DFA is this line possible
jl
Chris Phillips
I'm sure there are others much better qualified to reply than I am, but by
coincidence I've been re-reading Leslie Alcock's "Arthur's Britain"
(originally published 1971, and reprinted with a supplementary bibliography
1989).
Alcock seems to me to be pretty cautious about all things 5th-century, but
judging from the supplement, his academic colleagues have found him to be,
if anything, too credulous. At any rate, it's clear that the evidence about
Vortigern - and certainly the genealogical evidence - comes from centuries
later, and must be weighed very carefully before being accepted.
Some more critical material, including an article entitled "Troubles with
Vortigerns", can be found on David Nash Ford's section on "Early British
Kingdoms", on the Britannia.com website:
http://www.britannia.com/history/ebk/index.html
Chris Phillips
Nathaniel Taylor
"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote:
> Some more critical material, including an article entitled "Troubles with
> Vortigerns", can be found on David Nash Ford's section on "Early British
> Kingdoms", on the Britannia.com website:
> http://www.britannia.com/history/ebk/index.html
Fascinating. Lots of thoughtful stuff here, though not all of it is to
a uniformly high standard. The standalone genealogies are mere
printouts from a genealogical db program, though many of the historical
articles offer good introductions to the genealogies as given in
specific medieval sources (though without critical editions cited). The
whole 'Early British Kingdoms' site is accessible in standalone form at:
http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/
Note that the 'Trouble with Vortigerns' article is by someone else,
David H. R. Sims.
Nat Taylor
Nathaniel Taylor
> The 'Early British Kingdoms' site is accessible in standalone form at:
>
> http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/
I am new to this stuff, and just looked over the 'Vortigern Studies'
website:
http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/vortigernhomepage.htm
Are they essentially competitors, Ford and Vermaat (authors of these two
sites)? Both have a good amount of information (non-genealogical as
well as genealogical), and it would be interesting to see how and
whether they diverge in their coverage of the same material. I'd be
especially interested to hear an opinion on their treatment of
genealogical material from people (like Stewart Baldwin), who have
studied the extant primary sources and are familiar with scholarly
treatments of them.
Remember, the specific question which opened this thread was "is this
[the speculative Vortigern pedigree on the 'Vortigern Studies' site]
possible?" It is often impossible to prove that a particular proposed
DFA is *impossible*, but it is more useful to assess its plausibility,
or how logically it seems to grow from inference in the original
sources. What seems to be taken for granted in this site is the descent
of some later Welsh dynasties from the Vortigern in question. This may
not be a very responsible foundation for the speculations on that page.
Stewart, what is your take?
Nat Taylor
Kelsey J. Williams
Hello,
The Roman section of the chart is okay but the British section is
based upon unreliable late sources and probably does not reflect the
truth. You might check the archives as I believe there have been
discussions about the historical accuracy of Geoffrey of Monmouth, the
early Welsh pedigrees and the first sections of the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle before.
Sincerely,
Kelsey J. Williams
~Ford~
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nathani...@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, 13 March, 2004 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: DFA is this line possible
> I wrote:
>
> > The 'Early British Kingdoms' site is accessible in standalone form at:
> >
> > http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/
>
> I am new to this stuff, and just looked over the 'Vortigern Studies'
> website:
>
> http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/vortigernhomepage.htm
>
> Are they essentially competitors, Ford and Vermaat (authors of these two
> sites)?
I would point out, here, that the 'Ford' cited is a surname. I should hate
to have some of my intractable detractors dismiss the site simply because
they assume that it is mine. It would be equally wrong for one to gobble up
this information based on the same false assumption. Furthermore, I don't
want the blame for its errors; nor should I take credit for any magnificence
therein. I haven't yet seen the site to assess which concern would be more
valid.
Respectfully,
Ford
david hughes
I am new to this stuff, and just looked over the 'Vortigern Studies'
website:
my reply:
why are you commenting on it then?; you seem to have a lot to say
about everything, especially things you admittedly know nothing about;
exactly why is that anyway?
DH
jl
and as for the little roman line i submitted frmon Mr Ford
?
what are the possibilities ?
jl
"david hughes" <Rdavi...@Aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:c57e4f24.04031...@posting.google.com...
Robert
Forgive me for budding in, but your interest in my website gave your
discussion away.
Kelsey, you analysis is correct up to a point. Actually, the Roman
part is OK but for the link between Magnus Maximus and Flavius
Crispus. This is pure speculation, which I nonetheless used because of
all the women called Fausta.
About the British section, as I wrote in the very first note: "This
genealogy is compiled of both historical and semi-legendary sources.
The Roman part is almost completely attested in historical sources,
the British part is mostly based on non-contemporary works, such as
the Historia Brittonum, Welsh dynastic lists (e.g. the Pillar of
Elise, the Bonedd y Saint, the Harleian and Jesus College MSS), or the
histories of Tysilio and Geoffrey of Monmouth."
Having said that, I would not define the pedigrees as 'late', for they
are in fact early medieval. Not contemporary - sure, untrustworthy -
absolutely, but in a postulated genealogy, usable. I have by no means
used them in an uncritical manner, I might add.
Cheers,
Robert Vermaat
Editor, Vortigern Studies.
Peter Stewart
Taking Nat's disclaimer out of context in order to misrepresent his post
is unconscionably foolish - the statement went on, "I'd be
especially interested to hear an opinion on their treatment of
genealogical material from people (like Stewart Baldwin), who have
studied the extant primary sources and are familiar with scholarly
treatments of them".
Nat has an immense knowledge, and the faculites to get more quickly on
any matter of interest. On such a question there is no more sensible way
to begin for SGM members than to ask for Stewart Baldwin's expert opinion.
Most of us are grateful that these gentlemen are ready to share their
views, and gratuitous insults tell us more about the person behind them
than the target.
Peter Stewart
david hughes
agree, but not on everything as you flippantly would make him out to
be; and, the samething can be said of Stewart Baldwin who is an expert
on nothing except deceiving you and others into thinking that he is.
The reason I say these things is that I also have studied the extant
primary sources and am very familiar with the scholarly treatments of
them and unlike you know what I am talking about, otherwise I would
not put myself in the line of fire. You wrote that "Most of us" [who
are you referring to?] are grateful that these gentlemen [you mean
egocentric academics] are ready to share their [worthless] views, and
gratuitous insults [not "insults", but "facts"] tell us more about the
person behind them than the target [oh, that's the nerve I expected to
rub, but not from you; in any case you have shown what you are all
about!]. Pet, your nickname wasn't "HomeBrew" in college, was it?; if
so, contact me, this is "Business"!
Kelsey J. Williams
Thanks for your reponse. My specific concerns with the genealogy are
as follows:
1) Hengist & Company
I think it is overly optimistic to include Hengist and Horsa as
historical (or even semi-historical) personages. They fit the
standard "two brothers" foundation legend and they have alliterative
names meaning "horse" and "mare." All of these suggest to me that
they are mythical beings rather than historical war leaders. Also
note that although Bede includes the story of Hengist and Horsa he
also mentions that Oeric, known as Oisc, the supposed son of Hengist,
gave to the Kings of Kent the name "Oiscingas." If Hengist were the
founder of this family why does the family take its name from his son?
I would interpret this as meaning that Oisc was originally the
earliest member of the pedigree and that the H & H foundation legend
was added at a later time.
2) Rowena
I am very doubtful of Rowena's historicity. She appears nowhere in
Bede or the ASC and makes her first appearance as the unnamed daughter
of Hengist in Nennius' _Historia Brittonum_, a work which dates from
the 8th century. She only appears as "Rowena" in Geoffrey of
Monmouth's work written about seven hundred years after she supposedly
lived. We don't really know enough about Geoffrey's source material
to suppose that he had an independent source for his "Rowena" so
essentially our only _reliable_ source for her is Nennius who is far
from being a reliable historian. I think that unless there are other,
independent identifications of "Rowena" I would not consider her as a
proven historical figure.
3) Vortigern's Issue
Here I think you may be on more solid ground than with the Kentish
group but I would still suggest more caution in presenting these sons.
All of the sources describing them are separated by at least two
hundred years from the period of their lives and it's always possible
that Vortigern could have occupied a similar place in some Celtic
pedigrees to that of Woden in Anglo-Saxon pedigrees (this is just a
thought, it may be baseless).
These are my main concerns with this genealogy. I'd be interested in
your opinions concerning these problems.
Sincerely,
Kelsey J. Williams
webm...@vortigernstudies.org.uk (Robert) wrote in message news:<2faa9da5.04031...@posting.google.com>...
Todd A. Farmerie
> Hello,
>
> Thanks for your reponse. My specific concerns with the genealogy are
> as follows:
>
> 1) Hengist & Company
>
> I think it is overly optimistic to include Hengist and Horsa as
> historical (or even semi-historical) personages. They fit the
> standard "two brothers" foundation legend and they have alliterative
> names meaning "horse" and "mare." All of these suggest to me that
> they are mythical beings rather than historical war leaders. Also
> note that although Bede includes the story of Hengist and Horsa he
> also mentions that Oeric, known as Oisc, the supposed son of Hengist,
> gave to the Kings of Kent the name "Oiscingas." If Hengist were the
> founder of this family why does the family take its name from his son?
> I would interpret this as meaning that Oisc was originally the
> earliest member of the pedigree and that the H & H foundation legend
> was added at a later time.
It is perhaps worth noting that Hengist is a central figure in an
Anglo-Saxon epic poem, which unfortunately only survives as a
couple of pages of the original and as a summary found within
Beowulf. There are numerous examples of heros being taken out of
their original context and imposed into the royal genealogies, so
this is a possible origin for Hengist's placement above Oisc.
taf
marshall kirk
> gratuitous insults tell us more about the person behind them
> than the target.
They certainly do.
Peter Stewart
Failure to read & comprehend the word "gratuitous" is telling too.
Peter Stewart
Stewart Baldwin
<nathani...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> The 'Early British Kingdoms' site is accessible in standalone form at:
>>
>> http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/
>
>I am new to this stuff, and just looked over the 'Vortigern Studies'
>website:
>
>http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/vortigernhomepage.htm
>
>Are they essentially competitors, Ford and Vermaat (authors of these two
>sites)? Both have a good amount of information (non-genealogical as
>well as genealogical), and it would be interesting to see how and
>whether they diverge in their coverage of the same material. I'd be
>especially interested to hear an opinion on their treatment of
>genealogical material from people (like Stewart Baldwin), who have
>studied the extant primary sources and are familiar with scholarly
>treatments of them.
In my opinion, the "Early British Kingdoms" site is very unreliable.
The lists of kings and genealogies appearing there take the basic
sources of vastly different reliability and throw them together
without any apparent regard for reliability, trying to smoothe over
all of the inconsistencies as well as possible, and including numerous
pseudohistorical individuals.
I found the "Trouble with Vortigerns" article by David H. R. Sims that
was mentioned elsewhere in this thread to be totally unconvincing, by
an author who is evidently unfamiliar with the basic literature,
judging from the bibliography, which includes a number of popular
Arthur books but not a single journal article from the scholarly
literature. (How can one discuss the sources of Historia Brittonum,
as this author does, without citing David Dumville's important work on
the subject?)
The "Vortigern Studies" site is somewhat better, including, for
example, a thorough bibliography, but still places far too much
reliance on unreliable late sources, for example, Geoffrey of
Monmouth, whose work is so heavily overlaid with fiction and
deliberate fabrications that it is absolutely worthless as a
genealogical and historical source. The genealogical table that
started this thread does include some qualifications that will tell
the alert reader that the table does not consist of historically
proven relationships, but I fail to see the use of a table that
contains what amounts to little more than pure guesses (e.g., the
suggested parentage of Magnus Maximus).
With regard to the more general subject of a supposed DFA from Magnus
Maximus via Vortigern, I would regard it as too implausible to take
seriously, for the following reasons:
1. There is no good reason to believe that Vortigern was a son-in-law
of Magnus Maximus. This claim does appear on the Pillar of Eliseg
(ninth century), but it was quite common political propoganda for
these dynasties to claim descent from Magnus Maximus.
2. The descent of later historical kings from Vortigern is dubious.
The genealogies of the kings of Powys are so contradictory among one
another (some derive the dynasty from Vortigern, some do not) that
their exact line of descent is unclear, and the key marriage between
the dynasties of Powys and Gwynedd that would allow a link to later
times is based on a link in the Jesus College pedigrees that has been
seriously questioned. The genealogy of the kings of Buellt and
Gwrtheyrnion from Vortigern that appears in Historia Brittonum (ca.
400 years after Vortigern) is at least plausible (but unverifiable),
but the link to later times depends on the same Jesus College
genealogies (which introduce so many convenient marriages that they
smack of invention).
Stewart Baldwin
Peter Stewart
It seems that David Hughes and I have something in common after all -
neither of us has a clue what he is talking about.
He doesn't know me, I was never at any college that would admit him in
the first place, I've never been called "HomeBrew", and I'm not now
known as "Pet".
Stewart Baldwin, of course, has never attempted to deceive anyone in
this newsgroup, and his true expertise is plain for all to see. His
views are soundly based on primary sources and the logical analysis of
evidence. He is far too sensible, for instance, to trawl the internet
for unsourced information, take everything found all at an equal and
untested value, and then post an itemised list of crack-pot conjectures
resulting from this exercise in futility. Hughes, on the other hand, has
done just that with his "African gateway" farrago.
African blood certainly came into the Russian nobility through the
famous military engineer Hannibal - an interesting sidelight on his
origins can be found at
http://shaebia.org/wwwboard/contributedarticles/messages/58.html
Peter Stewart
david hughes
> marshall kirk wrote:
> > Peter Stewart <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<rNO4c.102310$Wa.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> >
> >>gratuitous insults tell us more about the person behind them
> >>than the target.
They certainly do, and in your case Peter Stewart it is all too clear
what sort of person you really are.
your remarks Peter Stewart are NOT those of an intellect, but those of
a callous, hardened, and arrogant egotist, that reveal "hate" in your
heart; what ugliness must reside in your distorted, twisted, and
warped soul?; your opinion is of no consequence to me nor worthy of
any consideration; indeed, I find it disgusting to even respond to
your witless criticism of me; what an insufferable dullard you must be
Merilyn Pedrick
Oh - for God's sake - give it a rest David!! There is a personality defect
in someone who always wants to be right!
Merilyn Pedrick
-------Original Message-------
From: david hughes
Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 14:00:21
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: DFA is this line possible
Peter Stewart <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<GB45c.103531$Wa
36...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> marshall kirk wrote:
> > Peter Stewart <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<rNO4c
marshall kirk
"gratuitous" since I was a wee tyke; and I stand by my remark -- to
which I'll add only the observation that the sort of language I'm
talking about enhances nobody's credibility.
Peter Stewart <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<GB45c.103531$Wa.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
Peter Stewart
> I read very well, thank you; I've known the meaning of the word
> "gratuitous" since I was a wee tyke; and I stand by my remark -- to
> which I'll add only the observation that the sort of language I'm
> talking about enhances nobody's credibility.
And yet this is somehow meant to enhance your own credibility?
Calling an insult "gratuitous" means that it is unprovoked. A few, most
notably Robert Todd and Douglas Richardson, busily provoke such
responses by imposing on people who come to this newsgroup in good faith
seeking help. Todd & Richardson deserve whatever invective comes their
way, by pretending to knowledge and expertise that they do not possess.
The remedy is simple: they can privatley take the trouble to learn
first, and then behave as respectable colleagues in the pursuit of
information. So far neither of them shows the slightest inclination to
try this.
Others achieve the insults directed at them by means of pompous and
fatuous remarks, on subjects about which they may know something but
understand precious little.
A third group, with David Hughes now leading the charge in Annie's
absence, take a more violent approach to the sharing of their ignorance.
Fit yourself in wherever you please, Mr Kirk.
I don't insult anyone who hasn't worked hard to deserve it - the record
is quite clear if you wish to check. Over some years I have made as many
polite and detailed posts in reply to queries as anyone else on SGM. I
am not not indiscriminate in saying what I think; and it is not the
result of a personality defect that can be usefully psycho-analysed by
Phil Moody.
Peter Stewart
all...@pacbell.net
Dear Mr. Brandon,
Did Todd or Don die and leave an arbitership to you?
Statement of fact, if true, is not a gratuitous insult. It might not even
be gratuitous. It might not even be an insult.
I would be amazed if after almost 40 years of doing genealogy, I didn't
know something that someone else just found out. Jerry Anderson has told me
so several times when I thought that something was common knowledge, but it
wasn't.
Frankly, I find your post to be a gratituitous, obnoxious, arrogant post.
Since when is expressing one's opinion a problem.
As to being a scold, you are the first one to intimate that I was headed in
that direction. So If I am, I assure you that I am never "common". I
always try to do things with subtlety, elan, and panache.
Best wishes,
K
Original Message:
-----------------
From: starb...@hotmail.com (John Brandon)
Date: 17 Mar 2004 07:53:21 -0800
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: DFA is this line possible
Everyone is aware of the meaning of "gratuitous insult." "I've known
about it for some time now," to paraphrase Mrs. Blanche Devereux.
Don't let yourself degenerate into the "common scold" of the newsgroup
...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Peter Stewart
others) based on the extrememly silly notion that criticism is justified
not by what it may be aimed at, but only by the what else the critic may
have done in the past.
According to this, one must have done work similar and at least equal to
that of the object of criticism in order to have the right to point out
errors and inadequacies. So only people who have published work directly
comparable to Douglas Richardson's, for instance, may fairly take issue
with his approach and methodology - no matter how much any of his work
was revised by editors or improved by plagiarism.
This theory would see a very quiet election period ahead for the USA, if
only former Presidents could fairly criticise Bush and only
ex-candidates could express a valid opinion of Kerrey. Public life would
be reduced to imbecility, of course, and then Mr Brandon and his fellow
critics of critics would feel right at home.
Meanwhile he still has nothing to say on the substance of the issues
about Richardson's work.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
> [SIGH.]
What a welcome economy of witlessness - it took John Brandon just two
words in two posts to finish off any credibility he might have had, and
any claims on the attention of intelligent SGM readers in future.
I do hope Robert "Fitznonsense" Todd is taking note of how quickly &
simply this can be achieved.
It's only a pity that the slightest twinge of offense may have been
caused to Kay Allen. She is, of course, one of the best & brightest of
SGM contributors, and her unfailing panache is always much appreciated here.
Peter Stewart