Cunobelinus and Caractacus
KHF...@aol.com
more comment, but since the conclusions are purely speculative, I assume no
one wants to go out on a limb to express an opinion. I proceed to the end of
the limb and begin sawing.
-Kenneth Harper Finton
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
In a message dated 12/19/98 3:50:59 PM, ch...@cjpl.demon.co.uk writes:
Teuhant (Tasciovanus, late 1st cen. BC or early 1st cen. AD)
|
Cinbelin (Cunobelinus, d. ca. 42 AD)
|
Caratauc (Caractacus, taken to Rome in captivity, 51 AD)
____________________________________________________
The entire post has had me thinking for several days.
I think it's a great theory about this genealogy ... the missing books of
Tacitus on the Claudian invasion ... hmmm. I wonder to what detail Tacitus
would have written? In his other works that have come to us, he details
customs and some genealogy and mythology. Would Tacitus have included the
history of the kings of Britain as recorded by Geoffrey of Monmouth, had he
known of them? Would there be more information on the early Christians? We
do not know, of course, but should this fragment of genealogy be attributed
(speculatively) to Tacitus lost books, a rainbow of possibilities on early
oral information could be colored by the missing sun of Tacitus' missing
works.
But I have some questions.
<<Dio wrote in Greek, so was unknown in dark age and medieval Britain. >>
Are we absolutely sure that their were no scholars who spoke and read Greek in
medieval Europe? One of the reason why the term 'dark ages' has fallen into
disrepute is because there were ambitions, serious, and scattered pockets of
brilliant scholars all through this period.
<<The script used there derived from that in use in Britain, and Boniface and
his pupils are known to have imported books from Britain to Germany. It is
extremely likely therefore that what we have of Tacitus derives ultimately
from a manuscript preserved in Britain, and taken or copied to Germany in the
8th or 9th century. If it
contained the complete text of the Annals, this manuscript could well be the
ultimate source of this fragment of genealogy. Does the linguistic evidence
support this?>>
Are you asking if the linguistic evidence in these Harleian Genealogies can
support the supposition that the missing portions of Tacitus works actually
survived in Britain or Germany until the ninth century? It is a tall order.
If Tacitus' lost books were known even until the 7th or 8th century -- and
then disappeared -- it is logical that more that even this genealogy could
have come from this lost source.
Additionally, I have been pursuing a project for years that seeks information
about Claudia the painted Briton mentioned in Martial's poems and her
identification with Claudia and Pudens as recorded in the bible. The search
has taken a lot of pages and was printed in 1993. The interesting thing here
is that it is speculated that Caractacus had a daughter Claudia--named after
Claudius--and that she is one of the candidates for being the Claudia of the
early Roman congregation. Another contender is a supposed daughter of
Cogidubnus, the British king who administrated under the Roman authority who
is also known to us through Tacitus 14. A few scholars deny the need for
Claudia the painted Briton of Martial's poems to be anything other than a
freeman, not necessarily the daughter of a king, but this makes absolutely no
sense to me, as Martial recorded that she was versed in Greek and Latin and
had the manners of a Roman. Also, her name, Claudia, seems to me to restrict
her to the higher classes of Roman society, more in keeping with the daughter
of a British king like Cogidubnus or a daughter of Caractacus who grew up in
the Roman courts. Martial was a court poet.
It was Wurts, I believe, who made Caractacus a converted Christian after his
imprisonment in Rome. Since Wurts cannot be trusted and gave no sources, I
had previously dismissed this possibility. However, Caractacus in Rome could
have learned of Christian teachings from the same person that taught the
conqueror of Britain's wife. Plautius, the conqueror of Britain and right
hand man of Claudius,
had a Christian wife who was tried for her beliefs by her husband upon
pressure from the court and then confined by him to her home for the rest of
her life. Someone of the stature of Caractacus and his family could have also
had access to same teacher as Pomponia, wife of Plautius.
-KHF
For those who may have lost the original post, it is repeated below:
In a message dated 12/19/98 3:50:59 PM, ch...@cjpl.demon.co.uk writes:
<<The first reaction is to doubt the identification of the names Teuhant
and Tasciovanus. It is very difficult to see why the -asc- combination
in this word should produce something so different from the well
attested equivalence Pascentius - Pasgen. And where has the "t" at the
end come from?
But I see that Bartrum accepts it (A Welsh Classical Dictionary, sv
Tasciovanus), and cites as authority J Rhys and D Brynmor-Jones, The
Welsh People, (2nd ed, 1923) (which I have not seen), where the
derivation is apparently explained in a note on p90.
If that is the last time it was considered, the linguists ought to have
another look at the name in the light of the vast amount of work that
has been done in Celtic philology since 1923. Do you know of any later
discussion of it? Jackson (Language and History in Early Britain) does
not mention it.
It is worth bearing in mind that Geoffrey of Monmouth has what is
apparently the same name in the form "Tenuantius", as father of
"Kimbelinus". This might mean that he had a source which gave it as
"Tenuant" or similar. However, Harleian 3859 or a very similar
manuscript is known to be among Geoffrey's sources, so in all
probability he got the name from there, and either misread it, or (more
likely) altered it to something that looked more Latin.
If the identification still holds good, then the linguists ought to be
able to date, approximately, the various stages of the name's
development. Presumably, a tenth or eleventh century compiler finding
the name Tasciovanus, either in a lost historical work or on a coin,
would not know to translate the name to Teuhant or anything similar. So
we can rule out that possibility. The linguists ought to be able to tell
us whether the form Teuhant presupposes that the name had been
remembered orally in British/Welsh from the 1st century, or, if not,
what is the latest date at which it could have passed from a Latin
source into early Welsh to assume that form.
But this is not the only question about the pedigree. How did its
compiler know that Caratacus was the son of Cunobelinus? We know it from
Dio Cassius, whose history contains the only surviving detailed account
of Claudius' invasion. Dio wrote in Greek, so was unknown in dark age
and medieval Britain. The surviving part of Tacitus' Annals contains the
story of Caratacus' capture and removal to Rome, but this does not
mention his parentage, and was anyway not widely available in the Middle
Ages (see below). Only two brief ancient accounts of the invasion were
widely available, those of Suetonius, who does not mention him, and
Eutropius (Book viii, 8), which I have not been able to check, but which
apparently does not mention his parentage, and may not mention him by
name at all. None of Caratacus' rare coins mention his father.
In fact, Caratacus' fame is an entirely modern phenomenon, resulting
from the rediscovery of Tacitus in the renaissance. Even then, his
parentage was less well known, so that, for example, the Welsh
genealogist Hugh Thomas at the beginning of the 18th century was able to
misidentify him with the legendary Caradoc ap Bran. Bede had not heard
of him, nor, apparently, had Geoffrey of Monmouth.
So not just Tasciovanus, but the whole pedigree, Caratacus son of
Cunobelinus son of Tasciovanus, should not have been known in early
medieval Britain. Where did they get it from?
The obvious answer is that someone took it from one of the lost books of
Tacitus' Annals. There are good reasons for speculating this.
Tacitus' works survived the Middle Ages by the narrowest of chances.
They were in difficult Latin and were rarely read or copied. Books 1-6
of the Annals survive in a single manuscript, written at Fulda in
Germany in the 9th century. Books 11-16 survive in a single manuscript
written at Monte Cassino in the 11th century, believed to have been
copied from one sent from Germany, and some 15th century manuscripts
closely related to it. Books 7-10, covering the reign of Gaius and the
first six years of Claudius, have not survived. These lost books must
have contained Tacitus' account of Claudius' invasion, and the earlier
abortive effort by Gaius. He must have mentioned that Caratacus was the
son of Cunobelinus, because it is an important part of the political
background. It is also quite likely that he made a brief digression
outlining British history since the time of Caesar, and may very well
have mentioned Tasciovanus.
The monastery at Fulda was founded in 744 by a pupil of the Anglo Saxon
missionary Boniface. The script used there derived from that in use in
Britain, and Boniface and his pupils are known to have imported books
from Britain to Germany. It is extremely likely therefore that what we
have of Tacitus derives ultimately from a manuscript preserved in
Britain, and taken or copied to Germany in the 8th or 9th century. If it
contained the complete text of the Annals, this manuscript could well be
the ultimate source of this fragment of genealogy.
Does the linguistic evidence support this?
--
Chris Pitt Lewis>>
Chris Pitt Lewis
>I am rather surprised that this creative and interesting post did not draw
>more comment, but since the conclusions are purely speculative, I assume no
>one wants to go out on a limb to express an opinion.
to Stewart Baldwin's original post, so I don't expect a fully considered
reply after only 3 days :-)
>I proceed to the end of
>the limb and begin sawing.
>
>-Kenneth Harper Finton
>THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
>
>In a message dated 12/19/98 3:50:59 PM, ch...@cjpl.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>Teuhant (Tasciovanus, late 1st cen. BC or early 1st cen. AD)
> |
>Cinbelin (Cunobelinus, d. ca. 42 AD)
> |
>Caratauc (Caractacus, taken to Rome in captivity, 51 AD)
>
>____________________________________________________
>
>The entire post has had me thinking for several days.
>
>I think it's a great theory about this genealogy ... the missing books of
>Tacitus on the Claudian invasion ... hmmm. I wonder to what detail Tacitus
>would have written? In his other works that have come to us, he details
>customs and some genealogy and mythology. Would Tacitus have included the
>history of the kings of Britain as recorded by Geoffrey of Monmouth, had he
>known of them? Would there be more information on the early Christians? We
>do not know, of course, but should this fragment of genealogy be attributed
>(speculatively) to Tacitus lost books, a rainbow of possibilities on early
>oral information could be colored by the missing sun of Tacitus' missing
>works.
>
will not do to attribute to the missing books any old information we
might wish them to contain. It must be information that Tacitus, as a
Roman aristocrat, albeit one with some special knowledge as the son in
law of a former Governor of Britain (Agricola), is likely to have had.
It must also be information he is likely to have included in the Annals,
which, unlike say the Germania which was about the history and customs
of the Germans, was a political history of Rome during the period 14-68
AD. The lost books 7-10 covered the period 37-47 AD; the end of the work
covering 66-68 and a section around AD 30 are also lost. The invasion of
Britain in 43 (and Gaius' abortive invasion in 40) were merely
incidental episodes in this history.
We can safely assume that Tacitus explained what he understood to be the
political background to the invasion. From what we know from other
sources, this included:
a) The quarrel between the sons of Cunobelinus, which led to one of
them, Adminius, fleeing to Roman Gaul, and the other two, Togodumnus and
Caratacus, abandoning their father's policy of friendship to Rome;
b) Claudius' desire for a military campaign which would prove him a
worthy successor of Caesar and Augustus.
This means that Tacitus must have mentioned that Caratacus was a son of
Cunobelinus. He may well have described the various British Kingdoms
existing in 43 and their leaders - a grievous loss. It is almost
inconceivable that he would not have mentioned Caesar's visits in 55 and
54 BC, and gone on to say how Augustus, in contrast to Claudius, was
content to leave Britain in the hands of friendly Kings. Several modern
scholars have speculated that Tasciovanus and Cunobelinus were
technically Client Kings, political satellites of Rome who held their
Kingdom with Roman approval, like many Kings in Asia Minor and
elsewhere, and like Prasutagus and Cogidubnus did after Claudius'
invasion. Whether or not this is true, the archaeological evidence,
including the use of Latin on their coins, suggests close cultural and
political links with Rome. Tasciovanus must have had diplomatic, and
perhaps closer, contact with Augustus' government, records of which will
have been available to Tacitus in Roman archives. He was sufficiently
important for Cunobelinus to have stated on his coins that he was his
son. All I am really speculating is that Tacitus said something to the
effect that Cunobelinus "like his father Tasciovanus before him" had
been a faithful friend and ally of the Roman people throughout his
reign. He may well have given more details of British history since the
time of Caesar, but it is not necessary to my hypothesis.
However, there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that he had any
sources for British history before the time of Caesar, or would have
written about it here if he had.
It is also extremely unlikely that he said anything in the missing books
about Christianity. To a Roman of Tacitus' time and class, Christianity
was one of several eastern mystery cults, followed by quite a number of
people, mostly of the lower classes, but fundamentally insignificant. No
more important to his theme than present day "cults" would be to an
historian of modern American politics. On the one occasion when it did
become important to his theme - when Nero blamed the Christians for the
fire of Rome in 64 - he explains who they were in terms that make it
clear that he had not mentioned them before (Annals 15/44).
>But I have some questions.
>
><<Dio wrote in Greek, so was unknown in dark age and medieval Britain. >>
>
>Are we absolutely sure that their were no scholars who spoke and read Greek in
>medieval Europe? One of the reason why the term 'dark ages' has fallen into
>disrepute is because there were ambitions, serious, and scattered pockets of
>brilliant scholars all through this period.
>
There were hardly any, and hardly any Greek texts in Western Europe for
them to read. Other than in South Italy, where the population was partly
Greek, in Western Europe "a knowledge of Greek became an attainment of
exceptional rarity throughout the Middle Ages. Even diplomatic
correspondence was sometimes delayed for lack of suitably qualified
translators and interpreters." [LD Reynolds and NG Wilson - Scribes and
Scholars, A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, 2nd
edition, Oxford 1974, p 105. This fascinating book - a later edition may
well be in print - is also my main source for what I said about Tacitus'
MSS in my previous post.] There was a brief period of interest in Greek
in the Carolingian Empire in the 9th century. There are some bilingual
(Greek and Latin) biblical MSS, apparently written at St Gall in
Switzerland, and translations of a very small number of philosophical
and theological works, including some by John Scottus Eriugena, an
Irishman at the Carolingian Court. Otherwise nothing until the 12th and
13th centuries.
><<The script used there derived from that in use in Britain, and Boniface and
>his pupils are known to have imported books from Britain to Germany. It is
>extremely likely therefore that what we have of Tacitus derives ultimately
>from a manuscript preserved in Britain, and taken or copied to Germany in the
>8th or 9th century. If it
>contained the complete text of the Annals, this manuscript could well be the
>ultimate source of this fragment of genealogy. Does the linguistic evidence
>support this?>>
>
>Are you asking if the linguistic evidence in these Harleian Genealogies can
>support the supposition that the missing portions of Tacitus works actually
>survived in Britain or Germany until the ninth century? It is a tall order.
>If Tacitus' lost books were known even until the 7th or 8th century -- and
>then disappeared -- it is logical that more that even this genealogy could
>have come from this lost source.
>
The form Teuhant, if it is a version of Tasciovanus, is so developed
that it is inconceivable, I think, that it could take that form if the
name Tasciovanus had been taken into the Welsh tradition as late as the
9th century. I was asking if it is conceivable that it could have been
taken into that tradition in the 5th 6th or 7th century, and developed
to that form, or whether the form necessitates a development in
British/Welsh oral tradition since the 1st century.
If it could have been taken across in the 5th century, then we can make
the following, perhaps wild, speculation. The number of generations (12)
in the Harleian Genealogy between Caratacus and the final individual
Rhun is just about right for the period between Caratacus and the early
5th century, at an artificial 30 years to a generation. As Stewart
pointed out in his original post: "Most interesting is that the later
names cannot be identified (an interesting contrast with most
traditional pedigrees, in which it is usually the earlier generations
which are unknown). In the unlikely event that the entire pedigree is
historical, the individuals at the bottom of the table would have most
likely lived in the fourth century, earlier than most individuals
(alleged or real) who appear in the Harleian genealogies."
Is it conceivable that Rhun might have been a potentate of the 410s or
420s, who tried to legitimate his rule by inventing a descent from the
last independent British Kings, known to him (or scholars in his
retinue) from Tacitus? Or are we pretty certain that all the genealogies
in the Harleian MS end with figures of the 9th century?
Since the missing books deal with the period 37-47 AD, before Caratacus'
defeat, capture and journey to Rome, it is most unlikely that they said
anything about his fate in Rome. The surviving text (at 12/35-37) deals
with his captivity, display in the triumph, and pardon, without any
mention of his subsequent fate. It also incidentally says that his wife,
daughters and brothers were taken to Rome with him. None of them is
named.
Any person granted citizenship by, or freed from slavery by, the
Emperors Tiberius, Claudius or Nero is likely to have adopted the nomen
Claudius. While this would be true of foreign royalty (eg [Ti.] Claudius
Cogidubnus) it would also be true of an employee of an Imperial
agricultural estate. There is no class implication. The most you can say
is that *if* Caratacus was granted citizenship (and there is no source
that says he was), he would probably have become Tiberius Claudius
Caratacus, and his daughters would have prefixed Claudia to their
British names. But there must have been dozens of other British
Claudias, any one of whom could have been in Rome at the end of the 1st
century, when Martial wrote, even assuming he refers to a real person by
her real name.
--
Chris Pitt Lewis
Luke Stevens
> I think it's a great theory about this genealogy ... the missing books
> of Tacitus on the Claudian invasion ... hmmm. I wonder to what detail
> Tacitus would have written? In his other works that have come to us,
> he details customs and some genealogy and mythology. Would Tacitus
> have included the history of the kings of Britain as recorded by
> Geoffrey of Monmouth, had he known of them? Would there be more
> information on the early Christians? We do not know, of course, but
> should this fragment of genealogy be attributed (speculatively) to
> Tacitus lost books, a rainbow of possibilities on early oral
> information could be colored by the missing sun of Tacitus' missing
> works.
I recall Bartrum stating several times that "Geoffrey of Monmouth was
ignorant of Tacitus" as if this is now a matter of consensus. It would
be an odd irony of he had access to only the portion of Tacitus that we
do not.
> Additionally, I have been pursuing a project for years that seeks
> information about Claudia the painted Briton mentioned in Martial's
> poems and her identification with Claudia and Pudens as recorded in
> the bible.
<snip>
> It was Wurts, I believe, who made Caractacus a converted Christian
> after his imprisonment in Rome. Since Wurts cannot be trusted and
> gave no sources, I had previously dismissed this possibility.
> However, Caractacus in Rome could have learned of Christian teachings
> from the same person that taught the conqueror of Britain's wife.
As nearly as I can tell, Wurts derived his information on this from
R.W. Morgan's "St. Paul in Britain: or, the origin of British as opposed
to Papal Christianity" (the 4th ed. was pub. 1922). The thesis of the
book was that British Christianity was older than, and therefore not
subject to, Roman Christianity; and to support this, the author argues
at length for early missionary expeditions to Britain by St. Paul and
others, and that Caratacus & his kids, including Claudia, were converted
while in Rome and later brought the faith back to their homeland.
A genealogical table is given with no sources, notes, or discussion;
nor does Bartrum ever mention its contents. So now, I shall take this
opportunity to discuss it, and hope that others can shed further light.
Apparently the author wanted to show that Constantine the Great was heir
to this Christian dynasty. Going from memory, it showed:
Bran Cunobelinus Claudius
| | |
Caratacus Arviragus = Venissa
| | |
Cyllin Claudia Marius
| etc. |
Coel Eurgen
| |
Lleuver Mawr = Gwladys
|
Cadvan = Gwladys
|
Strada "the fair" = Coel of Colchester
|
Constantius = Helena
|
Constantine the Great
Elsewhere, Morgan cites "the Pantliwydd MSS of Llansannor" (unknown to
me) in giving the ancestry of Bran, which is almost identical to what is
found in the Iolo MSS, in turn basically an extension of MP 3 in
Bartrum's EWGT. So I wonder if this might have been the source. I could
find nothing nearly so elaborate in the Iolo MSS themselves.
The rest of the genealogy does not seem that hard to pick apart. The
beginning and the end are from Geoffrey of Monmouth. Strada "the fair"
is probably from "Strada wyn ferch Cadfan", a corruption of "Stradweul
ferch Gadeon", wife of Coel Hen, here misidentified with Coel of
Colchester. I think the name Gwladys was supposed to be an equivalent of
Claudius (or Claudia?), which is an interesting theory in itself. The
Lleuver Mawr (i.e. Lucius) son of Coel is from Geoffrey by way of Iolo,
who made Coel a son of Cyllin rather than Marius. It is perhaps because
of this displacement that Eurgen and Gwladys are inserted, but I can
only guess, since the three generations Eurgen -> Gwladys -> Gwladys,
apparently all female, are otherwise unknown, at least to me.
Yes, count 'em, FIVE generations of alleged heiresses from Marius!
On a related note, W.M.H. Milner's "The Royal House of Britain: An
Enduring Dynasty", which quotes Morgan repeatedly, has a further item of
interest: the above genealogy is extended to show that Lucius (n.b. that
Geoffrey says he died s.p.) had a son Cadwalladr, whose daughter was
Frea, who married Woden. Most of us will say at this point that we have
left the realm of history and taken a dive off the deep end, but I am
curious as to the source cited:
"Desiring to verify this, we wrote to Herald's College and received the
positive assurance (dated 5.2.01) that 'There is a very valuable MS.
here, deducing our Saxon Kings from Adam and through David.' This MS. we
have inspected. It is called on the back of the binding, 'Pedigree of
the Saxon Kings.' Odin is there, and David is there, but one is one line
apparently, and the other in another, unconnected, unless the notes,
written in a very difficult script, indicate such connections. We were,
however, assured that the impression in the Herald's College had always
been that the MS. traced the Saxon line through David."
Nevertheless, this is given as the source for the genealogy, as if
someone else (Grimaldi?) has read it and extracted the names. The
connection to David is, of course, through Joseph of Arimathea.
David Kelley, in his review of "Royalty for Commoners", made mention
of the strange statement that Frea was dau. of Cadwaladr but did not
seem to know its source, so for the record, it probably came from
Milner's book. However, I would still like to know, if anyone can help
me, what manuscript Milner was referring to and what it actually stated.
Luke Stevens
sk...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
<snip>
>
>Bran Cunobelinus Claudius
> | | |
>Caratacus Arviragus = Venissa
> | | |
>Cyllin Claudia Marius
> | etc. |
>Coel Eurgen
> | |
>Lleuver Mawr = Gwladys
> |
>Cadvan = Gwladys
> |
>Strada "the fair" = Coel of Colchester
> |
>Constantius = Helena
> |
>Constantine the Great
>
The vertical strokes don't line up in the expected way on my screen,
but if I read this correctly it wants to show that Venissa was a
daughter of Claudius, by which I understand the line to mean
Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus, successor to Caligula and
nominal conqueror of Britain (boss of general Aulus Plautius). I
rejected Wurtz' attribution of [Julia] Venissa to Claudius on the
basis of there being fairly extensive classical mentions of Claudius'
wives and children but none mentioning a Venissa, and of the
difficulty of finding a chronologically plausible mother for her among
Claudius' wives and their children. Nothing so far in this thread
suggests anything beyond the possibility that Wurtz did not himself
invent Venissa, but may have borrowed her from another unsupported
source. Anything I've missed, in the way of references to Venissa,
would be appreciated.
Luke Stevens
<sigh> The one time I forget to mention...
Most people viewing these newsgroups & email messages do so with a fixed
width font (such as Courier, or whatever DOS uses). So tables are
composed with this in mind. But if you view them with a variable width
font (e.g. Times Roman) things won't line up.
> but if I read this correctly it wants to show that Venissa was a
> daughter of Claudius, by which I understand the line to mean
> Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus, successor to Caligula and
> nominal conqueror of Britain (boss of general Aulus Plautius). I
> rejected Wurtz' attribution of [Julia] Venissa to Claudius on the
> basis of there being fairly extensive classical mentions of Claudius'
> wives and children but none mentioning a Venissa, and of the
> difficulty of finding a chronologically plausible mother for her among
> Claudius' wives and their children. Nothing so far in this thread
> suggests anything beyond the possibility that Wurtz did not himself
> invent Venissa, but may have borrowed her from another unsupported
> source. Anything I've missed, in the way of references to Venissa,
> would be appreciated.
The earliest source for this marriage is over a millennium after the
fact, Geoffrey of Monmouth's "Historia Regum Britanniae". As I remember
it, he calls her Genissa, and the Welsh recensions call her something
like Gwenwissa, which some interpret as a form of Venus. This is one of
many cases where Geoffrey makes a statement not otherwise known to
history, and we are left to guess whether he fabricated it or drew it
from a source now lost to us (he often does both). The optimists are
inclined to say that Claudius could have easily had some little known
illegitimate daughter just right for marrying into the border states,
whose history is not known in minute detail, but most will say that the
only evidence is so grossly unreliable that it should be dismissed.
I almost forgot to mention, that Arviragus as a British king in this
position is also a product of Geoffrey of Monmouth. He may have
conflated Arviragus, in the time of Domitian, with Caratacus, whom we've
been discussing, perhaps by misunderstanding some early form of the
epithet "Adarweinidog". For Caratacus to have married a daughter of
Claudius would be possible, but not Arviragus.
Wurts (Wurtz?) was not into inventing genealogies. He was into compiling
genealogies invented by others and not citing sources, much to the
frustration of us all.
Luke Stevens
Luke Stevens
and there are a few things to add.
Morgan shows Llyr (father of Bran) as son of Lud and brother of
Tenuantius, against the genealogy he quotes elsewhere. Dates are given,
all ending in "0", so I assume they are approximate, but Wurts was
probably not so careful. Now, the interesting part is that Caractacus is
given the following children: Cyllinus (father of Coel), Cynon, Linus
(1st [sic] Bishop of Rome), Eurgain (who m. Salog), and Claudia, who
married Aulus Rufus Pudens Pudentinus, and was mother of the martyrs
St. Timotheus, St. Novatus, St. Praxedes, and St. Pudentiana.
Morgan's genealogical chart does not mention Claudius and "Genuissa"
(so it was spelt by Geoffrey). Nor does it mention the connexion to
Boudicca given in Wurts, which probably came from Anderson's "Royal
Genealogies" (a favorite source), in turn probably from Hector Boece,
who seems to have made it up, as he did so much else.
Luke Stevens
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "For all the reckless gallantry and foolish
ineptitude of the premature Russian offensive, it nevertheless
achieved its primary objective: the diversion of German forces from
the West. The limited penetration of East Prussia had had a magnified
effect. Refugees, many of them high-born, had descended in fury and
despair on Berlin, the Kaiser was outraged, and von Moltke himself
admitted that 'all the success on the Western front will be unavailing
if the Russians arrive in Berlin.' Robert K. Massie, writing of the
Battle of Tannenberg [25-30 Aug 1914] in "Nicholas and Alexandra"
[1967] pp. 277-278 [An Excellent Example of the Contingent and the
Unforeseen in History. Tannenberg --- Marne.]
Luke Stevens wrote in message <3687ECB7...@geocities.com>...
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/28/98 8:42:10 AM, anfo...@geocities.com writes:
<<I almost forgot to mention, that Arviragus as a British king in this
position is also a product of Geoffrey of Monmouth. He may have
conflated Arviragus, in the time of Domitian, with Caratacus, whom we've
been discussing, perhaps by misunderstanding some early form of the
epithet "Adarweinidog". For Caratacus to have married a daughter of
Claudius would be possible, but not Arviragus. >>
Arviragus is mentioned as an historical person that gave the Roman’s much
trouble in Juvenal 4.127. The conquest of this western part of the island
(Arviragus was supposedly from Avalon/Glastonbury) did not begin until long
after Claudius sailed back to Rome. Juvenal has very slim mention of
Arviragus, which leads me to believe there were other sources that Geoffrey
must have had to invent his story.
However, he may well have confused Avaragus with Caractacus. I am not totally
discounting that a daughter of Claudius may have married a Briton. Claudius
children are well known, but not his illegitimate children.
Claudius liked women, but his infirmities did not appeal to the status seeking
Roman women of his day. He had one loyal mistress, a slave named Calpurnia,
who could have produced an illegitimate and unrecorded child. In those days,
it was dangerous to have a child that could be a successor to the empire.
Claudius, in his wisdom, may have hidden the paternity of any child he felt
must be his own. His less than perfect marriages did not produce children who
were unquestionably of his paternity. He was most aware of the great string of
murders and poisonings that brought the Claudian family to virtual extinction.
No doubt he wrote of these murders in his family histories, and this is the
reason the histories did not survive. Their incriminating content was probably
burned by Nero or Agrippina as soon as Claudius died.
Octavia and Britannicus were children of Claudius and his third wife, Valeria
Messalina, whom Claudius married when she was sixteen. The marriage was
forced as a joke by Caligula, who had already used Messalina as a mistress and
threw the bones to his clownish old uncle Claudius. To Claudius’ surprise, he
actually came to love her, but after he became emperor, Messalina fell from
Claudius’ grace by taking her adulteries much too far. She actually went so
far as to marry the handsome Caius Silius, one of her many lovers, while still
married to the emperor. Claudius, fearful that she was plotting his
replacement on the throne with Silius, held much counsel and spent many hours
with his advisors before she was finally slain by the Praetorian guards
without the emperor’s knowledge. Messalina died in the arms of her mother,
Lepida, and Claudius would never be quite the same. He loved her despite her
faults. In fact, Claudius became quite depressed after her death. He began to
eat and drink too much and lost much of his zest for living.
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]
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/28/98 7:59:19 AM, sk...@ix.netcom.com writes:
<<The vertical strokes don't line up in the expected way on my screen,>>
THE GENEALOGIES OF
GEOFFREY OF MONMOUTH
as found in his History of the Kings of Britain
Gen # Name:
1 Latinus
2 Lavinia (d/o 1) = Aeneas. Aeneas m2) = Unknown woman
3 Ascanius (s/o 2)
4 Sylvius = niece of Lavinia (2)
7 Brutus (s/o Sylvius) = Ignoge
6 Locrin (s/o Brutus, reigned in mid island region)
6 Albanact (s/o Brutus, reigned in Albania, now Scotland)
6 Kamber (s/o Brutus, reigned in Wales, origin of Kambri)
6 Locrin (6) = Guendoloena (d/o Corineus) = (also) Estrilda (d/o German king)
7 Sabre (son of Estrilda, drowned in river Sever)
7 Maddan (s/o Locrin and Guendoloena)
8 Mempicius (son of Maddan)
8 Malim (son of Maddan)
9 Ebraucus (invaded Gaul, founded York [Kaerebraue], had 19 sons and 30
daughtgrs
10 Brutus II (s/o Ebraucus, surnamed Greenshield)
11 Leil (s/o Brutus, founded Kaerleil [Edinburg]
12 Hudibras (s/o 11; founded Canterbury and Winchester)
13 Bladud (s/o 12; founded Bath)
14 Leir (s/o 13; King Lear of Shakespeare's drama) (no sons, 3 below:
generation 15)
15 Gonorilla (d/o 14) = Maglaunus (Duke of Albania [Scotland])
15 Cordeilla (d/o 14) = Aganippus (King of Gaul)
15 Regau (d/o 14) = Henuinus (Duke of Cornwall)
16 Margan (s/o Maglaunus)
16 Cunedagius (s/o Henuinus)
17 Rivallo (s/o Cunedagius)
18 Gurgustius (s/o 17)
19 Sisillius (s/o 18)
19 Jago (nephew of Gurgustius)
20 Kinmarcus (s/o Sisillius)
21 Gorbogudo = Widen
22 Ferrex (s/o 21)
22 Porrex (s/o 21)
Generational lines are broken by a long period of civil wars. Then arises:
23 Dunwallow Molmutis (s/o Cloten, King of Cornwall) = Conwenna (made
Molmutine laws)
24 Belinus (s/o 23)
24 Brennius (s/o 23) (brothers reigned over a divided kingdom)
25 Gurgiunt Brabtruc (s/o Belinus)
26 Guithelin = Martia (woman author of Martian Laws, translated by Alfred)
27 Sisillius (s/o Guithelin)
28 Kimarus (s/o 27)
28 Danius (s/o 27) = Tangustela (concubine)
29 Morvidus (s/o 28)
30 Gorbonian (s/o 29)
30 Arthgallo (s/o 29)
30 Elidure (s/o 29)
30 Vigenius (s/o 29)
30 Peredure (s/o 29)
(Arthgallo was deposed by Elidure, who restored his brother after 5 years.
Elidure reigned again and was then deposed by brothers Vigenius and Peredure.
After their deaths, he reigned a third time.)
31. Margan (s/o Arthgallo)
31 Enniaunus (s/o Athgallo)
31 Idwallo (s/o Vigenius)
31 Runno (s/o Peredure)
31 Geruntius (s/o Elidure)
32 Catellus (s/o Geruntius)
33 Coillus
34 Porrex
35 Cherin
36 Fulgenius (son of Cherin)
36 Eladus (son of Cherin)
36 Andragius (son of Cherin)
37 Urianus (s/o Andragius)
38 Eliud
39 Cledaucus
40 Cletonus
41 Gurgintius
42 Merianus
43 Bleduno
44 Cap
45 Oenus
46 Sisillus
47 Blegabred (sang and played instruments better than any before him)
47 Arthmail (brother of Blegabred)
48 Eldol
49 Redion
50 Rederchiu
51 Samuilpenissel
52 Pir
53 Capoir
54 Cligueillus
55 Heli
The above genealogies cover 55 generations. Allowing for 25 years per
generation, 1375 years.
-KHF
56 Lud (s/o 55) (rebuilt London)
57 Cassebellaun (s/o 55) (Julius Caesar's invasion took place in the reign of
this king)
57 Nennius (s/o 55)
58 Androgeous (s/o 57) (Duke of Kent)
58 Tenuantius (s/o 57) (Duke of Cornwall)
59 Kybelinus (Cymbeline, subject of Shakespeare's play) (s/o 59)
60 Guiderius (s/o 59)
60 Arviragus = Genuissa (d/o Claudius, Roman emperor) (s/o 59)
61 Marius (s/o 60)
62 Coillus (s/o 61)
63 Lucius (s/o 62) (embraced Christianity, d AD 156 without issue)
Line broken again:
64 Severus (Roman senator)
65 Bassianus (or Caracalla) (s/o 64 and British mother)
66 Geta (s/o 64 and Roman mother)
67 Carausius (of common British birth)
Line broken again:
68 Allectus (subdued Carausius and killed him, restoring Roman power)
Line broken again:
69 Asclepiodotus, Duke of Cornwall, killed Allectus
Line broken again:
70 Coel (Old King Cole), Duke of Kaercolvin (Colchester) killed Asclepiodotus
71 Helena (d/o 67) (called Helen of the Cross) = Constantius
72 Constantine (Emperor of Rome)
Line broken again:
73 Octavius, Duke of the Wisseans, rebeled against Roman proconsuls
74 d/o Octavius = Maximian, Roman Senator, correctly called Maximus (s/o
Leolin, uncle of Constantine)
Line broken again:
75 Gratian Municeps, usurps crown
Line broken again:
76 Constantine, prince of Amorica, made king
Line broken again:
77 Constans, a monk, raised to power (s/o 69)
78 Aurelius Ambrosius (brother of Constans)
79 Uther Pendragon (brother of Constans) = Igerna
Line broken again:
80 Vorigern (usurps the throne, calls for Saxon help)
81 Arthur (s/o 74, Uther Pendragon)
Line broken again:
82 Constantine (kin to Arthur, s/o Cador, Duke of Cornwall)
83 Aurelius Conan (nephew of Constantine)
Line broken again:
84 Wortiporius
Line broken again:
85 Malgo, most handsome man in Britain
Line broken again:
86 Careticus, a lover of civil war
Line broken again:
87 Cadwan, raised to king by assembly of princes
Line broken again:
88 Penda
Line broken again:
89 Cadwalla
90 Cadwallader (s/o 85) called, by Bede, Elidwalda
91 Cadwallader, d AD 689
There is a decided difference, both in story and genealogy from #64 on,
suggesting some severe fabrication and reliance upon more than one source.
Previous to generation #56, one can imagine a seamless single source for
legendary tribal leaders.
Though 91 generations are shown, the broken lines and ursurpations had some
shorter reigns not generational in length. However, 91 generations at an
average of 25 years per generation covers a period of 2275 years.
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/28/98 3:07:37 PM, shi...@worldnet.att.net writes:
<<Do you have any more on "St. Pudentiana?">>
St. Pudentiana is the one of the keys to this mystery. There was a very early
(one of the first) Christian Church with his name. I have run into many dead
ends because the prosopogaphy on early Roman names was not completed and runs
only halfway through the alphabet. The P is not finished. The work was
destroyed in Berlin during WWII.
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/28/98 7:59:19 AM, sk...@ix.netcom.com writes:
<<Anything I've missed, in the way of references to Venissa,
would be appreciated.>>
From THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION 1993
ARVIRAGUS
Who is Arviragus? References to him are hard to find, but his character
appears in Cymbeline, the play by Shakespeare, as that of the prince.
According to the plot in Shakespeare’s play, Arviragus was the son of
Cymbeline. Arviragus and his brother Guiderius were kidnapped at a very young
age. They were raised in a cave in the wilds by Belarius, a banished lord. His
true identity was not discovered until the end of Shakespeare’s play, and it
seems that we are still having trouble with it.
In Geoffrey of Monmouth’s fable-filled work, “History of the Kings of
Britain,” we find a fable about Arviragus. 2
“Kymbelinus [Cymbeline], when he had governed Britain ten years, begat two
sons, the elder named Guiderius, the other Arviragus. After his death the
government fell to Guiderius. This prince refused to pay tribute to Rome; for
which reason Claudius, who was now emperor, marched against him.”
According to Geoffrey’s account, Guiderius assembled his army and met Claudius
with an eager assault, slaying more Romans with his sword than the greater
part of his army. Claudius was driven back toward his ships. Hamo, Claudius’
field commander, had been educated among the British hostages in Rome, so he
knew their language and customs. When all was nearly lost for the Romans, Hamo
threw away his own armor and put on the clothes of a dead Briton. He then
fought as a Briton against his own men, exhorting them to a quick victory.
When Hamo approached Guiderius, he stabbed him, then disappeared into the
ranks. Arviragus saw his brother killed, hurried to him, and put his own
brother’s garments on his back so that the Britons would not falter. The
Romans gave ground and Claudius retreated to his ships. Hamo, missing his
chance to march with the main group, escaped to the woods. Arviragus saw him
escaping and pursued his brother’s assassin for several hours to the seaport
at Southampton. He caught him unaware, just as he was about to board a ship,
and abruptly ended his days.
Claudius sailed up the coast with his remaining forces, while Arviragus, now
king, took refuge in Winchester. Claudius assaulted Portchester, then went
after Arviragus. When Arviragus opened the city gates to march out and give
battle, he was met with a messenger and a proposal of peace from Claudius.
Claudius promised to give his daughter in marriage, if only Arviragus would
acknowledge that the kingdom of Britain was subject to Rome. Arviragus was
advised to put aside thoughts of war. He decided it was prudent to submit to
Caesar, so a treaty was drawn, and Claudius sent to Rome for his daughter.
“As soon as the winter was over, those that were sent for Claudius’ daughter
returned with her and presented her to her father [Claudius]. The damsel’s
name was Genuissa, and so great was her beauty, that it raised the admiration
of all who saw her. After her marriage with the king, she gained so great an
ascendant over his affections, that he, in a manner, valued nothing but her
alone.”
According to Geoffrey’s fable, Claudius was satisfied that all was well, and
returned to Rome, leaving to Arviragus the government of Britain. Arviragus
rebuilt the cities and towns. In time, he began to exercise such a great
authority that he became a threat to the other kings in the more remote
countryside. He became puffed up with his new found popularity and rescinded
his tie with Rome. He also refused to pay the Roman tribute. When Vespasian
was sent to Britain by Claudius to exact the tribute from Arviragus or reduce
him, Arviragus met him at the coast with such a great army that the Romans
were afraid to leave their ships. Instead, they sailed on to Totness to
besiege Exeter. After seven days, Arviragus caught up with the Romans and did
battle. Great losses were sustained by both sides, and neither could claim
victory. Next morning, Queen Genuissa, a Roman herself, went out to mediate
with the two opponents. The result was a mutual understanding, and the two
were made friends. Next season, after the winter was over, Vespasian returned
to Rome with his tribute from the British king. Arviragus stayed in Britain,
grew older and wiser, ruled with compassion, and showed much respect for the
Roman senate thereafter.
“He confirmed the old laws of his ancestors, and enacted some new ones, and
made very ample presents to all persons of merit. So that his fame spread all
over Europe, and he was both loved and feared by the Romans, and became the
subject of their discourse more than any king of his time ... in war none was
more fierce than he, in peace none more mild, none more pleasing, or in his
presents more magnificent. When he had finished his course of life, he was
buried at Gloucester, in a certain temple which he had built and dedicated to
the honour of Claudius. His son Marius, a man of admirable prudence and
wisdom, succeeded him in the kingdom ... as soon as he [Marius] had ended his
days, his son Coillus [Coel] took upon himself the government of the kingdom.”
3
-Geoffrey of Monmouth
This story is a fable spun by our twelfth-century story teller. Some of the
people themselves were real personages, as some of the genealogies were
preexistent and not made up by Geoffrey. Genuissa, if she were the daughter of
Claudius Caesar, would have been the great-granddaughter of Mark Antony and
his wife, Octavia, sister of Augustus Caesar. She would also have been the
great-granddaughter of Tiberius Caesar.
D. Spencer Hines
Thank you kindly.
"Saint Pudentiana."
Interesting Name. It has character, grace and style.
Probably from the Latin *pudens, pudentis* --- modest, shamefaced.
Remarkable ----- other meanings too.
Never happen today.
D. Spencer Hines
Ex Tridens Scientia
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "For all the reckless gallantry and foolish
ineptitude of the premature Russian offensive, it nevertheless
achieved its primary objective: the diversion of German forces from
the West. The limited penetration of East Prussia had had a magnified
effect. Refugees, many of them high-born, had descended in fury and
despair on Berlin, the Kaiser was outraged, and von Moltke himself
admitted that 'all the success on the Western front will be unavailing
if the Russians arrive in Berlin.' Robert K. Massie, writing of the
Battle of Tannenberg [25-30 Aug 1914] in "Nicholas and Alexandra"
[1967] pp. 277-278 [An Excellent Example of the Contingent and the
Unforeseen in History. Tannenberg --- Marne.]
D. Spencer Hines wrote in message ...
>Do you have any more on "St. Pudentiana?"
>
>DSH
Here is a quote from:
http://saints.catholic.org/saints/praxedes.html
Praxedes according to her legend was a Roman maiden, the sister of St.
Pudentiana, who, when the Emperor Marcus Antoninus was hunting down
Christians, sought them out to relieve them with money, care, comfort
and every charitable aid. Some she hid in her house, others she
encouraged to keep firm in the faith, and of yet others she buried the
bodies; and she allowed those who were in prison or toiling in slavery
to lack nothing. At last, being unable any longer to bear the
cruelties
inflicted on Christians, she prayed to God that, if it were expedient
or
her to die, she might be released from beholding such sufferings. And
so
on July 21 she was called to the reward of her goodness in Heaven. Her
body was laid by the priest Pastor in the tomb of her father, Pudens,
and her siser Pudentiana, which was in the cemetery of Priscilla on
the
Salarian Way. This saint was certainly buried in the catacomb of
Priscilla, near to St. Pudentiana. But that she was the sister of that
saint, or that either of them was the daughter (as later legends say)
of
a Roman senator, Pudens, converted by St. Peter, there is no reason to
believe. She was at first venerated as a martyr in connection with the
ECCLESIA PUDENTIANA, but afterwards a separate church was built in her
honour, on the alleged site of her house, to which, when it was
rebuilt
by Pope St. Paschal I (the present Santa Prassede), her relics were
taken.
Luke Stevens
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/28/98 7:13:00 PM, KHF...@aol.com writes:
<<Octavia and Britannicus were children of Claudius and his third wife,
Valeria
Messalina, whom Claudius married when she was sixteen. >>
It is interesting to note that Claudius had plans to send his son Britannicus
to Britain in order to safeguard his life, but Britannicus would not go.
Instead, he joined the pile of family corpses. As noted previously,
Britannicus was probably not a son of Claudius. The timing on the birth was
suspect. However, he was in the the line of succession and this led to his
demise.