),
p. 13.

J. J. Crump, ‘Repercussions of the Execution of William de Braose: A Letter from Llywelyn ab

Iorwerth to Stephen de Segrave’, Historical Research, lxxiii (2000), 197–212, 200 –3.

Acts of Welsh Rulers

, p. 429.

Ibid., pp. 429–30, #262.

Ibid., p. 431, #263.

KATHRYN HURLOCK

What the incident of William de Braose’s execution demonstrated is

that, when advice was sought on a matter, which theoretically only
interested the court of Gwynedd, the advice of the body of the prince’s
advisers was sought. The issue of Joan’s infidelity and William’s
subsequent execution was not an issue for the other princes in Wales.
Even though the hostility engendered by William’s execution from the
powerful Braose and Marshal families would be potentially dangerous to
the other princes, the origins of the dispute were rather domestic, and so
advice was sought closer to home.

The rise of the use of a body of counsellors in Gwynedd at the

expense of a confederacy of princes, which had begun under the rule of
Llywelyn ap Iorwerth, became particularly strong under his grandson,
Llywelyn ap Gruffydd. In the 1240s, as the poets began to advocate rule
from Gwynedd, the idea of consulting with the other Welsh princes
virtually disappears from the sources. It is the decline in this sort of advice,
contrasted to the ascendancy of a group of advisers drawn from Gwynedd,
which reflected the suggestions of the poets, who advocated the rise of
single leadership backed by a body of advisers from the principality at
the expense of other rulers. The last time Llywelyn ap Gruffydd appears
to have consulted the other Welsh princes was in 1258, when the princes
of Wales secured an alliance with the nobles of Scotland led by the
Comyn family.

It was not, however, a repeat of the treaty of 1212 with

France, as in this text ‘Llywelyn’s supremacy over most of the other
Welsh lords is clear’;

he is specifically described as ‘Prince of Wales’.

The agreement was almost certainly reached at the ‘assembly of the
magnates’ held in that year, at which they swore fealty to Llywelyn ap
Gruffudd.

Although not all the noble families were represented, it is

clear from the lists of those involved that Llywelyn’s influence extended
over most of Wales.

From the 1240s, the idea of one man at the court of Gwynedd having

power over the ‘lesser’ princes of Wales was the method of rule advocated
by the court poets. Llywarch ap Llywelyn advised the men of Powys to
accept Llywelyn ap Gruffydd as their leader, citing his strength and
asking them whether they preferred the rule of a Welshman to that of a
Frenchman.

In the mid-1240s, Llywarch wrote of the supremacy of

Llywelyn’s court of Aberffraw on Anglesey as the principal seat of Welsh
government. Myrddin Lloyd has called it ‘a clear instance of a poet helping

For the position of the Comyns at the time of the alliance, see Alan Young, Robert the Bruce’s

Rivals: The Comyns, 1212–1314

(East Linton, 1997), p. 57.

Acts of Welsh Rulers

, p. 500.

Ibid., p. 499, #328.

Brut: Peniarth

, p. 111, states that ‘all the Welsh made a pact together, and they gave an oath to

maintain loyalty and agreement together’ (my italics), suggesting that the meeting was notable for
two things, the reaching of the agreement with the Scots, and the swearing of allegiance to Llywe-
lyn; Brut: Red Book, p. 251.

For an analysis, see Smith, Llywelyn ap Gruffud, pp. 112–13.

Lynch, ‘Court Poetry’, p. 187.

COUNSELLING THE PRINCE

to create an attitude of mind conducive to the rise of Llywelyn’.

Llywarch’s support of rule from Gwynedd was intended as advice to his
audience, but as many of those he performed before would have been of
the court of Gwynedd, it is possible that he was also trying to support the
idea of Gwynedd’s supremacy by using poetry as a form of legitimization.
In this instance, his advice was aimed not so much at the prince, but at
those who came under his rule.

Suggestions that Wales would be better ruled by one man had begun

in the poetry of the twelfth century, but it was not until the rise of Llywelyn
ap Iorwerth that the princes were, in the words of Peredur Lynch,
‘encouraged to aim for such dizzy heights’.

Llygad G∑r praised Llywelyn

ap Gruffydd as ‘the true king of Wales’. In 1258, in his poem In Praise of
Llywelyn ap Gruffudd

, he described him as:

Aberffraw’s crowned, wealthy, well-spoken lord,
. . . Dinefwr’s crowned armed, belligerent Lord,
. . . Mathafral’s crowned lord, lengthy your border,
Lord Llywelyn, four-languaged ruler . . .
Let Heaven’s King stand, rite of high rank,
By the gold war-lord who holds three crowns.

By praising the idea of unified rule of the three ancient kingdoms of
Gwynedd, Deheubarth and Powys, whose courts were at Aberffraw,
Dinefwr and Mathrafal respectively, under the prince of Gwynedd, the
poet was suggesting that it was the best course of action for Wales, whilst
giving Llywelyn’s rule validity. Gwynedd was to become ruler of all
Wales, a move that would necessitate the subordination of the other
Welsh princes and remove the need for their counsel in matters concerning
Wales as a whole. There was also a marked change in the language used
to describe Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, as Rhian Andrews has noted:

The perceived overlord of each of the three gwledydd, Gwynedd, Powys
and Deheubarth, might be designated in poetry a brenin (king), but with
Llywelyn ap Gruffydd’s rise to pre-eminence in the mid thirteenth century
and his determination to establish a single kinship, the poets seem to have
reserved the term for him alone.

In the final years of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd’s rule, when the other parts of
Wales had largely fallen under English control, the only references to the
provision of more formal guidance mention the group of men from
Gwynedd who formed Llywelyn’s body of advisers. Five years after
Llywelyn had told Reginald de Grey he could not make any decision
without his council, he was consulting them in judicial matters concerning
Madog ap Gruffudd Madog’s right to lands,

and in the following year

Myrrdin Lloyd, ‘Poets of the Princes’, pp. 102–3.

Lynch, ‘Court Poetry’, p. 183.

Joseph P. Clancy, The Earliest Welsh Poetry (1970), p. 167.

Andrews, Welsh Court Poems, pp. xxix–xxx.

Stephenson, Governance, p. 7 n. 30.

KATHRYN HURLOCK

he complained to Edward I that Margaret of Bromfield was refusing to
come before his ‘council’ about a land dispute.

Towards the end of

1282, Llywelyn submitted a list of grievances to John Pecham, arch-
bishop of Canterbury, on behalf of Gwynedd and others he felt had been
wronged by the English. Although it is clear that he listened to their
complaints, there is no indication that he was acting as part of a confed-
eration as he had been in 1212 and 1215.

It was Llywelyn who met with

the archbishop to discuss these issues on behalf of the other men of
Wales, and there is no mention to any other princes working with him in
order to have these grievances redressed.

Perhaps, Wales would have

stood a better chance of survival if the princes had ignored the advice of
his poets and advisers and formed a confederation of princes against
Edward I, as they had done against his great-grandfather in 1164.

The court poetry of thirteenth-century Wales thus functioned as a way

of providing advice, criticism and counsel, as well as in entertaining the
court and validating the rule of the princes it praised. By extolling certain
virtues, the poets were urging their patrons to live up to high expectations.
Criticism could earn displeasure and even exile for the outspoken bard,
but the very fact that these sentiments were rehearsed in public in front
of the court meant that, once spoken, the advice of the bards may have
been harder to ignore than that rendered in private by the prince’s more
intimate advisers. Although much of the poetry avoided political events,
the rise of the principality of Gwynedd throughout the thirteenth century
led to a rash of poetry that praised the aims of the two Llywelyns to rule
over all of Wales, and in so doing reinforced and legitimized the idea of
one prince ruling from Aberffraw.

Counselling the prince in thirteenth-century Wales was thus a many-sided

affair. The poets provided varied levels of advice, and although they did
not assist in the decision-making process in the way the prince’s leading
men did, they often counselled against certain actions and judged the
prince’s decisions. Their advice and criticisms were, somewhat unusually,
given to the princes in front of an audience, and were evidently not
always met with equanimity. More formal and practical advice was
furnished by the prince’s own council, and by a confederation of the other
rulers of Wales, the former rising in importance as the latter gave way to
rule over Wales by the princes of Gwynedd. The two Llywelyns and their
court poets envisaged a Wales ruled from Aberffraw, and they succeeded,
at least for the closing decades of independent rule, in achieving this aim.
Gwynedd’s rule could not be complete, however, if rule via the consensus
of a confederation was still the norm, and so the counsellors, praised by the
poets for the sound advice they gave, took over the role of counselling
the thirteenth-century princes of Gwynedd.

Acts of Welsh Rulers

, p. 604, #416.

Registrum Epistolarum Fratris Johannis Peckham, Archiepiscopi Cantuariensis

, ed. Charles Trice Martin

(3 vols., 1884), ii. 440 – 65 [hereafter Registrum Epistolarum]; Smith, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, pp. 533 – 4.

Registrum Epistolarum

, ii. 465–6; Smith, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, p. 535.

Wyszukiwarka

Podobne podstrony:
A picnic table is a project you?n buy all the material for and build in a?y
Dracula s Women The Representation of Female Characters in a Nineteenth Century Novel and a Twentie
Death and return of the author criticism and subjectivity in barthes foucault and derrida
The history of translation dates back to the times of Cicero and Horace in first century BCE and St
Bruce Baker Under the Rope Lynching and Memory in Laurens County, South Carolina
Handmaid to Divinity Natural Philosophy, Poetry, and Gender in Seventeenth Century England
Recruitment to the Military Orders in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
Aftershock Protect Yourself and Profit in the Next Global Financial Meltdown
A Guide to the Law and Courts in the Empire
D Stuart Ritual and History in the Stucco Inscription from Temple XIX at Palenque
Catcher in the Rye, The Book Analysis and Summary
Spanish Influence in the New World and the Institutions it I
Nukariya; Religion Of The Samurai Study Of Zen Philosophy And Discipline In China And Japan
keohane nye Power and Interdependence in the Information Age
54 767 780 Numerical Models and Their Validity in the Prediction of Heat Checking in Die
93 Team Attacking in the Attacking 1 3 – Crossing and Finis
Philosophy and Theology in the Middle Ages by GR Evans (1993)
Copper and Molybdenum?posits in the United States
The main press station is installed in the start shaft and?justed as to direction

więcej podobnych podstron