GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1998-03 > 0888997117


From: Stewart Baldwin< >
Subject: Re: ST MARGARET TO CERDIC
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 07:38:37 GMT


(Tom Cain) wrote:

>>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.

On numerous occasions in this newsgroup, I have found myself making
arguments which are similar to (but much less extreme than) arguments
which you have made here. Since I think you have taken the skeptical
side of the argument much further than it should go, I now find myself
arguing on the opposite of the aisle from my accustomed place. :-)

>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.

I agree that the genealogy of sixth century Northumbrian kings is
shaky, but see no reason for any great skepticism regarding the
genealogy of the seventh century Northumbrian kings (given the
evidence of Bede and other sources), nor do I recall seeing such
skepticism in the literature. Why do you consider the seventh century
Northumbrian royal genealogy to be a problem?

>>
>>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.

Your claim that Ine's father and grandfather were both kings is new to
me. They certainly do not appear in the standard kinglists for
Wessex. What is your source for their status as kings?

>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

Don't you think that ascribing such specific feelings and motives to
an early medieval king ought to be accompanied by a specific citation
to a primary source?

>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

A more specific citation would be desirable here. In particular,
Dumville (whose work I read whenever I can find it) is an
exceptionally prolific scholar, and it is somewhat difficult to track
down one of his statements based on his name alone.

>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

Who is this Aelle? It would seem that you are not referring to the
father of Edwin, since it is implied that this Aelle was after
Ecgfrith. However, the only other king Aelle of Northumbria of whom I
am aware has unknown parentage. Could you provide more details?

>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.

The genealogies show several West Saxon kings who do not trace back to
Ceawlin. Cerdic was the common ancestor from whom the West Saxon
kings claimed descent, not Ceawlin. As for my use of the words "not
suspicious", I should have explained that in more detail. It is a
fact of life that kings, being also politicians (at least in that
age), frequently lie for their own political purposes, and that might
include lying about their genealogy. However, smart politicians know
that a lie which is easily detected is not an effective lie. Thus, if
a potential usurper want to fake his genealogy, then it is probably
not a very good idea to claim to be a son or other close relative of a
recent king (as Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck would tell you), as
there are just too many people who would know otherwise. The larger
the amount of time before your genealogy reaches another king (or
other well known individual), the less likely that a lie will be
detected (and the more reason to be skeptical). Now, the chronology
of sixth century Wessex is by no means certain, but it is likely that
Ceawlin died sometime around the year 590 or thereabouts. Thus, Ine
came to the throne roughly 100 years after the death of Ceawlin. That
is a small enough time that if it were the case that Ine was not a
descendant of Ceawlin, a significant number of people would be aware
of that fact. Of course, because there are two different versions of
Ine's pedigree (one missing a generation which is in the others) the
situation is less desirable than it might otherwise be, which I
acknowledged in my posting. Still, I think there can be little doubt
that the pedigree of Ine is valid for his father and grandfather, and
a relatively high probability that at least one of the versions is
correct back to Ceawlin. In the case of Ecgberht, there was only 76
years between the death of Ine and the accession of Ecgberht, and I
think that any false claim on Ecgberht's part of a relationship with
Ine would have been easily detected at the time. (Of course, this is
certainly not as good as the contemporary or near contemporary
evidence which documents every step of the pedigree from Ecgberht to
St. Margaret.)

>Also, remember the transmission of the West Saxon tables. The earliest
>are only late-9th century - published exactly when Alfred needed to

Are you contradicting yourself here? Above, you seem to imply that
Ine's pedigree was composed in his own lifetime (apparently aggreeing
with my previous statement to that effect). Here, you seem to be
saying that the earliest West Saxon tables are only late ninth century
(which I find extremely improbable). If you are claiming the latter,
I would like to see the evidence.

>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

As I recall, the child in question was not named Aethelwulf. This
notion of "legitimate heir" is an anachronism. The idea of a strict
rule regarding inheritance to the throne came later. Children were
regularly passed over in succession to monarchies during this period.
Can you give me a single early medieval example of a child-king in the
British Isles? I can't think of one.

>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.

I find it difficult to buy your argument about Alfred needing to shore
up his claim. After all, when he became king, Wessex had been ruled
by close relatives of his for the entire living memory of most people
thne alive. It was Ecgberht (and perhaps Aethelwulf) who would have
more need for publicizing such a 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.

Why non-West Saxon sources? The major West Saxon sources are
contemporary (or nearly so) for that period. For example, should we
also skeptical of all Merovingian genealogy which cannot be
corroborated by non-Frankish sources, or does this only apply to
Wessex for some reason?

Stewart Baldwin

This thread: