Talk:Genealogy of the Kings of Mercia

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles

Books

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

British Library

This redirect is related to the British Library. Please copy assessments of the article from the most relevant WikiProject template to this one as needed.British LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/British LibraryTemplate:WikiProject British LibraryBritish Library-related articles

Vespasian, Tiberius, CCCC & Rochester

This manuscript (Vespasian VI) is just one of several copies of the same original work - the Anglian collection. As such, it could be debated whether we even need a separate page for it. If we do, such a page should only briefly describe the content and focus on the unique facets of this particular manuscript (if there even are any). There is a better place for discussing aspects that are shared by all four manuscripts. This is certainly not the place to throw in pointy quotes that have no direct relevance to this specific manuscript. And while we are at it, I am not happy with the dates either - it suggests that this manuscript itself dates from 812, when as is already explained on the Anglian collection page this is when the last entry in a Bishops List in the original collection was made, and thus may not be the date for this derivative copy. Agricolae (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I think it should just be merged into Anglian collection - the histories of the individual manuscripts and their differences are better placed on one page, rather than creating permanent stubs for each version to contain the very small amount of version-specific material or worse, five only partially consistent descriptions of the same thing. Agricolae (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on this Agricolae. You have really saved me a lot of time, so I feel more well disposed towards you today. I completely disagree however and think the information on those lists is notable for Wikipedia to record, and if it can be found, should be listed with an article for every manuscript, like a library. This manuscript is super-important as it is:

The only source for the East Anglian line
The second reference (along with Nennius) required as a Criterion of multiple attestation using correct Historical methods to confirm the divine origin of the House of Mercia coming from Woden.

This will help students and scholars to better analyse, compare and contrast and judge different theories and viewpoints developed from this material. It will stop knowledge being confused and hidden, bring it out into the light and give it back to the people. The important points about this particular manuscript are that it lists a version of the Mercian king lists, Scandinavian king lists, East Anglian king list mention of King lists originating from Woden and the Seventy disciples (which we already have a semi-satisfactory article about). I also think we should put John Milton's reference back in to show the notability of Genealogies originating from Woden was spread far and wide in the Middle Ages. I think we should also replace Chaney's page heading about the "Woden Sprung Kings", which is directly talking about this manuscript needs a mention somewhere, here or there. Once we get all this sorted we can soon start talking about how all this info pairs up with what we've got published in our articles and how Monty Python and the Knights who say Ho can help the History section a bit more. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 16:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything you say here is unique to this manuscript (except perhaps the list of disciples) is actually unique to this manuscript. Are you saying that CCCC does not have an East Anglian pedigree? Even if it doesn't couldn't that distinction better be drawn on the page which discusses all of the manuscripts, to compare and contrast what they contain that is different from each other, rather than creating four replicate pages, one for each copy? As to your other points: Milton is not talking about this manuscript or even this collection at all - he is talking generically about the Mercian royals, and just because he was well known for his theological writings, that doesn't make his opinion weighty as a historian. Chaney does not need to be mentioned here. The fact that these genealogies all trace the royal lines from Woden is mentioned elsewhere, and again, the comment is made about the information of which this is just one of several copies, and is equally relevant to the Anglian collection as a whole. Further, appropriateness for an article should not be based on some goal of shoehorning Woden in somewhere so that it can then be used as the basis for pairing up with other pages. If there are problems with other pages, what this page has to say is neither here nor there. Agricolae (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This seems to have a precedent at Textus Roffensis. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this appropriately focuses on the manuscript itself and not evaluating the information found in some of its constituent components. Note that the genealogies are over 100 pages into Vespasian VI, so an article on the manuscript really should be broader and less focused on one particular item found in that manuscript. If this is just to be on the genealogy - the information, then it is a completely unneeded duplication of the coverage of Anglian collection. Agricolae (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you've read Textus Roffensis, you'll see this article urgently needs a lot of work to improve to that sort of standard or better and I'd appreciate the green light to get going. I've explained about there only being 2 surviving sources for the Woden list and you continue to WP:PEACOCK about more sources than there are. There were more around in Milton's day, so hope that explains that. They do not "all" go back to Woden. Only this one and Nennius to my knowledge. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are four sources for this specific collections of genealogies - Vespasian, Tiberius, Corpus, and Roffensis. They all go back to Woden. They all reflect a single collection, the so-called Anglian collection. They all go back to Woden. Then there is Nennius, who appears to have had access to an earlier version of the collection than that which served as common 'ancestor' of the four surviving documents. He also traces back to Woden. Nennnius, by the way, has the East Anglian genealogy too, so your above claim that it is unique to Vespasian is untrue - it isn't even unique to the Anglian collection. But even Nennius is not the extent of it - the ASC takes the Wessex pedigree (lifted wholesale from that of Bernicia) back to Woden, as does the writing of royal family scion AEthelweard the historian, and Bede takes the kings of Kent back to Woden as well. So, yes, they all go back to Woden (except Essex, which goes back to Saexnet), not just this manuscript or the Anglian collection or even the common ancestor of it and Nennius. Agricolae (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again great work, but why don't we say this on the List of monarchs of Mercia page then? Which page is all that fascinating info you just typed listed on? It's only there in the picture, and to be honest, as predominantly a reader, I didn't even see it there. This definitely needs more mention in "text" or incorporation, with due mention to them being "legendary" of course. I still argue that such text should come from Milton and Chaney, possibly others, on this page and that one, but am agreeable for it to be limited according to your judgement. The key information is the names of the kings and the order they go in and the actual information the document contains and our presentation of it. This is the critical information that needs to be gleaned and I'll see what I can do on the presentation of it. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agricolae let me know about this conversation, as I was the editor who created the Anglian collection page. I don't think it's automatically true that an article on one of the four mss in the Anglian collection should be merged with that article -- for example, Textus Roffensis has its own article. However, I don't see anything here that wouldn't be better merged back to Anglian collection. The redirect can stay, since that's a valid name for the ms, but the reader is better served by having all the information in a single article, it seems to me. Splitting it into two tiny articles doesn't seem helpful. If enough material is written, a separate article can be broken out at that point, but we're not there yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike, and good ideas. I will be working on this article over the next few days, I know it's not there yet, but should develop nicely with more research. I will study more sources and see what new material can be offered. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime I would like to merge this material back into Anglian collection; there's really no reason to have separate articles till we have enough text for two articles. Any objections? If you don't agree, I'll start a merge discussion so others can chime in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already made a start with lots of new info tonight. Including the addition of Woden's father, his further ancestory in the Genealogy Lindsey, details of some of the sixty-one chapters involved and greatly improved the List of monarchs of Mercia article with a new God-King section that has given Woden a human name at last as Weothulgeot and Icel can have a father called Eamer. I think it should now be renamed Vespasian B Vi as I plan to make Tiberius B v, CCCC 183 and the List of monarchs of Saxony with it soon too. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent the information you added relates to all the manuscripts in the Anglian collection, it doesn't belong here, surely? We have an article about the four mss, and now an article about one of them. I'll go ahead and set up the merge proposal shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have severe concerns about some of the recent additions, but I am going to wait and see what survives the merge before I start removing material that seems to be inserted solely for the purpose of 'finding place on Wikipedia' for material that is inconsequential. Agricolae (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nemenov

Alexander Nemerov never wrote a word about this. Unfortunately, Google Books has spliced onto the end of his work an entirely distinct publication. Based on the available information, it would appear to be "Myth in historical perspective: the case of pagan deities in the Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies", by R.D. Fulk, which appeared in a symposium proceedings published by ~~Brown University~~ Indiana University Press, named Myth : a new symposium. Now I haven't seen this in full, and I am sure that anyone who would attribute it to Nemerov certainly hasn't seen it. This material should not be cited unless/until the entire article is read, to ensure that one is not distorting the author's intent by taking it out of context, as can happen all too easily when lifting quotes out of a Google Books search - in this case so far out of context it isn't even in the same book. Agricolae (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]