Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coenwulf of Mercia

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 00:03, 21 February 2008.

Coenwulf of Mercia

edit
Check external links

A ninth-century king of Mercia. FAs for comparison: Offa of Mercia and Wiglaf of Mercia; contemporary kings include Eardwulf of Northumbria and Egbert of Wessex. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no surviving images of Coenwulf, and no significant later depictions of him, as far as I'm aware. The only images that might be of him are on his coins, and the Wikipedia Foundation lawyer has said that reproductions of coins do not qualify under the exemption used for two-dimensional art. I can't use fair use either, because I would not be discussing the image itself, but Coenwulf, so fair use would not apply. Hence I don't believe there is a way to add an image to the article. Mike Christie (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Coenwulf mancus were inaccessible in a private collection somewhere, "critical commentary" would be no bother. The trouble is that it's in the British Museum and (so far as I know) quite easily photographed. Fair use is only permissible if the image couldn't be replaced by a free one, and everything suggests that getting a picture of it is relatively simple (if you happen to be anywhere nearby). Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coenwulf depicted on an early ninth century gold mancus
A tracing of that image could easily be taken. I might volunteer if it's thought a good idea. DrKiernan (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly be nice to have. Isn't a tracing taken directly from an image also subject to copyright, though? A freehand copy would not be, but I recall seeing a discussion about maps that indicated that a traced map is not an independent work. Anyway, if that's not a problem, yes, please, it would be great to get an image of the coin. Mike Christie (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done one. DrKiernan (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I added it to the infobox. Mike Christie (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed this to "4.33 g" and added a conversion, and also a ref to the Early Medieval Corpus link -- that gives the weight as 4.33 g and I think that's going to be more accurate than the BBC, so I used that.
Done; I found three instances. Mike Christie (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Epbr123 (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose changed to Support mainly on some small quibbles about writing and some clarifications on sentences.
  • One thing I've noticed is that a LOT of sentences start "In (date) .. " or "In (place).." Might want to vary those a bit more.The Reign section, the last three paragraphs all start that way, and the last paragraph has the first two sentences start with In:
I've cut a few and moved the language around a bit; please let me know if this has fixed the problem. Mike Christie (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question from the lede, if he retook the kingdoms of Kent and East Anglia, why isn't he listed as king of those places also?
Well, in the case of Kent, he established his brother Cuthred there, so Coenwulf was overlord rather than king directly. Yorke lists Cuthred as an intruded Mercian king, but doesn't list Coenwulf. I don't have my references with me today, but as I recall Coenwulf is generally thought of as overlord in East Anglia too, though the records are sketchier. It's relatively rare that an Anglo-Saxon king actually directly asserts that they are king of another kingdom. Coenwulf does make this claim in one charter, but only one, and Kent has kings after Coenwulf's departure, again from memory. (My references are in a suitcase lost by KLM between Amsterdam and Aberdeen; I'm hoping to get them back today.) Overall I think his kingship of Kent and East Anglia can be destressed; I'd be happy to remove the categories that show it. He was overlord, not king, in general. Mike Christie (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. You're the kingship expert on the Anglo-Saxons. I was more curious than anything, I know just enough to be dangerous. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background - quibble... are we safe to say that the people AEthelbald was overlord over were English at that point?
Good point. I think some might argue that "English" is OK by this time; it was used by Ine in his laws, earlier than this. However, there seems no reason to use a possibly controversial term, so I've changed it to "Anglo-Saxon". Mike Christie (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to using English, so if someone else (looks at Deacon) wants the English usage, it's not a concern. I just know that a lot of times even in close to the Conquest, Anglo-Saxons is used as much as English. Once again, I know enough to be dangerous...Ealdgyth | Talk 04:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a curious sort, did Ecgfrith die peacefully or was he helped by Coenwulf? It would be useful to know, I'd think, because I wonder at the short reign and wonder if there was some help involved in shortening it.
I wonder the same thing! Unfortunately there's no record at all. I could say "of unknown causes" or something like that, or perhaps change the note of his death to comment that the source gives only the date but no other information. Mike Christie (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you on that one. I was just REALLY curious, and knowing how things went in those days.... Ealdgyth | Talk 04:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the reasons that Coenwulf may have requested the movement of the archiepiscopal see from Canterbury to London was the Archbishop AEthelheard had been driven from Canterbury during the revolt, and AEthelheard was a Mercian appointee and not a Kentish native. Brooks in The Early History of Canterbury suggests that the plan was to transfer AEthelheard to London as part of the plan to diminish the separatist tendencies of Kent. I don't know if you want to go into this level of detail in the article though, as the basic idea is covered by the statement "loss of Mercian control over Kent." It's just that one aspect of that control was controlling the archbishops.
I think some version of this is worth adding; the article wasn't very explicit about this sort of connection and I think it's worth spelling out. I added a sentence or two, reffed to Brooks. Could you give me the relevant page numbers to include? Mike Christie (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added in the page numbers for you. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source for the exact extent of Hygeberht's archdiocese is actually William of Malmesbury. There is not contemporary source for the information. Brooks seems to depreciate this information, as he says that William gives the name of the new archbishop as Ealdwulf, who was actually Hygeberht's successor at Lichfield. This is from Brooks p. 119.
At the least I'd like to add a comment that the source of the information about which dioceses were given to Lichfield is William of Malmesbury.
Done, using Brooks as a reference, and giving p. 119; I don't have Brooks or a copy of William of Malmesbury. Kirby seems to accept the list unquestioningly and it's a very plausible division, after all. Do you think some of Brooks scepticism needs to be expressed? Mike Christie (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He more expresses scepticism that those are necessarily the absolutely correct ones. I think what you put in is fine. Later (but on that page or the next, I"d have to check again, Brooks got buried somewhere) Brooks says that a division much like that is likely, he just wants to qualify that the source is late. It's one of those lovely little distinctions that needs to be made when you say something, but doesn't need to be big and bold. A footnote mentioning it is good. It'd probably distract everyone but folks in the know anyway. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I extended the footnote to quote Brooks' scepticism. I agree it's worth explicitly pointing out the lateness of the source, and a footnote seems the right place to do it. Mike Christie (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brooks gives as a possible reason for the creation of the archdiocese of Lichfield the fact that Jaenberht was a friend of Egbert, who had revolted against Offa, and Egbert granted lands to Canterbury while he was in control of Kent. The lands were then confiscated by Offa when he reasserted control of Kent. (Brooks page 114-115) Once again, I'm not sure how much detail you want to go into.
Here I think it's OK to skip the detail, though this might be useful in the articles on Offa and/or Jaenberht. These events happened before Coenwulf, and I think the main things the article has to talk about are the fact of the division of the archdiocese, and the reasons Coenwulf gives in his correspondence with Leo. Mike Christie (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the relations with the church section, fourth paragraph, you mention Wulfred at first, then later you start mentioning Wulfhere. Do you mean Wulfred there? You then switch back to Wulfred in the rest of the paragraph.
Oops; thanks for catching this. Just a typo. I did the same thing in reverse in the Wulfhere article.
  • Did you want to link dates like October 12 803 or did you not want to link dates? You have one linked, one not, so not sure what you want to do.
These should all be linked; I believe it's a definite MOS requirement. I linked the only unlinked one I could see; please let me know if there are more. Mike Christie (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was one linked, and one not linked. I wasn't sure which was intended. From now on, I'll just link for you if I see it. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, there are a couple of single years linked, is that desired?
No; all removed now, I think. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Family and succession, second paragraph, I think you mean to say "Coenwulf died in 821 at Basingwerk near Holywell, Flintshire, probably while making preparations...
Yes, thanks for catching that. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You stare at the text for so long, you just add in what SHOULD be there. Glad to be a help. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All in all a nice read. Just some questions and a few clarifications and quibbles about prose flow. I'll be happy to support soon!Ealdgyth | Talk 02:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some responses are inline above; I'll add more as I get time. Thanks for the comments. Mike Christie (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like everything was addressed. Looks good to me. Sources are all very reliable. Maps are all free, chart is useful. Looks great, changing to support. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support (and for putting in those page numbers). Mike Christie (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with some comments
    • I think you should say that the reason why Coenwulf came to the throne is not known. At present the reader is left hanging wondering whether Coenwulf deposed Ecgfrith or whether Ecgfrith died a natural death and because Offa's purges had been so ruthless only Coenwulf, a distant relative, was left to succeed. Ideally, I'd like to see both these assumptions raised as unconfirmed possibilities.
I've added a note, saying that the sources don't specify cause of death and also pointing out that Alcuin's comment about vengeance makes assassination seem perhaps the more likely cause of death. However, I don't think I can find a source that draws this conclusion, so I haven't footnoted it; I think it has to come under the exemption for "unlikely to be challenged", since it's a fairly logical deduction from Alcuin's letter. Mike Christie (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe there should be a question mark next to Cyneberht's name in the family tree? I think he is referred to as a "near relation" in charters? Is that sufficient to assume he was a nephew?
I'm traveling at the moment and only have a couple of refs with me so I can't check this, but will do so in a day or two when I get back. Per PASE he is mentioned only in two charters, as "propinquus" of Coenwulf, so it looks like you're right. Mike Christie (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to a copy of the Chronicon; do you know if there is one online? Even with a ref, though, I'm reluctant to cite directly to primary sources for something like this; I prefer to use what the historians of the period feel is worth writing about. However, the issue of sainthood (particularly if he was sainted later) is not something that would necessarily interest the historians much, so perhaps there is a later calendar of saints I could cite -- after all if he was made a saint then that's a definite fact and it should be mentioned. I did some googling for Coenwulf (or Cenwulf) as a saint, but couldn't turn anything up, so I think I'd like to leave this out unless you're aware of another source beyond John. Mike Christie (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's an ancient edition on Google Books entitled The Chronicle of Florence of Worcester. But to save you the bother, I already looked. At Ecgberht's death John calls Coenwulf "...a magnificent prince, who was blessed with a saintly offspring, ruled the kingdom with peace, justice and piety". The record of Coenwulf's death is equally glowing, "...after a life spent in good deeds, [Coenwulf] was translated to eternal bliss in heaven...". The history then recounts the story of Saint Kenelm, Coenwulf's saintly offspring. No sign of "Saint Coenwulf" there. Regarding Cyneberht and Coenwald, Keynes, "Mercia and Wessex in the Ninth Century", pp. 315–136, says Coenwald was "apparently" a son of Cuthred; Cyneberht, however, "may have been a brother" or another son of Cuthred. Hope this helps, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, my mistake. DrKiernan (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Angus; I went ahead and added the question-mark, and added references to the image page. I do have Yorke's Kings and Kingdoms with me, and I did finally spot Cyneberht in the family tree Yorke gives on p. 119, so I reffed that too. She unambiguously makes Cyneberht a son of Cuthred but doesn't discuss it so I thought the question-mark was safer. Mike Christie (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Coenwulf_of_Mercia&oldid=1138457742"