Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies mss online
1,027 views
Skip to first unread message
taf
Oct 11, 2016, 10:43:48 PM10/11/16
to
As many of you are probably aware, the genealogies of the Anglo-Saxon kings, including fantastical ancestries back to Woden or farther, are found within a collection of manuscripts that Dumville referred to as the 'Anglian collection of royal genealogies'. The collection survives as a few pages bound within four manuscripts, and I have recently learned that scans of two of them are now available online.
Textus Roffensis, http://enriqueta.man.ac.uk/luna/servlet/media/book/showBook/Man4MedievalVC~4~4~990378~142729
(go to image 213)
Cotton Tiberius Bv/1
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=cotton_ms_tiberius_b_v!1_f002r
(fol. 22v-23v)
Not directly related to the genealogy, but the rest of the Tiberius manuscript has some marvelous illustrations. I would encourage you to page through it all if you are interested in that kind of thing. It includes an Anglo-Saxon map of the world, and a section of 'marvels of the east'.
Oh, and just to be clear, do not mistake these 'genealogies' for actual genealogy. By deconstructing the supposed Wessex ancestry Sisam showed how the Wessex genealogy was constructed by borrowing a descent from another royal line, inserting heroic names and adding additional names that appear to be invented solely for the sake of the poetic alliteration, adn how it was a stepwise addition that extended them from Wessex founder, Cerdic (apparently of unknown ancestry) back to Woden, then Geat, then Sceaf, and finally Noah. He focused exclusively on these earliest British manuscripts, but the process continued with the 12th-century Icelandic Lanfeðgetal, which inserted about a dozen more names before Sceaf, including as sequential generations Thor and four of his nicknames, plus Memnon, Priam, Jupiter, Saturn, and eponyms for Troy, Crete and Cyprus before linking into the elaborated European rendering of the Biblical Tree of Nations.
taf
Textus Roffensis, http://enriqueta.man.ac.uk/luna/servlet/media/book/showBook/Man4MedievalVC~4~4~990378~142729
(go to image 213)
Cotton Tiberius Bv/1
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=cotton_ms_tiberius_b_v!1_f002r
(fol. 22v-23v)
Not directly related to the genealogy, but the rest of the Tiberius manuscript has some marvelous illustrations. I would encourage you to page through it all if you are interested in that kind of thing. It includes an Anglo-Saxon map of the world, and a section of 'marvels of the east'.
Oh, and just to be clear, do not mistake these 'genealogies' for actual genealogy. By deconstructing the supposed Wessex ancestry Sisam showed how the Wessex genealogy was constructed by borrowing a descent from another royal line, inserting heroic names and adding additional names that appear to be invented solely for the sake of the poetic alliteration, adn how it was a stepwise addition that extended them from Wessex founder, Cerdic (apparently of unknown ancestry) back to Woden, then Geat, then Sceaf, and finally Noah. He focused exclusively on these earliest British manuscripts, but the process continued with the 12th-century Icelandic Lanfeðgetal, which inserted about a dozen more names before Sceaf, including as sequential generations Thor and four of his nicknames, plus Memnon, Priam, Jupiter, Saturn, and eponyms for Troy, Crete and Cyprus before linking into the elaborated European rendering of the Biblical Tree of Nations.
taf
wjhonson
Oct 12, 2016, 11:29:49 AM10/12/16
to
What is another name for this Lanfeðgetal ?
One that might be on the internet?
One that might be on the internet?
taf
Oct 12, 2016, 12:29:32 PM10/12/16
to
On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 8:29:49 AM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote:
> What is another name for this Lanfeðgetal ?
> One that might be on the internet?
Sorry, going from memory and I misspelled it, plus made a typo to boot. It is Langfeðgatal. English sources sometimes spell out or misread the 'ð', so Langfethgatal or Langfedgatal will likely give you hits.
> What is another name for this Lanfeðgetal ?
> One that might be on the internet?
taf
taf
Oct 12, 2016, 3:53:37 PM10/12/16
to
http://www.septentrionalia.net/etexts/alfraedi3.pdf
p. 57-9
The line given is as follows (again, nothing that you see here is real genealogy, just legend):
Noah
Japhet (in the Book of Nations, father of Europeans)
Iaphans (i.e. Javan, [Ionians])
Zechim (i.e. Cethimus/Kittim, for Cethima, now Cyprus)
Ciprvs (i.e. Cyprus)
Celivs (perhaps error for Citius, i.e. Kition, the principle city of Cyprus)
Satvrnvs (Saturn)
Krit (i.e. Crete)
Iupiter (Jupiter)
Erichonii (Ericthonius of Dardania, there is a missing generation here, Ericthonius being son of Dardanus, son of Jupiter in Greek mythology)
Troes (Tros, eponymous ancestor of the kingdom of Troy)
Ilus (eponymous ancestor of city of Ilios/Ilium, principle Trojay=n city now commonly called Troy)
Lamedon (i.e. Laomedon of Troy)
Priami (Priam of Troy)
dau. m. Mimon or Memmon (i.e. Memnon)
Tror, als Thor
Hloriða (Loriða, a name for Thor)
Einrið (another name for Thor)
Vingenthor (another name for Thor)
Vingener (another name for Thor)
Moda (Moða, brother of Magni, sons of Thor)
Magi (Magni, brother of Moða, sons of Thor)
Sescef (this form for Sceaf is from a misreading of the Anglian Collection mss T, which says "Se scef waes noes sonu" - This Scef was Noah's son. From this point to Voden/Oðen the pedigree matches that of Anglian collection T, clearly its source, omitting names mistakenly skipped by AC T and AC R but added back over erasures and in the margin of R)
Beðvig
Athra (Hathra)
Itermann
Hermota
Scealdua (Sceald: AEthelweard and Beowulf make him son of Sceaf, above)
Beaf (Beow, the Beowulf father of Halfdan in poem Beowulf)
Eat (i.e. Geat, probably eponymous god of the Gautr)
Goðvif (Godwulf)
Finn (perhaps the Finn of Finnsburg is intended, though he had a different father)
Frealaf
Voden, als. Oðen (from this point it ceases to parallel Anglian Collection, and instead tracks with Ynglingatal)
Niorðr
Ynguifraeyr (two god-names combined, Ingui and Frey)
Fiolnir
Svegvir
Vallande
Visbur
Domalldr
Domar
Dyggvi
Dagr
Agni
Alrekr
Yngui (Ingui again, he also appears in the Bernicia pedigree, and has been suggested to have been the vaguely-eponymous god-ancestor of the Angles before the cult of Wodin gained prominence and the pedigree adjusted accordingly)
Iorundr
Aun the Old
Egil Tunnadolgr (the Ongentheow of Beowulf and Widseth, perhaps also in Bernician pedigree)
Ottar Vendilcrow (Ohthere of Beowulf)
Athils of Uppsala (Eadgils of Beowulf)
Eysteinn
Yngvar
Bravt Onundr
Ingialldr Illraði
Olaf Treefeller
Halfdan the White
Eysteinn
Halfdan the Mild
Guðroðr
Halfdan the Black
Harald Fairhair
and again, branching from Odin
Oden
Skioldr
Friðleifr
Friðfroðe
Friðleifr
Havar
Froðe
Varmundr
Olaf
Dan
Froðe
Friðleifr
Froðe
Ingialdr
Halfdan
Helgi
Hrolf Kraki
Hraerekr (Rorik)
Harald Hilldittann
his brother, their mother being Auðr, daughter of Ivar Vidfaðma, son of Valldars the Mild, son of Hroar, son of Halfdan, son of Ingiald, son of Stark) was:
Raðbarz
Randvess
Sigurd Ring
Ragnar Loðbrok
Sigurd Worm-in-eye
Harthaknut
Note that Langfeðgatal is thought to have been used as a source by Snorri.
taf
taf
Oct 15, 2016, 10:04:00 PM10/15/16
to
On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 7:43:48 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> As many of you are probably aware, the genealogies of the Anglo-Saxon kings, including fantastical ancestries back to Woden or farther, are found within a collection of manuscripts that Dumville referred to as the 'Anglian collection of royal genealogies'. The collection survives as a few pages bound within four manuscripts, and I have recently learned that scans of two of them are now available online.
>
Here is another one, CCCC 183 (referred to as mss C):
> As many of you are probably aware, the genealogies of the Anglo-Saxon kings, including fantastical ancestries back to Woden or farther, are found within a collection of manuscripts that Dumville referred to as the 'Anglian collection of royal genealogies'. The collection survives as a few pages bound within four manuscripts, and I have recently learned that scans of two of them are now available online.
>
https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/actions/page_turner.do?ms_no=183
(begins at fol. 65r)
This makes three out of four. The earliest (closest to the original), from Vespasian B vi (mss. V) does not appear to be online.
taf
taf
Oct 16, 2016, 4:00:31 AM10/16/16
to
On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 7:04:00 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 7:43:48 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> > As many of you are probably aware, the genealogies of the Anglo-Saxon kings, including fantastical ancestries back to Woden or farther, are found within a collection of manuscripts that Dumville referred to as the 'Anglian collection of royal genealogies'. The collection survives as a few pages bound within four manuscripts, and I have recently learned that scans of two of them are now available online.
> >
>
> Here is another one, CCCC 183 (referred to as mss C):
>
Comparing the C version to the T and R I note one significant difference.
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 7:43:48 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> > As many of you are probably aware, the genealogies of the Anglo-Saxon kings, including fantastical ancestries back to Woden or farther, are found within a collection of manuscripts that Dumville referred to as the 'Anglian collection of royal genealogies'. The collection survives as a few pages bound within four manuscripts, and I have recently learned that scans of two of them are now available online.
> >
>
> Here is another one, CCCC 183 (referred to as mss C):
>
The V version, which is thought closest to the original, traced all kingdoms to Woden Frealafing, except for that of Lindsey, which continued back several more generations to Godwulf Geating, and thus implicitly ending with Geat.
Version C, the next oldest, has the same lines, but one innovation - at the end it tacks on the Wessex descent, from Ine back to Woden Frealafing. Sisam has discussed how this form of the Wessex pedigree, missing several names found in the Chronicle version, likely predated the latter.
The other two are thought to be more recent yet, coming from a common intermediate that is not the same as C. They both add an extra genealogy at the end, after the line from Ine to Woden they also give a line from Edward the Martyr and AEthelred II (hence providing the approximate date of this addition) all the way back to Noah.
This line shares similarity with the ASC B, C, and D mss, 854 entry. They all show this line (A and its copy, G, also show the line, but there are three diagnostic differences that exclude these as the source). It appears to have been drawn from one of these chronicles, or a lost chronicle that is their source, as the version in T & R contains a diversion after naming Ingeld that describes Ine, the beginning of which is the same as that in B, C, and D, although it has a quirky rendering of a Roman numeral (xxxvii in the Chronicle, vii & xxx in AC T/R) and then has a unique sentence before returning to the Chronicle material and then back into the pedigree. This is the same in the two, as is the conclusion, 'sescef waes Noes sanu'. They both end this way, and both seem to have lost track of the fact that it was originally 'Se Scef', this Sceaf, presumably an error (or badly written) in their common progenitor.
They also both originally dropped a generation at two separate places (and it is perhaps notable that these dropped names both come at the end of their respective lines in ASC D), although in R someone has gone back and made an erasure, then written the missing names back in (over the erasure and stretching into the margin), presumably having noticed the difference from the Chronicle.
Clearly then, there was a common progenitor of these two versions that added this last Wessex pedigree using a copy of the ASC more similar to that of B, C & D as source, although it is also possible that the source instead is the pedigree tradition that was incorporated into the common ancestor of the ASC, before the A branch of manuscript tradition diverged from the B/C/D branch, making several intentional and unintentional changes in the process.
I mention this possibility because it would be unusual for the person adding this to the R/T progenitor to have copied it back to Noah, and then decided not to continue with the names from Noah to Adam that are found in all copies of the ASC that include this pedigree. Perhaps then there was a version of this text floating around that had yet to be extended from Noah to Adam, and it was this that got incorporated into the later Anglian Collection mss.
taf
taf
Oct 20, 2016, 10:40:14 PM10/20/16
to
Another early genealogical source, John of Worcester's chronicle, is also online on the Stanford Parker site:
https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/actions/manuscript_description_long_display.do?ms_no=92
Note that at the start, he includes a page of genealogies, and continues to put genealogical trees of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the space between columns. The last of these, that of Wessex/England, occupies a full page and morphs from a tree to a kings list in mid-course.
taf
https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/actions/manuscript_description_long_display.do?ms_no=92
Note that at the start, he includes a page of genealogies, and continues to put genealogical trees of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the space between columns. The last of these, that of Wessex/England, occupies a full page and morphs from a tree to a kings list in mid-course.
taf
taf
Oct 28, 2016, 4:40:54 PM10/28/16
to
Here is another source mss. online:
The Moore Bede - this is the earliest surviving version of Bede, though the scribe has included some additions not found in other manuscripts regarding Northumbria, including a regnal list that appears to derive from the same source as the regnal list added to the later manuscripts (T, R) of the Anglian Collection.
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-KK-00005-00016/1
taf
The Moore Bede - this is the earliest surviving version of Bede, though the scribe has included some additions not found in other manuscripts regarding Northumbria, including a regnal list that appears to derive from the same source as the regnal list added to the later manuscripts (T, R) of the Anglian Collection.
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-KK-00005-00016/1
taf
taf
Nov 4, 2016, 2:50:21 AM11/4/16
to
I have been giving links to on-line scans of the original manuscripts that are of genealogical interest for the Anglo-Saxons. BL Add Ms 23211 provides a genealogy of the West Saxon kings that traces from Ecgberht to Cerdic, and then details the succession to Alfred. It makes no attempt to connect Cerdic to Woden. The manuscript also provides a genealogies of several kings of Essex that are unique among all of the early royal pedigrees in that the set takes as its destination a different god, Seaxnet, the god of the Saxons. These pedigrees are thought to preserve a period in the development of the Anglo-Saxon royal genealogical tradition before it became necessary for all roads to lead to Woden, predating the pedigrees of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Asser, Æthelweard and the Anglian collection (the 4 As, if you will) that trace Cerdic to Woden through a forged linkage stolen from the Bernician royal pedigree, and that make Seaxnet another of Woden's sons (along with Julius Caesar).
BL Add Ms 23211 is found here:
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?Source=BrowseScribes&letter=A&ref=Add_MS_23211
The genealogies appear on the first page (1r). Unfortunately, at some point the vellum was cropped, resulting in the loss of material from both sides as well as from the bottom of the page.
taf
BL Add Ms 23211 is found here:
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?Source=BrowseScribes&letter=A&ref=Add_MS_23211
The genealogies appear on the first page (1r). Unfortunately, at some point the vellum was cropped, resulting in the loss of material from both sides as well as from the bottom of the page.
taf
taf
Nov 4, 2016, 6:00:14 PM11/4/16
to
Images of all of the ASC manuscripts are available online except for ASC G (otherwise A^2). This was the Otho mss., almost completely destroyed in 18th-century Cotton library fire. Prior to its destruction, it served as basis for a transcript by Abraham Wheelock published in the 17th century. This shows it to be a close copy of the Parker ASC (ASC A), curiously made before that document was modified to expurgate some of the royal genealogies. Where it differs, with the loss of the original it becomes difficult to distinguish errors made in the copying process from those made during Wheelock's editing.
As an example, in its 545 annal, ASC G is missing a generation in Woden's ancestry - it shows Ƿoden Friþoƿulfing, Friþoƿulf Finning - Woden son of Frithowulf, Frithowulf son of Finn, while ASC B, C & D show Ƿoden Freoþolafing, Freoþelaf Freoþeƿulfing, Freoþulf Finning - Woden, Fritholaf, Frithowulf, Finn. Clearly at some point a generation has been removed, the overall similarities between Frithulaf and Frithulf probably leading a scribe or transcriber to jump from one to the other, but since this is one of the pedigrees erased from A, so wee can't tell if the sequence ASC G was copying was correct or already had an error. The mistake could have occurred in the copying process when making A, when A was copied to G, or when G was transcribed by Wheelock. (It may be possible to eliminate the first. Earle, in his publication of ASC A and E trnscripts, reports that the names in this entry were incompletely erased, and provides the erased text. If this is authentic, then it shows the entry in ASC A to be free of the error, but looking at the images of the original document online, I have to think Earle is extrapolating the missing information from ASC B, C or D and not reporting what he can actually read in the erasures.)
In one case, however, the surviving fragments of ASC G make clear at what stage a change in the pedigree took place. Thus involves the other version of this pedigree that appears in some copies of ASC, at annal 855.
ASC A reads as follows:
Ƿoden Friþoƿalding, Friþuƿald Freaƿining, Frealaf Friþuƿulfing, Friþuƿulf Finning
This pedigree is different than that appearing in ASC B, C & D in the equivalent annal (ASC E & F do not provide any genealogy in this entry). The latter agree with the 545 annal in making Woden son of Frealaf, as does the Anglian Collection. That the ASC A version matches that found in Asser's preface and Æthelweard's chronicle, each thought to have incorporated material from an earlier version of the chronicle than any of the surviving manuscripts, suggests that this extra generation is not a novelty but the original version of the pedigree in this annal, and that the ASC manuscript that was the common ancestor of B, C & D was 'corrected' by removing this generation to bring it into agreement with the 545 pedigree.
Note, though, that the pedigree as presented in ASC A contains an error. The -ing endings are patronymics, so Friþuƿald Freaƿining, Frealaf Friþuƿulfing does not work. If Frithowald was Freawining, then his father should be Freawine rather than Frealaf. As son of Frealaf, he should have been Frithowald Frealafing. The A scribe has clearly made a mistake writing Freaƿining, a name that appears several lines above in the same manuscript, when Frealafing was the correct patronym.
In the published transcript of ASC G, this inconsistency has been eliminated. It shows the pedigree as:
Ƿoden Friþuƿaling, Friþuƿald Freaƿining, Freaƿine Friþuƿulfing, Friþuƿulf Finning
Someone knew there was a problem and picked the wrong name to correct - replacing Frealaf with Freawine to bring the patronymics back into register. Who made the correction? Was it the ASC G scribe, or Wheelock?
While I have not found the images of the surviving pieces of the ASC G document online, there was an attempt to transcribe these fragments in Thorpe's parallel ASC edition. His reading can be compared to the A manuscript and to Wheelock's transcript of G. (Note: Thorpe uses 'w' from wynn [ƿ].)
Woden Friþuwal. . .Friþuwald Freaw. . . . . .af Friþuwulf. . F..þuwulf Finning
Ƿoden Friþoƿalding Friþuƿald Freaƿining Frealaf Friþuƿulfing Friþuƿulf Finning
Ƿoden Friþuƿaling Friþuƿald Freaƿining Freaƿine Friþuƿulfing Friþuƿulf Finning
Clearly, (if Thorpe is to be trusted) the original ASC G had the same internally inconsistent sequence as ASC A - Frithowald Freawining, Frealaf Frithowulfing, as shown by the survival of the '...af' ending, which would be the dissimilar '...ine' were it the Wheelock's text - it was Wheelock who decided to fix' the problem.
This should be remembered when working with Wheelock's transcript of ASC G - he was not above 'massaging' the material (or perhaps just made an honest mistake here in writing reading the patronymic and automatically writing the next name without noticing it didn't match).
taf
As an example, in its 545 annal, ASC G is missing a generation in Woden's ancestry - it shows Ƿoden Friþoƿulfing, Friþoƿulf Finning - Woden son of Frithowulf, Frithowulf son of Finn, while ASC B, C & D show Ƿoden Freoþolafing, Freoþelaf Freoþeƿulfing, Freoþulf Finning - Woden, Fritholaf, Frithowulf, Finn. Clearly at some point a generation has been removed, the overall similarities between Frithulaf and Frithulf probably leading a scribe or transcriber to jump from one to the other, but since this is one of the pedigrees erased from A, so wee can't tell if the sequence ASC G was copying was correct or already had an error. The mistake could have occurred in the copying process when making A, when A was copied to G, or when G was transcribed by Wheelock. (It may be possible to eliminate the first. Earle, in his publication of ASC A and E trnscripts, reports that the names in this entry were incompletely erased, and provides the erased text. If this is authentic, then it shows the entry in ASC A to be free of the error, but looking at the images of the original document online, I have to think Earle is extrapolating the missing information from ASC B, C or D and not reporting what he can actually read in the erasures.)
In one case, however, the surviving fragments of ASC G make clear at what stage a change in the pedigree took place. Thus involves the other version of this pedigree that appears in some copies of ASC, at annal 855.
ASC A reads as follows:
Ƿoden Friþoƿalding, Friþuƿald Freaƿining, Frealaf Friþuƿulfing, Friþuƿulf Finning
This pedigree is different than that appearing in ASC B, C & D in the equivalent annal (ASC E & F do not provide any genealogy in this entry). The latter agree with the 545 annal in making Woden son of Frealaf, as does the Anglian Collection. That the ASC A version matches that found in Asser's preface and Æthelweard's chronicle, each thought to have incorporated material from an earlier version of the chronicle than any of the surviving manuscripts, suggests that this extra generation is not a novelty but the original version of the pedigree in this annal, and that the ASC manuscript that was the common ancestor of B, C & D was 'corrected' by removing this generation to bring it into agreement with the 545 pedigree.
Note, though, that the pedigree as presented in ASC A contains an error. The -ing endings are patronymics, so Friþuƿald Freaƿining, Frealaf Friþuƿulfing does not work. If Frithowald was Freawining, then his father should be Freawine rather than Frealaf. As son of Frealaf, he should have been Frithowald Frealafing. The A scribe has clearly made a mistake writing Freaƿining, a name that appears several lines above in the same manuscript, when Frealafing was the correct patronym.
In the published transcript of ASC G, this inconsistency has been eliminated. It shows the pedigree as:
Ƿoden Friþuƿaling, Friþuƿald Freaƿining, Freaƿine Friþuƿulfing, Friþuƿulf Finning
Someone knew there was a problem and picked the wrong name to correct - replacing Frealaf with Freawine to bring the patronymics back into register. Who made the correction? Was it the ASC G scribe, or Wheelock?
While I have not found the images of the surviving pieces of the ASC G document online, there was an attempt to transcribe these fragments in Thorpe's parallel ASC edition. His reading can be compared to the A manuscript and to Wheelock's transcript of G. (Note: Thorpe uses 'w' from wynn [ƿ].)
Woden Friþuwal. . .Friþuwald Freaw. . . . . .af Friþuwulf. . F..þuwulf Finning
Ƿoden Friþoƿalding Friþuƿald Freaƿining Frealaf Friþuƿulfing Friþuƿulf Finning
Ƿoden Friþuƿaling Friþuƿald Freaƿining Freaƿine Friþuƿulfing Friþuƿulf Finning
Clearly, (if Thorpe is to be trusted) the original ASC G had the same internally inconsistent sequence as ASC A - Frithowald Freawining, Frealaf Frithowulfing, as shown by the survival of the '...af' ending, which would be the dissimilar '...ine' were it the Wheelock's text - it was Wheelock who decided to fix' the problem.
This should be remembered when working with Wheelock's transcript of ASC G - he was not above 'massaging' the material (or perhaps just made an honest mistake here in writing reading the patronymic and automatically writing the next name without noticing it didn't match).
taf
taf
Nov 4, 2016, 6:38:45 PM11/4/16
to
Let me add that Wheelock was not alone in 'fixing' the pedigree of his source. When Giles published his transcript of Historia Brittonum, he 'corrected' Woden's pedigree: where it shows Woden son of Frealaf (the more common version), he has made Woden son of Frithowald, the father given him by the ASC A 855 entry. (Giles used the same manuscript as Gunn, and Mommsen also included this manuscript among the texts he analyzed, so consulting them makes it clear this is Giles' change.) In so doing, he simply substituted one name for the other, and thereby created a new version of the pedigree. Rather than inserting the 'missing' name to make it Woden, Frithowald, Frealaf, Frithuwulf, he has simply substituted Frithowald for Frealaf, making it Woden, Frithowald, Frithuwulf and thus produced a variant that doesn't occur in any source I know of.
Likewise, Historia Brittonum was noted by Sisam for having Finn Folcwalding, Fulcwald Geating, where all other surviving pedigrees show Finn Godulfing, Godulf Geating. The compiler of the Historia apparently had concluded that the Finn in the pedigree was identical to the Finn Fulcwalding of the Finnsburg legend, Beowulf and Widsith, and as such he has replaced the name Godwulf with the name Fulcwald, to reflect the hero's true father. Giles has reverted this change, giving a pedigree where Finn is son of Godwulf, son of Geat, like the ASC, the Anglian Collection, Asser and Æthelweard, but unlike any known manuscript of Historia Brittonum, the source he is supposed to be transcribing.
This is why care must be used when relying on older public-domain editions of these transcripts - the standards of scholarship were not the same, and why the presence of the original manuscripts online is a boon to researchers.
taf
Likewise, Historia Brittonum was noted by Sisam for having Finn Folcwalding, Fulcwald Geating, where all other surviving pedigrees show Finn Godulfing, Godulf Geating. The compiler of the Historia apparently had concluded that the Finn in the pedigree was identical to the Finn Fulcwalding of the Finnsburg legend, Beowulf and Widsith, and as such he has replaced the name Godwulf with the name Fulcwald, to reflect the hero's true father. Giles has reverted this change, giving a pedigree where Finn is son of Godwulf, son of Geat, like the ASC, the Anglian Collection, Asser and Æthelweard, but unlike any known manuscript of Historia Brittonum, the source he is supposed to be transcribing.
This is why care must be used when relying on older public-domain editions of these transcripts - the standards of scholarship were not the same, and why the presence of the original manuscripts online is a boon to researchers.
taf
taf
Nov 5, 2016, 9:15:47 PM11/5/16
to
Anglian Collection
In reporting here the availability of the Anglian Collection manuscripts online, I said the following:
> This makes three out of four. The earliest (closest to the original), from
> Vespasian B vi (mss. V) does not appear to be online.
Manuscript V is indeed online. If you go to Cotton Vespasian B VI, it reports that these pages have been removed from the original manuscript. Clicking on the link returns nothing but an error message, hence my message that it is unavailable. However, there is a separate catalog entry for Vespasian B VI/1 that represents these pages, and the link there is fully functional.
In summary, then, the four versions of the Anglian Collection are all available:
V: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=cotton_ms_vespasian_b_vi!1_f104r
(Note: because these pages were removed from Vespasian B vi and separated for framing, each bifolium image contains non-consecutive pages - in other words, the image order does not match the original document order)
C: https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/actions/page_turner.do?ms_no=183
(begins 65r)
R: http://enriqueta.man.ac.uk/luna/servlet/media/book/showBook/Man4MedievalVC~4~4~990378~142729
(image 213)
T: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=cotton_ms_tiberius_b_v!1_f002r
(fol. 22v-23v)
taf
In reporting here the availability of the Anglian Collection manuscripts online, I said the following:
> This makes three out of four. The earliest (closest to the original), from
> Vespasian B vi (mss. V) does not appear to be online.
In summary, then, the four versions of the Anglian Collection are all available:
V: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=cotton_ms_vespasian_b_vi!1_f104r
(Note: because these pages were removed from Vespasian B vi and separated for framing, each bifolium image contains non-consecutive pages - in other words, the image order does not match the original document order)
C: https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/actions/page_turner.do?ms_no=183
(begins 65r)
R: http://enriqueta.man.ac.uk/luna/servlet/media/book/showBook/Man4MedievalVC~4~4~990378~142729
(image 213)
T: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=cotton_ms_tiberius_b_v!1_f002r
(fol. 22v-23v)
taf
taf
Nov 9, 2016, 3:11:01 AM11/9/16
to
In my continuing series of posts on Anglo-Saxon genealogical sources online, Next up is what Dumville called the West Saxon Genealogical Regnal List. This was a brief document first composed in the late-9th century, that includes a statement of the right to rule Wessex as descendants of Cerdic and the line of descent of Cerdic from Woden, the succession of the kings of Wessex with the years of their reign, from Cerdic to AEthelwulf, the genealogical descent of AEthelwulf from Cerdic, and finally, the succession of AEthelwulf's sons, ending with Alfred.
It is frequently thought of as the genealogical preface to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, yet only three of the surviving ASC manuscripts are known to have included it, A, B, and G, while there is indication it formed a part of C, D, E, or F (only a single page of H survives, while I is significantly reworked, in the form of an Easter Table with chronicle brief extracts). Likewise most versions of the Genealogical Regnal List are not associated with the chronicle.
Following Dumville's designations, the surviving versions are:
N - BL MS Add 23211, f. 2v
This contains only about the last third of the West Saxon GRL (it includes the descent from Cerdic to AEthelwulf, but not that from WOden to Cerdic), and is found on the same folio sheet as the early East Saxon genealogy I mentioned the other day. The page was once reused for a book binding and has been trimmed on three sides, with loss of text. It is the oldest copy, dating from Alfred's reign:
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_23211
P - CCCC 173 (ASC A - Parker Chronicle) f. 1r
Associated with the ASC, this is probably the oldest complete copy of the West Saxon GRL, yet all three copies once associated with the chronicle seem to have been contaminated by the association, the GRL being 'corrected' from the chronicle text (specifically, the removal of Creoda and the insertion of Esla).
https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/actions/page_turner.do?ms_no=173
Q - BL MS Add 34652, fol. 2r/v
This was once the preface to ASC G (a direct copy of ASC A), but was removed prior to the near-complete destruction of this manuscript in 1731. It is thus the only page from ASC G to survive undamaged. (Note: The published versions of G are based on a transcript made by Nowell in the 16th century, but for some reason he did not use this version of the GRL, instead substituting the text of ms. T that was extended to the late 10th century (this I have not confirmed, and Nowell's transcript is not online).
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_34652_f002r
R - Textus Roffensis (Rochester Cathedral Lib. A.3.5), fol. 7v-8r
This is included in the same collection of material that includes a version of the Anglian collection, but this seems a coincidental association. It has a continuation that takes it down to the reign of AEthelred the Unready, and includes a third genealogy, tracing AEthelred to Cerdic
http://enriqueta.man.ac.uk/luna/servlet/media/book/showBook/Man4MedievalVC~4~4~990378~142729
S - BL MS Stowe 944 (the Hyde Abbey Liber Vitae), fol. 39
This version has been extensively reworked, basically being paired down and completely rewritten into a regnal list that runs from Ine to Alfred, then follows the continuation found in West Saxon GRL ms. T from Alfred to Edward the Martyr. It lacks the genealogies.
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=stowe_ms_944_f029v
T - BL Cotton MS Tiberius A iii, fol. 178
This was once the genealogical preface to ASC B, but was separated in the 17th century when the manuscript was loaned by Cotton to a friend. It continues the succession down to Edward the Martyr.
I have only found 178r online:
http://www.digipal.eu/digipal/page/507/
U - BL Cotton MS Tiberius B v/1 fol. 22r
Another one that was completely reworked into strictly a regnal table, it is found on the page immediately prior to the T version of the Anglian collection, but again this seems coincidental (that two versions of the GRL ended up with two versions of the Anglian collection is just coincidence, as the two forms are barely recognizable as the same work.
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=cotton_ms_tiberius_b_v!1_f002r
V - Cambridge Library Kk.3.18 (English Bede) fol. 3v-4r
This version is stuck right in the middle of the Old-English translation of Bede. When Wheelocke published the text of ASC G in the 1600s, based on Nowell's transcript he did not include the Preface, because the same volume included this English Bede, and so Wheelocke included the Bede version rather than the ASC version.
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-KK-00003-00018/10
W - CCCC 383, fol. 69v
This is stuck on the end of a volume of legal material, and the codex ends abruptly at the end of the first page of the GRL. It thus contains only the first part of the GRL with the Woden-Cerdic genealogy: it has no overlap with GRL N.
https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/actions/thumbnail_view.do?size=basic&ms_no=383&page=69V
Note: if anyone is aware of a better online copy of Tiberius A.iii f.178 I would love to have you share the link.)
Another Note: Dumville split his discussion of this collection into two papers in two different journals:
D. Dumville, 'The West Saxon Genealogical Regnal List: manuscripts andtexts', Anglia, vol.104 (1986),pp. 1-39
D. Dumville, "The West Saxon Genealogical Regnal List and the Chronology of Early Wessex", Peritia 4 (1985), pp.21-66
I have been unable to get hold of the second. Can anyone help me out?
taf
It is frequently thought of as the genealogical preface to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, yet only three of the surviving ASC manuscripts are known to have included it, A, B, and G, while there is indication it formed a part of C, D, E, or F (only a single page of H survives, while I is significantly reworked, in the form of an Easter Table with chronicle brief extracts). Likewise most versions of the Genealogical Regnal List are not associated with the chronicle.
Following Dumville's designations, the surviving versions are:
N - BL MS Add 23211, f. 2v
This contains only about the last third of the West Saxon GRL (it includes the descent from Cerdic to AEthelwulf, but not that from WOden to Cerdic), and is found on the same folio sheet as the early East Saxon genealogy I mentioned the other day. The page was once reused for a book binding and has been trimmed on three sides, with loss of text. It is the oldest copy, dating from Alfred's reign:
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_23211
P - CCCC 173 (ASC A - Parker Chronicle) f. 1r
Associated with the ASC, this is probably the oldest complete copy of the West Saxon GRL, yet all three copies once associated with the chronicle seem to have been contaminated by the association, the GRL being 'corrected' from the chronicle text (specifically, the removal of Creoda and the insertion of Esla).
https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/actions/page_turner.do?ms_no=173
Q - BL MS Add 34652, fol. 2r/v
This was once the preface to ASC G (a direct copy of ASC A), but was removed prior to the near-complete destruction of this manuscript in 1731. It is thus the only page from ASC G to survive undamaged. (Note: The published versions of G are based on a transcript made by Nowell in the 16th century, but for some reason he did not use this version of the GRL, instead substituting the text of ms. T that was extended to the late 10th century (this I have not confirmed, and Nowell's transcript is not online).
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_34652_f002r
R - Textus Roffensis (Rochester Cathedral Lib. A.3.5), fol. 7v-8r
This is included in the same collection of material that includes a version of the Anglian collection, but this seems a coincidental association. It has a continuation that takes it down to the reign of AEthelred the Unready, and includes a third genealogy, tracing AEthelred to Cerdic
http://enriqueta.man.ac.uk/luna/servlet/media/book/showBook/Man4MedievalVC~4~4~990378~142729
S - BL MS Stowe 944 (the Hyde Abbey Liber Vitae), fol. 39
This version has been extensively reworked, basically being paired down and completely rewritten into a regnal list that runs from Ine to Alfred, then follows the continuation found in West Saxon GRL ms. T from Alfred to Edward the Martyr. It lacks the genealogies.
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=stowe_ms_944_f029v
T - BL Cotton MS Tiberius A iii, fol. 178
This was once the genealogical preface to ASC B, but was separated in the 17th century when the manuscript was loaned by Cotton to a friend. It continues the succession down to Edward the Martyr.
I have only found 178r online:
http://www.digipal.eu/digipal/page/507/
U - BL Cotton MS Tiberius B v/1 fol. 22r
Another one that was completely reworked into strictly a regnal table, it is found on the page immediately prior to the T version of the Anglian collection, but again this seems coincidental (that two versions of the GRL ended up with two versions of the Anglian collection is just coincidence, as the two forms are barely recognizable as the same work.
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=cotton_ms_tiberius_b_v!1_f002r
V - Cambridge Library Kk.3.18 (English Bede) fol. 3v-4r
This version is stuck right in the middle of the Old-English translation of Bede. When Wheelocke published the text of ASC G in the 1600s, based on Nowell's transcript he did not include the Preface, because the same volume included this English Bede, and so Wheelocke included the Bede version rather than the ASC version.
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-KK-00003-00018/10
W - CCCC 383, fol. 69v
This is stuck on the end of a volume of legal material, and the codex ends abruptly at the end of the first page of the GRL. It thus contains only the first part of the GRL with the Woden-Cerdic genealogy: it has no overlap with GRL N.
https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/actions/thumbnail_view.do?size=basic&ms_no=383&page=69V
Note: if anyone is aware of a better online copy of Tiberius A.iii f.178 I would love to have you share the link.)
Another Note: Dumville split his discussion of this collection into two papers in two different journals:
D. Dumville, 'The West Saxon Genealogical Regnal List: manuscripts andtexts', Anglia, vol.104 (1986),pp. 1-39
D. Dumville, "The West Saxon Genealogical Regnal List and the Chronology of Early Wessex", Peritia 4 (1985), pp.21-66
I have been unable to get hold of the second. Can anyone help me out?
taf
taf
Nov 9, 2016, 3:39:29 AM11/9/16
to
And here is a bonus:
De obsessione Dunelmi et de probiate Ucthedi comitis et de comitibus qui ei succeserunt
This is a Latin tract that relates the most famous multi-generational land dispute in Anglo-Saxon England. It details how Ealdhun, Bishop of of Durham, gave his daughter Ecgfryth in marriage to Uchtred of Bamburgh and alienated church properties for their use. Uchtred divorced her in order to marry the daughter of AEthelred the Unready and become Earl of Northumbia. Much murder and mayhem ensues among the descendants of Ecgfryth by her three husbands, including a multi-generation blood-feud with a rival family. The land dispute was still ongoing during the early years of William I.
In addition to giving Waltheof (II)'s descent from Waltheof (I) and Ealdhun, this is the source that connects Gospatric of Northumbria back to Crinan the thane.
The only copy of this known is within an eclectic collection of full and excerpted chronicles and other works of historical interest.
CCCC 139, fol. 50r-51v
https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/actions/manuscript_description_long_display.do?ms_no=139
taf
De obsessione Dunelmi et de probiate Ucthedi comitis et de comitibus qui ei succeserunt
This is a Latin tract that relates the most famous multi-generational land dispute in Anglo-Saxon England. It details how Ealdhun, Bishop of of Durham, gave his daughter Ecgfryth in marriage to Uchtred of Bamburgh and alienated church properties for their use. Uchtred divorced her in order to marry the daughter of AEthelred the Unready and become Earl of Northumbia. Much murder and mayhem ensues among the descendants of Ecgfryth by her three husbands, including a multi-generation blood-feud with a rival family. The land dispute was still ongoing during the early years of William I.
In addition to giving Waltheof (II)'s descent from Waltheof (I) and Ealdhun, this is the source that connects Gospatric of Northumbria back to Crinan the thane.
The only copy of this known is within an eclectic collection of full and excerpted chronicles and other works of historical interest.
CCCC 139, fol. 50r-51v
https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/actions/manuscript_description_long_display.do?ms_no=139
taf
taf
Nov 9, 2016, 9:52:50 AM11/9/16
to
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 12:11:01 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> In my continuing series of posts on Anglo-Saxon genealogical sources online,
> Next up is what Dumville called the West Saxon Genealogical Regnal List.
Looking back into these, I see something that conflicts with Dumville's explanation. Seeing that versions P & Q (associated with ASC A and ASC G) have a pedigree that runs Cynric, Cerdic, while the others that have this portion, N, R (x2), T, and V, all have Cynric, Creoda, Cerdic, he concludes that the original originally had Creoda, but that the version associated with ASC A purged this generation to conform with the descents in the ASC annals. There is a problem with this, though. The West Saxon GRL begins with an account of the conquest of Wessex by "Cerdic and Cynric, his son". Thus P & Q are internally consistent, while R, T and V are internally inconsistent.
> In my continuing series of posts on Anglo-Saxon genealogical sources online,
> Next up is what Dumville called the West Saxon Genealogical Regnal List.
Setting aside Q, since it is known to be a direct copy of P, we are left with one version without Creoda and all of the others with, including the oldest, that appears to be very close to the original. P is clearly the one that was modified. The fact that it is associated with the ASC need not be relevant in the least - it may have been corrected simply to be internally consistent.
Be that as it may, this suggests that when the tract first achieved its coherent form, it was inconsistent. This indicates that it was probably not composed by a single compiler, de novo, but instead constructed from preexisting components.
It can be viewed as consisting of the following parts:
1. The conquest of Wessex by Cerdic and Cynric (without Creoda)
2. The pedigree from Cerdic to Woden
3. A regnal list of the kings of Wessex
4. The pedigree from AEthelweard to Cerdic (with Creoda)
5. The succession of AEthelweard's sons
While the two pedigrees take the same format, each of the others have a different flavor to them. It looks to me like this tract was constructed in pieces:
A. They started by creating a non-genealogical chronology. They began with the conquest, for which they used a proto-ASC 495 annal. The next text also has the flavor of annals, compressed to a bare minimum, but soon it became little more than a regnal list in sentence format. I think they either mined the annals of a chronicle for succession and death records to come up with years ruled, or alternatively they took a regnal list and expanded it out a little, relating each king to the previous and repeatedly stating the right by descent from Cerdic.
B. They took a pedigree from AEthelweard to Woden. As Dumville pointed out (talking about just the portion above Cerdic), this pedigree is part way along the path Sisam described He suggested that the Anglian collection pedigrees are the oldest survivors, and represent a stage just after the hijacking of the Bernician royal pedigree. He then sees the Wig-Freawine pair being added, Frithogar and Esla are added alliteration (at some point Aluca having become Elesa). The GRL pedigree fits nicely within this progression.
Bernicia: Woden-Baeldaeg-Brand-Benoc-Aloc-Ingui
(transfer from Bernicia to Wessex)
WessexAC: Woden-Baeldaeg-Brond-Gewis-Aluca-Cerdic
(addition of Wig-Freawine, Aluca becomes Elesa)
Sisam
Hypothetical
Intermed: Woden-Baeldaeg-Brond-Freawine-Wig-Gewis-Elesa-Cerdic
(addition of Frithogar to establish alliteration with Freawine, perhaps as part of the same step)
WessexGRL: Woden-Baeldaeg-Brond-Frithogar-Freawine-Wig-Gewis-Elesa-Cerdic
(addition of Esla to establish alliteration with Elesa)
WessexASC: Woden-Baeldaeg-Brond-Frithogar-Freawine-Wig-Gewis-Esla-Elesa-Cerdic
Thus, a pedigree older than that in the ASC 855 annal, but more derived than that of the Anglian collection would have been used. This pedigree, like that of the Anglian collection, had yet to lose Creoda. It was then broken into two parts, the first inserted right after Cerdic is first mentioned, the second at the end to connect the (then current) king back to Cerdic. In combining a pedigree that had Creoda into a text based on an alternative tradition that lacked Creoda, they created the internal inconsistency. I see this happening during the reign of AEthelwulf, else they would have used a pedigree that built on one of the later kings.
This produced the proto-GRL.
C. During the reign of Alfred, text was added to the end to bring it down to Alfred. This resulted in GRL, as was passed down to all the surviving versions, except for S and U. S was inspired by a copy of the GRL, but did not use any of its original text, just the continuation of T. The situation with U is different Dumville presents it as a regnal table derived from the GRL, but it could have gone the other way - this could be the regnal list from which the original regnal document (step A) was expanded.
In summary, I think the conflict that must have been within the original GRL tells us that it did not arise, fully formed, from the head of its compiler, but resulted from the combination of several distinct packets of information.
taf
taf
Nov 9, 2016, 11:33:11 AM11/9/16
to
I would now like to present another clarification of some of the work done on these pedigrees.
These pedigrees have been compared and analyzed for more than a century and a half, and it has long been recognized that two Icelandic pedigrees, those of the Prose Edda and Langfeðgatal, bear a striking resemblance to some of the Anglian collection pedigrees. This is all the more clear when one sees that the pedigree includes the name Seskef, which clearly comes from the Se Scef ('this Scef') found in Anglian collection T and R.
In the mid-1950s, Sisam concluded that the Icelandic pedigrees clearly came from the T manuscript, being much closer to it that to the R. Dumville, writing in the mid-1970s and again in the mid-1990s concurred with this conclusion, and in this century Anthony Faulkes stated the same. This is based on a similarity between the two pedigrees. The latter has found evidence of pedigree notes taken selectively from the Anglian collection document and transported to Iceland, and that likely served as source for the Prose Edda, with Langfeðgatal being downstream of that.
There can be no doubt that these notes derive from the Kent, Deiran and specifically from an added pedigree tracing the sons of Eadgar of Wessex back to Adam. It is unclear why the notes break off at Seskef/Scef and not follow farther back. It is possible that the earliest material was lost by accident, a missing page or the like. That being said, the case for it coming from T is not as straight forward as it may seem.
Here are the pedigrees (the father-to-son Iceland one has been reversed to match the son-to-father order of the Anglian collection:
AC R Iceland AC T
Eadverth
Eadweard, Eadmund Ethelreth Eadweard, Eadmund
& AEthelred & AEthelred
Eadgar Eadmunding Iadgar Eadgar Eadmunding
Eadmund Eadwearding Eadmund Eadmund Eadwearding
Eadweard AElfreding Eadverth Eadweard AElfreding
AElfred Atholfing Elfrid riki AElfred Atholfing
Athulf Ecgbyrhting Athulf Athulf Ecgbyrhting
Ecgbrith Ealhmunding Eggbricht Ecgbrith Ealhmunding
Ealhmund Eauing Ealhmund Ealhmund Eauing
Eaua Eopping Eava Eaua Eopping
Eoppa Ingelding Ioppa Eoppa Ingelding
Ingeld Cenreding* Ingeld Ingeld Cenreding
Cenred Ceolwalding Kenreth Cenred Ceolwalding
Ceolwald Cuthing Keolvld Ceolwald Cuthing
Cutha Cuthwining Kutha Cutha Cuthwining
Cuthwine Ceawlining Kvthvine Cuthwine Ceawlining
Ceawlin Cynricing Keawlin Ceawlin Cynricing
Cynric Creoding Kinric Cynric Creoding
Creoda Cynricing Kreoda Creoda Cerdicing
Cerdic Elesing Kerdic Cerdic Elesing
Elesa Esling Elesa Elesa Esling
Esla Gewisling Esla Esla Gewisling
Gewis Wiging Gevis Gewis Wising
Wig Freawining Vigg Wig Freawining
Freawine Frothegaring Freawine Freawine Frothegaring
Freothegar Branding Freothegar Freothegar Branding
Brand Baeldaeging Brand Brand Baeldaeging
Baeldaeg Wodening Beldeg Baeldaeg Wodening
Woden Frealafing Voden Woden Frealafing
Frealaf Finning Frealaf Frealaf Finning
Finn Godulfing Finn Finn Godulfing
Godulf Eating Godulf Godulf Eating
Eata Tethuuafing Eat Eat Beawing
Tethuua Beawing
Beaw Scealwaging Beaf Beaw Scealwaging
Scealdwa Heremoding Scealdva Scealdwa Heremoding
Heremod Itermaning Heremoth Heremod Itermaning
Iterman Hathraing Itermann Iterman Hathraing
Hathra Hwaling Athra Hathra Bedwiging
Hwala Bedwiging
Bedwig Sceafing Bedvig Bedwig Sceafing
Scef Sescef Scef
OK, first the two Anglian collection pedigrees are extremely similar. There are exactly four differences between the two:
1. Hathra Bedwiging (T) vs Hathra Hwaling, Hwala Bedwiging (R)
2. Eat Beawing (T) vs Eata Tethuuafing, Tethuua Beawing (R)
3. Gewis Wiging (T) vs Gewis Wising (R)
4. Creoda Cynricing (T) vs Creaoda Cerdicing (R)
3. is a copying error. Rather than writing the correct Wiging, the end of Gewis led the R pedigree scribe to write Wising rather than the correct Wiging.
4. is also a copying error, in the T manuscript - the scribe looked a generation down rather than a generation up, Cynric being the son of Creoda, not the father Cerdicing is right here.
Importantly, though, these are irrelevant to the Icelandic pedigree notes, which do not have patronymics. That leaves the two insertions, and these are then the sole basis for distinguishing the two. R matches the traditional pedigree, T is missing two generations at different places, and the Icelandic pedigree is missing the same two generations. This is why T has been taped as the source.
I would suggest, however, that nobody reaching this conclusion had looked at the original R document, but instead were going from a transcript. The reason that I say this is that at both positions, the R manuscript also lacked the two generations, but then a later hand went back and corrected them, erasing the original patronymic and writing over it the new patronymic, then in the margin writing the second couplet, thus:
T
Iterman Hathraing
Hathra Hwaling
Hwala Bedwiging
Bedwig Sceafing
Godulf Eating
Eat Beawing
Beaw Scealwaging
R
Iterman Hathraing
Hathra [Hwaling Hwala Bedwiging]
Bedwig Sceafing
Godulf Eating
Eat[a Tethuuafing Tethuua Beawing]
Beaw Scealwaging
(added material [in brackets])
In other words, these two documents were identical before R was corrected. There are several consequences. T was identified as the source because it alone had these deletions, but it was not alone. The source could have been R, before it was corrected, or, since they both inherited the same deletions, there must have been a manuscript that gave rise to both of them that alsso had those erors. It could have been what Dumville named as <eta>, the most recent common source of the two that could be deduced, or for that matter, at any stage after the branch leading to manuscript C split off from that leading to R & T. There is no reason whatsoever to favor T as the source.
taf
These pedigrees have been compared and analyzed for more than a century and a half, and it has long been recognized that two Icelandic pedigrees, those of the Prose Edda and Langfeðgatal, bear a striking resemblance to some of the Anglian collection pedigrees. This is all the more clear when one sees that the pedigree includes the name Seskef, which clearly comes from the Se Scef ('this Scef') found in Anglian collection T and R.
In the mid-1950s, Sisam concluded that the Icelandic pedigrees clearly came from the T manuscript, being much closer to it that to the R. Dumville, writing in the mid-1970s and again in the mid-1990s concurred with this conclusion, and in this century Anthony Faulkes stated the same. This is based on a similarity between the two pedigrees. The latter has found evidence of pedigree notes taken selectively from the Anglian collection document and transported to Iceland, and that likely served as source for the Prose Edda, with Langfeðgatal being downstream of that.
There can be no doubt that these notes derive from the Kent, Deiran and specifically from an added pedigree tracing the sons of Eadgar of Wessex back to Adam. It is unclear why the notes break off at Seskef/Scef and not follow farther back. It is possible that the earliest material was lost by accident, a missing page or the like. That being said, the case for it coming from T is not as straight forward as it may seem.
Here are the pedigrees (the father-to-son Iceland one has been reversed to match the son-to-father order of the Anglian collection:
AC R Iceland AC T
Eadverth
Eadweard, Eadmund Ethelreth Eadweard, Eadmund
& AEthelred & AEthelred
Eadgar Eadmunding Iadgar Eadgar Eadmunding
Eadmund Eadwearding Eadmund Eadmund Eadwearding
Eadweard AElfreding Eadverth Eadweard AElfreding
AElfred Atholfing Elfrid riki AElfred Atholfing
Athulf Ecgbyrhting Athulf Athulf Ecgbyrhting
Ecgbrith Ealhmunding Eggbricht Ecgbrith Ealhmunding
Ealhmund Eauing Ealhmund Ealhmund Eauing
Eaua Eopping Eava Eaua Eopping
Eoppa Ingelding Ioppa Eoppa Ingelding
Ingeld Cenreding* Ingeld Ingeld Cenreding
Cenred Ceolwalding Kenreth Cenred Ceolwalding
Ceolwald Cuthing Keolvld Ceolwald Cuthing
Cutha Cuthwining Kutha Cutha Cuthwining
Cuthwine Ceawlining Kvthvine Cuthwine Ceawlining
Ceawlin Cynricing Keawlin Ceawlin Cynricing
Cynric Creoding Kinric Cynric Creoding
Creoda Cynricing Kreoda Creoda Cerdicing
Cerdic Elesing Kerdic Cerdic Elesing
Elesa Esling Elesa Elesa Esling
Esla Gewisling Esla Esla Gewisling
Gewis Wiging Gevis Gewis Wising
Wig Freawining Vigg Wig Freawining
Freawine Frothegaring Freawine Freawine Frothegaring
Freothegar Branding Freothegar Freothegar Branding
Brand Baeldaeging Brand Brand Baeldaeging
Baeldaeg Wodening Beldeg Baeldaeg Wodening
Woden Frealafing Voden Woden Frealafing
Frealaf Finning Frealaf Frealaf Finning
Finn Godulfing Finn Finn Godulfing
Godulf Eating Godulf Godulf Eating
Eata Tethuuafing Eat Eat Beawing
Tethuua Beawing
Beaw Scealwaging Beaf Beaw Scealwaging
Scealdwa Heremoding Scealdva Scealdwa Heremoding
Heremod Itermaning Heremoth Heremod Itermaning
Iterman Hathraing Itermann Iterman Hathraing
Hathra Hwaling Athra Hathra Bedwiging
Hwala Bedwiging
Bedwig Sceafing Bedvig Bedwig Sceafing
Scef Sescef Scef
OK, first the two Anglian collection pedigrees are extremely similar. There are exactly four differences between the two:
1. Hathra Bedwiging (T) vs Hathra Hwaling, Hwala Bedwiging (R)
2. Eat Beawing (T) vs Eata Tethuuafing, Tethuua Beawing (R)
3. Gewis Wiging (T) vs Gewis Wising (R)
4. Creoda Cynricing (T) vs Creaoda Cerdicing (R)
3. is a copying error. Rather than writing the correct Wiging, the end of Gewis led the R pedigree scribe to write Wising rather than the correct Wiging.
4. is also a copying error, in the T manuscript - the scribe looked a generation down rather than a generation up, Cynric being the son of Creoda, not the father Cerdicing is right here.
Importantly, though, these are irrelevant to the Icelandic pedigree notes, which do not have patronymics. That leaves the two insertions, and these are then the sole basis for distinguishing the two. R matches the traditional pedigree, T is missing two generations at different places, and the Icelandic pedigree is missing the same two generations. This is why T has been taped as the source.
I would suggest, however, that nobody reaching this conclusion had looked at the original R document, but instead were going from a transcript. The reason that I say this is that at both positions, the R manuscript also lacked the two generations, but then a later hand went back and corrected them, erasing the original patronymic and writing over it the new patronymic, then in the margin writing the second couplet, thus:
T
Iterman Hathraing
Hathra Hwaling
Hwala Bedwiging
Bedwig Sceafing
Godulf Eating
Eat Beawing
Beaw Scealwaging
R
Iterman Hathraing
Hathra [Hwaling Hwala Bedwiging]
Bedwig Sceafing
Godulf Eating
Eat[a Tethuuafing Tethuua Beawing]
Beaw Scealwaging
(added material [in brackets])
In other words, these two documents were identical before R was corrected. There are several consequences. T was identified as the source because it alone had these deletions, but it was not alone. The source could have been R, before it was corrected, or, since they both inherited the same deletions, there must have been a manuscript that gave rise to both of them that alsso had those erors. It could have been what Dumville named as <eta>, the most recent common source of the two that could be deduced, or for that matter, at any stage after the branch leading to manuscript C split off from that leading to R & T. There is no reason whatsoever to favor T as the source.
taf
taf
Nov 9, 2016, 8:11:25 PM11/9/16
to
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:33:11 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:
I need to correct the last part of my post on the Icelandic tradition - it should have read
> T
>
> Iterman Hathraing
> Hathra Bedwiging
Kent
C: Oesa
R: Eosa
T: __esa (a space was left for a capital at the start but none was inscribed)
Ice: Vesa
I guess it is closer to __esa, but given the conventions used by the Icelandic note-taker, I really would have expected Vesa to have come from Uesa, or at worst Oesa. Were I to put my money on one solution, it would be that <eta> the parent manuscript of both of these, had Oesa, like C, and that the Icelandic note-taker used <eta> as his source.
Deira
C: Uuestorvalcna (I know there was no V in Anglo-Saxon, but that is what it looks like - it is probably a really sloppy u).
R: Uueostwalcna
T: Uuestorualcna
Ice: Veostorr Valena
Again, The Icelandic material looks more like C than R or T. Thus I think I have identified several intermediate stages in the transmission
<theta> A manuscript like the C manuscript, retaining the spelling of Uuestorvalcna and Oese lost two names in copying: Hwala Hathring, Hathra Baeldaeging became simply Hwala Baeldaging; and Eat Tetwing, Tetwa Beawing became Eat Beawing. This could be one of Dumvilles intermediate manuscripts on the RT branch, <zeta> or <eta>, or a separate intermediate not identified. It had the added Wessex pedigree tracing the sons of Edgar back to Adam, that included the description of Ine's reign and the 'Se scef' immortalized in the Icelandic notes.
T was copied <theta>, likewise skipping generations, dropping the initial letter of Oesa, and changing Creoda Cerdicing into Creoda Cynricing. The ambiguous Uestorvalcna was clarified as Uuestorualcna.
R was copied from <theta>, in the process Gewis Wiging becoming Gewis Wising, Uuestorvalcna becoming Uueostwalcna, and Oesa became Eosa. The missing generations were absent, until at some later date their omission was noticed and they were added back in the margin.
<iota> was copied from <theta> and taken to Iceland also missing the skipped generations, with Oesa becoming Vesa, Uuestorvalcna becoming Veostorr Valena. It also extended the novel pedigree one generation, taking it to Edward the Confessor, and hence likely dating its production to the mid-11th century at the earliest, though the extinction of the royal dynasty means it could have come later.
The Rosen genealogies, the Prose Edda and, to a lesser extent Hemskringla drew from this, Rosen being a more complete representation. Langfedgatal then drew from the Prose Edda.
I am tempted to hypothesize an extra step, with a <kappa> copied from <theta> on the longer R branch having gone from Uuestorvalcna to Uueostorvalcna, at which point it was copied to <iota> as Veostorr valena, and likewise served as source for R's Uueostwalcna.
taf
I need to correct the last part of my post on the Icelandic tradition - it should have read
> T
>
> Iterman Hathraing
> Hathra Bedwiging
> Bedwig Sceafing
>
> Godulf Eating
> Eat Beawing
> Beaw Scealwaging
>
>
> R
>
> Iterman Hathraing
> Hathra [Hwaling Hwala Bedwiging]
> Bedwig Sceafing
>
> Godulf Eating
> Eat[a Tethuuafing Tethuua Beawing]
> Beaw Scealwaging
>
> (added material [in brackets])
The point remains the same - both R & T originally had the deletions. Since the Icelandic tradition also copied the Kent and Deira pedigrees I took a look at them. Excluding patronymics, which were not int he notes that went to Iceland, there are only to differences between R and T in both pedigrees combined. I have also included C, which is a stand-in for the 'ancestral' form of the name.
>
> Godulf Eating
> Eat Beawing
> Beaw Scealwaging
>
>
> R
>
> Iterman Hathraing
> Hathra [Hwaling Hwala Bedwiging]
> Bedwig Sceafing
>
> Godulf Eating
> Eat[a Tethuuafing Tethuua Beawing]
> Beaw Scealwaging
>
> (added material [in brackets])
Kent
C: Oesa
R: Eosa
T: __esa (a space was left for a capital at the start but none was inscribed)
Ice: Vesa
I guess it is closer to __esa, but given the conventions used by the Icelandic note-taker, I really would have expected Vesa to have come from Uesa, or at worst Oesa. Were I to put my money on one solution, it would be that <eta> the parent manuscript of both of these, had Oesa, like C, and that the Icelandic note-taker used <eta> as his source.
Deira
C: Uuestorvalcna (I know there was no V in Anglo-Saxon, but that is what it looks like - it is probably a really sloppy u).
R: Uueostwalcna
T: Uuestorualcna
Ice: Veostorr Valena
Again, The Icelandic material looks more like C than R or T. Thus I think I have identified several intermediate stages in the transmission
<theta> A manuscript like the C manuscript, retaining the spelling of Uuestorvalcna and Oese lost two names in copying: Hwala Hathring, Hathra Baeldaeging became simply Hwala Baeldaging; and Eat Tetwing, Tetwa Beawing became Eat Beawing. This could be one of Dumvilles intermediate manuscripts on the RT branch, <zeta> or <eta>, or a separate intermediate not identified. It had the added Wessex pedigree tracing the sons of Edgar back to Adam, that included the description of Ine's reign and the 'Se scef' immortalized in the Icelandic notes.
T was copied <theta>, likewise skipping generations, dropping the initial letter of Oesa, and changing Creoda Cerdicing into Creoda Cynricing. The ambiguous Uestorvalcna was clarified as Uuestorualcna.
R was copied from <theta>, in the process Gewis Wiging becoming Gewis Wising, Uuestorvalcna becoming Uueostwalcna, and Oesa became Eosa. The missing generations were absent, until at some later date their omission was noticed and they were added back in the margin.
<iota> was copied from <theta> and taken to Iceland also missing the skipped generations, with Oesa becoming Vesa, Uuestorvalcna becoming Veostorr Valena. It also extended the novel pedigree one generation, taking it to Edward the Confessor, and hence likely dating its production to the mid-11th century at the earliest, though the extinction of the royal dynasty means it could have come later.
The Rosen genealogies, the Prose Edda and, to a lesser extent Hemskringla drew from this, Rosen being a more complete representation. Langfedgatal then drew from the Prose Edda.
I am tempted to hypothesize an extra step, with a <kappa> copied from <theta> on the longer R branch having gone from Uuestorvalcna to Uueostorvalcna, at which point it was copied to <iota> as Veostorr valena, and likewise served as source for R's Uueostwalcna.
taf
taf
Nov 11, 2016, 3:07:42 AM11/11/16
to
I would like to thank Andrew for hooking me up with the second Dumville article. I note that in his text he refers to a never-been-edited genealogy on the ancestry of King Edmund's children. He clearly considers this a different work than the Anglian collection, yet the only two known copies of it (at least known to me, and the only two Dumville mentions) are found at the end of the Anglian collection R & T, and were clearly passed together with it. It has certainly been treated as part of the collection when Sisam and Faulkes refer to the Icelandic material deriving from ms. T of the Anglian collection. The Icelandic genealogical note-taker copied a 13-generation descent of Deira and a 13-generation descent of Kent from the Anglian-collection proper, but also copied 40 generations from this pedigree, more than the other two combined, and it is this addition that has the 'Sescef' critical to identifying this as the source. It also begins immediately after the previous pedigree of the Anglian collection, that of Ine, in mid-page. Thus an argument could be made that this should be considered a continuation of the Anglian collection rather than a distinct item. On the other hand it does deviate from format twice. Once at the generation of Ingeld where it presents a brief account of Ine's reign, and once at the very end (it is retrograde so the end is the most distant), in which it abandons the use off patronymics to give the line from Noah back to Adam. This pedigree has been dated to about 980.
The other day, in laying out my argument for the source of the Icelandic material, I presented the names in this descent (which Dumville did not include in his article on the Anglian Collection) except for the most distant generations, which the Icelandic copyist omitted. Picking up where he left off, then,
R T
> Bedwig Sceafing Bedwig Sceafing
> Scef Scef
Noe Noe
Lamech Lamech
Mathusalem Mathusalem
Enoch Enoh
Iared Iared
Malalehel Malalehel
Caino Caino
Enos Enos
Adam Adam
Curiously, there is another pedigree immediately prior to the Anglian collection in the Textus Roffensis (R). It is of completely different character, running in paragraph rather than column form, and does not use patronymics, while it begins with Adam and runs down the line of descent, the opposite orientation of the Anglian collection pedigrees. In terms of dating, it must fall, in the form that has come down to us, after the succession of Edward the Confessor (1042), and prior to the compilation of the Textus (ca. 1122x24). It was published by Thomas Hearne along with many of the other unique or unusual items in 1720, but I am unaware of it receiving attention since (although there is nothing particularly special about it). My translation is somewhat loose (and not very good, so don't assume it is right).
Adam was the first man. & he had Seth. & he had Enos. & Enos had Kainan. & Kainan had Malaleel. & Maleel had Iared. & Iared had Enoch. After Enoch was Matusalam. Then was Lamech. Then was Noe. Then was Sem. Then was Scyf. He was born in the ark.
Then was Bedwig. Then was Hwala. Then was Hathra. Then was Iterman. Then was Heremod. Then was Sealra. Then was Beaw. Then was Tethra. Then was Geata. The Heathens honored him like a god.
Then was Godwulf. Then was Finn. Then was Frithewulf. Then was Frealaf. Then was Frithewold. Then was Woden. Then was Baeldag. Then was Brand. Then was Frithegar. Then was Freawine. Then was Wig. Then was Gewis. Took Wessex from the British.
Then was Esla. Then was Elesa. Then was Cerdic. Then was Creoda. Then was Cynric. Then was Ceawlin. Then was Cuthwine. Then was Cutha. Then was Ceolwald. Then was Cenred. Then was Ingeld. Then was Eoppa. Then was Easa. Then was Ealhmund. Then was Ecgbryht. Then was Athulf. Then was AElfred. Then was Eadweard. Then was Eadmung. Then was Eadgar. Then was AEthelred. Then was Eadword.
SOme notes. First, this is the full thing - the pedigree with all the names like in the 855 annal of some mss of ASC, with the longest pedigree. Unlike the main body of the Anglian collection, it had the Wig-Freawine-Freothegar sequence highlighted by Sisam, as with Esla. It has the names mistakenly deleted in the continuation that were then added back to ms R. It also has Seth, missing from the continuation (between Adam and Enos).
While it might be tempting to attribute to the presence of this pedigree in the immediate proximity the correction of the two missing generations in the R text of the Anglian Collection continuation, but I don't think this can be sustained. Seth was not restored to the text, yet this can be excused - his name would fall within the non-tablular portion at the end, and not at the margin where it could readily be addressed, but this pedigree also has Frithewulf and Frithewold flanking Freawine, just like the 855 annal in ASC A, A2, Asser and AEthelweard, but these are missing from the Anglian collection pedigree where their addition would have been as easy as the correction of the missing Hathra and Tethua. No, I think the corrector of the Anglian R ms was working from a version of the pedigree that ran Woden-Frealaf-Finn. This version only is known, outside of the Anglian collection continuation, in the 855 annal of ASC B,C or D (E & F don't have this genealogy, or many of the others). In other words, at different times, the two main branches of the ASC document tree both influenced these few pages of the Textus Ruffensis, providing this pedigree from the A/A2/AE/As branch, while the B/C/D branch appears the source for correcting the Anglian continuation.
taf
The other day, in laying out my argument for the source of the Icelandic material, I presented the names in this descent (which Dumville did not include in his article on the Anglian Collection) except for the most distant generations, which the Icelandic copyist omitted. Picking up where he left off, then,
R T
> Bedwig Sceafing Bedwig Sceafing
> Scef Scef
Noe Noe
Lamech Lamech
Mathusalem Mathusalem
Enoch Enoh
Iared Iared
Malalehel Malalehel
Caino Caino
Enos Enos
Adam Adam
Curiously, there is another pedigree immediately prior to the Anglian collection in the Textus Roffensis (R). It is of completely different character, running in paragraph rather than column form, and does not use patronymics, while it begins with Adam and runs down the line of descent, the opposite orientation of the Anglian collection pedigrees. In terms of dating, it must fall, in the form that has come down to us, after the succession of Edward the Confessor (1042), and prior to the compilation of the Textus (ca. 1122x24). It was published by Thomas Hearne along with many of the other unique or unusual items in 1720, but I am unaware of it receiving attention since (although there is nothing particularly special about it). My translation is somewhat loose (and not very good, so don't assume it is right).
Adam was the first man. & he had Seth. & he had Enos. & Enos had Kainan. & Kainan had Malaleel. & Maleel had Iared. & Iared had Enoch. After Enoch was Matusalam. Then was Lamech. Then was Noe. Then was Sem. Then was Scyf. He was born in the ark.
Then was Bedwig. Then was Hwala. Then was Hathra. Then was Iterman. Then was Heremod. Then was Sealra. Then was Beaw. Then was Tethra. Then was Geata. The Heathens honored him like a god.
Then was Godwulf. Then was Finn. Then was Frithewulf. Then was Frealaf. Then was Frithewold. Then was Woden. Then was Baeldag. Then was Brand. Then was Frithegar. Then was Freawine. Then was Wig. Then was Gewis. Took Wessex from the British.
Then was Esla. Then was Elesa. Then was Cerdic. Then was Creoda. Then was Cynric. Then was Ceawlin. Then was Cuthwine. Then was Cutha. Then was Ceolwald. Then was Cenred. Then was Ingeld. Then was Eoppa. Then was Easa. Then was Ealhmund. Then was Ecgbryht. Then was Athulf. Then was AElfred. Then was Eadweard. Then was Eadmung. Then was Eadgar. Then was AEthelred. Then was Eadword.
SOme notes. First, this is the full thing - the pedigree with all the names like in the 855 annal of some mss of ASC, with the longest pedigree. Unlike the main body of the Anglian collection, it had the Wig-Freawine-Freothegar sequence highlighted by Sisam, as with Esla. It has the names mistakenly deleted in the continuation that were then added back to ms R. It also has Seth, missing from the continuation (between Adam and Enos).
While it might be tempting to attribute to the presence of this pedigree in the immediate proximity the correction of the two missing generations in the R text of the Anglian Collection continuation, but I don't think this can be sustained. Seth was not restored to the text, yet this can be excused - his name would fall within the non-tablular portion at the end, and not at the margin where it could readily be addressed, but this pedigree also has Frithewulf and Frithewold flanking Freawine, just like the 855 annal in ASC A, A2, Asser and AEthelweard, but these are missing from the Anglian collection pedigree where their addition would have been as easy as the correction of the missing Hathra and Tethua. No, I think the corrector of the Anglian R ms was working from a version of the pedigree that ran Woden-Frealaf-Finn. This version only is known, outside of the Anglian collection continuation, in the 855 annal of ASC B,C or D (E & F don't have this genealogy, or many of the others). In other words, at different times, the two main branches of the ASC document tree both influenced these few pages of the Textus Ruffensis, providing this pedigree from the A/A2/AE/As branch, while the B/C/D branch appears the source for correcting the Anglian continuation.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
Nov 11, 2016, 11:33:48 AM11/11/16
to
taf just loves playing around with these Antiquarian Fantasy Genealogies.
He's like a small child with mud, clay and water -- fashioning missiles to
throw around -- hither and yon.
Amusing...
...And "Cute"
DSH
--------------------------------------------------
"All things truly wicked start from an innocence." -- Ernest Hemingway _A
Moveable Feast_
"taf" wrote in message
news:26d0653d-c896-4fbe...@googlegroups.com...
He's like a small child with mud, clay and water -- fashioning missiles to
throw around -- hither and yon.
Amusing...
...And "Cute"
DSH
--------------------------------------------------
"All things truly wicked start from an innocence." -- Ernest Hemingway _A
Moveable Feast_
"taf" wrote in message
news:26d0653d-c896-4fbe...@googlegroups.com...
Hans Vogels
Nov 11, 2016, 1:15:44 PM11/11/16
to
You may think so but it is quite interesting and does suit the purpose of this newsgroup. Tracking down and tracing the origins and the mutations of the documented descendancies is bit like tracing al the possible and different versions to one original one: Medieval genealogy thus.
Hans Vogels
Op vrijdag 11 november 2016 17:33:48 UTC+1 schreef D. Spencer Hines:
Hans Vogels
Op vrijdag 11 november 2016 17:33:48 UTC+1 schreef D. Spencer Hines:
D. Spencer Hines
Nov 11, 2016, 2:11:29 PM11/11/16
to
No Sale.
taf is just playing a child's game involving manipulations of myths,
inventions and fantasies.
It's not Genuine Mediaeval Genealogy -- or indeed any other sort of Genuine
Genealogy.
Good Luck in tracing your Ancestry to Frithewulf.
D. Spencer Hines
-------------------------------------------------------
"All things truly wicked start from an innocence." -- Ernest Hemingway _A
Moveable Feast_
"Hans Vogels" wrote in message
news:c139c6fe-eac8-4894...@googlegroups.com...
taf is just playing a child's game involving manipulations of myths,
inventions and fantasies.
It's not Genuine Mediaeval Genealogy -- or indeed any other sort of Genuine
Genealogy.
Good Luck in tracing your Ancestry to Frithewulf.
D. Spencer Hines
-------------------------------------------------------
"All things truly wicked start from an innocence." -- Ernest Hemingway _A
Moveable Feast_
news:c139c6fe-eac8-4894...@googlegroups.com...
taf
Nov 11, 2016, 6:56:59 PM11/11/16
to
I have noted a few error in the Anglian collection that indicate something about the way they were transcribe. This is noteworthy because there is a general consensus that all of the surviving versions are the product of transcription - none represents the original compilation.
There are a lot of 'little' errors. Letters left out or misread. However, the lists are, for the most part, redundant, in that there should be agreement between a patronymic (son of N) and the subsequent name (N). Some of these seem natural. In R we see Gewis Wising, when it should be Gewis Wiging. The similarlity between the end of the name and the beginning of the patronymic is clearly responsible for the slip by the scribe -wis Wig- became -wis Wis-. In T we see Cynric Creoding, Creoda Cynricing, Cerdic Elesing, where Creoda should be Cerdicing. Having just written Cynricing and faced with C___icing, the scribe mistakenly wrote it again. Mistakes like these are easily made and easily detected. However, there are three errors of more notable extent or import.
The first is the deletion I have talked about. In the manuscript ancestral to the TR group, the scribe has deleted two names in the continuation. I have already mentioned these, and will only briefly say that there is no obvious basis for these errors. Homoeoteleuton (then words or passages end the same) and homoeoarcton (when they start the same), causing the scribe to do what Dumville refers to as 'saul du même aux même' - to jump from same to same, does not appear to be the case here as there is no similarity between the deleted names and their neighbors, so the cause remains inexplicable.
A homoeoteleuton was apparently responsible for an error in manuscript C that also tells us something about the process of the scribe. The names in one of the pedigrees for Bernicia run as follows:
Ceolwulf Cuthwining
Cuthwine Leodwalding
Leodwald Eadhelming
Ecgwald Ocgting
Eadhelm Iding
Ocg Eating
Eadberht Leodwalding
Eata
This list makes no sense whatsoever, with no relationship between one individual and the next. Compare this to manuscript V, and the pattern becomes clear:
Ceoluulf Cuthuining
Cuthuine Liodualding
Lioduald Ecgualding
Ecguald Edelming
Eadelm Ocgting
Ocg Iding
Eadberht Eating
Eata Liodualding
Lioduald Ecgualding
What we have here are two descents, one going from Ocg Iding to Ceolwulf, the other branching off at Liodwald and leading to Eadberht. So what happened to the manuscript C list? If, rather than looking at this as name/patronymic pairs we look simply at the individual columns, we see that the scribe has jumped from a teloeoleuton in the patronymic column - Liod[walding Ecg]walding, thereby compressing the two into a single patronymic and shifting the rest of the patronymics up one in the column. This makes it clear that the scribe was not copying this list as it was meant to be read, as name/patronymic pairs:
1 2
3 4
5 6
But was instead copying it simply as columns of text:
1 4
2 5
3 6
He seemed unaware of the meaning of the information he was copying, else he would have recognized the nonsensical nature of the product. Likewise, he was unaware that these were two pedigrees, back to back, and hence the patronymics of one drifted into the other when he made his mistake.
This is different from the error committed by the scribe of the R manuscript, who clearly knew he was transcribing a genealogical text, but introduced a set of errors because he didn't understand the arrangement used by the compiler in displaying the pedigrees. Looking at ms. T, we see the line as follows:
Ceolwulf Cuthwining
Cuthwine Leodwalding
Leodwald Ecgwalding
Ecgwald Eadelming
Eadelm Ocgting
Ocg Iding
Eadberht Eating
Eata Leodwalding
Again the same two pedigrees we saw above, but the dual-column arrangement used by V and C (and hence representing the original format) has been abandoned in favor of name/patronymic pairs in a single column, making the nature of the material more evident. However, the final name is missing. Where V duplicated the name Leowald Ecgwalding, which made it clear the latter names represented a branch from the former, the parent manuscript of the CTR dropped this final name for brevity (even though C has the error in patronymics, the list of names ends with Eata and not with Leodwald). This is where R got tripped up, adding a name to make sense when he didn't recognize the true pattern:
Ceolwulf Cuthwining
Cuthwine Leodwalding
Leodwald Ecgwalding
Ecgwald Eadelming
Eadelm Ocgting
Ocg Iding
Idin Eadberhting*****
Eadberh Eating
Eata Leodwalding
The scribe of R, then, knew that he was copying genealogies, with name/patronymic pairs. When he got to the fusion between the two branches of the pedigree, he did not recognize it as such, and so he added in a name patronymic pair that he assumed had to have been deleted between Ocg Iding, who was at the end of the listing of one branch, and Eadburh Eating, who started the listing of the next. He thus turned this:
Ida
|
Ocg
|
Eadelm
|
Ecgwine
|
Leodwine
|-------------|
Cuthwine Eata
| |
Ceolwulf Eadberht
into this:
Leodwine
|
Eata
|
Eadberht
|
Ida
|
Ocg
|
Eadelm
|
Ecgwine
|
Leodwine
|
Cuthwine
|
Ceolwulf
This was not just a fluke either. On two additional instances in the Mercia pedigree, the same scribe introduced a novel name/patronym pair (Pybba Cenwulfing and Pybbi AEthelreding) to bridge together what were intended to be four different branches of the family, converging on the same man, Pybba Pending, into two longer chimeric linear descents. I can only imagine how much confusion this would have generated were this the only surviving manuscript to contain these pedigrees.
taf
There are a lot of 'little' errors. Letters left out or misread. However, the lists are, for the most part, redundant, in that there should be agreement between a patronymic (son of N) and the subsequent name (N). Some of these seem natural. In R we see Gewis Wising, when it should be Gewis Wiging. The similarlity between the end of the name and the beginning of the patronymic is clearly responsible for the slip by the scribe -wis Wig- became -wis Wis-. In T we see Cynric Creoding, Creoda Cynricing, Cerdic Elesing, where Creoda should be Cerdicing. Having just written Cynricing and faced with C___icing, the scribe mistakenly wrote it again. Mistakes like these are easily made and easily detected. However, there are three errors of more notable extent or import.
The first is the deletion I have talked about. In the manuscript ancestral to the TR group, the scribe has deleted two names in the continuation. I have already mentioned these, and will only briefly say that there is no obvious basis for these errors. Homoeoteleuton (then words or passages end the same) and homoeoarcton (when they start the same), causing the scribe to do what Dumville refers to as 'saul du même aux même' - to jump from same to same, does not appear to be the case here as there is no similarity between the deleted names and their neighbors, so the cause remains inexplicable.
A homoeoteleuton was apparently responsible for an error in manuscript C that also tells us something about the process of the scribe. The names in one of the pedigrees for Bernicia run as follows:
Ceolwulf Cuthwining
Cuthwine Leodwalding
Leodwald Eadhelming
Ecgwald Ocgting
Eadhelm Iding
Ocg Eating
Eadberht Leodwalding
Eata
This list makes no sense whatsoever, with no relationship between one individual and the next. Compare this to manuscript V, and the pattern becomes clear:
Ceoluulf Cuthuining
Cuthuine Liodualding
Lioduald Ecgualding
Ecguald Edelming
Eadelm Ocgting
Ocg Iding
Eadberht Eating
Eata Liodualding
Lioduald Ecgualding
What we have here are two descents, one going from Ocg Iding to Ceolwulf, the other branching off at Liodwald and leading to Eadberht. So what happened to the manuscript C list? If, rather than looking at this as name/patronymic pairs we look simply at the individual columns, we see that the scribe has jumped from a teloeoleuton in the patronymic column - Liod[walding Ecg]walding, thereby compressing the two into a single patronymic and shifting the rest of the patronymics up one in the column. This makes it clear that the scribe was not copying this list as it was meant to be read, as name/patronymic pairs:
1 2
3 4
5 6
But was instead copying it simply as columns of text:
1 4
2 5
3 6
He seemed unaware of the meaning of the information he was copying, else he would have recognized the nonsensical nature of the product. Likewise, he was unaware that these were two pedigrees, back to back, and hence the patronymics of one drifted into the other when he made his mistake.
This is different from the error committed by the scribe of the R manuscript, who clearly knew he was transcribing a genealogical text, but introduced a set of errors because he didn't understand the arrangement used by the compiler in displaying the pedigrees. Looking at ms. T, we see the line as follows:
Ceolwulf Cuthwining
Cuthwine Leodwalding
Leodwald Ecgwalding
Ecgwald Eadelming
Eadelm Ocgting
Ocg Iding
Eadberht Eating
Eata Leodwalding
Again the same two pedigrees we saw above, but the dual-column arrangement used by V and C (and hence representing the original format) has been abandoned in favor of name/patronymic pairs in a single column, making the nature of the material more evident. However, the final name is missing. Where V duplicated the name Leowald Ecgwalding, which made it clear the latter names represented a branch from the former, the parent manuscript of the CTR dropped this final name for brevity (even though C has the error in patronymics, the list of names ends with Eata and not with Leodwald). This is where R got tripped up, adding a name to make sense when he didn't recognize the true pattern:
Ceolwulf Cuthwining
Cuthwine Leodwalding
Leodwald Ecgwalding
Ecgwald Eadelming
Eadelm Ocgting
Ocg Iding
Idin Eadberhting*****
Eadberh Eating
Eata Leodwalding
The scribe of R, then, knew that he was copying genealogies, with name/patronymic pairs. When he got to the fusion between the two branches of the pedigree, he did not recognize it as such, and so he added in a name patronymic pair that he assumed had to have been deleted between Ocg Iding, who was at the end of the listing of one branch, and Eadburh Eating, who started the listing of the next. He thus turned this:
Ida
|
Ocg
|
Eadelm
|
Ecgwine
|
Leodwine
|-------------|
Cuthwine Eata
| |
Ceolwulf Eadberht
into this:
Leodwine
|
Eata
|
Eadberht
|
Ida
|
Ocg
|
Eadelm
|
Ecgwine
|
Leodwine
|
Cuthwine
|
Ceolwulf
This was not just a fluke either. On two additional instances in the Mercia pedigree, the same scribe introduced a novel name/patronym pair (Pybba Cenwulfing and Pybbi AEthelreding) to bridge together what were intended to be four different branches of the family, converging on the same man, Pybba Pending, into two longer chimeric linear descents. I can only imagine how much confusion this would have generated were this the only surviving manuscript to contain these pedigrees.
taf
taf
Nov 22, 2016, 2:37:26 PM11/22/16
to
On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 12:53:37 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> A transcript of this source can be seen here:
>
> http://www.septentrionalia.net/etexts/alfraedi3.pdf
>
> p. 57-9
>
> The line given is as follows (again, nothing that you see here is real genealogy, just legend):
>
> Noah
> Japhet (in the Book of Nations, father of Europeans)
> Iaphans (i.e. Javan, [Ionians])
> Zechim (i.e. Cethimus/Kittim, for Cethima, now Cyprus)
> Ciprvs (i.e. Cyprus)
> Celivs (perhaps error for Citius, i.e. Kition, the principle city of Cyprus)
> Satvrnvs (Saturn)
> Krit (i.e. Crete)
> Iupiter (Jupiter)
> Erichonii (Ericthonius of Dardania, there is a missing generation here, Ericthonius being son of Dardanus, son of Jupiter in Greek mythology)
> Troes (Tros, eponymous ancestor of the kingdom of Troy)
As it turns out, the published transcript of Langfeðgatal has some errors, plus I misread "Satvrnvs i Krit" as "Saturnus f Krit". The correct line is:
> A transcript of this source can be seen here:
>
> http://www.septentrionalia.net/etexts/alfraedi3.pdf
>
> p. 57-9
>
> The line given is as follows (again, nothing that you see here is real genealogy, just legend):
>
> Noah
> Japhet (in the Book of Nations, father of Europeans)
> Iaphans (i.e. Javan, [Ionians])
> Zechim (i.e. Cethimus/Kittim, for Cethima, now Cyprus)
> Ciprvs (i.e. Cyprus)
> Celivs (perhaps error for Citius, i.e. Kition, the principle city of Cyprus)
> Satvrnvs (Saturn)
> Krit (i.e. Crete)
> Iupiter (Jupiter)
> Erichonii (Ericthonius of Dardania, there is a missing generation here, Ericthonius being son of Dardanus, son of Jupiter in Greek mythology)
> Troes (Tros, eponymous ancestor of the kingdom of Troy)
Zechim
Ciprus
Celi'
Saturn' i Krit (of Crete)
Iupit'
Dari'
Erichonii
Troes
For a better transcript and an image of Langfeðgatal, see:
https://books.google.com/books?id=AJdJAAAAcAAJ&pg=PR12
taf
0 new messages