Tasciovanus/Teuhant
Stewart Baldwin
which has the three very interesting names "... Caratauc map Cinbelin
map Teuhant...", necessarily centers on the suggestion which has been
made by Bartrum and others that the name "Teuhant" is equivalent to
the name "Tasciovanus", known only from coins. (See the thread
entitled "Cunobelinus and Caractacus" of a month or so ago and the
recent threads entitled "Tacitus Lost Books".) One interesting piece
of evidence which has not been mentioned yet in the postings in this
newsgroup (at least not that I remember) is that the medieval Welsh
genealogies contain a name which is variously written Tecmant, Tecvan,
Tecwant, and Tegvan, with a modern Welsh equivalent of Tegfan, as
given in the index to P. C. Bartrum's "Early Welsh Genealogical
Tracts" (Cardiff, 1966, abbreviated EWGT), from which the genealogies
below are taken. Now, I don't know whether or not the experts in
Celtic languages would agree with me or not, but to my eyes, the names
"Tecvan" and Tasciovanus" look an awfully lot alike (especially when
you remove the "us" that the Romans habitually added to the end of
many foreign names). The genealogies in which this name appears do
not agree, making this Tecvan either father or grandfather of Coel Hen
("Old King Cole"), who, if he ever existed at all, would have probably
lived in the fifth century.
I have given several of these genealogies in tabular form below,
lining up the names which look equivalent for the purpose of
comparison. I started with the Roman-looking names of Grat/Grad and
Urban (which agree in all of the versions, except for the minor
spelling differences), and went down to Coel. (Some versions give the
name of Coel's father as Guotepauc or variants, some make Guotepauc an
epithet for Coel himself.) There are numerous disagreements in the
generations before Grat, but those generations are not relevant here.
None of the names in these tables should necessarily be viewed as
those of historical individuals. As is generally the case for such
tables posted to this newsgroup, you MUST use a fixed-width font and a
line length of at least 66 characters in order for this table to come
out right (more than 66 if there are >'s to the left because this has
been quoted by someone in a later posting). Attempting to read this
table using a variable/proportional width font will most likely result
in unreadability.
HG.10 GaC.2 MG.1 JC.5 ABT.1c
from from from from from
EWGT EWGT EWGT EWGT EWGT
p. 10 p. 36 p. 39 p. 44 p. 96
Grat Grad Grad Grad Gradd
| | | | |
Vrban Vrban Vrba[n] Vrban Vrban
| | | | |
Telpuil | Triuil Tepwyll Tyddbwyll
| | | | |
Teuhant Deyeweint Deheweint Eweint Deheuwaint
| | | | |
Tecmant Tecvan gloff Tecvan Tecwant Tegvan
| | | | |
Guotepauc | | Godebawc |
| | | | |
Coyl hen Coel godebauc Coel godebawc Coyl hen Koel godebawg
The sources are:
HG = Harleian MS. 3859 (11th century copy of mid 10th century work)
GaC = Hanes Gruffudd ap Cynan (12th or 13th century)
MG = Mostyn MS. 117 (late 13th century)
JC = Jesus College MS. 20 (late 14th century copy of ca. 1200 work)
ABT = Achau Brenhinoedd a Thywysogion Cymru (late medieval)
The only other genealogy of Coel in EWGT is in Vita Beatissimi Cadoci
(EWGT p. 25, from a MS. ca. 1200 of a work written ca. 1100), which
gives the names Grat, Urban, Teilpuill, Teuhuant, Tecmant, Guotepauc,
Coilhen. Since I didn't have the room, and these names are only minor
variants of the HG version, I didn't include them in the above table.
Suppose that we accept for the moment the suggestion that Tecvan and
Tasciovanus are the same name, as they appear to be. Then we have the
interesting fact that in the earliest manuscript of the above
genealogy, Tecmant (i.e., Tecvan) is given as a son of a certain
Teuhant, thereby suggesting that Tecmant and Teuhant are different
names, from which it would appear to follow that Teuhant and
Tasciovanus are different names. [Note: There are other examples of
"m" in Old Welsh becoming "v" or "f" in later times, for example
Mermin/Mervyn/Merfyn, and I assume that this is a similar case, so the
identification of Tecmant and Tecvan seems secure, as the genealogies
themselves support.]
On the surface, this would appear to offer a case for making Teuhant
and Tascivanus different names, in which the appearance of the name
Teuhant in HG.16 could be explained away as just a coincidence, i.e.,
the name invented by an early Welsh genealogist for the father of
Cunobelinus just happens to be somewhat similar to the name which is
later discovered to actually be the name of his father (based on
numismatic evidence that the genealogist presumably didn't know).
On the other hand, the fact that the form of the name of the father of
Tecmant/Tecvan varies so much from one version to another leaves open
the possibility that the name Teuhant which appears as his father in
two versions might be a textual corruption, which seems to weaken the
argument that Tecmant/Tecvan and Teuhant were different names.
In any case, it seems to me that the names in the above genealogies
should be considered in any attempt to determine whether or not
Tasciovanus and Teuhant were the same name.
Stewart Baldwin
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 1/16/1999 6:30:54 PM, sb...@auburn.campus.mci.net writes:
<<"Tecvan" and Tasciovanus" look an awfully lot alike>>
tasciovanus > teiXswan or tyXswan (depending whether the first was treated as
a British penult or not)
tei(h)wan or ty(h)wan
?? tywan > teuan
Yes, they do look a lot alike. That they are different though, seems to be
expressed in evolution of the chart that you posted on four hundred years in
the evolution of names.
Teuhant Deyeweint Deheweint Eweint Deheuwaint
| | | |
|
Tecmant Tecvan gloff Tecvan Tecwant Tegvan
11th cen 12th/13th late13th 11th cen copy 14th/15th
1=HG = Harleian MS. 3859 (11th century copy of mid 10th century work)
2=GaC = Hanes Gruffudd ap Cynan (12th or 13th century)
3=MG = Mostyn MS. 117 (late 13th century)
4=JC = Jesus College MS. 20 (late 14th century copy of ca. 1200 work)
5=ABT = Achau Brenhinoedd a Thywysogion Cymru (late medieval)
<<Tecmant (i.e., Tecvan) is given as a son of a certain Teuhant, thereby
suggesting that Tecmant and Teuhant are different names, from which it would
appear to follow that Teuhant and Tasciovanus are different names.>>
Not necessarily. Tecmant could have a different derivation.
Teuhant Deyeweint Deheweint Eweint Deheuwaint
Tecmant Tecvan gloff Tecvan Tecwant Tegvan
<<Teuhant in HG.16 could be explained away as just a coincidence, i.e.,
the name invented by an early Welsh genealogist for the father of
Cunobelinus just happens to be somewhat similar to the name which is
later discovered to actually be the name of his father (based on
numismatic evidence that the genealogist presumably didn't know).>>
That is very interesting, but it does require a lot of coincidence. I truly
distrust the idea that names were invented. There is much evidence in the
chart that you posted that the names were carefully copied, though given the
pronunciation that was current. So much oral tradition was lost to us and
known to these ancients that the idea of them having to invent a name does not
set well with me. I would much rather assume that they were telling the truth
as it was known to them from oral sources and the pronunciation led to
confusion. Simple names with simply pronunciations did not change much:
Grat Grad Grad Grad Gradd
| | | | |
Vrban Vrban Vrba[n] Vrban Vrban
Complex names with lots of vowels changed as diphthongs and consonants
shifted.
Telpuil | Triuil Tepwyll Tyddbwyll
| | | | |
Teuhant Deyeweint Deheweint Eweint Deheuwaint
The fact that we cover four hundred years of written copies in this chart
seems to attest to the idea that the purpose was to preserve information as
accurately as possible, not to invent names and connections.
In fact, this is where I depart from some scholars interpretations. Though
there _are_ instances of grafted names and false genealogies made for
political purposes, I am not in a hurry to label most ancient genealogies as
written for a political purpose.
Kings moved, it was believed, in two worlds: they alone functioned as leaders
in both the sacred and secular realms. Because of these sacred connections,
the genealogy of noble families was very important to these ancient peoples.
Rule (sacred and secular) passed through genealogical information and there
were many oral means of preserving that information that did not survive.
That is why when I hear moderns stating facts such as Egbert's father was
named Ealmund and there was an Ealmund who was king of Kent, but we cannot be
certain that he was the same man, I must stand back and glower. We are
forgetting that the kings moved in sacred worlds among their peoples. Both
their possessions and their spiritual leadership were inherited. If the
genetic lines were broken and distant cousins came to power, the sacred duties
and the sacred genealogical connections moved according to the will of God to
the new ruler. We are bringing too much of our modern conditioning into
ancient worlds. We have separated the heavenly from the earthly, but the
ancients did not think in this manner. These populations were small and the
lines of nobles were well known in their day, even if that information is now
lost to us or exists in only fragments and contradictory copies.
- Ken
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
>Yes, they do look a lot alike. That they are different though, seems to be
>expressed in evolution of the chart that you posted on four hundred years in
>the evolution of names.
I was unable to tell from the context of your statement what the word
"they" referred to, and what your argument was. Which names were you
claiming to be different, and what was your reason?
Stewart Baldwin
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 1/21/1999 10:11:09 PM, sb...@auburn.campus.mci.net writes:
<< I was unable to tell from the context of your statement what the word
"they" referred to, and what your argument was. Which names were you
claiming to be different, and what was your reason? >>
I was agreeing that Teuhant and Tecmant looked as though it could be the same
name, but commenting that they must have been different because they were
father and son and the names went on to different evolutions in spelling.
My only observation to your wonderful chart was that "the fact that we cover
four hundred years of written copies in this chart seems to attest to the idea
that the purpose was to preserve information as accurately as possible, not to
invent names and connections."
________________
ASIDE: So far as the tag on Egbert mixed with that Teuhant post, I was trying
to elicit some kind of a conclusion to what I found to be an excellent
discussion that was left hanging in space. Please forgive my means of trying
to elicit this, as I often use emotional arguments when things are stalled. It
is a journalistic trick and seems to get the subject back on track.
Stewart Baldwin
>In a message dated 1/21/1999 10:11:09 PM, sb...@auburn.campus.mci.net writes:
><< I was unable to tell from the context of your statement what the word
>"they" referred to, and what your argument was. Which names were you
>claiming to be different, and what was your reason? >>
>I was agreeing that Teuhant and Tecmant looked as though it could be the same
>name, but commenting that they must have been different because they were
>father and son and the names went on to different evolutions in spelling.
Unfortunately, the chart of different forms which I had weakens that
argument somewhat. The late forms like "Deheuwaint" look like they
could be explained as attempts to reconcile the Teuhant of HG with the
Eweint of JC by coming up with a hybrid between the two. Thus, if the
appearance of Teuhant in HG was a scribal corruption caused by some
sort of error (which Miller, in her article mentioned below, claims it
was), then the case for making Teuhant and Tecmant different becomes
much weaker. In fact, Molly Miller, in her excellent article
"Historicity and the Pedigrees of the Northcountrymen", in "The
Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies", 26 (1975), 255-280, says, at
p. 266, while discussing this genealogy, that "Tecmant and Teuhant are
two forms of the same name, Tasciovanus in Roman British."
>My only observation to your wonderful chart was that "the fact that we cover
>four hundred years of written copies in this chart seems to attest to the idea
>that the purpose was to preserve information as accurately as possible, not to
>invent names and connections."
It seems to me that my chart shows nothing of the sort. It shows that
copyists sometimes bungled the job of copying genealogies (and this
would be even more apparent if you included the earlier generations
from the same pedigree), but tells us absolutely nothing about whether
the genealogy from which they copied was reliable or pure fabrication.
By the way, with regard to the question of fabricated pedigrees, I
consider the above article by Miller to be required reading for those
seriously interested in questions of reliability of the early Welsh
pedigrees.
Stewart Baldwin
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 1/22/1999 3:51:20 PM, sb...@auburn.campus.mci.net writes:
<< In fact, Molly Miller, in her excellent article
"Historicity and the Pedigrees of the Northcountrymen", in "The
Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies", 26 (1975), 255-280, says, at
p. 266, while discussing this genealogy, that "Tecmant and Teuhant are
two forms of the same name, Tasciovanus in Roman British." >>
Obviously, we have to read this before we can go much further. There are a few
others in this discussion who will need to do the same. The first thing we
must do is locate the article. I will try from here but if anyone can do so,
please help. Please reply off-line by e-mail. Scanning the article and getting
it to electronic text would be best. Sooner or later, this will be necessary.
Any volunteers?
- Ken
Stewart Baldwin
I agree that the limited availability of the journals containing
scholarly articles such as the one above is a serious problem, one
that I have struggled with myself, and that it is difficult to have an
internet discussion on such an article when some of those who might
like to participate don't have easy access to the article. However, I
don't think that it is wise to start scanning and sharing such
articles without first getting permission from the holders of the
copyright.
[BTW, if I remember correctly from my days as a student at the
University of Colorado, the university library in Boulder has that
journal. Assuming that you live in Arvada (as your postings suggest),
that is a relatively short drive for you.]
Stewart Baldwin
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: KHF...@aol.com wrote:
: >I was agreeing that Teuhant and Tecmant looked as though it could be the same
: >name, but commenting that they must have been different because they were
: >father and son and the names went on to different evolutions in spelling.
: Unfortunately, the chart of different forms which I had weakens that
: argument somewhat. The late forms like "Deheuwaint" look like they
: could be explained as attempts to reconcile the Teuhant of HG with the
: Eweint of JC by coming up with a hybrid between the two. Thus, if the
There is some corroborating evidence that "Deheuwaint" (or something
closely similar) is a name in its own right -- based on the appearance of
"Dehewint" in a late 13th century tax roll ("The Merioneth Lay Subsidy
Roll, 1292-3" ed. Keith Williams-Jone, University of Wales Press).
However, that wouldn't necessarily support the validity of a form like
"Teuhant" itself as something other than a scribal corruption. It might
simply mean that the appearance of "Deheuwaint" was a substitution of an
unrelated but more familiar name for the erroneous "Teuhant".
--
*********************************************************
Heather Rose Jones hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
**********************************************************
KHF...@aol.com
<< In fact, Molly Miller, in her excellent article "Historicity and the
Pedigrees of the Northcountrymen", in "The Bulletin of the Board of Celtic
Studies", 26 (1975), 255-280, says, at p. 266, while discussing this
genealogy, that "Tecmant and Teuhant are two forms of the same name,
Tasciovanus in Roman British." >>
I have found this article at the University of Boulder. Unfortunately,
nothing at all is said about this except the statement quoted above.
Seemingly, there are no reasons for that opinion other that the similarity in
names that we have already discussed. Perhaps it was convenient for her to
come to this conclusion, as she was not looking for a difference. It would
seem that one would have to explain why father and son shared the same name
and the why copyists spelled it differently to take this position.
I am perusing the rest of the article this evening and can get back on this
topic and a few related items later. I know there are a few others who have
read this article now. Perhaps they have a different view.
Also, we are searching for any other names in the Harleain genealogies whose
origins are mysterious: names that could have derived from old Latin and been
transposed into native spellings in the search to find if there are any other
clues that could point to the lost book of Tacitus having survived into the
middle of the 1st millennium, then being lost again.
Luke Stevens
> Roman British."
Now we've seen the derivation of Teuhant from Tasciovanus, but it does
not seem that the same arguments apply to the form Tecmant. Particuarly,
at this time "m" is changing into "v" (now written "f"), rather than
vice versa. So I can see Tecmant as an earlier form of Teuhant, but not
as a later form of Tasciovanus. But I could be wrong, since Miller
surely knows the language better than I do.
Stewart Baldwin wrote:
> The late forms like "Deheuwaint" look like they could be explained as
> attempts to reconcile the Teuhant of HG with the Eweint of JC by
> coming up with a hybrid between the two.
I think the contents of the manuscripts throughout point to a
GaC-JC-ABT common source, a genealogical compilation (c. 11th cent.?)
quite independent of HG, containing, e.g., what is probably a less
corrupt pedigree of Cunedda. It is less likely that GaC & ABT got a hold
of HG and altered this one name, than that Deheweint was miscopied in
JC, which we know to be frequently corrupt. This leads me to ask the
obvious question: could Deheuwaint derive from Tasciovanus?
Kenneth Harper Finton wrote:
> It would seem that one would have to explain why father and son shared
> the same name and the why copyists spelled it differently to take this
> position.
I think the idea was that the pair was a doublet, a copying error where
a name is repeated with a different spelling that take on a life of
their own, as probably with "Aballac map Amalech" in Cunedda's pedigree.
> Also, we are searching for any other names in the Harleain genealogies
> whose origins are mysterious: names that could have derived from old
> Latin and been transposed into native spellings in the search to find
> if there are any other clues that could point to the lost book of
> Tacitus having survived into the middle of the 1st millennium, then
> being lost again.
The chronology makes this unlikely. The only lines that even purport to
go back that far are the Caratacus one we were discussing and the
pedigrees of Coel and Cunedda. Moreover, there were plenty of bona fide
Latin names born by Britons in the time of Coel, which evolved with the
language in time, so a borrowing from Tacitus would not even be
recognizable as such unless it were grossly anachronistic.
Luke Stevens
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 1/29/1999 7:11:32 AM, anfo...@geocities.com writes:
<< I think the idea was that the pair was a doublet, a copying error where
a name is repeated with a different spelling that take on a life of
their own, as probably with "Aballac map Amalech" in Cunedda's pedigree. >>
This does seem to be the case. I agree with Luke Steven's post after having
carefully read that article. The name Teuhant only occurs in the
reconstructions in ghost form, that is 'edited in' to make sense of the
generations. The only line that goes back to the time of Caratacus is the one
we were discussing and the pedigrees of Coel and Cunedda. Coel's genealogy
seems purely Welsh with no Latinization.
One interesting point that Ms Miller made in this article seems very
reasonable to me. "The gradual linguistic change from British to Primitive
Cumbric would indeed not strike the poets dumb, but it would perhaps make
poetry composed before about 550 [the historical horizon] unfashionable and
unlikely to be remembered, while on the other hand stories would simply be
retold with linguistic changes incorporated as, or soon after, they occurred."
Another interesting note is that the only source for Outigirn and his wars has
come to us through the HB from Talhaearn, "the father of inspiration," [see
page 273, Historicity and the Pedigrees of the Northcountrymen] who I
mentioned earlier in the suggestions as to where this genealogy of Caratacus
came from. None of Talhaearn works survive, so it still seems logical to me
that his fame may have been spread by his linguistic skills and
reinterpretations of ancient stories, perhaps even genealogical stories. The
fact that a St. Talhaearn lived at the same time and was associated with the
church (thus he likely knew Latin) further reinforces the hypothesis that this
genealogy was transmitted through this early poet who lived near St. Asaph.
The key here, is Talhaearn, who was mentioned in the HB as one of the great
poets of the early 7th century. The only other reference to Talhaearn that I
have found is from Rachel Bromwich, who has a note on Talhaearn in her edition
of Trioedd Ynys Prydein and mentions no references to the poet found elsewhere
other than the Triads 33 and 34 –– which add nothing to the debate, but merely
describes someone as the man who used to bring Talhaearn oxen in the bath.
This shows us that Talhaearn was famous in his day, if nothing else, though
why he would have needed oxen in the bath is open to speculation. Was he
hugely obese or disabled and had to be pulled to and fro?
There is reference in Nennius' HB to Talhaearn: Paragraph 62: "Then Dutigirn
at that time fought bravely against the nation of the Angles. At that time
Talhaiarn Cataguen was famed for poetry, and Neirin and Taliessin and
Bluchbard and Cian, who is called Guenith Guaut, were all famous at the same
time in British poetry."
A footnote in HB (Giles) says: "Talhaiarn was a descendant of Coel Godebog and
chaplain to Ambrosius." (Notes by J. A. Giles, D.C.L, Corpus Christi College,
Oxford, 1885).
Here we have Talhaearn in an ecclesiastic setting, writing poetry quite early
in the 6th century. The same name is found as a saint in later records in the
same spot near St. Asaph.
Both Coel and Ambrosius are integral parts of Geoffrey's history ...
77 Constans, a monk, raised to power (s/o 69)
78 Aurelius Ambrosius (brother of Constans)
79 Uther Pendragon (brother of Constans) = Igerna
... so Talhaearn may be the strongest candidate for being the writer of
Geoffrey's 'lost' manuscript. At least he would have written in Primitive
Cumbric that was intelligible to Geoffrey. However, Geoffrey did not include
Outigirn and his treatment of Coel is decidedly unlike the Celtic genealogies.
Obviously, Geoffrey has his own agenda for relating genealogies from the time
of the Roman invasion of Britain. He had little interest in the Welsh
genealogies that covered the same time period because they did not relate to
the popular legends of the day--the Arthurian legends--and he needed to show a
genealogical link to the Romans, so he also inserted the Arvirargus/Genuissa
materials. Likewise, the antiquity of the Coel genealogies caught his
attention and legends about descendants of Coel has already entered into the
popular myths, thus he inserted Coel to give this genealogy the needed
legitimization.
6 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)
This is not to say that the earlier genealogies recorded by Geoffrey before
the entry for Lud have not been rewritten and inserted by Geoffrey from early
sources (and the lost works of Talhaearn is the most reasonable candidate for
this source). The earlier lines (I think everyone agrees) likely came from a
Welsh source as most of the names are clearly Welsh except for a few
Latinizations added by Geoffrey.
John Koch made suggestions about the role of Rhun, son of Urien, in the
recording of the heroic tradition at the end of his article: Koch, J. T.,
1985-6, “When was Welsh Literature First Written Down?” Studia Celtica,
XX/XXI, pp. 43-66.
Koch argues that the survival of material about the northern kingdoms (in a
period when no material survives from other regions), principally Canu
Taliesin and Canu Aneirin and some genealogical material, stems from the
personal interest of Rhun, son of Urien, writing c630 in Northumbria.
Since Rhun is also included in this genealogy, my tentative conclusion is that
this genealogy came to us from the Welsh interests in legitimating Rhun, son
of Urien.
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)
|
Guidgen (Gwydion, from the Mabinogion)
|
Lou hen (Llew, from the Mabinogion)
|
Cinis scaplaut
|
Decion
|
Catel
|
Catleu
|
Letan
|
Serguan
|
Caurtam
|
Caten
|
Neithon
|
Run
This particular information was not available to Geoffrey of Monmouth, or he
would have told us of Caractacus.
Luke Stevens
> This leads me to ask the obvious question: could Deheuwaint derive
> from Tasciovanus?
Since this garnered no response, let me explore mine own question.
If I understand the current understanding, we have something like:
Tasciouan(us) -> Tachsiouan- -> Techiouan(t) -> Tehuant -> Teuhant
with some uncertainty in the final stages. If the name followed a
separate development elsewhere from the middle form, it could easily go:
Techiouant -> Teheuuant -> Teheuwaint
Which is the same as Deheuwaint (or Deheweint) except for the first
letter. I might even go so far as to say that Teheuwaint bears an even
better resemblance to Tasciovanus than does Teuhant. But a difficulty is
the inital D, rather than T.
Welsh is known, on the one hand, for its habit of mutating the first
letter of words in various circumstances, and on the other, for the
universally popular shift of medial & final consonants from unvoiced to
voiced (e.g., Caratacus -> Caradog, though the antiquated orthography
took its sweet time catching up, even spreading to Ireland first). Since
we do not observe Tegfan becoming Degfan in the adjacent generation, and
the T is initial, not medial, neither of these apply. Only a small
number of names appear in some sources with T- but others with D-. If
the name were pronounced Thasciovanus, this might easily have been
written Ta- and spoken much later Ta- in some dialects but Da- in others
(I once saw the name written "Theomantius", supposedly following
Geoffrey, but neglected to note the source, which was not reliable). Or,
it might have passed through a dialect that habitually transformed T- to
D-. In any case, it is hard to deny that the change occurred. This, of
course, speaks of the case of two independent original written witnesses
to an orally preserved pedigree.
Now let me indulge in wild speculation. (***Warning!!!***)
The scenario I suggest is this. Tasciovanus was a highly esteemed king
in his own day and thereafter, heading the pedigree of his line. From
his influence the name became popular and spread to others in various
regions, to survive and evolve into Dehewaint or somesuch in modern
Welsh. During Roman times, his descendants came to rule a territory
including much of northeastern England. In the 4th century, one of its
kings, Rhun ap Neithon, had a document produced tracing his ancestry to
Tasciovanus and also cataloguing the Roman emperors of the same period.
At about that same time, the kingdom failed in the male line or was
deposed, leaving only an heiress (or so at least in theory) who had
married a certain Telpwyll of a neighboring petty kingdom. This is why
we find what we do in HG, i.e., for the same reasons we find the
pedigree of the kings of Man traced to the 8th century. Now, the son of
this Telpwyll was named Teuhant/Deheuwaint after the illustrious
progenitor of the defunct line. His grandson was Coel Hen, who rose to
great power in the north at the time of the Roman withdrawals.
There is a late source, Peniarth MS 128 p.161 (quoted in Bartrum's WCD),
that shows essentially (I quote here from memory): Coel ap Tegfan ap
Deheuwaint ab Emerita ap Coel ap Meurig ap Gweirydd ap Cynfelin ap
Tynefan [Tasciovanus], etc. Bartrum labelled this a fictitious attempt
to portray the composite Coel (Coel of Colchester + Coel Hen) as heir to
the kingdom ruled by Lucius of HRB (Geoffrey of Monmouth). Indeed, the
appearance of information from HRB does not inspire confidence,
especially when king Lucius is now known to have been not British at
all. But the names Coilus and Marius have never been explained, and it
is at least possible that they rightly and originally lay in the
prototype of the pedigree above. Say that there was an original
describing Emerita as daughter of Coel and heiress to the kingdom of
Tasciovanus. HRB got a hold of it and used it to fill the unsightly gap
between Arviragus and Lucius (cf. also Coel son of Cyllin in the Iolo
MSS). Conflation of this with the stories of Macsen's wife Elen and
Constantius's wife Elen may also have given rise to the statement that
Coel gave his daughter to Constantius. Remember, Coel as a personal
name, if it is in fact a name and not a fictitious eponym, is
exceedingly rare in the 1st millennium. Once HRB gained acceptance, the
copyist of the above pedigree altered or expanded it in accordance with
what he thought was a reliable account. That is, originally Deheuwaint
was son of Emerita, dau. of Coel, kinsman of Rhun. And the later Coel
was named after this one, father of the supposed heiress. Were British
onomastic practices similar to those in early feudal France, where
children were often named for the relatives of the mother? I don't
really know. But now I'm out on a limb much too far to try my readers'
patience any further.
This scenario ties together nicely a number of hitherto unexplained
points, but it should not be taken too seriously, given the late and
dubious nature of the sources. Comments, anyone?
Luke Stevens
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 2/5/1999 12:23:29 PM, anfo...@geocities.com writes:
<< This scenario ties together nicely a number of hitherto unexplained
points, but it should not be taken too seriously, given the late and
dubious nature of the sources. Comments, anyone? >>
Do not underestimate the value of speculation in dealing with mysteries such
as these. Yours is a most reasonable hypothesis, certainly leagues above the
idea that everything was made up from whole cloth--an idea to which that I
cannot subscribe.
I am lucky enough to be in possession of Dr. Rochelle Altman's new (and as yet
unfinished) book on paleography. I will agenting the work, perhaps even
publishing it. This is a very important book by a top expert in a field where
you can count the true experts on one hand.
Dr. Altman notes: "The Winner's Standard Operating Procedure is to hide
evidence; winners, after all, write histories. One standard procedure is to
destroy documents written by the opposition. This process is known as
selective destruction. Only documents that do not obviously contradict the
desired history survive this procedure."
As to the transmissions of Britannic texts, Dr. Altman says: "The evidence for
the extremely high cultural level of the British can only be seen through
their Latin compositions. The evidence for their generosity and friendliness
toward their new neighbors can only be seen through translations into the
vernacular by those Anglo-Saxons they converted to Christianity. We are
fortunate that _any_ texts written by the Britons survive. The Edit technique
was already being applied to their works by the 7th century. Selective
destruction took its toll by the late 10th century."
With this in mind, we would be wise in assuming that when a work is known to
be lost, there is a very good chance it has actually been destroyed by
oppositionary forces. The information contained therein was contradictory to
the official message of the new regime.
Therefore, we must reconstruct scenarios such as the one you have constructed
to make sense of the materials that were edited by the winners before the
originals were destroyed.
Which brings me back to the lost books of Tacitus. The fact that only one MS
was destroyed and the rest remain is extremely suspect. It is not as though
someone 'checked it out' and forgot to return it. The most reasonable
explanation for its disappearance is that it was destroyed because the content
threatened the established order. That order, most likely, was the religious
order. Even in the time of Bede, effort was made to paint the Britons as a
bunch of unintelligent, and unwashed pagans without a culture worth preserving
or even knowing about.
In Bede's _Historia_ he paints a picture of ancient Britain: "The island has
good pasturage for cattle and draught animals. It is rich in grain and timber.
It has mile after mile of good arable soil, meadows, forests, and vineyards.
It has a large variety of land and sea creatures. Britain has reliable water
sources, both salt and sweet, as well as hot springs and baths. It is rich in
veins of metal: copper, iron, lead and silver."
What is wrong with this picture of Britain? Nothing but the error of omission.
What Bede fails explicitly to tell us is that Britain (especially Cornwall)
was extremely rich in tin. This was the reason that Rome wanted Britain. The
entire Bronze age was dependent upon this essential ore and the Britons had
been trading with the Phoenicians for this ore for several thousand years.
With such a trade and such a monopoly, these people were not warring bands of
barbarians, but literate merchants and traders with their own system of
writing, people who also had to speak Punic, a sister language of Hebrew, to
make trades. Rather than being isolated and barbaric, this was an advanced,
but a very different culture.
Christianity took root so early in the area that they developed their own
sects. By the time Augustine was sent by Gregory to convert the 'pagans' to
Christianity, he found that they were already Christians. In fact, there were
numerous Christian sects all vying for supremacy. However, none of them were
like the Roman branch, so all of them were heretical 'pagans' to the Roman
orders.
Earlier, Chris Pitt Lewis pointed out: "It is also extremely unlikely that he
[Tacitus] 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末when Nero blamed the
Christians for the fire of Rome in 64末he explains who they were in terms that
make it clear that he had not mentioned them before [Annals 15/44]."
Whether or not Tacitus did or did not mention something of the Christians
seems to me to be an open question. If we believe for a moment that these
books survived into the 9th or 10th century, then we could believe that
something was said in these missing pages that was so contradictory to the
position of the 9th or 10th century church that the MS was actually destroyed.
It could have been the portraits that Tacitus painted of the ancient Britons.
Though it seems to be much too early for Christianity to have made inroads
into Britain, we must remember that Christianity came to Britain either with
or on the back of the Roman soldiers.
We only have hints of this early Christianity through the puzzles about
Claudia the painted Britain and the Rufus Pudens of the Bible. We only have
legends of Caractacus becoming a Christian in Rome at the time that Plautius'
wife was being historically tried for a 'foreign superstition' that could only
be Christianity. We only have hints of genealogies from the 14th century that
claim legends of an early Christian presence with Lucius, Coel, and Helen of
the Cross, genealogies that were obviously edited for and by the winners of
the struggle for power.
If we choose to believe that the MS disappeared from its Latin home and never
made it to Britain, then we might believe that some information was passed
about the Roman invasion of Britain that was so against the interests of the
Romans that the work was destroyed. However, if this was the case, why not
destroy the entire work. Claudius' entire histories were destroyed, probably
by Nero, without any hesitation whatever. These Roman emperors in the time of
Nero would have had no reason to keep any of Tacitus' work. They were megalo-
maniacs bent on godlike power and destruction meant nothing to them.
Yes, chance could have played a part in the disappearance of the manuscript,
but I find it extremely doubtful. To the winners go the spoils and the ability
to create history from their point of view. Celtic literature has
disappeared, not because it was never there to begin with, but most likely
because it vitally threatened the authority of the time. Although the Viking
incursions and burnings played a factor in the disappearance of some of these
works, the Britons were perfectly capable of salvaging their history by moving
it to Ireland and Brittany. As a matter of fact, they did so, only to find
that later the process of selective destruction would nullify their efforts.
- Ken
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 2/5/1999 12:23:29 PM, anfo...@geocities.com writes:
<< Say that there was an original
describing Emerita as daughter of Coel and heiress to the kingdom of
Tasciovanus. HRB got a hold of it and used it to fill the unsightly gap
between Arviragus and Lucius (cf. also Coel son of Cyllin in the Iolo
MSS). Conflation of this with the stories of Macsen's wife Elen and
Constantius's wife Elen may also have given rise to the statement that
Coel gave his daughter to Constantius. >>
Could you please explain this further ... especially Macsen and the
Cyllin/Coel in the lolo MS.
- Ken
Luke Stevens
> one MS was destroyed and the rest remain is extremely suspect. It is
> not as though someone 'checked it out' and forgot to return it. The
> most reasonable explanation for its disappearance is that it was
> destroyed because the content threatened the established order. That
> order, most likely, was the religious order.
As I understood it, it was more like fragments from two different MSS
survived, with the rest being destroyed. That Tacitus was actively
censored strikes me as very doubtful. Let me compare Origen, with whom I
am a little more familiar. He was, on the one hand, a Father of the
Church, but on the other hand, a much despised heretic. If anyone were a
candidate for selective destruction it would be he. What survives is
fragmentary, sometimes nearly complete, sometimes totally lost, as with
Tacitus. But in what we can examine now the heresy is found right along
with the orthodoxy. One of his modern editors that I was reading a few
days ago is careful to explain that the loss of many parts of his work
is due not to deliberate destruction but to neglect, since his writings
were so enormous (averaging some six pages per Biblical verse!), that no
scribe could reasonably be expected to copy them all, in Greek no less.
Tacitus would hardly have said anything so much more objectionable as to
merit destruction of six of his books. He was simply long and dry,
cataloguing the minutia of a bygone era saying very little about the
things that most interested medieval copyists, such as theology, the
Trojan War, and of course, the History of the Kings of Britain. Works
don't survive unless scribes make copies frequently enough that the last
copies do not perish before new ones are made. If Tacitus did say
anything about early Christians and British kings, these parts would
more likely have been extracted and put into other works, than that the
whole original was copied for the sake of these. What survives from
classical writers is only a very, very tiny fragment of what once
existed, selected mainly according to interest and chance. Censorship is
a possibility, but I think it more likely that the missing books are
right now crumbling to dust unnoticed in some basement somewhere in the
heart of Europe.
> Yes, chance could have played a part in the disappearance of the
> manuscript, but I find it extremely doubtful. To the winners go the
> spoils and the ability to create history from their point of view.
> Celtic literature has disappeared, not because it was never there to
> begin with, but most likely because it vitally threatened the
> authority of the time. Although the Viking incursions and burnings
> played a factor in the disappearance of some of these works, the
> Britons were perfectly capable of salvaging their history by moving it
> to Ireland and Brittany. As a matter of fact, they did so, only to
> find that later the process of selective destruction would nullify
> their efforts.
It is true that nearly all early British MSS have been lost except for a
few copies preserved on the continent or in very late and often corrupt
fragments in Britain itself. There is an interesting item at the very
end of WCD that may shed some light on this. I don't have it handy,
but I can give the gist.
Around the 13th century, when England & Wales were at war, the English
captured a number of Welsh noblemen and imprisoned them in London. As
they were there for some length of time, their countrymen collected all
of the best books in the land, to send to the prisoners, to comfort them
and give them something to do during their stay. But when they were
delivered, Ysgolan (presumably Scolan in Saxon) seized the books and
burned them all out of hatred for the Welsh. Bartrum quotes a few lines
of poetry cursing Ysgolan for this heinous deed.
This could well explain why we must now make due with such late & poor
copies of Welsh texts, generally 13th century & later, since all the
best texts were burnt, and only poor defective copies were left behind.
If the story is true, who knows what all may have perished that day?
Several copies of Tacitus, Walter the Archdeacon's ancient book, the
Northern Annals, Talhaearn's poetry,...?
Luke Stevens
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 2/7/1999 5:05:15 PM, sb...@auburn.campus.mci.net writes:
<<I don't see any good reason for believing that Run map Neithon, who
heads the pedigree under discussion, lived as early as the fourth
century ... It seems much more likely to me that Run lived sometime during
the eighth to tenth centuries >>
Koch, J. T., 1985-6, “When was Welsh Literature First Written Down?” Studia
Celtica, XX/XXI, pp. 43-66. Koch argues that the survival of material about
the northern kingdoms (in a period when no material survives from other
regions), principally Canu Taliesin and Canu Aneirin and some genealogical
material, stems from the personal interest of Rhun, son of Urien, writing c630
in Northumbria.
Of course, then Rhun's father is not Neithon, if that is not the same name, or
there is a missing generation.
<< and there is no good reason to believe that thes individuals were
historical.>>
And there is no good reason to believe that they are not, either. All we
really know is that some scribe, sometime around 1100 A.D., copied this from
some two-hundred year-old material. None of these later names were known to
history, or even to this early 12th century scribe whose work survives in the
Harleian genealogies, or these names would not have been mistaken for one
another. If they did not even know these people, why would they have need to
invent them? The mistakes seem to be honest scribal errors.
Skepticism, too often, breeds, contempt. We need to use it with care.
Luke Stevens
> Coel and heiress to the kingdom of Tasciovanus. HRB got a hold of it
> and used it to fill the unsightly gap between Arviragus and Lucius
> (cf. also Coel son of Cyllin in the Iolo MSS). Conflation of this with
> the stories of Macsen's wife Elen and Constantius's wife Elen may also
> have given rise to the statement that Coel gave his daughter to
> Constantius. >>
>
> Could you please explain this further ... especially Macsen and the
> Cyllin/Coel in the lolo MS.
I mentioned this off hand on the chance that the name Coel is an
authentic part of the pedigree and HRB got one or both (or even all
three) of its Coels from some document, such as a saint's life, that,
say, described this Coel as a descendant of Tasciovanus or Caratacus and
mentioned a few relatives and the political situation. Taken out of
context, it might have served to fill two voids in the Roman period. But
theorizing about the sources for the personal names in HRB opens up a
whole new can of worms, on which volumes have already been written, and
I'll not go there, at least not yet.
My basic hypothesis was that Telpwyll married a near relative of Rhun,
and I gave reasons for thinking this in light of HG. I then offered a
late pedigree that actually names the woman and gives her ancestry. The
question is what to make of the fact that her father is identified as
one of the kings in HRB, and a chronologically impossible one at that.
This could be a simple scribal expansion from a statement like:
Deheuwaint inherited the kingdom once ruled by Tasciovanus through his
mother. Emerita is mentioned in other sources as a sister of Lucius in
the most developed versions of that legend. It would not be much of a
leap to suppose that, given that Lucius died without issue, the next
British king, Coel, now the composite Coel, was his maternal nephew. I
was toying with the idea that we may be dealing with something a little
more complicated here, that Emerita and Coel are authentic names in the
pedigree, and that splicing this onto HRB's pedigree is not due merely
to chronology but to the fact that HRB's Coel (or Coels, I should say,
since there are several) was originally the same person, but misplaced.
Even in the earliest sources, there is rampant confusion between Elen,
wife of Constantius, and Elen, wife of Macsen (both Helena in Latin). In
HG, for example, the epithet Luyddog is given to the wrong one. They
shared the same name, they lived in the same century, they both married
a famous Roman general in command of Britain, they both had a son named
Constantine. Let me call them Elen I and Elen II.
Elen II was daughter of the British king Eudaf Hen, who, if real, almost
certainly ruled in Siluria. HRB says that Eudaf died without male heir,
and that his son-in-law Macsen quarreled with his nephew Cynan Meiriadog
over the succession, against the unanimous statement of Welsh and Breton
genealogies that Cynan was son of Eudaf. Earlier, HRB says that a
certain king Coel (a usurper, of unknown parentage, but with brothers
named Llywelyn, Trahaern, and Meurig) who ruled at Colchester (hence the
name) gave his daughter Elen I in marriage to Constantius, whose son
Constantine then acceded to the British throne. This is stated probably
independently by Henry of Huntingdon, so HRB seems to have got it from
him or his source. The trouble here, as Bartrum's WCD points out, is
that Constantine was born long before Constantius ever set foot in
Britain. So how did this legend arise? Probably because early sources
described Elen (II -> I) as daughter and heir of the king of Britain.
But why is her father called Coel rather than Eudaf?
The name Coel is rare in the first millennium. EWGT indexes only Coel
Hen and those in HRB, viz. Coel, successor of Cadell ap Geraint
(interestingly, this is precisely where the pre-Roman genealogy is
broken off to give a bare king-list), Coel ap Meurig, and the eponymous
Coel of Colchester. Coel Hen is later mentioned in passing as ancestor
to some attending Arthur's coronation, and a Coel ap Cyllin is mentioned
by Iolo in nearly the same context as Coel ap Meurig in HRB. It could be
argued that Coel was merely a fictitious eponym of Colchester in the
south and of the Coeling in the north (known only from a late triad),
but it is otherwise found as a genuine personal name after the 9th
century. There has always been a temptation to suppose that all the
characters named Coel in HRB are based on Coel Hen, since that is the
only early Coel otherwise known (or does anyone know of others?).
I described the contents of the Iolo MSS briefly in an earlier post, in
the context of the genealogies in "St. Paul in Britain". Iolo, like the
earlier triads, generally does not follow HRB and only occasionally
draws from Nennius or a related source. The rest is an infuriating
mixture of common knowledge, lost traditions, and outright forgeries.
Iolo's take on the history of the kings of Britain focuses on Siluria,
or ancient Morgannwg & environs, rather than the eastern regions where
Cunobelinus & kin ruled. It goes through Bran Fendigaid, traditional (&
believed to be mythical) ancestor of the kings of Morgannwg and of Eudaf
Hen. Lucius is included, and described in a way paralleling HRB and the
earlier accounts, but here his pedigree is Lucius son of Coel ap Cyllin
ap Caradog ap Bran. Cyllin & Lucius are known from early sources, and
Coel is given as father of Lucius in HRB, but there Coel is made son of
Meurig. So did Iolo brazenly draw from HRB and alter the story, or did
he have another source that told him about Coel? If an early lost source
mentioned Coel as a grandson or descendant of Caratacus and father of
Lucius, this could explain it, since Iolo identifies Caratacus with
Caradog ap Bran. But again, Iolo's sources and methods are another huge
can of worms I'd rather not go into.
Luke Stevens
Stewart Baldwin
>I wrote:
>> This leads me to ask the obvious question: could Deheuwaint derive
>> from Tasciovanus?
>Since this garnered no response, let me explore mine own question.
[rest snipped for length - see Luke's previous posting for details]
I don't see any good reason for believing that Run map Neithon, who
heads the pedigree under discussion, lived as early as the fourth
century, and I think that it is unlikely in the extreme that the
pedigree should be regarded as historical in its entirety, since the
middle of the pedigree contains probably mythological beings. It
seems much more likely to me that Run lived sometime during the eighth
to tenth centuries (i.e., during roughly the same as the other
individuals who head pedigrees in the Harleian collection), that
perhaps a handful of the later generations are genuine, and that the
earlier generations are a fabrication of the same type as those
genealogies in which various Welsh princes claimed descent from Magnus
Maximus ("Maxen Wledig"). (In other words, the earlier part of Run's
pedigree was fabricated by adding known heros of legend to the
beginning of the pedigree.) If stories about Tasciovanus,
Cunobelinus, and Caractacus were still known among the Welsh of the
eighth through tenth centuries, transmitted by whatever means
(theories for which have been discussed at great length in previous
postings), it is quite likely that the chronological information
regarding them might have become lost, so that most (or perhaps even
all) Welsh of the eighth century would have no idea when these
individuals had lived, other than the fact that it was hundreds of
years ago. Without such chronological knowledge, there would be no
way for someone who was attaching these names to a fabricated pedigree
to know how many generations needed to be put in between in order to
make the pedigree chronologically plausible, and there is therefore no
good reason to believe that counting generations from Cunolbelinus
gives an accurate estimate of Run's time period. (As a point of
comparison, note that Gildas himself mistakenly thought that Hadrian's
Wall had only been built a century or so before his own time.) Thus,
unless one of the individuals in the later generations of the pedigree
can be chronologically located in a way that is independent of
counting generations in the pedigree itself, it is difficult to judge
what historical context (if any) the pedigree might have.
With regard to the name "Dehewaint" in the genealogies, I don't think
that the name necessarily has to be viewed as being the same as
Tasciovanus/Tecvant/Teuhant, and that there exist simple explanations
of the textual variants (of which I will give two) which do not
require Dehewaint and Teuhant to be the same name. When looking at
the textual history of different variants, it is important to keep in
mind that, in additon to simple copying mistakes which a scribe might
make, medieval scribes were just as likely as we modern folks to try
and find a way of explaining away differences in various manuscript
versions, and to "correct" information given by previous scribes
(which might have actually been right to begin with). Here are a
couple of scenarios which would give a possible textual history of the
variants. Please keep in mind that these pedigrees are all quite
likely to be pseudohistorical in origin, and there is no good reason
to believe that thes individuals were historical.
Scenario 1: In this scenario, the earlier version of the pedigree has
Coel as the son of Teuhant/Tecmant, who in turn is the son of
Telpwyll. Two manuscripts at this stage (both lost) may then read:
Coel guotepauc
map Teuhant
map Telpuil
etc.
and
Coel guotepauc
map Tecmant
map Telpuil
etc.
Here there is no disagreement except for the fact that the two
manuscripts use two different (but equivalent) forms for the middle
name. A person who posessed a copy of the first version may have
noted the variant form in between the lines, as follows:
Coel guotepauc
/Tecmant
map Teuhant
map Telpuil
Years later, a new owner of the same manuscript misunderstands this
interlineal notation, and believes it to be an extra generation which
was accidently omitted, resulting in:
Coel guotepauc
mac Tecmant
mac Teuhant
etc.
The fact that the surviving genealogies also have another such
"doublet" in earlier generations of the same genealogy (Aballach and
Amallach), in which two forms of the same name are repeated, supports
the suggestion that something along these lines happened.
It is also relatively common for letters to become lost from
manuscripts, either because of fading ink or damage. If "Teuhant"
lost the initial "T", it could easily bcome "Euhant" in some copies.
(Remember that each copy was unique, and that there was often no
distinction between capital and lower case letters during that time.)
A scribe who saw the strange "Euhant" could then easily "correct" it
to the familiar "Eweint" (as we see in the JC manuscript). If a later
scribe then saw the forms "Teuhant" and "Eweint" in two manuscripts,
he might easily decide that "Dehewaint" was the correct name, as a
reasonable compromise between the two different forms. This would
explain all of the forms which we see in the surviving manuscripts.
Scenario 2: In this scenario, the name Dehewaint is the earlier form
of the pedigree, which has Coel son of Tecmant/Teuhant, son of
Dehewaint. As in scenario 1, an alternate form of a name is indicated
interlineally, perhaps like:
Coel guotepauc
map Tecmant
\Teuhant
map Deheuaint (or whatever the Old Welsh form of that name would be)
In this case, the later owner realizes that Teuhant is just an
alternate form, but misunderstands it as an alternate form of
Deheuaint (which it does resemble), and replaces Deheuaint with
Teuhant, giving rise to the form of the Harleian manuscript and its
realtives. The JC manuscript ("Eweint") is explained as a corrupt
form due to loss of letters, as before, and most of the survivng
manuscripts then have the earlier form of the pedigree (with
modernized language).
Of course, other errors were also happening during this process, such
as the conversion of Coel's title "guotepauc" into a generation
between Coel and Tecmant. It could be that both of the above
scenarios are wrong, but both of them illustrate the kinds of
manipulations and errors which occurred in medieval genealogies (and
medieval manuscripts in general), and they show that it is not
necessary to regard Deheweint as a variant of Tasciovanus. Perhaps
someone with the necessary linguistic background will do the necessary
textual history on these variants, to see if either of the above
scenarios can be ruled out, or perhaps support a different scenario,
but such textual histories are more difficult to do on manuscripts
consisting mostly of names. (It is much easier to derive textual
histories for variants of narrative manuscripts which have compete
sentences.)
Stewart Baldwin
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 2/7/1999 7:38:15 PM, anfo...@geocities.com writes:
<< their countrymen collected all of the best books in the land, to send to
the prisoners, to comfort them and give them something to do during their
stay. But when they were delivered, Ysgolan (presumably Scolan in Saxon)
seized the books and burned them all out of hatred for the Welsh. >>
A good example, but not the only one. I was speaking of much earlier
destructions. These were probably not the only copies of the books in
existence at that time. However, the story illustrates very well the hatred
of the Welsh culture by the Anglo-Saxons, who also systematically destroyed
works well before that late date.
Bu this time, Geoffrey of Monmouth had already written his popular book. The
source materials had been destoyed many centuries before.
<<That Tacitus was actively censored strikes me as very doubtful. Let me
compare Origen, with whom I am a little more familiar.That Tacitus was
actively
censored strikes me as very doubtful. Let me compare Origen, with whom I
am a little more familiar. >>
But Origen is a great example of an EDITED work. Only a small portion of his
Greek works survive, but the translations by Jerome into Latin were 'edited.'
That is the other technique used, when destruction is not warranted, to change
the content of the information.
<<If Tacitus did say anything about early Christians and British kings, these
parts would more likely have been extracted and put into other works, than
that the
whole original was copied for the sake of these>>
Exactly. What the early Christians believed was heresy a 800-900 years hence.
Even we moderns have trouble with the message of love and the idea of 'turning
the other cheek' and 'loving your enemies'. They practically went to war over
the date that Easter was celebrated and the way a tonsure should appear.
These winning powers were not exactly tolerant. Even if Tacitus said nothing
at all about Christians, but had something to say that gave national pride and
identity to the Welsh, that would have been enough for the Welsh haters to
destroy the extracted works. Even a work such as Geoffrey concocted that gave
a Latin beginning to the Welsh culture would have been enough to inspire book
the burners in earlier times. The Brutus legend in itself would have
infuriated the Saxons.
Granted that time, decay, bas parchment and the climate in the British Isles
made preserving ancient documents difficult, but in the period we are talking
about there are no surving documents at all except that chipped on stones and
many of those are defaced. Selective destruction played a great role in the
disappearance of the Brythonic culture.
Cheers
- Ken
Stewart Baldwin
[most snipped to save bandwidth]
>There is a late source, Peniarth MS 128 p.161 (quoted in Bartrum's WCD)
What does "WCD" stand for? Is that Bartrum's new
dictionary/encylopedia which I have heard about (but never seen)?
I have already said how extremely unlikely I think it is that Run map
Neithon's pedigree is a genuine pedigree of a fourth century
individual, but setting that problem aside for a moment, I still don't
follow the reasoning of your speculation. I see no reason to believe
that the pedigree of Run map Neithon is in any way connected to Coel
Hen. What reasoning (other than wishful thinking) is there for having
Run's hypothetical heiress marry an ancestor of Coel Hen?
Stewart Baldwin
Stewart Baldwin
>In a message dated 2/7/1999 5:05:15 PM, sb...@auburn.campus.mci.net writes:
>>I don't see any good reason for believing that Run map Neithon, who
>>heads the pedigree under discussion, lived as early as the fourth
>>century ... It seems much more likely to me that Run lived sometime during
>>the eighth to tenth centuries
>Koch, J. T., 1985-6, “When was Welsh Literature First Written Down?” Studia
>Celtica, XX/XXI, pp. 43-66. Koch argues that the survival of material about
>the northern kingdoms (in a period when no material survives from other
>regions), principally Canu Taliesin and Canu Aneirin and some genealogical
>material, stems from the personal interest of Rhun, son of Urien, writing c630
>in Northumbria.
>Of course, then Rhun's father is not Neithon, if that is not the same name, or
>there is a missing generation.
R[h]un is not a rare name, with fifteen individuals of that name
appearing in Bartrum's "Early Welsh Genealogical Tracts" alone. Thus,
whoever the Run map Neithon under discussion was, he was certainly not
the same as Urien's son of that name (who has a quite different
genealogy). Thus, it is not really clear what relevance your comment
has to my previous statement which you quoted.
>>and there is no good reason to believe that thes individuals were
>>historical.
>And there is no good reason to believe that they are not, either. All we
>really know is that some scribe, sometime around 1100 A.D., copied this from
>some two-hundred year-old material. None of these later names were known to
>history, or even to this early 12th century scribe whose work survives in the
>Harleian genealogies, or these names would not have been mistaken for one
>another. If they did not even know these people, why would they have need to
>invent them? The mistakes seem to be honest scribal errors.
>Skepticism, too often, breeds, contempt. We need to use it with care.
The scholarly literature is full of reasons why the Welsh genealogies
should be mistrusted for the prehistoric period (and the fourth
century is prehistoric for the native sources we are discussing). You
have read at least one of these articles recently (Miller's article),
as you stated in a previous posting. When we are talking about
traditional genealogies covering a time period which is well before
the beginning of the native written literature (as we are here), the
use of skepticism is absolutely essential, and the lack of it is
likely to lead to "history" which is more fantasy than fact.
Stewart Baldwin
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 2/10/1999 5:48:53 PM, sb...@auburn.campus.mci.net writes:
<<R[h]un is not a rare name, with fifteen individuals of that name
appearing in Bartrum's "Early Welsh Genealogical Tracts" alone. Thus,
whoever the Run map Neithon under discussion was, he was certainly not
the same as Urien's son of that name (who has a quite different
genealogy). Thus, it is not really clear what relevance your comment
has to my previous statement which you quoted. >>
Yes, thank you for making that clear. However, I'm not really sure what you
said. In your very first post on this subject, you said: "the individuals at
the bottom of the table [Run] would have most likely lived in the fourth
century, earlier than most individuals (alleged or real) who appear in the
Harleian genealogies."
That, of course, is confirmed by giving each generation a 25-30 year life and
multiplying the generations to confirm a chronology of c350 AD.
Yet, you later said: "I don't see any good reason for believing that Run map
Neithon, who heads the pedigree under discussion, lived as early as the fourth
century, and I think that it is unlikely in the extreme that the pedigree
should be regarded as historical in its entirety, since the middle of the
pedigree contains probably mythological beings. It seems much more likely to
me that Run lived sometime during the eighth to tenth centuries (i.e., during
roughly the same as the other individuals who head pedigrees in the Harleian
collection)."
These two very different views separate events by four to six centuries!
<< the use of skepticism is absolutely essential, and the lack of it is
likely to lead to "history" which is more fantasy than fact >>
Agreed ...
But if we are to find a reasonable thread here, we need to suspend skepticism.
If we believe the figures are historical or never existed, then we will never
actively seek information to the contrary. It is a bias that you carry with
you throughout.
On the other hand, if you believe in the possibility of their existence, but
possible conflation, then you can sort out the pieces.
- Ken
Stewart Baldwin
>In a message dated 2/10/1999 5:48:53 PM, sb...@auburn.campus.mci.net writes:
> <<R[h]un is not a rare name, with fifteen individuals of that name
>appearing in Bartrum's "Early Welsh Genealogical Tracts" alone. Thus,
>whoever the Run map Neithon under discussion was, he was certainly not
>the same as Urien's son of that name (who has a quite different
>genealogy). Thus, it is not really clear what relevance your comment
>has to my previous statement which you quoted. >>
>Yes, thank you for making that clear. However, I'm not really sure what you
>said. In your very first post on this subject, you said: "the individuals at
>the bottom of the table [Run] would have most likely lived in the fourth
>century, earlier than most individuals (alleged or real) who appear in the
>Harleian genealogies."
Although I did in fact write the above words, they have been quoted
out of context by omitting the first phrase of my original sentence,
thereby completely changing the meaning of my original statement. The
sentence I wrote, in full, was:
"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."
Note that your removal of the initial qualifying phrase "In the
unlikely event that the entire pedigree is historical," from your
"quote" of my statement has drastically altered the meaning of my
sentence, and that my original statement and my later statement are
perfectly consistent with one another.
Stewart Baldwin
>That, of course, is
Luke Stevens
> dictionary/encylopedia which I have heard about (but never seen)?
Yes. Peter C. Bartrum, _A Welsh Classical Dictionary: People in History
and Legend up to about A.D. 1000_, 1993. It is mainly the author's
accumulated notes, complete with thorough references, on every recorded
person in Wales (and many in Brittany, England, Scotland, etc. where
relevant) in the first millennium and earlier, whether historical,
legendary, mythical, fictional, or outright erroneous (and duly labelled
as such). Though occasionally the notes have not been kept up to date,
and it is skimpy on the Arthuriana, on the whole it is really an
invaluable work for those with interests like yours & mine.
> I have already said how extremely unlikely I think it is that Run map
> Neithon's pedigree is a genuine pedigree of a fourth century
> individual, but setting that problem aside for a moment, I still don't
> follow the reasoning of your speculation. I see no reason to believe
> that the pedigree of Run map Neithon is in any way connected to Coel
> Hen. What reasoning (other than wishful thinking) is there for having
> Run's hypothetical heiress marry an ancestor of Coel Hen?
I thought my reasoning was clear from my posts, but it never hurts to
explain things a second time, and more thoroughly. Remember, I do not
claim to have undeniable proof of anything. I make a conjecture that
seems to be consistent with, and to a small extent suggested by, weak
evidence. Follow me through here, even though there are admittedly
plausible alternatives to many of my assumptions and conclusions.
Here goes....
1. Chronology. Everything depends on whether the 4th century date that I
assume is correct, so I shall explain why I think it is more likely than
your "extremely unlikely". Taking the whole line as authentic implies a
date of the 4th-6th century for Run. But if it is not essentially
correct, then Run could be any time. Since the emperor-list is attached
to it, they are probably, though not certainly, from the same document
and the same time. The fact that the emperor-list begins with Constans
while excluding Maximus indicates the 4th century. The first couple of
names (Run...) may have been later additions. So these both point to a
date of the 4th or possibly 5th century. As for the other HG lines, some
are traced to the time of compilation, while others abruptly terminate
at various times from the 5th/6th century on. Reason suggests that the
earliest lines to terminate would be the least likely to maintain enough
interest and circulation to survive in later tracts, except the Gwyr y
Gogledd, which seems to have continued as a discrete compilation. Of the
lines unique to HG, two more are undateable, and the rest terminate by
the 7th century. If, as I believe, HG 16 is closely related to, though
still separate from, the Gwyr y Gogledd, we could expect it to terminate
by the 6th century like the rest. The lone exception to all this is
Strathclyde, probably the only kingdom of the North to hold its own up
to such a late date. So for all these reasons I tentatively take the
line at face value and date it as 4th (maybe 5th) century, a view which
is not utterly without foundation.
2. Succession. To even propose an heiress, especially so early, is
likely to raise doubts, since the usual impression is that succession
was in the male line, as in Ireland. But, though I have not examined the
issue in detail, I think the evidence shows that the Britons were more
like the Armenians than the Irish in this respect: succession was
generally agnatic, but when a line failed, and descendants existed in
the female line, it would be these rather than very distant and dubious
kin to inherit. That this happened on more than one occasion in Dyfed is
undoubted, and it almost certainly happened in Man. If it be argued that
the female links given in genealogies are fabrications made to
legitimize, then even this implies that the inheritance could
legitimately pass through the female line. I must admit that on some
occasions this may have been more a matter of conquest, slaughter, and
legitimization rather than peaceful devolution, in which case I say
"heiress in theory", but in any case it is the same to us. Now, of the
lines in HG that terminate long before the time of compilation, what
became of those kingdoms? Some, particularly those in England and
Scotland, were conquered by foreign invaders. But when this did not
happen, I believe the kingdom passed to an heir in the female line. If
this heir had no kingdom of his own to speak of, the line would be duly
traced through the rulers, as we observe with Dyfed. But in other cases
the old line would simply be traced to extinction, and the new line
traced paternally, with no indication in HG of any connection. This is
what we observe with Man, except that in HG 1 the paternal line leading
to the new Man line is bypassed in favor of an heiress before reaching
that point. Now, if the 4th century date I have supposed is when HG 16
terminated, it less likely that the kingdom was conquered (the
conquerers mostly not arriving in force until a bit later) than that it
failed in the male line and passed to an heiress. So I tentatively
accept that this was the case. Then the burning question is: whose
daughter and whose mother was she?
3. Onomastics. This is why I made such a big deal about Tasciovanus /
Teuhant / Deheuwaint. This can be a sticky issue, since we generally do
not have a clear idea what names were used where and by whom, and some
names surely were used widely among the Britons from time immemorial.
But in a separate post I shall give evidence that HG 16, especially the
later part of it, speaks of a region near or among the Gwyr y Gogledd.
Perhaps the line of Coel Hen should be singled out, since (according to
later sources) he was male line ancestor of Hywel Dda. I must point out
that I am assuming the crucial genealogies to be mostly genuine at this
point, despite the doubts of many. Now, the grandfather (or perhaps
father) of Coel Hen seems to be a later form of the name Tasciovanus,
the same that heads the pedigree in HG 16. The chronology is right for
this Teuhant to be son of the heiress, and the fact that the name
appears here and nowhere else strongly suggests a link, that he was
named for the progenitor of his mother's line, or at any rate that she
transmitted the name from that line to him. This could be pure
coincidence, or a hero of old spuriously included in a fictitious
ancestry of Coel, but this is straining for some alternative
explanation. So I tentatively put forth that Teuhant/Deheuwaint was son
of the heiress.
4. Late sources. Peniarth MS 128 may have something to contribute. It
says that Deheuwaint's mother was Emerita ferch Coel ap Meurig etc. as
in HRB. Why should this pedigree be concerned with the mother of
Deheuwaint? The author may have forged a connection between the two
unconnected Coels of HRB (the second being the composite Coel of
Colchester + Coel Hen) and used chronology and the Lucius legend (which
leaves Lucius childless, but with a sister Emerita in the later
versions) to guess where to put the heiress. Or, he may have had access
to a tradition to the effect that the mother of Deheuwaint was heiress
to the kingdom of Tasciovanus. If her father were named as Coel but
given no pedigree, splicing this onto HRB would then be irresistable. I
further suggest then that the name Coel may have been authentic and
transmitted through the heiress ultimately to Coel Hen. The name Coel
does not appear in HG 16, but he could easily have been, say, an uncle
of Run. But this last part is not really essential, and it could be
instead that mentioning the mother of Deheuwaint here only accidentally
resembles what I theorize.
So that is why I suggest that a hypothetical heiress of Run was
great-grandmother of Coel Hen.
Luke Stevens
Luke Stevens
the other early occurrences of the names in HG 16, and tabulate the
origins of the persons bearing them.
Teuhant. Cinbelin. Caratauc. Guidgen. Lou hen. Cinis scaplaut. Decion.
Catel. Catleu. Letan. Serguan. Caurtam. Caten. Neithon. Run.
the first 3 names are first century kings of the Catuvellauni.
the next 2 (modern Lleu Hen ap Gwyddien) resemble the Lleu ap Gwydion
of the Mabinogion, for which reason Bartrum mentions a possible
association with Arfon; but the names are not totally identical,
and this may just be coincidence.
4 names are otherwise unknown: Cinis, Decion, Catleu, Letan.
HRB mentions Cathleus map Cathel and nearby Run map Neton among those
attending Arthur's coronation, but this may indicate nothing more than
that HG 16 was among the genealogies from which this list was formed.
6 occur among descendants of Dyfnwal Hen: Cynfelin, Gwyddien, Serwan,
Cawrdaf, Neithon, Rhun; Serwan occurs nowhere else.
4 occur among descendants of Coel: Cynfelin, Llew, Cadell, Rhun;
and Teuhant is probably a form of the father or grandfather of Coel,
also cf. Tegfan Gloff in "Culhwch ac Olwen"; further, there is
Cathen ap Cawrdaf ap Caradog Freichfras, who is variously said to
descend from Coel or Cunedda
3 names are also relatively common in Wales: Caradog, Cadell, Rhun;
Cathen occurs once as a king of Dyfed; of unclear origin are
Cynfelin (JC 16), Guitgen (HG 24), & Caten (HG 15)
Neithon occurs as a descendant of Dyfnwal Hen (in Strathclyde), of
Macsen Wledig (in Man), and (as Noethan) of Caw of Prydyn (Pictish?),
and (as Nechtan) among the Pictish kings
That's all that I can find in EWGT. This is not exhaustive, or even
representative, but it seems to make one thing very clear. The line
bears a close onomastic affinity to those claiming descent from Dyfnwal
Hen especially and the Gwyr y Gogledd of the mid-first millenium
generally.
So now an important question: where did Run of HG 16 live?
The claim of descent from Caratacus points to the Catuvellauni, in the
heart of England. However, it is possible that Caratacus and the
mythical Lleu ap Gwydion have been falsely attached at the end merely as
illustrious ancestors, and if so, then using this as a basis to locate
and date Run will fail. But if this part of the pedigree is authentic,
then we must ask whether the descendants of Caratacus stayed put or
ended up somewhere else. One has only to look at the Goths for a supreme
example of a population on the border of the late Roman Empire not
staying put.
The examination of the names above points to the North. It appears that
this line (or the accompoanying people) acquired the name Neithon and
contributed the name Cunobelinus/Cynfelin there, for example, though it
is possible that in many cases the names already existed in both
populations. I can discern no Roman-looking names in HG 16, in contrast
to the Dyfnwal Hen and Cunnedda Wledig (and possibly also Coel Hen)
lines, which may suggest either a position farther north or an antipathy
toward the Romans (or, again, that Run is very late). BTW, am I correct
in recalling that Tacitus was a nephew of Agricola? If so, then the
Tacitus (Tegid) who was g-grandfather of Cunedda may even be his
namesake in some indirect way.
So, might it be that when the Romans advanced upon Britain, the heirs of
Caratacus were driven north with a remnant of the Catuvellauni, to join
the tribes there in resisting the Romans for the next few centuries? Or
is the connection between Run and Caratacus totally without foundation?
Once again, I am scraping the bottom of the genealogical barrel to make
the most of weak evidence. My knowledge of Roman England is very poor,
and I'd certainly welcome comments from those who can shed some more
light on the matter.
Luke Stevens
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 2/13/1999 7:07:47 PM, anfo...@geocities.com writes:
<<I think the evidence shows that the Britons were more like the Armenians
than the Irish in this respect: succession was generally agnatic, but when a
line failed, and descendants existed inn the female line, it would be these
rather than very distant and dubious kin to inherit. >>
It should be noted that due to the tin trade from very ancient times--even in
the days of the Phoenicians--these Britons would have likely been influenced
by the cultures of the traders, especially the ruling families. In Boadicea,
we have a fine historical example of the common people rallying around a royal
woman as leader without regard to her sex, quite capable of taking up the
cause of her betrayed husband. It should be no surprise that the ancient
Britons treated women, especially royal women, differently than the cursed
history and sorry state of a women's trampled rights as depicted in medieval
times.
<< I must point out that I am assuming the crucial genealogies to be mostly
genuine at this point, despite the doubts of many. >>
Your points were well made and I applaud your effort to make some logical
sense out of seemingly disparate materials. To my knowledge, no one has tried
to resolve these things in such a logical manner before this time. It is far
easier for many to believe that the ancients consistently lied to us, or
needed to consistently rewrite their genealogies to fit with the usurpations
and conquests, though there is no doubt such grafts and forgeries did take
place from time to time. At any rate, I still believe that skepticism should
be held in check and one should first eliminate the possibility that there
could be some truth in legends and sparse data left to us before branding the
material as an illegitimate forgery.
Cheers,
Stewart Baldwin
[much snipping]
>To my knowledge, no one has tried
>to resolve these things in such a logical manner before this time.
You have, on numerous occasions, expressed your distaste for the
scholarly consensus which regards the traditional Celtic genealogies
as being of questionable value (to put it lightly) for the period
prior to the emergence of the written native literature. However,
aren't you going a bit too far when you write a sentence such as the
one above, which effectively states that these previous scholars with
whom you disagree have not treated this material in a logical manner?
What justufucation (other than their disagreement with your own views)
do you have for this statement?
Stewart Baldwin
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 2/15/1999 6:19:37 PM, sb...@auburn.campus.mci.net writes:
<< KHF said: To my knowledge, no one has tried to resolve these things in such
a logical manner before this time >>
Thanks for pointing this out. Let me be clear that I am not in any way
denouncing traditional scholarship or methods, nor am I criticizing you
personally for your careful methods and judgments.
How should I say this? The above sentence is not correct, as all the scholars
try some 'logical' approach and I do not want to give the impression that they
do not. Perhaps that sentence should be changed to read:
"The popular consensus among scholars has been to distrust the historicity of
many Celtic figures due to the lack of information about them. The seeming
contradictions in the genealogies that are left to us reinforce their doubt.
When we suspend some of this doubt and instead look for ways in which these
relationships could have existed, we paint a different--even if only a highly
imaginative--picture of Welsh society and relationships at this time. We are
left with the onus that our imaginative portraits can never be proven beyond
the shadow of a doubt, but the exercise is of practical value, as we may
stumble upon some factor hitherto unnoticed. Even if our scenarios are only
the stuff of historical fiction, it does not lessen the value of these
observations nor the conclusions reached through careful examination of the
scare facts available to us. Even the ancients realized the educational value
of mixing fact with fiction and that has led us to the point where the
dividing line between the two is quite hard to discern."
Cheers,
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor/ Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
<<You have, on numerous occasions, expressed your distaste for the
scholarly consensus which regards the traditional Celtic genealogies
as being of questionable value (to put it lightly) for the period
prior to the emergence of the written native literature. However,
aren't you going a bit too far when you write a sentence such as the
one above, which effectively states that these previous scholars with
whom you disagree have not treated this material in a logical manner?
What justification (other than their disagreement with your own views)
Don Stone
>
> KHF...@aol.com wrote:
> >I was agreeing that Teuhant and Tecmant looked as though it could be the same
> >name, but commenting that they must have been different because they were
> >father and son and the names went on to different evolutions in spelling.
>
> Unfortunately, the chart of different forms which I had weakens that
> could be explained as attempts to reconcile the Teuhant of HG with the
> appearance of Teuhant in HG was a scribal corruption caused by some
> sort of error (which Miller, in her article mentioned below, claims it
> was), then the case for making Teuhant and Tecmant different becomes
> "Historicity and the Pedigrees of the Northcountrymen", in "The
> Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies", 26 (1975), 255-280, says, at
> p. 266, while discussing this genealogy, that "Tecmant and Teuhant are
I [Don Stone] sent Prof. David Kelley some postings from GEN-MEDIEVAL,
and he
in return sent me some comments to pass along, including the following:
Today, we would write Taskiovanos. For "Knowledge" in Latin, an
appropriate writing would be Skientia. By a parallel process in Latin
and in Celtic, the consonantal cluster, -sk-, became -s-. Thus we now
write _science_ but pronounce _sience_ with no -k- sound. This change
happened in _every_ word which had the -sk- cluster which was not a
later borrowing. [Pascentius is such a later borrowing.] Therefore no
later word with -k-, such as _Tecmant_ (Tekmant), can derive from
Taskiovanos.
Celtic -s- (but not Latin -s-) became -h-. Hence, for example, Latin
_senex_, "old," is reflected in English "senior" but in Welsh is cognate
with _hen_, "old." Therefore any word with -sk- in earlier Celtic (or
in a borrowing before the change occurred) should have -h- in mediaeval
Welsh.
Celtic -m- became Welsh -v- and then -f-. This change does _not_ go in
the reverse direction. Hence -man- gives -van- but -van- does not give
-man-, and no form such as Tecmant could derive from Taskiovanos.
_Teuhant_ derives from _Taskiovanos_; _Tecmant_ does not.
There is a difference between comparative linguistics, which establishes
such basic rules, and philology, which attempts to place them correctly
in time and space. There have, indeed, been major changes in Celtic
philology and the answer to the question of _when_ the changes occurred
requires careful examination of the sources, which I have not
attempted. There have been few changes in the basic comparative
linguistics.
Morris's _Age of Arthur_ has some discussion of this pedigree, and I
believe his _Sources_ has substantially more. He equates Rhun ap
Neithon with the Arthurian hero of the same name, and reads "Catel m.
Decion m. Cinis Scaplaut" as Catellius Decianus of Scapula Island, if I
remember rightly. "Scapula" derivatives do occur in Roman family
names. This puts a substantial gap in the pedigree, which I will not
attempt to fill at this time.
I do not think that Vitogenes (i.e., Gwydion) is a "mythical" figure,
though neither do I believe he was a magician.
With respect to the -s- change to -h-, it has always been assumed that
Coel hen was "old King Cole." Without attempting to judge whether he
was or was not "a merry old soul," I think that "old" is a
mistranslation. The earlier form was Coelius Sen__, but I think much
more likely to have been Coelius Senecio than Coelius Senex. The family
of Q. Pompeius Senecio .... Coelius .... Amyntianus Sosius Priscus,
consul in 169, descended from the Kings of Sparta, and some branches of
the family apparently claimed descent from Agamemnon or Helen of Troy.
The name Helen was in this family, and it is quite probable that the
wife of Constantine was, indeed, a daughter of a member of this family.
The nature of their relationship to the later Coel hen is not clear to
me at this time.
[David Kelley]
Stewart Baldwin
Not being an expert in comparative linguistics, I am unable to comment
in any great detail regarding the above opinion and the quite
different statement of the late Molly Miller (which she unfortuantely
did not elaborate upon) that Tecmant and Teuhant were the same name,
but I do have a couple of brief comments.
First, Tecmant, Tasciovanus, etc. are personal names, not ordinary
words, and rules of linguistics which can be applied with great
confidence to ordinary words do not apply with the same force to
personal names. Archaic forms and foreign borrowings are both much
more common among personal names than they are for ordinary words,
making such linguistic determinations much more difficult.
Second, the form "Tasciovanus" is known only from coins, and never
appears in the literary sources, and this particular name is among the
very first names to appear on British coins. The adaptation of a
foreign alphabet (i.e., the Latin alphabet in this case) to a new
language always has problems at the very beginning of the process, and
I think it would be dangerous to be too dogmatic regarding the correct
pronunciation of the British name which was rendered "Tasciovanus" on
coins.
>Morris's _Age of Arthur_ has some discussion of this pedigree, and I
>believe his _Sources_ has substantially more. He equates Rhun ap
>Neithon with the Arthurian hero of the same name, and reads "Catel m.
>Decion m. Cinis Scaplaut" as Catellius Decianus of Scapula Island, if I
>remember rightly. "Scapula" derivatives do occur in Roman family
>names. This puts a substantial gap in the pedigree, which I will not
>attempt to fill at this time.
This is just one example of why I agree with the generally negative
reviews that Morris's work on Arthur received from historians. The
genealogy which reads (in part) "Catel m. Decion m. Cinis Scaplaut"
comes from a SINGLE Anglo-Norman manuscript of ca. 1100, and to my
knowledge, never received any further mention until modern scholars
mentioned it. Then Morris makes a DRASTIC emendation which completely
changes the meaning of the original text, and then expects the
suggestion to be taken seriously as if it somehow relates to reality.
In my opinion, Morris's suggestion is completely preposterous.
>I do not think that Vitogenes (i.e., Gwydion) is a "mythical" figure,
>though neither do I believe he was a magician.
>With respect to the -s- change to -h-, it has always been assumed that
>Coel hen was "old King Cole." Without attempting to judge whether he
>was or was not "a merry old soul," I think that "old" is a
>mistranslation. The earlier form was Coelius Sen__, but I think much
>more likely to have been Coelius Senecio than Coelius Senex. The family
>of Q. Pompeius Senecio .... Coelius .... Amyntianus Sosius Priscus,
>consul in 169, descended from the Kings of Sparta, and some branches of
>the family apparently claimed descent from Agamemnon or Helen of Troy.
>The name Helen was in this family, and it is quite probable that the
>wife of Constantine was, indeed, a daughter of a member of this family.
>The nature of their relationship to the later Coel hen is not clear to
>me at this time.
>[David Kelley]
To the above, the obvious question would be "What evidence is there to
support these rather far-reaching statements?"
Stewart Baldwin