Elis Gruffydd was a self-taught Welsh author who wrote his World Chronicle, in Welsh, while serving in the English army in Calais 1530-1552. It is more than 2000 manuscript pages in length. Patrick Ford has translated a tiny fraction for this slim volume. As a record of history, Gruffydd's chronicle is, I presume, useful only for his own time and place. But this is not the parts that Ford has translated. Rather, as the title implies, Ford has concentrated on two things: 1) Gruffydd's account of legendary British history from the rise of Vortigern in the 5th century to the fall of Arthur and Merlin in the 6th; and 2) the appearance of magic across all periods of history, almost up to Gruffydd's present. This selection must be based on Ford's own interests, but I suppose it is likely to overlap strongly with the parts of interest to most modern readers.
This selection is the largest part of Gruffydd's Chronicle yet translated into English, and so the book is certainly to be appreciated for that. I found it odd that Ford did not always stick to Gruffydd’s order of events. As a more serious issue, I have to express some reservations about how far Ford’s work can be trusted. I am no expert at all on Gruffydd, or in Welsh, let alone Middle Welsh. Despite this, and despite the shortness of the book, I came across what seem to me two clear errors. One is quite major, and is one of interpretation. The other is relatively minor, and is one of translation (unless I am quite mistaken). I mention the minor one only because it is the single instance where I checked the translation against the original manuscript (available online at the University of Wales), which doesn't give one great confidence in the rest of the book.
The first error was that Ford, has, in commentary on one passage, misunderstood a very basic relation between Gruffydd and his sources. Ford states on page 40 that Gruffydd gives critical arguments against the account of the peopling of Britain in John Rastell’s history, The Pastyme of People (1529–30). In fact, what follows is Gruffydd’s translation, at great length, of Rastell’s own criticism of traditional (mythological) accounts. Then, when Gruffydd reverts to his own voice, on page 48, he says, more or less, that despite this criticism he is going to keep using Geoffrey of Monmouth as a source anyway. For another witness to Gruffydd’s extensive quotation of Rastell, see the notes “ELIS GRUFFYDD AND MULTIPLE VERSIONS OF GEOFFREY’S HISTORIA” by Ceridwen Lloyd-Morgan, which one can find online.
The second error, the one of translation, occurs on page 74. Ford’s translation reads as follows: “Geoffrey agrees with this, saying that King Vortigern often took as many as eleven hundred Saxons as men sworn to him”. Now this figure of 1100 was not one I’ve seen in any version of Geoffrey of Monmouth, so, out of curiosity, I looked up the original manuscript, and the number appearing is clearly “un uilarddeg” or (since v and u were interchangeable) “un vilarddeg”. In modern Welsh “un mil ar ddeg” is eleven thousand, while eleven hundred would be “un cant ar ddeg”. Unless the linguistic rules for number formation have completely changed in Welsh since the 16th century, Ford’s translation is wrong. Now this error of 1100 for 11,000 is pretty unimportant in itself, since 11,000 is a fictional figure (whether arising from one of Geoffrey’s translators, transcribers, or adapters, or from Gruffydd himself), but it does cast doubt on the reliability of the translation as a whole, as I said above.