GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2008-01 > 1201818492


From:
Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_Ida_de_Tony, _mother_of_William_Longesp=E9e,_Earl_?= of Salisbury
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:28:12 -0800 (PST)
References: <eae805a4-65f6-4352-bb27-f345923b2a7a@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com><5d3113b2-c828-4b4f-a6a0-08429e6e1078@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <89e2caa5-6ccf-4e3a-8513-eed91a1ef3ca@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <fnr2lf$t8g$1@news.acm.uiuc.edu><e822f109-0905-4f7a-95f4-9be9b75d9206@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com><568dcca5-5f9c-49b5-9f2a-b46e5890c33c@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <amroj.9548$421.3473@news-server.bigpond.net.au>


On Jan 31, 1:47 pm, "Peter Stewart" <> wrote:

> A search on Google Books for "Longespee" and "Bigod" together that happened
> to turn up his 1898 work is not a scholarly way to establish priority in the
> literature, even if you had not also tried to deceive readers as to what
> Malo actually published in the first place.

To remove this from the current topic to the more general, Jette is
largely credited with the hypothesis that Agatha was daughter of
Jaroslav of Kiev. The curious thing is that the solution had, in
fact, been around for at least a century, and perhaps a century before
that (the citation I have is to an edition of a work that does not
contain the information, but it may appear in other editions). the
more recent of these cites the identical primary sources, and
effectively makes the identical central arguments. Reading Jette's
article, it is not clear whether he never looked, simply assuming that
if it had been suggested it would have been mentioned in the other
more modern discussions of the issue, or if he just failed to find the
several distinct instances (and let me give credit where it is due -
for all of its problems with missing pages, inappropriate access
restrictions, poor OCR and sloppy bibliographic indexing, Google Books
has expanded exponentially the access of the average researcher to
such obscure resources).

That being said, where does true priority lie? With the first person
to publish the suggestion? This may have been done in a collection of
genealogical tables without references, and using who-knows-what
basis. Or should it go to the person who published the full
discussion, with citations? How about 'credit' which is distinct from
priority. Either of those? Given that the full discussion was in a
general-interest journal and not a genealogical of historical one, and
quickly passed into obscurity, what credit does it deserve is shaping
modern opinion on the question, and how much does Jette deserve? (And
here is where there is another monkey wrench. Were Jette to have
failed to look, vs. looked and failed to find, vs. found and failed to
report [and I am in no way suggesting that this is the case], vs.
found and reported this previous instance, this would affect the
credit due, but there is no way to distinguish the first three,
barring a paper trail approaching the bit trail we have in the Ida
case.)

taf


This thread: