Early Danish Kings ---> Otto the Great?
Stewart Baldwin
in this newsgroup was the claim that Otto the Great's maternal
grandmother was a daughter of the ninth century Danish leader
"Godefridus" (d. 885). At the time, I did not have the resources to
follow up on this, due to the lack of easy access to "Monumenta
Germaniae Historica" [MGH]. When I found out about the Gallica site
earlier this year (from which one can download many of the MGH
volumes), I had forgotten about the relevance of MGH to this
particular problem. I was recently reminded about this while browsing
through Banniza v. Bazan and Müller's "Deutsche Geschichte in
Ahnentafeln", a secondary sources which has the above claim (vol. 1,
pp. 27-9).
The main primary source (in addition to apparent guesswork) on which
the claim appears to be based is a life of Queen Mathilde, wife of
Henry the Fowler and mother of Otto the Great, entitled "Vita
Mahthildis Reginae Antiquior", edited by R. Koepke in MGH SS 10,
573-82. The relevant passage is on p. 573:
"... Ab huius quoque posteris, postquam christianae se submiserunt
religioni, praedictae pater puellae prodiit nomine Tiedericus, cui
nobilissima iuncta erat uxor Reinhilda, Fresonum Danorumque genere
progrediens. ..."
"Tiedericus" (Dietrich) was Mathilde's father, and his wife
"Reinhilda" is stated to be of Frisian-Danish descent. The reason for
identifying "Godefridus" as the father of "Reinhilda" is not clear,
other than the fact that he was the latest of several members of the
early (pre Gorm) Danish dynasty who had both Danish and Frisian
connections.
The fact that there were several known Danish leaders of the ninth
century who held Frisian lands from the Frankish kings would seem to
suggest that there is a good chance that Otto the Great was descended
from the early Danish dynasty, even if the exact connection is a bit
obscure (because I see no good reason to single out "Godefridus" as
the one who was father of "Reinhilda" unless there is further primary
evidence of which I am unaware).
It should also be pointed out that "Reinhilda" is an perfectly good
Latin equivalent for the relatively common Old Norse name "Ragnhildr".
Stewart Baldwin
Todd A. Farmerie
> The fact that there were several known Danish leaders of the ninth
> century who held Frisian lands from the Frankish kings would seem to
> suggest that there is a good chance that Otto the Great was descended
> from the early Danish dynasty, even if the exact connection is a bit
> obscure (because I see no good reason to single out "Godefridus" as
> the one who was father of "Reinhilda" unless there is further primary
> evidence of which I am unaware).
>
> It should also be pointed out that "Reinhilda" is an perfectly good
> Latin equivalent for the relatively common Old Norse name "Ragnhildr".
FWIW, I recall an old Moriarty article (don't even remember where
it appeared) in which he made Reinhilda daughter of a native
Frisian dinasty, sharing common ancestry with the later Frisian
Counts. This is certainly dated, and I have no idea what was
cited to support the line, but perhaps someone who recognizes
this can dig out the original reference, and from there we can
look into this alternative.
taf
Frants Fugmann
It is not quite correct to speak about Danish dynasties, as if the
Danish kings and governing queens belonged to different families. All
later Danish kings are male or female descendants of the historical
Sigefridus and thus belong to the same family, the scyldings or in
Danish: Skjoldungerne. The only exception from this general rule is
Magnus (1042-1047), and it was in order to please him that Ordulf, who
was the oldest son of the duke of saxony an had recently married his
sister, killed the innocent earl Harold, who was a scylding, see Adam
Bremensis Gesta Hammaburgensis II, 79 (ed. Schmeidler 1917). Few years
later the Danes began to support Sweyn, who belonged to the family
through his mother.
Likewise the Danes at some occasions elected boys as their kings,
because no adult scylding was available. It happened 855, when Horic
puer was elected and again about 880, when the vikings of York elected
the boy-slave Guthred, whom they shortly before had purchased from a
widow in Wittingham.
It requires some effort to establish the exact family relations, since
the relevant sources until recently haven't been sufficiently
critisized and analysed, but having done this tedious work you will
arrive to safe conclusions as far as most of the viking age scyldings
are concerned.
Frants Fugmann
Frank Johansen
>
> It is not quite correct to speak about Danish dynasties, as if the
> Danish kings and governing queens belonged to different families. All
> later Danish kings are male or female descendants of the historical
> Sigefridus and thus belong to the same family, the scyldings or in
> Danish: Skjoldungerne.
[snip]
> It requires some effort to establish the exact family relations, since
> the relevant sources until recently haven't been sufficiently
> critisized and analysed, but having done this tedious work you will
> arrive to safe conclusions as far as most of the viking age scyldings
> are concerned.
If you read these two essays:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/danking.htm and
http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/gorm.htm
you will find that Stewart Baldwin has made a pretty good attempt at
sufficiently critisize and analyse the relevant sources.
--
Vennlig hilsen
Frank H. Johansen
joh...@c2i.net
Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard
> It is not quite correct to speak about Danish dynasties, as if the
> Danish kings and governing queens belonged to different families. All
> later Danish kings are male or female descendants of the historical
> Sigefridus and thus belong to the same family, the scyldings or in
> Danish: Skjoldungerne.
I disagree. There is simply no contemporary, documentary evidence for
the Danish kings of the 9th century all belonging to the same dynasty,
equally little to suggest that they should all be descended from a
"Sigefredus" (whichever exactly he is supposed to be) and absolutely
nothing whatsoever to show that the whole Skjoldunge story is anything
but a later construction. It may perhaps be that there is a core of
historical truth in it somewhere, but too many Danes have too eagerly
and uncritically adopted the much later stories as if they historical
data.
> The only exception from this general rule is
> Magnus (1042-1047),
How about the supposedly Swedish kings reigning in Denmark in the late
9th/early 10th centuries and of whose existence there is contemporary
or near-contemporary evidence--were they also Skjoldunger?
And how about Gorm "the Old"? What is the evidence of any Skjoldunge
descent for him?
> and it was in order to please him that Ordulf, who
> was the oldest son of the duke of saxony an had recently married his
> sister, killed the innocent earl Harold, who was a scylding, see Adam
> Bremensis Gesta Hammaburgensis II, 79 (ed. Schmeidler 1917). Few years
> later the Danes began to support Sweyn, who belonged to the family
> through his mother.
>
> Likewise the Danes at some occasions elected boys as their kings,
> because no adult scylding was available. It happened 855, when Horic
> puer was elected and again about 880, when the vikings of York elected
> the boy-slave Guthred, whom they shortly before had purchased from a
> widow in Wittingham.
>
> It requires some effort to establish the exact family relations, since
> the relevant sources until recently haven't been sufficiently
> critisized and analysed, but having done this tedious work you will
> arrive to safe conclusions as far as most of the viking age scyldings
> are concerned.
>
> Frants Fugmann
Could you enlighten us a bit more as to how to arrive at these "safe
conclusions"?
Best wishes,
Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard
Stewart Baldwin
>It is not quite correct to speak about Danish dynasties, as if the
>Danish kings and governing queens belonged to different families. All
>later Danish kings are male or female descendants of the historical
>Sigefridus and thus belong to the same family, the scyldings or in
>Danish: Skjoldungerne.
[snip]
While the story that Danish kings were descended from the mythical
Skjold is an early one (tenth century at latest), there is no evidence
that this traditional legend has any relation to real Danish dynastic
history. The earliest Danish kings for whom any reliable genealogical
evidence is available ruled in the ninth century, when we find the
relatives of king Godfred (d. 810) fighting for the throne with the
relatives of a certain Harald, apparently a previous king who had
ruled prior to Godfred. While onomastic considerations make it likely
that Godfred's relatives and Harald's relatives were two rival
branches of the same dynasty (rather than two rival dynasties), there
is no direct evidence that this was the case. The two known eighth
century Danish kings, Angantyr ("Ongendus") and Sigfrid, have no
documented relationship with any of the other Danish kings (or with
each other), but as both names were present among Godfred's relatives,
onomastic considerations again make it at least plausible that they
were of the same dynasty. Godfred's relatives eventually gained the
upper hand in Denmark, but a number of Harald's relatives were
important as vassals of the Frankish kings in Frisia. However, the
genealogical affiliations of the kings who ruled in the last half of
the ninth century are uncertain. As has already been pointed out,
there is no reason to believe that the kings of the Swedish dynasty
that ruled at Hedeby were related to the earlier Danish kings, and
there is no evidence that the dynasty of Gorm "the Old" had that
descent (in fact, the onomastics would suggest otherwise, although
that is certainly not conclusive). So, the suggestion that the later
kings are all descendants of "Sigefridus" (by whom I assume you mean
the late eighth century Danish king of that name) is doubtful at best,
and is certainly not proven.
>Likewise the Danes at some occasions elected boys as their kings,
>because no adult scylding was available. It happened 855, when Horic
>puer was elected and again about 880, when the vikings of York elected
>the boy-slave Guthred, whom they shortly before had purchased from a
>widow in Wittingham.
It is probably true that the second Horic is to be identified with the
unnamed young prince who survived the Danish civil war of 854, but
that identification is not conclusive. As for Guthred, he is not
relevant (not being a king of Denmark), and the story you mention is a
late and legendary story of dubious value.
>It requires some effort to establish the exact family relations, since
>the relevant sources until recently haven't been sufficiently
>critisized and analysed, but having done this tedious work you will
>arrive to safe conclusions as far as most of the viking age scyldings
>are concerned.
The only way to fill in these missing details in the genealogy of the
Danish kings is to use late sources that are probably not reliable.
It is true, for example, that late sources do provide Gorm with a
Skjoldung pedigree, but the is no good reason to accept this as
anything other than a late invention.
Stewart Baldwin
Frants Fugmann
I am very happy that my message attracted such interest in such a
short time. Please allow me to restrict myself to the most important
problem,I should be very happy to return to the subject at a later
occasion.
As you know the most important sources to our knowledge about the
Danish kings in te period 777 - 837 are the annals above all the
socalled Annales Regni Francorum. When you use such old sources you
have to be very careful. First of all you must ask, how
contemporaneous are these sources? The preface to the edition of
Reinhold Rau from 1987 holds that the annals from 810-814 were written
around 819 based on other sources.
Reading the annal of 811 we immediately recoginize such a source,
because the annal contains a list of 21 names - 10 danes and 11 franks
and saxons - who participated in a certain act establishing the peace
conclusion between the kingdom north of the Eider and the
Charlemagne's roman empire, and the annalist says that the emperor did
different things having firmed the peace with Hemmingus, obviously the
emperor had signed the paper with the list of names.
Now, which type of source is it that has been used here? The type is
called a "notitia" and it is defined a a resumé of an act with
juridical importance supplied with a list of the persons, who
participated in that act. It was used throughout the early Middle Age
in many German nations.
We realize that a part of the annal would be a secondary source to the
peace conclusion if we still had the document.
Now we can feel rather sure that 'Hemmingus rex Danorum' was mentioned
in that notitia, the emperor having firmed the peace "cum Hemmingo".
Now we turn to the annal of 810. Here it is mentioned that Hemming,
the son of the brother of Godofridus, became king, and that he
concluded the peace with the emperor. Again, the most likely source
for this information is the above-mentioned notitia. Conclusion: this
annal is a secondary source, although the information about Hemming's
relationship with Godofridus is primary, since the notitia has
disappeared.
In the annal of 811 there is a strange report of a meeting between the
emperor travelling at from Ghent to Aachen and Hemming's messengers,
who brought gift and "verba pacifica" from king Hemming. Why? As some
sort of confirmation of the peace? This has been suggested, but it
smells too much of the ratifications of modern epoques. By the way,
how did the messengers find the emperor? Why couldn't they wait a
little in Aachen or present themselves at the national get together?
Well, we will answer all these questions later on!
Now we turn to the annal of 812. This annal starts up in this way: Nec
multo post Hemmingus Danorum rex defunctus nuntiatur. Immediately
after the annalist tells us that Sigefridus and Anulo both wished to
be kings and that there armies fought with one another in order to
settle the question.
Since Hemmingus was king in 811 and a new king had to be elected it
was in fact to expect that Hemming died in the meantime. It was in
fact so logic that the annalist could have inserted that all by
himself without sufficient evidence that the king, who died, was
actually Hemmingus, and since his brothers didn't claim the throne and
neither Sigefridus nor Anulo stated their family relation with him, we
must at least conclude, that the information about Hemming's dead,
even if it might be correct and our suspicion is false - even so there
is no informational value in the statement itself. It all depends on
the "notitia". If this has been incorrectly inserted, the king who
died might have been another.
And what do we read later in the annal of 812? Harioldus et
Reginfridus reges Danorum missa ad imperatorum legatione pacem petunt
...
The two newly elected kings ask for peace, as if the peace hasn't yet
been concluded!!!
Now we turn to the second peace conclusion, the one described in the
annal of 813. Again the obvious source must be a notitia, since this
was the practice of Charlemagne's administration, but - where have all
the names gone? We don't get any of them, but we are told that the
Danish kings, who should have turned up, had something urgent to do in
Westfold. Two of the danes were obviously missing. Let's suppose for
the moment that the true number of Danish participants should be 12,
which still today is wide used as the number of members of a jury. If
two were missing only 10 Danes would be present - but that is exactly
the number of Danes on the list in the annal of 811, however, we know
for sure that there was a Dane present in 813, who is not mentioned on
the list. The Danish kings had asked for release of their brother, and
the French and Saxon noblemen had brought him with them to the meeting
with the Danes, which once again (?)took place at the Eider. So really
there were 11 Danes present who could swear mutual oaths, and annal
states that an equal number of noblemen from the empire was swearing.
An equal number is 11, but that corresponds exactly to the number of
French and saxon names on the above-mentioned lists.
Now we turn to the brother of the kings. His name was by the way -
Hemming!! Who was he? He was the brother of the kings, who were
brothers of Anulo, and Anulo?
Here it is of outmost importance that you use a high quality source:
... Anulo nepos Herioldi et ipsius regis ...
He was the nephew of Heriold and of the king himself, but the 'king
himself' is obviously Godofridus, who was the last known king, if we
disregard Hemmingus. Anulo's brother Hemmingus was then son of the
brother of Godofridus cfr. the annal of 810!!!
Now the problems of the election of 810 become clear. Sigifridus says:
I should be elected, since I'm son of the late king's brother. Anulo
says: I should be elected, since I'm not only son of the late king's
brother, but also on my mother's side, nephew of the famous Herioldus,
and Anulo speaks as we know with quite an army behind him, and it is
now clear how he has got that. The meeting in november 811 was a
proposal of quid pro quo. The emperor should support Anulo and in
return Anulo (or as it turned out: his brothers) would conclude the
peace with him. The emperor was willing, but he obviously demanded
Hemming as hostage for the fulfillment of the treaty.
Obviously the notitia of 813 became divided, and because of the
mentioning of rex Hemmingus in 811, and because Godofridus died in 810
the annalist erroneously thought, that Hemmingus became Danish king
that year and filled out the gap.
Now you could ask, why the sons of Godofridus were disregarded at the
election in 812. It could be due to age, but probably there was
another reason. In Notkeri Gesta Karoli II, 13 it is mentioned that
Godofridus had divorced from his wife and married another woman, so
while hunting Godofridus was killed by one of the sons of the first
wife. As son of the king he was a given member of his satellites (to
speak with the annalist) or the hird of Godofridus.
Hemmingus is probably identical with the christian count Hemmingus who
was killed on Walcheren according to Thegani vita Hludowici and the
Annales Fuldenses sub anno 837. The latter source gives us thename of
the father Halphdanus (Halfdan). Note, that the same probably appears
in Vita Karoli by the Poeta Saxo sub anno 807 and in the ARF sub anno
782.
It is correct that nobody has actually written that Halfdan and
Godofridus were sons of Sigefridus, but not only the mentioning of
Halfdan as messenger of Sigifridus in 782 supports the theory that he
actually was son of Sigifridus. Also the name Sigifridus as son of the
brother of Godofridus and among the descendants of Halfdan suggests a
family connection, and there is no evidence of some civil war between
adherents of Sigifridus and adherents of Godofridus.
Other supporting elements could be presented, but let me stop here.
I hope that Stewart Baldwin is not too sad that I at least partially
have murdered his danish king Heriold in return for his killing of
Ragnarr called lodbrók.
Frants Fugmann
Todd A. Farmerie
> sba...@mindspring.com (Stewart Baldwin) wrote in message news:<3d6ee9ce....@news.mindspring.com>...
>
>>On 29 Aug 2002 05:19:14 -0700, f...@kalgym.dk (Frants Fugmann) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It is not quite correct to speak about Danish dynasties, as if the
>>>Danish kings and governing queens belonged to different families. All
>>>later Danish kings are male or female descendants of the historical
>>>Sigefridus and thus belong to the same family, the scyldings or in
>>>Danish: Skjoldungerne.
> I am very happy that my message attracted such interest in such a
> short time. Please allow me to restrict myself to the most important
> problem,I should be very happy to return to the subject at a later
> occasion.
You present an interesting hypothesis, but from my perspective,
this is not the most troublesome part of your claim (of only a
single dynasty). Stewart himself had suggested that the families
of Godfried and Harald might have been related. What of the
Swedish kings or the house of Gorm? Neither onomastics nor the
surviving records seem to support any connection, and while an
argument could be made that, for example, Adam was mistaken, such
a conclusion would only remove Adam's version, and not restore a
descent from Godfried by default. So, how do you manage to link
these two later, apparently distinct, groups to the earlier kings?
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> f...@kalgym.dk (Frants Fugmann) wrote in message news:<d2ef5370.02082...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>It is not quite correct to speak about Danish dynasties, as if the
>>Danish kings and governing queens belonged to different families. All
>>later Danish kings are male or female descendants of the historical
>>Sigefridus and thus belong to the same family, the scyldings or in
>>Danish: Skjoldungerne.
>
> I disagree. There is simply no contemporary, documentary evidence for
> the Danish kings of the 9th century all belonging to the same dynasty,
Not coincidentally, similar claims are made for the early Norse
kings, making them all Inglings. One critical claim in this
descent, that linking Halfdan the Black to the descendants of
Olaf 'Treefeller', was negatively addressed by Jon Steffensen.
However, the problematic descent of later kings from Harald
Fairhair has also been subject to question. Specifically,
Birgit and Peter Sawyer, (in Medieval Scandinavia: from
Conversion to Reformation, circa 800-1500, The Nordic Series,
vol. 17, U. Minn. Press, p. 61) state the following:
"It has been claimed that all Norwegian kings were descendants of
Harald Finehair. That is, however, a fiction. The founder of
the Norwegian royal dynasty was Harald Hard-ruler, who died in
1066. His own claim was as half-brother of Olav Haraldsson.
Harald Finehair's dynasty ended with the death of Harald
Grey-cloak in about 970, nad neither Olav Tryggvason nor Olav
Haraldsson was his descendant(Krag)."
The reference is to Krag, Claus. 1989. "Norge som odel i Harald
Hårfagres ætt." Historisk Tidsskrift (Oslo), 288-302.
The opinions expressed here are neither novel nor surprising, and
such speculation has been made in this group in the past. Still
I am curious about what, exactly, Krag had to say about it - not
curious enough to learn a new language however. Is there anyone
out there who has seen this and would be willing to summarize the
arguments?
taf
Phil Moody
> Hemmingus is probably identical with the christian count Hemmingus who
> was killed on Walcheren according to Thegani vita Hludowici and the
> Annales Fuldenses sub anno 837. The latter source gives us thename of
> the father Halphdanus (Halfdan). Note, that the same probably appears
> in Vita Karoli by the Poeta Saxo sub anno 807 and in the ARF sub anno
> 782.
>
> It is correct that nobody has actually written that Halfdan and
> Godofridus were sons of Sigefridus, but not only the mentioning of
> Halfdan as messenger of Sigifridus in 782 supports the theory that he
> actually was son of Sigifridus. Also the name Sigifridus as son of the
> brother of Godofridus and among the descendants of Halfdan suggests a
> family connection, and there is no evidence of some civil war between
> adherents of Sigifridus and adherents of Godofridus.
> Other supporting elements could be presented, but let me stop here
PLM: Thank you Frants for this very detail analysis of the facts! This is
actually a hypothysis I have had for nearly 2 years now, but I lacked the
sources to adequately research the supposition; so your work is greatly
appreciated!
My fascination with Heming actual began due to a faulty translation of
skaldic verse in the online edition of the Heimskringla, translated by
Laing. This indicated that the Norwegian, Erik Hákonsson was a descendant of
Heming the Great; so I began to conjecture how this might be true. I later
procured Hollander's translation, and the same line is translated as,
"Heming's high-born brother", referring to Erik Hákonsson, but the damage
was done:-)
In any event, it is well documented the Jarl Hákon Sigurdsson did have a
son Heming; so I think for onomastic reasons, there must be a valid
connection between the Danish Heming, and the Norwegian Jarl Hákon's use of
the name Heming in his family. I believe the simpleist solution is the
Halfdan the Black is in fact related to the Danish royal line, and possibly
a son of King Heming (d. 837). This would be chronilogically feasible, and
given your assertion that Heming's father was named Halfdan, it would be in
harmony with typical patronymic naming patterns. We do know the Danish at
this time claimed soveriegnity of the Oslo Fjord area, and Halfdan the
Black's power was centralized in Westfold and Agdir, and considering Norway
was still as yet a divided kingdom, they would be hard pressed to dislodge a
Danish enclave, once established, due to the open supply line from Denmark.
Halfdan then marries well and acquires additional territory, and
supplies his son Harald Fairhair with a legitimate Norwegian Royal
bloodline. Harald then marries well in turn, the daughter of Jarl Hákon
Grjotgardsson, whose descent is from the Kings of Halagoland; which further
adds to the power he can draw upon; which places him in a good position to
begin conquoring these minor kingdoms piecemeal, and thereby exponentially
adding to his power, or his control of Norway, until it is entirely
overwhelmed, and he becomes King of a unified Norway.
The relationship between Harald and Hákon Grjotgardson was a very close
one, as Harald made Jarl of Lade; which also happened to be Harald's chief
residense, and it is further asserted that Harald's son were raised by his
wife family, meaning the Jarls of Lade. This is strengthened also when
Sigurd Hákonsson married the granddaughter of Haral Fairhair, and thus
making Jarl Hákon Sigurdson a direct descendant of Harald Fairhair, through
the maternal line, and thereby providing a basis for Hákon to name his son
Heming, as well as his other sons, Swein and Erik (Horic); which may be
argued are Danish names as well. Naturally, this relies on my supposition
concerning Halfdan the Black's true paternal ancestry:-)
Best Wishes,
Phil
Phil Moody
> Not coincidentally, similar claims are made for the early Norse
> kings, making them all Inglings. One critical claim in this
> descent, that linking Halfdan the Black to the descendants of
> Olaf 'Treefeller', was negatively addressed by Jon Steffensen.
> However, the problematic descent of later kings from Harald
> Fairhair has also been subject to question. Specifically,
> Birgit and Peter Sawyer, (in Medieval Scandinavia: from
> Conversion to Reformation, circa 800-1500, The Nordic Series,
> vol. 17, U. Minn. Press, p. 61) state the following:
>
> "It has been claimed that all Norwegian kings were descendants of
> Harald Finehair. That is, however, a fiction. The founder of
> the Norwegian royal dynasty was Harald Hard-ruler, who died in
> 1066. His own claim was as half-brother of Olav Haraldsson.
> Harald Finehair's dynasty ended with the death of Harald
> Grey-cloak in about 970, nad neither Olav Tryggvason nor Olav
> Haraldsson was his descendant(Krag)."
PLM: Excellent book, Todd! I'm pleased to see I'm not the only one on list
who has a copy now. It should be noted, the authors are specificlly
referring to the male line, and not the female descendants of Harald
Fairhair. When we consider his daughters; then it is inappropriate to imply
the bloodline of Harald Fairhair is extinct
> The reference is to Krag, Claus. 1989. "Norge som odel i Harald
> Hårfagres ætt." Historisk Tidsskrift (Oslo), 288-302.>
> The opinions expressed here are neither novel nor surprising, and
> such speculation has been made in this group in the past. Still
> I am curious about what, exactly, Krag had to say about it - not
> curious enough to learn a new language however. Is there anyone
> out there who has seen this and would be willing to summarize the
> arguments?
PLM: I concur completely. I would be most appreciative if someone could
summarize Krag's work cited. I would like to see what basis Krag dismisses
the two Olaf's ancestry from Harald Fairhair, and Harald Hardrade. Pivotal
to this is disproving the assertion that Sigurd Syr was a grandson of Harald
Fairhair of course, and this I would be most interested in.
Best Wishes,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 10:53 AM
Subject: Early Norse Kings (was Re:Early Danish Kings ---> Otto the Great?)
Stewart Baldwin
[much snipping]
>Now we turn to the annal of 812. This annal starts up in this way: Nec
>multo post Hemmingus Danorum rex defunctus nuntiatur. Immediately
>after the annalist tells us that Sigefridus and Anulo both wished to
>be kings and that there armies fought with one another in order to
>settle the question.
>
>Since Hemmingus was king in 811 and a new king had to be elected it
>was in fact to expect that Hemming died in the meantime. It was in
>fact so logic that the annalist could have inserted that all by
>himself without sufficient evidence that the king, who died, was
>actually Hemmingus, and since his brothers didn't claim the throne and
>neither Sigefridus nor Anulo stated their family relation with him, we
>must at least conclude, that the information about Hemming's dead,
>even if it might be correct and our suspicion is false - even so there
>is no informational value in the statement itself. It all depends on
>the "notitia". If this has been incorrectly inserted, the king who
>died might have been another.
The account of the annals is quite straightforward on this matter,
stating that Godofridus was succeeded at his death by his brother's
son Hemmingus (annal for 810), that Hemmingus made peace with
Charlemagne (annal for 811), and that Hemmingus then died, followed by
a fight in which there were two claimants for the throne, etc. (annal
for 812). I see no reason to reject this perfectly straightforward
account of events, written no more than a few years after the events
themselves.
>Here it is of outmost importance that you use a high quality source:
>
>... Anulo nepos Herioldi et ipsius regis ...
>
>He was the nephew of Heriold and of the king himself, but the 'king
>himself' is obviously Godofridus, who was the last known king, if we
>disregard Hemmingus. Anulo's brother Hemmingus was then son of the
>brother of Godofridus cfr. the annal of 810!!!
The exact interpretation of the words "et ipsius regis" can be argued
in different ways, but the suggestion that it "obviously" referred to
Godofridus is far from clear, and ignores other evidence that suggests
otherwise. If ther words "Anulo nepos Herioldi et ipsius regis" are
to be interpreted as "Anulo nepos of Herioldus and of the king
himself" (whatever interpretation we use for "nepos", which I leave
untranslated here), then they could be interpreted as referring either
to Godofridus or to Hemmingus. On the other hand, the words "et
ipsius regis" have often been regarded as being in apposition to
"Herioldi", in which case the interpretation would be that Herioldus
himself was a king. This latter interpretation is directly supported
by the fact that one group of manuscripts (the annals attributed to
Einhard) replaces the words "Herioldi et ipsius regis" by the words
"Herioldi quondam regis" instead, in this case unambiguously
interpreted that Herioldus was a former king. [See MGH SS 1, 199; see
also the discussion of this in R. W. McTurk, "Ragnarr Loðbrók in the
Irish annals?", in Almqvist and Greene, eds., Proceedings of the
Seventh Viking Congress (Dublin, 1973), 93-123, at. pp. 99-100.] This
interpretation (which is the most widely followed one) makes much
sense, because then the statement of the annal is then telling what
claim to the throne each claimant had. Sigifridus was a "nepos" of
king Godofridus (obviously the king who died in 810), while Anulo's
claim to the throne was that he was "nepos" of some otherwise unknown
previous king Herioldus.
>Now the problems of the election of 810 become clear. Sigifridus says:
>I should be elected, since I'm son of the late king's brother. Anulo
>says: I should be elected, since I'm not only son of the late king's
>brother, but also on my mother's side, nephew of the famous Herioldus,
>and Anulo speaks as we know with quite an army behind him, and it is
>now clear how he has got that. The meeting in november 811 was a
>proposal of quid pro quo. The emperor should support Anulo and in
>return Anulo (or as it turned out: his brothers) would conclude the
>peace with him. The emperor was willing, but he obviously demanded
>Hemming as hostage for the fulfillment of the treaty.
This all seems extremely far-fetched to me. There is no problem with
the succession of 810 that I can see. Hemmingus evidently became king
without opposition and then died two years later, after which there
was a fight for the throne between two rival claimants (both of whom
ended up being killed in the resulting struggle). So far as I can see
you have presented no good reason to reject the testimony of the
annals here, and the king Hemmingus who dies in 812 is clearly a
different man from the man of that name whose death is recorded in the
annals at 837.
>I hope that Stewart Baldwin is not too sad that I at least partially
>have murdered his danish king Heriold in return for his killing of
>Ragnarr called lodbrók.
I'm not sure that he should be called "my" king Heriold, because when
I wrote up my account of the early kings of Denmark, I followed many
others on this matter who had come to the same conclusion that I had,
i.e., that the Herioldus who is mentioned briefly at the beginning of
the annal of 812 had previously been a king. And I don't agree that
you have given us good reason to reject that widely accepted
interpretation of the evidence of the Frankish annals for 812.
Stewart Baldwin
Phil Moody
"Stewart Baldwin" wrote:
PLM: Stewart, I wish you would not have brought up McTurk and his poor
methodology, and the sheep who blindly accept his faulty conclusions. Now,
I'm forced to quote Alf Smyth, much more than my two fingers would like!
Alfred P. Smyth, "King Alfred the Great", 1995, Oxford University Press
Page 57-58:
"The reference to the brotherly relationship between three viking leaders in
the Chronicle at AD 878 has caused unnecessary difficulties for some
scholars who have failed to understand its retrospective nature. The
Chronicle tells us that in 878, while Alfred had retreated into the woods
and marshes (of Somerset) to escape the army of Guthrum, yet another viking
army landed further west in Devon. This army, we are told, was led by "the
brother of Ivar and Halfdan" -- a reference to two vikings who had been
active a few years earlier in the progress of the Great Army, but who by 878
had disappeared from the English scene. Attempts to discredit or devalue
this key entry in the Chronicle for AD 878 have been based on a fundamental
misunderstanding of historical methodology as well as on a poor
understanding of textual evidense. McTurk [47] cast doubt on the Chronicle's
statement (under AD 878) that Halfdan and Ivar were brothers, claiming that
the Chronicle's "obscure phrase" [48] relating to "the brother of Ivar and
Halfdan" was rendered doubtful by Æthelweard's supposed alternative reading
of "Halfdan, the brother of the tyrant Ivar (Healfdene, Iguuares tyranni
frater)" [49]. McTurk's interpretation of Æthelweard's text would have us
believe that a certain Halfdan "the brother of the tyrant Ivar" landed in
Devon in 878, where he was slain along with 800 vikings. McTurk
misinterpreted the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle on several counts. First, he
followed de Vries in dismissing the Chronicle's record of the arrival of
"the brother of Ivar and Halfdan" in Devon in the winter of 878 as
"obscure". On the contrary, the passage is textually straightforward, and
contextually it makes excellent sense. Viking leaders such as this unnamed
warrior, who descended without warning on Wessex, were easier to identify in
terms of Danish leaders who were already known to local inhabitants. By 878,
both Ivar and halfdan had recently died, but both had been notorious in
effecting the conquest of the new Danelaw. Ivar was remembered for the
recent slaying of King Edmund of East Anglia and almost certainly for the
earlier butchering of Ælla, king of the Northumbrians, in 867. Æthelweard
clearly saw "the tyrant Inuuar" as the principal leader of the Great Army
which landed in East Anglia in 865-6 [50] and therefore by implication that
same chronicler must have seen Ivar as the leader of the attack on
Northumbria and York in the following year. Later Scandinavia scaldic poetry
and Old Icelandic saga-writers would remember Ivar as Ivar the Boneless, who
carved a bloody eagle on the mangled body of King Ælle of Northumbria and
who offered his royal victim as a sacrifice for Danish victory to the war
god Odin. [51]
Halfdan had been known personally to the warriors of Wessex as a leader
in the First War against Æthelred I and Alfred during 871-2, and his brother
Ivar was remembered for having earlier led the attack on Northumbria and
East Anglia. When, therefore, a third member of this dynasty descended on
Devon in 878 -- far from being obscure-- the chronicler was being very
specific in describing this leader as "the brother of Ivar and Halfdan".
This new, and as yet unknown, invader was identified as a brother of two
notorious leaders of the Great Army who were3 already known to the West
Saxons. McTurk claimed the passage in question was "relatively unimportant"
[52] having less value in relation to the information it gave on Ivar and
Halfdan because it was concerned primarily with their unnamed brother. In
this he missed a key point, whereby incidental information in early medieval
annals may be all the more reliable because of its peripheral relationship
to the prejudices of the compiler. Finally, by preferring the testimony of
the late-tenth-century Æthelweard, over that of the near contemporary Parker
Manuscript (version A) of the Chronicle, McTurk was breaking a cardinal rule
in the handling of historical textual evidense. Æthelweard's Latin text is
garbled at this point, as it so often is elsewhere in his translation. It is
by no means certain that Æthelweard meant to convey the notion of "Halfdan
the brother of Ivar" rather than "the brother of Ivar and Halfdan" which
undoubtedly was the meaning of the earliest version of the Chronicle.
Æthelweard's Latin translation is notoriously faulty -- his editor noting
that "mistakes and misunderstandings are frequent" and that mistranslations
abound in his work. [53] More particularly, Æthelweard's syntax is eccentric
and chaotic and he "very often adopts a peculiar order of words without any
rhetorical advantage". [54] For that reason alone, Æthelweard's "Healfdene,
Iguuares tyranni frater" [55] cannot be taken as a superior reading to the
Parker Chronicle's "Inwæres broþur 7 Healfdenes." Besides, Æthelweard was
translating the Chronicle -- and therefore he provides us with nothing more
than a faulty Latin versioun of a tenth-century exemplar, which we know to
have been a revised version of the original text. [56] It is therefore
wilful to cast doubt on a passage which appears in Manuscripts A, B
(Ingweres broðor 7 Healfdenes), [57] and C, D, and E of the original
Chronicle, and when we know the equivalant section of the A manuscript
(Parker text) is a hundred years older than Æthelweard's time."
EQ
[46] (note quoted above) R. W. McTurk, "Ragnarr Loðbrók in the Irish
annals?", B. Almquist and D. Greene (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh
Viking Congress, Dublin 15-21 August 1973 (Dublin, 1976)
[47] Ibid., 119-20.
[48] Ibid. 121.
[49] "Æthelweard", ed. Campbell, 43.
[50] Ibid. 35.
[51] Smyth, Scandinavian Kings", 189-94.
[52] McTurk, "Ragnarr Loðbrók", Almquist and Greene (eds.), Seventh Viking
Congress, 117 n. 173.
[53] "Æthelweard", ed. Campbell, p. xxii.
[54] Ibid. (Introduction), 1. This is not to deny that Æthelweard's version
of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle does not have valuable information to offer the
historian on people and events of south-west Wessex. But McTurk, by quoting
Whitelock out of context on the issue of additional information provided by
Æthelweard (McTurk, "Ragnar Loðbrók", 120), has had a misleading influence
on the altogether seperate argument which turns on Æthelweard's translating
technique. In short, the material provided by Æthelweard on Ivar and Halfdan
in his 878 entry is not additional to the main text of the Chronicle. It is,
rather , a garbled translation of Æthelweard's exemplar of the Chronicle,
and Whitelock's comments therefore do not apply. For the signifigance of
additional information in Æthelweard's Chronicle, see pp. 474-7 below.
[55] "Æthelweard", ed. Campbell, 43.
[56] Ibid., p. xxix.
[57] ASC: MS B, ed. Taylor (sub anno 879), 37.
PLM: As should be evident, McTurk is misleading his readers, and his use of
flawed later texts, in preference to the earlier primary source documents
makes his methodology suspect, and therefore his conclusions cannot be
trusted. I would certainly hesitate to cite him as an authority in this
matter, and I believe his entire essay is now suspect, given the poor
methodology which Smyth has brought to our attention.
Best Wishes,
Phil
"Stewart Baldwin" <sba...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3d7128ff...@news.mindspring.com...
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> PLM: Stewart, I wish you would not have brought up McTurk and his poor
> methodology, and the sheep who blindly accept his faulty conclusions. Now,
> I'm forced to quote Alf Smyth, much more than my two fingers would like!
For those not familiar with the personalities, there is a certain
irony here, as there are many who question the methodology of Alf
Smyth, only there are few who follow him, blindly or otherwise.
[large quote snipped]
> PLM: As should be evident, McTurk is misleading his readers, and his use of
> flawed later texts, in preference to the earlier primary source documents
> makes his methodology suspect, and therefore his conclusions cannot be
> trusted. I would certainly hesitate to cite him as an authority in this
> matter, and I believe his entire essay is now suspect, given the poor
> methodology which Smyth has brought to our attention.
Smyth's analysis is simply about prefering one interpretation
over another, and these claims of poor methodology are thrown in
to discredit his scholarly opponent (not that something like that
ever happens here), and to try to preserve an interpretation that
most historians now reject. If I thought it would help (which I
don't) I could quote reviews that make equivalent criticisms of
Smyth's methodology.
Further, it is rash to paint all of an author's work with one
brush (for example, I think much of what appears in the early
chapters of Smyth's work on the Scandinavian kings of the British
Isles if severely flawed, yet in his brief article on the Black
Foreigners vs. White Foreigners he appears to have hit the nail
on the head). To evaluate McTurk's writings on the early Danish
kings, we should look specifically at his sources and arguments
used to address this specific question, rather than extrapolating
from a broadside fired by an intellectual rival and dealing with
a different genealogical question entirely.
taf
Phil Moody
> Smyth's analysis is simply about prefering one interpretation
> over another, and these claims of poor methodology are thrown in
> to discredit his scholarly opponent (not that something like that
> ever happens here), and to try to preserve an interpretation that
> most historians now reject. If I thought it would help (which I
> don't) I could quote reviews that make equivalent criticisms of
> Smyth's methodology.
PLM: It is not merely "prefering one interpretation over another"; when the
later source was written 100 years after an extant version, and as Smyth
points out, the editor of "Æthelweard", Campbell, acknowledges that
"mistakes and misunderstandings are frequent" and that mistranslations
abound in his work.
It is certainly not good scholarship to use Æthelweard's translation
over an extant redaction of the same text, written 100 years earlier. This
is not the kind of methodology that is accepted in medieval genealogy, as
the earlier text is preferred to later records of the same ilk; so then why
is it suddenly acceptable methodology to do so in discrediting Ragnar
Lodbrok, which is the thrust of McTurk's paper?
> Further, it is rash to paint all of an author's work with one
> brush (for example, I think much of what appears in the early
> chapters of Smyth's work on the Scandinavian kings of the British
> Isles if severely flawed, yet in his brief article on the Black
> Foreigners vs. White Foreigners he appears to have hit the nail
> on the head). To evaluate McTurk's writings on the early Danish
> kings, we should look specifically at his sources and arguments
> used to address this specific question, rather than extrapolating
> from a broadside fired by an intellectual rival and dealing with
> a different genealogical question entirely.
PLM: "Suspect" is the key word in the sentence I wrote, "I believe his
entire essay is now suspect, given the poor
methodology which Smyth has brought to our attention." When I say suspect, I
only mean to imply that it should be read with caution, and given due
consideration of all the facts, before accepting McTurk's conclusions, carte
blanche.
I believe it was salient to show that McTurk was wrong to dismiss the
brother of Ivar and Halfdan, based merely on
Æthelweard's flawed and older work, and this may have a bearing on the rest
of McTurk's work, if this is his methodology throughout. Rivals or not,
Smyth is dead on concerning this one facet of McTurk's work. I do not
blindly follow Smyth (or any other author) on all issues, but he certainly
has some astute observations; which I find to be sound.
I must admit, I have not read McTurk's work, though I would very much
like to; so if you or Stewart would send me a copy, it would be greatly
appreciated (electronic or hardcopy)!
Best Wishes,
Phil
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:3D72358C...@interfold.com...
> Phil Moody wrote:
>
> >
Stewart Baldwin
wrote:
>PLM: Stewart, I wish you would not have brought up McTurk and his poor
>methodology, and the sheep who blindly accept his faulty conclusions. Now,
>I'm forced to quote Alf Smyth, much more than my two fingers would like!
>Alfred P. Smyth, "King Alfred the Great", 1995, Oxford University Press
[long (and completely irrelevant) quote from above book deleted]
I also have some problems with some of McTurk's statements elsewhere
in his article, but here I was quoting him with respect to a specific
point regarding the Frankish annals for the year 812, a point on which
there seems to be wide agreement in the scholarly community. NONE of
your long quote had anything to do with the 812 annal which was under
discussion, and instead criticized McTurk for something that he had
said about certain Vikings in England in the late ninth century, which
was therefore both chronologically and geographically FAR removed from
any point that might have been relevant to the matter at hand.
I could also point out that the author you quoted (Alfred Smyth) has
been severely criticised in the past for poor methodology, not only
with regard to the above book, but for his work on Viking history in
general (and rightly so, in my opinion). While not relevant to the
subject of the 812 annal, I mention this because it is probably not
good strategy to quote such a severely criticised work as an authority
to support comments about sheep blindly accepting faulty conclusions.
Stewart Baldwin
Todd A. Farmerie
> PLM: It is not merely "prefering one interpretation over another";
Not merely, but it plays a large part in it.
> when the
> later source was written 100 years after an extant version, and as Smyth
> points out, the editor of "Æthelweard", Campbell, acknowledges that
> "mistakes and misunderstandings are frequent" and that mistranslations
> abound in his work.
> It is certainly not good scholarship to use Æthelweard's translation
> over an extant redaction of the same text, written 100 years earlier. This
> is not the kind of methodology that is accepted in medieval genealogy, as
> the earlier text is preferred to later records of the same ilk;
It is far from this simple. If there is a reason, for example,
to think that the earlier source is corrupt, less knowledgable,
or simply in error, then a later source can be chosen in
preference. (This is exacly what the "Agatha is daughter of
Jaroslav" camp argues.) An alternative view of this debate is
that Smyth has chosen the one version that supports his
conclusion, and is now engaged in picking apart every other
source - without putting his own to the same rigorous standards.
> so then why
> is it suddenly acceptable methodology to do so in discrediting Ragnar
> Lodbrok, which is the thrust of McTurk's paper?
The subject of the investigation does not change the rules.
However, the 'rules' are not "oldest is best, full stop". Rather
it is "best is best", and age is only one criterion by which to
determine "best", others being geographic proximity, likely
sources, education and social connections of the author, when
known, quality and date of surviving manuscript, etc.
> PLM: "Suspect" is the key word in the sentence I wrote, "I believe his
> entire essay is now suspect, given the poor
> methodology which Smyth has brought to our attention." When I say suspect, I
> only mean to imply that it should be read with caution,
All scholarly work should be read with caution.
> and given due
> consideration of all the facts, before accepting McTurk's conclusions, carte
> blanche.
What makes you think anyone is accepting McTurk's conclusions
"_carte blanche_"? Should I now quote the review of Smyth's
work, which should then make his conclusions suspect, including
his conclusions about McTurk?
> I believe it was salient to show that McTurk was wrong to dismiss the
> brother of Ivar and Halfdan, based merely on
> Æthelweard's flawed and older work, and this may have a bearing on the rest
> of McTurk's work, if this is his methodology throughout.
And all of this is based on Smyth's partisan characterization of
McTurk. Until you actually read it, perhaps you should consider
the possibility that McTurk had more reasons behind his
conclusion than this one text.
> Rivals or not,
> Smyth is dead on concerning this one facet of McTurk's work.
Again, perhaps you should consider the possibility that McTurk
might have a valid rebuttal to Smyth's "my source is better than
your source." Drawing conclusions from only one side of an
argument between scholars who hold polar opposite views on an
issue is not a wise approach. Reading scholar A, you will find
well reasoned, logical, even seemingly flawless explanations as
to why the sources he or she uses are preferable, and the
conclusions more accurate than those of B, who is therefor a
scholar devoid of talent and reason. Reading B, you will find
that his(/her) conclusions are superior, and A is well adrift,
out in left field. Only by reading both, as well as the sources
they have quoted and what others may say of both solutions, can
you reach a conclusion less swayed by the personal and
professional biases of the two scholars (although your
conclusions will invariably still be swayed by your own biases).
taf
Phil Moody
[long (and completely irrelevant) quote from above book deleted]
I also have some problems with some of McTurk's statements elsewhere
in his article, but here I was quoting him with respect to a specific
point regarding the Frankish annals for the year 812, a point on which
there seems to be wide agreement in the scholarly community. NONE of
your long quote had anything to do with the 812 annal which was under
discussion, and instead criticized McTurk for something that he had
said about certain Vikings in England in the late ninth century, which
was therefore both chronologically and geographically FAR removed from
any point that might have been relevant to the matter at hand.
PLM: Au contraire. My comments were salient to what you had written, and I
supplied your words, to keep it in context; so lets look at your words
again; which I was responding to, and I will capitalize them for emphasis:
> The exact interpretation of the words "et ipsius regis" can be argued in
different ways, but the suggestion that it "obviously" referred to
Godofridus is far from clear, and ignores other evidence that suggests
otherwise. If the words "Anulo nepos Herioldi et ipsius regis" are to be
interpreted as "Anulo nepos of Herioldus and of the king himself" (whatever
interpretation we use for "nepos", which I leave untranslated here), then
they could be interpreted as referring either to Godofridus or to
Hemmingus. On the other hand, the words "et ipsius regis" have often been
regarded as being in apposition to "Herioldi", in which case the
interpretation would be that Herioldus himself was a king. THIS LATTER
INTERPRETATION IS DIRECTLY SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THAT ONE GROUP OF
MANUSCRIPTS (THE ANNALS ATTRIBUTED TO EINHARD) REPLACES THE WORDS "HERIOLDI
ET IPSIUS REGIS" BY THE WORDS "HERIOLDI QUONDAM REGIS" INSTEAD, IN THIS CASE
UNAMBIGUOUSLY INTERPRETED THAT HERIOLDUS WAS A FORMER KING. [SEE MGH SS 1,
199; SEE ALSO THE DISCUSSION OF THIS IN R. W. McTurk, "Ragnarr Loðbrók in
the Irish annals?", in Almqvist and Greene, eds., Proceedings of the Seventh
Viking Congress (Dublin, 1973), 93-123, at. pp. 99-100.] This
interpretation (which is the most widely followed one) makes much sense,
because then the statement of the annal is then telling what claim to the
throne each claimant had. Sigifridus was a "nepos" of king Godofridus
(obviously the king who died in 810), while Anulo's claim to the throne was
that he was "nepos" of some otherwise unknown previous king Herioldus.
PLM: So there is a direct parallel with what I wrote, because in this
instance, a later translation has been used to discount the earlier record,
and you use McTurk to support this interpretation. Smyth has shown that
McTurk's logic can be flawed in accepting later historical records, over the
more contemporary, and this could be another case in point of McTurk's
flawed logic.
This then is extremely relevent to your assertions, and just because the
later translation "conveniently" accounts for the relatuionships of these
men; it does not mean that there is any veracity in what was written, at a
later time.
Best Wishes,
Phil
"Phil Moody" <moody...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:fdkc9.62534$gb....@news2.central.cox.net...
Phil Moody
> > It is certainly not good scholarship to use Æthelweard's translation
> > over an extant redaction of the same text, written 100 years earlier.
This
> > is not the kind of methodology that is accepted in medieval genealogy,
as
> > the earlier text is preferred to later records of the same ilk;
>
> It is far from this simple. If there is a reason, for example,
> to think that the earlier source is corrupt, less knowledgable,
> or simply in error, then a later source can be chosen in
> preference. (This is exacly what the "Agatha is daughter of
> Jaroslav" camp argues.) An alternative view of this debate is
> that Smyth has chosen the one version that supports his
> conclusion, and is now engaged in picking apart every other
> source - without putting his own to the same rigorous standards.
PLM: Well, then who has critically analized the A and B manuscripts of the
ASC; which Smyth prefers; especially in regard to the passages that McTurk
dismisses?
> > so then why
> > is it suddenly acceptable methodology to do so in discrediting Ragnar
> > Lodbrok, which is the thrust of McTurk's paper?>
> The subject of the investigation does not change the rules.
> However, the 'rules' are not "oldest is best, full stop". Rather
> it is "best is best", and age is only one criterion by which to
> determine "best", others being geographic proximity, likely
> sources, education and social connections of the author, when
> known, quality and date of surviving manuscript, etc.
PLM: I'm in general agreement, but the record McTurk uses "Æthelweard" is
critisized by the editor himself, Capmbell, and this does not recommend it
as a superior source, over the older manuscript, in this instance. Smyth did
not dismiss all of Æthelweard's work, and acknowledged that it did
contribute some substance, not otherwise found elsewhere, but he refers the
reader to Campbell's work for Æthelweard's contributions, above and beyond
the early manuscripts of the ASC.
> > PLM: "Suspect" is the key word in the sentence I wrote, "I believe his
> > entire essay is now suspect, given the poor
> > methodology which Smyth has brought to our attention." When I say
suspect, I
> > only mean to imply that it should be read with caution, >
>
> All scholarly work should be read with caution.
PLM: I agree here as well, but it is not a caveat that everyone here
appreciates. McTurk is being thrown about like he is the last word on Ragnar
Lodbrok and the Scandinavian Kings, but he is far from that. You will note
that Smyth rejects McTurk's conclusion the Ragnar was not historical; and
Smyth has clearly read McTurk's work in depth; so not everyone accepts
McTurk's conclusions.
> > and given due
> > consideration of all the facts, before accepting McTurk's conclusions,
carte
> > blanche.
>
> What makes you think anyone is accepting McTurk's conclusions
> "_carte blanche_"? Should I now quote the review of Smyth's
> work, which should then make his conclusions suspect, including
> his conclusions about McTurk?
PLM: Well, anytime Ragnar is discussed here, his proponents are chastized
severally and McTurk is thrown at them as though it is the definitive work
that PROVES Ragnar was mythical, and not historical, and I interpret this as
a complete acceptance of McTurk's conclusions.
> > I believe it was salient to show that McTurk was wrong to dismiss
the
> > brother of Ivar and Halfdan, based merely on
> > Æthelweard's flawed and older work, and this may have a bearing on the
rest
> > of McTurk's work, if this is his methodology throughout.>
>
> And all of this is based on Smyth's partisan characterization of
> McTurk. Until you actually read it, perhaps you should consider
> the possibility that McTurk had more reasons behind his
> conclusion than this one text.
PLM: I like to think I'm openminded on the issue, and I did communicate my
desire to read McTurk's work; which was not addressed in this reply.
> > Rivals or not,
> > Smyth is dead on concerning this one facet of McTurk's work.
>
> > Again, perhaps you should consider the possibility that McTurk
> might have a valid rebuttal to Smyth's "my source is better than
> your source." Drawing conclusions from only one side of an
> argument between scholars who hold polar opposite views on an
> issue is not a wise approach. Reading scholar A, you will find
> well reasoned, logical, even seemingly flawless explanations as
> to why the sources he or she uses are preferable, and the
> conclusions more accurate than those of B, who is therefor a
> scholar devoid of talent and reason. Reading B, you will find
> that his(/her) conclusions are superior, and A is well adrift,
> out in left field. Only by reading both, as well as the sources
> they have quoted and what others may say of both solutions, can
> you reach a conclusion less swayed by the personal and
> professional biases of the two scholars (although your
> conclusions will invariably still be swayed by your own biases).
PLM: Are you aware of a rebuttal McTurk has made to Smyth's charges, and if
so, would you be kind enough to quote it? Your double standard of requesting
that others summarize works for you, because you lack access to them, or do
not want to learn the language to read them, is inappropriate; when you are
unwilling to summarize works that others do not have at their disposal.
You would rather chastize others for not reading the work in question;
instead of supplying a detailed synopsis; so we can all come to a fuller
appreciation of both sides of the argument.
Best Wishes,
Phil
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:3D7265B...@interfold.com...
> Phil Moody wrote:
Todd A. Farmerie
> McTurk is being thrown about like he is the last word on Ragnar
> Lodbrok and the Scandinavian Kings, but he is far from that.
And here we get to the root of the disagreement. McTurk has
skewered the hallowed Ragnar, and so it is critical that Smyth
utterly destroy his argument.
> You will note
> that Smyth rejects McTurk's conclusion the Ragnar was not historical; and
> Smyth has clearly read McTurk's work in depth; so not everyone accepts
> McTurk's conclusions.
No, just almost everyone, while, among modern historians, Smyth
is almost alone in his continued support of the Ragnar traditions.
> PLM: Well, anytime Ragnar is discussed here, his proponents are chastized
> severally and McTurk is thrown at them as though it is the definitive work
> that PROVES Ragnar was mythical, and not historical, and I interpret this as
> a complete acceptance of McTurk's conclusions.
One could accept his overall conclusions without accepting every
point.
>>>Again, perhaps you should consider the possibility that McTurk
>>might have a valid rebuttal to Smyth's "my source is better than
>>your source." Drawing conclusions from only one side of an
>>argument between scholars who hold polar opposite views on an
>>issue is not a wise approach.
>
> PLM: Are you aware of a rebuttal McTurk has made to Smyth's charges, and if
> so, would you be kind enough to quote it?
I am not aware of such a rebuttal appearing in print, and am not
citing such a rebuttal (so no, I will neither summarize it, nor
tell you to "look it up yourself", and your further gratuitous
commentary on my character is groundless). My only point is that
it is naive to take Smyth's comments on McTurk, found in his
Alfred book, as anything but a very biased and self-serving view,
presenting only his side of a huge disagreement in the field in
which he finds himself almost alone (with you) in the minority.
taf
Phil Moody
> > McTurk is being thrown about like he is the last word on Ragnar
> > Lodbrok and the Scandinavian Kings, but he is far from that.
>
> And here we get to the root of the disagreement. McTurk has
> skewered the hallowed Ragnar, and so it is critical that Smyth
> utterly destroy his argument.
PLM: It is only appropriate. If someone had made, what is in your opinion, a
patently false assertion concerning a historical figure; you would do the
same; and that is to categorize the blunders in logic that this individual
had made. I see this as beneficial to ascertaining the truth of the matter.
> > You will note
> > that Smyth rejects McTurk's conclusion the Ragnar was not historical;
and
> > Smyth has clearly read McTurk's work in depth; so not everyone accepts
> > McTurk's conclusions.
> >
> No, just almost everyone, while, among modern historians, Smyth
> is almost alone in his continued support of the Ragnar traditions.
PLM: This does not make him wrong. You can choose to run with the lemmings
if you like, but I prefer to stand back, and weigh the evidense for myself.
> > PLM: Are you aware of a rebuttal McTurk has made to Smyth's charges, and
if
> > so, would you be kind enough to quote it?
> >
> I am not aware of such a rebuttal appearing in print, and am not
> citing such a rebuttal (so no, I will neither summarize it, nor
> tell you to "look it up yourself", and your further gratuitous
> commentary on my character is groundless). My only point is that
> it is naive to take Smyth's comments on McTurk, found in his
> Alfred book, as anything but a very biased and self-serving view,
> presenting only his side of a huge disagreement in the field in
> which he finds himself almost alone (with you) in the minority.
PLM: My comments were not groundless, because I drew on your own words to
reach my conclusions.
Todd wrote: Friday, August 30, 2002 10:53 AM, Early Norse Kings (was
Re:Early Danish Kings ---> Otto the Great?)
The reference is to Krag, Claus. 1989. "Norge som odel i Harald
Hårfagres ætt." Historisk Tidsskrift (Oslo), 288-302.
The opinions expressed here are neither novel nor surprising, and such
speculation has been made in this group in the past. ***Still I am curious
about what, exactly, Krag had to say about it - not curious enough to learn
a new language however. Is there anyone out there who has seen this and
would be willing to summarize the arguments?****
taf
Todd wrote further: Thursday, August 29, 2002 9:38 PM, Re: Awbrey and Clare
Families
Yes. You have the information sitting right in front of you, and yet rather
than telling us what they say, you send us on what is, in all likelihood, a
wild goose chase. In practical terms, it takes weeks, or even months, to
lay one's hands on such sources. It is not like it is as simple as walking
over to the bookshelf. How productive is this thread going to be if
following a post, there is a three month break while everyone tries to track
these down, and then replies followed by another three month break while you
go buy the sources named in the replies? It just doesn't work, and all
because you won't tell us what is on the pages right in front of your nose.
"Look it up yourself" just doesn't fly in such instances.
taf
EQ
PLM: So in your own words, Todd, it is counter productive for you and others
to merely throw out a source to support your position, when you have the
source in front of you. If you accept McTurk's work, then you surely must be
able to explain why you accept it in detail. If you don't have McTurk's
work, then there is no sound reason for you to support it over Smyth's.
I would be happy to see what McTurk has to say, but it looks as though
you would rather send me, and everyone else here, on what may be a "wild
goose chase"; given Smyth's low opinion of McTurk's work. I have a higher
opinion of Smyth, than I do anyone on this list; so if you want to counter
his comments of McTurk's work; then you will have to do better than offer
your own humble opinion. I would like to see the foundation of McTurk's
arguments, but I fear that will never happen, because Smyth has just shown
how porous one of McTurk's cornerstones is in fact. All those here who
already had a bias against Ragnar being historical to begin with, would not
want to expose just how fragile their Ragnar bludgeon (McTurk) really is.
Best Wishes,
Phil
Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:3D7282BE...@interfold.com...
> Phil Moody wrote:
>
Todd A. Farmerie
> "Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:
>
>>>You will note
>>>that Smyth rejects McTurk's conclusion the Ragnar was not historical;
> and
>>>Smyth has clearly read McTurk's work in depth; so not everyone accepts
>>>McTurk's conclusions.
>>>
>>No, just almost everyone, while, among modern historians, Smyth
>>is almost alone in his continued support of the Ragnar traditions.
>
> PLM: This does not make him wrong.
No, just desparate.
> You can choose to run with the lemmings
> if you like, but I prefer to stand back, and weigh the evidense for myself.
I see, so those in the majority are all lemmings? They couldn't
have all reached their opinion because that is the most likely
conclusion to reach from the data? And those in the opposition
are the pure scholars, keeping their minds open and independently
assessing the evidence rather than simply being contrarians,
sensationalists, simpletons and irrational clingers to myth?
(See, I can do it too, so how about dropping the silly
name-calling and finger-pointing?)
Let me restate my point here, as you seem to be trying hard to
put other words in my mouth - to base your evaluation of McTurk's
work on what a scholarly rival (Smyth, who does not hold the
unqualified respect of his peers) had to say about him is not the
road to unbiased enlightenment. One should not even need to read
McTurk's work to recognize the validity of this statement.
taf
Phil Moody
> I see, so those in the majority are all lemmings? They couldn't
> have all reached their opinion because that is the most likely
> conclusion to reach from the data? And those in the opposition
> are the pure scholars, keeping their minds open and independently
> assessing the evidence rather than simply being contrarians,
> sensationalists, simpletons and irrational clingers to myth?
> (See, I can do it too, so how about dropping the silly
> name-calling and finger-pointing?)
PLM: I do not "assume" that the McTurk supporters have read, and seriously
questioned his sources and conclusions, because they wanted to believe his
conclusions from the outset, and therefore they have no motivation to
question McTurk's research. For all your rhetoric in this vein, Todd, I do
not get the impression that you have even read McTurk; so correct me if I'm
mistaken.
Assuming for the moment that you have read McTurk; then perhaps you will
honor us with a detailed synopsis of McTurk's arguments, and the sources he
cites.
> Let me restate my point here, as you seem to be trying hard to
> put other words in my mouth - to base your evaluation of McTurk's
> work on what a scholarly rival (Smyth, who does not hold the
> unqualified respect of his peers) had to say about him is not the
> road to unbiased enlightenment. One should not even need to read
> McTurk's work to recognize the validity of this statement.
PLM: Smyth's bias is not the issue, because that is a given. What is germain
is whether there is indeed a sound reason to suspect McTurk's methodology
and conclusions, and the only way I can determine if Smyth's critisism is
warranted, is to have access to McTurk, or a detailed summary of the same.
If I am biased, it is because you and others are witholding McTurk's
side of the argument. If you value McTurk's work so highly, then share it
and enlighten us all; instead of expecting us to accept McTurk's conclusions
blindly. It is not enough to merely cite sources on this forum, in your own
opinion, and I concur.
Todd wrote:
Thursday, August 29, 2002 9:38 PM, Re: Awbrey and Clare Families
> In the post
> that I made regarding the above people, I cited four sources.
"Citing sources is only half the battle. Just because something has
appeared in print it doesn't mean that it is any more
reliable than your average modern web page. It is important, when
evaluating a line, not only to find the details in print,
but to also find out of those printed sources had any rational basis for
their assertions, rather than just repeating old family
myths.
taf"
EQ
PLM: Your words concerning family histories are just as valid, even more so,
I dare say, when evaluating controversial historical essays; and it is not
enough to merely cite the source (McTurk in this case), because quotation
from the source is essential in evaluating it's merit and veracity. If you
are going to support McTurk; then do so with McTurk's words, and not merely
your opinion.
Best Wishes,
Phil
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:3D72BDA5...@interfold.com...
> Phil Moody wrote:
>
Frants Fugmann
I think that Stewart Baldwin's arguments and discussion is
fundamental, and I hope that you don't feel offended Stewart by my
Danish type of humour.
You are quite right in stating that one can defend other
interpretatings as well, just as you in astronomy can defend the
Ptolemaian system and reject the Copernican, Newton's laws etc. It is
perfectly possible, but then you have to work with an extremely
complicated theory involving spheres or maybe angels carrying the
planet around. When we tend to apply the Newtonian laws and the theory
of gravity it's because of its simplicity.
Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr argued through all their lifetime about
quantum mechanics, since Einstein couldn't accept the Copenhagen
interpretation of the phenomenas. That doesn't mean that either
Einstein or Bohr was stupid. Both of them were very bright. So when I
used the term 'safe conclusions' it shouldn't be understood as safe
like the conclusions of, say, Euclidian geometry, but reasonably safe
given the base of data with which we are working.
Now if we turn to the discussed problem from the 9th century, we can
explain the sources in different ways. We can suppose as many amateurs
in Denmark has done that Saxo had all his knowledge of some infallible
oral sources and that his statement that everything that he has
written in Gesta Danorum is based on trustworthy sources. We can also
believe that the Icelandic oral tradition has preserved the knowledge
of the Viking age events, so that every other tradition, which is
contradictory to the sagas is wrong, however, if we do so, we must
explain, why a lot of written sources like the ARF annals, as we know
them today, are in contradiction with Saxo. It might well be that we
are the victims of legions of falsifiers, however, it is much simpler
to assume that Saxo and the saga writers were not infallible.
The same holds for the E-redaction of the ARF annals. It might well be
that they have preserved the correct interpretation, so that Harold
was actually a former king in the kingdom situated north of the Eider
even if is otherwise completely unknown, while we have perfect
evidences as far as Sigefridus and Godofridus are concerned. It might
well be that Aowin and Hebbi participated in the peace conclusion at
the Eider in spring of 811 and the for some reason travelled down and
found the emperor somewhere between Ghent and Aachen in november.
Today we frequently travel forwards and backwards from Scandinavia to
Flanders, but you must remember this: In the early middle age
travelling was difficult, slow and dangerous. On the other hand: if we
assume that Hemming was recoginized as king of a colony of Danes on
Walcheren, it is quite easy to explain why Aowin and Hebbi met the
emperor while he was travelling, as the fastest travel route followed
Schelde, and thus came very close to Walcheren. It is quite possible
that the emperor concluded peace twice and summoned the noblemen twice
at the Eider, but Einhard's Vita Karoli is silent about the reason and
so are all other sources. You have to explain why this was necessary,
if you maintain this point of view.
If we turn to the McTurk paper, he discusses as far as I remember in
some detail the problems connected with the succession and adopt a
theory presented originally by Gustav Storm that the oldest member of
the royal family should inherit the throne. We have no evidence of
such a rule, and who should take care that it was respected and
applied at the elections? Consider also this problem: everybody could
proclaim himself as king, but could he get anybody to follow him, if
he hadn't got the necessary amount of real estate? I think that
Heriold had importance because he was rich - maybe he was even a king,
but elsewhere maybe somewhere in the geographical territory of
southern Norway, since some Saga tradition alludes to the conflict
between a king Haroldr and Ketill flatnef.
I prefer the point of view which I have presented, because it is
simple and make me understand not only the events but also why sources
tell us what they tell us today. I could adopt your point of view or
Saxo's for that matter, but I would have to construct some very
complicated explanations of the events. The crucial point is, if the
explanation given is contradictory to the sources.
Frants Fugmann
Sure you have some good points, but to test the theories in every
detail that's quite a job, but thank you for presenting them.
Frants Fugmann
Frants Fugmann
> f...@kalgym.dk (Frants Fugmann) wrote in message news:<d2ef5370.02082...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > It is not quite correct to speak about Danish dynasties, as if the
> > Danish kings and governing queens belonged to different families. All
> > later Danish kings are male or female descendants of the historical
> > Sigefridus and thus belong to the same family, the scyldings or in
> > Danish: Skjoldungerne.
>
> I disagree. There is simply no contemporary, documentary evidence for
> the Danish kings of the 9th century all belonging to the same dynasty,
> equally little to suggest that they should all be descended from a
> "Sigefredus" (whichever exactly he is supposed to be) and absolutely
> nothing whatsoever to show that the whole Skjoldunge story is anything
> but a later construction. It may perhaps be that there is a core of
> historical truth in it somewhere, but too many Danes have too eagerly
> and uncritically adopted the much later stories as if they historical
> data.
I should certainly like to do that and I do hope that you don't
consider me a naïve amateur, but - just for curiosity - do you have
anything to do with the family from Blokhus?
Frants Fugmann
Frants Fugmann
I would like to add some comment to the Ragnarr lothbrok discussion,
because I think that the disagreement is mainly due to the fact that
the Danish sources are extremely difficult to use. The main problem
is, as you might know, that some of the most important sources was
lost 1728 in the great fire of Copenhagen. Today we know them only
through copies, which means that you cannot use paleographic methods
to date them, but if you are smart it is in fact possible to show that
some of the most important ones are not so young, as the editor
suggests.
The relevant ones are Reges Danorum ed. Gertz (in: Scriptores minores
1917-18/1970), Annales Ryenses ed. Kroman (1980)and then of course our
good old friend Saxo, of which you as far as I know only have the
horrible 1931 edition by Olrik/Raeder and the 1839 edition by
Müller/Velschow, which is too old and commented in latin.
Now in Annales Ryenses (cited ed. page 158) you read as follows:
"73.Siwardus regnauit in insulis. Isti due reges inter se diu
pugnauerunt et tandem in bello mutuo ambo corruerunt, quibus successit
in regnum Reynær, filius Ring./74 Reynær L<ot>hbroki. ..."
From Saxo book IX we know perfectly that the said two kings, Siwardus
and Ring, was nephews of Götric or Godofridus. Saxo has here probably
used Adamus Bremensis, but Adam does not use the name Ring. He speaks
about Anulo, and it is easy to conclude that Anulo has been understood
as Annullus and in some other source translated to Ring.
But Saxo like many other sources differ from Annales Ryenses, and
that's the real problem! Why? According to me the problem really is
that Ragnarr once gave away a magnificant shield to the skjald Bragi
Boddarson, who in return composed the poem known as 'Ragnarrs drapa
lodbrokar' and - probably - quothed it in front of Ragnarr and his
court. The poem must have become extremely popular, since we still
know it from Snorre's Edda. Now, in this poem the kenning 'mögr
Sigurdar' is used for Ragnarr. Directly translated it means Sigurd's
son, but if you have read my argument you will realize that Ragnarr in
fact was a descendant of Sigefridus or Sigurd, so 'Sigurd's son'
should be understood figuratively. Bragi wish to draw his audience's
attention to the fact that Ragnarr was a descendant of the great king
Sigurd and not only that, because, as you can show, though it might
not be an equally safe conclusion, Sigurd alias Sigefridus, was much
of a viking himself, so 'mögr Sigurdar' is used to remind the audience
that it have in front of itself a person, whose reputation and family
made him a true son of Sigurdr. That it was misunderstood by the
learned people, who had forgotten everything about Sigefridus is no
wonder, so they combined the two names Sigurdr and Ring.
Saxo and the Annales Ryenses, which on this point is secondary to
Saxo, claim that Ragnarr's father was king of Zealand, and as most of
you might know prof. Smyth has adopted this point of view in one of
his books. I think mr. Smyth is wrong on this point, because as I have
explained in another thread, Hemmingus's residence was at Walcheren -
at least in 837 - and Walcheren is situated in the Dutch province of
Zeeland. I therefore conclude that all Halfdan's six known sons had
their residence there or in the neighborhood.
So it is no wonder that we meet a reginher here in 845 and, mind you,
a certain Raginarius, who got Thurholt as fief in 840 and lost it soon
after according to vita Ansgarii
Frants Fugmann
Frants Fugmann
I would never dream about removing the socalled Swedish kings from
history. I regard them as a well-established fact. But don't you find
it a little strange that king Sweyn was so extreemly well-informed
about his distant forefathers while his knowledge about his own
grandfather was very poor? Or, as Lauritz Weibull expressed it in
1918: "Mr. Clason is probably the only historic scientist, who hasn't
any knowledge at all about the fact established long time ago that
Sweyn Estrithson - as you almost should believe - systematically has
told lies about his mother's father." To understand why it is so, you
have to go through a deep analysis of Adam's book and especially
examine his citing of king Sweyn, and this has to my knowledge largely
been neglected.
I shall make a brief account of my results. When Adam probably in 1067
or 1068 visited king Sweyn he wasn't alone, but traveled together with
other prelates from the church of Bremen. The reason for this was that
Sweyn claimed Northalbingia and a part of the Frisian coast and to
support his claim he needed a trustworthy pedigree. 15 years ago he
had tried that without success, since he had dificulties by showing
that Gorm was a descendant of Harold and Horic I. Now he tried a
second time using his relations through the Swedish line, and he had
beforehand studied the matter in detail. The crucial quote is the
following: "Successit illi Olaph, qui veniens a Sueonia regnum
optinuit Danicum vi et armis, HABUITQUE FILIOS MULTOS, ex quibus Chnob
et Gurd regnum optinuerunt post obitum patris." (Adam G.H. I, 48)
You should read: Habuitque filios multos as an euphemism for: he had
several viwes. This was the case for Sweyn himself, and he knew from
experience that the prelates didn't like that, so he used the other
expression to tell that Olaph married another wife, at that the
children of this marriage or what you would like to call it inherited
that part of the Danish kingdom or kingdoms, which was later on called
Denmark. In fact, reading Adam G.H. I, 52 you realize that Olaph
didn't govern Denmark in his own right, but together with his children
Chnob (Gnupa) and Gurd. It is hardly necessary to point out that the
wife or mistress was a Danish princess, since her children inherited
the kingdom, and it is probably not too bold to guess that Olaph was
the one, who supported the election of Horic puer, when the latter was
threatened by his grandcousins from the Fresian coast, so that Olaph
is in fact the same as the one mentioned in Vita Ansgarii.
I am sorry to say that Adam left out the family connections between
Gnupa and Harold bluetooth, simply because it confused him, however,
we don't need to let us confuse. We have sufficient evidence to the
claim that Thyra, Gorm's wife, was in fact Gnupa's grandchild.
Frants Fugmann
Phil Moody
> Sure you have some good points, but to test the theories in every
> detail that's quite a job, but thank you for presenting them.
>
> Frants Fugmann
PLM: Thank you for the words of encouragement, Frants. I know it will be a
daunting task to document, and given the National bias in the Heimskringla,
it is not a theory that the Norwegians are going to appreciate, but I have
yet to bring Godifridus into the equation, and so I may be able to placate
them by linking him to Norway.
I know this is not a novel idea, but I feel it is a plausible assertion,
due to the fact, that Denmark was still a fractured kingdom at the time
Godfid was giving Charlemagne so much trouble, and I believe that the
combined might of Norway and Sweden would have been needed to force
Charlemagne to come to terms with them, via a treaty. One would imagine with
the vast forces at Charlemage's disposal, he could have easily have occupied
what was to become mainland Denmark, if it was only defended by Danes, prior
to the erection of the Danavirki.
Best Wishes,
Phil
"Frants Fugmann" <f...@kalgym.dk> wrote in message
news:d2ef5370.02090...@posting.google.com...
Todd A. Farmerie
> I am sorry to say that Adam left out the family connections between
> Gnupa and Harold bluetooth, simply because it confused him, however,
> we don't need to let us confuse. We have sufficient evidence to the
> claim that Thyra, Gorm's wife, was in fact Gnupa's grandchild.
What, exactly, would that "sufficient evidence be"? Certainly
the surviving sources that give to her a parentage do not relate
her to Gnupa. Is this based simply on the fact that this family
succeeded.
Basically, it appears to me that your argument starts with the
assumption of a connection, rather than this conclusion flowing
from the evidence, because many authors have gone over the same
evidence before and not found any indication that led them to
these conclusions - that Olaph married a kinswoman of Horic and
that Gorm married a kinswoman of Gnupa.
taf
Phil Moody
> The relevant ones are Reges Danorum ed. Gertz (in: Scriptores minores
> 1917-18/1970), Annales Ryenses ed. Kroman (1980)and then of course our
> good old friend Saxo, of which you as far as I know only have the
> horrible 1931 edition by Olrik/Raeder and the 1839 edition by
> Müller/Velschow, which is too old and commented in latin.
PLM: All to true, but there may be some hope for books 10-16; although it
won't help in this thread, I presume. Alf Smyth reports in "Warlords and
Holy Men, Scotland AD 80-1000", under "A Note on Further Reading" the
following.
"The remaing books of Saxo's 'Gesta' have been translated by E.
Christiansen, 'Saxo Grammaticus.... Books x-xvi ... with translation and
commentary (BAR Reports, International Ser. 84, 1980).'" EQ
Alas, I don't know whether it is in English, but it followed Smth's
treatment of the first nine books of Saxo; which were in English; so I
presume that this is in English also. I don't know what BAR stands for; so
I'm not sure how to begin searching for this work.
> Saxo and the Annales Ryenses, which on this point is secondary to
> Saxo, claim that Ragnarr's father was king of Zealand, and as most of
> you might know prof. Smyth has adopted this point of view in one of
> his books. I think mr. Smyth is wrong on this point, because as I have
> explained in another thread, Hemmingus's residence was at Walcheren -
> at least in 837 - and Walcheren is situated in the Dutch province of
> Zeeland. I therefore conclude that all Halfdan's six known sons had
> their residence there or in the neighborhood.
PLM: Walcheren is in the province of Zeeland, as you say, but how do you
explain the fact that the Island to the east of Denmark, where Roskilde is
located is variously called Zealand, Zeeland, Seeland, Sjóland, etc. There
appears to be strong connection between the two, given the similarity of
names, and it may be the province of Zeeland took it's name from the Island,
after Godifridus and Hemming won some consessions in the area of Walcheren.
Best Wishes,
Phil
"Frants Fugmann" <f...@kalgym.dk> wrote in message
news:d2ef5370.02090...@posting.google.com...
Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard
> kur...@politik.dk (Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard) wrote in message news:<763bd544.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> > f...@kalgym.dk (Frants Fugmann) wrote in message news:<d2ef5370.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > It is not quite correct to speak about Danish dynasties, as if the
> > > Danish kings and governing queens belonged to different families. All
> > > later Danish kings are male or female descendants of the historical
> > > Sigefridus and thus belong to the same family, the scyldings or in
> > > Danish: Skjoldungerne.
> >
> > I disagree. There is simply no contemporary, documentary evidence for
> > the Danish kings of the 9th century all belonging to the same dynasty,
> > equally little to suggest that they should all be descended from a
> > "Sigefredus" (whichever exactly he is supposed to be) and absolutely
> > nothing whatsoever to show that the whole Skjoldunge story is anything
> > but a later construction. It may perhaps be that there is a core of
> > historical truth in it somewhere, but too many Danes have too eagerly
> > and uncritically adopted the much later stories as if they historical
> > data.
>
> I should certainly like to do that and I do hope that you don't
> consider me a naïve amateur, but - just for curiosity - do you have
> anything to do with the family from Blokhus?
>
> Frants Fugmann
[snip]
You are probably no more an amateur at this than I am ... ;-) While I
am an academic and to some extent deals with medieval history,
genealogy is only a (big) hobby for me.
As for my family: Yes and no. That family and my own Klitgaards come
from the same place (Nørholm), are named after the same Klitgaard, and
intermarried in the 17th-18th centuries, but strictly speaking they
are different families in so far as they do not have the same agnatic
ancestor, and mine adopted the name almost a century later.
I am still very eager to know (and very skeptical about), how you
think you might connect all the Danish kings of the 9th and 10th
centuries to Skjoldungerne.
Best wishes,
Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard
Stewart Baldwin
[most of post snipped for length]
>I prefer the point of view which I have presented, because it is
>simple and make me understand not only the events but also why sources
>tell us what they tell us today. I could adopt your point of view or
>Saxo's for that matter, but I would have to construct some very
>complicated explanations of the events. The crucial point is, if the
>explanation given is contradictory to the sources.
The problem is that I don't see how you can legitimately refer to your
scenario as the "simple" alternative, given how elaborate your
arguments are, and the way in which you seem to randomly accept or
reject various statements of the Frankish annals. For example, if I
have interpreted your previous statements correctly, you are
suggesting that Hemming, the king who concluded the treaty with
Charlemagne in 811, did not die in 812 as the Frankish annals quite
clearly state, but instead was the same man as the Hemming son of
Halfdan who died in 837. Your explanation as to why you thought that
this was the case was extremely long and elaborate, and involved
reading things into the sources which they do not in fact say. On the
other hand, the usual opinion (with which I agree, and which you are
apparently labelling as "complicated") about the Danish events in the
Frankish chronicles for 812 (and immediately prior) is that they tell
a perfectly straightforward story that should be interpreted in a
straightforward manner. As stated by the annals this would be in
outline:
810: King Godofrid dies and is succeeded by his (unnamed) brother's
son Hemming.
811: King Hemming and Charlemagne conclude peace. Additional details
are given including a list of dignitaries on both sides, including two
of Hemming's brothers, Hancwin (presumably Hakon) and Angandeo
(Angantyr).
812: King Hemming dies. Two claimants, Sigifrid (a "nepos" of
Godofrid) and Anulo ("nepos Herioldi et ipsius regis" or "nepos
Herioldi quondam regis"), fight to succeed him. Both claimants are
killed, but Anulo's side wins, and Anulo's two brothers Heriold
(Harald) and Reginfrid succeed as joint kings. Later in the same
year, kings Harald and Reginfrid send an embassy to the emperor asking
that their brother Hemming be released. (The context clearly implies
that the two Hemmings were different men.)
All of this (including king Hemming's death) is nice and simple. Note
that any attempt to suggest that the annals were wrong here and that
king Hemming did not die in 812 complicates matters, because then it
is not apparent how the throne became vacant prior to the struggle.
The only item in the above that might be a bone of contention is the
translation of the genealogical information about Anulo, but even here
the scholarly literature that I have seen has been remarkably
consistent in interpreting the statement to mean that the earlier
Harald was himself a king. [Note: This consistency ends once actual
genealogical tables are attempted, partly because the term "nepos" can
be ambiguous, and partly because there is not quite enough data to
logically deduce all of the relationships, even if you settle on a
specific definition (like "nephew") for "nepos".]
Let us examine the key words of the 812 annal more closely:
The first two sentences of the 812 annal read:
"Nec multo post Hemmingus Danorum rex defunctus nunciator. Cui cum
Sigifridus, nepos Godofridi regis, et Anulo, nepos Herioldi *[et
ipsius / quondam]* regis, succedere voluissent, neque inter eos, uter
regnare deberet, convenire potuisset, comparatis copiis et commisso
proelio, ambo moriuntur."
[MGH SS 1, 199, where "et ipsius" and "quondam" are the two alternate
readings at the point indicated]
From what I can gather (I don't have access to a modern critical
edition), "et ipsius" is the original reading, but "quondam" is still
an early alternative. First, it is necessary to note that there is
not necessarily a conflict here, because one of the three possible
interpretations of the ambiguous "et ipsius" alternative is in
complete agreement with the "quondam" alternative, which states that
Anulo was "nepos" of a former king Harald. [Please note: When I
refer to "ambiguity" here, I am not referring to the different
possible interpretations of the word "nepos", which is an entirely
separate problem.]
Leaving "nepos" untranslated, "Anulo nepos Herioldi et ipsius regis"
could be interpreted as "Anulo nepos of Harald and of the king
himself" (in which case there are two further alternatives, depending
on whether the king in question is Godofrid or Hemming, both of whom
have just been mentioned). Another possible interpretation is that
"et ipsius regis" (being in the genetive) is in apposition to
"Herioldi" (also in the genetive), which would give something like
"Anulo nepos of Harald, himself [Harald] a king", i.e., essentially
the same interpretation as the "quondam" alternative. [Note: I
believe that the latter alternative would be puctuated by a comma
after "Herioldi" in modern Latin transcriptions, whereas the first
alternative would lack the comma, but that is only a modern convention
that we would not expect to find in the early manuscripts.]
Previously, you have stated that the first of the above alternatives
was "obviously" true, thereby brushing aside the usual opinion without
giving any reason for doing so. However, even if we ignore the fact
that we have an early alternate reading (with "quondam") that
clarifies the matter for us, other reasons for accepting the second
alternative can be offered:
1. In a cases like this where a pronoun has an ambiguous antecedent,
the most recent potential antecedent has a good probability of being
the one that was originally intended. [This is certainly the case in
English. If my limited knowledge of Latin is getting me into trouble
on this point, somebody please let me know. :-)]
2. At the time of the events related in the sentence, there was no
king, as Hemming had just died, and two claimants were fighting for
the throne. This makes the first alternative translation awkward, as
any reference to "the king" (without modifiers) at a time when there
was no king invites ambiguity.
3. The other claimant Sigifrid was a "nepos" of Godofrid. If Anulo
were also a "nepos" of Godofrid, then the information given would be
worded very awkwardly. Something simpler like "Sigifridus et Anulo,
duo nepotes Godofridi regis" would have been less awkward (and more
expected) in that case.
4. If it assumed that "et ipsius regis" refers to either Godofrid or
Hemming, then we are left with the problem of who exactly the Harald
of this sentence is supposed to be. He makes an appearance here for
the first (and only) time in the statement that Anulo was his "nepos",
and therefore we would expect to see some sort of explanation as to
who this Harald was (otherwise, why mention him at all?). The words
"et ipsius regis" (or "quondam regis") fill the bill here, giving us
the explanation that Harald was also a king, and thereby telling us
what claim Anulo had to the throne. [Someone arguing against this
point could argue that this Harald had originally been mentioned at
some earlier point in the annals, and that the reference had been
somehow deleted, but that is a more complicated scenario.]
The above reasons combined give an good case for interpreting the
words as they usually have been interpreted (i.e., that the earlier
Harald was a former king of the Danes), and the existence of the
alternate (and also early) clarification makes the case very strong.
If this interpretation that has been accepted by so many scholars is
to be brushed aside, then certainly some significant justification
should be given why it is to be assumed that they are in error.
Stewart Baldwin
Todd A. Farmerie
> PLM: I do not "assume" that the McTurk supporters have read, and seriously
> questioned his sources and conclusions, because they wanted to believe his
> conclusions from the outset, and therefore they have no motivation to
> question McTurk's research.
The irony in you making this statement is staggering, considering
that you have not read McTurk, but have used Smyth's biased and
self-serving characterization to extrapolate an erroneous
methodological principle, which you then use, not simply to
dismiss McTurk's interpretation of these specific documents, nor
_just_ his conclusion regarding this _specific question_, nor
_even_ only to reject the validity of his _entire article_, but
no less than to cavelierly dismiss him and every other scholar
who has ever reached the same conclusion as he did (not
coincidentally a conclusion antithetical to your personal
preference).
> For all your rhetoric in this vein, Todd, I do
> not get the impression that you have even read McTurk; so correct me if I'm
> mistaken.
In this and what followed, you are mistaken on so many levels
that it would bore the group to tears to recount. Now it's my
turn (from an earlier post):
> PLM: I'm in general agreement, but the record McTurk uses "Æthelweard" is
> critisized by the editor himself, Capmbell, and this does not recommend it
> as a superior source, over the older manuscript, in this instance.
Have you actually read Campbell's work, and read his criticisms
of AEthelweard in their full context, or is this simply what
Smyth says that Campbell says about AEthelweard?
> It is not enough to merely cite sources on this forum, in your own
> opinion, and I concur.
> and it is not enough to merely cite the source (McTurk in this case)
Get this through your head -> I have not cited McTurk in this
thread. In fact, I have intentionally _avoided_ citing McTurk in
this thread. The only things I cited (and even then not by name)
were criticisms of Smyth (which you, not surprisingly, have
expressed no interest whatsoever in seeing), and Smyth's own
works. Your continued distortions and veiled accusations of
hypocrisy are odious, but rather than respond in kind as you
deserve, I will simply discontinue participation in this thread
(and there was much rejoicing).
taf
norenxaq
>(and there was much rejoicing).
(a monotone voice is heard saying yay...)
:>
Frants Fugmann
I feel sure that you already know the pedigrees of Erling Albrectsen:
Vikingerne i Franken. He gives a rather complete overview of the
family branches in his book although the branches themselves should be
somewhat modified. The branches connected with Fresia and Denmark
respectively are in my opinion descendants from the two sons of
Sigefridus. I have explained earlier why Ragnarr belong to the Fresian
branch of the family. To proceed correctly from here you need to
analyze in detail master Adam's book. If I should go through the
analysis in all detail I would have to spend hours, so here I prefer
to give a brief account of king Sweyn's foreign policy, because in my
opinion it is so intimately related to the subject.
Shortly after 1047 Sweyn was forced to divorce from his wife, because
archbishop Adalbert would not sanction the marriage, and he further
involved the pope. Sweyn became extremely angry and said that he would
destroy everything in the diocese of Bremen etc.etc., but eventually
he calmed down, and not only that. About 1052 he concluded an alliance
with Adalbert, which was celebrated through 8 days in Slesvig, where
they met one another, and as a result of the alliance Sweyn met the
emperor Heinrich III at easter and swore him homagium. Why did he
change that much?
To understand that we must take a look at Adalbert's situation.
Adalbert was the emperor's man and in obvious conflict with the duke
of Saxony, and the emperor could not support him with the sufficient
military force. So Adalbert had to find support elsewhere, he couldn't
afford to remain in conflict with Sweyn also. Sweyn's anger was not
due to hurted feelings of love. His marriage had been a political and
economical one, and he had a lot of mistresses, so by offering full
indemnity for his economical losses Adalbert would be able to obtain
his friendship. A few years earlier Adalbert had been a mediator on
behalf of the emperor between the sons of duke Gozelo of Lorraine, and
it was his idea that Lorraine should be divided between the brothers.
The war between the brothers continued and the younger brother, Gozelo
the younger, died. The emperor was angry at the other brother,
Gotfried, and would not let him succeed, so Gotfried made an alliance
against the emperor and began a war. That was the drop. The emperor
had Gotfried enprisoned and he had to decline his right in all
Lorraine, which implicated that Lower Lorraine had no duke, however,
when Adalbert became archbishop of Bremen he learnt that king Harold
had had a part of Lower Lorraine as fief: Rüstringen, today called
Wilhelmshafen. So he suggested Sweyn that he should swear homagium to
the emperor and then claim Rüstringen as his rightful fief. Adalbert
would try to have a pedigree made to support the claim.
Fresia was neighbour to the duchy of Saxony, so temporarily the duke
of Saxony
claimed taxes etc. in Fresia and he would not allow that Sweyn took
over the fief. While the case was running the emperor suddenly died,
and Adalbert became a powerful man. He obviously changed his point of
view and took over himself one fief after another, so Sweyn understood
that Adalbert didn't intend to let him get Rüstringen. To impress the
pope Sweyn sent him a talking parrot and asked that a separate church
province was made in Scandinavia. Adalbert when asked about his
opinion refused it as against the pseudo-isidorian decrets. Then Sweyn
after a Norweian victory declined his claim on Norway and made an
alliance with Adalbert's enimy, Harald hardrade, but that was not the
worst.
In january 1066 the young emperor Heinrich IV had to remove Adalbert
as leader of the imperial government and declare null and void all
Adalbert's decisions.
Now Sweyn had got the upper hand, since Adalbert needed his
friendship, so Adalbert offered him once again his support in
construction of a new and better pedigree so that Sweyn could claim
not only a part of Fresia but also Holstein (Transalbiania). When
Sweyn died 1074 or 1075 this case was still running, so concerning
these fiefs Adam has written in his book: Quae adhuc Dani resposcunt
quasi legitima iuris sui (Adam G.H. I, 15). "Dani" should here be
understood as the sons of Sweyn.
The idea of constructing pedigrees and deduce rights from them were by
no means unique, and in the case of Sweyn some reliable studies were
made. Icelandings such as Sæmundr Sigfusson and Are Torgilsson were
extremely interested in this work, so the pedigree of Gorm and Thyra
was known on Iceland. The former has been used by Snorre in Olaf
Tryggvasons saga ch. 9 in Heimskringla, where you have Gorm's
descendance from Ragnarr, the latter has been used by Snorre in
Halfdan the Black's saga ch. 5, although you should add, that
Klakk-Haraldr was son of Ennignup = Chnob or Gnupa. This is also
stated in one of Gertz's kings-lists in Scriptores minores. You can
arrive to exactly the same results by other and more convincing means,
but ýou have to carry out a heavy lot of work.
regards
Frants Fugmann
Pierre Aronax
Stewart Baldwin <sba...@mindspring.com> a écrit dans le message :
3d742386....@news.mindspring.com...
<...>
> 1. In a cases like this where a pronoun has an ambiguous antecedent,
> the most recent potential antecedent has a good probability of being
> the one that was originally intended. [This is certainly the case in
> English. If my limited knowledge of Latin is getting me into trouble
> on this point, somebody please let me know. :-)]
<...>
I don't pretend in any way to be a scholar in Latin, but it seems to me it
depends from the pronoun: for example, "se" normaly has for antecedent the
subject of the phrase (so a name at nominative case). Excuse me to be
pedantic, but "ipsius" here is an adjective and not a pronoun (except if you
consider it as a demounstrative pronoun, so "et ipsius regis" meaning "and
of the same king", but that's not a classical use, which would be "et
ejusdem regis").
> 2. At the time of the events related in the sentence, there was no
> king, as Hemming had just died, and two claimants were fighting for
> the throne. This makes the first alternative translation awkward, as
> any reference to "the king" (without modifiers) at a time when there
> was no king invites ambiguity.
I have no particular opinion on the subject and I know nothing to the
problem, but I find this argument rather odd: since precisely it is the
succession of the late king which is the object of the dispute, I don't see
why a reference to "the king" is ambiguous: such a reference can only be to
the late king (if of course such reference exists in the text). I think your
demonstration doesn't need this argument: the next one is sufficient.
Pierre
Frants Fugmann
First of all let's agree that this matter is difficult and demands the
involvement of several skills if you wish to solve it correctly. Let's
take my claim on the interpretion of Sweyn's words. How is it possible
to say that Sweyn has chosen his words with great care? I ask: did he
or didn't he use a manuscript, when Adam visited him? Take a look at
the name 'Hardegon' (I, 52).
I could of course conclude that it was a misspelling, and that
Radulphus Niger, who has Herdegon has just copied Adam, and that the
claim of Radulphus that Gorm or Wrm was the son of Herdegon is either
taken out of the fresh air or a combination of some kind of the
statements of Adam.
I don't conclude that. I take a look at the name 'Hiring' (II, 25),
which according to my opinion is identical with Eric (bloodaxe) and
ask myself: Why does Adam write 'i' instead of e and 'ng' instead of
c? Do I know a systematic type of similar misspelling from the same
period, and the answer is yes. I know perfectly well that in the
simple runic alphabet there was no 'e' and 'ng' was written as 'c', so
the good old Danish word for a boy: dreng, became 'tric' or 'trac'. So
I realize that Sweyn or his secretary had a runic manuscript in front
of him, and I get this partly confirmed by Adam's humoristic remark
that Sweyn remembered everything as if it had been written as a sheet
of parchment!
(II, 43). And further I reject the assumption that the name Hardegon
is a completely unknown person called Hardegunne. I think that the
simpliest and most convincing solution is that the man who was reading
the (supposed) runic manuscript simply didn't know how to pronounce
the runes correctly. He should have read Hardecon instead of
'Hardegon'. And why not Hardechnudth as Adam has got in I, 55? Because
the original sources are different. But what is the the solution? Was
Gorm a son of Hardechnudth or a son of Hardecon? I think that there is
really no conflict here. We know very well, that the correct
pronounciation of the name was a problem, and even in Adam II, 39 you
will note that the Chund has been adopted by redaction A1.
I also conclude that Sweyn has chosen his words with great care
because of the importance for him and that studies in depth has been
carried out before the visit took place. This is in my opinion the
reason why Sweyn had such excellent knowledge of old time history. I
could also go more in detail with Thyra, but I have already given some
idea about it to Peter Kurild-Klitgaard, and I prefer to ask the
questions so that you don't think that I draw my conclusions out of
the thin air:
In G.H. I,59 it is stated (probably based of some kind of travel
report) that Unni nominated Harold, the king's son, the protector of
the Christians i Denmark. Which religion do you think that Harold had
at that very moment?
Whom do you think was the king at that time - not even two years after
the war with Heinrich der Vogler?
According to G.H. II, 28 Harold bluetooth ruled for 50 years. If we
assume that his father died in 958 and was aged less than 50, do you
then think that this statement is correct? Knowing that Harold
bluetooth died around 985, what could the explanation be for this
figure?
According to Saxo IX,8 a certain Danish king Frotho asked pope
Agapetus that the Danes be taught christianity, but at that time
Harold should have been king cfr. the question above. By the way how
do you translate 'Harold the old' into anglo-saxon? Can you tell from
the translation what the man's real name might have been?
Saxo says (IX, 11-2) that Thyra was Hedelradi filia(m) according to
the OR-edition, which only gives a correction by Stephanius, however,
we know that the writer of Compendium Saxonis has used, what is
probably the autograph: the Angers fragment, and here we find also the
form Hathelradi filia. In codex AM 33,4to, which has been made by a
person with little knowledge of medieval writing, Gorm's father is
given as 'dachaldum', while the name of Thyra's father is not given.
Using your knowledge of the carolingian minuscule and assuming that it
is the same man - could you give us the most probable name of the man?
Now I have asked the questions. If you arrive to the same answers as I
have arrived to, you must admit that I am not just confirming a theory
of my own. On the contrary you will find lots of supporting evidence
in the nordic literature despite the fact that it is considered
legendary.
Frants Fugmann
Phil Moody
> > PLM: I do not "assume" that the McTurk supporters have read, and
seriously
> > questioned his sources and conclusions, because they wanted to believe
his
> > conclusions from the outset, and therefore they have no motivation to
> > question McTurk's research. >
>
> The irony in you making this statement is staggering, considering
> that you have not read McTurk, but have used Smyth's biased and
> self-serving characterization to extrapolate an erroneous
> methodological principle, which you then use, not simply to
> dismiss McTurk's interpretation of these specific documents, nor
> _just_ his conclusion regarding this _specific question_, nor
> _even_ only to reject the validity of his _entire article_, but
> no less than to cavelierly dismiss him and every other scholar
> who has ever reached the same conclusion as he did (not
> coincidentally a conclusion antithetical to your personal
> preference).
PLM: My personal preference is not to be dismissive of what has been written
concerning Ragnar Lodbrok, until I have had the opportunity to read
conclusive evidense against his existance. I do believe that those who
accepted McTurk's work, already were biased against Ragnar, and viewed him
as mythical prior to reading McTurk, and therefore they accepted his
analysis without question.
This is merely my opinion, and your entitled to own, as we both are
entitled to this liberty of freedom.
> > For all your rhetoric in this vein, Todd, I do
> > not get the impression that you have even read McTurk; so correct me if
I'm
> > mistaken.>
>
> In this and what followed, you are mistaken on so many levels
> that it would bore the group to tears to recount. Now it's my
> turn (from an earlier post):
>
> > PLM: I'm in general agreement, but the record McTurk uses "Æthelweard"
is
> > critisized by the editor himself, Capmbell, and this does not recommend
it
> > as a superior source, over the older manuscript, in this instance.
> >
> Have you actually read Campbell's work, and read his criticisms
> of AEthelweard in their full context, or is this simply what
> Smyth says that Campbell says about AEthelweard?
PLM: No, I have not read Campbell's introduction, but you are welcome to
reproduce it in it's entirety, if it will help prove Smyth and I are wrong
in asserting that it is textually unreliable, and Smyth quotes Campbell to
support this issue, [his editor noting that "mistakes and misunderstandings
are frequent" and that mistranslations abound in his work.].
So, unless you can show that this is a baseless accusation made by
Smyth, by bringing forth Campbell's introduction, I see no reason to accept
Æthelweard over the text he was copying, from 100 years prior.
> > It is not enough to merely cite sources on this forum, in your own
> > opinion, and I concur.
> >
> > and it is not enough to merely cite the source (McTurk in this case)
> >
> Get this through your head -> I have not cited McTurk in this
> thread. In fact, I have intentionally _avoided_ citing McTurk in
> this thread. The only things I cited (and even then not by name)
> were criticisms of Smyth (which you, not surprisingly, have
> expressed no interest whatsoever in seeing), and Smyth's own
> works. Your continued distortions and veiled accusations of
> hypocrisy are odious, but rather than respond in kind as you
> deserve, I will simply discontinue participation in this thread
> (and there was much rejoicing).
PLM: Get this through your head, you had responded to my e-mail which I had
written in resonse to Stewart's cite of McTurk, and by inference you support
the use of McTurk without quotation. You imply you know McTurk's work
intimately, but you offer not one shred of McTurk's work as evidense of your
assertion, and offer nothing to prove that Smyth's comments are not sound,
and meritorious.
I have no interest in reading biased critiques of Smyth's work, when I
have the books in question, and I'm perfectly capable of judging Smyth's
work myself. I would rather trust my own judgemnt in this matter, because I
as I said before, I don't run with the lemmings, and this is what you are
doing when you dismiss someone's work, based on another's opinion, instead
of your own.
I have not dismissed McTurk's work, but it makes it difficult to assess;
when no one on this forum deems it worthy enough to quote, in support of
their arguments. I to rejoice, when you bowed out of this thread, because
you had nothing substantial to contribute to it, by way of evidense.
Best Wishes,
Phil
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:3D744743...@interfold.com...
Stewart Baldwin
wrote:
>PLM: My personal preference is not to be dismissive of what has been written
>concerning Ragnar Lodbrok, until I have had the opportunity to read
>conclusive evidense against his existance. I do believe that those who
>accepted McTurk's work, already were biased against Ragnar, and viewed him
>as mythical prior to reading McTurk, and therefore they accepted his
>analysis without question.
Let me remind you how McTurk's name came into the picture. I offered
the (very common) opinion that the Herioldus/Harald who appears in the
phrase "Anulo nepos Herioldi" in the Frankish annals for 812 was a
former king of Denmark. There were any number of authors I could have
cited as having the same opinion, but I chose to cite McTurk, simply
because out of the alternatives that were immediately available to me
to cite, McTurk gave the most detailed discussion of the language of
that annal. [Note: The local library was closed for the Labor Day
holiday, but today I had a chance to check: Alfred P. Smyth, in
"Scandinavian Kings in the British Isles 850-880, expressed EXACTLY
the same opinion on the specific point for which I had cited McTurk:
"Hemming's death resulted in a struggle for the succession between
Sigifridus, nephew of the great Gothfrith, and Anulo the nephew of an
earlier king Herioldus (Haraldr)." (p. 4)] Your response argued
against me not on any point of substance, but simply because the
author I had cited, McTurk, had been criticised by Smyth on an
entirely different subject that had no relevance to the specific
matter at hand (i.e., the interpretation of the 812 annal).
As a matter of fact, I do not accept all of McTurk's analysis on the
subjects discussed in the cited paper, but that is irrelevant, because
he had a good discussion of the specific relevant point. Discussions
of scholars need to be read point by point, and it will sometimes be
the case that one accepts some points made by an author, but not
others. The same holds for Smyth. Although I, like many others, have
been very critical of much of his work on Viking history, he has put
out some very fine scholarship on the early Irish annals, which I have
cited on a number of occasions in discussions on that subject.
Now you (who are apparently basing your knowledge McTurk's work on the
criticisms levelled against it by Smyth rather than on any direct
knowledge of the work itself) throw out the above thinly veiled
insult, by implying that those individuals who accept McTurk's
analysis did so because they were already biased beforehand. Is it
any wonder that people are getting fed up with having "discussions"
with you on this subject?
Stewart Baldwin
Todd A. Farmerie
> In G.H. I,59 it is stated (probably based of some kind of travel
> report) that Unni nominated Harold, the king's son, the protector of
> the Christians i Denmark. Which religion do you think that Harold had
> at that very moment?
Self-evident.
> Whom do you think was the king at that time - not even two years after
> the war with Heinrich der Vogler?
The father of Harald. Considering that within a relatively
narrow window, we have royal runic inscriptions at two different
(distant and substancial) settlements, I am not convinced that
there was only one man bearing this title at this time. I take
it you are aiming to make this Harald an otherwise undocumented
son of Gnupa?
> According to G.H. II, 28 Harold bluetooth ruled for 50 years. If we
> assume that his father died in 958 and was aged less than 50, do you
> then think that this statement is correct?
No.
> Knowing that Harold bluetooth died around 985,
Do we?
> what could the explanation be for this figure?
Which figure? The 50 year age? if so: error, exageration,
confusion, or a healthy diet.
> According to Saxo IX,8 a certain Danish king Frotho asked pope
> Agapetus that the Danes be taught christianity, but at that time
> Harold should have been king cfr. the question above.
Saxo is hardly contemporary, nor is his witness on other issues
all that reliable.
> By the way how
> do you translate 'Harold the old' into anglo-saxon? Can you tell from
> the translation what the man's real name might have been?
You 'translate' Harold as "Harold" - see:
http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/?do=get&type=charter&id=1113
which names "Harold erl"
and
http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/?do=get&type=charter&id=1163
which names "Harold king"
As to "the Old", I am not aware of anyone who was called by this
appelation in contemporary documents, but my (short) Anglo-Saxon
glossary supplies two alternatives, "Gamol" and "Eald" (although
from context, the former appears more appropriate). That would
then make Harold the Old, "Harold gamol" (or "Harold eald"). As
I see no significance in this, I must have reached a different
conclusion than you.
> Saxo says (IX, 11-2) that Thyra was Hedelradi filia(m) according to
> the OR-edition, which only gives a correction by Stephanius, however,
> we know that the writer of Compendium Saxonis has used, what is
> probably the autograph: the Angers fragment, and here we find also the
> form Hathelradi filia. In codex AM 33,4to, which has been made by a
> person with little knowledge of medieval writing, Gorm's father is
> given as 'dachaldum', while the name of Thyra's father is not given.
> Using your knowledge of the carolingian minuscule and assuming that it
> is the same man - could you give us the most probable name of the man?
I assume you are concluding that "dachaldum" is a badly misread
rendition of the name appearing in the others as "Hathelradi",
which I guess could be the case (it is certainly problematic
otherwise). At any rate, the obvious name represented by
"Hathelradi" is the Anglo-Saxon AEthelred (which translates as
"Princely-Council"). I do note that saga sources name Thyra as
daughter of a Harold, but in a context so tainted (making her
sister the grandmother of Harald Finehair) that cherry-picking
this one relationship from the chronological mess that is the
saga pedigree seems risky without support.
> Now I have asked the questions. If you arrive to the same answers as I
> have arrived to, you must admit that I am not just confirming a theory
> of my own.
Well, without knowing what your answers are, it is difficult to
know definitively whether mine are the same, but my guess would
be that I did not arrive at the same answers. (In fact, in my
experience such attempts to lead by the nose-ring, while well
intended, rarely work, as the reasoning behind the construction
of such meta-connections is usually based on insight which is
quite personal in nature.)
> On the contrary you will find lots of supporting evidence
> in the nordic literature despite the fact that it is considered
> legendary.
Unfortunately, with myth and authentic traditions tightly
interwoven into these traditional sources, all kinds of
interesting hypotheses can be created by selective extraction -
picking only those aspects which support a conclusion, and
deciding that exactly those items represent the factual basis.
However, few of these decisions can be adequately supported, and
the sheer number of possible alternative solutions renders all of
them suspect.
taf
Frants Fugmann
I don't know the answer to your question. The scientists here studying
the etymologi of islands, rivers and villages claim that the name of
the island should be derived from seal, since the around it has and
especially had many seals swimming around. What the other problem is
concerned I think you are quite right in supposing that Hemming won
consessions in the area of Walcheren and not only there. In Vita
Karoli by Poeta Saxo sub anno 807 it is mentioned that Halfdan
(Alpdan) and his men swore loyalty to Charlemagne. (Excuse me if the
resumé and spelling is not quite correct), but 811 Hemming is
mentioned as 'rex'. I think that Halfdan was killed in the meantime
and I conclude it from the Skjoldungesaga - or rather, what has been
left of it.
In Snorre: Ynglingasaga ch. 39 you read about Ása Ingjaldsdottir: The
daughter Ása he [Ingjaldr] married away to king Gudrödr of Skaane. She
resembled her father in her mind, and it was her work, when Gudrödr
killed his brother Halfdan, the father of Ivarr Vidfadme, and later on
she caused the dead of her own husband.
The same story is treated in Ynglingatal, in which poem also the place
is mentioned, where Gudröd died. Godofridus is almost obviously a
latinisation of Gudrödr and according to Snorre, Ása was his last wife
and went to Norway with her child, when Godofridus was killed 810. Now
in Westfold the hill Oseberg has been excavated and the magnificent
ship, which was found inside, is now exhibited in the Bygdøy-museum in
Oslo. Inside the ship was found the bone of two women aged about 20
and about 45. The ship-burial has recently been dated to 836. Now I
leave it to yourself to conclude if any of these women has anything to
do with the topic: Early Danish kings.
Best wishes
Frants Fugmann
Frants Fugmann
R.W. McTurk has discussed the phrase in depth in note 48 to the paper
in question from 1973. He discusses all possibilities, but exclude the
one suggested by me, partly because he wasn't aware of the doctype (to
speak IT-language)on which the information of the peace conferences
are based, partly because the study of the ARF sources made enormous
progresses in the seventies. In fact McTurk, whose paper is dated
15-21. august 1973, has included footnotes relating to Buchner 1974 so
the ink in the work of the latter was hardly dry, when McTurk included
the references his paper on the Viking Congress in Dublin.
Moreover McTurk has based his point of view on the thesis of the
Danish C.A.E. Jessen from 1862. I bet that he has not even read the
thesis, which is written in a very strange form of Danish and
(expressed very mildly) extremely polemic. In fact the dean, prof.
Velschow accepted the thesis with the comment that "one could have
wished that the candidate for the doctorate had chosen another form",
and died a few weeks after Jessen's defence of his thesis, in which
his comments to Saxo (especially expressed in the 3rd volume of the
Müller/Velschow edition 1839/1858) were ridiculed by an ethnographer,
who was not even 30 years old.
Jessen's point of view was based on the assumption, that the annals
were based on Einhard's memory and thus contemporaneous.
The other main source on which McTurk's discussion is based, is the
point of view expressed by the Norwegian prof. Gustav Storm in a
polemic from 1878 against the Danish prof. Johannes Steenstrup's book
from 1876. Here you must remember the background: Norway had not yet
obtained its independence, and Denmark had suffered the terrible
defeat in the war of 1864 against Prussia and Austria, and the Danes
in northern Slesvig were prosecuted by the prussian authorities.
Therefore the arguments from both sides were très chauvin.
All these authorities belonged to the old school, which was completely
overthrown by the new one, whose main exponents were the brothers
Lauritz and Curt Weibull. The analysis which I have presented here
rely heavily on a paper by Lauritz Weibull printed in SCANDIA
XIII/1940: Fredsfördragen mellan frankarna och danarna 811 och 813,
even if he doesn't go as far as I have done.
Frants Fugmann
Frants Fugmann
Well, I will give my answers one by one. I think too, that it is self
evident that the Harold in question must have been a christian, since
he was made protector of the christians.
Who was his father? Well, master Adam claims that Heinrich der Vogler
attacked the Danish kingdom and scared king Vurm that much that he
humbly asked for peace. (Adam I, 57) We know from Widuchind that it
was king Gnupa, who was attacked by Heinrich der Vogler in 934, and
that it was king Gnupa, who had to surrender. My conclusion is that
the Danish king in question was Gnupa, and I think that it is
sufficiently well supported by the two runic stones which were found
in the Slesvig area.
Of course you can prefer master Adam from 1075 and say that he
probably was better informed than Widuchind, who wrote a few years
after the war. I prefer to conclude that Widuchind was better informed
on this point than Adam.
Master Adam II, 28 says: Regnavit autem annos L. Obitus eius in
festivitate omnium sanctorum [i.e. 1st nov.] Memoria eius et uxor
Gunhilde apus nos perpetua manebit. [The editor make here the
reasonable assumption that Adam has read the names in the Liber
fraternitatis of the church of Bremen]. Haec in diebus Adaldagi
pontificis comperimus facta ...
Adaldagus died 988. Harold according to Adam somewhat before. The
important thing is to state that according to Adam he became king 938
or some years before. You have four suggestions of which I should
start with the latter.
A helthy diet isn't sufficient, since his father was born somewhere
between 908 and 923, as the father hardly got his child, when he was a
child himself. Certainly there is some sort of error or confusion - an
easily understandable confusion, if two kings were called the same.
Now to Saxo, of whom you say that he hardly is a contemporary source.
I don't think either, but is he also unreliable? Let's take a look at
his list og Danish kings departing from Gorm
Gorm, Harold bluetooth, Sweyn forkbeard, Canute the Great,
Hardicanute, Magnus, Sweyn Estrithson, Harold hein, St. Canute, Olaf
Hunger, Eric Egothe, Nicolaos, Eric Emune, Eric Agnus, Sweyn/Canute,
Waldemar I, Canute VI, Waldemar II
He has forgotten Harold Sweynsson (1014-1018) that's all. Far from
calling him unreliable I would rather say that he has informed himself
very well, and that he must have used the written sources, which were
at his disposal. When he in IX,7 relates about Enni-Gnupus: Unde et ei
quidam parum annalium periti medium in fastis locum tribuunt - I don't
think that it is pure fantasy and unreliability, but that Saxo really
had some lists of kings at his disposal. Moreover it is mentioned in
the chronicon Roskildense ch. IV that Unni, archbishop of Bremen
(918-936) baptized him, and that he founded a new chuch, the third
one, in Denmark.
Obviously - I repeat: obviously - there was such a third church, while
Agapetus was pope, since the documents from the synod of Ingelheim and
Mouzon 948 mentions three Danish bishops: Horit (Slesvig), Liafdag
(Ribe) and Reginbrand
episcopus Arhuswensis. The important question is now: why do the
Danish sources speak about one or more kings called Frotho, while
master Adam don't mention him or them at all? In some of the lists of
Danish kings canute the great is called "Kanutus senex" or "Gamlć
knut" - not because he was very old, when he died, but to separate him
from his son, "Kanutus durus" or "Harde knut".
I suspect that the supposed 50 years rule of Harold bluetooth has to
do with the simple fact that there were two kings of that name, and
that the older one was called the old - in Latin Senex, in old Danish
Gamlć - but the vicars in the early medieval Denmark were anglosaxons
and we know that a reltively vast anglosaxon literature existed. We
might suspect that Frotho in anglosaxon could have the same meaning as
senex. I have in front of me the 1931-edition of Heyne/Schücking:
Beowulf and I read on page 194, that frôd in anglosaxon sometimes
takes the meaning: alt, greis, and is used in verse 2928 in the
connection sę frôda.
Now to dachaldum. Snorre, like almost all the legendary sources claim
that Thyra was the daughter of a certain Klakk-Haraldus, while a
genealogic work by Robert V. Harvest and Helga Tulinius states that
she was the daughter of Aethelread I, who died 871. If this assumption
is correct Thyra was more than 30 year old, when Gorm was born.
Normally it's the other way around! I wouldn't be fair, if I accused
you for believing in such nonsense. But what is this assumption based
on? Saxo!! Let me use a statement about Saxo by a learned person and
certainly not totally unjustified:
Saxo is hardly contemporary, nor is his witness on other issues
all that reliable.
So, shall we say that at least if we believe in the archeologist the
supposed daughter of Aethelred I has now evaporated for ever! Now back
to dachaldum.
It is certainly not myself, who has suggested that the dachaldum of
codex AM 33, 4to should be read Clacharaldum. If you look in Gertz's
edition of the said codex you will find exactly this interpretation.
He has maintaned it in Scriptores minores Vol. I, see page 108 line 2
with note.
It is a well-known fact that 't' and 'c' are frequently confused in
medieval manuscripts just like 'e' and 'a'. If you use this knowledge
on Saxo's Hathelradi you arrive at Hachalradi, which is so close to
Clacharaldi, that it in my opinion is justified to conclude that the
legendary sources have got the right name i.e. the only name we have
got. The reason for the bad spelling of the name is no doubt that an
abbreviation has been misinterpreted. Moreover Saxo says that
Hathelradi was 'rex anglorum', but Angel was and still is, as you
certainly know, the territory between Flensborg fiord and the Schlei.
Let me go a little deeper into this topic. In most presentations of
Danish history the Harold, who 826 was baptized in Mainz, is called
Harald Klak based on his name on some lists of kings. According to the
chronicle of Roskilde also Harold bluetooth was called Clac Harold,
now, who of the three has originally got the name? According all three
of them, because of the meaning of Clac.
I have seen the most funny explanations of the word, which has been
assigned to three christian kings. Now from the point of view of the
old Danes who worshipped Odin and Thor, what was the most significant
difference between the christian and the heathen kings? The heathen
king was his own priest, one of his duties was to celebrate the
ceremony e.g. at christmas (Danish: Jul) and organize the offerings.
The christian king didn't do that. He would let his clerks do the job.
According to me Clac is derived fom an Anglosaxon word meaning a
priest. You must certainly be able to confirm this.
Now your last and worst claim: Clacharold is an invention of Snorre,
Sweyn Aggesen, the writer of Jomsvikinga saga, but there is no factual
evidence of him.
I am amazed! Haven't you read Dudo? Doesn't he speak of a certain
Danish king Haigrold? Oh, I forgot, he's interwoven with tradition of
course, but what about one of his sources, Flodoard of Reims, who also
mentions a person of this name? Is he also tightly interwoven with
tradition?
No, of course not. I am not the one, who concludes too fast and
without sufficient evidence. It is someone else.
regards
Frants Fugmann
Frants Fugmann
I should like to go a little further into this. The conclusion of the
above-said is that Gorm's wife Thyra was a direct descendant of Gnupa,
the king of Denmark. The merchants Ottar and Wulftan used Denmark as
name of the kingdom consisting of the eastern coast of Kattegat and
Oeresund and a number of the islands: Falster, Lolland, Langeland and
finally the city of Hedeby.
In Jelling, Jutland, Gorm placed a rune stone to commemorate his wife
and its ending words are "tanmarkaR but", the meaning of which has
been heavily dicussed. By later historic writers like Sweyn Aggesen
and Snorre the two words were understood as assigned to Thyra, but
respected researchers has understood them as assigned to Gorm himself.
Another very interesting rune stone is the one of Gottorp, also called
the stone of Vedelspang II and the syone of Haddeby 4. The
above-mentioned stones should be studied together:
Jelling stone 1: kurmR:kunukR:karthi:kubl:thusi:
Gottorp stone: asfrithr:karthi:kubl:thausi:tutir:uthinkaurs:
Jelling stone 1: :aft:thurui:kunu:sina:tanmarkaR:but:
Gottorp stone: aft:siktriuk:kunuk:sun:sin:auk:knubu:
Jelling stone 1:
Gottorp stone: kurmR:raist:runaR:
You should notice the almost identical organization of the two
inscriptions. Also the forms of the runes are very similar. The main
difference is that while the person, who has carved the runes in wood
before the monumental mason made the stone, is not mentioned on
Jelling stone 1, but on the Gottorp stone he is called kurmR - spelled
exactly as the king on Jelling stone 1. The nearby conclusion is that
it actually was the same person. This proposal, which originally was
put forward by prof. Niels Lukman, is strongly supported by the
investigation carried out, since it appears from it that king Sigtryg
was Gorm's brother-in-law.
The next point, which should be noted, is that 943, the same year as
the duke of Normandy was murdered, a pagan king Setric showed up in
Normandy:
Ludowicus Rodomum repetens Turmodum Nordmannum, qui ad idolatriam
gentilemque ritum reversus ad haec etiam filium Willelmi aliosque
cogebat regique insidiabatur, simul cum Setrico rege pagano congressus
cum eis interemit et Erluino Rodomum committens revertitur ad
Compendium.
Setric was killed near Rouen, but two years later Haigrold showed up.
According to Dudo he was king of "Dacia" and arrived with his fleet at
a place called Sabina Corbonis, which was situated in the outlet of
the river Dive. Haigrold's purpose was to support the late duke's boy,
who was his relative by blood, against Louis IV d'Outremer. Dudo
ignores Setric probably because he was a pagan, but it is a nearby
conclusion that Setric and Haigrold were brothers, and that their
purposes were identical.
All this should be compared with Adam Bremensis (I,52), where Setric
(Sigeric) is mentioned.
Frants Fugmann
Phil Moody
PLM: Thank you Frants, for the insight you have given me concerning McTurk's
essay! By an odd coincidense, I found McTurk again in the strangest of
places, a book I can't read:-) Else Roesdahl was highly recommended by a
friend in Copenhagen, as an authority in Scandinavian History; so I ordered
"The Vikings" and "The Waking of Angantyr, The Scandinavian past in European
culture (Den nordiske fortid i europæisk kultur)."
The latter was edited by Else Roesdahl and Preben Meulengracht Sørensen
for Acta Jutlandica LXXI:1, Humanities Series 70, copyright 1996, Aarhus
University Press. Most of it I can't read, but I still look at the words:-)
In the essay by Francois-Xavier Dillman, "Frankrig og den nordiske fortid --
de første etaper af genopdagelsen", I spotted McTurk in note 47:
Om dette digt, der også kaldes 'Krákumál', se nu Rory McTurks disputats,
'Studies in Ragnars saga loðbrókar and its Major Scandinavian Analogues',
Oxford, The Society for the Study of Mediæval Languages and Literature
(Medium Ævum Monographs, New Series XV), 1991, side 125-33."
I would like to put the footnote in context, but not understanding the
language, I would not know how much to type:-) I could scan a page or two,
if it would help you (It's doing me little good). Frants, have you read this
yet?
Best Wishes,
Phil
"Frants Fugmann" <f...@kalgym.dk> wrote in message
news:d2ef5370.02090...@posting.google.com...
Todd A. Farmerie
> Well, I will give my answers one by one. I think too, that it is self
> evident that the Harold in question must have been a christian, since
> he was made protector of the christians.
>
> Who was his father? Well, master Adam claims that Heinrich der Vogler
> attacked the Danish kingdom and scared king Vurm that much that he
> humbly asked for peace. (Adam I, 57) We know from Widuchind that it
> was king Gnupa, who was attacked by Heinrich der Vogler in 934, and
> that it was king Gnupa, who had to surrender. My conclusion is that
> the Danish king in question was Gnupa, and I think that it is
> sufficiently well supported by the two runic stones which were found
> in the Slesvig area.
The runic stones do not support that the king in question - that
king who was father of Harald - was Gnupa, only that Gnupa was a
king. The chonological proximity does suggest a connection, but
this implies a French model of royalty in a united country,
neither of which may apply.
(regarding the age of Harald)
> Master Adam II, 28 says: Regnavit autem annos L. Obitus eius in
> festivitate omnium sanctorum [i.e. 1st nov.] Memoria eius et uxor
> Gunhilde apus nos perpetua manebit. [The editor make here the
> reasonable assumption that Adam has read the names in the Liber
> fraternitatis of the church of Bremen]. Haec in diebus Adaldagi
> pontificis comperimus facta ...
>
> Adaldagus died 988. Harold according to Adam somewhat before. The
> important thing is to state that according to Adam he became king 938
> or some years before. You have four suggestions of which I should
> start with the latter.
> A helthy diet isn't sufficient, since his father was born somewhere
> between 908 and 923,
Based on . . . ?
> as the father hardly got his child, when he was a
> child himself. Certainly there is some sort of error or confusion - an
> easily understandable confusion, if two kings were called the same.
_An_ easily understandable conclusion, but not the only one. The
error could have been in mistaken copying, say l for xl, a
misunderstanding of Adam's part, or, as I said, a simple exageration.
> Now to Saxo, of whom you say that he hardly is a contemporary source.
> I don't think either, but is he also unreliable? Let's take a look at
> his list og Danish kings departing from Gorm
>
> Gorm, Harold bluetooth, Sweyn forkbeard, Canute the Great,
> Hardicanute, Magnus, Sweyn Estrithson, Harold hein, St. Canute, Olaf
> Hunger, Eric Egothe, Nicolaos, Eric Emune, Eric Agnus, Sweyn/Canute,
> Waldemar I, Canute VI, Waldemar II
>
> He has forgotten Harold Sweynsson (1014-1018) that's all. Far from
> calling him unreliable I would rather say that he has informed himself
> very well, and that he must have used the written sources, which were
> at his disposal.
But this is a period that is much better documented than the
period before. You cannot extrapolate from this that Saxo had
solid basis for everything he wrote.
> The important question is now: why do the
> Danish sources speak about one or more kings called Frotho, while
> master Adam don't mention him or them at all?
> I suspect that the supposed 50 years rule of Harold bluetooth has to
> do with the simple fact that there were two kings of that name, and
> that the older one was called the old - in Latin Senex, in old Danish
> Gamlæ - but the vicars in the early medieval Denmark were anglosaxons
> and we know that a reltively vast anglosaxon literature existed. We
> might suspect that Frotho in anglosaxon could have the same meaning as
> senex. I have in front of me the 1931-edition of Heyne/Schücking:
> Beowulf and I read on page 194, that frôd in anglosaxon sometimes
> takes the meaning: alt, greis, and is used in verse 2928 in the
> connection sê frôda.
So, for the time being we assume that Frotho is a representative
of an anglo-saxon nickname, why is it to Harald that this name
applies. At a period where there are several Halfdans the Old,
and, more to the point, Gorm the Old, what is the basis for
creating an otherwise undocumented King, Harald, for whom this
name is then applied.
That being said, this is not a unique appearance of the name
Frotho. Traditions make Froda the killer of Healfdene, for
example. I guess you could argue that in every case, it is just
an English nickname, but the argument becomes harder,
particularly when neither of us seem to be able to find 'frod'
used as a nickname in England to distinguish the elder of two
people of the same name. As it is not uncommon that early names
derive from characteristics (e.g. AEthelred = 'princely council')
there is no reason to reject the name Frotho as a legitimate
given name in its own right (and a Frod appears as witness to a
charter of Oswine, King of Kent). Likewise, it is always
problematic to point to a similar-sounding word in another
language and draw significance from it. Coincidental
similarities abound, plus linguistic evolution gives different
meanings to homologous words. My edition of Beowulf (Klaeber,
1922), (which I also use as an Anglo-Saxon glossary), gives for
frod "adj., wise, old ("old and wise"), but wise seems the
primary meaning - Klaeber cites Kemble giving Frode as and
adverb, meaning 'prudently', and also includes compounds like
unfrod, which would be unwise. As I said above, this argument
would be strengthened if you coulld come up with an Anglo-Saxon
document that actually uses "frod" as a nickname for the elder of
two men of the same name (I have seen several cases of "cild" =
child but also with specific inheritance implications, but never
"frod").
> Now to dachaldum. Snorre, like almost all the legendary sources claim
> that Thyra was the daughter of a certain Klakk-Haraldus,
And he states that Klakk Harald was father of Thorny who married
Sigurd Hart, and had Ragnhild, wife of Halfdan Svart and mother
of Harald Finehair. There are reasons to question the assignment
of the marriage of Halfdan, of the existence of a Sigurd Hart who
was father-in-law of Halfdan, of the existence of any Thorny,
etc., so why is Snorre reliable in naming Thyra as daughter of
Klakk Harald when the rest of it has so many problems?
> while a
> genealogic work by Robert V. Harvest and Helga Tulinius states that
> she was the daughter of Aethelread I, who died 871.
Is there any reason you have chosen to cite an ancient source for
the one you favor, and a modern genealogical work for the
alternative, which dates back about as long, but which you do not
favor?
> If this assumption
> is correct Thyra was more than 30 year old, when Gorm was born.
I was unaware that Gorm's birthdate was known.
> Normally it's the other way around! I wouldn't be fair, if I accused
> you for believing in such nonsense.
Correct, it would not be fair, particularly since I am on record
in this group for disbelieving it. (And yet, the rhetorical
approach you are using is a classic technique, which in fact is
intended to plant exactly this seed of doubt in the mind of third
parties - like saying "you couldn't honestly believe this, could
you?", when you have no reason to think that I do - a complete
strawman, with ridicule thrown in.) Of course, there is also the
oft-cited work of Ernest Rason who concludes that Gorm married
twice, to Thyra daughter of Klakk Harald AND to Thyra daughter of
King AEthelred I.
> But what is this assumption based
> on? Saxo!! Let me use a statement about Saxo by a learned person and
> certainly not totally unjustified:
>
> Saxo is hardly contemporary, nor is his witness on other issues
> all that reliable.
And another 'learned person' said of him (earlier in your post):
}Far from calling him unreliable I would rather say that
}he has informed himself very well, and that he must have
}used the written sources, which were at his disposal.
So which is it? Is he far from unreliable when he supports your
interpretation, but can be thrown out at will when he disagrees.
> So, shall we say that at least if we believe in the archeologist the
> supposed daughter of Aethelred I has now evaporated for ever!
But, does Saxo state that she was daughter of AEthelred I? No.
Given the statement that Thyra was daughter of an AEthelred, you
cannot assign this to an impossible AEthelred, and then conclude
that because it is impossible, then her father must have had a
different name. So, while AEthelred I has had severe
chronological problems, there are numerous other englishmen of
this period who do not, like, for example, AElfred's son-in-law
who s sometimes called King of Mercia, particularly considering
how fluid the chronology of Gorm is.
> Now back to dachaldum.
> It is certainly not myself, who has suggested that the dachaldum of
> codex AM 33, 4to should be read Clacharaldum. If you look in Gertz's
> edition of the said codex you will find exactly this interpretation.
> He has maintaned it in Scriptores minores Vol. I, see page 108 line 2
> with note.
So dachaldum = Clacharaldum. That's convenient, but unlike the
religion of the representative of the Christian church in
Denmark, it is not self evident.
> It is a well-known fact that 't' and 'c' are frequently confused in
> medieval manuscripts just like 'e' and 'a'. If you use this knowledge
> on Saxo's Hathelradi you arrive at Hachalradi,
I bet this is fun, going back through all of the names in the
sagas and writings and substituting a 'c' every time you see a
't' and vice versa, just to see what other name it could
represent. Oh, and if an 'e' may be misread as and 'a', this
would seem to be much less likely when, as in this case, you have
two authentic 'a's flanking that 'e' on either side.
> which is so close to
> Clacharaldi, that it in my opinion is justified to conclude that the
> legendary sources have got the right name
I see, so having switched the letters (not all the possibly
misread letters, just the ones that suit your interpretation),
you still don't get to the name you are after, so further
manipulation must take place. Is it also a well-known fact that
a 'Cl' and 'H' are frequently confused? Now you are basing your
interpretation of this on two successive errors, which has
implications on the parsimony of your explanation.
> i.e. the only name we have
> got. The reason for the bad spelling of the name is no doubt that an
> abbreviation has been misinterpreted.
Hold it. You just produced the spelling you wanted by suggesting
'c' was read as 't' and 'e' was read as 'a', and you handwaved on
'Cl' being substituted by 'H'. None of these require, or are
even helped, by this 'misread abbreviation', which would be even
a third error in the sequence of events.
> Moreover Saxo says that
> Hathelradi was 'rex anglorum', but Angel was and still is, as you
> certainly know, the territory between Flensborg fiord and the Schlei.
"rex anglorum" was an appropriate title for a King of the
English, and is found in exactly this form in many charters (many
of them forged, but forged before Saxo's time, so it was thought
at that time to be appropriate). How many kings of the territory
between Flenborg fiord and the Schlei are called "rex anglorum"?
This is becoming monumentally strained.
> Let me go a little deeper into this topic. In most presentations of
> Danish history the Harold, who 826 was baptized in Mainz, is called
> Harald Klak based on his name on some lists of kings. According to the
> chronicle of Roskilde also Harold bluetooth was called Clac Harold,
> now, who of the three has originally got the name?
Three? You just cite two here. You have formed an elaborate
scenario to infer a third, but to refer to him as if he had the
same relative degree of reality as these two well attested ones
is misleading.
> According all three
> of them, because of the meaning of Clac.
>
> I have seen the most funny explanations of the word, which has been
> assigned to three christian kings. Now from the point of view of the
> old Danes who worshipped Odin and Thor, what was the most significant
> difference between the christian and the heathen kings? The heathen
> king was his own priest, one of his duties was to celebrate the
> ceremony e.g. at christmas (Danish: Jul) and organize the offerings.
> The christian king didn't do that. He would let his clerks do the job.
> According to me Clac is derived fom an Anglosaxon word meaning a
> priest. You must certainly be able to confirm this.
The Anglo-Saxon word for a priest was mæssepreost, or just
preost. You appear to be deriving it from the progenitor of
clerk, which is not in my dictionaries. What exact form do you
have in mind, and how do you explain the absence of the 'r'?
This is more flimsy that Frotho = frod. Further, you started
this with the selfevident conclusion that your Harald, son of the
king, was a christian. How can you now claim that all three of
these christian kings had a nickname indicative of duties a
christian king would not have performed. (This is much ado about
nothing, as there would be better explanations for the reuse of a
nickname for later rulers with the same given name - see all of
the Taillefers and Longespees.)
> Now your last and worst claim: Clacharold is an invention of Snorre,
> Sweyn Aggesen, the writer of Jomsvikinga saga, but there is no factual
> evidence of him.
Perhaps you would quote the portion of my post where I stated
that Clacharold is an invention of Snorre and Sweyn Aggeson.
This is a strawman.
That being said, Snorre also has Gorm defeating Gnupa, yet you
would have Gorm marrying Gnupa's granddaughter, by whom he had
his eldest son, which reconstruction has chronological
implications. Gnupa lost to Henry in 934, was he an elderly man
then?
> I am amazed! Haven't you read Dudo? Doesn't he speak of a certain
> Danish king Haigrold?
The continental and insular sources refer to virtually all viking
leaders as "kings", and half of them as "danish". This in no way
can be interpreted to mean that they were all Kings of Denmark.
(Likewise, Dudo doesn't call him Clacharold, does he?)
> Oh, I forgot, he's interwoven with tradition of
> course,
Yes, he is, and there are many (me not among them) who discard
most of what Dudo has to say about this period.
> but what about one of his sources, Flodoard of Reims, who also
> mentions a person of this name? Is he also tightly interwoven with
> tradition?
Was there only one scandinavian named Harald?
So, you have a christian Harald, son of an unnamed king (but not
king himself). You have "dachaldum", which if you alter a letter
and force in a sylable, you can make to read clacharaldum, which
can then be matched with the name that was given by Snorre to a
king named in a context that is highly suspect. You have
Hathelradi, rex anglorum, which is, in fact, perfectly obvious in
its meaning, but substitute some more letters, some without any
justification, and alter the obvious meaning of the title, and
you can twist it into Clacharaldi, King of southern Denmark. You
have a Danish viking in France named Haigrold, about whom no
intimation of christianity is made. You conclude that these are
all the same person, a King Clac Harald Gnupasson of Denmark, who
fails to appear in a single reliable source. This is certainly
one possible solution to the mass, but not a likely one,
considering the degree to which the record must be mainipulated
to arrive at it, and that it has no independent support.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
peripheral comments - it wastes space]
Frants Fugmann wrote:
> Another very interesting rune stone is the one of Gottorp, also called
> the stone of Vedelspang II and the syone of Haddeby 4. The
> above-mentioned stones should be studied together:
>
> Jelling stone 1: kurmR:kunukR:karthi:kubl:thusi:
> Gottorp stone: asfrithr:karthi:kubl:thausi:tutir:uthinkaurs:
> Jelling stone 1: :aft:thurui:kunu:sina:tanmarkaR:but:
> Gottorp stone: aft:siktriuk:kunuk:sun:sin:auk:knubu:
> Jelling stone 1:
> Gottorp stone: kurmR:raist:runaR:
>
> You should notice the almost identical organization of the two
> inscriptions. Also the forms of the runes are very similar. The main
> difference is that while the person, who has carved the runes in wood
> before the monumental mason made the stone, is not mentioned on
> Jelling stone 1, but on the Gottorp stone he is called kurmR - spelled
> exactly as the king on Jelling stone 1. The nearby conclusion is that
> it actually was the same person. This proposal, which originally was
> put forward by prof. Niels Lukman, is strongly supported by the
> investigation carried out, since it appears from it that king Sigtryg
> was Gorm's brother-in-law.
Um, no. You argued that Thyra was daughter of "Clac Harold",
while Sigtrigg is well documented as son of Gnupa. I can go to
two gravestones and find stones with nearly identical
inscriptions, so what exactly is suggested by the similarity
between these. I suspect that those carving royal rune stones
represented a small group, and probably used similar structure.
In fact, the two stones Asfrith carved for Sigtryg have highly
similar syntax, but use different spelling and the runes look
different in form. Basically, how many different ways can you
say "X had this carved for Y"?
> The next point, which should be noted, is that 943, the same year as
> the duke of Normandy was murdered, a pagan king Setric showed up in
> Normandy:
And Sigtryg was a unique name among scandinavians? (And aren't
you arguing that Harald Clac was a christian?)
> Setric was killed near Rouen, but two years later Haigrold showed up.
Any reason to think this Haigrold has any relationship to Setric?
> According to Dudo he was king of "Dacia" and arrived with his fleet at
> a place called Sabina Corbonis, which was situated in the outlet of
> the river Dive. Haigrold's purpose was to support the late duke's boy,
> who was his relative by blood, against Louis IV d'Outremer.
Oh, now things are really getting interesting. You would then
derive Rollo and Guthorm from Gnupa as well?
> Dudo
> ignores Setric probably because he was a pagan, but it is a nearby
> conclusion that Setric and Haigrold were brothers, and that their
> purposes were identical.
Huh. Two vikings attack Normandy, so they must be brothers, and
have the same purpose in their actions?
> All this should be compared with Adam Bremensis (I,52), where Setric
> (Sigeric) is mentioned.
If all you want is mention of another man named Sigtryg, yes, you
could cite Adam, or beter yet, the contemporary runes that
specifically clal him som of Gnupa. However, neither tell of his
attacking Normandy, nor did Asfrith have runes carved for a son
Harald, nor Harald for his mother Asfrith, so all we have are two
(perhaps) contemporaries with the same name. To extrapolate from
that that the pagan Sigtryg in Normandy and the Haigrold who came
a few years later were brothers identical to the Hebedy Sigtryg
Gnupasson and the christian Harald son of an unnamed King, is a
stretch.
taf
Stewart Baldwin
<farm...@interfold.com> wrote:
[much snipping]
>(regarding the age of Harald)
>[Frants Fugmann wrote:]
>> A helthy diet isn't sufficient, since his father was born somewhere
>> between 908 and 923,
>
>Based on . . . ?
I assume it is based on the assumption that the body found buried at
the church at Jelling was that of Gorm. Since it is estimated that
the man buried there was between 35 and 50 years old, and the death
date of ca. 958 for Gorm based on the dendrochronological data seems
reasonably secure, doing the subtraction gives the range indicated.
However, if the body is somebody other than Gorm (the most obvious
alternate candidate being Harald, as the burial was a Christian one),
then the calculation (which in any case would be no more than an
approximation) would not be valid.
Stewart Baldwin
Frants Fugmann
It hardly needs to be pointed out that it would be in the most
flagrant contradicion with Adam II, 28 if the skeleton found in
Jelling really belonged to Harold bluetooth. On the other hand I am
also convinced that the burial was a Christian one, so that Gorm
originally was a Christian.
Frants Fugmann
Frants Fugmann
I know Else Roesdahl as a skillful viking age archeologist, so to me
it's a novelty that she has dealt with the old norse or icelandic poem
Krákumál. The cited footnote says: About this poem, which is also
called Krákumál, please refer now to the thesis of Rory McTurk
'Studies etc. page 125-53. So far I have not read the paper.
Frants Fugmann
Setric, the pagan king, is mentioned in Flodoard: Annales sub anno
943. I cite the reference given in note Q 35 in MGH SS XXXVIII page
123: 'Ludowicus Rodomum repetens Turmodum Nordmannum, qui ad
idolatriam gentilemque ritum reversus ad haec etiam filium Willelmi
aliosque cogebat regique insidiabatur, simul cum Setrico rege pagano
congressus cum eis interemit et Erluino Rodomum committens revertitur
ad Compendium'.
The situation was that duke Wilhelm of Normandy had recently been
assasinated, but his vassals had already sworn loyalty to his son, the
11 year old Richard.
Learning what had happened Louis IV d'Outremer rushed to Rouen,
because he wanted to have Richard in custody. There he must have found
Richard in the hands of Turmodus and Setric. It was easy for Louis to
persuade the Norman vassals to support him, but when they realized
that Richard was a prisoner in Laon, and that Louis IV didn't intend
to punish the duke of Flanders, who had planned the assasination of
Richard's father, they appealed to king Haigrold of Dacia and asked
him to rescue Richard, his relative by blood, who eventually had
escaped from Laon.
This call for help was reason why king Haigrold came to Normandy with
a fleet in 945.
With exception of the Turmod/Setric episode all this is based on the
account of Dudo, who has known the Annales by Flodoard, and whose main
source according to himself was count Raoul of Ivry, who was Richard's
brother on his mother's side. His sources are of such a good quality
here that he is trustworthy, so it must be concluded that Haigrold in
fact was king of Denmark in 945.
I don't see any war, but rather some efforts carried out in order to
ensure the rights and safety of Richard. Since I have concluded that
both Harold and Sigtrygg were sons of Gnupa, I tend to believe that
their purposes in Normandy were identical as well, since Haigrold's
invention seems to be the product of an alliance between Wilhelm and
Haigrold's family.
Haigrold acting as a very powerful person summons Louis IV to a
meeting, and the king arrives to it with only a few men. One might
ask, if king Louis was naïve or what, but I don't think so. He knew,
who Haigrold was. The thing is that Haigrold had supported his father
in the battle of Soissons 15th june 923, see Richer I,45. We know that
Charles III promised Lorraine to Heinrich der Vogler in return for
support, and now you begin to understand, why Klakk-Harold was a
Christian. He had to be, because he was a vassal of Heinrich der
Vogler, or as the legendary Jomsvikinga saga says: earl of Holstein.
Holstein was a part of Saxony.
Frants Fugmann
If we turn to master Adam I, 52 we read the frequently cited phrase
about Sigerich: 'Cumque parvo tempore regnasset, eum Hardegon, filius
Suein, veniens a Nortmannia privavit regno.' Master Adam says that
king Sweyn told this, so the words have been said by a Dane.
When Heinrich der Vogler attacked the kingdom of Denmark in 934, Gnupa
was its king. When Gorm died 958, he (or rather his son) was its king,
so Sigtryg or Sigerich must have been king somewhere in the period
934-958. This is strongly supported by Asfrith's rune stone.
Sweyn tells that Sigtrygg 'was deprived' of the kingdom, but where did
that happen, and who did it? We only get three names, which are all
undeclined. The patronymic should end with genitive -s followed by
'son', but frequently the -s is lost, as in e.g. in the patronymics
Petersen, Haraldsen, Iversen. The same has happened here.
What about the word Nortmannia? Normally it is understood as Norway,
because master Adam normally uses the name in that meaning, but master
Adam isn't speaking here, and as master Adam uses 'Nortmannia' in the
meaning Normandy in II, 54 when discussing king Sweyn's family, it is
very likely that the king has used the name in that meaning. As names
and nouns in Danish like in English take the same form in nominative,
accusative, dative and ablative, you must take into consideration that
Adam might have overheard a -d so that 'a Nortmannia' should really be
'ad Nortmannia' meaning 'ad Nortmanniam'. In this way I arrive to the
following meaning of the phrase:
"When he had ruled for a short time, Sweyn, Hardecon's son, deprived
him of the kingdom once he came to Normandy." Thus I arrive to the
conclusion that Sweyn was a vassal of Louis IV d'Outremer and brother
to Gorm.
We recoginize this by the words 'Hardegon filius Suein' since this
must be a name and a patronymic. Until the 19th century patronymics
were frequently used instead of family-names in peasant-families in
Denmark. The problem here is that since both names are undeclined you
cannot really tell, if Suein or Hardegon is the patronymic, because
the commas hardly goes back to Sweyn Estrithson, and because he didn't
decline the names either.
The third and maybe most important name in this connection is
'Nortmannia'. Based on statistics it is normally translated by Norway,
but you cannot really base a translation on statistics, and Sweyn has
used the word Nortmannia for Normandy, when he told about his nearest
family (Adam II, 54). The name is normally translated as an ablative,
but it could be accusative as well, because
Frants Fugmann
Strongly connected with the above-mentioned problems are the problems
connected with Ynglingatal. Prof. Storm thought that it was a genuine
poem from the end of the 9th century, while the modern point of view
is that it belongs to the 11th century. I think that both points of
view are justified. I am convinced that Tjodolfr enn hvinverske
composed a poem, but I also think that the same was drastically
changed and rearranged in the 11th century, and that we only have got
the rearranged form. It is relevant when discussing early Danish kings
because it is one of the means you must use, if you wish to study the
forefathers of Sigefridus. This is possible, and you can start in this
way. According to the theory which was put forward much earlier in
this thread, Sigefridus had a grandchild, whose latinized name was
Angandeo. Since naming after forefathers has been a tradition in the
royal Danish family from the 9th century and to this day, it is a
nearby thought, that Angandeo was named after king Ongendus of the
early 8th century, however, Ongendus could hardly be the father of
Sigefridus, since Sigefridus was still alive 798. This is just the
start. When you work it all through, you won't believe the conclusions
that you arrive to.
Frants Fugmann
Todd A. Farmerie
> "When he had ruled for a short time, Sweyn, Hardecon's son, deprived
> him of the kingdom once he came to Normandy." Thus I arrive to the
> conclusion that Sweyn was a vassal of Louis IV d'Outremer and brother
> to Gorm.
>
> We recoginize this by the words 'Hardegon filius Suein' since this
> must be a name and a patronymic. Until the 19th century patronymics
> were frequently used instead of family-names in peasant-families in
> Denmark. The problem here is that since both names are undeclined you
> cannot really tell, if Suein or Hardegon is the patronymic, because
> the commas hardly goes back to Sweyn Estrithson, and because he didn't
> decline the names either.
And yet, in spite of admitting to our not being able to tell
which is which, you have constructed an entire history involving
a Sweyn, brother of Gorm, that has no historical basis other than
this comment of Adam, which most historians translate exactly as
it says, Hardegon filius Suein - Hardegon son of Sweyn.
taf
Frants Fugmann
Until recently most, if not all historians believed that Gorm the old
had a long grey beard when he eventually died after a long adventurous
life - and do you really mean to say that historians better than
latinists should be able to translate master Adam's work? Two years
ago appeared a new Danish translation of it by the skilled latinist
Allan A. Lund from the university of Copenhagen.
In his preface he says: "Translating Adam of Bremen is a demanding
task. The reason for this is especially that Adam at some passages
expresses himself on a somewhat maladroit latin from a stilistic point
of view, so that the meaning is not always possible to see through."
I feel honoured that you ascribe the identification of king Sigtrygg
of the Gottorp rune stone with Flodoard's pagan king Setric to me, but
the truth is that it was already proposed by Norwegian prof. Gustav
Storm in (Norwegian) Historisk Tidsskrift 3. rk. III, 1893 page 360.
Finally I must repeat since it hasn't yet been understood that master
Adam who wrote in the period 1066-1075 cannot be trusted as a
contemporaneous souce, when he relates about events that took place
940-950. Nevertheless its a fact that he has got the names of Gnupa
(Chnob) and Sigtrygg (Sigerich)and that he knows that the latter
succeded, when the former died. He also relates with a Danish bishop
as source that Heinrich der Vogler nominated a margrave to Hedeby. Of
course this has been denied by several patriotic Danish historians,
who have also tried to explain away the letter of 26th june 965 by
which emperor Otto exemts all those real estates situated in "marca
vel Regno Danorum", which belong or in the future might belong to the
churches "Sliesuuigensem, Ripensem, Arusensem" from all "censu vel
servitio nostri iuris", at that it is his will that they should serve
and belong to the bishops of the said churches without "ulla comitis
vel alicuius fisci nostri exactoris infestatione", however, the
genuineness of this letter of indemnity has been independently shown
by Anna Marie v. Liliencron and Sture Bolin.
There must be an explanation of Adam's knowledge, and I don't see any
reason to distrust him when he claims that his sources are king Sweyn
and the Danish bishop in question. Their knowledge in turn depends on
the work which was carried out - in Denmark as elsewhere in Europe in
the early middle age - to verify family relations in order to support
hereditary claims. The fruits of this work is still preserved, and you
can find a direct reference to the brother of king Gorm in Langebek:
SCRIPTORES RERUM DANICARUM Vol. I (1772) page 115:
SWENO LANGHAEFODH filius Kanuti, regnavit X. annis. In morte patris
erat in Normannia.
Frants Fugmann
Todd A. Farmerie
> The fruits of this work is still preserved, and you
> can find a direct reference to the brother of king Gorm in Langebek:
> SCRIPTORES RERUM DANICARUM Vol. I (1772) page 115:
>
> SWENO LANGHAEFODH filius Kanuti, regnavit X. annis. In morte patris
> erat in Normannia.
Without context, this is of little value. On what basis is this
Kanuti identified with the Hardegon, father of Gorm?
taf
Frants Fugmann
To answer this question it would be a good idea to depart from the
informations given by the Danish court. Choose the URL
http://www.kongehuset.dk/. In left menu choose <Monarkiet i Danmark>,
then <Kongehusets historie> then <Kongeraekken>. Here you will find a
list of Danish kings from Gorm to Margrethe II, but you will note that
allthough king Knud 2. (Canute the Great), Knud 3. (Hardicanute), Knud
4., Knud 5. and Knud 6. are all listed, there is no Knud 1. You might
think that this is an error, but it isn't. It is a logic conclusion
from the oldest letter of Danish origin that is known. It is a
donation from the king to the church of Lund dated 21st may 1085. The
important part of the letter is the socalled "intitulatio" beginning
with "ego":
ego Cnvto.quartus Magni regis filius.
The ordinal implies that Hardicanute was Cnvto III and Canute the
Great was Cnvto II, so there must have been a Cnvto I. Now we should
try to find him. To do this we refer to a rather late source: Lamberti
Ardensis Historia comitum Ghisnensium. You will find it in MGH SS XXIV
page 550ff. Lambert refers to events that took place around 928. Count
Arnulf of Flanders was angry, because Sifrid Dachus had made himself a
castle at Guînes near Calais in France, however, thanks to the
assistance of Cuntus, who was a brother of the Danish king and a
relative of Sifred, who knew him from the Danish court, the problem
was solved.
Cuntus must correspond to the Scandinavian Knutr, so this is probably
our man, however, we should prefer to learn him to know from
contemporaneous sources. Why is he called Cuntus instead of Cnutus?
Well, if you try to pronounce words like knot, not, knight, night,
knit and nit, you will easily understand why. Knutr is an impossible
name in English and French, since the k is mute. So in order to hear
the k a vowel had to be inserted. Frequently it was an a, so you get
names like Canutus and Canu, but also u as in the case of Cuntus.
Now I should like to go back to Sweno Langhæfodh. He is mentioned in
"Petri Olai Minoritae Roskildensis Chronica Regum Danorum", who says
about him that he was a son of king Lotheknut, and he is an
interesting person. Petrus Olai has corrupted his story somewhat by
mixing it with Saxo IX,7, but a less currupted version is given by the
"Annales Ryenses". Lotheknut went away with a third of the servant and
of the common people, and they subjugated all Prussia, Semigalia,
Karelia and many other countries. They settled there and as they liked
the fertility of these countries, they didn't return, but have
remained there ever since.
The story of Lotheknut should be compared with the story of Haquin in
Saxo X,5.
He went to the land of the Sembs living in Semigalia. He destroyed his
ships in order to encourage his men to fight bravely against the enemy
and so they did.
Afterwards they killed all the men and married the women, so the
population of this country is of Danish origin according to Saxo.
Have you ever heard about the Sembs or Semigalia? Well, today the
province is called Zemaitija and it is the western part of Lithuania.
The name Semigalia must have been meaningful to him, and to him it was
quite logic that the poorest part of the Danes was sent away from
Denmark to Semigalia, if there wasn't enough to eat. He probably did
not know that a great Danish force was living in Great Britain in the
period 892-896, and that the force split up, one part in East Anglia,
one part in Northumbria, and those who were without property got
themselves ships and went to - GALLIA. This happened according to the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicles in 896.
The same year five barks with Normans came to the Seine. The name of
their leader was Hundeus, and if you look up the word "hnutr" in the
old norse vocabulary of Erik Jónsson, you will find that it has
exactly the same meaning as knutr. Hundeus is made out of Hnutr just
as Cuntus is made out of Knutr.
The person who had got a source from Flanders or Britain didn't
understand why Danes should go to Gallia, so he corrected the word to
Semigalia, as it seemed logic to him. The Scandinavian name of the
leader was Hardeknutr, and Hardicanute was named after him. The local
population didn't like the impossible name, so the forms Cunt and
Hardecunt were used. Hardecon and Saxo's Haquin are derived from that.
Sifrid Dachus killed himself about 962 because of forbidden love
according to Lambertus. He is probably identical with the king
Sigferth mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and because of the
love affair it is most likely that he was rather young, so Sweyn
Knutsson might have been his father. This is not mere assumptions but
based on master Adam's scholion 35, mentioning Toke, the earl of
Winland. A rune stone mentions Toke Gormsson, and we know that Toke's
son, the younger bishop Odinkar was of royal blood, so Toke most
probably was Gorm's son. Winland is probably the area around Guînes,
since the old name of the pagus is Wijnen. Suddenly after the suicide
the brother of the Danish king came into possession of the area, and
you can tell the influence of this in Denmark. Few miles east of the
big bridge that connects Zealand and Funen you will find the remains
of the circular viking fortress Trelleborg, which was made 980. The
circular design of that fortress is very similar to the design of the
fortresses in Flanders: Souburg, Burg on Schouwen, Middelburg,
Winoksbergen, Bourbourg and Guînes. Also in 962 the Normans interfered
in Normandy in favour of Richard. Because of the civil war Harold
bluetooth fled from Denmark, and according to master Adam he went to
Iumne, but this seem to be guesswork from the word Slauia in Adam's
source, however Slauia could be an error for Flandria and it is
well-known that e.g. Ralph Niger says that Harold bluetooth went to
Flandria, which seems far more logic than Iumne.
Frants Fugmann
Frants Fugmann
Todd A. Farmerie
> "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3D8AAD10...@interfold.com>...
>
>>Frants Fugmann wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The fruits of this work is still preserved, and you
>>>can find a direct reference to the brother of king Gorm in Langebek:
>>>SCRIPTORES RERUM DANICARUM Vol. I (1772) page 115:
>>>
>>>SWENO LANGHAEFODH filius Kanuti, regnavit X. annis. In morte patris
>>>erat in Normannia.
>>>
>>
>>Without context, this is of little value. On what basis is this
>>Kanuti identified with the Hardegon, father of Gorm?
>
> To answer this question it would be a good idea to depart from the
> informations given by the Danish court. Choose the URL
> http://www.kongehuset.dk/. In left menu choose <Monarkiet i Danmark>,
> then <Kongehusets historie> then <Kongeraekken>. Here you will find a
> list of Danish kings from Gorm to Margrethe II, but you will note that
> allthough king Knud 2. (Canute the Great), Knud 3. (Hardicanute), Knud
> 4., Knud 5. and Knud 6. are all listed, there is no Knud 1. You might
> think that this is an error, but it isn't. It is a logic conclusion
> from the oldest letter of Danish origin that is known. It is a
> donation from the king to the church of Lund dated 21st may 1085. The
> important part of the letter is the socalled "intitulatio" beginning
> with "ego":
Etc. None of which identifies the Kanuti, father of Sweno, with
the Hardegon who was father of Canute.
taf
Frants Fugmann
I have neither said nor claimed that Hardegon was the father of
Canute. I have said that Hardegon is identical with Hardeknutr and
Hundeus and I have shown why this is the most probable solution of the
problem. I have recently seen an article "Early Danish kings" from
nov. 1996 with your signature. It is filled uo with inacurate
statements and notorious misunderstandings. If you want to discuss
Early Danish kings please refer to authorities, who have studied this
topic in a scientific way, and read the primary sources carefully, so
that your statements are not contradictory to them.
Frants Fugmann
Todd A. Farmerie
> I have neither said nor claimed that Hardegon was the father of
> Canute.
That was an (obvious) typo - it should read "Hardegon who was
father of Gorm.
taf
Stewart Baldwin
[much snipping]
>ego Cnvto.quartus Magni regis filius.
>
>The ordinal implies that Hardicanute was Cnvto III and Canute the
>Great was Cnvto II, so there must have been a Cnvto I. Now we should
>try to find him. To do this we refer to a rather late source: Lamberti
>Ardensis Historia comitum Ghisnensium. You will find it in MGH SS XXIV
>page 550ff. Lambert refers to events that took place around 928. Count
>Arnulf of Flanders was angry, because Sifrid Dachus had made himself a
>castle at Guînes near Calais in France, however, thanks to the
>assistance of Cuntus, who was a brother of the Danish king and a
>relative of Sifred, who knew him from the Danish court, the problem
>was solved.
On the contrary, if it is assumed that the source was thinking of Cnut
III as being Hardecnut (which seems probable), then it is extremely
likely that Cnut I was Adam of Bremen's Hardegon (evidently a corrupt
form of Hardecnut), since the father of Cnut IV was Adam's source for
the information about "Hardegon".
The "Cuntus" who is mentioned (two centuries later) in the early (and
noticeably legendary) part of the history of the counts of Guînes by
Lambert of Ardres is likely to have been a distorted memory of king
Cnut of York, a king ruling ca. 900 who minted coins at both York and
Quentovic (only a few miles from Guînes) and was himself contemporary
to another king of York named Sigfred (not to be confused with Sifred
of Guînes). Even though there is a good possibility that Lambert's
"Cuntus" is a vague legend based on this Cnut, it is difficult to
regard Lambert's legendary account of "Cuntus" as genuine history.
Since Adam states that Hardegon "veniens a Nortmannia", and Cnut of
York is clearly documented with a Quentovic connection, I would regard
the possibility that Hardegon and Cnut of York were the same man as a
plausible conjecture (interpreting "Nortmannia" as Normandy rather
than Norway, as some do), but still no more than a conjecture, which
would still depend heavily on the extent to which the names Cnut and
Hardecnut (and Hardegon) can be regarded as variants of the same name.
Stewart Baldwin