Talk:Pillar of Eliseg
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Discrepancy Between Genealogy Inscribed in Pillar of Eliseg and Generally Accepted Biography of Cadell ap Elisedd
The Latin text inscribed in the Pillar of Eliseg describes "Concenn filius Cattell Cattell / filius Brohcmail Brohcmal filius / Eliseg Eliseg filius Guoillauc." "Filius," of course, is Latin for "son of." "Concenn filius Cattell" obviously describes
Given the fact that Cyngen ap Cadell ordered the inscription on the Pillar of Eliseg and that he knew quite well the name of his father, uncle and grandfather, there are only two explanations for this discrepancy. One is that the carver of the inscription, whom we already know made an error by carving "Eliseg" instead of "Elisedd" (not to mention referring to "Brochfael" interchangeably as "Brohcmail" and "Brohcmal"), mistakenly carved "filius" instead of "frater" (or is "frateque" the correct form?) between the names "Cattell" and "Brohcmail." A second possibility would be that the man that succeeded to the throne of Powys in 808, whom we know as Cadell ap Elisedd, actually was a son, not a brother, of his predecessor Brochfael ap Elisedd, and perhaps Cadell went by the double-patronymic "Cadell ap Brochfael ap Elisedd" (which would be rare, but not unheard of in medieval Wales). Could someone have shortened Cadell's full name (removing the first patronymic) at some point 1,000 years ago and led future generations to believe that he was the son, not the grandson, of Elisedd ap Gwylog, based on the perceived patronymic?
I certainly am no expert on Welsh history, and would welcome any thoughts on which of the two possible explanations for the discrepancy between the text of the inscription and the historical record is correct (or, if unverifiable, which is likelier). If the discrepancy was due to an error by the carver, then we should correct the ubiquitous references throughout Wikipedia to Cyngen ap Cadell being the "great-grandson" of Elisedd ap Gwylog to clarify that he was his grandson. But if the discrepancy is due to Cadell being the son, not the brother, of Brochfael, then the ubiquitous references to Cadell's parentage would need to be corrected, as well as Cadell's full name.
AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- I went back and reread the inscription on the Pillar of Eliseg, and it seems highly unlikely that Cadell was described as the son of Brochfael as a result of an error on the part of the carver. The line inscribed on the Pillar right after the genealogy states that "Concenn itaque pronepos Eliseg / edificauit hunc lapidem proauo / suo Eliseg," which is Latin for "And that Concenn, great-grandson of Eliseg, erected this stone for his great-grandfather Eliseg." The word "pronepos" unambiguously meant "great-grandson" (just plain "nepos" was Latin for "grandson"), and Cyngen (Concenn) wouldn't have asked to be described as Elisedd's great-grandson if he was Elisedd's grandson. So, unless the Pillar of Eliseg was fraudulent, or the transcription made of the inscription (prior to it becoming illegible) was gravely erroneous, then the King of Powys that we know as Cadell ap Elisedd actually was the son, not the brother, of his predecessor as king, Brochfael ap Elisedd, meaning that his name should be given as Cadell ap Brochfael. Perhaps Cadell's surname went down in history as "ap Elisedd" because an ancient source referred to him by the double patronymic "Cadell ap Brochfael ap Elisedd" and a future source inadvertently left out the "ap Brochfael" part, leading future historians to believe that Cadell must have been Elisedd's son (and thus Brochael's brother, not his son).
- Again, I welcome any input from persons more familiar with medieval Welsh history in general, and the Pillar of Elisedd and the Kings of Powys fro 725 to 855 in particular, than I am. It seems to me, though, that the inscription on the Pillar of Elisegg is as good of a historical record from the 9th century as any, and it would be difficult not to conclude that Cadell was Brochfael ap Elisedd's son, not his brother.
- AuH2ORepublican (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I read the German-language Wikipedia article on Cadell, King of Powys from 773 to 808: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadell_ap_Brochfael. It is a fully sourced article (not a stump such as the English-language or Welsh-language Wikipedia articles), and it asserts that Cadell was the son (not the brother) of Brochfael ap Elisedd and that his correct name thus was Cadell ap Brochfael. This confirms that the genealogy in the Pillar of Eliseg is correct. I will proceed to make the conformig changes to the English-language articles.
- AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- See the variant readings, translations, and bibliography at the Celtic Inscribed Stones Project website: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/cisp/database/stone/ltysl_1.html#i1 Cagwinn (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. All four readings coincide in that a king named "CATTELL," "CATTELI" or "CATELL" (depending on the reading) was described as "FILIUS BROHCMAIL," and all four translators coincided that "CONCENN ITAQUE PRONEPOS ELISEG" means that "Concenn" was the great-grandson of "Eliseg." Macalister and Nash-Williams also noted that "Concenn" was the King of Powys that died around 854 (i.e., Cyngen) and that "Cattel" was the King of Powys that died in 808 (i.e., Cadell). AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
extra stuff
[1] an interesting take on the stone from a 19th c. (1810) book