Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ine of Wessex

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:53, 31 August 2007.

Ine of Wessex

[edit]

Another Anglo-Saxon king of Wessex. For comparison purposes, his predecessor Cædwalla of Wessex is now an FA, and Æthelbald of Mercia, a contemporary, is also an FA. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. I have no idea on this one, but I know a couple of people I can ask. I'm pretty sure none of the references I'm using cover this. I've always assumed it rhymed with "wine", but I could be wrong. I'll post here again if I can find out more. Mike Christie (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rule of doubled consonants for short vowels gets regularized later, so the vowel could be long or short. If short, the logical pronunciation is "innuh." If long, the vowel would have been the "continental i" (η). The "i" of "I" and "wine" would be the least likely. If we have Latin authors writing it as "Ine," then it's likely the "eennuh," as Latin did obey the doubled consonant rule. It would be my best guess that it is the ήnuh. (If we found rhymes, we'd nail it down, but they don't exist from the period with the name.) Geogre 02:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't thought of looking at Latin versions. The only source I know for the Latin is Bede, and it's indexed there in my Penguin translation as "Ini". So would that be "eeny"? I don't have the original Latin. Mike Christie (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Followup note: at the AS prosopography site, they list Inus, Yny, and Yni as well as Ine and Ini. Yny and Yni come from charters. Mike Christie (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
| may be right. It is, then, "eeny," as in "meeny, miny, moe." The Yny would be "eeny," but the "Yni" suggests "Eenuh," so, when combined with the others, it's likely that the most common (and Bede is probably the "Ine" source) pronunciation was "een" with the /i/ we have in "thin" and "in," which would put it like the contemporary "Enid" but without the final stop. Geogre 12:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the above exchange to the article talk page. If Geogre had been certain of the pronunciation I think it might have gone in as uncontroversial, but since there is some uncertainty I've left it as a note on the talk page for when a reference can be found. Thanks to Geogre for the background and additional info on this. Mike Christie (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mo? -- !! ?? 09:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very well written, referenced, and, as, far as I can tell with my abysmal knowledge of history, comprehensive. Only a very small quibble. Under "Christianity", there is a quick mention that Ine originally opposed the creation of the Diocese of Sherborne (Now Salisbury), but there is no further details on this anywhere in this or the diocese article. I'm thinking either the mention should be developed, or dropped. Circeus 23:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the reference -- it comes from the Blackwell encyclopaedia, and there's no more there about it. That entry is written by Barbara Yorke, and I checked her "Kings and Kingdoms" (as well as some other sources) and found nothing more. So I think it might as well go. Mike Christie (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is a question since I know nothing about the subject. Does Christianity need its own section or could it go under another heading like "Internal affairs" since it is such a short section? Mattisse 14:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be merged, if commenters here think that would be better. I'd suggest keeping it separate though, because the influence and spread of Christianity through the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms is a major topic of historical study for this period. A reader with some interest in Ine might well look for a section about Ine's relationship with the church. Also, it didn't seem a very natural fit in the other section, which is in itself somewhat a collection of miscellanea. But I can reorganize things if people think that's an improvement. Mike Christie (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's traditional in histories of the Anglo-Saxon peoples to follow certain narratives. This article reflects most of these themes. One is, "How do tribes become kingdoms and kingdoms become a nation?" Another is, "How does the church convert a pagan island and civilize a barbarous people?" Another is, "How does a financial arrangement emerge that leads to taxation and the eventual ability to defend the island against invaders (under Alfred)?" Yet another is, "How do the people begin to think of themselves as non-Norse and see the other Norse as enemies?" Therefore, a breakout of "Christianity" is a convention in any history of an AS king. Even if there isn't that much to say in a quick article, it's one of the sections that should be present in all the articles on AS kings after 600. I'm not one who believes in a great deal of enforced uniformity, but this is more scholarly tradition than conformity, so I'd recommend keeping the section. Geogre 02:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional oppose. Neutral. I've looked at the lead, and have the following issues.
    • Ouch: "under his overlordship"—Exposed at the top, so can you find another word for "under"?
    • "some but not all"—just "some"? But WP wants precision: "some two-thirds"? "more than half"?
    • "Ine retained some but not all of these territorial gains: by the end of his reign the kingdoms of Kent, Sussex and Essex were no longer under West Saxon domination. However, Ine maintained control of what is now Hampshire, and consolidated and extended Wessex's territory in the western peninsula." The relationships between the sentences is awkward. Full-stop after "gains", then semicolon after "domination"?
    • "first began"—one of them, not both.
    • "though none are known that bear his name"—As soon as I see "are known", I feel like a reference: known to whom? Otherwise, just remove the "are known" here, as long as it's clarified in the body of the article.
    • "Trade is thought to have increased significantly during his reign, with the town of Hamwih (now Southampton) becoming important." Same here: "thought"—who'se thinking? I'd remove this and say "Trade increased", again, expecting greater detail and/or referencing below. Such hedging (explicit uncertainty) becomes intrusive, especially in the lead. "Is noted for"—same issue. Better to say that his code of laws was an important step in ..., or something like that.
    • "They shed"—remove "they" (this will be an ellipsis).
    • I like the stubby third para (except "move" instead of "go"?).

Please locate a collaborator to have the whole text copy-edited, after you've done what you can with the hedging/referencing thing. Tony 04:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the lead per your notes and will follow up when I've also done a pass on the body. Here are some comments on the lead:
  • under his overlordship -- I made this under his control, which is less precise but suffices for the lead, I think. I agree—not easy to think of a synonym for "under": "subject to his overlordship" is all I can think of.
  • some but not all -- changed to "was unable to retain all", which I hope eliminates the question of what proportion was retained. The loss of territory is covered in some detail in the body.
  • Ine retained -- I've restructured the sentences as you suggested. I'm tempted to make the two sentences into one very long one, since the structure is "statement: illustration; counterillustration", but I think it would be too long.
  • first began -- dropped "first".
  • none are known -- the issue here is that coins are being found all the time, and a coin may still be found with Ine's name. I've changed it to "none have yet been found", which makes it clearer why "none exist" would be an unsafe assertion. Except that "none" is always singular.
  • Trade is thought -- I dropped the qualification as you requested.
  • Is noted for -- I've left this as is since I'd like to clarify the intent here and see what you think. What I meant by this is something like "Ine's laws are much commented upon by historians", or "Historians have treated the laws as one of the most important facts of Ine's reign." I could just cut out the "noted" part completely, and leave it at: "Ine issued a code of laws in about 694," and possibly then join that to the subsequent sentence.
  • They shed -- done.
  • move vs. go -- I'm going to leave this as is, I think. Two reasons: one is that "'go" sounds more as if the journey itself is important, which is the case here -- there is an element of pilgrimage in Ine's decision. Second, to my ears at least, "move" has too many connotations of calling up the removal van company and arranging for your books to be shipped. I think "go" is more neutral.
As I said, I'll post here again when I've had a go at the rest. If any other copy-editing editor wants to have a go, please do; I agree with Tony that fresh eyes are usually best, but I'll also plan to do it myself. Mike Christie (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done a pass and removed the inclemencies I could spot. Tony, please let me know if you see further issues. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mike, thanks, good work. But I see little problems wherever I look, so can we find a third party to go through it? Search the edit histories of simliar FAs (England, histories) and other good articles to locate new wikicollaborators; this is potentially rewarding in the long term. "Reign": Remove "fairly" as vague and unencyclopedic. Remove the dot in the caption (MOS). Since there's a reference number at the end of the sentence, remove "is known to have" and make it a plain statement. "Comprised" rather than "consisted of" to emphasis wholeness (Fowler says!). "in either 704 or 705"—spot the redundant word. There's a lot of good in this article, but it needs polishing. I support it in the expectation that you'll locate the right collaborator(s).
I appreciate you having faith in me to get it done. I have approached one possible collaborator, and have one other in mind if that fails me; I could always ask my wife, whose professional writing experience exceeds mine, but that might be asking for trouble. Anyway, I'll post a note here when/if I get some help on this. Mike Christie (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your wife is by your side and not helping? Moral pressure, please! Tony 06:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My wife marked up a hardcopy, and I've entered those changes; plus Outriggr and qp10qp have both done substantial copyedits (thank you both). Would you take another look and see if the problems are resolved? Mike Christie (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it per your suggestion; I think it's gone back and forth a couple of times per different editors' preferences. Mike Christie (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work once again! Minor points: repetition in the lead of "during [his/Ine's] reign"; sceattas = pounds or pennies?; death date is given as 728 at first but then "the following year" (after 726) at the end – should "728" read "in or after 727"? DrKiernan 11:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone else fixed the repetition; there are two occurrences left which seems acceptable to me, particularly since "in Ine's" looks so odd on the page. The date of death issue is fixed. Sceattas: they were probably known to contemporaries as pennies, per the WP sceat article (I don't have another source for that assertion) but the ASC uses the word pounds in the entry referred to for 694. It's "punda" in the B text, per this online version. The conjecture that the pounds are sceats comes from the knowledge of what a king's weregild would be. Does this need expansion on the page? Mike Christie (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I have some suggestions and queries, but I see no reason why this article shouldn't soon be another FA. After all, there's a finite amount to be said about this king, and, as always with Mike Christie's work, the ground is carefully and cautiously covered. I congratulate him on all his excellent Anglo-Saxon articles. The clear prose style is particularly impressive; this is an encyclopedic quality often overlooked by FA writers. I applaud the way technical and precise terms are unobtrusively explained en passant.

Please don't feel daunted by the number of comments: most of them can be addressed very easily, I imagine. And do ignore anything here that you feel is off target, of course. I'm already very close to supporting.

  • in the words of a contemporary chronicler. I suggest it would be better to make it clear that this contemporary chronicler was Bede. Otherwise, some readers may ask "what other contemporary chroniclers were there, then?"
  • On a similar point of making the nature of sources clear, I suggest the article should not risk implying that the Annales Cambriae were in any way more contemporary than the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. "The Annales Cambriae record that in 722..." might give that impression, I suspect.
  • Ingeld/Ingild. Two different spellings.
  • Cuthburh. The article could perhaps mention here that she and Aldfrith separated and that she founded the abbey at Wimborne. (Annoyingly, I bought some scholarly pamphlets when I visited the minster and chained library there but can't blasted well find them at the moment.) She was a big cheese in her day, in her way: and she provides another piece of evidence for Ine's patronage of religious establishments.
  • It might be worth a line about the practice of and reasons for going to Rome at this time. Bede has something on it, I think.
  • Are we sure that the Schola Saxonum was only for men? I've no idea, but if we don't know, we need to be cautious with the language, since so many Anglo-Saxon women also went to Rome.
  • further evidence comes from a land-grant, thought to be genuine. I think we need a touch more here, since one wouldn't expect the article to be referring to a land grant which was not thought to be genuine.
  • It may be that Cenred gave up his claim to the throne in favour of Ine, but there is no comparable circumstance in Anglo-Saxon history. There are plenty of examples of people giving up their throne, and we cannot always know how they were related to their successors. If this is based on Stenton, I think he means that there was no comparable example of co-kingship between father and son. But I wouldn't even make a big deal of that, as such, because Ine may have ruled a different area at first (Sussex, for example, given the interest he took in the Mul business and Kent). And off the top of my head, I'd say that Aethelwulf carried out a similar role at the end of Egbert's reign, as a sub-king. Certainly that sort of overlap was common in Europe.
  • The West Saxons had since expanded further down the Cornish peninsula, pushing back the boundary with the British kingdom of Dumnonia, which probably consisted of what is now Devon and Cornwall. Possibly Somerset, too, since Ine built at Taunton. I'm not comfortable with "Cornish peninsula" here. "Corn" means "horn" and only applies to the southwestern end of the southwestern peninsula. Although it is possible that the Cornovii had lived further east too, I believe that Devon had partly been evacuated by this time, to judge by the place names, with the Cornish retreating into Cornwall proper and Brittany in the sixth and seventh centuries. I would avoid the word peninsula here altogether and go for "further west".
  • He or his people campaigned across the Tamar in Cornwall, though unsuccessfully: the Annales Cambriae record that in 722 the British defeated their enemies at the Hehil, which has been identified as the river Hayle. I find this a little unclear. They were unsuccessful in 722, but do we know the result of the 710 campaign? And although it's true that some historians think Hehil is Hayle, I don't believe the spot has been identified. It is actually impossible to identify the site of the battle from the evidence; and historians have also suggested the Camel estuary, which used to be called Heil, as well as Hele, Jacobstow (near the Ottery), and Hele in Devon. In The South West to AD 1000, Malcom Todd and Andrew Fleming say that both the Hayle and the Camel are "too far west to be taken seriously". Hayle is certainly in the extreme west of Cornwall. The Camel, however, strikes me as possible, because it is in north Cornwall, not far from the ethnic dividing line along the Ottery. On that point, I would add that fighting in Cornwall is not just a matter of fighting across the Tamar, because in the north, beyond the source of the Tamar, the boundary between the two cultures, which is pronounced in the name places, is along the Ottery. The battle was likely to have been fought around there somewhere, in my opinion, as may have been the later battle in which Egbert defeated the Cornish. It's the only part of Cornwall which doesn't possess natural defences (Cornwall's Achilles hehil, one might say). Extreme caution in the wording is needed, I think, even if the result is vagueness.
  • John of Worcester, a twelfth-century source, states that Geraint was killed in this battle. The casual reader might ask what a twelfth-century source would know, so might it be mentioned here that John had access to chronicles at Hereford and Worcester which have now been lost. I've a lot of time for John?
  • "Other conflicts" section: This is surely too short. It would be so easy to lose it by adding the Taunton incident to the Dumnonia section and the Cynewulf to the tail of the Ealdberht material. We don't know for sure if Ealdberht was an aetheling, but the incident seems to be of a piece and a time with the Cynewulf one. Admittedly, we don't know where the latter happened, and so it doesn't fit any geographical heading; but the article could say that it is not known where it took place and I'm sure no one would mind it being in the south-east section. Especially if it were the last item.
  • an exile fled. He sounds more like a fugitive to me. When a king sends someone into exile, he doesn't usually chase after him. And he couldn't have been an exile before he fled.
  • The amount offered to Ine by Wihtred is uncertain; most manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle record "thirty thousand", and some specify thirty thousand pounds. If the pounds are equal to sceattas, then this amount is the equal of a king's wergild (a criminal reparation) according to Mercian law. I think the explanation of what wergild was needs to be a little clearer. Also, it's not clear to me why Mercian law is mentioned here (presumably it's the source of the explanation), and I'm not sure it needs to be. In this context, we probably need to learn why Ine is thought to be the first known minter, which I presume is because of the mention of "pennies" in his laws (Kirby, 222; I think you were asking above for another reference). Nothing's easy, though: how on earth does one explain that sceattas might have been equivalent to pounds but called "pennies"?
  • Evidence for Ine's control of Surrey comes from the introduction to his laws, in which he refers to Eorcenwald, bishop of London—and hence of Surrey, which was in the diocese of London—as "my bishop". I was unclear about the status of Surrey in the article. I made a change which might not have helped. Did it have a status as an individual kingdom? If not, was it a part of Essex? If so, why did Ine control it separately? And if he at some point controlled Essex, why mention Surrey if it was part of it? Kirby says, "he was certainly regarded as king in Surrey early in his reign". But what does this mean? Why say this and not, for example, "in Hampshire", or whatever? Was Surrey perhaps a minor kingship, like that of the Hwicce?
  • By this point Surrey had clearly passed out of West Saxon control. Bede records that Ine held Sussex in subjection for "several years", but in 722 an exile named Ealdberht fled to Surrey and Sussex, and Ine invaded Sussex as a result. This point seems to follow from a much earlier letter and events of 704 or 705. Is that synthesis inevitable? How do we know that Surrey had passed out of West-Saxon control, from the evidence given? We are only told that Ine held Sussex in subjection, followed by some information about Sussex—nothing about Surrey. If the implication is that Ealdberht would only have fled to those places if Ine no longer controlled them, perhaps that should be brought out slightly more. And do we have any idea why Ine's control would be weakening in Surrey? Was Mercia starting to expand into this area yet?
  • The first mention of the office of ealdorman in Wessex, and the first references to the shires they led. Were there mentions of these in other kingdoms before? It would be interesting to be told, for historical context.
  • It is probable that the assembly of large cattle herds would have been easier to achieve via royal command and taxation than through any nascent market system. I felt this was one of the few sentences where the article lapsed from its clear prose style. I'm not sure "Nascent market system" will mean much to most readers, and it clashes unfortunately with the image of a "cattle market", at least in my mind. The sentence needs a strong verb, I suggest.
  • A fragment of Ine’s laws can also be found in British Museum MS Burney 277. Is this a separate fragment, or one of the bits from the fire? How many different copies have survived in whole or part? (I take it three, but if so, that might be best indicated).
  • I wasn't clear about the word "used" in relation to Alfred's use of the old laws. Did he incorporate them into his own laws, or combine them with each other, or what? How do we know which bits are Ine's? Why are we sure (I daresay we are, but I couldn't work it out) that the overlaps between Ine and Wihtred's laws weren't brought into play later, when Alfred was stitching different laws together (given that it says we probably do not have Ine's original version)? Do we know what kings' laws were "used" by Alfred other than Ine's?
  • ceorl. I'd suggest this is a technical term and requires a phrase of explanation ("Saxon freeman", or something?).
  • communally. I'm not sure this is clear. It seems to clash with the point that the ceorls owned individual pieces of land. The solution I would propose is to cut it.
  • it is probable that this was the prevalent agricultural method throughout the midlands. I can't work out what this means here. Does it mean the central areas of Wessex, given that the westcountry was different? It's not a normal term in England, except to describe the area in mid England, roughly where Mercia was.
  • does not occur. Does the present tense indicate archaeological evidence? I think that needs to be made slightly clearer.
  • yard. This seems to be a square measure in this context. Does it mean what we would think of as a square yard? A yard, in itself, is only a measure of length—at least these days.
  • The information about the prologue to the laws is repeated somewhat in the "Christianity" section. It might be worth varying the wording between the two.
  • The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that Ine built a minster at Glastonbury. This must refer to additional building or re-building since the church at Glastonbury is known to have been established as a British monastery. It might be worth checking the wording in the ASC again, perhaps in more than one translation, to see what exactly was said. The passage sets up an opposition between minster/church/monastery that I suspect is not really needed. And it slightly questions what was probably just a report of new buildings in the existing foundation.
  • Bede's wording, as given, implies that Ine was still king when he died in Rome. The article, however, says that he had abdicated the year before.
  • Should Oswald be mentioned at the end, since he fought for the succession?

Anyway, I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the article and making these notes. Boy o boy, does this stuff bring me back to my schooldays, when I was Anglo-Saxon mad! I apologise for getting slightly carried away! qp10qp 00:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed comments; always a pleasure to get queries on content as well as form. I'll use your bullet identifications and sign each one separately so you can respond under each one if necessary. I'll do these as I get to them.
Neatly done.qp10qp 12:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The scruple is worth it, I think.qp10qp 12:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK.qp10qp 12:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cuthburh. Done. I can't actually find a ref that says Wimborne Abbey was at that time in the see of Sherborne, but it's in the modern see of Salisbury, judging by the map, so I believe it's the case. Mike Christie (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are safe with that, because even though Wimborne lies at the extreme east of Dorset, Dorset was all part of the new diocese of Sherborne at this time. It also lies just to the west of the New Forest (still a marked landscape feature today), which appears to have been the dividing line. By the way, I don't know if it was only a temporary measure, but I'm surprised you've cut the mention of the splitting of the Winchester diocese: to me that's a significant fact, as it suggests West-Saxon expansion to the west was expected to be permanent. It might be worth mentioning Aldhelm's name in that context, too; one suspects he was appointed, given his letter to Geraint of Dumnonia, for his expertise in the doctrinal issues between the Roman and Celtic churches.qp10qp 12:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Wimborne, the map on p. 145 of Blair's Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England ("Approximate diocesan boundaries c. 750") shows it in the diocese of Winchester. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Angus. Re the cut sentence, qp, I cut it because I couldn't expand on the note on Ine's initial opposition -- see my response to Circeus above. I agree it is relevant. I'll put this on my list to re-add appropriately; if you can find a source on Ine's opposition, please let me know. Mike Christie (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it can be sourced without mentioning any opposition. And Wimborne can be mentioned without saying what diocese it was under.
On the diocese, little is provable for this period, of course: we can't even be sure that dioceses were run like they were later, and Wimborne may have been independent at that time. Wimborne seems to have been part of the diocese of Salisbury in the eleventh century, when the bishopric moved there (via Ramsbury) in the eleventh century. That the Sherborne diocese had jurisdiction "west of the wood", as the ASC says, is problematic. I doubt the possibility that "west of Selwood", as appears in one ASC manuscript, refers to the west of Selwood in Somerset, since Berkshire, well to the east, seems to have been under the Sherborne diocese. "West of Selwood" was a term more appropriate to Alfred's time, I suspect, when the chronicles were constructed, referring to the areas in the west where Alfred had retreated from the Danes.qp10qp 14:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've readded the material with the above in mind. The map Angus pointed me at might be a useful one for me to reproduce, both for this article and others; I'll see if I can find time for that. Mike Christie (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with the edit.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we sure that the Schola Saxonum was only for men? I've tweaked it to use "English" rather than "Englishmen". The source I cited, the Penguin Asser, does in fact say "Englishmen", but as you say this is not a safe assumption. Mike Christie (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • further evidence comes from a land-grant, thought to be genuine. This is probably just excessive caution on my part, so I've cut the "thought to be genuine". I introduced it because Kirby makes a disparaging aside: "If the evidence, admittedly not here of the best, of land-grants can be accepted, . . . ." I wasn't sure whether he meant these land-grants were unreliable or that land-grants in general were a poor witness, but I don't think this needs to make it to the page so I've cut it. I did leave in the reference link to the charter in question. Mike Christie (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be that Cenred gave up his claim to the throne in favour of Ine, but there is no comparable circumstance in Anglo-Saxon history. It is indeed based on Stenton. Here's what I was trying to paraphrase: "Primitive Germanic custom may well have allowed a son to secure the kingship of his people during the lifetime of an unambitious father, but there is no English parallel to the case of Ine and Cenred." Do I need to reword to make sure the sense is clear? Or is it still not worth including? Mike Christie (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I argued my case higher up. Stenton's point cannot baldly be applied in the following way: It may be that Cenred gave up his claim to the throne in favour of Ine, but there is no comparable circumstance in Anglo-Saxon history. This is because other kings gave up their thrones in favour of successors. And we do not always know the relationship between kings and their successors, anyway. Stenton may be right that there is no exact parallel, but there are near parallels, so one needs to be very precise about what there is no exact parallel to.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; after reading your comments again I decided to just cut the sentence completely. I don't think it adds enough to be worth being precise enough about to keep. Mike Christie (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The West Saxons had since expanded . . . I just cut the word "Cornish"; "further west" would have been three "wests" in about two lines, and I felt that would clank a bit. Could I just say "the southwestern peninsula"? On Somerset, I don't have a source that says Ine conquered it, or that Dumnonia held any of it prior to Ine's accession -- Stenton just says that it was probably in Ine's time that Devon was conquered, and doesn't mention Somerset. So I'd rather not mention that without having something to cite. Mike Christie (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Southwestern peninsula" is fine. I think the chances that Dumnonia was exactly equivalent to today's Devon and Cornwall is unlikely, though. The Oxford History of Britain says, "Cornwall, Devon, and Somerset formed the British kingdom of Dumnonia...the inhabitants were pushed back by the Anglo-Saxons during the seventh and eighth centuries, though Cornwall held out till 838." But the context in the article wasn't whether Somerset was conquered by Ine but whether the region had been conquered since Ceawlin (To the west, Ceawlin of Wessex is known to have reached the Bristol Channel one hundred years before. The West Saxons had since expanded further down the peninsula, pushing back the boundary with the British kingdom of Dumnonia, which probably consisted of what is now Devon and Cornwall). My point is only that they must have pushed back some areas of Somerset, too, to get to this position. The Chronicle says that Centwine pushed the Britons back as far as the sea, and surely this can only mean that they reached the coast of Somerset, at the least. However, it's not a big deal and the addition of a word like "roughly" would cover all angles, I think.
I did some rewording here; let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is surely unexceptionable now.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He or his people campaigned across the Tamar. I have edited the text to blur it somewhat, as you suggested. However, part is technically uncited now: the Stenton ref assert that it's the Hayle. Could you give me the page ref for the Todd/Fleming, so I can cite that? Mike Christie (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On Hehil, the ref is: Malcom Todd and Andrew Fleming, The South West to AD 1000, 1987, London: Longman, p. 273, ISBN 0584492734. The best references for Cornwall are that book and Philip Peyton's Cornwall: A History (Payton, by the way, opts for the Camel in the same way that Stenton opts for Hayle—and so the present wording in the article is judicious).
This is now cited from Todd & Fleming; thanks for the details. Mike Christie (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can relax now. :) qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's good. He may have had a Welsh source for the Geraint info as well. But the AS chronicles there were probably also using some Welsh annals, so the edit covers all possibilities.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other conflicts. Well, I'll move this if you really think it should go, but I have to say I'd rather not put the Cynewulf material in any geographically specific section. I do realize the section is small, and I spent some time considering other organizational approaches, but I don't like any of them better. One option would be to remove the headings at this level, and let the organization flow from the paragraph text. Would that be an improvement? Mike Christie (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would. At the moment the article is identifying the Taunton incident as a conflict comparable to the Cynewulf matter. I have always imagined it in the context of the southwestern expansion. Either way, we don't know, because, as Stenton says, the AS entry is "by no means luminous". The most likely conflict at Taunton, it seems to me, would be that Ine's fortess had been recaptured and so his queen burned it in reconquering and suppressing the region. Guesswork, of course, but no worse than the article's present guess that a quarrel had arisen in the royal family. I'd prefer a neutral, uninterpreted, noting of that incident—placing it in the southwestern context. But this is a small matter, and what you decide isn't going to affect whether I support the article.
  • an exile fled. As I understand it, the use of the term "exile" in secondary sources is often shorthand for someone who might have been a contender for the throne, or at least a threat to the existing king, and who cannot stay in the kingdom as a result. He is almost always a fugitive, I would think; Edwin of Northumbria was a fugitive from Aethelfrith when Raedwald took his part, but as I recall is described as an exile. So I would be concerned about implicitly losing information if I change to "fugitive". The information in this paragraph is compressed largely from Kirby, who conjecturally makes Ealdberht part of a narrative involving the destruction of Taunton and a rebellion; this is where Kirby brings in the possible Ingild connection. I'd left this out as conjecture that I hadn't seen repeated elsewhere, but it is reasonable and does provide a framework for covering this material. Would expanding this paragraph somewhat address your concern? Mike Christie (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point. But an exile isn't an exile until he has fled or been sent away. It's not important to me, anyway: I leave it to you.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The amount offered to Ine by Wihtred . . . . Three issues here. I think I've dealt with the "wergild" problem; please take a look and see what you think. I dropped the reference to Mercian law: that's from Swanton, who gives a reference to an original and a translation in Whitelock's EHD. I don't have the original text, but from EHD it turns out to be a reference to CCCC MS 201, which includes a text called "Concerning the Law of the Mercians"; that text also appears in the Textus Roffensis. In that text is this: ". . . a king's simple wergild is the wergild of six thegns by the law of the Mercians, namely 30,000 sceattas, which is 120 pounds in all." (Whitelock adds a note pointing out that a thegn's wergild is defined in the preceding lines as 1200 shilllings, so that the total should have been 28,800 sceattas if we take four pennies/sceattas to the shilling.) I think this is too much detail, though, so what I've done is simply excise the reference to Mercian law--the relevant point for the reader is just that it's plausbile that the punda are here sceattas because Mul was a king and that's the amount of a king's wergild. Swanton presumably mentions it because wergilds did vary by kingdom (I assume; haven't looked) so the statement needed to be qualified in his mind. I can do the same if you think it's necessary; I think most of what I've just written above would be in a footnote rather than the main text, but that could work well. The third point you raise is that of Ine as first minter. The Blackwell Encyclopaedia simply cites supporting "archaeological and numismatic evidence", without giving references, but there's more support in Kirby. (I evidently have a different edition from you--p. 222 is beyond the end of my copy--so perhaps this is the same reference you're referring to.) On p. 126 of my edition, near the end of the chapter on the Southumbrian kingdoms, he says "By c. 700 the area of circulation of the sceatta [shouldn't he say sceat?] . . . was widening to embrace the Thames valley and Hamwic, near Southampton, was emerging as an important trading settlement . . . ." There are two references (53 and 54 in case that helps you spot this in your differently paginated edition), one numismatic, and one to do with early towns. Is an extra cite enough here, or is some text needed in the article itself? Mike Christie (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to tell you that I'd cocked that up, because the reference was actually to Stenton 222, where he mentions "pennies". This is what comes of having scribbled and jumbled notes! I think the wergild paragraph is now masterly: it conveys the complexities concisely. I do, however, feel that something is needed in the article saying why it is thought that Ine may have been first to mint coins. From your comments and what I have read, the deduction is made from the circulation and mention of the coins during his reign.qp10qp 19:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a line based on the bit of Kirby I mentioned above. I looked at Stenton, but I think I don't need to mention the "pennies=sceattas" point; I don't mention pennies in the article, so I think we're OK without it. Mike Christie (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence for Ine's control of Surrey and By this point Surrey had clearly passed out of West Saxon control: I'm going to combine these two points for purposes of commentary. Here's what I think are the facts about Ine, Surrey, and Essex; perhaps this can be reorganized into more coherent text for the article. With regard to Essex, there is no evidence that I know of that Ine ever controlled all of Essex; it's not recorded that Caedwalla conquered Essex or had influence on their kings. Surrey was never a kingdom, I believe, but is mentioned as a territory in early sources -- in fact the 722 entry is the first such mention in the ASC. The introduction to the laws imply that Ine controlled at least part of Eorcenwald's territory (Stenton makes that deduction explicitly); the letter of Wealdhere demonstrates that Ine did not have overlordship of the East Saxons, and had lost control of Surrey. As for why Ine's control was weakening, Kirby suggests that Kentish influence was growing, though it's conjecture on his part. I can add that if it would be useful -- it's part of the same conjectural section where he discusses Ealdberht's rebellion (mentioned above). Anyway, let me know what you think of this material and I can rework to clarify whatever is unclear. Mike Christie (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is largely a clarity issue. It just needs to be written more sharply, I think. The article says that "Sussex, Surrey and Kent had all recovered their independence by the end of his reign". But in Surrey's case, what independence, if it wasn't a kingdom? The article says that London and Surrey were under the East Saxons but also that Ine lost control of Surrey: putting two and two together, one would deduce that the East Saxons took Surrey off Ine. But you mention that Kirby suggests Kentish power was an influence here. The point about Surrey's independence was never followed up. I just think the text needs simplifying, perhaps, to remove the conundrum.qp10qp 19:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of a rewrite here, but haven't mentioned Kirby's theory. Partly this is because doing so would require me to absorb the note on Taunton too, which would then force me to fix the "Other Conflicts" section. That would also conflict with your request to make the note on Taunton neutral and avoid mentioning the cause, since Kirby's conjecture is about familial rebellion. However, I would still like to find a way to mention the possibility of Kentish influence causing Ine trouble. I hope this is fixed enough for support; if so I'll work on the other points and come back to this last. Mike Christie (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your article on Aethelbald also seemed to imply there might have been Mercian influence here too. No one knows, is probably the bottom line.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first mention of the office of ealdorman in Wessex . . . . I've done a bit of poking around and I can't answer this. The ASC has a mention in 653 that I noticed, and there may be earlier ones, but of course that doesn't prove it was a contemporary term in 653. Charters would be better evidence if they survived from that period; the Blackwell entry cites charter evidence in support of Ine having created the shires. Anyway, I don't think I have enough info to expand on this, I'm afraid. Mike Christie (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the ASC entry you mention, that refers to Mercia: on that basis this sentence just about holds. As you say, it's a messy business because the ASC is late ninth century, really, and a lot of the contemporary stuff was in Latin, which had all sorts of words for the same concept anyway. No change is fine.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is probable that the assembly of large cattle herds . . . . I have expanded this paragraph, using additional material from Yorke, and I've cut the problematic sentence. Let me know what you think of the rewrite. One specific question: I've been using "Hamwih" rather than "Hamwic" because the only source I have that devotes a substantial amount of attention to it (Campbell, The Anglo-Saxons) says that "Hamwih" is the convention when talking about the mid-Saxon site. However, the other sources seem to all say "Hamwic" in all cases. Any opinions about which to use? Mike Christie (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After I wrote that I checked Blackwell, and it says unequivocally that "Hamwih" is an error, so I'm changing it. Mike Christie (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've always seen Hamwic, too. I'm glad the fancy sentence has gone.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear now, thanks.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't clear about the word "used" in relation to Alfred's use of the old laws. There are two things to be communicated: one is that Alfred says in his lawcode that "those [laws] which I found either in the days of Ine, my kinsman, or of Offa, king of the Mercians, or of Æthelberht [. . .] which seemed to me most just, I collected herein, and omitted the others." The other is that Ine's laws were appended to Alfred's. There is no indication whether the copied version represents the edited version, or if on the contrary the laws are Ine's original laws, and the process of creating Alfred's laws is what Alfred is referring to when he says he omitted some. The first reference to the source says Alfred "appended them"; would it be clearer to say "appended a copy of them"? The second reference, now that I look at it, doesn't even seem necessary; there's no reason in an article on Ine to mention that Alfred used Offa's laws. I've cut it; does that solve the problem?
Much better now, because the word "used" confused me before.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It save the reader from thinking too much there (me, anyway.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I understand now. I might just add a word or two there to clarify even further.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • does not occur. Unfortunately all I have from Stenton here is this: "A large part of England never came under the open-field system. It is not found in the far north nor the north-west, along the Welsh border or in Devon." I don't see how to make much more of this than I have; is there a wording you'd prefer? Mike Christie (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to the past tense; the present tense threw me.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well. I suppose we have to imagine what articles may be like in the future. That's a very helpful edit, by the way.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information about the prologue to the laws . . . . I've moved the extended quote to the section on Christianity and cut it from the laws section; does that do it? The quote was certainly too much to repeat, and I think it's more useful in the Christianity section. Mike Christie (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slicker.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle . . . . The text in Chronicle A is "7 he getimbrade þæt menster æt Glæstingabyrig"; it is apparently a marginal note added in the early eleventh century. Swanton translates it as "and he built the minster at Glastonbury". Swanton's note is what I was using as my source; he says "This . . . must refer to additional building, or re-building, since Glastonbury was the site of a British monastery; here as elsewhere Ine was completing or adding to what others had begun." Any thoughts on how to improve the article text? Mike Christie (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, go along with Swanton. Compare that sensible sentence of his with the church at Glastonbury is known to have been established as a British monastery. A church isn't a monastery. Monasteries have churches and other buildings in the complex.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now you point it out the word is clearly muddled. I've cleaned this up. Mike Christie (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phew.qp10qp 14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is a certain FA for me. There is a limited amount known about Ine, and what is known is comprehensively covered here. The article cites excellent sources throughout, but it goes further: it also compares the best sources and makes the most cautious assessments, avoiding the more idiosyncratic views of the leading historians on the subject. This makes it a highly reliable and valuable resource. Any reader who comes here without knowing much or anything about the subject will not only learn the essential facts but will also sense the limitations of the evidence and the complications of the primary sources. I see there's no opposition to this article in this review, and that is as it should be. I would raise my eyebrow at anyone who opposed, quite honestly. Apart from the history, the article is written in an unusually clear, explanatory prose of a type we could with more of on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Many congratulations to Mike Christie for all his diligence: something to be proud of here.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Very solid article. The one omission (which Mike probably wasn't aware of) is that 15 charters survive from his reign of varying degrees of authenticity -- per my count of P.H. Sawyer's Anglo-Saxon Charters. I think that this material should somehow be worked into the article -- after all, they are a substantial chunk of the scrappy materials for this period of AS history. I will admit, after glancing over the abstract's in Sawyer's work, I don't see an easy way to integrate them beyond offering some qualifications to Ine's patronage of religious houses & authoritative opinions on the authenticity of Cenred's problematic land-grant. -- llywrch 07:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a primary source link in the references to a query showing all of Ine's charters -- Anglo-Saxons.net agrees with your count of 15. I hadn't thought of doing this, and I think this would be good to add to other kings. However, I'm not sure about integrating them into the text, without finding a secondary source to reference them -- some already are referenced, of course, but I'm just concerned anything else I did would be original research. If you spot anything you think should be covered, let me know, though. Mike Christie (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent work. Comment Ine's wife, Æthelburg, is only once mentioned in the article, and quite vaguely (under the section about other conflicts). As this is an article about royalty, should the name be stated somewhere near the lead? I read through this article and found nothing wrong concerning the prose; you have my support. HansHermans 19:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I daresay she is hardly mentioned in the article because she is only mentioned once in the sources, and then enigmatically.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
I read a few more of Mike's FA's and it seems that none of them mention these things. Does this information belong in the box, though? HansHermans 00:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
It does indeed; I added it. Thanks for reminding me on that. I also found a place to mention it early in the first section, which I hope addresses your concern anyway. Mike Christie (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ine_of_Wessex&oldid=1138463802"