GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-08 > 1093697620


From: "Pierre Aronax" <>
Subject: Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:53:40 +0200
References: <5B5872B2.510A9EEB.007FA2F6@aol.com> <41304cdc$0$6043$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net> <cdZXc.10922$D7.8438@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <41306a7c$0$9774$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net> <fY_Xc.11056$D7.6859@news-server.bigpond.net.au>


"Peter Stewart" <> a crit dans le message de
news:fY_Xc.11056$...
Pierre Aronax wrote:

>> I was considering titles in official documents, that is titles used by
the
>> sovereigns themselves to describe their power. Here the title was always
>> "Francorum rex" at the time of the Capetians, despite the sometimes
chaotic
>> conditions of production of the documents. Of course, other titles can be
>> found in narrative sources (as today we can find "Queen of England" in
>> newspapers when in fact this animal is extinct for three centuries), and
the
>> title "Franciae rex" (as opposed to "Francorum rex") appeared in
narrative
>> sources before he was used in the royal chancery (although it never made
is
>> way to reach the intitulatio of the king at the beginning of his acts, at
>> least not in Latin).
>
>SGM readers may wish to record both the official and informal usages,
>and "king of Francia" was quite frequently preferred to "king of the
>Franks - even in records such as Annales Bertiniani for instance.

Yes, certainly, that's why I said it was traditional
and so perfectly proper to call the sovereigns of that time "king of
France", although there official title was "king of the
Franks". I didn't say "you can not call them 'king of France'" or "Nobody at
the time called them 'king of France'".

>>By the way (to save replying to another post in this thread) the
>>counting of indictions in Hugo's time was even messier than with
>>calendar & regnal years, and every possible anomaly occurs...plus a few
>>extra, that are quite unfathomable. There are circus animals that can
>>count better than some medieval monks.
>
>
>> But here the indiction could perfectly *not* be anomalous. Why supposing
it
>> is? Some monks were certainly not at ease with the indiction, but
probably
>> Abbon less than others: he was not exactly a circus donkey.

> I wasn't referring to that document, or to any person, in particular,
> but rather making a general observation. Some editors of diplomata have
> tended to rely on indications that appear to be right for correcting
> dates when other elements seem likely to be wrong, but sometimes this
> can be wishful and conclusions hazardous. A great many texts survive
> only in copies made later, by scribes who occasionally could have
> thought they were turning the ordinal numbering of years into cardinal,
> or vice versa, twisting relative details in the process.

OK, but I was more concerned by this particular document and the date
proposed by Newman. Here the document is original and the indiction coherent
with the date, so I don't see why not using it to narrow the dating.

Pierre



This thread: