GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1998-03 > 0888927330


From: Tom Cain< >
Subject: Re: ST MARGARET TO CERDIC
Date: 3 Mar 1998 04:15:30 -0800


>While I agree with much of what you said regarding the necessity for
>skepticism in the very early English records, I don't think that any
>of the sources you cited justify a statement as drastic as "There's
>nothing even vaguely reliable much before the 8th century". After
>all, Bede wrote in the early eighth century, and the memories of his
>older informants extended well into the seventh. In addition, it has
>been shown that Bede had access to archival material which was even
>detailed enough for him to determine the date (to the exact day) of
>some events in the middle of the seventh century. [See "The dates of
>Deira" by Molly Miller, in Anglo-Saxon England 8 (1972) 35-61.] Even
>in the early seventh century, the history of Northumbria is fairly
>well documented.

>
Yes, Stewart, your absolutely right about the general historical works
of the period by historians like Bede. But the general tenor of the
post to which I replied was concerned with genealogies and
genealogical tables - and that's the point I was being sceptical
about.

I still think there's little that can be relied upon without outside
corroboration much before the ninth century. Afterall, whilst Bede can
be relied upon to know the kings of Deira and Northumbria in general
in his own time, he is much more sketchy on the origins of the line
and on the background of the Bernician kings. It is highly unlikely
that Bede would have bothered much about the kings of Kent and Essex
beyond the needs of his narrative, his interest in East Anglia and
Mercia was only as enemies of his own kings (and therefore his
knowlege was also quite sketchy) and he no interest in the West Saxons
at all, as they were too far south and too unimportant in his day.

The question was about the lineage of the West Saxons through to
St.Margaret, not about Northumbria. Yes, there are plenty of sources
for Northumbria in the 6th-8th centuries (although most of doubtful
genealogical worth), but nothing comparable for Wessex at the same
time.

>
>For the West Saxons (the dynasty under consideration in the original
>query), the situation is less satisfactory, but still not as bad as
>your comments seem to indicate. Reliable or not, pedigrees are known
>for all kings of the West Saxons through Ine (plus one non-reigning
>prince who was a contemporary of Ine), and then no surviving
pedigrees
>exist for the following kings until Ecgberht. Thus, it is a pretty
>good bet that Ine's pedigree was written during his own lifetime, for
>if you want to argue that it was written later, then why were
>pedigrees not also written for the following kings? Now, the
>surviving pedigrees of Ine do not all agree. There is one generation
>which is missing from the pedigree in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, as
>compared to the pedigrees from other sources, so there was a problem
>with the transmission of the pedigree. However, these pedigrees
agree
>back to Ine's grandfather, and I think that it would be very
difficult
>to argue that the pedigree is not reliable back to that generation.

Of course, the question has to asked - why would they want to write
down Ine's pedegree in his own lifetime.

I think my post answered that. There's plenty of evidence to suggest
that genealogical tables were satisfying a contemporary political need
rather than a historical function. Every king needed to legitimise his
rule by associating himself with the previous ruler's family (if the
ruler was a good or efficient ruler) or with an alternative branch of
the ruling family (if the previous ruler was deposed or died in
suspicious circumstances). Ine's father was king before him. However,
his grandfather took the kingship from the previous ruler, who may
well have been a kinsman but was not neccessarilly so.

Ine felt it encumbant upon himself to publicise his origins and
celebrate his legitimate rule. He felt he had good reason to do so -
especially as he had considerable imperial pretentions in southern
England and worked hard at extending Wessex's authority over the
Dunsaeta, the Cornish and South Welsh. Both Dumville and Wormald
suggest that the only dynasts that have need of a genealogy are those
with an uncertain claim. Other good examples of this are; the
previously mentioned Ceolwulf I and his 'kinsman'(?) Ceonred who
succeeded him in Mercia. In Northumbria, Aelle found it neccessary to
publish a pedegree after his coup d'etat and before him two of
Egcfrith's 7th-8th century successors found they needed to publish the
link between themselves and Oswiu's line. The Wiglafings of Mercia
took a different line, by marrying into the Offan lineage, whilst the
line of Mercian 'B' kings (Beorhtwulf, Beorhtred and Burghred) all had
lineages published and all he shaky claims to rule. A recent PhD
thesis by Scott Ashley of Oxford (his supervisor was Patrick Wormald)
explores this need to self-publicise, the self-referential nature of
OE genealogues and their role in conceptualising the past in AS
society.

> I
>am inclined to believe that at least one of the two versions of Ine's
>pedigree is reliable back to Ceawlin (whose historicity is supported
>by his mention by Bede), as the number of generations involved is not
>suspicious, but I admit that there is a lot of room for argument once
>you get that far back.

Just because a putative ancestor is identified by Bede does not mean
that the relationship between the king publishing the genealogy and
that putative ancestor is real. All West Saxon dynasties claimed
descent from Ceawlin - he was the legitimising factor that they all
aimed to aquire. Just because the generations between Ine and Ceawlin
are 'not suspicious' does not mean that the relationship is kosher -
we only have Ine's publicist's word for that.

Also, remember the transmission of the West Saxon tables. The earliest
are only late-9th century - published exactly when Alfred needed to
establish an incontrovertable pedegree. After all, Alfred had usurped
the throne from his brother's son Aethelwulf who - albeit a child -
was the legitimate heir. They must been seen in the light of all the
bru-hah around Alfred's succession to Wessex and the eulogising of
contemporary writers like Asser. Alfred published Ine's lawcode and
ascribed to it. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle published Ine's pedegree and
wrote the longest pre-Alfredian passages about Ine's reign. Asser
eulogied Alfred's birth and specifically compared him to Ine. Ine was
Alfred's legitimising touchstone. It was largely irrelevant to the 9th
C West Saxons how Ine had legitimised himself - indeed they had the
opportunity and the cause to meddle with the original genealogy.

For these reasons - and others too long to go into here - I am still
highly sceptical of the West Saxon genealogies prior to what we can
corroborate from independant non-West Saxon sources in the 9th and
10th centuries.

Tom 8-)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Tom Cain
Wembley, UK
HA9 0AG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------

This thread: