Cerdic Of WESSEX
zglorg
i found a website with a line back to 80 ad from a regio called ASBARD
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Can we trace back the ancestors of CERDIC OF WESSEX
> i found a website with a line back to 80 ad from a regio called ASBARD
There is an article by Sisam (I don't have the citation handy, but I am
sure it is in the archives) which demonstrates that the ancestry of
Cerdic is a mixture of confusion with the pedigree of another kingdom,
and outright invention. Cerdic should be considered of unknown
parentage.
taf
Luke Stevens
> am sure it is in the archives) which demonstrates that the ancestry of
> Cerdic is a mixture of confusion with the pedigree of another kingdom,
> and outright invention. Cerdic should be considered of unknown
> parentage.
Kenneth Sisam, "Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies", _Proceedings of the
British Academy_, vol. 39 (1953), pp. 287-346. (thanks to Stewart
Baldwin for pointing this out to me long ago.)
Sisam proposes a clever and plausible theory that part of the genealogy
of Ida of Bernicia was accidentally transferred to Cerdic, who
immediately follows in the chronicles, and then was expanded and
polished to fit alliterative verse until reaching the final form we
have. (It is just a theory, and though I view it favorably, it lacks
definite evidence. It is not right for those who cling to doubts about
Egbert's descent from Cerdic to say that Sisam has disproven Cerdic's
alleged ancestry).
Luke Stevens
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> It is not right for those who cling to doubts about
> Egbert's descent from Cerdic to say that Sisam has disproven Cerdic's
> alleged ancestry).
Short of finding a contemporary document by Cerdic naming other parent,
what more do you need? It is my opinion that Sisam has raised
sufficient doubt concerning so many points in the ancestry as to render
it disproven by any reasonable standard. (As to linking this to the
issue of Egbert's ancestry, the two are entirely independent questions.)
taf
Craig Partridge
>Sisam proposes a clever and plausible theory that part of the genealogy
>of Ida of Bernicia was accidentally transferred to Cerdic, who
>immediately follows in the chronicles, and then was expanded and
>polished to fit alliterative verse until reaching the final form we
>have. (It is just a theory, and though I view it favorably, it lacks
>definite evidence. It is not right for those who cling to doubts about
>Egbert's descent from Cerdic to say that Sisam has disproven Cerdic's
>alleged ancestry).
I'd agree Sisam didn't say all that he could but I think he pretty much
put the issue to bed.
There are multiple forms of Cerdic's ancestry. Sisam showed how the
ancestry developed and added generations over time. He showed that the
initial version met certain requirements for verse and pointed out the
implausibility that family members would manage to name each child
such that the verse would work so well. He also showed how later
versions, which added generations, did so for various mythologizing
reasons.
One point Sisam didn't make was that beyond form, the first version of
Cerdic's ancestry that we have was designed to show that Ine was 14
generations from Woden. So the ancestry is clearly manipulated to
achieve a particular length, and from Cerdic back, to achieve certain
requirements of verse...
Craig Partridge
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/5/1999 10:10:16 AM, cra...@world.std.com writes:
<<One point Sisam didn't make was that beyond form, the first version of
Cerdic's ancestry that we have was designed to show that Ine was 14
generations from Woden. So the ancestry is clearly manipulated to
achieve a particular length, and from Cerdic back, to achieve certain
requirements of verse...>>
These kinds of generational links of 7, 14 , 28, 42. and 56 were believed to
be harmonic links. Most of this came from the biblical genealogy of Jesus
which was shown to be in harmonic links of 14 generations. See the
PLANTANEGENT CONNECTION April 1997. Also, David Howlett's recent work on
biblical style shows how the prose and poetry were encoded in the original
documents with harmonic values--so many syllables, so many words, before a
reccuring theme was discovered.
Geneaologically, this came from 1. Abraham to 14. David was 14 generations.
From David's son 15. Solomon to 28 Jechoniaw (and brothers that were carried
away to Babyon) is another fourteen generations. From 29 to 41-- Jesus --was
supposed to be another 14 generations, but a name seems to be missing in
Matthew's acccount, as Jesus should have been 42. Mathew says that he was,
but evidently miscounted or lost a name. "So all the generations from
Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying
away into Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the carrying away from
Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.” (Matthew 1:17)
Mark shows a different lineage but has Jesus occurring at generation 56,
still in harmonic ratio to and divisible by 7 and 14.
-Ken
John Yohalem
--
John Yohalem
ench...@herodotus.com
KHF...@aol.com wrote in message <671ed140...@aol.com>...
>>Mark shows a different lineage but has Jesus occurring at generation 56,
>still in harmonic ratio to and divisible by 7 and 14.
I believe you mean Luke. Mark doesn't mention a genealogy.
Obviously both Luke and Matthew made their trees up, as they made up so much
else.
One question no one has treated here is the question of why Cerdic, the
Saxon (or whatever) pirate and conqueror, has a Celtic name.
Of course, there is no "historical" answer to that. But one theory I rather
like (because I grew up on her books) is Rosemary Sutcliffe's suggestion, in
"The Lantern Bearers" and "Sword at Sunset" (the finest of all Arthur
novels), that he was the son of Vortigern, Celtic High King of Britain, and
Rowena, daughter of Hengist, first King of Kent. This would give him claims
on the loyalties of both sides. Cute, huh?
Not a shred of evidence for it but his name. And we know how little that
means.
Jean Coeur de Lapin
Luke Stevens
> From 29 to 41-- Jesus --was supposed to be another 14 generations, but
> a name seems to be missing in Matthew's acccount, as Jesus should have
> been 42. Mathew says that he was, but evidently miscounted or lost a
> name.
The usual opinion is that the correct reading, as attested in a few
early MSS, as well as the Old Testament, is that Josiah was father of
*Jehoiakim* father of Jechoniah. That makes 14, but then only because
three kings have been "blotted out", whether for their wickedness or to
fit the scheme. (Hey, royal counts as medieval, right?)
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
> Short of finding a contemporary document by Cerdic naming other
> parent, what more do you need? It is my opinion that Sisam has raised
> sufficient doubt concerning so many points in the ancestry as to
> render it disproven by any reasonable standard.
Don't get me wrong, all I meant was that too much doubt was raised
for us to continue to accept Cerdic's ancestry, but that no such
contemporary document naming another father is known. That means Sisam
has done his job as genealogical defendant in establishing reasonable
doubt, but not a job as prosecutor in proving the lineage definitely
false. Nor does anyone really expect or demand the latter, though as I
understand the term, that is precisely what is needed to "disprove".
What then do we call it when reasonable doubt is cast on a formerly
accepted fact? I guess we just say disprove and remain ambiguous.
Luke Stevens
Craig Partridge
>Not a shred of evidence for it but his name. And we know how little that
>means.
I think Cerdic's name tells us a lot. It strongly suggests he's real.
And it says we must look for some Celtic link -- could be a Saxon-Celtic
union -- or it could reflect longer Celtic dominance in Wessex than once
thought (see, for instance, Snyder, "Age of Tyrants", which has a subtheme
of longer British rule in many areas than once believed).
Unfortunately, it doesn't tell us Cerdic's genealogy! (Oh well).
Craig
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/5/1999 6:32:30 PM, ench...@herodotus.com writes:
<<Obviously both Luke and Matthew made their trees up, as they made up so much
else.>>
Much of this came from Hebrew traditions. It is not for me to make this
judgment. I am happy for you that you can judge it so quickly. Life is
intrinsically simple, eh?
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor/ Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
_____________________HT COMMUNICATIONS____________________
PO Box 1401 Arvada, CO 80001 USA
Voice: 303-420-4888 Fax: 303-420-4845 e-mail: K...@AOL.com
Homepage: http://members.aol.com/TPConnect/Page2.html
Associated with: Thompson Starr International
[Films ... Representation ... Publishing ... Marketing]
Stewart Baldwin
>Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
>> Short of finding a contemporary document by Cerdic naming other
>> parent, what more do you need? It is my opinion that Sisam has raised
>> sufficient doubt concerning so many points in the ancestry as to
>> render it disproven by any reasonable standard.
>Don't get me wrong, all I meant was that too much doubt was raised
>for us to continue to accept Cerdic's ancestry, but that no such
>contemporary document naming another father is known. That means Sisam
>has done his job as genealogical defendant in establishing reasonable
>doubt, but not a job as prosecutor in proving the lineage definitely
>false. Nor does anyone really expect or demand the latter, though as I
>understand the term, that is precisely what is needed to "disprove".
>What then do we call it when reasonable doubt is cast on a formerly
>accepted fact? I guess we just say disprove and remain ambiguous.
I think you are vastly unterestimating the strength of Sisam's
argument. In my opinion, Sisam has shown Cerdic's "traditional"
genealogy to be false beyond any reasonable doubt. Manuscripts exist
showing stages of the falsification process, and Sisam's demonstration
that names (including that of Cerdic's father) in the earliest known
version of Cerdic's pedigree were borrowed from the Bernician pedigree
is clear and straightforward. The conjectural part of Sisam's
argument is his suggestion as to how this borrwing took place, when
(if his conjecture is correct) part of the genealogy of Ida in an
early version of the the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle slipped over to the
next entry (which mentioned Cynric), and was later misinterpreted as
belonging to the West-Saxons instead of the Bernicians. While Sisam's
suggestion regarding the EXACT WAY in which the original borrowing
took place must remain a conjecure unless supporting manuscript
evidence is found, it does not affect Sisam's clearcut evidence that
such a borrowing did in fact take place. In fact, his presentation of
a very plausible (albeit conjectural) scenario simply adds further
weight to an already compelling case.
It should be emphasized that Sisam's arguments did not apply to the
part of the other Anglo-Saxon pedigrees (Bernician, Deiran, Mercian,
etc.) which lies immediately before the historical period. While it
is certainly true that "reasonable doubt" exists regarding their
reliability, nobody that I am aware of is claiming that such
individuals as Oesa in the Bernician pedigree or Soemil in the Deiran
pedigree have been proven to be fabrications, and evidence for the
existence of both of these individuals which is at least plausible (if
less than compelling) can be presented.
Stewart Baldwin
Luke Stevens
> argument. In my opinion, Sisam has shown Cerdic's "traditional"
> genealogy to be false beyond any reasonable doubt. Manuscripts exist
> showing stages of the falsification process, and Sisam's demonstration
> that names (including that of Cerdic's father) in the earliest known
> version of Cerdic's pedigree were borrowed from the Bernician pedigree
> is clear and straightforward.
It is a little surprising to me that someone who was once so reluctant
to accept two straightforward emendations of the Ban Senchus and even
the explicitly recorded descent of Egbert from Cerdic would rush to
embrace a theory based on second-guessing the errors and manipulations
of anonymous scribes. Maybe it's just my opinion, but I'm a reasonable
man and after reading the article I still had doubts.
After pointing out a few features of the traditional genealogy that are
a little suspicious (but hardly impossible), Sisam shows the pedigree of
Ida and the shorter pedigree of Cerdic and states his theory that the
latter was derived from the former and was expanded into the longer
usual version, with more theories on how and why this might have
happened. No proof at all is offered that it actually did. The entirety
of the evidence and the intermediate stages of falsification you mention
is one recension of Cerdic's pedigree (two counting minor spelling
variations) extant in three manuscripts. And in this shorter pedigree of
Cerdic (Cerdic-Aluca-Giwis-Brand...) there is only one name that could
be said to match Ida's pedigree (...Angenwit-Aloc-Benoc-Brand...) before
the two join at Brand (one of the aforementioned suspicious features).
Not only is this quite lacking in solid proof, it is not very
straightforward either. A series of scribes would have to transfer the
tail of Ida's pedigree to Cerdic, mischeivously replace Bernic with
the obsolescent eponym Giwis (at which point extant copies are made),
make a doublet of Elesa, insert the legendary Wig son of Freawine, and
finally fill in Frithogar purely for the sake of alliteration (at which
point the final form is fixed).
If I knew enough about the matter to play devil's advocate, I might
suggest the far simpler explanation that the longer pedigree reflects an
authentic original from which the shorter one was derived through
scribal corruption. Or I might even venture to suggest that Sisam is
mostly correct but that Cerdic - Alusa - Giwis is authentic, the
progenitor traced to an eponym as usual, and that only the portion from
Brand onward was transferred (which could go a ways to explaining the
extra three names right there in the longer pedigree). These are real
possibilities that have not been refuted, as far as I see.
As I said, it is a good theory, quite possibly even a correct one.
It just isn't proven, IMHO.
Luke Stevens
Stewart Baldwin
>> I think you are vastly unterestimating the strength of Sisam's
>> argument. In my opinion, Sisam has shown Cerdic's "traditional"
>> genealogy to be false beyond any reasonable doubt. Manuscripts exist
>> showing stages of the falsification process, and Sisam's demonstration
>> that names (including that of Cerdic's father) in the earliest known
>> version of Cerdic's pedigree were borrowed from the Bernician pedigree
>> is clear and straightforward.
>It is a little surprising to me that someone who was once so reluctant
>to accept two straightforward emendations of the Ban Senchus and even
>the explicitly recorded descent of Egbert from Cerdic would rush to
>embrace a theory based on second-guessing the errors and manipulations
>of anonymous scribes. Maybe it's just my opinion, but I'm a reasonable
>man and after reading the article I still had doubts.
I'm not sure what previous postings on the Ban Shenchus have to do
with this matter, but if I am recalling the right thread, my opinion
was that the emendation in question was anything but straightforward,
for reasons which I had explained in detail in that thread. Your
statement about my position on the genealogy of Egbert from Cerdic
puzzles me, and makes me wonder if you are confusing my position with
that of someone else. There was a recent long (some would probably
say too long) thread regarding Egbert's ancestry, specifically those
generations from Egbert to Ingild, brother of Ine, but I was actively
defending the traditional genealogy in that thread, and it was others
who were suggesting that the connection between Egbert and Ine was
fabricated.
>After pointing out a few features of the traditional genealogy that are
>a little suspicious (but hardly impossible), Sisam shows the pedigree of
>Ida and the shorter pedigree of Cerdic and states his theory that the
>latter was derived from the former and was expanded into the longer
>usual version, with more theories on how and why this might have
>happened. No proof at all is offered that it actually did. The entirety
>of the evidence and the intermediate stages of falsification you mention
>is one recension of Cerdic's pedigree (two counting minor spelling
>variations) extant in three manuscripts. And in this shorter pedigree of
>Cerdic (Cerdic-Aluca-Giwis-Brand...) there is only one name that could
>be said to match Ida's pedigree (...Angenwit-Aloc-Benoc-Brand...) before
>the two join at Brand (one of the aforementioned suspicious features).
>Not only is this quite lacking in solid proof, it is not very
>straightforward either. A series of scribes would have to transfer the
>tail of Ida's pedigree to Cerdic, mischeivously replace Bernic with
>the obsolescent eponym Giwis (at which point extant copies are made),
>make a doublet of Elesa, insert the legendary Wig son of Freawine, and
>finally fill in Frithogar purely for the sake of alliteration (at which
>point the final form is fixed).
>If I knew enough about the matter to play devil's advocate, I might
>suggest the far simpler explanation that the longer pedigree reflects an
>authentic original from which the shorter one was derived through
>scribal corruption.
That's not the simple scenario, its the complicated one. The short
form is in the earlier manuscripts, and there are no natural
explanations (such as the eye skipping to an identical word) which
would explain the pattern of the "omissions" (if that is what they
were).
>Or I might even venture to suggest that Sisam is
>mostly correct but that Cerdic - Alusa - Giwis is authentic, the
>progenitor traced to an eponym as usual, and that only the portion from
>Brand onward was transferred (which could go a ways to explaining the
>extra three names right there in the longer pedigree). These are real
>possibilities that have not been refuted, as far as I see.
>As I said, it is a good theory, quite possibly even a correct one.
>It just isn't proven, IMHO.
>Luke Stevens
Since it has been a few years since I read Sisam's article in full, I
read it again today, and my opinion hasn't changed. I agree that
Sisam hasn't proven EVERY DETAIL of how Cerdic's pedigree came about,
but he did not need to (nor did he claim to). I should also point out
that I am far from being alone in believing that Sisam has made his
case, and you should hardly call it "surprising" that I hold the same
opinion that is held by many others. If there are any references to
the scholarly literature casting doubt on his arguments that Cerdic's
genealogy is fictional which have appeared in the more than forty
years since the article first appeared, I would be interested in
having the reference, as I am aware of no such article.
Stewart Baldwin