GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-04 > 0923706798


From: Luke Stevens <>
Subject: Re: Cerdic Of WESSEX
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 21:13:18 -0400


> I think you are vastly unterestimating the strength of Sisam's
> argument. In my opinion, Sisam has shown Cerdic's "traditional"
> genealogy to be false beyond any reasonable doubt. Manuscripts exist
> showing stages of the falsification process, and Sisam's demonstration
> that names (including that of Cerdic's father) in the earliest known
> version of Cerdic's pedigree were borrowed from the Bernician pedigree
> is clear and straightforward.

It is a little surprising to me that someone who was once so reluctant
to accept two straightforward emendations of the Ban Senchus and even
the explicitly recorded descent of Egbert from Cerdic would rush to
embrace a theory based on second-guessing the errors and manipulations
of anonymous scribes. Maybe it's just my opinion, but I'm a reasonable
man and after reading the article I still had doubts.

After pointing out a few features of the traditional genealogy that are
a little suspicious (but hardly impossible), Sisam shows the pedigree of
Ida and the shorter pedigree of Cerdic and states his theory that the
latter was derived from the former and was expanded into the longer
usual version, with more theories on how and why this might have
happened. No proof at all is offered that it actually did. The entirety
of the evidence and the intermediate stages of falsification you mention
is one recension of Cerdic's pedigree (two counting minor spelling
variations) extant in three manuscripts. And in this shorter pedigree of
Cerdic (Cerdic-Aluca-Giwis-Brand...) there is only one name that could
be said to match Ida's pedigree (...Angenwit-Aloc-Benoc-Brand...) before
the two join at Brand (one of the aforementioned suspicious features).

Not only is this quite lacking in solid proof, it is not very
straightforward either. A series of scribes would have to transfer the
tail of Ida's pedigree to Cerdic, mischeivously replace Bernic with
the obsolescent eponym Giwis (at which point extant copies are made),
make a doublet of Elesa, insert the legendary Wig son of Freawine, and
finally fill in Frithogar purely for the sake of alliteration (at which
point the final form is fixed).

If I knew enough about the matter to play devil's advocate, I might
suggest the far simpler explanation that the longer pedigree reflects an
authentic original from which the shorter one was derived through
scribal corruption. Or I might even venture to suggest that Sisam is
mostly correct but that Cerdic - Alusa - Giwis is authentic, the
progenitor traced to an eponym as usual, and that only the portion from
Brand onward was transferred (which could go a ways to explaining the
extra three names right there in the longer pedigree). These are real
possibilities that have not been refuted, as far as I see.

As I said, it is a good theory, quite possibly even a correct one.
It just isn't proven, IMHO.

Luke Stevens

This thread: