Macbeth's pedigree
Stewart Baldwin
On 29 Apr 1996, Jared Olar (ol...@eagle.uis.edu) wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Apr 1996 940...@IONA.SMS.ED.AC.UK wrote:
>
>> In the `tenth-century edition' of the _Senchus_ we have a pedigree which
>> runs from Loairn, through to Ainbhcellach, and on to someone who appears to
>> have been a tenth-century contemporary, but for whom there is no mention in
>> any but genealogical sources. Therefore, the only part of the pedigree that
>> could have been made is the part between Ainbhcellach and Ruari.
>
>For convenience, I thought I'd collate the versions of the Cenel nLoairn
>pedigree available to me. (These come from the Appendix of volume three
>of Skene's CELTIC SCOTLAND, pp.476-7, and Skene's edition of the _Senchus
>Fer nAlban_ in CHRONICLES OF THE PICTS, CHRONICLES OF THE SCOTS, AND
>OTHER EARLY MEMORIALS OF SCOTTISH HISTORY, 1867, pp.316-7.)
>
>`Celtic Scotland' `Chronicles' 1 `Chronicles' 2 `Chronicles' 3
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Eirc Eirc
>Loarn moir Loairnd mair
>Muredaig Muredaig Muredach
>Eathaig Ecdach Echach
>Buadan Boetain Boetan Boetan
>Colmain Coluim
>Sneachtain Nechtan
>Fergusa Fergusa
>Fearadaig Feradaich
>Ferchair fhoda Ferchair fotai Ferchair Ferchair
>Aircellach Ainbhcellach
>Ruadri Ruadrach Ruadrach
>Cathmail Cathmai Caithnia
>Domnall Domnall Domnall
>Morgaind Mongan Morgan
>Domnall
>Ruadri
>Maelbrigde
>Gillicomgan (d.1032)
>Lulaig (d.1058)
>Maelsnectai (d.1085)
>
>The problem of the missing generations between Ruadri II and Ainbhcellach
>*might* be able to be solved by treating the Muredach who heads the list in
>the fourth column as identical to Ainbhcellach's son of that name. This
>is apparently what Moncreiffe did in his pedigree chart in HIGHLAND
>CLANS. (But he inserts yet another Muredach between Boetan and
>Ferchair.) Eleven or so generations in about two hundred and sixty years
>seems plausible.
> On the other hand, the pedigree of Morgan shown in the last two
>columns might just be fragmentary versions of the Cenel nLoairn lineage
>represented in the first two columns.
>
>Any light on this issue?
Having now looked at these pedigrees more carefully, I think it can be
determined roughly how far back Macbeth's pedigree is accurate (i.e.,
probably only to his grandfather). When looking at these old
pedigrees, they should not be considered in isolation, but should be
examined in the context of other pedigrees which appear in the same
collection. In particular, there are several pedigrees appended to
the Senchus fer nAlban, of which five of them seem to form a group
which was drawn up in the early eighth century. (See the discussion
in Anderson's "Kings and Kingship in Early Scotland", pp. 158ff.) I
don't have access to Bannerman's edition of these pedigrees, so they
are taken from Anderson's Early Sources of Scotish History, p. clvi.
(Anderson did not keep the forms of the manuscript, but changed the
names to modern forms.)
The pedigrees are:
Congus, son of Consalma, son of Conai Garb, son of Gartnait, son of
Aidan, son of Gabran. (Cenel nGabrain) [Cano, son of Gartnait
appears in the annals, as do three sons of a certain Congus (early 8th
century) who is probably this Congus.]
Ainfcellach, son of Ferchar Fota, son of Feradach, son of Fergus, son
of Nechtan, son of Colum, son of Baetan, son of Eochaid. son of
Muiredach, son of Loarn Mor, son of Erc, son of Eochaid Muin-remor.
(Cenel Loairn)
Morgan/Mongan, son of Don[ald], son of Cathma[il], son of Ruadri, son
of Ferchar, son of Muiredach, son of Baetan, son of Eochaid, son of
Muiredach. (also Cenel Loairn)
Eochaid, son of Nechtan, son of Ferchar, son of Fingin, son of
Eochaid, son of Loingsech, *, son of Comgall, son of Domangart, son of
Macc-Misi Mor, son of Erc. (Cenel Comgaill) [* "son of Conall was
probably inadvertantly omitted here, as Conall, son of Comgall is
known to have had a son named Loingsech.]
Angus, son of Boib, son of Ronan, son of Aidan, son of Coiblein, son
of Natsluaig, son of Ronan, son of Angus, son of Erc, son of Eochaid
Muin-remor. (Cenel nOengusa)
Because the pedigrees seem to form a group, and the number of
generations suggests that all of them may have been contemporaries, it
is reasonable to accept Anderson's suggestion (Kings and Kingship, pp.
161-2) that the pedigrees were drawn up in the early eighth century,
and that the first person mentioned was the head of his family at the
time the pedigrees were written, since such pedigrees are easy to
bring up to date.
If this is correct (and I think it is), then this Morgan/Mongan lived
about the year 700, and therefore cannot possibly be the near ancestor
of Macbeth. It appears that when the pedigree of Macbeth's kinsman
Maelsnechtai was concocted, the above two Cenel Loairn pedigrees were
set end-to-end, the duplicate names at the beginning of one of them
were deleted, and then the known part of the Moray pedigree was added
to the end. Whether or not this was done because of a genuine
tradition of descent from the Cenel Loairn is of no immediate
relevance. The pedigree as it stands appears to be a fabrication.
Morgan/Mongan is most likely a historical person from the early eighth
century, who may or may not have anything to do with the later family
of the mormaers of Moray. Macbeth's pedigree can be considered
certain only back to his grandfather Ruaidri, who appears as the
father of Findlaech in the latter's obituary in the contemporary Irish
annals. (Ruaidri also appears as mormaer of Moray in the Book of the
Deer, assuming it is the same man, which is likely.) Whether or not
the generation linking Ruaidri (ca. 1000) to Morgan/Mongan (ca. 700)
was genuinely the father of Ruaidri is impossible to determine, but it
looks like skepticism is best in that regard.
Stewart Baldwin
Jared Olar
> Having now looked at these pedigrees more carefully, I think it can be
> determined roughly how far back Macbeth's pedigree is accurate (i.e.,
> probably only to his grandfather). When looking at these old
> pedigrees, they should not be considered in isolation, but should be
> examined in the context of other pedigrees which appear in the same
> collection.
Excellent point, Stewart.
> In particular, there are several pedigrees appended to the Senchus Fer
> nAlban, of which five of them seem to form a group which was drawn up
> in the early eighth century. (See the discussion in Anderson's "Kings
> and Kingship in Early Scotland", pp. 158ff.) I don't have access to
> Bannerman's edition of these pedigrees, so they are taken from
> Anderson's Early Sources of Scotish History, p. clvi. (Anderson did not
> keep the forms of the manuscript, but changed the names to modern forms.)
Although it slipped my mind when I drew up the pedigree columns above, I
have access both to Anderson and to Bannerman. I'll intersperse
Dr. Bannerman's edition of these genealogies below. (They are found on
pages 65 and 66 of his STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF DALRIADA, 1974.)
> The pedigrees are:
>
> Congus, son of Consamla, son of Conai Garb, son of Gartnait, son of
> Aidan, son of Gabran. (Cenel nGabrain) [Cano, son of Gartnait
> appears in the annals, as do three sons of a certain Congus (early 8th
> century) who is probably this Congus.]
Bannerman shows: "Conn mc consamla mc c[h]anai gairb mc gartnait mc
aedain mc gabrain." (On page 67, Bannerman says of the reading _Conn_,
"_Congus_ of the BL versions is probably the original reading, the second
syllable having been omitted at some stage in the transcription of H.")
> Ainfcellach, son of Ferchar Fota, son of Feradach, son of Fergus, son
> of Nechtan, son of Colum, son of Baetan, son of Eochaid. son of
> Muiredach, son of Loarn Mor, son of Erc, son of Eochaid Muin-remor.
> (Cenel Loairn)
Bannerman shows: "Anbcellach mc f[h]erc[h]air fhotai mc f[h]eradaig mc
f[h]ergusa mc c[h]olman mc boetain mc echdach mc muredaig mc loairnd mair
mc eirc mc echach munremair." (On page 67 Bannerman says, "BLMcF read _mc
Nechtain_ after _fhergusa_.")
> Morgan/Mongan, son of Don[ald], son of Cathma[il], son of Ruadri, son
> of Ferchar, son of Muiredach, son of Baetan, son of Eochaid, son of
> Muiredach. (also Cenel Loairn)
Bannerman shows: "Mongan mc domnaill mc c[h]athmai mc ruadrach mc
f[h]erchair mc muredaig mc boetain." (NOTE: This Muireadhach mac Baetan
would be the one Moncreiffe included in his pedigree--see my remarks
above.)
> Eochaid, son of Nechtan, son of Ferchar, son of Fingin, son of
> Eochaid, son of Loingsech, *, son of Comgall, son of Domangart, son of
> Macc-Misi Mor, son of Erc. (Cenel Comgaill) [* "son of Conall" was
> probably inadvertantly omitted here, as Conall, son of Comgall, is
> known to have had a son named Loingsech.]
Bannerman shows: "Echtgach mc nec[h]tain mc f[h]erc[h]air mc f[h]ingin mc
echdach mc loingsig mc c[h]omgaill mc domangairt mc m nisse mair mc eirc
mc echach munremair."
> Angus, son of Boib, son of Ronan, son of Aidan, son of Coiblein, son
> of Natsluaig, son of Ronan, son of Angus, son of Erc, son of Eochaid
> Muin-remor. (Cenel nOengusa)
Bannerman shows: "Oengus mc boidb mc ronain mc aedain mc c[h]ableni mc
nadsluaig mc ronain mc oengusa mc eirc."
> Because the pedigrees seem to form a group, and the number of
> generations suggests that all of them may have been contemporaries, it
> is reasonable to accept Anderson's suggestion (Kings and Kingship, pp.
> 161-2) that the pedigrees were drawn up in the early eighth century,
> and that the first person mentioned was the head of his family at the
> time the pedigrees were written, since such pedigrees are easy to
> bring up to date.
This makes sense to me too. On the other hand, it is obvious that the
form of this genealogical collection as we now have it IS NOT the form it
had circa 700 A.D. Consider the following:
The Cenel Comgaill pedigree is missing a generation (Conall mac Comhgall).
Also, it traces the lineage back to "Mac Nisse Mor" (_recte_ "Fergus Mor"),
which Dr. Bannerman shows was a feature of Dalriadan genealogical legend
which arose a good while after the original _Senchus_ was composed.
The Cenel Loairn pedigree of Ainbhcellach is missing a generation
(Nechtain mac Colman).
The Cenel nGabrain pedigree shows "Conn" instead of "Congus."
These features are a clear indication of later copying errors. These
pedigrees might have been drawn up circa 700 A.D., but these several
mistakes occurred later in the copying history of the texts. Anyway, the
five pedigrees under discussion follow the pedigrees of Scottish kings
from the 900's and 1000's, so we know they were all put together
some time in the eleventh century.
> If this is correct (and I think it is), then this Morgan/Mongan lived
> about the year 700, and therefore cannot possibly be the near ancestor
> of Macbeth.
At first sight, it surely looks like Morgan/Mongan was a
contemporary of Ainbhcellach who was descended from a younger brother of
Ainbhcellach's ancestor Colman. But . . . .
Dr. Bannerman's edition of these pedigrees preserves an interesting
feature: Mongan's pedigree runs together with the Cenel Comgaill
pedigree. All the other lineages are separated by a blank space between
them, but the end of Mongan's pedigree comes immediately before the title
heading of the Cenel Comgaill pedigree. Why? Is it possible that
Mongan's lineage was a later addition to the original collection of
pedigrees drawn up circa 700 A.D.?
It is curious that, of the five pedigrees under discussion,
only the Cenel Loairn has two pedigrees, while the other cenela only
receive one each. Why might that be? Obviously these were the pedigrees
of the chiefs of the Dalriadan cenela. How is it that Cenel Loairn had
two chiefs circa 700 A.D. while the other cenela had only one chief each (as
we would expect)--for so we must conclude if we accept that all five of
these lineages were drawn up about the year 700.
Who was Morgan/Mongan and why would his pedigree be included along
with the other heads of the Dalriadan cenela, when Ainbcellach was chief
of his family at that time? Remember what you said about these
individuals being the heads of their families? Obviously Morgan was not
head of Cenel nLoairn at the time Ainbhcellach was alive.
Do you see why I feel Morgan was not a figure of the beginning of
the eighth century?
> It appears that when the pedigree of Macbeth's kinsman Maelsnechtai was
> concocted, the above two Cenel Loairn pedigrees were set end-to-end,
> the duplicate names at the beginning of one of them were deleted, and
> then the known part of the Moray pedigree was added to the end.
Yeah, it looks like that--after all, Ruadri/Ruadrach was obviously not a
literal son of Ainbhcellach. But if Morgan was not, after all, a figure
of early eighth century Dalriada, then your interpretation would not work
as well, or at least not the way you now would like it to.
Of course, I think that the *tradition* of Macbeth's Cenel Loairn
original is accurate, though it seems to have been misremembered. . . . .
> Whether or not this was done because of a genuine tradition of descent
> from the Cenel Loairn is of no immediate relevance. The pedigree as it
> stands appears to be a fabrication. Morgan/Mongan is most likely a
> historical person from the early eighth century, who may or may not
> have anything to do with the later family of the mormaers of Moray.
> Macbeth's pedigree can be considered certain only back to his
> grandfather Ruaidri, who appears as the father of Findlaech in the
> latter's obituary in the contemporary Irish annals. (Ruaidri also
> appears as mormaer of Moray in the Book of the Deer, assuming it is the
> same man, which is likely.) Whether or not the generation linking
> Ruaidri (ca. 1000) to Morgan/Mongan (ca. 700) was genuinely the father
> of Ruaidri is impossible to determine, but it looks like skepticism is
> best in that regard.
>
> Stewart Baldwin
I certainly am not the one to sort all of this out. I guess we'll have to
wait for Mike Davidson to finish his work on this subject. Anyway, thanks
a lot for all your help, Stewart. You're a great "inciter to critical
thinking," which thankfully is still legal in this country.
Jared Olar
Stewart Baldwin
Jared,
Thanks for posting the copies of the pedigrees that appeared in
Bannerman's book. It's nice to have the names as they actually
appeared in the manuscripts. Anderson's "Early Sources of Scottish
History" is a useful source, but his policy of "translating" all
personal names into "modern" forms (even when quoting sources) can be
annoying (and sometimes inaccurate).
Since I don't have a copy of Bannerman to refer to, I realize that I
might be venturing out onto thin ice with regard to some of my
comments below, but I think some additional comments are in order
anyway.
Jared Olar (ol...@eagle.uis.edu) wrote:
<much snipping>
This is not necessarily true. These five pedigrees could easily have
existed as a collection for several hundred years before being copied
into the manuscript of the later Scottish pedigrees. In fact, the
suggestion that the five pedigrees form a group which already existed
long before they were copied in the eleventh century is supported by
several factors:
(a) They occur together as a group in the surviving manuscripts.
(b) All five pedigrees appear to involve individuals who lived ca.
700, suggesting that the collection was originally drawn up at that
time, and was later copied into the manuscript we have now (possibly
passing through several stages of copying first).
(c) The individuals who head the pedigrees are extremely obscure,
which further reinforces the suggestion that they were originally
drawn up ca. 700. In the copying process, pedigrees are generally
either copied as they are, or brought up to date, if the copyist has
data about the later members of the family. It is hard to imagine
that an eleventh century author would just happen to have five
pedigrees of certain obscure ca. 700 individuals from various sources
and collect them together like this. Its _possible_, but it seems
much more likely that the eleventh century author had a document
having all five pedigrees together, and copied what it contained. As
for the later copying errors, they all seem to be of the type where a
spelling is changed or a single name is accidently omitted. There is
no indication that there were any omissions large enough to affect the
chronology in a serious way.
>> If this is correct (and I think it is), then this Morgan/Mongan lived
>> about the year 700, and therefore cannot possibly be the near ancestor
>> of Macbeth.
>
> At first sight, it surely looks like Morgan/Mongan was a
>contemporary of Ainbhcellach who was descended from a younger brother of
>Ainbhcellach's ancestor Colman. But . . . .
>
>Dr. Bannerman's edition of these pedigrees preserves an interesting
>feature: Mongan's pedigree runs together with the Cenel Comgaill
>pedigree. All the other lineages are separated by a blank space between
>them, but the end of Mongan's pedigree comes immediately before the title
>heading of the Cenel Comgaill pedigree. Why? Is it possible that
>Mongan's lineage was a later addition to the original collection of
>pedigrees drawn up circa 700 A.D.?
Without seeing (a photocopy of) the original manuscripts, it is hard
to say what kind of significance this has. Is this feature actually
in all of the manuscripts, or is it a spacing error in Dr. Bannerman's
edition? Was Mongan's pedigree written in a different hand than the
others, or did the copyist just notice "oops, I forgot one", and copy
the accidently omitted pedigree in whatever space was available?
> It is curious that, of the five pedigrees under discussion,
>only the Cenel Loairn has two pedigrees, while the other cenela only
>receive one each. Why might that be? Obviously these were the pedigrees
>of the chiefs of the Dalriadan cenela. How is it that Cenel Loairn had
>two chiefs circa 700 A.D. while the other cenela had only one chief each (as
>we would expect)--for so we must conclude if we accept that all five of
>these lineages were drawn up about the year 700.
> Who was Morgan/Mongan and why would his pedigree be included along
>with the other heads of the Dalriadan cenela, when Ainbcellach was chief
>of his family at that time? Remember what you said about these
>individuals being the heads of their families? Obviously Morgan was not
>head of Cenel nLoairn at the time Ainbhcellach was alive.
It is certainly significant that the Cenel Loairn have two pedigrees
compared to one each for the others, but it is not Morgan/Mongan's
pedigree which stands out, it is Ainfcellach's. All of the other
individuals are extremely obscure, and Ainfcellach is the only one on
the list who was a king of Dal Riata. It looks like these pedigrees
may have been drawn up during the reign of Ainfcellach. At that time,
the Cenel Loairn were in the ascendancy, so it would not be too
surprising to see two Cenel Loairn pedigrees versus one for each of
the others. During that period, the second man in the Cenel Loairn
pecking order could easily have as much status as the leaders of the
other septs.
> Do you see why I feel Morgan was not a figure of the beginning of
>the eighth century?
But what good evidence is there that Morgan/Mongan was NOT an eighth
century figure? He does not appear in any directly dateable records
(as far as we know), nor is he known to be contemporary with any
dateable indiviual [unless you want to accept my argument that he was
probably a contemporary of Ainfcellach ;-)], so the only way to date
him is to make an approximate count of generations. The pedigree of
Macbeth's kinsman Maelsnechtai is known to be defective as it stands
(as was already discussed before in this newsgroup), and a defective
pedigree cannot be used to date an individual in it, unless you are
prepared to give some solid evidence that a specific part of the
pedigree should be accepted as genuine. If you can't use
Maelsnechtai's pedigree to date Mo*gan, then all that's left is the
pedigrees which give him an estimated date of ca. 700 , or no date
estimate at all.
>Of course, I think that the *tradition* of Macbeth's Cenel Loairn
>original is accurate, though it seems to have been misremembered.
I agree that it is more likely than not that Macbeth's family had a
tradition of descent from the Cenel Loairn, but I still think that in
Maelsnechtai's time the pedigree was remembered _in detail_ back only
to Ruaidri (or perhaps one generation more), and that the remainder of
the pedigree was obtained by stringing together two seventh century
pedigrees.
By the way, have you noticed that in the discussions of Macbeth's
pedigree, which have been going on for some time now, nobody has
referred to any previously published detailed study of this pedigree?
(I don't know of any.) Doesn't this seem strange? You would think
_somebody_ would have beaten the subject to death [before we did ;-)].
Stewart Baldwin
940...@iona.sms.ed.ac.uk
On Sun, 5 May 1996 Stewart Baldwin wrote:
>By the way, have you noticed that in the discussions of Macbeth's
>pedigree, which have been going on for some time now, nobody has
>referred to any previously published detailed study of this pedigree?
>(I don't know of any.) Doesn't this seem strange?
From the academic point of view, no. This goes under the list of 2 dozen or
so theses/articles relating to medieval Scottish history alone that are
waiting to be written, but no one has yet had the time and desire to do so.
Hopefully you guys and all my colleagues will be satisfied with what I come
up with. . .
>You would thing _somebody_ would have beaten the subject to death [before
>we did ;-)].
Problem is, in my case, that once an academic publishes on something, it
becomes trendy, and it will get beaten BEYOND death, because there will
always be someone with a different opinion. 8-)
Have a good week folks. I am away to England until next Sunday, and will be
unable to respond to messages.
Cheers,
Mike Davidson
Dept. of History
University of Edinburgh
Jared Olar
On Sun, 5 May 1996, Stewart Baldwin wrote:
> Jared,
>
> Thanks for posting the copies of the pedigrees that appeared in
> Bannerman's book. It's nice to have the names as they actually
> appeared in the manuscripts. Anderson's "Early Sources of Scottish
> History" is a useful source, but his policy of "translating" all
> personal names into "modern" forms (even when quoting sources) can be
> annoying (and sometimes inaccurate).
>
> Since I don't have a copy of Bannerman to refer to, I realize that I
> might be venturing out onto thin ice with regard to some of my
> comments below, but I think some additional comments are in order
> anyway.
[snip]
Forgive my lack of clarity, Stewart. For the reasons you cite, I think it's
pretty likely that the five pedigrees came from a collection--though I wonder
if Morgan/Mongan's wasn't added to that collection somewhat (or quite)
later. Four, perhaps all five, were collected at the same time,
presumably in the first half of the 700's A.D.
> >> If this is correct (and I think it is), then this Morgan/Mongan lived
> >> about the year 700, and therefore cannot possibly be the near ancestor
> >> of Macbeth.
> >
> > At first sight, it surely looks like Morgan/Mongan was a
> >contemporary of Ainbhcellach who was descended from a younger brother of
> >Ainbhcellach's ancestor Colman. But . . . .
> >
> >Dr. Bannerman's edition of these pedigrees preserves an interesting
> >feature: Mongan's pedigree runs together with the Cenel Comgaill
> >pedigree. All the other lineages are separated by a blank space between
> >them, but the end of Mongan's pedigree comes immediately before the title
> >heading of the Cenel Comgaill pedigree. Why? Is it possible that
> >Mongan's lineage was a later addition to the original collection of
> >pedigrees drawn up circa 700 A.D.?
>
> Without seeing (a photocopy of) the original manuscripts, it is hard
> to say what kind of significance this has. Is this feature actually
> in all of the manuscripts, or is it a spacing error in Dr. Bannerman's
> edition? Was Mongan's pedigree written in a different hand than the
> others, or did the copyist just notice "oops, I forgot one", and copy
> the accidently omitted pedigree in whatever space was available?
Yeah, I'd sure like to know the answers to these questions. Is it just a
typo in Dr. Bannerman's book?
> > It is curious that, of the five pedigrees under discussion,
> >only the Cenel Loairn has two pedigrees, while the other cenela only
> >receive one each. Why might that be? Obviously these were the pedigrees
> >of the chiefs of the Dalriadan cenela. How is it that Cenel Loairn had
> >two chiefs circa 700 A.D. while the other cenela had only one chief each (as
> >we would expect)--for so we must conclude if we accept that all five of
> >these lineages were drawn up about the year 700.
> > Who was Morgan/Mongan and why would his pedigree be included along
> >with the other heads of the Dalriadan cenela, when Ainbcellach was chief
> >of his family at that time? Remember what you said about these
> >individuals being the heads of their families? Obviously Morgan was not
> >head of Cenel nLoairn at the time Ainbhcellach was alive.
>
> It is certainly significant that the Cenel Loairn have two pedigrees
> compared to one each for the others, but it is not Morgan/Mongan's
> pedigree which stands out, it is Ainfcellach's. All of the other
> individuals are extremely obscure, and Ainfcellach is the only one on
> the list who was a king of Dal Riata. It looks like these pedigrees
> may have been drawn up during the reign of Ainfcellach. At that time,
> the Cenel Loairn were in the ascendancy, so it would not be too
> surprising to see two Cenel Loairn pedigrees versus one for each of
> the others. During that period, the second man in the Cenel Loairn
> pecking order could easily have as much status as the leaders of the
> other septs.
True--the prestige of Cenel Loairn at that time could account for their
having two pedigrees--but then I wonder why? Morgan/Mongan obviously
wasn't head of his cenel, so who was he? How'd he get included with the
other four heads of Dalriadic cenela? Was he at that time thought to be
the man most likely to succeeded Ainbhcellach?
> > Do you see why I feel Morgan was not a figure of the beginning of
> >the eighth century?
>
> But what good evidence is there that Morgan/Mongan was NOT an eighth
> century figure?
None, I guess. We've got ourselves a couple of arguments _ex silencio_,
and it drives me up the wall!
> By the way, have you noticed that in the discussions of Macbeth's
> pedigree, which have been going on for some time now, nobody has
> referred to any previously published detailed study of this pedigree?
> (I don't know of any.) Doesn't this seem strange? You would think
> _somebody_ would have beaten the subject to death [before we did ;-)].
>
> Stewart Baldwin
>
Yeah, I'm not aware of one either. Good thing our friend Mike Davidson
is working to remedy the situation!
Jared Olar