GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2000-07 > 0964548357


From: Stewart Baldwin< >
Subject: Re: Ancestors of Egbert?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 18:05:57 GMT


On 24 Jul 2000 22:38:52 GMT, (Gryphon801) wrote:

>The problem, as pointed out by Henry H. Howorth in an article in the Numismatic
>Chronicle (3rd Ser.) 66-87 (1900) and others, is that there is no charter
>evidence even for the existence of "Ingild", much less of "Eafa" or "Eowwa" -
>which appear to be variants of the same name. Whether Egbert was descended
>from the family of the kings of Kent, as his own Christian name would indicate,
>remains to be established. The ASC reference alleging a descent from Cerdic
>was probably concocted by Asser for King Alfred in the latter part of the 9th
>century.

While Ingild does not appear in charters, his obituary does appear in
the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle under the year 718. Also, there is an Eoppa
who witnessed a charter of king Cynewulf of Wessex for the year 758.
(I assume that "Eowwa" above is a typographical error for "Eoppa", the
name that appears in the genealogies.) In addition, there is an Eopfa
(the same man?) who witnessed a charter for Cynewulf of Wessex in 766.
Of course, there is no proof that this man was Ingild's son, but it is
chronologically possible. [See Cartularium Saxonicum, volume 1, pp.
265, 283-4 (charter numbers 186 and 200).]

Also, last night I reread the relevant part of Kenneth Sisam's
important article "Anglo-Saxon Royal Genealogies" [Proceedings of the
British Academy 39 (1953): 287-348, reprinted in E. G. Stanley, ed.,
"British Academy papers on Anglo-Saxon England", 145-204]. It
reminded me of an important point which had slipped my mind. Two of
the early manuscripts give the name of Egbert's grandfather "Eafa"
under the older spelling of "Eaba". Noting that this early spelling
has been used as an argument that the genealogy was based on a written
record from the eighth century, Sisam noted that "medial and final b
for f occurs in common words as late as 832 in Kentish charters"
(reprinted version p. 153). While Sisam's comments show that a ninth
century date is possible for the composition of the genealogy, the
early spelling of Eafa/Eaba in some manuscripts does seem to make it
difficult to accept a LATE ninth century date for the first time that
the genealogy was written down.

Stewart Baldwin

This thread: