Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-01 > 1073221035

From: "AGeorgeSand" <>
Subject: Re: the memoires of Raoul, 1/2 brother of Richard I, duke of Normandy
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 13:57:15 +0100
References: <02b001c3d1dc$c2ce5be0$fc74f9c1@AnnieMobileUnit> <> <004e01c3d246$82a263d0$41b6f8c1@AnnieMobileUnit> <> <>

Well friends, looks like I'll be leaving the group again to go read a bunch
of things like Adam of Bremen in latin, which I'm not speedy at and will
require full attention; any further discussion of topics I raised please
copy to me offlist please or I wont be following; after a week of vacation,
it's very busy again, (un)fortunately.

Peter, can you direct me to Jumièges' work in latin, online, for further
checking? By the time I get through Adam, I should be more fluent.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 4:47 AM
Subject: Re: the memoires of Raoul, 1/2 brother of Richard I, duke of

> "Todd A. Farmerie" <> wrote in message
> > AGeorgeSand wrote:
> > > p 2 de Guillaume de Jaumièges in his letter to Duke William:
> > >
> > > "J'ai puisé le commencement de mon récit jusqu'à Richard II dans
l'histoire de Dudon, homme savant, lequel avait appris très soigneusement
du comte Raoul, frère de Richard Ier, tout ce qu'il a confié au papier
pour être transmis à la posterité..."
> > >
> > >
> > > "I have taken the beginning of my tale up until Richard II, from the
history by Dudo, a wise man who learned very carefully from Count Raoul,
brother of Richard Ist, all that which he had consigned to paper, to be
transmitted to posterity..."
> >
> >
> > But who is the 'he' here - is William refering to everything that
> > Dudo learned - all that Raoul had written, or everything that
> > Dudo learned from Raoul - all that Dudo then wrote? The
> > important thing here is what Dudo says of his source, not what
> > William, writing two generations later, says of Dudo's source.
> There is in fact no ambiguity at all on this point in the original
> text - Todd is quite right, the act of writing down according to
> William of Jumièges (NB not Jaumièges) is clearly Dudo's alone and
> not Raoul's. The sentence in Latin reads:
> "Principium namque narrationis usque ad Ricardum secundum a Dudonis,
> periti uiri, hystoria collegi, qui quod posteris propagandum karte
> commendauit a Rodulfo comite, primi Ricardi fratre, diligenter
> exquisuit" (for the sake of clarity this can be clumsily translated:
> "I have gathered the history for the first part of the narrative down
> to Richard II from Dudo, a skilful man, who what he committed to paper
> for transitting to posterity he diligently inquired from Count Rodulf,
> brother of Richard I").
> The point here is that _only_ in translation can the writing down be
> mistaken for a supposed work of Richard I's brother - unlikely enough
> in itself to cast doubt on such an interpretation. However, it isn't
> always so straightforward: this is a very simple example to show why
> any self-respecting historian or professional genealogist _must_
> consult original texts, and of course _must_ therefore take the
> trouble to learn the requisite language/s first.
> Peter Stewart

This thread: