GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-08 > 1093738839


From: Peter Stewart <>
Subject: Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 00:20:39 GMT
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> <41307f7f$0$21654$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net> <Q_%Xc.11114$D7.10888@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <41309988$0$18254$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>
In-Reply-To: <41309988$0$18254$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>


Pierre Aronax wrote:

> "Peter Stewart" <> a écrit dans le message de
> news:Q_%Xc.11114$...

<snip>

>>You also wrote, at the beginning of this thread, "Hugh the Great was not
>>Duke of Francia but Duke of the Franks". I merely pointed out that "duke
>>of Francia" _was_ a contemporary usage,
>
>
> As far as I can say, you spoke of "King of Francia", not of "Duke of
> Francia". I quote you: "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".
> "Francorum rex" and "Francorum dux" are two quite different titles.

In an earlier post, to which you replied, I quoted "totius
Francie...dux" to show that this form was used, in this case in a
narrative rather than diplomatic source - a point on which no-one, I
think, was likely to be confused before it was aelaborated. If every
issue in every post is to be treated literally and in forensic isolation
from the context in which it appears, useful and even sensible SGM
discussions will be impossible.

>>and one that SGM readers may
>>quite properly repeat to their hearts' content since they are not
>>employed as scribes in a Capetian chancery.
>
>
> Contrary to "king of France" as a customary translation of "Francorum rex",
> I think it is not correct to translate "Francorum dux" by "duke of France",
> but that it must be rendered by "duke of the Franks": that this title as a
> territorial meaning rather than an ethnical one is less than clear, it was
> briefly in use, never at the time where there was also a documentation in
> French, and to translate it so loosely can only introduce confusion by
> implying there was something like a "duchy of France", which, if I am not
> wrong, did not exist.

"Francia" and "France" are obviously distinguished by historians who use
the former term, and moreover I have not in any way suggested that "king
of France" is a correct translation of "Francorum rex".

>
> <...>
>
>>>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.
>>
>>By all means, indictions can be useful to fix or confirm the year,
>>especially where a document may be incomplete or damaged, but it's
>>important to bear in mind that these references were not always accurate
>>(even in original documents, apart from the one that interests you) &
>>that they _do_ at times simply add to the confusion.
>
>
> Nevertheless, by dating the document between 3 July 993 to 24 or 31 March
> 994, Newman does exactly as if there was no mention of the indiction in the
> document. Or does he suppose an indictional style aligned on the year style?
> What would be interesting would be a comparision with other documents
> produced at Fleury, to see if there are this kind of problems with the
> indiction. Otherwise, I don't see why the terminus of the document would not
> be fixed at 31 August 993 rather than 24/31 March 994.

Given the shortage of similar documents from the same source for
comaraison, to ensure consistency in the matter using Greek indictions
starting from 1 September, it seems likely to me that Newman was not
prepared to place entire confidence in this element - that is why I made
general remarks on the subject: we simply don't know enough to draw
reliable conclusions about this one example. I wouldn't even assume that
variant indictions - Caesarean, counting from 24 September & often used
after Bede adopted this practice, or Roman from Christmas day which
became more common later - were not preferred at Fleury in the early
990s, without more information than I have, or probably more than may be
available.

Peter Stewart

This thread: