GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-02 > 0919192729


From: <>
Subject: Re: Tasciovanus, Coel, & Tacitus
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 14:18:49 EST


In a message dated 2/15/1999 6:19:37 PM, 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)
do you have for this statement?

Stewart Baldwin>>

This thread: